[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66800-66810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-29721]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-884]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television 
Receivers 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 certain color television 
receivers

[[Page 66801]]

from the People's Republic of China are being, or are 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. In addition, we 
preliminarily determine that there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of 
subject merchandise from the People's Republic of China.
    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: November 28, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Elizabeth Eastwood, 
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) 482-0656 or (202) 482-3874, respectively.

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that certain color television receivers 
(CTVs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) are being sold, or are 
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. In addition, we 
preliminarily determine that there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to CTVs from all 
exporters in the PRC. The critical circumstances analysis for the 
preliminary determination is discussed below under the section 
``Critical Circumstances.''

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation (Notice of Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Color Television Receivers 
From Malaysia and the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 32013 (May 29, 
2003)) (Initiation Notice), the following events have occurred: On June 
16, 2003, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) 
preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that 
imports of certain color televisions from Malaysia and the People's 
Republic of China are materially injuring the United States industry. 
See ITC Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1034 and 1035 (Certain Color 
Television Receivers from China and Malaysia, 68 FR 38089 (June 26, 
2003)).
    Also on June 16, 2003, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to 
the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) 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 for Import & 
Export of Machinery & Electronic Products, to all companies identified 
in U.S. customs data as exporters of the subject merchandise during the 
POI with shipments in commercial quantities, and to any additional 
companies identified in the petition as exporters of CTVs. These 
companies included: Gain Star International Ltd. (Gain Star); Guangdong 
Stationery & Sporting Goods Import & Export Corporation (Guangdong 
Stationery); Haier Electric Appliances International Co. (Haier); 
Hisense Import and Export Co., Ltd. (Hisense); Konka Group Company, 
Ltd. (Konka); New Great Wall Digital Electronics Co.; Philips Consumer 
Electronics Co. of Suzhou Ltd. (Philips); Sichuan Changhong Electric 
Co., Ltd. (Changhong); Sanyo Sales & Marketing Corp.; Shanghai SVW DD 
and TT Electronic Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Star Light Electronics Co., 
Ltd. (Star Light); Supra Corporation (Supra); SVA Group Co., Ltd. 
(SVA); TCL Holding Company Ltd. (TCL); and Xiamen Overseas Chinese 
Electornic Co., Ltd. (XOCECO). The letters sent to MOFCOM and 
individual exporters provided deadlines for responses to the different 
sections of the questionnaire.
    On June 18, 2003, XOCECO requested that high definition televisions 
(HDTVs) be excluded from the scope of this investigation. For further 
discussion, see the ``Scope Comments'' section of this notice, below.
    On June 24, 2003, we issued a courtesy copy of the questionnaire to 
XS Cargo, an additional exporter of PRC CTVs to the United States.
    Also on June 24, 2003, Guangdong Stationery informed the Department 
that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POI. For further discussion, see the June 24, 2003, memorandum from 
Jill Pollack to the file entitled ``Placing Information on the Record 
in the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Color Television Receivers 
from the People's Republic of China (PRC).''
    On June 25, 2003, XS Cargo informed the Department that it also did 
not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, but 
merely returned broken sets purchased in the United States. For further 
discussion, see the June 25, 2003, memorandum from Shawn Thompson to 
the file entitled ``Telephone Conversation with a Third Country 
Exporter in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Color 
Television Receivers from the People's Republic of China.''
    On June 30, 2003, an additional PRC exporter of CTVs, Shenzhen 
Chaungwei-RGB Electronics Co., Ltd. (Skyworth), contacted the 
Department and requested that it be issued a copy of the questionnaire. 
We provided a copy to Skyworth on July 1, 2003.
    From July 7 through July 21, 2003, we received responses to section 
A of the questionnaire from the following exporters: Changhong, Haier, 
Hisense, Konka, Philips, Skyworth, Starlight International Holdings, 
Ltd. (the parent company of Star Light, Star Fair Electronics Co. Ltd., 
and Starlight Marketing Development Ltd.), SVA, TCL, and XOCECO. We did 
not receive properly-filed section A responses from any other 
company.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In July 2003, we also received improperly-filed section A 
responses from Gain Star and Supra. Neither company responded to our 
request to file its response properly, despite the fact that we 
afforded each an additional opportunity to do so and we provided 
explicit instructions as to how to file properly; therefore, we have 
returned these responses to Gain Star and Supra and will not 
consider these responses for purposes of this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 15, 2003, Changhong requested that the Department find that 
the CTV industry in the PRC is a market-oriented industry (MOI). On 
July 21, 2003, the Department notified Changhong that its MOI claim 
must be made on behalf of the CTV industry as a whole, rather than on 
behalf of a specific exporter. Also on July 21, 2003, the petitioners 
submitted a letter in which they opposed Changhong's claim that the 
CTVs industry is market-oriented.
    On July 22, 2003, pursuant to section 777A(c) of the Act, the 
Department determined that, due to the large number of exporters of the 
subject merchandise, it would limit the number of mandatory respondents 
in this investigation. Therefore, we selected Changhong, Konka, TCL, 
and XOCECO as the mandatory respondents, in addition to the PRC 
government. The Department also issued a separate memorandum concerning 
those exporters and producers who submitted a complete response to 
section A of the questionnaire and the conditions under which they may 
be considered for treatment other than inclusion in the rate applicable 
to the government-controlled enterprise. For further

