[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47003-47007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-22652]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-570-815]


Sulfanilic Acid From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary 
Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 2001.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on sulfanilic acid 
from the People's Republic of China. The review covers exports of this 
merchandise to the United States for the period August 1, 1999, through 
July 31, 2000, and three firms: Zhenxing Chemical Industry Company 
(Zhenxing), Yude Chemical Industry Company (Yude), and Baoding Chemical 
Industry Import and Export Corporation (Baoding). The preliminary 
results of this review indicate that there are dumping margins only for 
Zhenxing and the ``PRC enterprise.''
    We preliminarily find that Baoding acted as Zhenxing's shipping 
agent in preparing Zhenxing's export documents and coordinating its 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
Therefore, we are preliminarily rescinding the review of Baoding 
because we preliminarily find that Baoding was not involved in any 
sales of sulfanilic acid to the United States other than those reported 
by Zhenxing. In addition, we are preliminarily rescinding the review 
with respect to Yude because Yude did not export the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR). 
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. 
See Public Comment section of this notice. The dumping margins are 
listed below in the ``Preliminary Results of the Review'' section of 
this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Carey or Dana Mermelstein, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 
at (202) 482-3964 or (202) 482-1391, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), as amended. In 
addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

    On August 16, 2000, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (65 FR 49962) a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on Sulfanilic 
Acid from the People's Republic of China, for the August 1, 1999, 
through July 31, 2000, period of review (POR), 57 FR 37524 (August 19, 
1992). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), petitioner, Nation Ford 
Chemical Company, and respondents, Zhenxing, Yude, Baoding, and PHT 
International, Inc. (``PHT,'' the U.S. importer affiliated with 
Zhenxing), requested a review for the aforementioned period. On October 
2, 2000, we published a notice of ``Initiation of Antidumping Review.'' 
See 65 FR 58733. The Department is now conducting this administrative 
review pursuant to section 751(a) of the Act.
    Zhenxing, a Chinese manufacturer described as a joint venture with 
U.S.-based importer PHT, reported sales of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR in its December 11, 2000, response to 
Section A (Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and Merchandise) 
of the Department's questionnaire. In its response to this 
questionnaire, Yude reported that it did not make any sales of 
sulfanilic acid to the United States during the POR. Baoding indicated 
that it would not be submitting its Section A response. On December 15, 
2000, Baoding filed a request to submit an overdue response to Section 
A of the Department's questionnaire, indicating its interest in seeking 
a separate rate for Baoding's sales of sulfanilic acid to the United 
States during the POR. Zhenxing submitted its response to Sections C 
and D (Sales to the United States and Factors of Production, 
respectively) on January 8, 2001. On January 10, 2001, the Department 
granted Baoding's request to submit its overdue Section A response, 
which was subsequently submitted on January 11, 2001. Baoding submitted 
its response to Section C on January 24, 2001, and stated that it was 
not filing a Section D response since all of its sales of subject 
merchandise to the United States were produced by Zhenxing, and

[[Page 47004]]

