[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48233-48242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23328]



[[Page 48233]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-867]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the 
People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 19, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey, Brandon Farlander, and 
Rick Johnson, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1102, and (202) 482-0182, respectively.

The 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's 
regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that certain automotive replacement 
glass (``ARG'') windshields from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC'') are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
less than fair value (``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Act. 
The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on March 20, 2001. See Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Automotive 
Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 66 
FR 16651 (March 27, 2001) (``Notice of Initiation''). The Department 
set aside a period for all interested parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage. See Notice of Initiation at 16651. We received 
comments regarding product coverage as follows; from Fuyao Glass 
Industry Group Co., Ltd. (``FYG''), Xinyi Automotive Glass (Shenzhen) 
Co. Ltd. (``Xinyi'') and Shenzhen Benxun Auto-Glass Co., Ltd. 
(``Benxun'') on April 9, 2001; and from TCG International Inc. 
(``TCGI'', a Canadian exporter of the merchandise under investigation) 
on August 27, 2001. With regard to the submission from TCGI, we note 
that TCGI requested clarification of the scope of this investigation 
concerning bus windshields and windshields for farm machinery. 
Specifically, TCGI takes the position that the language of the 
initiation notice and an application of the criteria established in 
Diversified Products Corporation v. United States, 572 F. Supp. 883 
(Court of International Trade 1983), are such that bus windshields and 
farm and heavy machinery windshields are outside the scope of the 
merchandise under investigation. On August 28, 2001, the Department 
issued a letter seeking interested party comments on this issue. On 
September 5, 2001, we received comments from petitioners. However, 
because this submission was received within five days of the 
preliminary determination, we were not able to consider this issue for 
the purposes of this preliminary determination. We will address this 
issue in our final determination.
    On April 3, 2001, the Department issued a letter to interested 
parties providing an opportunity to comment on the Department's 
proposed product-matching criteria and matching hierarchy. Comments 
were submitted on April 18, 2001 by PPG Industries, Inc., Safelite 
Glass Corporation, and Apogee Enterprises, Inc., and its manufacturing 
subsidiary Viracon/Curvlite, (collectively, ``petitioners''), and 
respondent FYG. On May 1, 2001, petitioners submitted additional 
comments intended to refine their original April 18, 2001 comments on 
the Department's proposed product-matching criteria and matching 
hierarchy.
    On April 17, 2001, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there 
is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured by reason of imports of the subject merchandise from 
the PRC, which was published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2001. 
See Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from China, 66 FR 20682 
(April 24, 2001).
    On April 24, 2001, the Department issued a questionnaire requesting 
volume and value of U.S. sales information to the Embassy of the PRC 
and to the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Development, and sent 
courtesy copies to the following known producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise identified in the petition: FYG; Xinyi; Benxun; Dongguan 
Kongwan Automobile Glass; Wuhan Yaohua Pilkington Safety Glass 
(``Wuhan''); Guilin Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd. (``Guilin''); 
Changchun Pilkington Safety Glass Company Ltd. (``Changchun''); 
Guandong Lunjiao Autoglass Co.; Shanghai Fu Hua Glass Co., Ltd.; 
Tianjin Riban Glass Co., Ltd.; Jieyang Jiantong Automobile Glass Co., 
Ltd.; Shanghai Yanfeng Automotive Trim Co.; Luoyang Float Glass Group 
Import & Export Corp.; Hebei Tong Yong Glass Industry Limited Company; 
Yantai Yanhua Glass Products Co., Ltd.; and Hangzhou Safety Glass Co., 
Ltd. Additionally, we indicated to the Embassy of the PRC a large 
number of other potential producers/exporters identified in the 
petition (but for whom we did not have an address), and notified the 
PRC Government that it was responsible for ensuring that volume and 
value information for those companies be provided to the Department.
    On May 4, 2001, FYG, Xinyi, Benxun, TCGI, and Pilkington North 
America (``PNA'', an importer of the subject merchandise exported by 
the PRC companies, Changchun, Guilin, and Wuhan) submitted responses to 
the Department's questionnaire seeking volume and value of U.S. sales 
information. On May 7, 2001, the Department issued the respondent 
selection memorandum, selecting FYG and Xinyi to be investigated (see 
Selection of Respondents section below). The following companies were 
determined to be non-responsive for purposes of this investigation 
based on their failure to provide the requested information: Lung Ta 
Glass Industrial Company Ltd.; Shanghia Jamyf Decoration Materials 
Company Ltd.; Fujian Wan Da Automobile; Sino-Foreign Joint Venture; Liu 
Zhou Steel Glass Factory; Luoyang Glass Company Limited; Tianjin NSG 
Safety Glass Company Ltd.; Yangzhou Tang Cheng Safety Glass; Boading 
Sanyuan Safety Glass Company, Ltd.; Best Safety-Glass; Zhuhai Singyes 
Auto Safety Glass Factory; Qinhuangdao Haiyan Safety Glass Company 
Ltd.; Changzhou Industry Technical Glass Factory; Tianjin Sanlian 
Skilled Glass Works; Tianjin Riban Glass Co., Ltd.; Jieyang Jiantong 
Automobile Glass Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Yanfeng Automotive Trim Co.; 
Luoyang Float Glass Group Import & Export Corp.; Hebei Tong Yong Glass 
Industry Limited Company; Yantai Yanhua Glass Products Co., Ltd.; 
Hangzhou Safety Glass Co., Ltd.; Guandong Lunjiao Autoglass Co.; 
Shanghai Fu Hua Glass Co., Ltd.; and Dongguan Kongwan Automobile Glass.
    On May 8, 2001, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire 
to

[[Page 48234]]

