[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 6, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50870-50874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19828]



[[Page 50870]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-825]


Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent 
Not To Revoke

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 sebacic acid from the People's 
Republic of China in response to a request by CasChem Inc., a domestic 
producer of the subject merchandise, and requests by Sinochem Tianjin 
Import & Export Corporation and Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export 
Corp., exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of review is 
July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001. We have preliminarily found that 
sales of subject merchandise have been made below normal value for the 
respondents. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service 
to assess antidumping duties on entries subject to this review by these 
exporters.

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 regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 2, 2001, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on sebacic 
acid 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 27, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), 
Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corp. (Guangdong) and Sinochem 
Tianjin Import & Export Corporation (Tianjin), exporters of the subject 
merchandise, requested an administrative review. On July 31, 2001, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), CasChem Inc., a U.S. producer of 
sebacic acid, requested an administrative review of Tianjin and one 
additional exporter, Sinochem International Chemicals Corp. (Sinochem 
International).
    On July 31, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214, Hengshui 
Dongfeng Chemicals Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Hengshui), a foreign 
producer of the subject merchandise, requested a new shipper review. On 
August 9, 2001, Hengshui withdrew this request.
    On August 20, 2001, we published a notice of initiation of this 
administrative review, and we issued antidumping questionnaires to 
Guangdong, Sinochem International, and Tianjin. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests 
for Revocation in Part, 66 FR 43570 (Aug. 20, 2001).
    On October 1, 2001, we received timely responses to sections A, C 
and D of the questionnaires from Guangdong and Tianjin. Sinochem 
International did not respond to our request for information. 
Accordingly, the Department has based the margin for Sinochem 
International on facts available for purposes of these preliminary 
results pursuant to section 776 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. For 
further discussion, see the ``Use of Facts Available for Non-Responding 
Companies'' section of this notice.
    On October 3, 2001, the Department invited interested parties to 
submit publicly available information for consideration in valuing the 
factors of production. On June 24, 2002, Guangdong and Tianjin 
submitted data from the Economic Times of Bombay newspaper for 
consideration in valuing castor oil and castor seeds.
    We issued supplemental questionnaires to Guangdong and Tianjin in 
February 2002. We received responses to these supplemental 
questionnaires in March 2002.
    In June 2002, we verified the information submitted by Guangdong 
and Tianjin.

Scope of Review

    The products covered by this review are all grades of sebacic acid, 
a dicarboxylic acid with the formula 
(CH2)8(COOH)2, which include but are not limited 
to CP Grade (500ppm maximum ash, 25 maximum APHA color), Purified Grade 
(1000ppm maximum ash, 50 maximum APHA color), and Nylon Grade (500ppm 
maximum ash, 70 maximum ICV color). The principal difference between 
the grades is the quantity of ash and color. Sebacic acid contains a 
minimum of 85 percent dibasic acids of which the predominant species is 
the C10 dibasic acid. Sebacic acid is sold generally as a 
free-flowing powder/flake. Sebacic acid has numerous industrial uses, 
including the production of nylon 6/10 (a polymer used for paintbrush 
and toothbrush bristles and paper machine felts), plasticizers, esters, 
automotive coolants, polyamides, polyester castings and films, inks and 
adhesives, lubricants, and polyurethane castings and coatings. Sebacic 
acid is currently classifiable under subheading 2917.13.00.30 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part

    In its request dated July 27, 2001, Tianjin requested that the 
Department revoke the antidumping order on sebacic acid with respect to 
its sales of subject merchandise. Section 351.222(b)(2) of the 
Department's regulations notes that the Secretary may revoke an 
antidumping order in part if the Secretary concludes, inter alia, that 
one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have sold the 
merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) for a period of at least 
three consecutive years. Thus, in determining whether a requesting 
party is entitled to a revocation inquiry, the Department must 
determine that the party received zero or de minimis margins for the 
three years forming the basis for the revocation request. See Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and 
Strip From the Netherlands, 65 FR 742, 743 (Jan. 6, 2000).
    Tianjin's request was accompanied by a certification that it had 
not sold the subject merchandise at less than NV during the current 
period of review (POR) and would not do so in the future. Tianjin 
further certified that they