[[Page 66802]]

discussion, see the ``Respondent Selection'' section of this notice, 
below, and the July 22, 2003, memorandum from the team to the file 
entitled ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Color Television 
Receivers from the People's Republic of China--Selection of 
Respondents'' (the ``Respondent Selection memo''). See also the 
``Margins for Exporters Whose Responses Were Not Analyzed'' section of 
this notice, below.
    On July 24, 2003, the Department invited interested parties to 
comment on surrogate country selection and to provide publicly 
available information for valuing the factors of production.
    On July 31, 2003, the petitioners submitted comments opposing 
XOCECO's June 18, 2003, scope exclusion request.
    During July and August 2003, we issued supplemental section A 
questionnaires to each of the four mandatory participating respondents 
in this case (i.e., Changhong, Konka, TCL, and XOCECO) as well as to 
each of the exporters not selected as mandatory respondents which 
properly filed a section A response. We received responses to these 
questionnaires in August 2003.
    From August 1 through August 22, 2003, we received responses to the 
remaining sections of the questionnaire from the four participating 
mandatory respondents, as well as two exporters who requested to be 
examined on a voluntary basis (i.e., Haier and Philips).
    On August 12, 2003, Changhong, Philips, TCL, and XOCECO submitted 
additional information related to the claim that the CTVs industry in 
the PRC is market-oriented.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Changhong provided additional documentation supporting this 
claim on August 20, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From August 18 through October 24, 2003, we issued supplemental 
questionnaires to Changhong, Konka, TCL, and XOCECO. We received 
responses to these questionnaires from August 26 through October 31, 
2003.
    On August 22, 2003, the petitioners responded to the respondents' 
August 12, 2003, MOI submission. Also on August 22, 2003, the 
petitioners submitted information on surrogate values. On September 5, 
2003, Skyworth submitted company-specific information to support the 
MOI claim made in this case. Also on September 5, 2003, we received 
information related to surrogate values from Changhong, Philips, and 
TCL, as well as comments on surrogate country selection from Haier.
    On September 9, 2003, Haier submitted company-specific information 
to support the MOI claim made in this case.
    On September 15, 2003, we notified Changhong, Philips, TCL, and 
XOCECO that their MOI claim did not sufficiently address the three 
prongs of the Department's MOI test, and that, as a consequence, we 
were unable to conclude that the experiences of the firms making the 
claim are representative of the industry. In the letter, we provided 
further guidance as to what was necessary for an MOI investigation. 
Copies of this letter were also provided to Haier, Skyworth, and the 
PRC government.
    On September 16, 2003, Changhong, Haier, Philips, TCL, and XOCECO 
responded to the petitioners' August 22, 2003, comments on the MOI 
issue.
    On September 17, 2003, pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.205(f), the Department determined that the case was 
extraordinarily complicated and postponed the preliminary determination 
until no later than November 21, 2003. See Postponement of Preliminary 
Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Color 
Television Receivers From Malaysia (A-557-812) and the People's 
Republic of China (A-570-884), 68 FR 55372 (Sept. 25, 2003).
    From October 3 through November 3, 2003, the petitioners submitted 
additional surrogate value information. Changhong provided comments on 
certain of these submissions on October 16, October 31, and November 6, 
2003.
    Also on October 16, 2003, the petitioners alleged that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of CTVs from the PRC. 
Accordingly, pursuant to section 732(e) of the Act, on October 17, 
2003, we requested information from Changhong, Konka, TCL, and XOCECO 
regarding monthly shipments to the United States during the period 
January 2001 through October 2003. We received the requested 
information on October 31 and November 3, 2003. The critical 
circumstances analysis for the preliminary determination is discussed 
below under ``Critical Circumstances.''
    On October 24 and October 31, 2003, Changhong submitted additional 
information related to surrogate values.
    On October 30, 2003, we issued an additional supplemental 
questionnaire to Changhong. We received Changhong's responses to this 
questionnaire on November 10, 2003, and November 12, 2003. Although 
these responses were received too late for use in the preliminary 
determination, we intend to verify this information and consider it for 
use in the final determination.
    On October 31, 2003, Changhong submitted a request regarding its 
MOI claim, stating that before making its final determination in this 
case, the Department should identify any additional specific MOI 
information required from the PRC CTVs producers.
    On November 10, 2003, the petitioners submitted additional 
surrogate value information. Although this information was received too 
late for use in the preliminary determination, we will consider it for 
use in the final determination.
    Also on November 10, 2003, Konka requested that the Department 
postpone the final determination until 135 days after the publication 
of the preliminary determination. For further discussion, see the 
``Postponement of Final Determination'' section of this notice.