FYG and Xinyi. On June 1, 2001, the Department amended the May 8, 2001 
Sections C & D Questionnaire to include fields which account for bent 
float glass and for dimensions of the float glass.
    On May 10, 2001, the Department received requests from PNA and 
Benxun to be treated as voluntary respondents in this investigation, or 
at a minimum, to be granted a separate rate. On May 29, 2001, the 
Department received a request from TCGI in which TCGI stated that is 
qualifies as a proper respondent in this investigation and that, as a 
cooperating respondent, the Department must calculate a separate rate 
for the company in accordance with Department precedent. On July 19, 
2001, Benxun supplemented its request to be granted, at a minimum, a 
separate rate. On July 26, 2001, petitioners submitted comments on 
Benxun's request to be treated as a voluntary respondent and be given a 
separate dumping rate for purposes of this investigation.
    On May 29, 2001, the Department received Section A responses from 
FYG, Xinyi, Benxun, TCGI and PNA (including information from Changchun, 
Guilin, and Wuhan). In its submission of May 29, 2001, FYG explained 
that one of its affiliated manufacturers, Fujian Wanda Automobile 
Industries Co., Ltd. (``Fujian Wanda''), was named as an uncooperative 
party by the Department in the Department's respondent selection 
memorandum of May 7, 2001. However, because we note that FYG's volume 
and value information submitted in a timely fashion included 
information from Fujian Wanda, the Department preliminarily detemines 
that Fujian Wanda in fact is not considered an uncooperative party.
    On June 14 and 15, 2001, the Department issued section A 
supplemental questionnaires to Xinyi and FYG respectively. The 
Department received responses to its Section A supplementals on June 28 
and 29, 2001 for Xinyi and FYG respectively. The Department also issued 
a second Section A supplemental for Xinyi on July 12 and received a 
response on July 26, 2001.
    On June 13 and 25, 2001, the Department received Sections C & D 
Questionnaire responses from PNA and FYG respectively. On June 15 and 
28, the Department received Sections C & D Questionnaire responses from 
Benxun and Xinyi respectively. On July 12, 2001, the Department issued 
Sections C & D supplemental questionnaires to both FYG and Xinyi and 
received responses on July 26, 2001. On August 8, 2001, the Department 
issued a second supplemental questionnaire for Sections C & D to FYG 
and Xinyi and received responses on August 15 and 22, 2001, 
respectively.
    On June 22, 2001, the Department issued a request for parties to 
submit comments on surrogate market-economy country selection, and 
publicly available information for valuing the factors of production. 
Petitioners submitted comments to these requests on July 6, 2001 and 
July 23, 2001 respectively. On July 23, 2001, FYG and Xinyi submitted 
surrogate value data to the Department. On August 7, 2001, Xinyi 
submitted some additional publicly available published information on 
surrogate values. On August 9, 2001, petitioners submitted comments on 
FYG's July 23, 2001 surrogate value data submission. On August 10 and 
17, 2001, FYG and Xinyi, respectively, submitted comments on 
petitioners' July 23, 2001 surrogate data submission. On August 15, 
2001, petitioners submitted comments on FYG's August 10, 2001 
submission. On August 21, 2001, petitioners submitted comments on 
Xinyi's August 7, 2001 and August 17, 2001 surrogate value submissions.
    On July 30, 2001, petitioners alleged that critical circumstances 
exist with respect to this investigation. Consequently, on July 30, 
2001, the Department requested that FYG and Xinyi submit sales data for 
the period 1999 through May 2001. We received this information on 
August 13, 2001 from FYG, and from Xinyi on August 20, 2001.
    On August 9, 2001, the Department responded to PNA's May 10, 2001 
request to be treated as a voluntary respondent in this investigation. 
The Department noted that, although PNA qualifies as an interested 
party in the proceeding, as an importer of the subject merchandise, PNA 
is not eligible for the assignment of an individual rate as it 
requested because, in accordance with our statute, the Department does 
not investigate importers of the merchandise under investigation in an 
antidumping duty investigation. The Department noted that, in order for 
the exporters identified in PNA's Section A response to be considered 
for a separate rate, the exporters must file the necessary information 
on their own behalf. See Letter to Gregory Dorris from Rick Johnson, 
August 9, 2001. On August 24, 2001, Changchun, Guilin, and Wuhan filed 
notices of appearance in this investigation and filed certificates of 
accuracy with respect to the May 29, 2001 separate rates information 
filed in PNA's Section A response. On August 31, 2001 Changchun, 
Guilin, and Wuhan submitted supplemental section A responses on their 
own behalf. On September 5, 2001, we requested Changchun, Guilin, and 
Wuhan to submit a certification of accuracy on the record that the 
information provided for these companies in PNA's June 12, 2001 section 
C and D response is accurate. On September 7, 2001, each company 
submitted the required certificate of accuracy.
    On August 23, 2001, petitioners submitted comments regarding FYG's 
response of August 15, 2001. Also, on August 23, 2001, FYG submitted 
comments to petitioners' August 15, 2001 submission.
    On July 17, 2001, the Department postponed the deadline for the 
preliminary determination to August 31, 2001, pursuant to section 
733(c)(1)(B) of the Act. See Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields 
from the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary 
Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 66 FR 38256 (July 23, 
2001). On August 29, petitioners filed a letter requesting an 
additional ten-day postponement of the preliminary determination. 
Subsequently, on August 31, 2001, the Department further postponed the 
deadline for the preliminary determination to September 10, 2001, 
pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act. See Automotive Replacement 
Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China: Postponement of 
Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 66 FR 
46994 (September 10, 2001).

