[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3887-3895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-1697]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-887]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 27, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand or Peter Mueller, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3207 and (202) 482-5811 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preliminary Determination

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

Case History

    On June 23, 2003, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received a petition on THFA from the PRC filed in proper form by Penn 
Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (``petitioner''). See Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the 
PRC, dated June 23, 2003 (``Petition''). This investigation was 
initiated on July 18, 2003. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 
Duty Investigation: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the People's 
Republic of China, 68 FR 42686 (July 18, 2003) (``Notice of 
Initiation''). The Department initiated the investigation using a non-
market economy analysis. For a further discussion of the PRC's market 
analysis, please see the ``Non-Market Economy Country Status'' section 
below. For a detailed discussion of the comments regarding the scope of 
the merchandise under investigation, please see the ``Scope of the 
Investigation'' section below.
    On August 11, 2003, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') issued its affirmative preliminary determination 
that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United 
States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the 
PRC of THFA. See Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from China, 68 FR 48938 
(August 15, 2003).
    On July 23, 2003, the Department requested quantity and value 
(``Q&V'') information from four PRC companies that were identified in 
the Petition and for which the Department was able to locate contact 
information.\1\ On August 5, 2003, the Embassy of the United States, 
Beijing, submitted to the Department an additional list (``embassy 
list'') of potential producers/exporters of THFA in the PRC.\2\ 
Included in the embassy list were two companies that matched with two 
producers/exporters submitted in the petitioner's list.\3\ After 
comparing the two lists, the Department concluded that seven companies 
in the PRC potentially exported, manufactured, or had the capability to 
manufacture THFA.\4\ Shortly thereafter, using proprietary U.S. Bureau 
of Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data, the Department 
identified an additional potential exporter, Qingdao Wenkem (F.T.Z.) 
Trading Co., Ltd. (``QWTC''), of subject merchandise during the period 
of investigation (``POI''). Therefore, in total, the Department 
identified eight potential producers/exporters of subject merchandise 
during the POI.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Companies include: Hunan Sun-Yuan Chemical Co., Ltd., 
Shandong Baofeng Chemicals Group Corp., Taizhou Qianquan Medical and 
Chemicals Co., Ltd., and Zhucheng Huaxiang Chemical Company.
    \2\ Companies included: Wenzhou Dongsheng Chemicals and Reagent 
Factory, Qingdao Tian'an Group Co., Ltd., and Gaoping Chemicals Co., 
Ltd., Zhucheng Huaxiang Chemicals Co., Ltd. and Taizhou Qianquan 
Medical and Chemicals Co., Ltd.
    \3\ Two matching companies: Zhucheng Huaxiang Chemicals Co., 
Ltd. and Taizhou Qianquan Medical and Chemicals Co., Ltd.
    \4\ Wenzhou Dongsheng Chemicals and Reagent Factory, Qingdao 
Tian'an Group Co., Ltd., Gaoping Chemicals Co., Ltd., Zhucheng 
Huaxiang Chemicals Co., Ltd., Taizhou Qianquan Medical and Chemicals 
Co., Ltd., Hunan Sun-Yuan Chemical Co., Ltd., and Shandong Baofeng 
Chemicals Group Corp.
    \5\ Wenzhou Dongsheng Chemicals and Reagent Factory, Qingdao 
Tian'an Group Co., Ltd., Gaoping Chemicals Co., Ltd., Zhucheng 
Huaxiang Chemicals Co., Ltd., Taizhou Qianquan Medical and Chemicals 
Co., Ltd., Hunan Sun-Yuan Chemical Co., Ltd., Shandong Baofeng 
Chemicals Group Corp., and Qingdao Wenkem (F.T.Z) Trading Company 
Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 12, 2003, the Department requested Q&V information from 
the three PRC companies which were submitted as part of the embassy 
list, (i.e., Wenzhou Dongsheng Chemicals and Reagent Factory, Qingdao 
Tian'an Group Co., Ltd., Gaoping Chemicals Co., Ltd., and Taizhou 
Qianquan Medical and Chemicals Co., Ltd.), and to QWTC. On August 13, 
2003, the Department also sent the Ministry of Commerce in the PRC and 
the Embassy of the PRC in Washington a letter requesting assistance in 
locating all known PRC producers/exporters of THFA who exported the 
subject merchandise to the United States during POI and the quantity 
and value information for all exports to the United States of the 
merchandise under investigation during the POI. In response, the 
Department received two submissions, one from

