[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44921-44924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-19516]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-847]


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

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, and one exporter of subject merchandise, Shanghai Ai Jian 
Import and Export Corporation. The period of review is July 1, 2001, 
through June 30, 2002.
    We have preliminarily determined that U.S. sales have been made at 
not less than 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: July 31, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Strollo or Gregory E. Kalbaugh, 
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 and (202) 482-3693, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On July 2, 2002, 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, 2001, through June 30, 2002. 
See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 67 FR 
44172 (July 1, 2002).
    On July 31, 2002, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the 
petitioner, FMC Corporation, requested an administrative review of 
Shanghai Ai Jian Import & Export Corporation. In addition, on July 31, 
2002, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b), Shanghai Ai Jian Import and 
Export Corporation and Shanghai Ai Jian Reagent Works (collectively, Ai 
Jian) requested an administrative review. In its request for an 
administrative review, Ai Jian also requested that the Department 
partially revoke the antidumping duty order on persulfates with respect 
to Ai Jian's sales of subject merchandise. We published a notice of 
initiation of this review on August 27, 2002. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests 
for Revocation in Part, 67 FR 55000 (August 27, 2002) (Persulfates 
Initiation).
    On August 1, 2002, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to Ai 
Jian. We received Ai Jian's timely responses to sections A, C and D of 
the questionnaire on October 15, 2002.
    We issued a supplemental questionnaire to Ai Jian on December 10, 
2002. We received Ai Jian's response to this supplemental questionnaire 
on January 6, 2003.
    On January 10, 2003, the petitioner submitted publicly available 
information for consideration in valuing the factors of production. On 
January 17, 2003, Ai Jian provided rebuttal comments regarding the 
surrogate values submitted by the petitioner.
    On February 12, 2003, we issued a second supplemental questionnaire 
to Ai Jian.
    On February 19, 2003, the petitioners submitted information 
regarding the purported impact revocation of the antidumping duty order 
on Ai Jian would have upon the domestic industry.
    On February 27, 2003, Ai Jian submitted a response to the second 
supplemental questionnaire.
    On March 11, 2003, we issued a third supplemental questionnaire to 
Ai Jian. Ai Jian submitted its response on March 19, 2003.
    Also, on March 19, 2003, Ai Jian withdrew its request for 
revocation. Accordingly, we have not considered this request further in 
this segment of the proceeding.

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. Potassium persulfates are 
currently classifiable under subheading 2833.40.10 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Sodium persulfates are 
classifiable under HTSUS subheading 2833.40.20. Ammonium and other 
persulfates are classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 2833.40.50 and 
2833.40.60. 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 final 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, 68 FR 6712, (February 10, 2003) (Persulfates 
Fourth

[[Page 44922]]

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 Fourth 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. Therefore, we have granted Ai Jian a 
separate rate for purposes of this administrative review.

Export Price

    For Ai Jian, we calculated export price (EP) in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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 obtained publicly-available 
information which was published in the February through June 2002 
editions of Chemical Weekly. For foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, we used price quotes obtained by the Department in the 1998-
1999 antidumping duty investigation and recently used in the 2001-2002 
antidumping duty administrative review of synthetic indigo from the 
People's Republic of China. 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)\1\ and Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 68 FR 11371, 11372 (March 10, 2003). We inflated the per 
kilogram price quote (in rupees) to the POR using WPI data. For marine 
insurance, we valued marine insurance using 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,'' 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 
(CRU), Room B-099 of the main Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. See the November 
20, 2002, memorandum from Jeffrey May to Louis Apple entitled 
``Surrogate Country Selection,'' 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 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 From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Notice of Partial Rescission, 67 FR 50866, 50868 (August 6, 2002).\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 to value the various factors of production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This finding was unchanged in the final results. See 
Persulfates Fourth 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. 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 the petitioner in its January 10, 2003, submission. 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

[[Page 44923]]

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 anhydrous ammonia, we relied on import prices 
contained in the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India 
(Monthly Statistics). All values were contemporaneous with the POR; 
therefore, it was not necessary to adjust for inflation.
    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 Fourth 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).
    To value electricity, we used the 2000-2001 average rate for 
industrial consumption as published in the Government of India's 
Planning Commission report, The Working of State Electricity Boards & 
Electricity Departments Annual Report (2001-02). For further 
discussion, see the FOP Memo.
    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, paper bags, and wood 
pallets--we relied upon Indian import data from the Monthly Statistics.
    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 our 
practice, for inputs for which we used CIF 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 (November 20, 1997) 
and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma 
Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses 
(SG&A), and profit, we relied on the experience of a producer of 
identical merchandise, Gujarat Persalts (P) Ltd. (Gujarat), as 
reflected in its 2000-2001 financial statements.\3\ See the FOP Memo. 
Consistent with our practice, we did not rely on the 2001-2002 
financial statements of a producer of comparable merchandise (i.e., 
National Peroxide Ltd.), as requested by the petitioner, because this 
producer did not produce persulfates during its fiscal year.\4\ See 
Persulfates Fourth Review Final and accompanying decision memorandum at 
Comments 8, 9, and 10. Because the petitioner has provided no new 
information which would cause us to reconsider our decision on this 
issue, we do not find any reason to alter our decision in the instant 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Because we believe that SG&A labor is not classified as part 
of the SG&A costs reflected on Gujarat'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 July 31, 2003, memorandum from the Team, 
entitled ``U.S. Price and Factors of Production Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Determination.''
    \4\ As explained in Persulfates Fourth Review Final, although 
the Department generally prefers data which is more contemporaneous 
with the POR, contemporaneity is not the only criterion taken into 
consideration. The Department's NME practice establishes a 
preference for selecting surrogate value sources that are producers 
of identical merchandise. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the 
period July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 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 U.S. Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection (BCBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement 
instructions directly to the BCBP 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 (i.e., less than 0.50 
percent), 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) for all other non-PRC 
exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC to the United States, the 
cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that 
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

[[Page 44924]]

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 25, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-19516 Filed 7-30-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P