Period of Investigation

    The POI is July 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000. This period 
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the petition (February 28, 2001). See 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are ARG windshields, and 
parts thereof, whether clear or tinted, whether coated or not, and 
whether or not they include antennas, ceramics, mirror buttons or VIN 
notches, and whether or not they are encapsulated. ARG windshields are 
laminated safety glass (i.e., two layers of (typically float) glass 
with a sheet of clear or tinted plastic in between (usually polyvinyl 
butyral)), which are produced and sold for use by automotive glass 
installation shops to replace windshields in automotive vehicles (e.g., 
passenger cars, light trucks, vans, sport utility

[[Page 48235]]

vehicles, etc.) that are cracked, broken or otherwise damaged.
    ARG windshields subject to this investigation are currently 
classifiable under subheading 7007.21.10.10 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedules of the United States (HTSUS). Specifically excluded from the 
scope of this investigation are laminated automotive windshields sold 
for use in original assembly of vehicles. While HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description 
of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
    As discussed in our notice of initiation, the scope of this 
investigation poses unique problems of administration. For the final 
determination, we continue to invite parties to provide information on 
physical characteristics which would allow U.S. Customs officials to 
distinguish between ARG windshields, and windshields for new 
automobiles. We also invite comments on procedures for administering 
any order which may result from this investigation on the basis of end 
use. Finally, information on the record shows that all windshields 
imported from the PRC during the POI were ARG windshields; 
consequently, we note that even if the scope of this order were to 
cover all windshields, the Department would have all the information 
necessary to make a final determination.
Selection of Respondents
    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 
Department discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters/
producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such 
companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where it 
is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise, this provision permits the Department to investigate 
either: (1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that 
is statistically valid based on the information available to the 
Department at the time of selection; or (2) exporters and producers 
accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise that can 
reasonably be examined. After consideration of the complexities 
expected to arise in this proceeding and the resources available to the 
Department, we determined that it was not practicable in this 
investigation to examine all known producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise. Instead, we limited our examination to the exporters and 
producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise 
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. FYG and Xinyi 
(collectively, ``respondents'') were the two largest cooperative 
exporters and accounted for the majority of all exports of the subject 
merchandise from the PRC during the POI, as reported by the two 
producers/exporters at the time we made our respondent selection, and 
we therefore selected them as mandatory respondents. See Memorandum 
from Rick Johnson to Edward Yang: Selection of Respondents: Antidumping 
Duty Investigation of Automotive Replacement Glass (``ARG'') 
Windshields from the People's Republic of China, May 7, 2001.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy 
(``NME'') country in all past antidumping investigations (see, e.g., 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk 
Aspirin From the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 
2000); 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 (April 13, 2000) (Apple Juice)). A designation as 
an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department (see 
section 771(18)(C) of the Act). No party to this investigation has 
requested a revocation of the PRC's NME status. We have, therefore, 
preliminarily determined to continue to treat the PRC as an NME 
country. When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base the normal value 
(``NV'') on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a 
comparable market economy that is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. The sources of individual factor prices are discussed 
under the ``Normal Value'' section, below.
    Furthermore, no interested party has requested that the ARG 
windshield industry in the PRC be treated as a market-oriented industry 
and no information has been provided that would lead to such a 
determination. Therefore, we have not treated the ARG windshield 
industry in the PRC as a market-oriented industry in this 
investigation.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign 
all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country 
this single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. The 
two companies that the Department selected to investigate (i.e., FYG 
and Xinyi), and the PRC companies that were not selected as mandatory 
respondents by the Department for this investigation, but which have 
submitted separate rates responses (i.e., Benxun, Changchun, Guilin and 
Wuhan) have provided the requested separate rates information and have 
stated that, for each company, there is no element of government 
ownership or control. Additionally, with respect to TCGI, a Canadian 
reseller, no analysis of de jure or de facto control by the PRC is 
necessary, because it is a company operating in a market economy. Thus, 
the following discussion of separate rates does not include an analysis 
of TCGI. We have assigned a separate rate to TCGI because it has 
provided information indicating that its PRC supplier does not have 
knowledge that its sales to TCGI are destined for the United States.
    We considered whether each PRC company is eligible for a separate 
rate. The Department's separate rate test to determine whether the 
exporters are independent from government control does not consider, in 
general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g., export licenses, 
quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are 
imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over 
the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 
FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising out of 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, 
Final Determination of Sales at Less

[[Page 48236]]