[[Page 3888]]

Zhucheng Huaxiang Chemical Co., Ltd. (``ZHC'') on August 6, 2003 and 
the other from QWTC on August 26, 2003. The data from these responses 
indicated that ZHC manufactured the subject merchandise during the POI 
while QWTC exported, in full, ZHC's subject merchandise from the PRC to 
the United States during the POI.
    On August 28, 2003, the Department issued to ZHC the Section A, C, 
D, and E of the Department's non-market economy antidumping duty 
questionnaire. On August 29, 2003, the Department issued to the other 
responding company, QWTC, Section A, C, D, and E of the Department's 
non-market economy antidumping duty questionnaire. In addition, on 
September 10, 2003, the Department sent the Ministry of Commerce in the 
PRC and the Embassy of the PRC in Washington a copy of the Section A, 
C, D, and E of the Department's non-market economy antidumping duty 
questionnaire.
    On September 4, 2003, the Department requested comments on 
surrogate country and factor valuation information in order to have 
sufficient time to consider this information for the preliminary 
determination. On September 18, 2003, the petitioner submitted comments 
concerning the surrogate country selection.
    On October 1, 2003, the Department received Section A responses 
from ZHC and QWTC. On October 10, 2003, the petitioner submitted 
comments concerning ZHC's and QWTC's Section A responses. On October 
10, 2003, the Department received ZHC's Section C and D response and on 
October 14, 2003, the Department received QWTC's Section C response. On 
October 24, 2003, the petitioner submitted comments concerning ZHC's 
Section C and D response.
    On October 27, 2003, the Department issued its respondent selection 
memorandum, selecting QWTC as the mandatory respondent to be 
investigated. See Memorandum to the File from Peter Mueller, Case 
Analyst to Edward C. Yang, Director, Office IX, Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic 
of China, dated October 27, 2003 (``Respondent Selection Memo'').
    On October 30, 2003, the Department issued a supplemental Section A 
questionnaire to QWTC. On November 28, 2003, the Department received 
QWTC's response to the Department's supplemental Section A. On December 
11, 2003, the petitioner submitted comments concerning QWTC's November 
28, 2003 supplemental Section A response.
    On November 14, 2003 the Department issued to QWTC a supplemental 
containing additional Section A questions and also Section C questions. 
On December 5, 2003, the Department received QWTC's response to the 
Department's Section A and C questionnaire.
    On November 10, 2003, the Department issued its surrogate country 
memorandum, selecting India as the surrogate country. See Memorandum to 
the File from Peter Mueller, Case Analyst to Edward C. Yang, Director, 
Office IX, Antidumping Duty Investigation of Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol 
from the People's Republic of China, dated November 10, 2003 
(``Surrogate Selection Memo'').
    On November 18, 2003, the Department issued a Section D 
supplemental questionnaire to QWTC. On December 3, 2003, the Department 
received QWTC's response to the Department's November 18, 2003 Section 
D supplemental. On December 11, 2003, the petitioner submitted comments 
concerning QWTC's December 3, 2003 Section D supplemental response.
    On November 19, 2003 the Department issued an additional 
questionnaire to QWTC regarding QWTC's Section C and D responses. On 
December 10, 2003, the Department received QWTC's response to the 
Department's November 19, 2003 Section C and D questionnaire.
    On November 19, 2003, the Department sent a cable to the United 
States Foreign Commercial Service (``FCS'') posts in India, requesting 
that they provide publicly available financial statements for six 
manufacturers of furfural and furfuryl alcohol in India. On January 4, 
2004, the Department received a cable from the FCS in India relaying 
that it had contacted six companies and that of the six only two 
manufacturers of furfural responded with their financial statements. 
Both sets of financials were sent by facsimile to the Department, the 
first set on December 16, 2003, and the second set on January 5, 2004. 
Of the two companies providing financial statements, only Delta Agro 
Chemical Co., Ltd., the company that submitted financials on January 5, 
2004, had financial statements that were publicly available.
    On November 20, 2003, the Department published a postponement of 
the preliminary antidumping duty determination on THFA from the PRC, 
postponing the preliminary determination from November 30, 2003 to 
January 19, 2004. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping 
Duty Determination: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the People's 
Republic of China, 68 FR 65437 (November 20, 2003) (``Notice of Prelim 
Postponement'').
    On December 15, 2003, the Department issued a further Section A, C, 
and D supplemental questionnaire to QWTC. On December 29, 2003, the 
Department received QWTC's response to the Department's December 15, 
2003 Section A, C, and D supplemental questionnaire.
    On December 16, 2003, the petitioner submitted comments concerning 
the valuation of the factors of production.
    On December 19, 2003, the Department issued an additional 
supplemental Section D questionnaire. On January 6, 2004, the 
Department received QWTC's response to the Department's December 19, 
2003 supplemental Section D questionnaire.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is October 1, 2002 through March 31, 2003. This period 
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the Petition (June 23, 2003). See 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    For the purpose of this investigation, the product covered is 
tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (C[bdi5]H[bdi1][bdi0]O[bdi2]) (``THFA''). 
THFA, a primary alcohol, is a clear, water white to pale yellow liquid. 
THFA is a member of the heterocyclic compounds known as furans and is 
miscible with water and soluble in many common organic solvents. THFA 
is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the 
United States (``HTSUS'') under subheading 2932.13.00.00. Although the 
HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for the purposes of 
the CBP, the Department's written description of the merchandise under 
investigation is dispositive.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act, directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise.\6\ In addition, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act 
gives the Department discretion, when faced with a large number of 
exporters/producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of 
such companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies.

