[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 6, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50866-50869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19827]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-847]


Persulfates From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Partial 
Recission

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the People's 
Republic of China in response to a request by the petitioner, FMC 
Corporation. The period of review is July 1, 2000, through June 30, 
2001. In addition, we are rescinding our initiation of an 
administrative review for an additional exporter because no review was 
requested for this company.
    We have preliminarily determined that U.S. sales have not been made 
below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess no 
antidumping duties on the exports subject to this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Strollo, AD/CVD Enforcement, 
Group I, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0629.
    Applicable Statute and Regulations: Unless otherwise indicated, all 
citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to 
the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 
CFR part 351 (2001).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 2, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on persulfates from the People's Republic of 
China (PRC) covering the period July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001. 
See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 66 FR 
34910 (July 2, 2001).
    On July 31, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the 
petitioner, FMC Corporation, requested an administrative review of 
Shanghai Ai Jian Import & Export Corporation (Ai Jian). We published a 
notice of initiation of this review on August 20, 2001. See Initiation 
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Requests for Revocation in Part, 66 FR 43570 (Aug. 20, 2001) 
(Persulfates Initiation). In this notice, we also initiated an 
administrative review for an additional company for which no review had 
been requested by any interested party. For further discussion, see the 
``Partial Recission of Review'' section of this notice, below.
    On August 3, 2001, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to Ai 
Jian. We received Ai Jian's timely responses to section A of the 
questionnaire on September 24, 2001, and to sections C and D on October 
9, 2001. We issued a supplemental questionnaire to Ai Jian on October 
29, 2001. We received Ai Jian's response to this supplemental 
questionnaire on November 29, 2001.
    On November 30, 2001, Ai Jian and the petitioner submitted publicly 
available information for consideration in valuing the factors of 
production. On

[[Page 50867]]

December 7, 2001, the parties submitted rebuttal comments.
    On February 15, 2002, we issued an additional supplemental 
questionnaire to Ai Jian. Ai Jian submitted a response to this 
supplemental questionnaire on March 7, 2002.
    In June 2002, we conducted verification of the sales and factor 
information provided by Ai Jian.

Partial Recission of Review

    In Persulfates Initiation, we inadvertently initiated an 
administrative review for Sinochem Jiangsu Wuxi Import and Export Corp. 
(Wuxi). However, no administrative review for this exporter had been 
requested by any interested party in this proceeding. Therefore, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(2), we have rescinded this 
administrative review with respect to Wuxi.

Scope of Review

    The products covered by this review are persulfates, including 
ammonium, potassium, and sodium persulfates. The chemical formula for 
these persulfates are, respectively, 
(NH4)2S2O8, 
K2S2O8, and 
Na2S2O8. Ammonium and potassium 
persulfates are currently classifiable under subheading 2833.40.60 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Sodium 
persulfate is classifiable under HTSUS subheading 2833.40.20. Although 
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope of this review is 
dispositive.

Separate Rates

    It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of the 
merchandise subject to review in non-market-economy (NME) countries a 
single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of 
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports. 
To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as 
amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 
2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, 
a finding of de jure absence of government control over export 
activities includes: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations 
associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; 
(2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and 
(3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control 
of companies. With respect to evidence of a de facto absence of 
government control, the Department considers the following four 
factors: (1) Whether the respondent sets its own export prices 
independently from the government and other exporters; (2) whether the 
respondent can retain the proceeds from its export sales; (3) whether 
the respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts; and 
(4) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government regarding 
the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; see 
also Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    With respect to Ai Jian, for purposes of our preliminary results 
covering the period of review (POR) July 1, 2000, through June 30, 
2001, the Department determined that there was an absence of de jure 
and de facto government control of its export activities and determined 
that it warranted a company-specific dumping margin. See Persulfates 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 42628 (Aug. 14, 2001) (Persulfates Third 
Review Final). For purposes of this POR, Ai Jian has responded to the 
Department's request for information regarding separate rates. We have 
found that the evidence on the record is consistent with the final 
results in Persulfates Third Review Final and continues to demonstrate 
an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect 
to Ai Jian's exports, in accordance with the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.