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 
59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). In accordance with the 
separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME 
cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure 
and de facto governmental control over export activities.
1. Absence of De Jure Control
    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (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. 
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20508.
    All six PRC companies seeking separate rates reported that the 
subject merchandise was not subject to any government list regarding 
export provisions or export licensing, and was not subject to export 
quotas during the POI. Each company also submitted copies of its 
respective Certificate of Approval for the Establishment of Enterprises 
with Foreign Investment. We found no inconsistencies with the 
exporters' claims of the absence of restrictive stipulations associated 
with an individual exporter's business and export licenses. Our 
examination of the record indicates that each exporter submitted copies 
of the legislation of the People's Republic of China or documentation 
demonstrating the statutory authority for establishing the de jure 
absence of government control over the companies. Thus, we believe that 
the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of de jure 
absence of governmental control based on: (1) An absence of restrictive 
stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and 
export licenses; and (2) the applicable legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of the companies.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). As stated in previous cases, there is some 
evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not 
been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions 
in the PRC. See Silicon Carbide, 56 FR at 22587. Therefore, the 
Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is 
critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a 
degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from 
assigning separate rates.
    Regarding whether each exporter sets its own export prices 
independently of the government and without the approval of a 
government authority, each exporter reported that it determines its 
prices for sales of the subject merchandise based on the cost of the 
merchandise, movement expenses, overhead, profit, and the market 
situation in the United States. Each exporter stated that it negotiates 
prices directly with its customers. Also, each exporter claimed that 
its prices are not subject to review or guidance from any governmental 
organization.
    Regarding whether each exporter has authority to negotiate and sign 
contracts and other agreements, our examination of the record indicates 
that each exporter reported that it has authority to negotiate and sign 
contracts and other agreements. Also, each exporter claimed that its 
negotiations are not subject to review or guidance from any 
governmental organization. There is no evidence on the record to 
suggest that there is any governmental involvement in the negotiation 
of contracts.
    Regarding whether each exporter has autonomy in making decisions 
regarding the selection of management our examination of the record 
indicates that each exporter reported that it has autonomy in making 
decisions regarding the selection of management. Also, each exporter 
claimed that its selection of management is not subject to review or 
guidance from any governmental organization. There is no evidence on 
the record to suggest that there is any governmental involvement in the 
selection of management by the exporters.
    Regarding whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales 
and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses, our examination of the record indicates that each 
exporter reported that it retains the proceeds of its export sales, 
using profits according to its business needs. Also, each exporter 
reported that the allocation of profits is determined by its top 
management. There is no evidence on the record to suggest that there is 
any governmental involvement in the decisions regarding disposition of 
profits or financing of losses.
    Therefore, we determine that the evidence on the record supports a 
preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental control based 
on record statements and supporting documentation showing that: (1) 
Each exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government 
and without the approval of a government authority; (2) each exporter 
retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions 
regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) each 
exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; and (4) each exporter has autonomy from the government 
regarding the selection of management.
    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by FYG, 
Xinyi, Benxun, Changchun, Guilin and Wuhan demonstrates an absence of 
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to each of 
the exporter's exports of the merchandise under investigation, in 
accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon 
Carbide. Therefore, for the purposes of this preliminary determination, 
we are granting separate rates to each of the six exporters which 
shipped ARG windshields to the United States during the POI and 
provided complete questionnaire responses. For a full discussion of 
this issue, see the memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to Edward Yang, 
Separate Rates Analysis for the Preliminary Determination, dated August 
31, 2001 (``Separate Rates Memo'').

Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or provides information which cannot be verified, the 
Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) of the Act, facts 
otherwise available in reaching the

[[Page 48237]]

applicable determination. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the 
Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if that 
information is necessary to the determination but does not meet all of 
the requirements established by the Department provided that all of the 
following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the 
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the 
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in 
providing the information and meeting Department requirements; and (5) 
the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    Section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act requires the Department to use 
facts available when a party does not provide the Department with 
information by the established deadline or in the form and manner 
requested by the Department. In addition, 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 that party as facts otherwise 
available.
PRC-Wide Rate
    As discussed above (see ``Separate Rates''), all PRC producers/
exporters that do not qualify for a separate rate are treated as a 
single enterprise. As noted above in ``Case History'', all producers/
exporters were given the opportunity to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire regarding volume and value of U.S. sales. As explained 
above, we received timely responses from FYG, Xinyi, Benxun, TCGI, 
Changchun, Guilin, and Wuhan. The Department did not receive responses 
from the following companies: Lung Ta Glass Industrial Company Ltd.; 
Shanghai Jamyf Decoration Materials Company Ltd.; Sino-Foreign Joint 
Venture; Liu Zhou Steel Glass Factory; Luoyang Glass Company Limited; 
Tianjin NSG Safety Glass Company Ltd.; Yangzhou Tang Cheng Safety 
Glass; Boading Sanyuan Safety Glass Company, Ltd.; Best Safety-Glass; 
Zhuhai Singyes Auto Safety Glass Factory; Qinhuangdao Haiyan Safety 
Glass Company Ltd.; Changzhou Industry Technical Glass Factory; Tianjin 
Sanlian Skilled Glass Works; Tianjin Riban Glass Co., Ltd.; Jieyang 
Jiantong Automobile Glass Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Yanfeng Automotive Trim 
Co.; Luoyang Float Glass Group Import & Export Corp.; Hebei Tong Yong 
Glass Industry Limited Company; Yantai Yanhua Glass Products Co., Ltd.; 
Hangzhou Safety Glass Co., Ltd.; Guandong Lunjiao Autoglass Co.; 
Shanghai Fu Hua Glass Co., Ltd.; and Dongguan Kongwan Automobile Glass. 
As discussed in the Case History section, FYG explained that Fujian 
Wanda is an affiliated manufacturer of subject merchandise and Fujian 
Wanda's information is included in FYG's information. Therefore, we 
have preliminarily determined that Fujian Wanda is not an uncooperative 
party and we have removed Fujian Wanda from the list of uncooperative 
parties. The Department notes that import data from the United States 
International Trade Commission Dataweb shows imports of ARG windshields 
from the PRC during the POI are significantly higher than the imports 
submitted by FYG, Xinyi, Benxun, TCGI and Changchun, Guilin and Wuhan 
(see http://www.usitc.gov, and Respondent Selection Memorandum from 
Rick Johnson to Edward Yang, May 7, 2001). Therefore, the Department 
preliminarily determines that there were exports of the merchandise 
under investigation from the single PRC entity, and that the single 
entity failed to respond to the Department's request for information.
    As set forth above, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in 
selecting from among the facts available, the Department may employ 
adverse inferences against an interested party if that party failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with 
requests for information. See also ``Statement of Administrative 
Action'' accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870 (1994) 
(``SAA''). The Department finds that exporters (i.e., the single PRC 
entity) who did not respond to our request for information have failed 
to cooperate to the best of their ability. Therefore, the Department 
preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, 
an adverse inference is appropriate. Consistent with Department 
practice in cases where a respondent is considered uncooperative, as 
adverse facts available, we have applied 124.50 percent, the highest 
rate calculated in the initiation stage of the investigation from 
information provided in the petition (as adjusted by the Department). 
See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Germany, 63 FR 10847 (March 
5, 1998).
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the 
SAA as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA provides that to 
``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy itself 
that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See id. 
The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate may 
include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics 
and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties 
during the particular investigation. Id. As noted in Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and 
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 
Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (``TRBs''), to 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
used.
    In order to determine the probative value of the initiation margin 
for use as facts otherwise available for the purposes of this 
determination, we examined evidence supporting the initiation 
calculations. We successfully corroborated the information in the 
initiation regarding price to price comparisons. See Memorandum from 
Edward Yang to Joseph Spetrini: Preliminary Determination in the 
Antidumping Investigation of Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields 
from the People's Republic of China: Total Facts Available 
Corroboration Memorandum for All Others Rate, dated September 10, 2001.
    Consequently, we are applying a single antidumping rate--the PRC-
wide rate--to all other exporters in the PRC based on our presumption 
that those respondents who failed to demonstrate entitlement to a 
separate rate constitute a single enterprise under common control by 
the Chinese government. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 
65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000) (``Synthetic Indigo''). The PRC-wide 
rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under