the information was already included in Zhenxing's Section D response.
    On December 22, 2000, the Department requested, in a letter to the 
U.S. Customs Service (Customs), the release of certain Customs 
documents concerning alleged sales of sulfanilic acid from Zhenxing to 
an unaffiliated importer other than PHT during the POR. Customs 
released these documents to the Department on January 26, 2001. On 
February 2, 2001, the Department filed these Customs documents on the 
record of this review and invited interested parties to provide 
comments. Petitioner and respondents filed comments on February 16, 
2001, and rebuttal comments on February 20, 2001. On February 27, 2001, 
petitioner filed a submission to rebut the new factual information 
included in respondents' February 16, 2001, in accordance with section 
351.301(c)(1) of the Department's regulations.
    Petitioner submitted a letter to the Department on March 5, 2001, 
requesting that the Department effectively end its review and resort to 
adverse facts available in assigning a dumping margin. In this letter, 
petitioner claimed that the Customs documents indicated that 
information provided in the questionnaire responses was inaccurate and 
misleading. In an April 13, 2001, submission, respondents indicated 
that they were prepared to file a consolidated sales response on behalf 
of Zhenxing and Baoding that would encompass all of ``Zhenxing's'' 
sales of sulfanilic acid during the POR, to related and unrelated 
importers in the United States. According to respondents, their 
decision was made in light of the Department's determination made in 
the prior administrative review that Baoding's sales to an unrelated 
importer were Zhenxing's sales. See Sulfanilic Acid from the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Administrative Review, 66 FR 15837 
(March 21, 2001) and accompanying Decision Memo at Comment 1, on file 
in the Department's Central Records Unit (CRU) located in room B-099 of 
the Department's main building. On May 2, 2001, petitioner filed a 
letter to the Department again requesting an immediate end to the 
review and the use of adverse facts available. Petitioner also stated 
that if the Department chose not to terminate the review, the 
Department must request that respondents provide a consolidated 
response for all of Zhenxing's sales to the United States of subject 
merchandise (including Baoding's U.S. sales of sulfanilic acid), and 
that respondents address certain deficiencies in their responses that 
included contradictory and misleading statements which should be 
verified by the Department. On June 26, 2001, respondents submitted 
their response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire, which 
consolidated all sales of subject merchandise and attributed all of the 
reported sales to Zhenxing as a result of Zhenxing's role in sales 
negotiations with both the related and unrelated importer. Because 
Baoding acted only as a shipping agent for Zhenxing in facilitating the 
exportation of subject merchandise to the United States, and because, 
in response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire, Baoding 
consolidated its previously reported ``own'' sales with those of 
Zhenxing (See Respondents'' supplemental questionnaire response dated 
June 26, 2001), we are preliminarily rescinding the review of Baoding.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are all grades of sulfanilic acid, 
which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or 
purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid.
    Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the 
direct sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is 
used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food 
colors, specialty dyes, and concrete additives. The principal 
differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of 
residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the 
sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry, free flowing powders.
    Technical sulfanilic acid, classifiable under the subheading 
2921.42.22 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), contains 96 percent 
minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent 
maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also 
classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the HTS, contains 98 
percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and 0.25 
percent maximum alkali insoluble materials.
    Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate), classifiable under the HTS 
subheading 2921.42.90, is a powder, granular or crystalline material 
which contains 75 percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 
percent maximum aniline based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid 
content, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on 
the equivalent sulfanilic acid content.
    Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The review period is August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by the respondents using standard verification procedures, 
including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, and the 
examination of relevant sales and financial records.

Preliminary Rescission of Review With Respect to Yude

    In the last administrative review, the Department did not reach the 
issue of whether to collapse Zhenxing and Yude due to our determination 
to assign the PRC-wide rate to Yude and Zhenxing as adverse facts 
available. See Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic of China; 
Final Results of Administrative Review, 66 FR 15837 (March 21, 2001) 
and accompanying Decision Memo at Comment 10, on file in the CRU. For 
purposes of this review, the Department did not analyze the issue of 
whether to collapse Yude and Zhenxing because we are rescinding the 
review with respect to Yude, as Yude did not export the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR.

Separate Rate Analysis for Zhenxing

    It is the Department's standard policy to assign to all exporters 
of the merchandise subject to review in non-market economy countries a 
single rate, unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an 
absence of government control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de 
facto), with respect to exports. See Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., 
v. U.S., 1999 CIT, Lexis 39, 54 F.Supp 2d 1183, Slip Op. 99-46 (1999). 
To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be 
entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes 
each exporting entity in a non-market economy (``NME'') country under 
the test 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 by 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 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; or (3) any other