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 November 10, 2003, Konka, which represents a significant 
proportion of exports, requested that the Department postpone its final 
determination until 135 days after the publication of the preliminary 
determination. Konka 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., May 2002). Therefore, in this case, the POI is

[[Page 66803]]

October 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003.

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the term ``certain color 
television receivers'' includes complete and incomplete direct-view or 
projection-type cathode-ray tube color television receivers, with a 
video display diagonal exceeding 52 centimeters, whether or not 
combined with video recording or reproducing apparatus, which are 
capable of receiving a broadcast television signal and producing a 
video image. Specifically excluded from this investigation are computer 
monitors or other video display devices that are not capable of 
receiving a broadcast television signal.
    The color television receivers subject to this investigation are 
currently classifiable under subheadings 8528.12.2800, 8528.12.3250, 
8528.12.3290, 8528.12.4000, 8528.12.5600, 8528.12.3600, 8528.12.4400, 
8528.12.4800, and 8528.12.5200 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

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 68 FR at 
32013). Interested parties submitted such comments by June 18, 2003.
    Pursuant to the Department's solicitation of scope comments in the 
Initiation Notice, XOCECO requested that HDTVs be excluded from the 
scope of this investigation because: (1) These CTVs are produced by the 
petitioners only in limited amounts; and (2) they differ from the CTVs 
covered by the scope of the investigation in terms of physical 
characteristics, ultimate uses, purchaser expectations, channels of 
trade, and the manner of advertising and display. On July 31, 2003, the 
petitioners opposed this request.
    After considering the respondent's comments and the petitioners' 
objections to XOCECO's request regarding HDTVs, we find that the CTVs 
in question fall within the scope of this investigation. All CTVs, 
including the CTVs in question, have the same fundamental 
characteristics--that is they are capable of receiving a broadcast 
signal and displaying a video image. Therefore, we conclude that all 
CTVs, including HDTVs, are appropriately included in the scope of this 
investigation, and constitute a single class or kind of merchandise. 
For a further discussion, see the November 21, 2003, memorandum to 
Louis Apple, Director, Office 2 from the team entitled ``Scope 
Exclusion Request.''

Respondent Selection

    In June 2003, the Department designated the PRC government as the 
mandatory respondent in this case and issued it the questionnaire for 
distribution to appropriate parties. The Department also sent courtesy 
copies of the questionnaire to PRC companies which the Department 
identified as exporters/producers of subject merchandise.
    In July 2003, we received section A responses from 12 producers/
exporters of CTVs in the PRC. Each of these exporters requested to be 
selected as a respondent in this case and requested a separate rate. In 
addition, we received information from two additional companies issued 
a questionnaire indicating that they did not export CTVs to the United 
States during the POI. We did not receive responses from the remaining 
companies who were sent courtesy copies of the questionnaire.
    On July 22, 2003, the Department determined that it did not have 
the resources to investigate all producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise requesting a separate rate. Rather, we found that it was 
practicable to examine a maximum of four producers/exporters. 
Therefore, we selected as mandatory respondents in this case the four 
companies with the largest export volumes during the POI (i.e., 
Changhong, Konka, TCL, and XOCECO). For further discussion, see the 
Respondent Selection memo.

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 and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron 
Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395, 61396 
(Oct. 28, 2003). 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.

Market Oriented Industry

    On July 15, 2003, Changhong requested that the Department make a 
determination that the CTV industry in the PRC is an MOI. Changhong 
submitted certain company-specific data in support of its request. On 
July 21, 2003, the petitioners submitted a letter in which they opposed 
Changhong's claim that the CTVs industry is market-oriented. 
Specifically, the petitioners stated that Changhong has not provided 
evidence to support its claim that the majority of its material inputs 
are valued at market prices. The petitioners also stated that Changhong 
has not provided evidence to rebut allegations that the PRC government 
regulates prices in the CTV industry, and that CTV producers in the PRC 
have been assisted by direct government involvement in financing, 
advertising, labor, utilities, currency exchange, and government 
ownership of CTV-producing companies.
    Also on July 21, 2003, the Department notified Changhong that its 
MOI claim must be made on behalf of the CTV industry as a whole, rather 
than on behalf of a specific exporter. On August 12, 2003, Changhong, 
Konka, Philips, TCL, and XOCECO submitted additional information 
related to the claim that the CTVs industry in the PRC is market-
oriented. On August 22, 2003, the petitioners responded to this 
submission. In their August 22, 2003, submission, the petitioners 
stated that the respondents' August 12, 2003, submission did not 
provide data on substantially all of the CTV industry in the PRC and 
that the respondents did adequately address the allegations contained 
in the petitioners' July 21, 2003, submission, i.e., that non-market 
economy forces in the PRC have a significant impact on the CTV industry 
and distort the true cost of production.
    On September 5 and September 9, 2003, Skyworth and Haier, 
respectively, submitted company-specific information to support the MOI 
claim made in this case.
    On September 15, 2003, we notified Changhong, Konka, Philips, TCL, 
and XOCECO that their MOI claim did not

