[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53109-53116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-22942]



[[Page 53109]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-504]


Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission 
of the Antidumping Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles From 
the People's Republic of China

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax 
candles from the People's Republic of China (PRC) in response to 
requests from Dongguan Fay Candle Co. (Fay Candle), a PRC producer and 
exporter of subject merchandise, and its U.S. importers, TIJID, Inc. 
(TIJID) (d/b/a DIJIT Inc.), and Palm Beach Home Accents, Inc. (Palm 
Beach), Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart), Qingdao Kingking Applied 
Chemistry Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Kingking), and petitioner, the National 
Candle Association (NCA). The review covers the period August 1, 2001, 
through July 31, 2002.
    We preliminary determine that sales have been made below normal 
value (NV). The preliminary results are listed below in the section 
titled ``Preliminary Results of Review.'' If these preliminary results 
are adopted in our final results, we will instruct the U.S. Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection (Customs) to assess antidumping duties on 
imports into the United States of subject merchandise exported by the 
respondents. Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
preliminary results. (See the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section 
of this notice.)

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Gannon or Mark Hoadley, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0162 or (202) 482-3148, respectively.

Background

    The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping 
duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC on August 28, 1986 (51 
FR 30686). Pursuant to its Notice of Opportunity to Request an 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 50856 (August 6, 2002), and in accordance 
with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(b) of the 
Department's regulations, the Department received timely requests to 
conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
petroleum wax candles from the PRC for 108 companies.\1\ More 
specifically, the Department received administrative review requests 
from Fay Candle, Wal-Mart (who requested a review of three Chinese 
producers), Qingdao Kingking, and petitioner, the NCA. The NCA 
requested the Department review 104 alleged Chinese candle producers/
exporters. On September 25, 2002, the Department published its Notice 
of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, Requests for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative 
Review, 67 FR 60210 (September 25, 2002) (Initiation Notice), 
initiating on all 108 candle companies for which an administrative 
review was requested.\2\ On November 18, 2002, the Department received 
a timely withdrawal from Wal-Mart of its request for an administrative 
review of the three companies for which it had requested a review 
(i.e., Generaluxe Factory, Guangdong Xin Hui City Si Qian Art & Craft 
Factory, and Sincere Factory Company). Pursuant to section 
351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, the Department rescinded 
the review as to Generaluxe Factory, Guangdong Xin Hui City Si Qian Art 
& Craft Factory, and Sincere Factory Company. See Notice of Rescission, 
in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Petroleum Wax 
Candles from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 40906 (July 9, 
2003). Therefore, there were 105 candle companies remaining for which 
an administrative review was requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although there were 109 actual requests for review, one 
company (Qingdao Kingking) individually requested a review and was 
also listed on the NCA's request for review; therefore, there were 
only 108 companies for which an administrative review was requested.
    \2\ Although the Initiation Notice lists 109 companies, Qingdao 
Kingking is listed twice since it made its own request for review 
but was also requested to be reviewed by the NCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, the Department 
determined that it was not practicable to determine individual 
weighted-average dumping margins for each exporter/producer for which a 
review was requested. Therefore, on October 11, 2002, the Department 
requested information concerning the quantity and value (Q&V) of sales 
to the United States from all 108 companies. The Department received 
responses to its request from 17 companies, including the two companies 
that had requested reviews of their own exports.\3\ Based on that 
information, the Department selected five mandatory respondents to 
examine in this review. See Memorandum from Jessica Burdick through 
Sally C. Gannon to Barbara E. Tillman, Regarding 2001-02 Administrative 
Review of Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China: 
Respondent Selection (January 29, 2003) (Respondent Selection Memo). 
The five mandatory respondents chosen were: Fay Candle, Qingdao 
Kingking, Smartcord Int'l Co. Ltd./Rich Talent Trading (Smartcord), 
Amstar Business Co., Ltd (Amstar), and Jiangsu Holly Corporation 
(Jiangsu Holly). See Respondent Selection Memo. The Department also 
determined that it would consider requests for separate rates from 
those companies that were not selected as mandatory respondents, but 
who provided Q&V information and also submitted a timely response to 
the Department's section A questionnaire. See the Department's March 
26, 2003 letter from Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office of AD/CVD 
Enforcement VII, Import Administration. Only two companies, Shandong 
Jiaye General Merchandise Co., Ltd. (Shandong Jiaye) and Shanghai 
Charming Wax Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Charming), met the criteria and 
therefore have been considered for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Department received Q&V information from an additional 
three parties to whom the Department had sent the Q&V questionnaire 
on behalf of parties listed in the initiation notice. These three 
companies stated that they were unrelated to the parties named in 
the initiation notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department issued complete questionnaires to all five mandatory 
respondents. On December 18, 2002, the Department received Fay Candle's 
and Qingdao Kingking's responses to the Department's section A-E 
questionnaires. On March 24, 2003, the Department received Smartcord's 
response to the Department's section A questionnaire. Smartcord failed 
to submit its response to sections B-E of the Department's 
questionnaire. Amstar and Jiangsu Holly failed to submit responses to 
any section of the Department's questionnaires.
    Due to the complexity of the selection process and of analyzing the 
numerous questionnaire responses, on March 26, 2003, the Department 
determined that it was not practicalbe to complete the preliminary 
results of this review within the statutory time limit. Consequently, 
in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 
351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department extended 
the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of the 
administrative review by 120 days,