[[Page 47005]]

formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
De facto absence of government control with respect to exports is based 
on four criteria: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or subject 
to the approval of a government authority; (2) whether each exporter 
retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions 
regarding the disposition of profits and financing of losses; (3) 
whether each exporter has autonomy in making decisions regarding the 
selection of management; and (4) whether each exporter has the 
authority to sign contracts and other agreements.
    Zhenxing and Baoding both initially requested separate, company-
specific rates. However, since we are preliminarily rescinding the 
review with respect to Baoding, we have only analyzed the separate rate 
claim made by Zhenxing. In its questionnaire response, Zhenxing stated 
that it is an independent legal entity.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    With respect to the absence of de jure government control over the 
export activities of Zhenxing, evidence on the record indicates that 
Zhenxing is not controlled by the government. In its questionnaire 
response, Zhenxing stated that it is an independent legal entity. 
Zhenxing submitted evidence of its legal right to set prices 
independent of all government oversight. The business license and 
customs registration certificate of Zhenxing also indicate that it is a 
joint venture and is permitted to engage in the exportation of 
sulfanilic acid. We find no evidence of de jure government control 
restricting Zhenxing from the exportation of sulfanilic acid.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    With respect to the absence of de facto control over export 
activities, the information provided and reviewed at verification 
indicates that the management of Zhenxing, itself, is responsible for 
the determination of export prices, profit distribution, marketing 
strategy, and contract negotiations. Our analysis indicates that there 
is no government involvement in the daily operations or the selection 
of management for this company. In addition, we have found that the 
respondent's pricing and export strategy decisions are not subject to 
any outside entity's review or approval, and that there are no 
governmental policy directives that affect these decisions.
    There are no restrictions on Zhenxing's use of its export earnings. 
The company's general manager has the right to negotiate and enter into 
contracts and may delegate this authority to other company employees. 
There is no evidence that this authority is subject to any level of 
governmental approval. Zhenxing has stated that its management is 
selected by the general manager in consultation with its board of 
directors and that there is no government involvement in this selection 
process.
    Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence 
of government control, both in law and in fact, over its export 
activities, we preliminarily determine that a separate rate should be 
applied to Zhenxing. For further discussion of the Department's 
preliminary determination regarding the issuance of separate rates, see 
Separate Rates Decision Memorandum for Barbara Tillman, Director, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, dated August 31, 2001. A public 
version of this memorandum is on file in the CRU.

United States Price

    Zhenxing reported as constructed export price (``CEP'') the U.S. 
sales made by PHT on behalf of Zhenxing, and as export price (``EP'') 
the U.S. sales made to an unaffiliated U.S. importer. We calculated CEP 
based on FOB prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We 
made deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and 
handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. 
transportation, credit, warehousing, repacking in the United States, 
indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, and 
constructed export price profit, as appropriate, in accordance with 
sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.
    The EP calculation for Zhenxing's sales to an unaffiliated importer 
is in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, and is based on packed 
FOB, or where appropriate, C&F prices to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions 
from the starting price (gross unit price) for inland freight from the 
plant to the port of exportation, ocean freight, marine insurance, and 
any brokerage and handling charges incurred by Zhenxing.
    For those domestic factors provided by NME companies and used in 
the calculation of Zhenxing's CEP and EP sales (such as inland freight, 
insurance, brokerage and handling), we valued those factors using 
surrogate rates from India. Where appropriate, we calculated expenses 
which were incurred in U.S. dollars based on the actual U.S. dollar 
amounts paid for such expenses.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine normal value (``NV'') using a factors of production 
methodology if (1) the merchandise is exported from a non-market 
economy (NME) country, and (2) the 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 every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 
771(18)(C)(i), 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. Accordingly, we treated the PRC as an NME 
country for purposes of this review and calculated NV by valuing the 
factors of production as set forth in section 773(c)(3) of the Act in a 
comparable market economy country which is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise. Pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, we 
determined that India is comparable to the PRC in terms of per capita 
gross national product (``GNP''), the growth rate in per capita GNP, 
and the national distribution of labor; and that India is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. The Department has selected India 
as the surrogate country in the investigation and all prior 
administrative reviews of this order. See Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic of 
China, 57 FR 9409, 9412 (March 18, 1992). For further discussion of the 
Department's selection of India as the primary surrogate country, see 
Memorandum from Jeffrey May, Director, Office of Policy, to Barbara 
Tillman, Director, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, dated June 11, 
2001; ``Surrogate Values Memorandum'' dated August 31, 2001; and the 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum dated August 31, 2001, which are on 
file in the CRU.
    For purposes of calculating NV, we valued PRC factors of production 
in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. In examining surrogate 
values, we selected, where possible, the publicly available value which 
was: (1) An average non-export value; (2) representative of a range of 
prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR; (3) 
product-specific; and (4) tax-exclusive. For those surrogate values not