[[Page 66804]]

sufficiently address the three prongs of the Department's MOI test (see 
below), and that, as a consequence, we were unable to conclude that the 
experiences of the firms making the claim are representative of the 
industry. Copies of this letter were also provided to Haier, Skyworth, 
and the PRC government. On September 16, 2003, Changhong, Haier, 
Philips, TCL, and XOCECO responded to the petitioners' August 22, 2003, 
comments on the MOI issue, but they did not address the Department's 
concerns.
    On October 31, 2003, Changhong submitted a request regarding its 
MOI claim, stating that before making its final determination in this 
case, the Department should identify the specific MOI information 
required from the PRC CTV producers.
    In order to consider a MOI claim, the Department requires 
information on each of the three prongs of the MOI test regarding the 
situation and experience of the PRC CTV industry as a whole. 
Specifically, the MOI test requires that: (1) There be virtually no 
government involvement in production or prices for the industry; (2) 
the industry is marked by private or collective ownership that behaves 
in a manner consistent with market considerations; and (3) producers 
pay market-determined prices for all major inputs, and for all but an 
insignificant proportion of minor inputs. Even in those cases where the 
number of investigated firms is limited by the Department, a MOI 
allegation must cover all (or virtually all) of the producers in the 
industry in question. 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, 
69725 (Dec. 14, 1999). See also 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, 41353 (Aug. 1, 1997).
    As a threshold matter, we note that the respondents have not 
provided information for the record that covers virtually all of the 
producers of the industry. Rather, the respondents provided certain 
data related to companies which appear to be export-oriented without 
demonstrating that this data applies equally to other CTV producers 
within the PRC. Because the MOI allegation made in this case has not 
provided an adequate basis for considering the three factors of the 
Department's MOI test, we are unable to consider the MOI request.

Separate Rates

    In an NME proceeding, the Department presumes that all companies 
within the country are subject to governmental control and should be 
assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless the respondent 
demonstrates the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental 
control over its export activities. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic 
of China, 61 FR 19026, 19027-28 (Apr. 30, 1996) (Bicycles). Changhong, 
Konka, TCL, XOCECO, and the cooperative non-selected exporters named in 
the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section below have provided the 
requested company-specific separate rates information and have 
indicated that there is no element of government ownership or control 
over their export operations. We have considered whether the mandatory 
respondents are eligible for a separate rate as discussed below.
    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 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 
Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758-60 (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 Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Honey from the People's 
Republic of China, 60 FR 14725, 14727 (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 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 
22585, 25586-87 (May 2, 1994) (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 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995) (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.
    The mandatory respondents have 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); \3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 the mandatory respondents, CTV exports are not 
affected by export licensing provisions or export quotas. These 
respondents claim to have autonomy in setting the contract prices for 
sales of CTVs through independent price negotiations with their foreign 
customers without interference from the PRC government. Based on the 
assertions of the respondents, we preliminarily determine that there is 
an absence of de jure government control over the pricing and marketing 
decisions of the respondents with respect to their CTV export sales.

[[Page 66805]]

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 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256 (Dec. 
31, 1998). 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 independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Id.
    The mandatory respondents have asserted the following: (1) They 
establish their own export prices; (2) they negotiate contracts without 
guidance from any governmental entities or organizations; (3) they make 
their own personnel decisions; and (4) they retain the proceeds of 
their export sales and use profits according to their business needs. 
Additionally, the respondents' questionnaire responses indicate that 
they do 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 the mandatory 
respondents have met the criteria for the application of separate 
rates.

Margins for Cooperative Exporters Not Selected

    For those exporters: (1) Who submitted a timely response to section 
A of the Department's questionnaire, but were not selected as mandatory 
respondents, and (2) for whom the section A response indicates that the 
exporter is eligible for a separate rate, we assigned a weighted-
average of the rates of the fully analyzed companies, excluding any 
rates that were zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. 
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, 36571 (May 24, 2002) (Welded Steel 
Pipe). Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in the 
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

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 the PRC and the fact that 
U.S. import statistics show that the responding companies did not 
account for all imports into the United States from the PRC, we have 
preliminarily determined that certain PRC exporters of CTVs 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., Bicycles, 61 FR at 19028; 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 (Feb. 4, 2000). MOFCOM 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, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000) and 
accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 1. In this case, the 
preliminary AFA margin is 78.45 percent, which is the highest margin 
stated in the notice of initiation. See Initiation Notice, 68 FR at 
32016.