[[Page 50871]]

sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial 
quantities for a period of at least three consecutive years. The 
company also agreed to immediate reinstatement of the antidumping duty 
order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if 
the Department concludes that, subsequent to the revocation, Tianjin 
sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.
    In this administrative review, we preliminarily find that, as 
indicated below, a margin of greater than 0.5 percent exists for 
Tianjin. As such, we preliminarily find that Tianjin does not qualify 
for revocation.

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 its 
exports to the United States. 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 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). 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 Guangdong and Tianjin, in our final results for the 
most recently completed review period (i.e., July 1, 1998, through June 
30, 1999), the Department determined there was both de jure and de 
facto absence of government control of each company's export activities 
and determined that each company warranted a company-specific dumping 
margin. See Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 49537, 49538 
(Aug. 14, 2000) (Sebacic Acid Fifth Review). For this review, both 
Guangdong and Tianjin have 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 the Sebacic Acid 
Fifth Review and continues to demonstrate an absence of both de jure 
and de facto government control with respect to their exports in 
accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon 
Carbide.
    With respect to Sinochem International, which did not respond to 
the Department's questionnaire, we preliminarily determine that this 
company does not merit a separate rate. The Department assigns a single 
rate to companies in a non-market economy, unless an exporter 
demonstrates an absence of government control. We preliminarily 
determine that Sinochem International is subject to the country-wide 
rate for this review because it failed to demonstrate an absence of 
government control.

Use of Facts Available for Non-Responding Companies

    On August 20, 2001, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to 
Sinochem International. Sinochem International did not respond to the 
questionnaire. Because we have received no response, we determine that 
the use of facts available is appropriate.
    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 Sinochem International, which is part of the PRC entity 
(see the ``Separate Rates'' section above), has failed to respond to 
the original questionnaire and has 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 facts available is 
appropriate.
    The Department finds that by not providing the necessary responses 
to the questionnaire issued by the Department, Sinochem International 
has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, in 
selecting from the facts available, the Department determines that an 
adverse inference is warranted.
    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). Furthermore, ``an affirmative finding of bad 
faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the 
Department may make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997) 
(Final Rule). 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 less than fair value (LTFV) 
investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record.
    Sinochem International never attempted to respond to our 
questionnaire or explain why it could not respond. Without this 
information, the Department cannot make a determination of whether this 
company demonstrates an absence of government control and is therefore 
entitled to a separate rate. As noted above, 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 the Department's request for information, the Department may make 
an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in 
selecting from the facts available, which includes information derived 
from the petition. In this proceeding, in accordance with Department 
practice, as adverse facts available we have preliminarily assigned 
Sinochem International and all other exporters subject to the PRC-wide

[[Page 50872]]