[[Page 53110]]

to September 2, 2003. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 14578 
(March 26, 2003).
    On June 6, 2003, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires 
to Fay Candle and Qingdao Kingking. On June 20, 2003, the Department 
issued its second supplemental questionnaire to Qingdao Kingking. On 
June 24, 2003, the Department issued its second supplemental 
questionnaire to Fay Candle. Both Fay Candle and Qingdao Kingking 
requested an extension of time to respond to the Department's 
supplemental questionnaires, which the Department granted.
    On July 9, 2003, the Department received Fay Candle's response to 
the Department's first supplemental questionnaire. On July 11, 2003, 
the Department received Fay Candle's response to the Department's 
second supplemental questionnaire. On July 11, 2003, the Department 
received Qingdao Kingking's response to the Department's first and 
second supplemental questionnaires. On July 29, 2003, the Department 
issued its third supplemental questionnaire to Qingdao Kingking. On 
July 30, 2003, the Department issued its third supplemental 
questionnaire to Fay Candle, and the petitioner submitted publicly 
available information for consideration in valuing the factors of 
production for the preliminary calculations.
    On August 1, 2003, Qingdao Kingking and Fay Candle submitted 
publicly available information for consideration in valuing the factors 
of production for the preliminary calculations. On August 4, 2003, Fay 
Candle requested an extension of time to respond to the Department's 
third supplemental questionnaire. On August 11, 2003, the Department 
granted an extension of time to August 13, 2003, to Fay Candle to 
respond to question 2 of the Department's third supplemental 
questionnaire, and to August 14, 2003 for the remaining questions. On 
August 12, 2003, the Department received Qingdao Kingking's response to 
the Department's third supplemental questionnaire. On August 13, 2003, 
the Department received Fay Candle's response to question 2 of the 
third supplemental questionnaire. On August 14, 2004, the the 
Department received the response to the remaining questions of the 
third supplemental questionnaire. On August 21, 2003, the Department 
received comments from petitioner on the relationship between Fay 
Candle and its U.S. importers. On August 26, 2003, petitioner submitted 
information concerning what it termed the ``involuntary bankruptcy of 
TIJID, Inc.,'' for the Department to consider in examining the 
relationship between TIJID and Fay Candle.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This submission was received too late for the Department to 
examine it for purposes of the preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    The products covered by this order are certain scented or unscented 
petroleum wax candles made from petroleum wax and having fiber or 
paper-cored wicks. They are sold in the following shapes: Tapers, 
spirals, and straight-sided dinner candles; rounds, columns, pillars, 
votives; and various wax-filled containers. The products were 
classified under the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) item 
755.25, Candles and Tapers. The products are currently classified under 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item 
3406.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
proceeding remains dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2001, through July 31, 
2002.

Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    On September 25, 2002, the Department published its Initiation 
Notice, initiating on all 108 candle companies for which an 
administrative review was requested. The Department subsequently 
requested information concerning the quantity and value of sales to the 
United States from all these companies. The Department received 
responses to its request from 17 companies, five of which indicated 
that they had no sales to the United States of subject merchandise 
during the POR, citing various reasons, including: They were not a 
producer, exporter, or importer of candles during the POR; they were an 
importer of candles and not a producer/exporter; and/or they did not 
have a relationship with the alleged Chinese candle producer/exporter 
cited in petitioner's request for review. See Respondent Selection 
Memo. These companies included: Dalian Hanbo Lighting Co., Ltd. (Dalian 
Hanbo); Premier Candle Co., Ltd. (Premier Candle); Zhong Hang-Scanwell 
International (ZHS); Zen Continental Co., Inc. (Zen Continental); and 
Li & Fung Trading Ltd. (Li & Fung).
    As part of its standard procedure in administrative reviews, the 
Department reviewed data on entries under the order during the POR from 
Customs. Our review of this data revealed that one party, Li & Fung, 
which claimed it was merely a buying agent for the subject merchandise, 
may have, in fact, exported the subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR. On November 22, 2002, the Department issued a 
letter to Li & Fung, asking it to clarify whether it had exports of 
petroleum wax candles during the POR. On February 10, 2003, Li & Fung 
submitted a letter and attachments to the Department stating that it 
neither produced, sold, nor exported the subject merchandise during the 
POR, but that it merely acted as a buying agent. See Memorandum from 
Javier Barrientos through Sally Gannon to Barbara E. Tillman, Regarding 
Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, in Part (POR: 
August 1, 2001 to July 31, 2002) (September 2, 2003) (Intent to Rescind 
Memo).
    Pursuant to our regulations, the Department may rescind an 
administrative review if the Secretary concludes that, during the 
period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales 
of the subject merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). Because we have 
found no evidence that there were entries, exports, or sales of the 
subject merchandise by four of the five companies that reported no 
shipments during the current POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(3), the Department is preliminarily determining that this 
administrative review should be rescinded with respect to Dalian Hanbo, 
Premier Candle, ZHS, and Zen Continental. The Department therefore 
intends to issue a final notice of rescission of review with the final 
results of review, and to send appropriate assessment instructions to 
Customs.
    With respect to Li & Fung, information obtained from Customs does 
not substantiate Li & Fung's claim that it was merely a buying agent 
during the POR. See Intent to Rescind Memo, a business proprietary 
discussion on Li & Fung. Therefore, we do not intend to rescind the 
administrative review with respect to this company.