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

[[Page 66806]]

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 for this purpose. See the May 22, 2003, 
Initiation Checklist, on file in the Central Records Unite (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 CTVs to the prices submitted by the 
mandatory respondents. In order to corroborate the petitioners' NV 
calculation, we compared the petitioners' factor consumption and/or 
surrogate value data for CTVs to the data reported by the respondents 
for the most significant factors--color picture tubes (CPTs), cabinets, 
woofer speakers, remotes with tuners, other parts and components, 
electricity, factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses, profit, and packing expenses--and to surrogate values 
selected by the Department for the preliminary determination, as 
discussed below.
    As discussed in the November 21, 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 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, 78.45 percent, is corroborated within the meaning of 
section 776(c) of the Act. For further discussion, see the November 21, 
2003, memorandum from the team to the file entitled ``Corroboration of 
Data Contained in the Petition for Assigning an Adverse Facts Available 
Rate.''

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of CTVs from the PRC were made at LTFV, 
we compared the EP or constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as 
described in the ``Export Price/Constructed 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 and CEPs by product to the appropriate product-specific NV.

Export Price/Constructed Export Price

A. Changhong

    For Changhong, we used EP methodology in accordance with section 
772(a) of the Act because the subject merchandise was sold directly to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation and 
CEP methodology was not otherwise appropriate. 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, 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 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.
    With respect to ocean freight, Changhong asserted that it used both 
PRC and market-economy suppliers for its shipments of CTVs. However, 
based on Changhong's submitted information, we could only establish 
that one of Changhong's market-economy carriers charged market-economy 
prices. Specifically, Changhong's questionnaire responses indicate 
that, for Changhong's remaining market-economy carriers, ocean freight 
was paid to a PRC company, not a market-economy supplier. Therefore, we 
valued ocean freight expenses for Changhong's remaining market-economy 
carriers, as well as its PRC carriers, using the substantiated market-
economy carrier's rates. For further discussion, see the November 21, 
2003, memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood to the file entitled, ``U.S. 
Price and Factors of Production Adjustments for Sichuan Changhong 
Electric Co., Ltd. for the Preliminary Determination.''
    Where appropriate, we adjusted the values to reflect inflation up 
to the POI using the wholesale price indices (WPI) or the purchase 
price indices (PPI) published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), 
as appropriate.

B. Konka

    For Konka, we used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) 
of the Act because the subject merchandise was sold directly to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation and 
CEP methodology was not otherwise appropriate. We based EP on the 
packed FOB PRC 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 and foreign brokerage and handling. 
As certain of these movement services were provided by NME suppliers, 
we valued them using Indian rates. For further discussion of these 
values, see the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice, below.

C. TCL

    For TCL, we used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) 
of the Act because the subject merchandise was sold directly to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation and 
CEP methodology was not otherwise appropriate. In accordance with our 
practice, we excluded sales made to the United States through a 
Japanese reseller as well as a sample sale to the United States from 
our analysis for purposes of the preliminary determination because they 
were made in small quantities. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 
Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Japan, 64 FR 8291, 8295 (Feb. 19, 
1999) and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than

[[Page 66807]]

Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 21319, 
21322-23 (Apr. 30, 2001).
    We based EP on the packed FOB PRC prices to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses, in 
accordance with 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where 
appropriate, foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling. 
As certain of these movement services were provided by NME suppliers, 
we valued them using Indian rates. For further discussion of these 
values, see the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice, below.