[[Page 3889]]

    The Department selected as the mandatory respondent the exporter 
QWTC, as it accounted for the largest volume of the subject merchandise 
pursuant to section 777(c)(2)(B) of the Act. See Respondent Selection 
Memo at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Regarding respondent selection in general see 19 CFR 351.204 
(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department need not limit the number of respondents to be 
examined in this investigation, as the Department found that it had the 
resources available to investigate the one respondent, QWTC, in the 
above-captioned case.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

    For purposes of initiation, the petitioner submitted LTFV analysis 
for the PRC as a non-market economy. See Notice of Initiation, at 
42687. The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy 
(``NME'') country in all past antidumping investigations. See e.g., 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk 
Aspirin From the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 
2000), and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's 
Republic of China, 65 FR 19873 (April 13, 2000). A designation as an 
NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. See 
section 771(18)(C) of the Act. The respondent in this investigation 
have not requested a revocation of the PRC's NME status. We have, 
therefore, preliminarily determined to continue to treat the PRC as an 
NME country. When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base the normal value 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, below.
    Furthermore, no interested party has requested that the THFA 
industry in the PRC be treated as a market-oriented industry and no 
information has been provided that would lead to such a determination. 
Therefore, we have not treated the THFA industry in the PRC as a 
market-oriented industry in this investigation.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a 
surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be 
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of 
the Act, the Department, in valuing the factors of production, shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production 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 
sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the normal 
value section below and in Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China: Factor 
Valuation, Memorandum from Peter Mueller, Case Analyst, through Edward 
C. Yang, Program Manager, Office IX, to the File , dated January 19, 
2004 (``Factor Valuation Memo'').
    The Department has determined that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri 
Lanka, and the Philippines are countries comparable to the PRC in terms 
of economic development. See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to Robert 
Bolling: Antidumping Duty Investigation on Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol 
from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of 
Surrogate Countries,(``Policy Letter''), dated August 26, 2003. 
Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country based on the 
availability and reliability of data from the countries that are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. For PRC cases, the 
primary surrogate country has often been India if it is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. In this case, we have found that 
India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. See 
Surrogate Selection Memo.
    The Department used India as the primary surrogate country, and, 
accordingly, has calculated normal value using Indian prices to value 
the PRC producers' factors of production, when available and 
appropriate. Additionally, the Department has used Indonesia as the 
secondary surrogate country for certain factors of production. See 
Surrogate Selection Memo and Factor Valuation Memo. We have obtained 
and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. See 
Id.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 
determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may 
submit publicly available information to value factors of production 
within 40 days after the date of publication of this preliminary 
determination.