Application of Adverse Facts Available

    As further discussed below, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 
(B) and section 776(b) of the Act, the Department determines that the 
application of total adverse facts available (AFA) is warranted for the 
PRC entity, including the following companies: Mandatory respondents

[[Page 53111]]

Smartcord, Amstar, and Jiangsu Holly; Li & Fung; 88 companies that 
failed to respond to the Department's Q&V letter; and five companies 
who provided Q&V information to the Department, but did not demonstrate 
their eligibility for a separate rate.
    The latter five companies are: Simon Int'l Ltd.; Taizhou Int'l 
Trade Corp.; Universal Candle Co., Ltd.; Suzhou Ind'l Park Nam Kwong 
Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. (Zhongxing City, Conghuan Rd., Suzhou); and Candle 
World Industrial Co.
    Smartcord, Amstar, and Jiangsu Holly, all mandatory respondents, 
failed to respond to all or part of the Department's questionnaire for 
this POR. Smartcord responded to section A of the Department's 
questionnaire, but then failed to submit its response to sections B-E 
of the Department's questionnaire. Amstar and Jiangsu Holly failed to 
respond to any section of the Department's initial questionnaire. Li & 
Fung, who did not provide a Q&V response, reported no shipments, but 
the Department has been unable to confirm this claim. See ``Preliminary 
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review'' section above. Another 88 
companies failed to respond to the Department's Q&V letter. The five 
additional companies listed above provided Q&V information but did not 
demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate. None of these companies 
qualifies for a separate rate. Therefore, the Department is applying 
AFA to the PRC entity, of which these companies are a part. The 97 
firms (Smartcord, Amstar, Jiangsu Holly, Li & Fung, the 88 who did not 
respond to the Q&V request, and the five additional companies who did 
not qualify for a separate rate), named individually in the Initiation 
Notice, who are subject to the PRC-wide rate are listed in Attachment 
I.
    Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act provide for the 
use of facts available when an interested party withholds information 
that has been requested by the Department, or when an interested party 
fails to provide the information requested in a timely manner and in 
the form required. These 97 companies (listed in Attachment I), for the 
reasons detailed above, failed to provide information explicitly 
requested by the Department; therefore, we must resort to the facts 
otherwise available. Because these companies did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire, sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not 
applicable. In addition, section 782(c)(1) does not apply because these 
parties did not indicate that they were unable to submit the 
information required by the Department. Section 776(b) of the Act 
provides that, in selecting from among the facts available, the 
Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the 
respondent, if it determines that a party has failed to cooperate to 
the best of its ability. In applying the facts otherwise available, the 
Department has determined that an adverse inference is warranted 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
    The Department finds that, by not providing the necessary responses 
to the A&V letters or questionnaires issued by the Department, these 
companies have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. None 
of these companies cited any reason for their failure to respond. 
Neither did they indicate that they were having any difficulties in 
responding to the questionnaires or request assistance or clarification 
about the questionnaires. Without this information, the Department 
cannot calculate margins for these companies nor determine that there 
was merit for a separate rate. This information was in the sole 
possession of the respondents, and could not be obtained otherwise. 
Thus, the Department is precluded from calculating margins for these 
companies or determining eligibility for separate rates. Therefore, in 
selecting from the facts available, the Department determines that an 
adverse inference is warranted. Because the 97 companies listed in 
Attachment I did not demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate, 
we have preliminarily determined that they are subject to the PRC-wide 
rate. In accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B), and section 
776(b) of the Act, we are applying total AFA to the PRC entity, which 
includes Smartcord, Amstar, Jiangsu Holly, and the 94 other non-
cooperating companies (see Attachment I). As AFA, and as the PRC-wide 
rate, the Department is assigning these companies the rate of 95.74--
the highest rate determined in the current or any previous segment of 
this proceeding. This is the rate calculated in this review for Fay 
Candle and, thus, as discussed in the ``Corroboration of Information 
Used As Adverse Facts Available'' section below, does not need to be 
corroborated.

Corroboration of Information Used as Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides the following when the 
Department relies on the facts otherwise available:

    When the administering authority or the Commission relies on 
secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, the administering authority or 
the Commission, as the case may be, shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
that are reasonably at their disposal.

