[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 2 (Thursday, January 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 303-307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-125]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administartion

[A-570-001]


Potassium Permanganate From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review of Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of China.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a 
new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on potassium 
permanganate from the People's Republic of China (PRC) in response to a 
request from Groupstars Chemical Co. Ltd. (Groupstars). The review 
covers the period January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000. The 
Department has preliminarily determined that the sale of subject 
merchandise during the period of review (POR) was made below normal 
value (NV). If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results 
of review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to 
assess antidumping duties on the entry under review.
    The Department invites interested parties to comment on the 
preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conniff or Chris Brady, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
1009 and (202) 482-4406, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).

Background

    On January 31, 1984, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (49 FR 3897) the antidumping duty order on potassium 
permanganate from the PRC. On January 30, 2001, in accordance with 
section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214 of the Department's 
regulations, the Department received a timely request from Groupstars 
to conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping order on potassium 
permanganate from the PRC.
    Section 351.214(b) of the Department's regulations requires that 
the exporter or producer requesting a new shipper review include the 
following in its request: (i) A statement from such exporter or 
producer that it did not export subject merchandise to the United 
States during the period of investigation (POI); (ii) certification 
that, since the investigation was initiated, such exporter or producer 
has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported 
the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI; (iii) in 
an antidumping proceeding involving inputs from a non-market economy 
(NME) country, a certification that the export activities of such 
exporter or producer are not controlled by the central government; and 
(iv) documentation establishing: (a) The date on which the subject 
merchandise was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption, or, if this date cannot be established, the date on which 
the exporter or producer first shipped the subject merchandise for 
export to the United States; (b) the volume of that shipment and 
subsequent shipments; and (c) the date of the first sale to an 
unaffiliated customer in the United States. Groupstars' new shipper 
review request was accompanied by information and certifications 
establishing the date on which the company first shipped and entered 
potassium permanganate for consumption in the United States, the volume 
of the shipment, and the date of first sale to an unaffiliated customer 
in the United States. Also, Groupstars certified that it did not export 
potassium permanganate from the PRC during the POI and was not 
affiliated with any company which had exported during the POI. In 
addition, Groupstars certified that its export activities are not 
controlled by the PRC's central government.
    On February 28, 2001, the Department initiated a new shipper review 
of Groupstars covering the period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 
2000. See Potassium Permanganate From the People's Republic of China: 
Initiation of Antidumping New Shipper Review, 66 FR 13895 (March 8, 
2001). On August 17, 2001, the Department published an extension of the 
deadline for completion of the preliminary results of this new shipper 
review until December 25, 2001. See Potassium Permanganate From the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping New Shipper Review, 66 FR 43183.
    On March 28, 2001, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to Groupstars. Groupstars responded to the Department's 
questionnaire on May 11, 2001 and June 14, 2001. Additionally, 
Groupstars submitted responses to the Department's May, August and 
October, 2001 supplemental questionnaires during May, August and 
October 2001, respectively. On September 28, 2001, the Department 
provided all interested parties the opportunity to submit any 
information which they wanted the Department to consider when valuing 
factors of production (FOP) in this new shipper review. On October 14, 
2001, Groupstars submitted publicly available information and comments 
for consideration in valuing the FOP used in our NV calculations. On 
October 15, 2001, petitioner also submitted publicly available 
information and comments for this purpose.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of potassium 
permanganate, an inorganic chemical produced in free-flowing, 
technical, and pharmaceutical grades. During the review period, 
potassium permanganate was classifiable under item 2841.60.0010 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The HTS item number is provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes.

[[Page 304]]

The written description remains dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted a 
verification of the responses of Groupstars. We used standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the 
manufacturer's facilities and examination of relevant sales and 
financial records. At verification, we found that the Groupstars-Jinan 
plant, one of the two plants that produced the merchandise which 
Groupstars sold during the POR, was not operating. Company officials 
explained that other than producing a portion of the sale under review 
in July 2000, and 20 metric tons of potassium permanganate in September 
2001, one month before verification, the Groupstars-Jinan plant had not 
produced any potassium permanganate due to problems with machinery. 
During our tour of the plant, we did not observe any repairs being 
performed on plant machinery. Moreover, none of the personnel that we 
interviewed at the plant were able to recall when the plant had last 
produced potassium permanganate. However, company officials were able 
to provide documentation to substantiate the FOP reported for the 
Groupstars-Jinan plant. For the preliminary results, we have used these 
FOP, as well as the verified FOP for Groupstars' other supplier, to 
calculate the margin reported in this notice. Complete information 
regarding our verification results is in our verification reports, 
which are in the public file of the Central Records Unit (CRU) in room 
B099 of the main Commerce building.