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 (April 30, 1996) (``Bicycles''). The exporter 
that the Department selected to investigate, QWTC, and the PRC producer 
of QWTC's exported goods, ZHC, each provided company-specific separate 
rates information and stated that they met the standards for the 
assignment of separate rates. In determining whether companies should 
receive separate rates, the Department focuses its attention on the 
exporter, in this case QWTC, rather than the manufacturer (i.e., ZHC), 
as our concern is the manipulation of dumping margins. See 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). 
Consequently, the Department analyzed whether the exporter of the 
subject merchandise, QWTC, should receive a separate rate. QWTC has 
provided the requested company-specific separate rates information and 
has indicated that there is no element of government ownership or 
control over their export operations. We have considered whether the 
mandatory respondent is 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 (November 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 (November 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 (March 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

[[Page 3890]]

arising out of the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, (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, (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 (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; and (2) any 
legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies.
    The mandatory respondent has placed on the record statements and 
documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control. In its 
questionnaire responses, the respondent, QWTC reported that it has no 
relationship with any level of the PRC government. QWTC states that it 
has complete independence with respect to its export activities and 
that neither any PRC legislative enactments nor any other formal 
measures centralize any aspect of QWTC's export activities. QWTC 
reported that the subject merchandise is not subject to export quotas 
or export control licenses. Further, QWTC reported that the subject 
merchandise does not appear on any government list regarding export 
provisions or export licensing. Furthermore, QWTC stated that the local 
Chamber of Commerce in the PRC does not coordinate any export 
activities for QWTC.
    QWTC reported that it is required to obtain a business license, 
which is issued by the Qingdao Industry and Commercial Administrative 
Bureau. According to QWTC, its business license allows a business 
entity, such as itself, to operate in the PRC and facilitates QWTC's 
export and import business based in the PRC. In addition, QWTC 
submitted the ``Administration Regulations of Free Trade Zone, Qingdao, 
Shangong'', (``Administrative Regulation''). The Administrative 
Regulation defines QWTC's rights as a business within a free trade 
zone. We examined the Administrative Regulation and determine that it 
demonstrates an authority for establishing the de jure decentralized 
control over the export activities and evidence in favor of the absence 
of government control associated with its business license. See 
Memorandum to the File from Peter Mueller, Case Analyst to Edward C. 
Yang, Director, Office IX, Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, dated 
December 22, 2003 (``Separate Rates Memo'').
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 (December 
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 exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government 
and without the approval of a government 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. QWTC has asserted the following: (1) it 
established its own export prices; (2) it negotiated contracts without 
guidance from any governmental entities or organizations; (3) it made 
its own personnel decisions; and (4) it retained the proceeds of its 
export sales and used profits according to its business needs. 
Additionally, QWTC's questionnaire responses indicate that it does not 
coordinate with other exporters in setting prices or in determining 
which companies will sell to which markets. This information supports a 
preliminary finding that there is an absence of de facto governmental 
control of the export functions of QWTC. Consequently, we preliminarily 
determine that QWTC has met the criteria for the application of 
separate rates.
    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by QWTC 
demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, 
with respect to QWTC's exports of the merchandise under investigation. 
As a result, for the purposes of this preliminary determination, we are 
granting a separate, company-specific rate to QWTC, the exporter which 
shipped the subject merchandise, THFA, to the United States during the 
POI. For a full discussion of separate rates, please see the Separate 
Rates Memo.

PRC-Wide Rate

    For a discussion of the PRC-Wide rate please see Memorandum to the 
File From Peter Mueller, Case Analyst to Edward C. Yang, Director, 
Office IX, Antidumping Duty Investigation of Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol 
from the People's Republic of China: PRC-Wide Rate, dated January 20, 
2004.

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations state that ``in 
identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like 
product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as 
recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal 
course of business.'' After examining the sales documentation placed on 
the record by the respondent, we preliminarily determine that invoice 
date is the most appropriate date of sale for the respondent. We made 
this determination because, at this time, there is not enough evidence 
on the record to determine whether the contracts used by the respondent 
establish the material terms of sale to the extent required by our 
regulations in order to rebut the presumption that invoice date is the 
proper date of sale. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the People's Republic of China, 
67 FR 79054 (December 27, 2002). The Department will examine the date 
of sale issue more fully after the preliminary determination.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of THFA to the United States by QWTC 
were made at less than fair value, we compared EP to normal value, as 
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
calculated weighted-average EPs.