    (Emphasis added.)
    With respect to Smartcord, Amstar, Jiangsu Holly and the 94 other 
non-cooperating companies, we are applying the highest calculated rate 
from the current administrative proceeding as AFA. This rate, the rate 
calculated for Fay Candle, is also the highest rate from any other 
segment of this administrative proceeding. Accordingly, we find that it 
is unnecessary to corroborate the dumping margin calculated for Fay 
Candle in this administrative review because this rate was based on, 
and calculated from, information obtained in the course of the 
administrative review. See generally SAA at 870 (stating that 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
review is an independent course of data used to corroborate secondary 
information, such as petition information, a determination from a prior 
review, etc.). See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Solid Agricultural Grade Ammonium Nitrate from 
Ukraine, 66 FR 38632, 38634 (July 25, 2001) and Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 
52100, 52103 (Oct. 12, 2001) (unchanged in the final results).
    Furthermore, unlike other types of information, such as input costs 
or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated 
dumping margins. The only source for calculated margins is 
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if 
the Department chooses as total AFA a calculated dumping margin from 
the current or a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary 
to question the reliability of the margin for that time period. See, 
e.g., Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Italy; Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 36551, 36552 (July 11, 
1996). The information used to determine Fay Candle's margin in this 
administrative review will be fully verified and has been subject to 
the comments of both respondent and petitioner throughout this review. 
Thus, it is based on the analyzed sales and production data of Fay 
Candle, as well as on the most appropriate surrogate value information 
available to the Department, chosen from submissions by the parties as 
well as information

[[Page 53112]]

gathered by the a itself. Accordingly, we determine that the Fay 
Candle's rate is appropriate to be used in this administrative review 
as AFA in accordance with sections 776(b) and (c) of the Act.

Cooperative Companies That Merit Separate Rates

    Two PRC producers/exporters, Shandong, Jiaye and Shanghai charming, 
responded to the Department's Q&V letter, as well as the Department's 
Section A questionnaire (which includes eligibility for a separate 
rate), but were not selected as mandatory respondents. Based on our 
analysis, these two companies have demonstrated their eligibility for a 
separate rate (see ``Separate Rates'' section below). Accordingly, for 
these two companies, we have calculated a weighted-average margin based 
on the rates calculated for those producers/exporters that were 
selected as mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, 
de minimis, or based entirely on AFA. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 41347, 41350 
(August 1, 1997).

Companies That Claimed No Shipments

    With respect to five PRC producers/exporters who responded to the 
Department's A&V letter claiming that they had no shipments during the 
POR, the Department is preliminary rescinding this review, in part, 
with respect to the four producers/exporters for which the Department 
was able to confirm their claim, as follows: Dalian Hanbo, Premier 
Candle, ZHS, and Zen Continental (see ``Preliminary Partial Rescission 
of Administrative Review'' section above). The fifth producer/exporter, 
Li & Fung, will receive the AFA rate (see ``Application of Facts 
Available'' section above).

Verification

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

Separate Rates

    Fay Candle, Qingdao, Kingking, Shandong Jiaye, and Shanghai 
Charming have all requested a separate, company-specific rate.\5\ 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 export activities. To 
establish whether a company operating in an NME country is sufficiently 
independent to be eligible for a separate rate, the Department analyzes 
each exporting entity under the test established in Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic 
of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), 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). 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. De facto absence 
of government control over exports is based on four factors; (1) 
Whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) 
whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing 
of losses; (3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and 
sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has 
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Although Smartcord, a mandatory respondent, submitted a 
response to section A of the questionnaire, it did not respond to 
the remainder of the Department's questionnaire. As a mandatory 
respondent, Smartcord was required to provide complete questionnaire 
responses. Therefore, as detailed in the ``Application of Adverse 
Facts Available'' section above, adverse facts available have been 
assigned to Smartcord. As a result, Smartcord will not receive a 
separate rate for these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

De Jure Control

    With respect to the absence of de jure government control over the 
export activities of the companies reviewed and those how applied for a 
separate rate, evidence on the record indicates that Fay Candle's, 
Qingdao Kingking's, Dhandong Jiaye's, and Shanghai Charming's export 
activities are not controlled by the government. Fay Candle, Qingdao 
Kingking, Shandong Jiaye, and Shanghai Charming submitted evidence of 
their legal right to set prices independently of all government 
oversight. We find no evidence of de jure government control 
restricting Fay Candle's, Qingdao Kingking's, Shandong Jiaye's or 
Shanghai Charming's exportation of candles.
    The following laws, which have been placed on the record of this 
review, indicate a lack of de jure government control over privately-
owned companies, such as Shandong Jiaye or Shanghai Charming, and that 
control over these enterprises rests with the enterprises themselves. 
Qingdao Kingking, Fay Candle, Shandong Jiaye, and Shanghai Charming 
submitted the following laws: the Foreign Trade Law of the People's 
Republic of China, promulgated on May 12, 1994, at the Seventh session 
of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress and 
effective on July 1, 1994, the Administrative Regulations of the 
People's Republic of China Governing the Registration of Legal 
Corporations, issued on June 3, 1988, by the State Council of the PRC, 
the Law of the People's Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign 
Cooperative Joint Ventures, promulgated on April 13, 1998, by Order No. 
4 of the President of the People's Republic of China and effective from 
April 13, 1998. In addition, Qingdao Kingking and Shandong Jiaye 
submitted the Sino Foreign Equity Joint Venture Law, promulgated on 
July 1, 1979, by the Fifth National People's Congress. Qingdao Kingking 
also submitted the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, 
promulgated on December 29, 1993, at the Fifth Session of the Standing 
Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress and effective on 
July 1, 1994. The legislation placed on the record of this review 
provides that to qualify as legal persons, companies must have the 
``ability to bear civil liability independently'' and the right to 
control and manage their businesses. These regulations also state that, 
as an independent legal entity, a company is responsible for its own 
profits and losses. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of 
China, 60 FR 56045 (November 6, 1995) (Manganese Metal). Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de jure government 
control over export activity with respect to these companies.

