[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13674-13681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6735]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-879]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Polyvinyl Alcohol From 
the People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary determination of sales at less than fair 
value.

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

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that polyvinyl alcohol from the 
People's Republic of China is being, or is likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733(b) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary 
determination. We will make our final determination not later than 135 
days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood or Alice Gibbons, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 2, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-3874 or (202) 482-0498, respectively.

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC) is being sold, or is likely to be 
sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided 
in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The 
estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation (Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany, Japan, 
the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore, 
67 FR 61591 (Oct. 1, 2002)) (Initiation Notice), the following events 
have occurred:
    On October 21, 2002, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is reasonable 
indication that imports of PVA from the PRC are materially injuring the 
United States industry. See ITC Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1014-1018 
(Publication No. 3553 Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany, Japan, the 
People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore, 67 FR 
65597 (Oct. 25, 2002)).
    Also on October 21, 2002, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to 
the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) 
with a letter requesting that it forward the questionnaire to Chinese 
producers/exporters accounting for all known exports of subject 
merchandise from the PRC during the period of investigation (POI). The 
Department also sent courtesy copies of the antidumping questionnaire 
to the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals, and Chemicals 
Importers and Exporters, to all companies identified in U.S. customs 
data as exporters of the subject merchandise during the POI with 
shipments in commercial quantities, and any additional companies 
identified in the petition as exporters of PVA. These companies 
included: B.V. Rebes, Chang Chun Plastics Co., Ltd. (Chang Chun),\1\ 
Sichuan Mianyang International Trade Co., Ltd., Sinopec Maoming 
Refining & Chemical Co., Ltd., Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works (SVW), and 
Sichuan Weinilun Chang. For further discussion, see the November 7, 
2002, memorandum from Alice Gibbons to the File entitled ``Antidumping 
Duty Investigation of Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of 
China--Selection of Respondents.'' The letters sent to MOFTEC and 
individual exporters provided deadlines for responses to the different 
sections of the questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Both B.V Rebes and Chang Chun appeared to be third country 
resellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 28, 2002, B.V. Rebes informed us that it is merely a 
provider of logistics services and, therefore, it did not intend to 
respond to the Department's questionnaire in this investigation. For 
further discussion, see the October 28, 2002, memorandum from Elizabeth 
Eastwood to the File entitled ``Response from B.V. Rebes to the 
Questionnaire in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Polyvinyl 
Alcohol from the People's Republic of China.'' On November 4, 2002, 
Chang Chun informed us that its records did not reflect any exports of 
PRC-produced PVA to the United States during the POI. Chang Chun also 
requested additional U.S. customs information in order to ascertain the 
reason that it appeared as an exporter. See the February 19, 2003, 
memorandum from Alice Gibbons to the File entitled ``Placing 
Information on the Record in

[[Page 13675]]

the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Polyvinyl Alcohol from the 
People's Republic of China.'' On November 7, 2002, we informed Chang 
Chun that, due to the fact that the customs data in question was not 
public information, we were unable to provide it with this information. 
We received no further correspondence from Chang Chun.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We note, however, that we did not designate Chang Chun as a 
mandatory respondent in this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 6, 2002, Wego Chemical & Mineral Corporation (Wego), an 
importer of PVA from the PRC, notified the Department that it sold 
subject merchandise in the United States, and that these sales 
constituted ``relevant sales'' within the meaning of sections 772(a) 
and (b) of the Act. Based on these assertions, we informed Wego that it 
was eligible to participate as a voluntary respondent in this 
investigation and on November 7, 2002, we issued it a questionnaire. 
For further discussion, see the November 7, 2002, memorandum from Alice 
Gibbons to the File entitled ``Issuance of Questionnaire to Wego 
Chemical & Mineral Corp. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China.'' On November 
25, 2002, Wego informed us that it did not intend to submit a voluntary 
response in this proceeding.
    On November 25, 2002, the Department invited interested parties to 
comment on surrogate country selection and to provide publicly 
available information for valuing the factors of production. We 
received a response from the petitioners on January 6, 2003, and from 
SVW on February 14, 2003.
    During the period November 2002 through February 2003, the 
Department received responses to sections A, C, and D of the 
Department's original and supplemental questionnaires from SVW. We 
received no other responses to our questionnaire from any of the other 
exporters noted above.
    On January 21, 2003, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioners 
\3\ made a timely request to postpone the preliminary determination for 
30 days. We granted this request and, on January 23, 2003, postponed 
the preliminary determination until no later than March 14, 2003. See 
Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China 
and the Republic of Korea, 68 FR 4763 (Jan. 30, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The petitioners in this investigation are Celanese Chemicals 
Ltd. and E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. (collectively, ``the 
petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Final Determination