[[Page 3891]]

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) 
before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the 
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c) of 
the Act.
    We calculated EP for QWTC based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These 
included foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of 
exportation, ocean freight, and marine insurance, where appropriate.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the normal value using a factors-of-production methodology 
if: (1) the merchandise is exported from an non-market economy country; 
and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of normal value 
using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value 
under section 773(a) of the Act.
    As the basis for normal value, the respondents in this 
investigation provided integrated factors of production data from the 
raw material input stage to the final product stage (i.e., the THFA 
production stage). In response to supplemental questionnaires, the 
respondent also provided factors of production information used in each 
of the earlier production stages, including the raw material input to 
furfural processing stage and the furfural to furfuryl alcohol 
production stage, separately. Although the respondent reported the 
factors of production for the feedstock inputs used to produce the main 
input to the processing stage (i.e., furfuryl alcohol), for the 
purposes of this preliminary determination, we are not valuing those 
inputs when calculating the normal value of THFA. Rather, our normal 
value calculation begins with the factor value of the furfuryl alcohol 
used to produce the merchandise under investigation. The preliminary 
decision to calculate the normal value at the furfuryl alcohol stage is 
explained below.
    Our general policy, consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the 
Act, is to value the factors of production that a respondent uses to 
produce the subject merchandise. If the NME respondent is an integrated 
producer, we take into account the factors utilized in each stage of 
the production process. For example, in the case of preserved canned 
mushrooms produced by a fully integrated firm, the Department valued 
the factors used to grow the mushrooms, the factors used to further 
process and preserve the mushrooms, and any additional factors used to 
can and package the mushrooms, including any used to manufacture the 
cans (if produced in-house). See Final Results Valuation Memorandum for 
Final Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's 
Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001). If, on the other hand, 
the firm was not integrated, but simply a processor that purchased 
fresh mushrooms to preserve and can, the Department valued the 
purchased mushrooms and not the factors used to grow them. This policy 
has been applied to both agricultural and industrial products. See 
e.g., Persulfates From the People's Republic of China: Persulfates from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 6712 (February 10, 2003) and Notice of 
Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums and 
Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 9160 (February 
28, 1997). Accordingly, our standard NME questionnaire asks respondents 
to report the factors used in the various stages of production.
    There are, however, two limited exceptions to this general rule. 
First, in some cases a respondent may report factors used to produce an 
intermediate input that accounts for a small or insignificant share of 
total output. The Department recognizes that, in those cases, the 
increased accuracy in our overall calculations that would result from 
valuing (separately) each of those factors may be so small so as to not 
justify the burden of doing so. Therefore, in those situations, the 
Department would value the intermediate input directly.
    Second, in certain circumstances, it is clear that attempting to 
value the factors used in a production process yielding an intermediate 
product would lead to an inaccurate result because a significant 
element of cost would not be adequately accounted for in the overall 
factors buildup. For example, in the Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod 
From Ukraine, 67 FR 55785 (August 30, 2002), we addressed whether we 
should value the respondent's factors used in extracting iron ore an 
input to its wire rod factory. The Department determined that, if it 
were to use those factors, it would not sufficiently account for the 
capital costs associated with the iron ore mining operation given that 
the surrogate used for valuing production overhead did not have mining 
operations. Therefore, because ignoring this important cost element 
would distort the calculation, the Department declined to value the 
inputs used in mining iron ore and valued the iron ore instead. See 
also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China, 
66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001); Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value; Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the 
People's Republic of China, 62 FR 61964 (November 20, 1997); and Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Furfuryl 
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995).
    In this investigation, we preliminarily determine that the 
exceptions described above do not apply at this time. However, after 
carefully reviewing and analyzing the information submitted by the 
respondent, the Department has found that the data pertaining to the 
furfural and furfuryl alcohol stages of production cannot be used for 
purposes of the preliminary determination. In the original Section D 
questionnaire and in one subsequent supplemental questionnaire, the 
Department requested multi-stage input information from the respondent. 
In response, the Department received data which was inadequate for 
valuing the factors of production consumed in the earlier stages of the 
production processes (i.e., the furfural and furfuryl alcohol 
production processes). Although these responses did clarify that the 
manufacturer was an integrated producer of furfural, furfuryl alcohol, 
and THFA, the responses did not provide factors of production that were 
sufficiently detailed, and therefore could not be used to quantify the 
factors of production from the earlier stages. Thereafter, the 
Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire, again requesting 
multi-stage input information and received a response on January 6, 
2004, that was received too close to the preliminary date to allow the 
Department sufficient time to properly analyze (i.e., the submission 
text and the corresponding data). Therefore, the Department's ability 
to analyze the inputs provided in the response to the supplemental