De Facto Control

    With respect to the absence of de facto government control over the 
export activities of the companies reviewed and those who applied for a 
separate rate, evidence on the record indicates that the government has 
no

[[Page 53113]]

involvement in the determination of export prices, profit distribution, 
marketing strategy, and contract negotiations of Fay Candles, Qingdao 
Kingking, Shandong Jiaye's, and Shanghai Charming's companies. Our 
analysis indicates that there is no government involvement in the daily 
operations or the selection of management for these companies. In 
addition, we found that the Fay Candle's, Qingdao Kingking, Shandong 
Jiaye's, and Shanghai Charming's pricing and export strategy decisions 
are not subject to any governmental review or approval, and that there 
are no governmental policy directives that affect these decisions.
    With regard to Qingdao Kingking, its vice general manager has the 
right to negotiate prices and enter into contracts on behalf of Qingdao 
Kingking. There is no evidence that this authority is subject to any 
level of governmental approval. In addition, there are no restrictions 
on the use of Qingdao Kingking's export earnings. Qingdao Kingking 
reported that its general manager is selected by the board of 
directors, and subordinate management personnel are selected by the 
general manager. Qingdao Kingking is not required to notify the 
government about its management selection process.
    With regard to Fay Candle, Fay Candle's chief executive officer 
(CEO) has the authority to enter into contracts on behalf of Fay 
Candle, and it sets prices pursuant to negotiations with its importers. 
There is no evidence that this authority is subject to any level of 
governmental authority. In addition, other than the requirement that 
hard currency earnings from exports be repatriated through an account 
in a state bank, there are no restrictions on the use of Fay Candle's 
export earnings. Fay Candle reported that the entrepreneurial investors 
who own the company appoint the CEO, and the CEO selects subordinate 
management personnel. Fay Candle provides identification of company 
officials to local government authorities for contact purposes only; it 
is not required to notify the government about its management selection 
process.
    With regard to Shandong Jiaye, its export sales manager has the 
right to negotiate prices, while the general manager has the authority 
to enter into contracts on behalf of Shandong Jiaye. There is no 
evidence that this authority is subject to any level of governmental 
authority. In addition, there are no restrictions on the use of 
Shandong Jiaye's export earnings. Shandong Jiaye reported that its 
board of directors selects its general manager and the general manager 
selects subordinate management personnel. Shandong Jiaye provides the 
name of the general manager to the government for purposes of receiving 
its business license; however, it is not required to notify the 
government about its management selection process.
    With regard to Shanghai Charming, its general manager has the 
authority to set the price and to enter into contracts on behalf of 
Shanghai Charming. There is no evidence that this authority is subject 
to any level of governmental authority. In addition, there are no 
restrictions on the use of Shanghai Charming's export earnings. 
Shanghai Charming reported that its management is appointed by its 
parent company, a non-Chinese company. Shanghai Charming is not 
required to notify the government about its management selection 
process.
    Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence 
of government control, both in law and in fact, over Fay Candle's, 
Qingdao Kingking's, Shandong Jiaye's, and Shanghai Charming's export 
activities, we preliminarily determine that these companies have met 
the requirements for receiving a separate rate for purposes of this 
review.

Quantity and Value Discrepancy for Qingdao Kingking

    The Department has identified a significant discrepancy between the 
quantity and value data Qingdao Kingking reported with the quantity and 
value information that the Department identified through Customs data 
queries. The Department requested an explanation from Qingdao Kingking 
in its June 6, 2003, supplemental and received Qingdao Kingking's 
response in its July 11, 2003, submission; however, in this response, 
Qingdao Kingking did not adequately explain why there could be such a 
significant discrepancy. The Department also contacted Customs about 
this issue and will be working closely with it to determine the cause 
of this discrepancy. In addition, the Department will further examine 
this issue for the final results by requesting additional information 
from Qingdao Kingking and addressing the issue at verification.