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioner. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), 
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional 
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
    On January 9, 2003, SVW requested that the Department postpone its 
final determination until 135 days after the publication of the 
preliminary determination. SVW also included a request to extend the 
provisional measures to not more than six months. Accordingly, since we 
have made an affirmative preliminary determination and no compelling 
reasons for denial exist, we have postponed the final determination 
until not later than 135 days after the publication of the preliminary 
determination.

Period of Investigation

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the POI for an investigation 
involving merchandise from a non-market economy (NME) is the two most 
recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition 
(i.e., September 2002). Therefore, in this case, the POI is January 1, 
2002, through June 30, 2002.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to our regulations (see Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we 
set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 
20 calendar days of publication of the initiation notice. See the 
Initiation Notice, 67 FR 61591. Although no comments on the scope of 
the investigation were received in this proceeding, scope comments were 
received in the companion Japanese case. Because these comments relate 
to PVA in general, we find that they are applicable to this proceeding. 
Accordingly, we have placed on the record of this proceeding all public 
scope comments as well as all public versions of the proprietary scope 
documents filed in the companion Japanese case, and we have modified 
the scope to conform to that set forth in the preliminary determination 
of that proceeding. See the ``Scope Comments'' section of the Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl 
Alcohol from Japan, 68 FR 8203, 8204-05 (Feb. 20, 2003).

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is PVA. This product 
consists of all PVA hydrolyzed in excess of 80 percent, whether or not 
mixed or diluted with commercial levels of defoamer or boric acid, 
except as noted below.
    The following products are specifically excluded from the scope of 
this investigation:
    (1) PVA in fiber form.
    (2) PVA with hydrolysis less than 83 mole percent and certified not 
for use in the production of textiles.
    (3) PVA with hydrolysis greater than 85 percent and viscosity 
greater than or equal to 90 cps.
    (4) PVA with a hydrolysis greater than 85 percent, viscosity 
greater than or equal to 80 cps but less than 90 cps, certified for use 
in an ink jet application.
    (5) PVA for use in the manufacture of an excipient or as an 
excipient in the manufacture of film coating systems which are 
components of a drug or dietary supplement, and accompanied by an end-
use certification.
    (6) PVA covalently bonded with cationic monomer uniformly present 
on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than one 
mole percent.
    (7) PVA covalently bonded with carboxylic acid uniformly present on 
all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than two mole 
percent, certified for use in a paper application.
    (8) PVA covalently bonded with thiol uniformly present on all 
polymer chains, certified for use in emulsion polymerization of non-
vinyl acetic material.
    (9) PVA covalently bonded with paraffin uniformly present on all 
polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than one mole 
percent.
    (10) PVA covalently bonded with silan uniformly present on all 
polymer chains certified for use in paper coating applications.
    (11) PVA covalently bonded with sulfonic acid uniformly present on 
all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than 
one mole percent.

[[Page 13676]]

    (12) PVA covalently bonded with acetoacetylate uniformly present on 
all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than 
one mole percent.
    (13) PVA covalently bonded with polyethylene oxide uniformly 
present on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or 
greater than one mole percent.
    (14) PVA covalently bonded with quaternary amine uniformly present 
on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than 
one mole percent.
    The merchandise under investigation is currently classifiable under 
subheading 3905.30.00 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 
merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all past 
antidumping investigations. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's 
Republic of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998) (Mushrooms). 
A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the 
Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act.
    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base normal value (NV) on 
the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a comparable market 
economy that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. The 
sources of individual factor prices are discussed under the ``Normal 
Value'' section of the notice, below.
    No party in this investigation has requested a revocation of the 
PRC's NME status. We have, therefore, preliminarily continued to treat 
the PRC as an NME.