[[Page 3892]]

questionnaires was particularly constrained given the number of 
supplemental questionnaires issued in this case and the lack of 
sufficient time to fully evaluate the responses to those 
questionnaires. As this is the case, certain critical analysis 
regarding the data remain.
    In light of these concerns, we have not used the multi-stage factor 
data for the preliminary determination and have incorporated, instead, 
the value of the furfuryl alcohol input used at the final stage of 
production. Subsequent to the preliminary determination, we will 
clarify the factors data for the furfural and furfuryl alcohol stages 
of production that the respondent has reported. If we make a change in 
the methodology and use the factor information for the various stages 
previous to the final determination, we will release to interested 
parties for comment a preliminary calculation sheet and analysis 
memorandum using that methodology.
    The factors of production from the furfuryl alcohol stage to THFA 
includes: (1) hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials 
employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; (4) costs 
associated with packing; and (5) representative capital costs. We 
calculated normal value based on factors of production, reported by the 
respondent, for materials, energy, labor, and packing. Where 
applicable, we deducted from the respondent's normal value the value of 
by-products sold during the POI. For a further discussion, please See 
Memorandum to the File from Peter Mueller, Case Analyst to Edward C. 
Yang, Director, Office IX, Analysis for the Preliminary Determination 
of Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China , 
dated January 19, 2004 (``Analysis Memo''). We valued the input factors 
using publicly available published information as discussed in the 
``Surrogate Country'' and ``Factor Valuations'' sections of this 
notice.