Affiliation

    In its June 18, 2001 submission to the Department, Carus Chemical 
Company, the petitioner in this proceeding, alleged that Mr. Eugene Ji 
(also known as Ji Yue Qin), Groupstars' owner during the POR, has had 
multiple close affiliations with producers and exporters of potassium 
permanganate covered by the investigation in this proceeding, and 
therefore, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, and section 
351.214 of the Department's regulations, Groupstars cannot be 
considered a new shipper.\1\ Specifically, the petitioner alleges that 
Groupstars is or has been affiliated with investigated producers and 
exporters from the PRC because in 1992, Mr. Ji formed Waterman Chemical 
Company Ltd. (Waterman), a U.S. company which attempted to build a 
potassium permanganate plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana using PRC 
equipment and technology from Jinan Tailu, the PRC joint venture that 
in the mid-1980's took over the Jinan Huaiyin plant, one of the plants 
that supplied the exporter examined in the original investigation. In 
addition, the petitioner notes that Groupstars operated and produced 
potassium permanganate during the POR using the facilities of the 
former Jinan Huaiyin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As noted previously, these provisions require that an 
exporter or producer requesting a review under section 751 (a)(2)(B) 
of the Act (a new shipper review) must not have been affiliated, 
within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act, with any exporter 
or producer who exported the subject merchandise during the POI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon the questionnaire responses received from Groupstars, 
and our verification thereof, we preliminarily determine that 
Groupstars qualifies for a new shipper review. We have determined that 
Groupstars made its first sale or shipment of subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR, and that it was not affiliated with 
any exporter or producer that previously shipped to the United States. 
For a complete discussion of this issue, see the memorandum Whether 
Groupstars Chemical Co. Ltd. Qualifies as a New Shipper from Holly A. 
Kuga to Bernard T. Carreau, dated December 26, 2001, which is in the 
CRU public file.

Separate Rates Determination

    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 a NME country 
this single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. 
Groupstars provided the separate rates information requested by the 
Department and reported that its export activities are not subject to 
government control.
    We examined the separate rates information provided by Groupstars 
in order to determine whether the company is eligible for a separate 
rate. The Department's separate rates test which is used to determine 
whether an exporter is 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 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 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 (May 6, 1991).
    Groupstars reported that the subject merchandise was not restricted 
to any government list regarding export provisions or export licensing, 
and was not subject to export quotas during the POR. Groupstars 
submitted copies of its business license in its May 11, 2001 
submission. See May 11, 2001 submission at attachment 3. We found no 
inconsistencies with Groupstars' statement regarding the absence of 
restrictive stipulations associated with its business license. 
Groupstars submitted copies of PRC legislation demonstrating the 
statutory authority for establishing the de jure absence of government 
control over the company. 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 Groupstars' business

[[Page 305]]

license; and (2) the applicable legislative enactments decentralizing 
control of PRC companies.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether a 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 the disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87 (May 2, 
1994); 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 (May 2, 1994). 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.
    Groupstars 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. Moreover, Groupstars stated that it negotiated the price 
directly with its customer. Also, Groupstars claimed that its prices 
are not subject to review or guidance from any governmental 
organization. In addition, the record indicates that Groupstars has the 
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements. 
Further, Groupstars claimed that its negotiations are not subject to 
review or guidance from any governmental organization. Finally, there 
is no evidence on the record to suggest that there is any governmental 
involvement in the negotiation of contracts.
    Furthermore, Groupstars reported that it has autonomy in making 
decisions regarding the selection of management. Groupstars claimed 
that its selection of management is not subject to review or guidance 
from any governmental organization and there is no evidence on the 
record to suggest that there is any governmental involvement in the 
selection of Groupstars' management.
    Finally, Groupstars reported that it retains the proceeds of its 
export sales, it uses profits according to its business needs, and its 
management determines how to allocate profits. There is no evidence on 
the record to suggest that there is any governmental involvement in 
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. 
Therefore, we find 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) 
Groupstars sets its own export prices independent of the government and 
without the approval of a government authority; (2) Groupstars has the 
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) 
Groupstars has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of 
management; and (4) Groupstars retains the proceeds from its sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or 
financing of losses.
    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by 
Groupstars demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law 
and in fact, with respect to its 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 a separate rate to Groupstars.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether the respondent's sale of subject merchandise 
was made at less than normal value, we compared the constructed export 
price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the Constructed Export Price and 
Normal Value sections of this notice, below.