Separate Rates

    SVW is owned by ``all the people'' and has provided separate rates 
information in its November 22, 2002, section A response and in its 
January 9, January 13, and January 21, 2003, supplemental responses. 
SVW has stated that there is no element of government ownership or 
control and has requested a separate company-specific rate.
    As stated in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 
22585, 25586 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide) and Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from 
the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 25545 (May 8, 1995) 
(Furfuryl Alcohol), ownership of the company by ``all the people'' does 
not require the application of a single rate. Accordingly, SVW is 
eligible for consideration of a separate rate.
    The Department's separate rate test is not concerned, in general, 
with 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 (Nov. 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 (Nov. 17, 1997); and Honey from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 60 FR 
14725, 14726 (Mar. 20, 1995).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity 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, 20589 (May 6, 1991), as 
modified by Silicon Carbide. Under the separate rates criteria, the 
Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondents 
can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental 
control over export activities. See Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl 
Alcohol.

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.
    SVW has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate 
absence of de jure control, including the ``Law of the People's 
Republic of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned By the Whole 
People.''
    In prior cases, the Department has analyzed these laws and found 
that they establish an absence of de jure control. See, e.g., Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Partial-Extension Steel 
Drawer Slides With Rollers From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 
29571, 29573 (June 5, 1995); \4\ Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of 
China, 60 FR 56045, 56046 (Nov. 6, 1995). We have no new information in 
this proceeding which would cause us to reconsider this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This was unchanged in the final determination. See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's 
Republic of China, 60 FR 54472, 54474 (Oct. 24, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to SVW, PVA exports are not affected by export licensing 
provisions or export quotas. SVW claims to have autonomy in setting the 
contract prices for sales of PVA through independent price negotiations 
with its foreign customers without interference from the PRC 
government. Based on the assertions of SVW, we preliminarily determine 
that there is an absence of de jure government control over the pricing 
and marketing decisions of SVW with respect to its PVA export sales.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    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 
Mushrooms, 63 FR 72257. 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.
    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or 
subject to, the approval of a governmental authority; (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 its management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes

[[Page 13677]]

independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of 
losses. See Id.
    SVW has asserted the following: (1) It establishes its own export 
prices; (2) it negotiates contracts without guidance from any 
governmental entities or organizations; (3) it makes its own personnel 
decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds of its export sales and uses 
profits according to its business needs. Additionally, SVW's 
questionnaire responses indicate that it does not coordinate with other 
exporters in setting prices or in determining which companies will sell 
to which markets. This information supports a preliminary finding that 
there is an absence of de facto governmental control of the export 
functions of these companies. Consequently, we preliminarily determine 
that SVW has met the criteria for the application of separate rates.
    In addition to the above analysis, the Department further analyzed 
information provided by the petitioners in a submission dated December 
11, 2002. In this submission, the petitioners provided documentation 
which indicated that SVW was part of a debt-equity conversion agreement 
in April 2000, mandated by the PRC government between Sinopec Group 
Company (a ministry-level enterprise) and certain PRC banks. However, 
because there is no evidence on the record that shows that Sinopec 
Group Company exercises any influence or control in the day-to-day 
operations of SVW, we preliminarily determine that SVW has met the 
criteria for the application of separate rates. For further discussion, 
see the memorandum entitled ``Concurrence Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Determination in the Investigation of Polyvinyl Alcohol 
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated March 14, 2003 (the 
Concurrence Memorandum), on file in room B-099 of the Department's 
Central Records Unit (CRU).

PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    As in all NME cases, the Department implements a policy whereby 
there is a rebuttable presumption that all exporters or producers 
located in the NME comprise a single exporter under common government 
control, the ``NME entity.'' The Department assigns a single NME rate 
to the NME entity unless an exporter can demonstrate eligibility for a 
separate rate.
    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 deadline, or in the form or manner requested, (C) significantly 
impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides such information that cannot be 
verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) 
of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not 
decline to consider submitted information if all of the following 
requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the 
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the 
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and 
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that 
there are numerous producers/exporters of the subject merchandise in 
the PRC. As noted in the ``Case History'' section above, all exporters 
were given the opportunity to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire. Based upon our knowledge of PRC exporters (including 
correspondence received in this proceeding) and the fact that U.S. 
import statistics show that the responding company did not account for 
all imports into the United States from the PRC, we have preliminarily 
determined that PRC exporters of PVA failed to respond to our 
questionnaire. As a result, use of facts available (FA), pursuant to 
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, is appropriate.
    In selecting among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of 
the Act authorizes the Department to use adverse facts available (AFA) 
if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for 
information. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 
19026, 19028 (April 30, 1996); Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality 
Steel Products From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 
4, 2000). MOFTEC was notified in the Department's questionnaire that 
failure to submit the requested information by the date specified might 
result in use of FA. The producers/exporters that decided not to 
respond to the Department's questionnaire failed to act to the best of 
their ability in this investigation. Absent a response, we must presume 
government control of these companies. The Department has determined, 
therefore, that in selecting from among the facts otherwise available 
an adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act is 
warranted.
    In accordance with our standard practice, as AFA, we are assigning 
as the PRC-wide rate the higher of: (1) The highest margin stated in 
the notice of initiation (i.e., the recalculated petition margin); or 
(2) the highest margin calculated for any respondent in this 
investigation. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products 
from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000) and 
accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 1. In this case, the 
preliminary AFA margin is 97.86 percent, which is the highest margin 
stated in the notice of initiation. See Initiation Notice, 67 FR 61594.

Corroboration of Information

    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use AFA 
information derived from the petition, the final determination from the 
LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record.
    Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, 
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as FA. Secondary 
information is defined 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 Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994) and 19 CFR 351.308(d). The SAA 
clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy 
itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. 
See the SAA at 870. The SAA also states that independent sources used 
to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price 
lists, official import statistics, customs data, and information 
obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. 
See the SAA at 870.
    In order to determine the probative value of the margins in the 
petition for use as AFA for purposes of this determination, we examined 
evidence supporting the calculations in the petition. We reviewed the 
adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition during our 
pre-initiation analysis of the petition, to the extent appropriate 
information was available

[[Page 13678]]

for this purpose. See the October 1, 2002, Initiation Checklist, on 
file in the CRU, Room B-099, of the Main Commerce Department building, 
for a discussion of the margin calculations in the petition. In 
accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, to the extent practicable, 
we examined the key elements of the export price (EP) and NV 
calculations on which the margins in the petition were based.
    In order to corroborate the petition's EP calculations, we compared 
the prices in the petition for PVA to the prices submitted by SVW. In 
order to corroborate the petitioners' NV calculation, we compared the 
petitioners' factor consumption and/or surrogate value data for PVA to 
the data reported by SVW for the most significant factors--vinyl 
acetate monomer (VAM) and its by-product acetic acid, electricity, 
factory overhead, and selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses, and profit--and to surrogate values selected by the 
Department for the preliminary determination, as discussed below.
    As discussed in the March 14, 2003, memorandum from the team to the 
file entitled ``Corroboration of Data Contained in the Petition for 
Assigning an Adverse Facts Available Rate,'' we found that the U.S. 
price and factors of production information in the petition to be 
reasonable and of probative value. As a number of the surrogate values 
selected for the preliminary determination differed from those used in 
the petition, we compared the petition margin calculations to the 
calculations based on the selected surrogate values wherever possible 
and found they were reasonably close. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that the petition information has probative value. 
Accordingly, we find that the highest margin stated in the notice of 
initiation, 97.86 percent, is corroborated within the meaning of 
section 776(c) of the Act. For further discussion, see the March 14, 
2003, memorandum to the file from the team entitled ``Corroboration of 
Data Contained in the Petition for Assigning an Adverse Facts Available 
Rate.''

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of PVA from the PRC were made at LTFV, 
we compared the EP to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price,'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In accordance with 
section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI-wide weighted-
average EPs by product to the appropriate product-specific NV.