Treatment of Fay Candle and Its U.S. Importers, TIJID and Palm Beach

    Respondent Fay Candle claimed in the questionnaire responses that 
it is affiliated with its U.S. importers, TIJID and Palm Beach. In its 
section A questionnaire response, Fay Candle submitted evidence to the 
Department concerning its corporate structure, ownership, and 
relationship to its U.S. importers, TIJID and Palm Beach. The evidence 
on the record regarding Fay Candle's relationship with TIJID and Palm 
Beach does not demonstrate that TIJID and Palm Beach were affiliated 
with Fay Candle under section 771(33) of the Act during the POR. For a 
full discussion of this issue (which includes business proprietary 
details), see Memorandum from Sebastian G. Wright through Sally C. 
Gannon to Barbara E. Tillman, Regarding Petroleum Wax Candles from the 
People's Republic of China for the Period of August 1, 2001 through 
July 31, 2002: Analysis of the Relationship between Dongguan Fay Candle 
Co., Ltd., and TIJID, Inc. and Palm Beach Home Accents, Inc. (September 
2, 2003) (Affiliation Memo). Therefore, the Department preliminarily 
finds that Fay Candle is not affiliated with TIJID and Palm Beach for 
purposes of these preliminary results and is basing its fair value 
comparisons on export price rather than constructed export price. The 
Department will continue to examine Fay Candle's relationship with its 
U.S. importers in the context of verification and for the final results 
of this administrative review.

Date of Sale

    Fay Candle and Qingdao Kingking reported various dates as the basis 
for their dates of sale. Although the Department maintains a 
presumption that invoice date is the date of sale (19 CFR 351.401(i)), 
``[i]f the Department is presented with satisfactory evidence that the 
material terms of sale are finally established on a date other than the 
date of invoice, the Department will use that alternative date as the 
date of sale.'' Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27349 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble).
    With regard to Fay Candle, it reported two distinct dates of sale 
based on the type of sale. According to Fay Candle, the terms of the 
sales transactions become fixed at different stages based on the type 
of sale. After examining the documentation placed on the record by Fay 
Candle, the Department preliminarily determines that the invoice date 
is the appropriate date of sale to use for Fay's EP sales in these 
preliminary results. Because the information regarding Fay Candle's 
dates of sale is mostly business proprietary, the Department's full 
analysis of Fay Candle's dates of sale can be found in the Memorandum 
from Sebastian Wright through Sally C. Gannon to The File, Regarding 
Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China for the 
Period of August 1, 2001 through July 31, 2002: Analysis of the Sales 
Date for Dongguan Fay Candle Co., Ltd.

[[Page 53114]]

(September 2, 2003) (Fay Candle's Date of Sale Memo). With regard to 
Qingdao Kingking, its reported date of sale is based upon invoice date 
because both quantity and price may change up to the date of invoice. 
Thus, for Qingdao Kingking, the terms of the sales transaction only 
become fixed once the actual invoice is generated. After examining the 
sales documentation placed on the record by Qingdao Kingking, the 
Department preliminarily determines that invoice date is the most 
appropriate date of sale for all sales by Qingdao Kingking.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Fay Candle 
and Qingdao Kingking were made at prices below normal value (NV), we 
compared the export price (EP) to the NV, as described in the ``Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below.

Export Price

    As discussed above in the ``Treatment of Fay Candle and Its U.S. 
Importers, TIJID and Palm Beach'' section, and as discussed in the 
Affiliation Memo, we have preliminarily determined that Fay Candle is 
not affiliated with its U.S. importers. Therefore, for Fay Candle and 
Qingdao Kingking, we based United States price on EP in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sales to unaffiliated 
purchasers were made prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise 
warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on packed 
prices from the exporter to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States. Where applicable, we deduct foreign inland freight, 
inland insurance, brokerage and handling expenses in the PRC, 
international freight, and marine insurance from the starting price 
(gross unit price) in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.