D. XOCECO

    For XOCECO, we used CEP methodology in accordance with section 
772(b) of the Act, because sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States took place after importation. We calculated CEP based 
on ex-warehouse or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. We made deductions for movement expenses, in accordance 
with 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, 
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, 
marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. warehousing, other U.S. 
transportation expenses, U.S. customs brokerage fees and duties in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. For freight services 
provided by market-economy companies and paid for in a market currency, 
we used the actual prices which XOCECO paid to the freight supplier in 
our CEP calculation. Where these movement services were provided by NME 
suppliers, we valued them using Indian rates.
    Regarding U.S. warehousing and other U.S. transportation expenses, 
XOCECO attempted to respond to our requests for information but failed 
to properly include this information in its sales database. Because 
XOCECO was only partially responsive, we have not relied on its 
control-number-specific U.S. warehousing and other U.S. transportation 
expenses, and instead have based the amount of these expenses on FA, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. In selecting among the 
facts otherwise available, we applied the average of the reported 
model-specific warehouse and other transportation expenses for every 
transaction during the POI.
    We made additional deductions from CEP for credit expenses, 
warranty expenses, and U.S. indirect selling expenses, including U.S. 
inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses, in 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act. Regarding warranty 
expenses, XOCECO twice failed to provide requested documentation 
substantiating the breakdown of warranty expenses between subject and 
non-subject merchandise. As a result, we find that the use of FA, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, is appropriate. 
Furthermore, since the Department finds that XOCECO failed to cooperate 
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for 
information, an adverse inference is warranted under section 776(b) of 
the Act. As AFA, we applied the highest reported model-specific 
warranty expense for every transaction during the POI.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. We calculated 
the CEP profit ratio for XOCECO based on the financial data reported in 
the income statements of three Indian producers of CTVs, BPL Limited 
(BPL), Onida Saka Limited (Onida Saka), and Videocon International 
Limited (Videocon) for the year ended 2002.

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 July 10, 2003, memorandum from Ron 
Lorentzen to Louis Apple entitled ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Color Television Receivers from the People's Republic of China (PRC): 
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries.''
    According to the available information on the record, we have 
determined that India is a significant producer of CTVs. See the 
November 21, 2003, memorandum from the team to the file entitled 
``Preliminary Determination Factors Valuation Memorandum,'' (the 
Factors Memorandum), on file in the CRU. 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 producers' factors of production. We have obtained and 
relied upon publicly available information wherever possible.

Factors of Production

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly available information to value factors of 
production. However, the Department's regulations also provide that 
where a producer sources an input from a market economy and pays for it 
in market economy currency, the Department employs the actual price 
paid for the input to calculate the factors-based NV. Id.; see also 
Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 43 F. 3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. 
Cir. 1994). Changhong, Konka, TCL, and XOCECO reported that some of 
their inputs were purchased from market economies and paid for in a 
market economy currency. Where respondents were unable to provide 
sufficient documentation that certain inputs were purchased from 
market-economy suppliers, we valued these inputs using surrogate 
values.
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by each respondent for the POI. 
To calculate NV, the reported per-unit factor quantities were 
multiplied by publicly available Indian surrogate values. 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 Factors Memorandum.
    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

[[Page 66808]]

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 
Changhong, Konka, and TCL's freight costs, see the ``Export Price/
Constructed Export Price'' section of this notice, above. Regarding the 
valuation of foreign inland freight for XOCECO, we note that XOCECO 
failed to amend its factors of production database to include distances 
and modes of transportation from NME suppliers, despite a specific 
request that it do so. As a result, we find that the use of FA, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, is appropriate. 
Furthermore, because XOCECO failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with the request for information, we find 
that an adverse inference is warranted under section 776(b) of the Act. 
In calculating freight on factor inputs, as AFA, we multiplied the 
factor input by the highest freight surrogate value on the record of 
this case and the distance from the applicable port to the factory.
    Where appropriate, we adjusted surrogate values to reflect 
inflation up to the POI using the WPI or the PPI published by the IMF, 
as appropriate.
    Some inputs were purchased from market-economy suppliers and paid 
for in convertible currency. Following our normal practice, we used the 
actual price paid for these inputs, where possible. However, where the 
input was not purchased from a market-economy supplier and paid for in 
a market-economy currency, or where the input was purchased from a 
market-economy country which the Department has found to maintain 
broadly-available, non-industry-specific subsides which may benefit all 
exporters to all export markets (i.e., Korea, India, Indonesia, and 
Thailand), it was necessary to select a surrogate value.
    Regarding color picture tubes and speakers, where the respondents 
purchased these inputs from suppliers in the PRC or from one of the 
market economies identified above, we valued these inputs using import 
data obtained from http://www.infodriveindia.com, a fee-based Web site 
providing Indian customs data. We used this source because it provided 
the most specific information available for the color picture tubes and 
speakers used by the respondents. See the Factors Memorandum. We valued 
all other major raw material inputs not purchased by the respondents 
from market economies using India import statistics published by the 
Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the 
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, Calcutta and 
published by the World Trade Atlas Trade Information System (World 
Trade Atlas) covering the period October 2002 through March 2003.
    Regarding sales of scrap metal, XOCECO twice failed to provide 
requested documentation demonstrating sales of scrap metal during the 
POI. As a result, use of FA, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 
Act, is appropriate. Furthermore, since the Department finds that 
XOCECO failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to 
comply with the request for information, an adverse inference is 
warranted under section 776(b) of the Act. As AFA, we are denying 
XOCECO any offset on sales of tin scrap to its consumption of tin. 
Rather, we allocated this quantity of scrap across the production of 
subject merchandise during the POI, thereby increasing the per-unit 
consumption of this metal.
    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.
    For aluminum paper, cardboard, carton, inner cardboard paper, 
labels, manuals, nails, outside cardboard paper, package bags, packing 
tape, plastic accessory bags, plastic bags, plastic strap, polyethylene 
plastic bags, polyfoam, polypropylene sheet, and staples (i.e., the 
packing materials reported by the respondents), we used import values 
from the World Trade Atlas.
    Regarding the remaining raw material factors of production reported 
by the respondents, 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. See the memorandum 
entitled ``Concurrence Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in 
the Investigation of Certain Color Television Receivers from the 
People's Republic of China,'' dated November 21, 2003. We valued 
electricity using electricity rate data from the International Energy 
Agency's Key World Energy Statistics 2002 report (see http://www.iea.org/statist/keyworld2002/key2002/keystats.htm) used in the 
2002-2003 antidumping duty administrative review of creatine from the 
PRC. See Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 
62767, 62769 (Nov. 6, 2003).
    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, 
interest expenses, and profit for the finished product, we relied on 
rates derived from the financial statements of BPL, Onida Saka, and 
Videocon, Indian producers of identical merchandise. We applied these 
ratios to the respondents' costs (determined as noted above) for 
materials, labor, and energy.