Constructed Export Price

    For all sales made by Groupstars to the United States, we used CEP 
in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Section 772(b) of the Act 
defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold 
in the United States before or after the date of importation, by or for 
the account of the producer or exporter of the merchandise, or by a 
seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated 
purchaser, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.
    We calculated CEP based on the packed prices from Groupstars 
Chemical L.L.C. (Groupstars LLC) (Groupstars' affiliated U.S. reseller) 
to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, from the starting price for foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, U.S. Customs charges, 
and U.S. brokerage. Foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and 
handling, and ocean freight, were provided by NME vendors, and thus, we 
based the deductions for these movement charges on surrogate values as 
discussed below. In accordance with 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted 
from the starting price those selling expenses that related to economic 
activity in the United States. In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of 
the Act, we deducted from the starting price an amount for profit. For 
additional information regarding these adjustments, see the calculation 
memorandum from John Conniff to the File dated December 26, 2001 which 
is in the CRU public file.
    We valued foreign brokerage and handling using the Indian values 
that were reported in the public version of the questionnaire response 
placed on the record in Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper 
Review, 65 FR 31302 (May 17, 2000). We valued ocean freight using the 
international freight expense reported in the public version of the 
questionnaire response that the Viraj Group submitted in the stainless 
steel wire rod from India review covering the period December 1996 
through November 1997. See Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper 
Reviews 64 FR 856 (January 6, 1999). We identify the source used to 
value foreign inland freight in the Normal Value section of this 
notice, below. We accounted for inflation or deflation between the time 
period that the values for movement charges were in effect and the POR, 
as described below in the Normal Value section of this notice.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
or any other person: ``(B) fails to provide such information by the 
deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and 
manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 
* * * or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782(i), the [Department] * * * shall, 
subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise

[[Page 306]]

available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.''
    The Department was unable to verify the total amount of indirect 
selling expenses incurred by Groupstars LLC during the POR. At 
verification, the Department found that Mr. Ji paid for certain 
indirect selling expenses incurred on Groupstars LLC's behalf using 
both his personal funds and the funds of New Phoenix Ltd. (New 
Phoenix), a company which he wholly owns. See US Verification Report at 
8. Thus, not all of Groupstars LLC's indirect selling expenses were 
reported in the company's financial statement. At verification, Mr. Ji 
identified certain expenses (e.g., rent) that did not appear on the 
company's financial statement and provided documents to substantiate 
the amount of such expenses. In addition, Mr. Ji provided the 
Department with access to his personal records and the records of New 
Phoenix. However, the record keeping systems he employed did not allow 
Department officials to identify which expenses related to Groupstars 
LLC. Because Groupstars LLC failed to provide the information the 
Department requested in the form and manner requested, and because we 
could not verify the information as provided, we find that the use of 
facts otherwise available is appropriate. As facts available, we 
allocated a portion of New Phoenix's expenses to Groupstars LLC. For 
further discussion of this issue, see the calculation memorandum from 
John Conniff to the File dated December 26, 2001 which is in the CRU 
public file.