[[Page 48238]]

investigation except for entries from FYG, Xinyi, Benxun, TCGI, 
Changchun, Guilin, and Wuhan.
    Because this is a preliminary margin, the Department will consider 
all margins on the record at the time of the final determination for 
the purpose of determining the most appropriate final PRC-wide margin. 
See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian 
Federation, 65 FR 1139 (January 7, 2000).

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a 
surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be 
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of 
the Act, the Department, in valuing the factors of production, shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market economy countries that: (1) Are at a 
level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; 
and (2) are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The 
sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the NV 
section below.
    The Department has determined that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri 
Lanka and the Philippines are countries comparable to the PRC in terms 
of economic development. See Memorandum from Jeffrey May to Rick 
Johnson: Antidumping Duty Investigation on Automotive Replacement Glass 
Windshields from the People's Republic of China, dated June 12, 2001. 
Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country based on the 
availability and reliability of data from the countries. For PRC cases, 
the primary surrogate country has often been India if it is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise. In this case, we have 
found that India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. 
See Surrogate Country Selection Memorandum to The File from Laurel 
LaCivita, dated September 10, 2001, (``Surrogate Country Memorandum'').
    We used India as the primary surrogate country and, accordingly, we 
have calculated NV using Indian prices to value the PRC producers' 
factors of production, when available and appropriate. See Surrogate 
Country Memorandum. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available 
information wherever possible. See Factor Valuation Memorandum to The 
File from Case Analysts, dated September 10, 2001 (``Factor Valuation 
Memorandum'').
    In accordance with section 351.301(c)(3)(i) of the Department's 
regulations, for the final determination in an antidumping 
investigation, interested parties may submit publicly available 
information to value factors of production within 40 days after the 
date of publication of this preliminary determination.

Critical Circumstances

    On July 30, 2001, petitioners submitted a critical circumstances 
allegation, stating there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 
that critical circumstances exist in the antidumping investigation 
concerning ARG windshields from the PRC. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.206(c)(1)(2)(i), because petitioners submitted a critical 
circumstances allegation 20 days or more before the scheduled date of 
the preliminary determination, the Department is issuing a preliminary 
critical circumstances determination no later than the date of the 
preliminary determination. Section 733(e) of the Act provides that, in 
a preliminary determination, the Department may determine, in the event 
that petitioners allege critical circumstances, whether: (A)(i) there 
is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports 
in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) 
the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported 
knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject 
merchandise at less than its fair value and that there would be 
material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been 
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short 
period.
1. History or Knowledge of Dumping and Material Injury
    In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that there is a history of dumping and material injury by 
reason of dumped imports, the Department considers evidence of an 
existing antidumping order on ARG windshields from PRC in the United 
States or elsewhere to be sufficient. In this case, petitioners state 
that to their knowledge that no antidumping duty orders that cover ARG 
windshields are currently in effect in other countries. Because we have 
not found a history of dumping causing material injury with respect to 
ARG windshields from the PRC, we have therefore examined whether there 
exists a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that an importer knew 
or should have known that the foreign producer/exporter was selling the 
subject merchandise at less than fair value.
    The Department's normal practice in determining importer knowledge 
is to consider margins of 25 percent or more for export price (``EP'') 
sales and 15 percent or more for constructed export price (``CEP'') 
sales sufficient to impute such knowledge to the importer. See 
Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination: Honey from the 
People's Republic of China, 60 FR 29824 (June 6, 1995); Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 
31978 (June 11, 1997); Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless 
Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Italy, 65 FR 47388, 47391 (August 2, 
2000). We note that the preliminary margins we have found in this case 
do not exceed 25 percent for Xinyi, Benxun, TCGI, Changchun, Guilin, 
Wuhan, EP sales made by FYG; therefore, these companies do not meet the 
threshold for EP sales above which the Department will impute importer 
knowledge of dumping. For FYG's CEP sales, the preliminary margin falls 
below the 15 percent threshold for CEP sales above which the Department 
will impute importer knowledge of dumping. With regard to the 
aforementioned companies, therefore, the Department preliminarily finds 
a lack of importer knowledge. The preliminary margins exceed the 25 
percent threshold with regard to the PRC-wide entity and, therefore, we 
have imputed knowledge of dumping with respect to the PRC-wide entity.
    Additionally, the Department will also consider if the 
``{International Trade Commission} finds a reasonable indication of 
present material injury to the relevant U.S. industry'' in determining 
whether there is reason to believe or suspect that importers knew or 
should have known that there was likely to be material injury by reason 
of dumped imports. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Honey from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 
24101, 24107 (May 11, 2001). If the ITC finds a reasonable indication 
of present material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the 
Department will determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute 
importer knowledge that there was likely to be material injury by 
reason of dumped imports. In this case, the ITC has found that a 
reasonable indication