Critical Circumstances

    On October 16, 2003, the petitioners alleged that there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist 
with respect to the antidumping investigation of CTVs from the PRC. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), because petitioners submitted 
a critical circumstances allegation more than 20 days before the 
scheduled date of the preliminary determination, the Department must 
issue its preliminary critical circumstances determination not later 
than the date of the preliminary determination.
    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department, upon 
receipt of a timely allegation of critical circumstances, will 
determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 
that: (A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by 
reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the 
subject merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, 
the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the 
exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair 
value and there was likely to be material injury by reason of such 
sales, and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject 
merchandise over a relatively short period.
    According to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1), in determining whether imports 
of the subject merchandise have been ``massive,'' the Department 
normally will examine: (i) The volume and value of the imports; (ii) 
seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted 
for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides that 
``unless the imports during a ``relatively short period'' have 
increased by at least 15 percent over the imports during an immediately 
preceding period of comparable duration, the Secretary will not 
consider the imports massive.''
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(i), the Department defines 
``relatively short period'' as generally the period beginning on the 
date the proceeding

[[Page 66809]]

begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three 
months later.
    In determining whether the above statutory criteria have been 
satisfied, we examined: (1) The evidence presented in the petitioners' 
submission of October 16, 2003; (2) exporter-specific shipment data 
requested by the Department; (3) evidence obtained since the initiation 
of the LTFV investigation (i.e., additional import statistics released 
by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)); and (4) the ITC 
preliminary injury determination.
    To determine whether a history of dumping and material injury 
exists, the Department generally considers current or previous 
antidumping duty orders on the subject merchandise from the country in 
question in the United States and current orders in any other country. 
The Department will normally not consider the initiation of a case, or 
a preliminary or final determination of sales at LTFV in the absence of 
an affirmative finding of material injury by the ITC, as indicative of 
a history sufficient to satisfy this criterion. See Preliminary 
Determinations of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars From Ukraine and Moldova, 65 FR 70696, 70696-97 (Nov. 27, 2000). 
With regard to imports of CTVs from the PRC, the European Union (EU) 
imposed antidumping duty measures on CTVs from the PRC in 1995. See 
Council Regulation 1531/2002 of 14 August 2002 on Imposing a Definitive 
Anti-dumping Duty on Imports of Colour Television Receivers, 2002 O.J. 
(L 231)1-28. Because there is a history of dumping and material injury 
by reason of dumped imports in the EU of the subject merchandise, the 
first criterion of the test for finding critical circumstances is met.
    Because we have preliminarily found that section 733(e)(1)(A) of 
the Act is met, we must consider whether under section 733(e)(1)(B) of 
the Act imports of the merchandise have been massive over a relatively 
short period. According to 19 CFR 351.206(h), we consider the following 
to determine whether imports have been massive over a relatively short 
period of time: (1) The volume and value of the imports; (2) seasonal 
trends (if applicable); and (3) the share of domestic consumption 
accounted for by the imports.
    When examining volume and value data, the Department typically 
compares the export volume for equal periods immediately preceding and 
following the filing of the petition. Unless the imports in the 
comparison period have increased by at least 15 percent over the 
imports during the base period, we will not consider, under 19 CFR 
351.206(h), the imports to have been ``massive.''
    To determine whether imports of subject merchandise have been 
massive over a relatively short period, we compared the respondents' 
export volumes for the five months before the filing of the petition 
(i.e., December 2002 through April 2003) to that during the five months 
following the filing of the petition (i.e., May through September 
2003). These periods were selected based on the Department's practice 
of using the longest period for which information is available from the 
month that the petition was filed through the effective date of the 
preliminary determination.
    The Department requested and obtained from Changhong, Konka, TCL, 
and XOCECO monthly shipment data for 2001, 2002, and 2003. According to 
the monthly shipment information, we found the volume of shipments of 
CTVs by each of these companies increased by more than 15 percent. 
Therefore, we analyzed the time series data for the two years prior to 
the petition (i.e., 2001 and 2002), to address the issue of 
seasonality. Although this data shows there have also been significant 
surges in imports from the respondents between those same base and 