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based our 
calculations on EP for SVW because the subject merchandise was sold by 
the producer/exporter directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser 
prior to importation. We based EP on the packed FOB PRC port or CIF 
U.S. port prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, as 
appropriate. We made deductions for movement expenses, in accordance 
with 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, 
foreign inland freight (including truck, rail, and waterway), foreign 
brokerage and handling, ocean freight, and marine insurance. As certain 
of these movement services were provided by NME suppliers, we valued 
them using Indian or other market-economy 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 truck freight we used price quotes obtained by 
the Department from Indian truck freight companies. These price quotes 
were recently used in the 2000-2001 antidumping duty administrative 
review of persulfates from the PRC. See Persulfates From the People's 
Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Notice of Partial Rescission, 67 FR 50866, 
50867, 50869 (Aug. 6, 2002) \5\ (Persulfates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This was unchanged in the final determination. See 
Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 6712 (Feb. 10, 2003) 
(Persulfates Final).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For foreign inland rail freight, we used per kilometer price quotes 
published in the July 2001 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin. These price 
quotes were used in the 2001-2002 antidumping duty investigation of 
non-malleable cast iron pipe from the PRC and in the 2001-2002 
antidumping duty administrative review of synthetic indigo from the 
PRC. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Non-Malleable Cast Iron 
Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 60214 (Sept. 
25, 2002) \6\ and See Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of 
China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
68 FR 11371, 11372 (Mar. 10, 2003) (Indigo from the PRC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This was unchanged in the final determination. See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Non-Malleable 
Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 
7765 (Feb. 18, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For foreign inland waterway freight, we used an Indian domestic 
ship rate obtained in the 1999-2000 antidumping duty administrative 
review and used in the 2000-2001 antidumping duty administrative review 
of helical spring lock washers from the PRC. See Certain Helical Spring 
Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 8520 and accompanying 
decision memorandum at Comment 5 (Feb. 25, 2002) and Certain Helical 
Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 45702, 45704 
(July 10, 2002).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This was unchanged in the final determination. See Certain 
Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 69717 
(Nov. 19, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For foreign brokerage and handling expenses, we used brokerage and 
handling data obtained in the 1998-1999 antidumping duty investigation 
and used in the 2001-2002 antidumping duty administrative review of 
synthetic indigo from the PRC. See Notice of Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 64 
FR 69723 (December 14, 1999) \8\ and Indigo from the PRC, 68 FR 11372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This was unchanged in the final determination. See Synthetic 
Indigo from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to ocean freight, SVW asserted that it used market-
economy suppliers for its shipments of PVA. However, based on the 
submitted information, we could not establish that the ocean freight 
expenses SVW paid reflect prices set by market-economy carriers. 
Specifically, SVW's questionnaire responses indicate that ocean freight 
was paid to a PRC company, not a market-economy supplier. Therefore, in 
accordance with our practice, we valued ocean freight using a surrogate 
value. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the 
People's Republic of China, 65 FR 19873 (April 13, 2000) and 
accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 3. Specifically, we valued 
ocean freight for SVW's CIF shipments using a price quote obtained in 
the 2001-2002 antidumping duty administrative review of synthetic 
indigo from the PRC. See Indigo from the PRC, 68 FR 11372.

[[Page 13679]]

    For marine insurance we used price quotes obtained by the 
Department from a market-economy provider and used in the 2000-2001 
antidumping duty administrative review of persulfates from the PRC. See 
Persulfates, 67 FR 50867.
    Where appropriate, we adjusted the values to reflect inflation up 
to the POI using the wholesale price indices (WPI) or the purchase 
price indices published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), as 
appropriate.

Normal Value

A. Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market economy countries that: (1) Are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department has 
determined that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the 
Philippines are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall 
economic development. See the October 30, 2002, memorandum from Jeffrey 
May to Louis Apple entitled ``Antidumping Duty Investigation on 
Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China (PRC).''
    According to the available information on the record, we have 
determined that India is a significant producer of merchandise 
comparable to PVA (i.e., polyvinyl acetate, the precursor polymer of 
fully-hydrolyzed PVA). For purposes of the preliminary determination, 
we have selected India as the surrogate country, based on the quality 
and contemporaneity of the currently available data. Accordingly, we 
have calculated NV using Indian values for the PRC producer's factors 
of production. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available 
information wherever possible.