Export Price

    For Ai Jian, we calculated export price (EP) in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold 
directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior 
to importation and constructed export price methodology was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We calculated EP 
based on packed, cost-insurance-freight (CIF) U.S.-port, or free-on-
board, PRC-port prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, 
as appropriate. We made deductions from the starting price, where 
appropriate, for ocean freight services which were provided by market 
economy suppliers. We also deducted from the starting price, where 
appropriate, an amount for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage 
and handling, and marine insurance expenses. As these movement services 
were provided by NME suppliers, we valued them using Indian rates. For 
further discussion of our use of surrogate data in an NME proceeding, 
as well as selection of India as the appropriate surrogate country, see 
the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice, below.
    For foreign inland freight we used price quotes obtained by the 
Department from Indian truck freight companies in November 1999. These 
price quotes were used in Persulfates Third Review Final, and were also 
used in the investigation of bulk aspirin from the PRC. See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk 
Aspirin From the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 116, 118 (Jan. 3, 
2000) (Bulk Aspirin Prelim). For foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, we used public information reported in the new shipper review 
of stainless steel wire rod from India. See Certain Stainless Steel 
Wire Rod From India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 63 FR 48184, 48185 (Sept. 9, 
1998). With respect to marine insurance, Ai Jian asserted that it used 
a market-economy supplier for its shipments of persulfates. However, 
based on the submitted information, we could not establish that the 
insurance charges Ai Jian paid reflect prices set by market-economy 
carriers. Due to the proprietary nature of the facts underlying our 
analysis, we cannot discuss them in this forum. For further discussion, 
see the July 31, 2002, memorandum from the team to the file entitled 
``U.S. Price and Factors of Production Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Results.'' Therefore, in accordance with our practice, we based the 
marine insurance charges on surrogate values. See, e.g., Persulfates 
from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 18439, 18441 (Persulfates Third 
Review Prelim); 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 (Apr. 13, 2000) and 
accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 3; and Sebacic Acid From 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 49537 (Aug. 14, 2000) and accompanying 
decision memorandum at Comment 8.
    Accordingly, we valued marine insurance using price quotes obtained 
from Roanoke Trade Services, Inc., a provider of marine insurance. See 
the

[[Page 50868]]

memorandum to the File from Gregory Kalbaugh entitled ``Marine 
Insurance Rates,'' in the administrative review of sebacic acid from 
the PRC, dated July 9, 2002, and the memorandum to the File from 
Michael Strollo entitled ``Preliminary Valuation of Factors of 
Production for the Preliminary Results of the 2000-2001 Administrative 
Review of Persulfates from the People's Republic of China,'' dated July 
31, 2002 (FOP Memo), which are on file in the Central Records Unit, 
Room B099 of the main Commerce building (CRU).

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the normal value (NV) using a factors-of-production 
methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME country; 
and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using 
home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value (CV) 
under section 773(a) of the Act.
    The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all 
previous antidumping cases. Furthermore, available information does not 
permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country 
prices, or CV under section 773(a) of the Act. In accordance with 
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign 
country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding has 
contested such treatment in this review. Therefore, we treated the PRC 
as an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV by 
valuing the factors of production in a surrogate country.
    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408 direct us to select 
a surrogate country that is at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the PRC. On the basis of per capita gross 
domestic product (GDP), the growth rate in per capita GDP, and the 
national distribution of labor, we find that India is at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of the PRC.\1\ See the 
Surrogate Country Selection Memorandum from Jeffrey May to Luis Apple 
Re: Administrative Review of Persulfates from the People's Republic of 
China, dated September 24, 2001, which is on file in the CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We also find that Indonesia is at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act also requires that, to the extent 
possible, the Department use a surrogate country that is a significant 
producer of merchandise comparable to persulfates. For purposes of the 
most recent segment of this proceeding, we found that India was a 
producer of persulfates based on information submitted by the 
respondent. See Persulfates Third Review Prelim, 66 FR at 18442.\2\ For 
purposes of this administrative review, we continue to find that India 
is a significant producer of persulfates based on information submitted 
by both the respondent and the petitioner. We find that India fulfills 
both statutory requirements for use as the surrogate country and 
continue to use India as the surrogate country in this administrative 
review. We have used publicly available information relating to India, 
unless otherwise noted, to value the various factors of production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This finding was unchanged in the final results.See 
Persulfates Third Review Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of calculating NV, we valued PRC factors of production 
in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. Factors of production 
include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) 
quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other 
utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital cost, including 
depreciation. In examining surrogate values, we selected, where 
possible, the publicly available value which was`` (1) An average non-
export value; (2) representative of a range of prices within the POR or 
most contemporaneous with the POR; (3) product-specific; and (4) tax-
exclusive. For a more detailed explanation of the methodology used in 
calculating various surrogate values, see the FOP Memo, which is on 
file in the CRU. In accordance with this methodology, we valued the 
factors of production as follows:
    To value ammonium sulfate, caustic soda, and sulfuric acid, we used 
public information from the Indian publication Chemical Weekly, as 
provided by both petitioner and the respondent in their November 30, 
2001, submissions. For caustic soda and sulfuric acid, because price 
quotes reported in Chemical Weekly are for chemicals with a 100 percent 
concentration level, we made chemical purity adjustments according to 
the particular concentration levels of caustic soda and sulfuric acid 
used by Shanghai Ai Jian Reagent Works (AJ Works), Ai Jian's PRC 
supplier. Where necessary, we adjusted the values reported in Chemical 
Weekly to exclude sales and excise taxes. For potassium sulfate and an 
hydrous ammonia, we relied on import prices contained in the January 
2001 issue of Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India (Monthly 
Statistics), as provided by the respondent in its November 2001 
submission. For those values not contemporaneous with the POR, we 
adjusted for inflation using the WPI published by the IMF.
    During the POR, AJ Works self-produced ammonium persulfates, which 
is a material input in the production of potassium persulfates and 
sodium persulfates. In order to value ammonium persulfates, we 
calculated the sum of the materials, labor, and energy costs based on 
the usage factors submitted by AJ Works in its questionnaire responses. 
Consistent with our methodology used in Persulfates Third Review Final, 
we then applied this value to the reported consumption amounts of 
ammonium persulfates used in the production of potassium and sodium 
persulfates.
    We valued labor based on a regression-based wage rate, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    For electricity, we derived a surrogate value based on 1998/1999 
electricity price data published by Data Energy Research Institute. 
These data were used in the antidumping duty administrative review of 
manganese metal from the PRC. See Persulfates Third Review Final; and 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 15076 (Mar. 
15, 2001) and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 10. We 
adjusted the values to reflect inflation up to the POR using the 
electricity-specific price index published by the Reserve Bank of 
India.
    To value water, we relied on public information reported in the 
October 1997 publication of Second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian and 
Pacific Region. To value coal, we relied on import prices contained in 
the March 2001 annual volume of Monthly Statistics. We adjusted the 
values to reflect inflation up to the POR using the WPI published by 
the IMF.
    For the reported packing materials--polyethylene bags, woven bags, 
polyethylene sheet/film and liner, fiberboard, and paper bags--we 
relied upon Indian import data from the March 2001 annual volume of 
Monthly Statistics. For wood pallets, we relied upon Indonesian import 
data from the 1998 issues of Indonesian Foreign Trade Statistics, 
because the submitted Indian data on this material were unreliable as a 
surrogate value. See the FOP Memo at page 5. The data for wood pallets 
was submitted by the respondent in its November 30, 2001, submission, 
and used in the previous administrative review of See Persulfates Third 
Review