comparison periods, we find that this seasonal pattern does not account 
entirely for the increase in imports. Specifically, we note that 
imports have increased substantially over their normal seasonal levels. 
We therefore find that imports of subject merchandise were massive in 
the comparison period. For further discussion of this analysis, see the 
November 21, 2003, memorandum from the team to Louis Apple, Office 
Director, entitled ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Color 
Televisions (CTVs) from the People's Republic of China Preliminary 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances,'' (Critical 
Circumstances Memo).
    With regard to the share of domestic consumption accounted for by 
imports, we were unable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(iii), to 
consider the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports 
because the available data did not permit such analysis. It is the 
Department's practice to conduct its critical circumstances analysis of 
companies in the ``All Others'' category based on the experience of the 
investigated companies. Because we are determining that critical 
circumstances exist for each of the mandatory respondents in this 
investigation, we are concluding that critical circumstances exist for 
companies covered by the ``All Others'' rate.
    As discussed above, no other party responded to the Department's 
request for information and thus we relied on AFA for the rate 
applicable to the ``PRC entity'' (i.e., the PRC-wide rate). Therefore, 
the use of AFA is also warranted in the critical circumstances analysis 
for the PRC entity. As AFA in this case, we relied on the import 
statistics through September 2003 (the latest month for which such data 
was available for the preliminary determination). The import statistics 
showed an increase in imports that was significantly greater than 15 
percent. Even if we were to subtract the shipment data provided by the 
mandatory respondents from the aggregate import data and to compare the 
remaining volume of imports in the base period to the remaining imports 
in the comparison period, this comparison would indicate that massive 
imports occurred. See the Critical Circumstances Memo.
    In summary, we find there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect importers had knowledge of dumping and the likelihood of 
material injury with respect to CTVs from the PRC. We further find 
there have been massive imports of CTVs over a relatively short period 
from each of the mandatory respondents. Given the analysis summarized 
above, and described in more detail in the Critical Circumstances Memo, 
we preliminarily determine critical circumstances exist for imports of 
CTVs produced in and exported from the PRC.
    In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, upon issuance of 
an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the 
investigation with respect to CTVs from the PRC, the Department will 
direct the CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of CTVs from the 
PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on 
or after 90 days prior to the date of publication in the Federal 
Register of our preliminary determination in this investigation. The 
CBP shall require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the 
estimated preliminary dumping margins reflected in the preliminary 
determinations published in the Federal Register. The suspension of 
liquidation to be issued after our preliminary determination will 
remain in effect until further notice. We will make a final 
determination concerning critical circumstances for all producers and 
exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC when we make our final 
determination in this investigation, which will be 135 days after the 
date of publication of the preliminary determination.

[[Page 66810]]

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 CBP to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise 
from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on 
or after 90 days prior to the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. We are also instructing the CBP to require a cash 
deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping 
margin for all entries of CTVs from the PRC. These suspension of 
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Weighted-
                                        average           Critical
        Manufacturer/Exporter         margin  (in      circumstances
                                        percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haier Electric Appliances                   40.84  Yes.
 International Co.
Hisense Import and Export Co., Ltd..        40.84  Yes.
Konka Group Company, Ltd............        27.94  Yes.
Philips Consumer Electronics Co. of         40.84  Yes.
 Suzhou Ltd.
Shenzhen Chaungwei-RGB Electronics          40.84  Yes.
 Co., Ltd.
Sichuan Changhong Electric Co., Ltd.        45.87  Yes.
Starlight International Holdings,           40.84  Yes.
 Ltd.
Star Light Electronics Co., Ltd.....        40.84  Yes.
Star Fair Electronics Co., Ltd......        40.84  Yes.
Starlight Marketing Development Ltd.        40.84  Yes.
SVA Group Co., Ltd..................        40.84  Yes.
TCL Holding Company Ltd.............        31.35  Yes.
Xiamen Overseas Chinese Electronic          31.70  Yes.
 Co., Ltd.
PRC-wide............................        78.45  Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 no later than 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: November 21, 2003.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-29721 Filed 11-26-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P