[[Page 48239]]

of present material injury due to dumping exists for subject imports of 
ARG windshields from the PRC. See Automotive Replacement Glass 
Windshields from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-922 (Preliminary) USITC Public. 
3413, 66 FR 20682 (April 24, 2001). As a result, the Department 
preliminarily determines that there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that importers of ARG windshields from the PRC-wide entity knew 
or should have known that there was likely to be material injury by 
reason of dumped imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC.
2. Massive Imports
    In order to determine whether imports of the merchandise have been 
massive over a relatively short period pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) 
of the Act and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(h), we consider: (1) 
Volume and value of the imports; (2) seasonal trends (if applicable); 
and (3) the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports.
    When examining volume and value data, the Department normally 
compares the export volume for equal periods immediately preceding and 
following the filing of the petition. Consistent with 19 CFR 
351.206(h), unless imports in the comparison period have increased by 
at least 15 percent over the imports during the base period, we 
normally will not consider the imports to have been ``massive.'' In 
addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(i), the Department may use an 
alternative period if we find that importers, exporters, or producers 
had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the 
proceeding, that a proceeding was likely. In this case, no party argued 
that prior to the filing of the petition, importers, exporters, or 
producers of ARG windshields had reason to believe that an antidumping 
proceeding was likely. Therefore, to determine whether imports of 
subject merchandise have been massive over a relatively short period, 
we considered import volumes from the base period as compared to the 
comparison period. Imports normally will be considered massive when 
imports have increased by 15 percent or more during this ``relatively 
short period.''
    With respect to the PRC-wide entity, U.S. Customs data do not 
permit the Department to analyze imports from the PRC-entity of the 
product at issue, because it is not possible to link (and therefore 
subtract out) individual exporters reported shipment data with U.S. 
Customs import data (e.g., due to time differentials between export 
from the PRC and import into the United States, the involvement of 
resellers, and split shipments). Because the U.S. Customs data include 
imports from companies who have cooperated in this investigation, we 
are therefore unable to analyze whether there have been massive imports 
from the single PRC-wide entity using information specific to the PRC-
wide entity. In addition, we found no other independent sources of 
information covering all exports from the PRC-wide entity. Because we 
have no independent means by which to determine import levels for the 
PRC-wide entity, we have determined, as adverse facts available, that 
because this entity did not provide an adequate response to our 
questionnaire, there were massive imports of subject merchandise. This 
is consistent with past Department practice. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255, 72263 
(December 31, 1998). We further note that in the instant case, 
aggregate imports of ARG windshields from the PRC during the comparison 
period increased by 37.98 percent by quantity and 29.80 percent by 
value. See Attachment 1 of the Memorandum from Edward C. Yang to Joseph 
A. Spetrini: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Automotive Replacement 
Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances (``Preliminary Critical 
Circumstances Memorandum''), September 10, 2001. Pursuant to section 
733(e) of the Act and Sec. 351.206(h) of the Department's regulations, 
we determine that massive imports of subject merchandise over a 
relatively short period exist for the PRC-wide entity.
    Concerning seasonal trends, we have no reason to believe that 
seasonal trends affected the import levels in this case, nor have any 
interested parties made such an argument. Therefore, in determining 
whether imports were massive over the ``relatively short period,'' we 
did not analyze the affects of seasonal trends.
    Based on our determination that there is knowledge of dumping and 
material injury by reason of dumped imports of the subject merchandise 
from the PRC-wide entity, and that there have been massive imports of 
ARG windshields from the PRC-wide entity over a relatively short 
period, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist 
for imports of ARG windshields from the PRC manufactured and/or 
exported by the PRC-wide entity. We preliminarily find that critical 
circumstances do not exist for FYG, Xinyi, Benxun, TCGI, Changchun, 
Guilin, and Wuhan based on lack of importer knowledge.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of ARG windshields to the United States 
by FYG and Xinyi were made at less than fair value, we compared export 
price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP''), as appropriate, 
to NV, as described in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance 
with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated weighted-
average EPs or CEPs.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, export price is the 
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 
sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the 
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c). In 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, constructed export price is 
the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to 
be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation 
by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise 
or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser 
not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under 
subsections (c) and (d).
    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for Xinyi 
because the subject merchandise was sold directly to unaffiliated 
customers in the United States prior to importation and because CEP was 
not otherwise indicated. As explained below, for FYG we used CEP and 
EP. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared 
POI-wide weighted-average EPs or CEPs to the NVs.
FYG
    We calculated EP for FYG based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These 
included foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of 
exportation, inland insurance, brokerage and handling, marine 
insurance, ocean freight, U.S. customs duty and U.S. inland freight. 
FYG reported all movement expenses

[[Page 48240]]