[[Page 50869]]

Final. We adjusted the Indian rupee values to reflect inflation up to 
the POR using the WPI published by the IMF. We also adjusted the U.S. 
dollar value for wood pallets to reflect inflation (or deflation, as 
appropriate) using the producer price indices published by the IMF.
    We made adjustments to account for freight costs between the 
suppliers and AJ Works' manufacturing facilities for each of the 
factors of production identified above. In accordance with out 
practice, for inputs for which we used CIF import values from India or 
Indonesia, we calculated a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of 
the reported distances either from the closet PRC ocean port to the 
factory or from the domestic supplier to the factory. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 61964, 
61977 (Nov. 20, 1997) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States. 7 F.3d 1401 (Fed. 
Cir. 1997).
    For foreign inland freight we used price quotes obtained by the 
Department from Indian truck freight companies in November 1999. These 
price quotes were used in Persulfates Third Review Final, and were also 
used in Bulk Aspirin Prelim. See the FOP Memo.
    For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses 
(SG&A), and profit, we relied on the experience of two producers of 
identical merchandise, Gugarat Persalts (P) Lts. (Gujarat) and Calibre 
Chemicals Pvt., Ltd. (Calibre), as reflected in their fiscal year 2000 
financial statements. See the FOP Memo. Consistent with our practice, 
we did not rely on the financial statements of an additional producer 
of comparable merchandise (i.e., National Peroxide Ltd.) because it did 
not produce persulfates during the POR. See Persulfates Third Review 
Final and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 5.
    We note that the financial statements of Gujarat and Calibre 
indicate that both produce persulfates and both are equally 
contemporaneous (i.e., these financial statements cover the fiscal 
period April 1999 through March 2000). We disagree with the 
petitioner's argument that Gujarat's financial statements are not 
publicly available because Gujarat is not a public corporation. 
Gujarat's financial statements were submitted as public information. In 
addition, we note that these statements were audited. Therefore, for 
these preliminary results, we have relied upon the financial statements 
of both Gujarat and Calibre in order to calculate the surrogate factory 
overhead, SG&A, and profit ratios.
    Consistent with the methodology used in Persulfates Third Review 
Final, we calculated factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw 
material costs for subject merchandise, as opposed to calculating 
factory overhead as a percentage of total materials, labor, and energy 
costs for all products. See the FOP Memo at page 7. We also 
reclassified certain depreciation expenses from Calibre's financial 
statements as SG&A expenses. We removed from the profit calculation the 
excise duties and sales taxes.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the 
period July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Ai Jian Import & Export Corporation.................       0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the publication. Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, or the first 
workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs not later 
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Department will publish a notice of the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in any such written briefs, within 120 days of the 
publication of these preliminary results.
    The Department will determine and the Customs Service shall assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will 
issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the Customs 
Service upon completion of this review. The final results of this 
review will be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on 
entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits 
of estimated duties.
    For assessment purposes in this case, we do not have the 
information to calculate entered value. Therefore, we have calculated 
importer-specific duty assessment rates for the merchandise by 
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales and 
dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine 
whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with 
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated 
importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the EPs.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for 
Ai Jian will be that established in the final results of this 
administrative review; (2) for any company previously found to be 
entitled to a separate rate and for which no review was requested, the 
cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recent 
review of that company; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other PRC 
exporters will be 119.02 percent, the PRC-wide rate established in the 
less than fair value investigation; and (4) the cash deposit rate for a 
non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These requirements, 
when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final 
results of the next administrative review.

Notification of Interested Parties

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

    Dated: July 31, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary , Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-19827 Filed 8-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P