Normal Value

    For companies located in NME countries, section 773(c)(1) of the 
Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a factors-of-
production (FOP) methodology if (1) the merchandise is exported from an 
NME country, and (2) available information does not permit the 
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or 
constructed value under section 772(a) of the Act.
    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to 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 companies contested such treatment 
in these reviews. Accordingly, we have applied surrogate values to the 
factors of production to determine NV. See Memorandum from Sebastian 
Wright through Sally Gannon to The File, Regarding Factor Values 
Memorandum in the Administrative Review of Petroleum Wax Candles from 
the People's Republic of China (September 2, 2003) (Factor Values 
Memo). We calculated NV based on factors of production in accordance 
with section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section 351.408(c) of our 
regulations. Consistent with the original investigation and prior 
administrative reviews of this order, we determined that India (1) is 
comparable to the PRC in level of economic development, and (2) is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise. See Memorandum from 
Mark Hoadley through Sally Gannon to The File, Regarding Selection of 
Surrogate Country in the Administrative Review of Petroleum Wax Candles 
from the People's Republic of China (August 13, 2003) (Surrogate 
Country Memo). We valued the factors of production using publicly 
available information from India. We added freight expenses to these 
values when necessary to make then delivered prices. All import data 
were contemporaneous with the POR; therefore, no adjustments for 
inflation were necessary. For factors valued using other sources, we 
have noted below when inflation adjustments were made. The calculations 
for the inflation adjustments can be found in the Factor Values Memo.
    The Department calculated factors for approximately 100 inputs for 
this review. Except as noted below, we calculated all raw material 
inputs and packing using contemporaneous Indian import data obtained 
from the World Trade Atlas, which notes that its data was obtained from 
the Ministry of Commerce of India. Consistent with our policy, we 
excluded from this data imports into India from NME countries and 
countries providing their exporters with non-specific export subsidies. 
See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the 
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002). Also 
consistent with our policy, we excluded, in a few instances, import 
data that appeared to be aberrational. See, e.g., Memorandum to Jeff 
May, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Barbara 
Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
Group III, Regarding Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final 
Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Saccharin from 
the People's Republic of China, dated May 20, 2003, at Comment 2, page 
5, for a discussion of this issue. Complete data for these 
calculations, the calculations themselves, and full citations to 
sources for all inputs, whether based on Indian import data or not, are 
attached to the Factor Values Memo. The Factor Values Memo also 
indicates which import data were excluded, for any of the reasons 
mentioned above, and the harmonized tariff schedule section selected 
for each input in collecting Indian import data.
    We valued several factors--depending on the respondent--and 
particular freight items at the average of the market economy prices 
actually paid, because these were purchased from market economy 
countries, in market economy currencies, and in meaningful quantities.
    Factors valued using sources other than Indian import data or 
market economy purchases:
    [sbull] To value wax, we used the average Indian price for paraffin 
wax derived from rates published in Chemical Weekly for the period 
August 2001-July 2002, as found in petitioner's July 30, 2003, 
surrogate value submission, and Qingdao Kingking's August 1, 2003 
surrogate value submission. Since the petitioner's and Qingdao 
Kingking's Chemical Weekly price quotes are contemporaneous with the 
POR, we did not adjust for inflation. This price was adjusted on a tax-
exclusive basis to account for the Indian excise tax of 16 percent.
    [sbull] To value diesel oil, we used Indian commercial prices for 
diesel fuel published in the first quarter 2001 edition of the 
International Energy Agency's Energy Prices and Taxes. This price for 
diesel oil was provided exclusive of Indian excise tax. Because this 
data was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for 
inflation. See Factor Values Memo.
    [sbull] To value electricity, we used the annual report of an 
Indian chemical producer, National Peroxide Ltd. Because this data was 
not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. 
See Factor Values Memo.
    [sbull] Water was valued using the publicly available water tariff 
rates reported in the second Utilities Data Book: Asian and Pacific 
Region. This publication provides water tariff rates as of 1995-1996 
for three areas in India: Chennai, Delhi and Mumbai. We

[[Page 53115]]

averaged the rupee per cubic meter rates applicable to industrial users 
in Chennai, Delhi, and Mumbai. Because this data was not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. See 
Factor Values Memo.
    [sbull] For labor, consistent with section 351.408(c)(3) of the 
Department's regulations, we used the PRC regression-based wage rate at 
Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries, revised September 2002 (see http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). The source of the wage rate data on the Import 
Administration's Web site can be found in the Yearbook of Labour 
Statistics 2001, International Labor Office (Geneva: 2001), Chapter 5B: 
Wages in Manufacturing, and GNP data as reported in World Development 
Indicators, The World Bank, (Washington, DC (2002)).
    [sbull] To value truck freight expenses we used nineteen Indian 
price quotes as reported in the February 14, 2000 issue of The 
Financial Express, which were used in the antidumping duty 
investigation of certain circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from 
the PRC. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Certain Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the 
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 36570 (May 24, 2002) (China Pipe). 
Because this data was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the 
rate for inflation. See Factor Values Memo.
    [sbull] To value factory overhead, selling, general, and 
administrative expenses, and profit we used information reported in the 
January, 2001 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin, ``Statement 1--Combined 
Income, Value of Production, Expenditure and Appropriation Accounts, 
Industry Group-wise'' of that report for the Indian metals and 
chemicals (and products thereof) industries. The Department attempted 
to find, through Internet searches and contacts with the U.S. Foreign 
Commercial Service, financial statements for a candle producer in 
India, but was unable to do so.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified 
by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the dumping 
margins for the period of August 1, 2001 through July 31, 2002, to be 
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongguan Fay Candle Co., Ltd.................................      95.74
Qingdao Kingking Applied Chemistry Co., Ltd..................      13.64
Shanghai Charming Wax Co., Ltd...............................      86.95
Shandong Jiaye General Merchandise Co., Ltd..................      86.95
PRC-Wide Rate................................................      95.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
petroleum wax candles from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the 
final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed PRC and non-
PRC exporters with separate rates, the cash deposit rates will be the 
company-specific rates established for the most recent period; (3) for 
all other PRC exporters, the rate will be the PRC-wide rate, which is 
now 95.74 percent; and (4) for all other non-PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These 
deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have 
calculated an exporter/importer-specific assessment rate for 
merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue 
appropriate assessment instructions directly to Customs within 15 days 
of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct 
Customs to assess the resulting assessment rates, where appropriate, on 
the entered Customs quantity for the subject merchandise for each of 
the importer's entries during the review period.

Notification of Interested Parties

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of the 
proceedings in this review in accordance with 19 CFR351.224(b). Any 
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of 
this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's 
regulations. The Department will notify interested parties of the 
hearing date of this proceeding, if one is requested, and such hearing 
will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20230. Individuals who wish 
to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20230. 
Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, 
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) 
to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be 
raised at the hearing.
    Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice in accordance with section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's 
regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must 
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within 
five days after the case brief is filed. If a hearing is held, the 
presentations will be limited only to arguments raised in the case and 
rebuttal briefs. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, 
and place of the hearing 48 hours before the schedule time. The 
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, 
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the 
briefs, within 120 days from the date of publication of these 
preliminary results, unless the time limit is extended.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 351.402(f)(2) of the Department's 
regulations 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

[[Page 53116]]

assessment of double antidumping duties.