[[Page 47006]]

contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted for inflation where 
appropriate, using the Indian wholesale price indices (WPI) and U.S. 
producer price indices (PPI) published in the IMF's International 
Financial Statistics. When necessary, we adjusted the values for 
certain inputs reported in Chemical Weekly to exclude sales and excise 
taxes. In accordance with our practice, we added to CIF import values 
from India a surrogate inland freight cost using a simple average of 
the reported distances from either the closest PRC port to the factory, 
or from the domestic input 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 at 
61977 (November 20, 1997). In accordance with this methodology, we 
valued the factors of production as follows:
    To value aniline used in the production of sulfanilic acid, we used 
the rupee per kilogram value for sales in India during the POR as 
reported in Chemical Weekly, excluding any amounts assessed for the 
Indian excise tax and sales tax. We made adjustments to include costs 
incurred for freight between the Chinese aniline suppliers and the 
Zhenxing factory, or the Zhenxing factory to the port, as appropriate.
    The surrogate freight rates used in the calculation of 
transportation costs for material inputs and subject merchandise were 
based on price quotes for truck freight rates from six different Indian 
trucking companies which were used in the Final Determination of Sales 
at Less than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin from the People's Republic of 
China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000) (Bulk Aspirin). We used rail freight 
rates also from Bulk Aspirin that were quoted by two Indian rail 
freight transporters. Both the trucking and rail freight rates were 
contemporaneous with the POR and therefore, not inflated.
    To value sulfuric acid used in the production of sulfanilic acid, 
we used the rupee per kilogram value for sales in India during the POR 
as reported in Chemical Weekly, excluding the amounts assessed for the 
Indian excise tax and the Maharastra sales tax. We made additional 
adjustments to include costs incurred for freight between the Chinese 
sulfuric acid supplier and the Zhenxing factory in the PRC.
    To value sodium bicarbonate used in the production of sodium 
sulfanilate, we used the rupee per kilogram value for sales in India 
during the POR as reported in Chemical Weekly, excluding the amounts 
assessed for the Indian excise tax and the Maharastra sales tax. We 
made additional adjustments to include costs incurred for freight 
between the Chinese sodium bicarbonate supplier and Zhenxing factory in 
the PRC.
    Consistent with our final results in the 1997-1998 administrative 
review (see Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic of China; Final 
Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 13366 (March 13, 2000), we used 
public price quotes to value activated carbon, which are specific to 
the type and grade of activated carbon used in the production of 
sulfanilic acid. See NFC's Initial Submission of Surrogate Value 
Information dated August 17, 2001. We made adjustments to include costs 
incurred for inland freight between the Chinese activated carbon 
supplier and Zhenxing's factory in the PRC.
    To value the inner and outer bags used as packing materials, we 
used import information from Indian Import Statistics for the period 
April 1998-March 1999. Using the Indian rupee wholesale prices index 
(WPI) data obtained from International Financial Statistics, we 
adjusted these values to account for inflation in India during the POR. 
We adjusted these values to include freight costs incurred between the 
Chinese plastic bag suppliers and Zhenxing's factory in the PRC.
    To value coal, we used the price of steam coal in 1996 for 
industries in India as reported in Energy, Prices and Taxes, First 
Quarter 1999 published by the International Energy Agency. This price 
was adjusted for inflation to be concurrent with the POR and has been 
placed on the record of this review.
    To value electricity, we used the price of industrial electricity 
in India in 1997 reported in Energy, Prices, and Taxes, First Quarter 
1999 published by the International Energy Agency. This price was 
adjusted for inflation to be concurrent with the POR.
    The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), state that 
``[f]or labor, the Secretary will use regression-based wage rates 
reflective of the observed relationship between wages and national 
income in market economy countries. The Secretary will calculate the 
wage rate to be applied in nonmarket economy proceedings each year. The 
calculation will be based on current data, and will be made available 
to the public.'' To value the factor inputs for labor, we used the wage 
rates calculated for the PRC in the Department's ``Expected Wages of 
Selected Non-Market Economy Countries--1998 Income Data'' as updated in 
May 2000, and made public by the Department on its world-wide web site 
for Import Administration at www.ia.ita.doc.gov.
    Following our practice from prior administrative reviews of 
sulfanilic acid from the PRC, for factory overhead, we used information 
reported in the January 1997, Reserve Bank of India Bulletin 
(``Bulletin''). From this information, we were able to determine 
factory overhead as a percentage of total cost of manufacturing.
    To value brokerage and handling, we used the average of the foreign 
brokerage and handling expenses reported in the U.S. sales listing of 
the questionnaire response submitted in Certain Stainless Steel Wire 
Rod From India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
and New Shipper Reviews (63 FR 48184, September 9, 1998). This average 
value was used in prior reviews of the crawfish antidumping duty order. 
See, for example, Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, Partial Rescission of 
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Rescission of a New 
Shipper Review: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's 
Republic of China, 65 FR 60399 (October 11, 2000). We adjusted the 
value for brokerage and handling for inflation during the POR using 
Indian rupee WPI data published by the IMF.
    To value marine insurance, we used marine insurance data collected 
in the Tenth Administrative Review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China 
(TRBs X). See, Memorandum to the File: Marine Insurance Rates (June 30 
1998). We adjusted this value for inflation during the POR using the 
U.S. dollar PPI data published by the IMF.
    To value ocean freight, we used a value for ocean freight provided 
by the Federal Maritime Commission used in the Final Determination of 
the Antidumping Administrative Review of Sebacic Acid from the PRC, 62 
FR 65674 (December 15, 1997). We adjusted the value for ocean freight 
for inflation during the POR using the U.S. dollar PPI data published 
by the IMF.
    For selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, we used 
information obtained from the January 1997 Bulletin. We calculated an 
SG&A rate by dividing SG&A expenses as reported in the Bulletin by the 
cost of manufacturing.
    Finally, to calculate a profit rate, we used information obtained 
from the January 1997 Bulletin. We calculated a profit rate by dividing 
the before-tax profit by the sum of those components