B. Self-Produced Inputs

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by SVW for the POI. As the 
basis for NV, SVW reported factors of production information for each 
separate stage of production, including the factors used in the 
production of all self-produced material and energy inputs, and by-
products.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In addition to its own factors of production, SVW reported 
the factors of production used by a joint venture to produce acetic 
acid. However, we did not value those factors when calculating NV in 
this investigation. Rather, we have valued the acetic acid purchased 
from the joint venture and consumed during the POI, accordance with 
our practice. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Ferrovanadium From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 45088, 
45092 (July 8, 2002). For further discussion, see the Concurrence 
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our general policy, consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the 
Act, is to value the factors of production that a respondent uses to 
produce the subject merchandise. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003).
    If the NME respondent is an integrated producer, we take into 
account the factors utilized in each stage of the production process. 
For example, in the case of preserved canned mushrooms produced by a 
fully integrated firm, the Department valued the factors used to grow 
the mushrooms, the factors used to further process and preserve the 
mushrooms, and any additional factors used to can and package the 
mushrooms, including any used to manufacture the cans (if produced in-
house). If, on the other hand, the firm was not integrated, but simply 
a processor that bought fresh mushrooms to preserve and can, the 
Department valued the purchased mushrooms and not the factors used to 
grow them. See the final results valuation memorandum for Final Results 
of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of 
China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001). This policy has been applied to 
both agricultural and industrial products. See, e.g., Persulfates Final 
and Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Brake Drums and Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China; 62 FR 
9160 (February 28, 1997). Accordingly, our standard NME questionnaire 
asks respondents to report the factors used in the various stages of 
production.
    There are, however, two limited exceptions to this general rule. 
First, in some cases a respondent may report factors used to produce an 
intermediate input that accounts for a small or insignificant share of 
total output. The Department recognizes that, in those cases, the 
increased accuracy in our overall calculations that would result from 
valuing (separately) each of those factors may be so small so as to not 
justify the burden of doing so. Therefore, in those situations, the 
Department would value the intermediate input directly.
    Second, in certain circumstances, it is clear that attempting to 
value the factors used in a production process yielding an intermediate 
product would lead to an inaccurate result because a significant 
element of cost would not be adequately accounted for in the overall 
factors buildup. For example, in a recent case, we addressed whether we 
should value the respondent's factors used in extracting iron ore--an 
input to its wire rod factory. The Department determined that, if it 
were to use those factors, it would not sufficiently account for the 
capital costs associated with the iron ore mining operation given that 
the surrogate used for valuing production overhead did not have mining 
operations. Therefore, because ignoring this important cost element 
would distort the calculation, the Department declined to value the 
inputs used in mining iron ore and valued the iron ore instead. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon 
and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Ukraine, 67 FR 55785 (August 30, 
2002); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of 
China; 66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001); 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 (November 20, 1997); and 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China; 60 FR 22544 (May 
8, 1995).
    The petitioners have argued that the Department's policy is 
inappropriate in this investigation because the surrogate producer from 
which the financial ratios are derived is at a level of integration 
which differs significantly from SVW's own. Given these circumstances, 
the petitioners conclude that valuing each component would understate 
factory overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit; instead, the petitioners 
request that the Department begin its valuation at either the ultimate 
or penultimate stage of the production process.
    After analyzing this issue, we find that the facts on the record do 
not warrant a departure from our normal practice, because we find that 
SVW and the surrogate producer in question are at similar levels of 
vertical integration. Therefore, we have valued the factors reported 
for each self-produced input for purposes of the preliminary 
determination. For further discussion, see the March 14, 2003, 
memorandum

[[Page 13680]]

from the team to Susan Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Group 1, entitled ``Treatment of Self-Produced Inputs in the Less Than 
Fair Investigation on Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of 
China.''