Normal Value

    For exports from NME countries, section 773(c)(1) of the Act 
provides that the Department shall determine NV using a FOP methodology 
if: (1) the subject merchandise is exported from a NME country, and (2) 
available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-
market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value pursuant to 
section 773(a) of the Act. Section 351.408 of the Department's 
regulations sets forth the methodology used by the Department to 
calculate the NV of merchandise exported from NME countries. In every 
case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been 
treated as a NME. Because none of the parties to this proceeding 
contested such treatment, we calculated NV in accordance with section 
773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and section 351.408(c) of the Department's 
regulations.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Act, the FOP utilized 
in producing potassium permanganate include, but are not limited to: 
(1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; 
(3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) 
representative capital costs, including depreciation. In accordance 
with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department valued the FOP, to 
the extent possible, using the costs of the FOP in a market economy 
that is (1) at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC, 
and (2) a significant producer of comparable merchandise. We determined 
that India is comparable to the PRC in terms of per capita gross 
national product and the national distribution of labor. Furthermore, 
India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. See 
Memorandum From Jeff May, Director, Office of Policy, to Holly Kuga, 
Senior Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, dated July 31, 2001, which 
is in the CRU public file.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, for purposes of 
calculating NV, we attempted to value the FOP using surrogate values 
that were in effect during the POR. However, when we were unable to 
obtain surrogate values in effect during the POR, we adjusted the 
values, as appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between 
the effective period and the POR. We calculated the inflation or 
deflation adjustments for all factor values, except labor, using the 
wholesale price indices (WPI) for India as published in the 
International Monetary Fund's (IMF) publication, International 
Financial Statistics. We valued the FOP as follows:
    (1) We valued the direct materials, potassium hydroxide and 
manganese dioxide using the rupee per metric ton or rupee per kilogram 
value of imports that entered India during the months of January-
February and April-December 2000, as published in the Monthly 
Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports (Indian 
Import Statistics).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For each of the FOP, we were unable to find Indian import 
statistics for March 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) We valued salt using the rupee per kilogram value of imports 
that entered India during the months of January-February and April-
December 2000, as published in Indian Import Statistics.
    (3) We valued coal using the rupee per metric ton or rupee per 
kilogram value of imports that entered India during the months of 
January-February and April-December 2000, as published in Indian Import 
Statistics.
    (4) We valued electricity using the 1997 Indian electricity prices 
for industrial use as reported by the International Energy Agency 
(IEA), as adjusted for inflation. This rate is available in the IEA 
publication Energy, Prices and Taxes, 2nd Quarter 2000.
    (5) We valued labor using a regression-based wage rate, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). This rate is identified on the 
Import Administration's Web site. See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages. 
    (6) We derived ratios for factory overhead, selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit using information reported 
for 1992-1993 in the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin of January 1997. 
This is the most recent information that we were able to obtain. Using 
the information from the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin, we were able 
to calculate factory overhead as a percentage of direct materials, 
labor, and energy expenses; SG&A expenses as a percentage of the total 
cost of manufacturing; and profit as a percentage of the sum of the 
total cost of manufacturing and SG&A expenses.
    (7) We valued packing materials, including pallets and steel drums 
using the rupee per piece or rupee per kilogram value of imports that 
entered India during the months of January-February and April-December 
2000, as published in Indian Import Statistics.
    (8) We used the following sources to value truck and rail freight 
services incurred to transport the finished product to the port and 
direct materials, packing materials, and coal from the suppliers of the 
inputs to Groupstars:
    Truck Freight: We valued truck freight services using the 1999 rate 
quotes reported by Indian freight companies. See 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).
    Rail Freight: We valued rail freight services using the April 1995 
rates published by the Indian Railway Conference Association, as 
adjusted for inflation.
    (9) We used the following sources to value ocean freight and marine 
insurance services incurred to transport the finished product to the 
port and direct materials, packing materials, and coal from the 
suppliers of the inputs to Groupstars:
    Ocean Freight: We valued ocean freight services using the 1997 rate 
quotes reported by the Viraj Group in Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod 
from India; Notice of Preliminary Results of the Administrative and New 
Shipper Review, 63 FR 48184.
    Marine Insurance: We valued marine insurance using the 1997 rate 
quotes reported by the Viraj Group in Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod 
from India;

[[Page 307]]

Notice of Preliminary Results of the Administrative and New Shipper 
Review, 63 FR 48184. For further discussion of the surrogate values 
used in this review, see Memorandum From Chris Brady to the File 
Regarding Surrogate Values Used for the Preliminary Results of the New 
Shipper Review of Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of 
China, dated December 26, 2001, which is in the CRU public file.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average percentage dumping margin exists for the 
period January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter/Manufacturer

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin (percent)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Groupstars Chemical Co., Ltd.\3\: 262.90.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Although the new shipper review was initiated on Groupstars 
Chemical Co., Ltd. (``Shandong'') (66 FR 13895, March 8, 2001), it 
was later clarified by respondent's counsel that the correct name 
should be Groupstars Chemical Co., Ltd.

    The Department will disclose the calculations it performed in this 
review to the parties in this proceeding within five days of the date 
of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the 
Department's regulations. Any hearing would normally be held 37 days 
after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter, 
at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing 
must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public 
hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) to the extent 
practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the 
hearing. Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested 
parties may submit case briefs within 21 days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 351.309(c)(ii) of the 
Department's regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are 
encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five 
pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal 
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must 
be filed within five days after the case brief is filed. Further, we 
would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would 
provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of 
any such comments on diskette. If a hearing is held, an interested 
party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included 
in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on 
arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. Parties should 
confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours 
before the scheduled time.

Assessment

    The Department will issue the final results of this new shipper 
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised 
in the briefs, within 90 days from the date of this preliminary result, 
unless the time limit is extended. Upon completion of this new shipper 
review, the Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service 
shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. 
Customs Service upon completion of this review. For assessment 
purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for 
potassium permanganate from the PRC. We divided the total dumping 
margin (calculated as the difference between NV and CEP) for the 
importer by the entered value of the reviewed sale. Where the importer-
specific assessment rate is above de minimis, we will direct U.S. 
Customs to assess the resulting ad valorem rate against the entered 
value of the entry of the subject merchandise by that importer during 
the POR.

Cash Deposit

    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of 
potassium permanganate from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rate for the reviewed firm will be the rate established in the final 
results of this review; (2) for previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC 
exporters with separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the 
company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) for 
all other PRC exporters, the rate will be the current PRC-wide rate, 
128.94 percent; and (4) for all other non-PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter.

Notification

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under Sec. 351.402(f) 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 new shipper review and this notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 26, 2001.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-125 Filed 1-2-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P