[[Page 47007]]

pertaining to the cost of manufacturing plus SG&A as reported in the 
Bulletin.
    For a complete discussion of the Department's selection of 
surrogate values and copies of source documents relating to their 
valuation, see the Department's ``Surrogate Values Memorandum'' dated 
August 31, 2001, and NFC's Initial Submission of Surrogate Value 
Information,'' dated August 17, 2001.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine the weighted average dumping margin for 
Zhenxing for the period August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000 to be 
54.50 percent.

Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to 
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within five days after the date of 
publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested 
parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary 
results. Normally, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after 
the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to 
arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five 
days after the time limit for filing case briefs. However, for purposes 
of this review, the Department will notify parties of the schedule for 
submission of these briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this 
proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement 
of the issues, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and 
rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.303(f).
    Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public 
hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. 
Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, 
will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. 
Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of 
proprietary information under administrative protective order no later 
than ten days after the representative's client or employer becomes a 
party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date case 
briefs are due. The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any case or rebuttal brief.

Duty Assessments and Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion 
of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service. Furthermore, the following deposit 
rates will be effective with respect to all shipments of sulfanilic 
acid from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after the publication date of the final results of this review, 
as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for the reviewed company listed above will be the rate for 
that firm established in the final results of this review; (2) for 
companies 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) for all 
other PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash deposit rate will 
be the PRC-wide rate of 85.20 percent; 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 
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 section 351.402(f)(2) of the Department's 
regulations 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 and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 31, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-22652 Filed 9-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P