paid in market-economy currency to market economy carriers in a single 
field. The charges in this single field include brokerage and handling, 
foreign inland freight, ocean freight, and U.S. inland freight. Because 
FYG used market-economy carriers for a portion of its U.S. sales, FYG 
reported and we have used its reported market-economy prices paid to 
market-economy carriers for deliveries to the same or similar 
destinations as the basis for the adjustment for freight expenses paid 
to non-market-economy carriers, consistent with Department practice. 
See Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Investigation of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value of Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of 
China, where the Department stated: ``To value the marine insurance 
expense Jiangsu Taifeng incurred on certain sales, we applied the 
insurance premium rate Jiangsu Taifeng's affiliate Wonderful paid to a 
market-economy insurer''. Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic 
of China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (Changes from the Preliminary Determination). We also made 
adjustments to starting price for freight revenue, molding, quantity 
discounts, and breakage discounts, where appropriate.
    We calculated weighted-average CEP for FYG's U.S. sales made in the 
United States through its U.S. affiliate Greenville Glass Industries, 
Inc. (``GGI''). We based CEP on packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these 
included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to 
the port of exportation, inland insurance, brokerage and handling, 
marine insurance, ocean freight, U.S. customs duty and U.S. inland 
freight. As described above, FYG reported a single field for brokerage 
and handling, foreign inland freight, ocean freight and U.S. inland 
freight. Because transportation for certain sales were provided by NME 
companies, we based expenses associated with these sales on expenses 
paid to market-economy carriers as described above (i.e., we have used 
FYG's reported expenses paid to market-economy carriers to value 
expenses paid to non-market-economy carriers). In accordance with 
section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from CEP direct selling 
expenses (i.e., credit and warranty expenses) and indirect selling 
expenses that were associated with FYG's affiliate GGI's economic 
activities occurring in the United States. For credit expenses, for 
those sales where no payment date was reported, we set the payment date 
equal to the date of these preliminary results (i.e., September 10, 
2001). Finally, we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance 
with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. See FYG Analysis Memorandum. We also 
made an adjustment for molding.
Xinyi
    We calculated EP for Xinyi based on prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We adjusted for inland freight as 
reported by Xinyi. We made deductions for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included, where 
appropriate, domestic inland freight, brokerage and handling, ocean 
freight, port terminal handling charges in Hong Kong, marine insurance 
and U.S. Customs duty. Xinyi reported that it used both market and non-
market economy carriers for foreign inland freight. Because foreign 
inland freight for certain sales was provided by NME companies, we 
based these expenses for these sales on Xinyi's reported foreign inland 
freight expenses paid to market-economy carriers, consistent with our 
treatment of movement expenses for FYG's international freight 
expenses. See Factor Valuation Memorandum, and FYG's U.S. price 
discussion, above. In addition, we made deductions from the starting 
price, where appropriate, for other discounts, rebates and billing 
adjustments. See Xinyi Analysis Memorandum.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the 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 under section 773(a) of the Act.
    Factors of production include: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) 
quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other 
utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. We used 
factors of production, reported by respondents, for materials, energy, 
labor, by-products, and packing.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly available information to value factors of 
production. However, the Department's regulations also provide that 
where a producer sources an input from a market economy and pays for it 
in market economy currency, the Department employs the actual price 
paid for the input to calculate the factors-based NV. Id.; see also 
Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 43 F. 3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. 
Cir. 1994) (``Lasko''). Respondents FYG and Xinyi reported that some of 
their inputs were sourced from market economies and paid for in a 
market economy currency. See Factor Valuation Memorandum, dated 
September 10, 2001 for a listing of these inputs.
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by respondents for the POI. To 
calculate NV, the reported per-unit factor quantities were multiplied 
by publicly available Indian surrogate values (except as noted below). 
In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered 
prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a 
surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from 
the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court 
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of 
all surrogate values used for respondents, see Factor Valuation 
Memorandum.
    Except as noted below, we valued raw material inputs using the 
weighted-average unit import values derived from the Monthly Trade 
Statistics of Foreign Trade of India--Volume II--Imports (``Indian 
Import Statistics'') for the time period corresponding to the POI. 
Where POI-specific Indian Import Statistics data were not available, we 
used Indian Import Statistics data from an earlier period (i.e., April 
1, 1999 through March 31, 2000; April 1, 2000 through September 30, 
2000; and April 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000). As appropriate, we 
adjusted rupee-denominated values for inflation using wholesale price 
indices published in the International Monetary Fund's International 
Financial Statistics and excluded taxes. We valued certain of Xinyi's 
material inputs using contemporaneous data from the Indian publication 
Chemical Weekly. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    As noted above, respondents Xinyi and FYG sourced certain raw 
material inputs from market economy suppliers

[[Page 48241]]