rate the petition rate of 243.40 percent, which is the PRC-wide rate 
established in the LTFV investigation and currently in effect, and the 
highest dumping margin determined in any segment of this proceeding. 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 28053 (May 31, 
1994). 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 role to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). The 
Department also considers the extent to which a party may benefit from 
its own lack of cooperation in selecting a rate. See Roller Chain, 
Other than Bicycle, from Japan; Notice of Final Results and Partial 
Recision of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 60472, 60477 
(Nov. 10, 1997). It is reasonable to assume that if Sinochem 
International could have demonstrated that its actual dumping margins 
were lower than the PRC-wide rate established in the LTFV 
investigation, it would have participated in this review and attempted 
to do so.
    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. See id. To corroborate secondary information, 
the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability 
and relevance of the information to be used. Although the petition rate 
of 243.40 percent constitutes secondary information, the information 
was corroborated in the most recently completed administrative review 
of sebacic acid from the PRC. See See Sebacic Acid From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 18968, 18970 (April 10, 2000) (unchanged 
in the final results) (Sebacic Acid Fifth Review Preliminary Results). 
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department 
will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine 
whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances 
indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts 
available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an 
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: 
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (Feb. 
22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case 
as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts 
available) because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been 
discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been 
judicially invalidated); see also Borden Inc. v. United States, 4 F. 
Supp. 2d 1221, 1246-48 (CIT 1998) (the Department may not use an 
uncorroborated petition margin that is high when compared to calculated 
margins for the POR). None of these unusual circumstances are present 
here; nor have we any other reason to believe that application of the 
rate of 243.40 percent as adverse facts available would be 
inappropriate for the PRC-wide rate. Moreover, the rate used is the 
currently applicable PRC-wide rate. Thus, the 243.40 percent margin 
does have relevance. Accordingly, we have used the petition rate from 
the LTFV investigation, 243.40 percent, because there is no evidence on 
the record indicating that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
adverse facts available.

Export Price

    For Guangdong and Tianjin, 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. As appropriate, we calculated 
EP based on packed, free-on-board, PRC-port prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We deducted from the starting price 
amounts for foreign inland truck freight and foreign brokerage and 
handling. As these movement services were provided by NME suppliers, we 
valued them using surrogate values from Indian suppliers. For further 
discussion of our use of surrogate data in a NME proceeding, as well as 
the selection of India as the appropriate surrogate country, see the 
``Normal Value'' section of this notice, below.
    For calculating inland truck freight for Guangdong and Tianjin, we 
used information obtained from the Indian newspaper Financial Express. 
For further discussion, see 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 
Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China,'' dated July 31, 2002 
(FOP Memo), which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B099 of 
the main Commerce building (CRU). For brokerage and handling expenses, 
we used information reported in the new shipper review of stainless 
steel wire rod from India. See Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod From 
India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper 
Reviews, 64 FR 856 (Jan. 6, 1999).

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 a 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 a 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 a 
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 a 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

[[Page 50873]]