C. 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 POI or most contemporaneous with the POI; (3) product-
specific; and (4) tax-exclusive. For a more detailed explanation of the 
methodology used in calculating various surrogate values, see the 
memorandum entitled ``Preliminary Determination Factors Valuation 
Memorandum,'' dated March 14, 2003 (the Factors Memorandum), on file in 
the CRU.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered 
prices. We added to Indian surrogate values surrogate freight costs 
using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier 
to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. 
This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corporation v. United States, 117 
F. 3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a discussion of the valuation 
of SVW's freight costs, see the ``Export Price'' section of this 
notice, above.
    We valued acetic acid, d-tartaric acid, solid sodium hydroxide, 
sodium hexametaphosphate, sodium nitrite, sulfuric acid, and zinc oxide 
using Indian domestic market prices reported in Chemical Weekly 
contemporaneous with the POI. We valued activated carbon,\10\ 
antioxidant, azodiisobutyronitrile, bacteria killer, hydroquinone, 
liquid ammonia, liquid sodium hydroxide, monoethanolamine, n-butyl 
acetate, polyferric sulfate, and sodium carbonate using India import 
statistics as published by the Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of 
India covering the period April 2001 through January 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See the Factors Memorandum for discussion of our selection 
of surrogate value data for activated carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued natural gas using a price obtained from the website of 
the Gas Authority of India Ltd., a supplier of natural gas in India, 
covering the period January through June 2002. For further discussion, 
see the Factors Memorandum.
    To value paper bags and polyethylene plastic bags (i.e., the 
packing materials reported by the respondent), we used import values 
from the Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India.
    Regarding the remaining raw material factors of production reported 
by SVW, we did not value these factors because: (1) Surrogate value 
information was not available; and (2) the materials were reported as 
used in very small amounts. Moreover, we did not value certain 
treatment chemicals used in treated water in our calculation of NV. 
Rather, we classified these treatment chemicals as part of factory 
overhead, in order to avoid the possibility of double counting them. 
See the Concurrence Memorandum.
    Regarding electricity and steam, we valued each of the factors of 
production reported by SVW for which we were able to obtain surrogate 
value information (i.e., direct labor, compressed air, and steam coal) 
using the regression-based wage rate from the Department's Import 
Administration website, the input factors provided by SVW, and the 
Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India, respectively. We find 
that it is appropriate to value SVW's energy inputs in this manner 
given that the surrogate producer from which the factory overhead ratio 
is derived also produces its own electricity and steam. For further 
discussion on the valuation of electricity and steam, see the 
Concurrence Memorandum and the Factors Memorandum.
    We valued labor based on a regression-based wage rate, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    To determine factory overhead, depreciation, SG&A expenses,\11\ 
interest expenses, and profit for the finished product, we relied on 
rates derived from the financial statements of Jubilant Organosys Ltd. 
(formerly VAM Organic Chemical Ltd.), an Indian producer of comparable 
merchandise. We applied these ratios to SVW's costs (determined as 
noted above) for materials, labor, and energy, prior to the offset for 
the recovery of acetic acid. For further discussion, see the Factors 
Memorandum. See also the March 14, 2003, memorandum from the team to 
Susan Kuhbach entitled ``Treatment of Self-Produced Inputs in the Less 
Than Fair Investigation on Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic 
of China.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Because we believe that SG&A labor is not classified as 
part of the SG&A costs reflected on Jubilant's financial statements, 
we have accounted for SG&A labor hours by calculating a dollar-per-
MT labor hours amount and adding this amount to SG&A. For further 
discussion, see the March 14, 2003, memorandum from the Team, 
entitled ``U.S. Price and Factors of Production Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Determination.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, SVW reported that it generated certain by-products as a 
result of the production of PVA or the inputs used to produce PVA.\12\ 
Because either SVW did not provide sufficient information to permit the 
accurate valuation of these by-products or we were unable to obtain 
appropriate surrogate value data for them, we did not value these by-
products for the preliminary determination. For further discussion, see 
the Concurrence Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ These by-products included alkynes gas, methyl acetate, and 
PVA scrap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

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

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing 
the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject 
merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. Because the estimated weighted-average preliminary 
dumping margin for SVW is de minimis, we are not directing the Customs 
Service to suspend liquidation of entries of merchandise produced and 
exported by SVW. We are also instructing the Customs Service to require 
a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average 
dumping margin for all entries of PVA from the PRC, except for entries 
of this merchandise produced and exported by SVW. These suspension of 
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                    Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
                                                                  (in
                                                                percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works................................       0.20
PRC-wide.....................................................      97.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 13681]]

    The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise 
except for entries from exporters/producers that are identified 
individually above.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine whether these imports are materially injuring, 
or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. The deadline for 
that ITC determination would be the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after the date of our final 
determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 
seven days after the date of the final verification report issued in 
this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs must be filed five days from the 
deadline date for case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of 
contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any 
briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be 
limited to five pages total, including footnotes. See 19 CFR 351.309.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case briefs, provided that such a hearing is 
requested by any interested party. If a request for a hearing is made 
in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held two days 
after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, 
date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time. 
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if 
one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of the 
publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. See 19 
CFR 351.310.
    We will make our final determination by 135 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the 
Act.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: March 14, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-6735 Filed 3-19-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P