and paid for them in market economy currencies. Specifically, FYG 
sourced float glass, PVB, ceramic ink, silver paste, molding, antenna/
connector, antenna copper wire, mirror button PVB, and mirror button 
from market economy suppliers. Xinyi reported that it sourced certain 
green glass, PVB both clear and shade band types, glass enamel black 
ink, black ink dilute medium, silver paint paste, and silicon powder 
from market economy suppliers. For this preliminary determination, the 
Department has used the market economy prices for the inputs listed 
above, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), with one exception. 
Specifically, based on the fact that the Department has reason to 
believe or suspect that market economy prices from one country are 
subsidized, we have disallowed the use of the companies' reported 
actual prices for float glass. Because information regarding the 
identity of the source country is proprietary, see the business 
proprietary version of the Factor Valuation Memo for a full discussion 
of this issue. We added to the weighted-average price for each input 
the Indian surrogate value for transporting the input to the factory, 
where appropriate (i.e., where the sales terms for the market economy 
inputs were not delivered to the factory).
    As explained in the preamble to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), where the 
quantity of the input purchase was insignificant, we do not rely on the 
price paid by an NME producer to a market economy supplier. See 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27366 (May 19, 1997). Xinyi's reported information demonstrates that 
the quantity of one of its inputs which it sourced from market economy 
suppliers was so small as to be insignificant when compared to the 
quantity of the same input it sourced from PRC suppliers. See Factor 
Valuation Memorandum for Xinyi's reported percentage from market 
economy suppliers. Therefore, as the amount of this reported market 
economy input is insignificant, we did not use the price paid by Xinyi 
for this input and instead used Indian Import Statistics data, as 
adjusted for inflation.
    We used Indian transport information to value transport for raw 
materials. For all instances in which respondents reported delivery by 
truck to calculate domestic inland freight (truck), we used an average 
of multiple price quotes from an Indian trucking company for 
transporting materials between Mumbai and various Indian cities, which 
was provided in Exhibit 24 to FYG's July 23, 2001 surrogate value 
submission. We converted the Indian rupee value to U.S. dollars and 
adjusted for inflation through the POI.
    Respondents identified a number of by-products which they claimed 
are recovered in the production process and/or sold. FYG's by-products 
include scrap PVB, scrap glass pieces, shattered scrap glass, other 
scrap glass, iron scrap, scrap wood pallets, scrap plastic film, scrap 
aluminum foil, scrap plastic tube and scrap palythene pallets. Xinyi's 
by-products are scrap glass and scrap PVB. The Department has offset 
the respondents' cost of production by the amount of a reported by-
product (or a portion thereof) where respondents indicated that the by-
product was sold and/or where the record evidence clearly demonstrates 
that the by-product was re-entered into the production process. See 
Factor Valuation Memorandum for a complete discussion of by-product 
credits given and the surrogate values used. To value the by-product 
cullet, we used a surrogate value from India Infoline, because the 
surrogate value for cullet (scrap glass) included in the Indian import 
statistics appears aberrational when compared with the values submitted 
by petitioner from multiple sources, including Recycling Manager, House 
of Glass, and India Infoline (including the companies Triveni Glass 
Ltd. and Excel Glasses Ltd.). We took a simple average of the prices 
provided for the most contemporaneous period for the companies Triveni 
Glass Ltd. and Excel Glasses Ltd. See Factor Valuation Memorandum for a 
full discussion.
    For energy, to value electricity, we used 1997 data reported as the 
average Indian domestic prices within the category ``Electricity for 
Industry,'' published in the International Energy Agency's publication, 
Energy Prices and Taxes, Second Quarter 2000, as adjusted for 
inflation. We valued water using the Asian Development Bank's Second 
Water Utilities Data Book: Asian and Pacific Region (1997). We valued 
coal using data from Indian Import Statistics.
    For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with section 
351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations, we used the PRC 
regression-based wage rate at Import Administration's home page, Import 
Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in May 2000 
(see http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). The source of the wage rate data on 
the Import Administration's Web site is the 1999 Year Book of Labour 
Statistics, International Labor Office (Geneva: 1999), Chapter 5B: 
Wages in Manufacturing.
    To value factory overhead, and selling, general and administrative 
expenses (``SG&A''), we used the audited financial statements for the 
period April 2000--December 2000 from an Indian producer of laminated 
and tempered automotive safety glass, Saint-Gobain Sekurit India 
Limited (``St.-Gobain''). See Factor Valuation Memorandum for a full 
discussion of the calculation of these ratios from St.-Gobain's 
financial statements.
    To value profit, we used the profit experience of Asahi India 
Safety Glass Limited (``Asahi'') for the period April 1999--March 2000, 
because St.-Gobain experienced a loss for the period April 2000--
December 2000, and because no other financial statements provided on 
the record of this proceeding showed a profit. We note that the 
decision to use Asahi's profit experience only (i.e., as opposed to 
using an average of all profit figures from the financial statements on 
the record) is in accordance with Department practice. See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 33522 (June 
22, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8, 
where the Department disregarded the use of SAIL's financial statements 
in order to derive ``an element of profit as intended by the Statement 
of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Agreements 
Act.''). For a further discussion of the surrogate value for profit, 
see Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    Finally, we used Indian Import Statistics to value material inputs 
for packing. We used Indian Import Statistics data for the period April 
1, 2000 through December 31, 2000 and April 1, 2000 through December 
31, 2000. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all company information relied upon in making our final determination.

Rate for Producers/Exporters That Responded Only to Separate Rates 
Questionnaire

    For those PRC producers and exporters of ARG windshields that 
provided separate rates information, we have calculated a weighted-
average margin based on the rates calculated for those producers/
exporters that were selected to respond. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 41347, 41350 
(August 1, 1997).

[[Page 48242]]

Final Critical Circumstances Determination

    We will make a final determination concerning critical 
circumstances for the PRC when we make our final determination 
regarding sales at LTFV in this investigation, which will be no later 
than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, for the PRC-wide 
entity, we are directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend 
liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date 90 days prior to 
the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. For 
FYG, Benxun, Changchun, Guilin, Wuhan, and TCGI, in accordance with 
section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs Service to 
suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct 
the U.S. Customs Service to require a cash deposit or the posting of a 
bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the 
EP or CEP, as indicated below. These suspension-of-liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Because we 
have determined that ARG windshields produced by Xinyi are not being 
sold at LTFV, we are not directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend 
liquidation of this merchandise. The weighted-average dumping margins 
are as follows:

                        Weighted-Average Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Exporter/manufacturer                        Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYG............................................................     9.79
Xinyi..........................................................  \1\ 0.0
                                                                       5
Benxun.........................................................  \2\ 9.7
                                                                       9
Changchun......................................................  \2\ 9.7
                                                                       9
Guilin.........................................................  \2\ 9.7
                                                                       9
Wuhan..........................................................  \2\ 9.7
                                                                       9
TCGI...........................................................  \2\ 9.7
                                                                       9
China-Wide.....................................................  124.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ De minimis.
\2\ The rate for these companies is analogous to the Department's
  calculation of the All Others rate (see section 735(c)5 of the Act).
  It is equal to an average of all calculated margins other than any
  zero or de minimis margins, or any margins determined entirely under
  section 776 of the Act.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination 
is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days 
after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our 
final determination whether the domestic industry in the United States 
is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the 
subject merchandise.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than fifty days 
after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in case briefs, no later than fifty-five days 
after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. See 19 
CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i); 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities used 
and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs 
submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five 
pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 774 of the 
Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested 
parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or 
rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, any hearing will be held fifty-seven days 
after publication of this notice at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a 
time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone 
the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the 
scheduled date. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to 
participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain: (1) The party's 
name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; 
and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each 
party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in 
that party's case brief, and may make rebuttal presentations only on 
arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c).
    If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final 
determination no later than 75 days after the date of the preliminary 
determination.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 10, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-23328 Filed 9-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P