     This administration review and notice are issued and published 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 2, 2003.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Attachment I

    Companies Listed in the Initiation Notice that are Subject to 
the PRC-Wide Rate (97 Companies):

ADP (Ningbo, PRC)
ADP Shanghai
Allock Ltd.
Amstar Business Company Limited
Anyway International Trading & Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Aroma Consumer Products (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd.
Candle World Industrial Co.
China Hebei Boye Great Nation Candle Co., Ltd.
China Overseas Trading Dalian Corp.
China Packaging Import & Export Liaoning Co.
China Xinxing Zhongyuan (Wuhan) Imp. & Exp.
CNACC (Zhejiang) Imports & Export Co., Ltd.
Cnart China Gifts Import & Export Corp.
Dandong Hengtong Handicraft Article Co., Ltd.
Dandong Hengtong Handicraftarticle Co., Ltd.
DDP Qingdao
Dongijeng Fecund Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.
Ever-gain Industrial Co.
Excel Network Limited
Far Going Candle Gifts Co., Ltd.
Fu Kit
Fujian Provincial Arts & Crafts Imp. & Exp. Corp.
Fushun Candle Corporation
Fushun Economy Development Zone Xinyang Candle Factory
Fushun Huaiyuan Wax Products Co., Ltd.
Fushun Yuanhang Paraffin Products Industrial Company
Fushun Yuhua Crafts Factory
Gansu Textiles Imp. & Exp. Corp.
Green Islands Industry Shanghai Co., Ltd.
Huangyan Imp. & Exp. Corp.
Huangyan Imp. & Exp. Corp.
Jason Craft Corp.
Jiangsu Holly Corporation
Jiangsu Yixing Foreign Trade Corp.
Jilin Province Arts and Crafts
Jintan Foreign Trade Corp.
Kingking A.C. Co., Ltd.
Kuehne & Nagel (Hon Kong) Beijing
Kwung's International Trade Co., Ltd.
LI & Fung Trading Ltd.
Liaoning Arts & Crafts Import & Export
Liaoning Light
Liaoning Light Industrial Products Import & Export Corp.
Liaoning Native Product Import & Export Corporation, Ltd.
Liaoning Province Building Materials Industrial Im
Liaoning Xinyuan Textiles Import and Export
Lu Ke Trading Co., Ltd.
Ningbo Free Trade Zone Weicheng Trading Co., Ltd.
Ningbo Free Zone Top Rank Trading Co.
Ningbo Kwung's Giftware Co., Ltd.
Ningbo Kwung's Import & Export Co.
Ningbo Sincere Designers & Manufacturers Ltd.
Qingdao Allite Radiance Candle Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Happy Chemical Products Co., Ltd.
Quanzhou Wenbao Light Industry Co.
Red Sun Arts Manufacture (Yixing) Co., Ltd.
Rich Talent Trading Ltd./Smartcord Int'l Co., Ltd.
Round-the-World (USA) Corp.
Round-the-World International Trade & Trans. Service (Tianjin) Co., 
Ltd.
Seven Seas Candle Ltd.
Shandong H&T Corp.
Shandong Native Produce International Trading Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Arts and Crafts Company
Shanghai Asian Development Int'l Tr
Shanghai Broad Trading Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Gift & Travel Products Import & Export Corp.
Shanghai Gifts & Travel
Shanghai Jerry Candle Co., Ltd.
Shanghai New Star Im/Ex Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Ornate Candle Art Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Shen Hong Corp.
Shanghai Sincere Gifts Designers & Manufacturers, Ltd.
Shanghai Success Arts & Crafts Factory
Shanghai Xietong Group O/B Asia 2 Trading Company
Shanghai Zhen Hua c/o Shanghai Light Industrial Int'l Corp., Ltd.
Silkroad Gifts
Simon Int'l Ltd.
Suzhou Ind'l Park Nam Kwong Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. (No. 339 East Baodai 
Road, Suzhou)
Suzhou Ind'l Park Nam Kwong Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. (Zhongxing City, 
Conghuan Rd., Suzhou)
T.H.I. (HK) Ltd.
Taizhou Int'l Trade Corp.
Taizhou Sungod Gifts Co., Ltd.
THI (HK) Ltd.
Thi Group Ltd. and THI (HK) Ltd.
Tianjin Native Produce Import & Export Group Corp., Ltd.
Tonglu Tiandi
Universal Candle Co., Ltd.
Weltach
World Way International (Xiamen)
World-Green (Shangdong) Corp., Ltd.
Xiamen Aider Import & Export Company
Xiamen C&D Inc.
Xietong (Group) Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp.
Zhong Nam Industrial (International) Co., Ltd.
Zhongnam Candle
Zhongxing Shenyang Commercial Building (Group) Co., Ltd.

[FR Doc. 03-22942 Filed 9-8-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DS-M