PRC. See the Surrogate Country Selection Memorandum from Jeffrey May to 
Louis Apple Re: Administrative Review of Sebacic Acid from the People's 
Republic of China, dated September 24, 2001, which is on file in the 
CRU.
    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 sebacic acid. We determined in 
prior reviews of this order that India was a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise (i.e., oxalic acid). See Sebacic Acid Fifth 
Review Preliminary Results, 65 FR at 18970 (unchanged in the final 
results). For this review, we find that India was a significant 
producer of oxalic acid during the POR based on the Customs Service 
import data, and no party to this proceeding has challenged this 
finding. See the memorandum to the File from Gregory Kalbaugh entitled 
``Oxalic Acid Production in India During the Period of Review,'' dated 
July 16, 2002. We find that India fulfills both statutory requirements 
for use as the surrogate country and have continued to use India as the 
surrogate country in this administrative review. Unless otherwise 
noted, we have used publicly available information relating to India to 
value the various factors of production.
    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. In accordance 
with this methodology, we valued the factors of production as follows:
    To value caustic soda, cresol, phenol, sulfuric acid, and zinc 
oxide, we obtained information from the Indian publication Chemical 
Weekly. Where necessary, we adjusted the values reported in Chemical 
Weekly to exclude sales and excise taxes. To value activated carbon and 
macropore resin, steam coal, inner polyethylene bags, woven plastic 
bags, jumbo plastic bags, and bag closing thread, we obtained import 
prices from the March 2001 annual volume of the Monthly Statistics of 
the Foreign Trade of India. To value castor oil and castor seed, we 
used information from the Economic Times of Bombay newspaper.
    Consistent with the methodology employed in Sebacic Acid Fifth 
Review, we have determined that fatty acid, glycerine, and castor seed 
cake (when castor oil is self-produced) are by-products. Because they 
are by-products, we subtracted the sales revenue of fatty acid, 
glycerine, and, where applicable, castor seed cake, from the estimated 
production costs of sebacic acid. This treatment of by-products is also 
consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. See Cost 
Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis (1991) at pages 539-544. To value 
fatty acid and glycerine, we used prices published in Chemical Weekly. 
We valued castor seed cake using market prices quoted in the Economic 
Times of Bombay newspaper.
    We also allocated a by-product credit for glycerine to the 
production cost for the co-product capryl alcohol. We deducted a by-
product credit for glycerine from sebacic acid based on the ratio of 
the value of sebacic acid to the total value of both sebacic acid and 
capryl alcohol.
    Consistent with the methodology employed in the previous 
administrative review, we have determined that capryl alcohol is a co-
product and have allocated the factor inputs based on the relative 
surrogate values for this product and sebacic acid. Additionally, we 
have used the production times necessary to complete each production 
stage of sebacic acid as a basis for allocating the amount of labor, 
energy usage, and factory overhead among the co-product(s). This 
treatment of co-products is consistent with generally accepted 
accounting principles. See Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis 
(1991) at pages 528-533. To value capryl alcohol, consistent with our 
methodology from the previous administrative review, we used POR market 
prices reported in the Chemical Weekly and adjusted the prices for 
sales and excise taxes.
    For electricity, we derived a surrogate value based on 1998/1999 
electricity price data published by Tata Energy Research Institute in 
The Energy Data Directory and Yearbook 1999/2000. These data were used 
in the antidumping duty administrative review of manganese metal from 
the PRC. See 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; and Persulfates From the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 42628 (Aug. 14, 2001). 
We adjusted the values to reflect inflation up to the POR using the 
electricity-specific price index published by the Reserve Bank of 
India.
    We made adjustments to account for freight costs between the 
suppliers and the respective manufacturing facilities for each of the 
factors of production identified above. In accordance with our 
practice, for inputs for which we used cost-insurance-freight import 
values from India, we calculated a surrogate freight cost using the 
shorter of the reported distances either from the closest 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); see also Sigma Corp. v. United States, 
117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    For calculating foreign inland truck freight, we used information 
obtained from the Indian newspaper Financial Express. See the FOP Memo. 
To value foreign inland rail freight, we relied upon price quotes 
obtained from Indian rail freight companies in November 1999. These 
quotes were used in the investigation of bulk aspirin from the PRC and 
the 1999-2000 administrative review of tapered roller bearings 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, 119 
(Jan. 3, 2000); and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 
and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 
Review, and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 35937, 
35941 (July 10, 2001). We averaged these quotes, then inflated this 
average to the POR using the wholesale price index data published in 
the International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.
    To value marine insurance, we relied on price quotes obtained from 
Roanoke Trade Services, Inc., a provider of marine insurance. See the 
memorandum to the File from Gregory Kalbaugh entitled ``Marine 
Insurance Rates,'' dated July 9, 2002, which is on file in the CRU. To 
value ocean freight, we relied upon price quotes obtained from Maersk 
Sealand, a provider of ocean freight services. See the memorandum to 
the File from Gregory Kalbaugh entitled ``Ocean Freight Rates,'' dated

[[Page 50874]]

July 9, 2002, which is on file in the CRU.
    We valued labor based on a regression-based wage rate, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). This information is available on 
the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/9.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses, and profit, we obtained data from the January 1997 Reserve 
Bank of India Bulletin.

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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guangdong Import and Export Corporation....................         2.05
Sinochem Tianjin Import and Export Corporation.............         1.95
PRC-Wide Rate..............................................       243.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 shall 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, we do not have the information to 
calculate an estimated entered value. Accordingly, 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 
Guangdong and Tianjin will be that established in the final results of 
this administrative review; (2) for a 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 243.40 percent, the PRC-wide rate established in the 
LTFV 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 Secretary'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. 02-19828 Filed 8-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P