[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10386-10388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5476]



[[Page 10386]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-856]


Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a timely request from a U.S. importer, on July 
23, 2001, the Department of Commerce published a notice of initiation 
of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on synthetic 
indigo from the People's Republic of China with respect to China 
Jiangsu International Economic Technical Cooperation Corp., and 
Wonderful Chemical Industrial Ltd./Jiangsu Taifeng Chemical Industry. 
The period of review is September 15, 1999, through May 31, 2001. As a 
result of this review, the Department of Commerce has preliminarily 
determined that dumping margins exist for exports of the subject 
merchandise by the above-referenced companies for the covered period. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger, Office 2, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group I, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4136.
THE APPLICABLE STATUTE:
    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
``Department's'') regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 19, 2000, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published in the Federal Register (65 FR 37961) an antidumping duty 
order on synthetic indigo from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''), which was amended on June 23, 2000 ( 65 FR 39128). On June 
29, 2001, Clariant Corporation (``Clariant''), a U.S. importer, 
requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that we conduct an 
administrative review of exports to Clariant by China Jiangsu 
International Economic Technical Cooperation Corp. (``CJIETCC'') and 
Wonderful Chemical Industrial Ltd./Jiangsu Taifeng Chemical Industry 
(``Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng''). On July 2, 2001, Clariant's request 
was revised to include the review of all sales of subject merchandise 
exported by CJIETCC and Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng to the United States. 
On July 23, 2001, the Department published a notice of initiation of an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on synthetic indigo 
from the PRC with respect to CJIETCC and Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng (66 
FR 38252). On August 16, 2001, we issued the antidumping questionnaire 
to these companies. On October 9, 2001, these companies submitted a 
letter notifying the Department that they were no longer willing to 
cooperate in this review.

Scope of Order

    The products subject to this order are the deep blue synthetic vat 
dye known as synthetic indigo and those of its derivatives designated 
commercially as ``Vat Blue 1.'' Included are Vat Blue 1 (synthetic 
indigo), Color Index No. 73000, and its derivatives, pre-reduced indigo 
or indigo white ( Color Index No. 73001) and solubilized indigo (Color 
Index No. 73002). The subject merchandise may be sold in any form 
(e.g., powder, granular, paste, liquid, or solution) and in any 
strength. Synthetic indigo and its derivatives subject to this order 
are currently classifiable under subheadings 3204.15.10.00, 
3204.15.40.00 or 3204.15.80.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under the order is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review covers the period September 15, 1999 through 
May 31, 2001.

Separate Rates Determination

    In previous antidumping duty proceedings, the Department has 
treated the PRC as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. We have no 
evidence suggesting that this determination should be changed. 
Accordingly, the Department has determined that NME treatment is 
appropriate in this review. See section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act. To 
establish whether a company operating in a NME is sufficiently 
independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes 
each exporting entity under the test established in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), 
as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 
(May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). Under this test, companies 
operating in a NME are entitled to separate, company-specific margins 
when they can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law 
and in fact, with respect to export activities (Sparklers, 56 FR 
20589). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure 
absence of government control over export activities includes: (1) an 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the 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 (id.). De facto 
absence of government control over exports is based on four factors: 
(1) whether each exporter sets its own export prices independent of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) 
whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing 
of losses; (3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and 
sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has 
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management (see 
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR 22587). In the instant review, neither CJIETCC 
nor Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng submitted responses to the Department's 
antidumping duty questionnaire, including the separate rates section. 
We therefore preliminarily determine that these companies did not 
establish their entitlement to a separate rate in this review and, 
therefore, are presumed to be part of the PRC NME entity and, as such, 
are subject to the PRC country-wide rate. Accordingly, exports by these 
companies are preliminarily assigned the PRC-wide rate, which is the 
highest margin in the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') petition.

PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    As noted above, CJIETCC and Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng submitted a

[[Page 10387]]

letter on the record stating that they would not participate in this 
review. Because of their refusal to cooperate in this review and their 
failure to establish their entitlement to a separate rate, we have 
assigned them the PRC-wide rate, which is based on facts available, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an interested party 
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information 
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form 
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 
782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject 
to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title.''
    Because CJIETCC and Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng have refused to 
participate in this administrative review, we find that, in accordance 
with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the use of total facts 
available is appropriate (see, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 50183, 
50184 (August 17, 2000) (for a more detailed discussion, see 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Two 
Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's 
Republic of China, 65 FR 40609, 40610-40611 (June 30, 2000)); Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Persulfates from 
the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 27222, 27224 (May 19, 1997); and 
Certain Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 2655 (January 17, 1997) 
(for a more detailed discussion, see Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Certain Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel 
from Italy, 61 FR 36551, 36552 (July 4, 1996)). Because these 
respondents have provided no information, sections 782(d) and (e) are 
not relevant to our analysis.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds 
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the 
Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the 
party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate 
``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement 
of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 
103-316, at 870 (1994).
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as 
adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the 
final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous 
administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. 
Under section 782(c) of the Act, a respondent has a responsibility not 
only to notify the Department if it is unable to provide requested 
information, but also to provide a ``full explanation and suggested 
alternative forms.'' CJIETCC's and Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng's October 
9, 2001, letter documented for the record their refusal to provide this 
information and they have otherwise failed to respond to our request 
for information, thereby failing to comply with this provision of the 
statute. Therefore, we determine that the respondents failed to 
cooperate to the best of their ability, making the use of an adverse 
inference appropriate.
    In this proceeding, in accordance with Department practice (see, 
e.g., Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 61581, 61584 
(November 12, 1999); and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of 
China, 64 FR 39115 (July 21, 1999); and Fresh Garlic from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 65 FR 33295 (May 23, 2000) (for a more detailed discussion, see 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh 
Garlic From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 39115 (July 21, 
1999)), as adverse facts available, we have preliminarily assigned to 
exports of subject merchandise by CJIETCC and Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng 
the PRC-wide rate of 129.60 percent, which is the PRC-wide rate 
established in the LTFV investigation and the highest dumping margin 
determined in any segment of this proceeding. The Department's practice 
when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of 
information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ``as 
to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner.'' See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from 
Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department 
selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on 
``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is 
described in the SAA as ``{i}nformation derived from the petition that 
gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination 
concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under 
section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The 
SAA states that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information 
used has probative value (id.). To corroborate secondary information, 
the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability 
and relevance of the information to be used. To examine the reliability 
of margins in the petition, we examine whether, based on available 
evidence, those margins reasonably reflect a level of dumping that may 
have occurred during the period of investigation by any firm, including 
those that did not provide us with usable information. This procedure 
generally consists of examining, to the extent practicable, whether the 
significant elements used to derive the petition margins, or the 
resulting margins, are supported by independent sources. With respect 
to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider 
information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are 
circumstances that would render a margin not relevant. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin may not be relevant, 
the Department will attempt to find a more appropriate basis for facts 
available. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 
1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin as best 
information available because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin).
    In the underlying LTFV investigation, we established the 
reliability and relevance of the petition margin (see Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination:

[[Page 10388]]

Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 69723, 
60726-69727 (December 14, 1999); and Synthetic Indigo from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000). As there is no 
information on the record of this review that demonstrates that the 
petition rate is not an appropriate adverse facts available rate for 
the PRC-wide rate, we determine that this rate has probative value and, 
therefore, is an appropriate basis for the PRC- wide rate to be applied 
in this review to exports of subject merchandise by CJIETCC and 
Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng as facts otherwise available.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margin applies for the period September 15, 1999, through May 
31, 2001, for those imports where the exporter is CJIETCC or Wonderful/
Jiangsu Taifeng:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Manufacturer/producer/exporter               Margin Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-wide Rate...........................................          129.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written 
comments in response to these preliminary results. Case briefs must be 
submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, 
and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must 
be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing 
case briefs. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) a statement 
of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also 
encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five 
pages and a table of statutes, regulations and cases cited. Case and 
rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.303(f).
    In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date 
of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public 
hearing on arguments raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for 
submission of rebuttal briefs. 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, Room B-
099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, 
containing: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) 
the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. 
Issued raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case 
and rebuttal briefs.
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review with respect to subject merchandise exports by 
CJIETCC and Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng, including the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs or at a 
hearing, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results.

Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. 
Upon publication of the final results of this administrative review, 
the cash deposit rate for all shipments by CJIETCC or Wonderful/Jiangsu 
Taifeng of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, will be 
the PRC-wide rate stated in the final results of this administrative 
review, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act. The cash 
deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior 
segment of the proceeding for which there was no request for 
administrative review will continue to be the rate assigned in that 
segment of the proceeding. The cash deposit rate for the PRC NME entity 
will continue to be 129.60 percent, and the cash deposit rate for non-
PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213.

    February 28, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-5476 Filed 3-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S