Factor Valuations

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, 
the Department shall determine normal value using a factors of 
production methodology if: (1) the merchandise is exported from an NME, 
and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of normal value 
using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value 
under section 773(a) of the Act. Because information on the record does 
not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value, and no party has argued 
otherwise, we calculated NV based on factors of production in 
accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.408(c).
    Because we are using surrogate country factors of production prices 
to determine normal value, section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires that 
the Department use values from a market economy (surrogate) country. 
For this case we have selected India as the primary market economy 
(surrogate) country. See Surrogate Country Memo.
    We selected, where possible, publicly available values from India 
which were: (1) average non-export values; (2) representative of a 
range of prices within the POI or most contemporaneous with the POI; 
(3) product-specific; and, (4) tax-exclusive. Where necessary, we have 
excluded import data from an NME country (i.e., the PRC) and from 
countries (i.e., South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia) that the 
Department has found to maintain broadly available, non-industry 
specific export subsidies, which the existence of, provide sufficient 
reason to believe or suspect that export prices from these countries 
are distorted. See 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) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated normal 
value based on factors of production reported by respondent for the 
POI. To calculate normal value, the reported per-unit factor quantities 
were multiplied by publicly available surrogate values. In selecting 
the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and 
contemporaneity of the data. We selected information that represented 
cumulative values for the POI, for inputs classified according to the 
Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (``HTS''). For unit 
values initially reported in U.S. dollars (``USD'') no conversion was 
necessary. For unit values initially reported in Indian rupees, we 
converted from rupees to USD using the average exchange rate for the 
POI. See Factor Valuation Memo at Attachment I. For values not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the values for inflation/
deflation.
    To value furfuryl alcohol, we relied upon contemporaneous Indian 
import values of ``furfuryl alcohol and tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol'' 
under the Indian Customs' heading of ``29321300'' obtained from the 
World Trade Atlas online, which notes that its data was published by 
the DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India, May 2003. This data was 
reported in USD. Consistent with the Department's practice, import data 
from both NMEs (i.e., the PRC and Ukraine) and countries deemed to have 
generally-available export subsidies (i.e., Indonesia, Korea, and 
Thailand) were not included in our calculation. Because the HTS 
category used for furfuryl alcohol is a basket category which includes 
the subject merchandise, we are removing from the Indian import 
statistics the import data from the United States. We note also that 
the import data value for the United States for the basket category is 
substantially higher than the figures for most other countries. 
Therefore, we infer that the U.S. figures reported in the Indian import 
data may include the U.S. production quantities and values of the 
subject merchandise. Furthermore, we are removing the import data from 
Japan as it is a similar value to the U.S. value. We surmise that the 
Japanese data is a mixture of furfuryl alcohol and THFA due to possible 
transhipment of THFA from the PRC through Japan. We consider both the 
United Sates and Japan figures to be aberrational as they are 
significantly higher than the other countries included in this 
category. Because this data is contemporaneous with the POI, no 
adjustment has been made for inflation/deflation. See Factor Valuation 
Memo at Attachment III.
    As this basket category includes the subject merchandise, we 
recognize that a more appropriate surrogate value for furfuryl alcohol 
may be required. However, at the time of this preliminary 
determination, it is the most appropriate surrogate value that we can 
locate. Accordingly, we are requesting comments on issues concerning 
the calculation and selection of surrogate values. In particular, we 
request that parties provide comments on the calculations for furfuryl 
alcohol and any suggestions for alternative calculations. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) of the Department's regulations, interested 
parties may submit publicly available information to value the factors 
of production for purposes of the final determination within 40 days 
after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.
    For steam, the Department relied upon the values of the raw 
material inputs used to make steam, (i.e., coal and water). The 
respondent reported the usage rate for steam in metric tons and further 
provided the raw material input usage rates required to produce the 
steam. When comparing the usage rate for steam used in the production 
process with the amount of water used

[[Page 3893]]

to create the steam, we found that there was one to one ratio between 
the reported amount of steam consumed and the reported amount of water 
consumed in making the steam. Although the respondents provided a usage 
rate for steam, we preliminary determine that the usage rates for 
inputs to steam, coal and water provide the most accurate factor 
valuation.
    To value coal, we relied upon contemporaneous Indian import values 
of ``other coal'' under the Indian Customs' heading of ``27011909'' 
obtained from the World Trade Atlas online. This data was reported in 
USD. Consistent with the Department's practice, import data from both 
NMEs (i.e., the PRC) and countries deemed to have generally-available 
export subsidies (i.e., Indonesia, Korea, Ukraine, and Thailand) were 
not included in our calculation. Because this data is contemporaneous 
with the POI, no adjustment has been made for inflation/deflation. We 
adjusted the surrogate value for coal to include freight costs incurred 
between the supplier and the factory. See Factor Valuation Memo at 
Attachment IV and Attachment VII. We adjusted the input price by 
including freight costs to make it a delivered price. Specifically, we 
added the surrogate freight cost to the surrogate value using the 
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the 
factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, where 
appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 
F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    To value hydrogen, we relied upon contemporaneous import values of 
``hydrogen,'' obtained from Indonesia Statistics, 2002 as published on 
World Trade Atlas online. The Department researched contemporaneous 
Indian hydrogen values and compared them to contemporaneous hydrogen 
values from other countries. As a result, we found the Indian values 
for hydrogen to be aberrational, in that they were significantly higher 
than the values from the other countries. Thereafter, we determined 
that Indonesian import statistics reported the most contemporaneous and 
non-aberrational hydrogen value. Therefore, we relied upon the 
contemporaneous Indonesian import values of ``hydrogen'' under the 
Indonesian Customs' heading of ``280410000'' obtained from the World 
Trade Atlas. Consistent with the Department's practice, import data 
from both NMEs (i.e., the PRC) and countries deemed to have generally-
available export subsidies (i.e., Korea and Thailand) were not included 
in our calculation. Because this data is contemporaneous with the POI, 
no adjustment has been made for inflation/deflation. See Factor 
Valuation Memo at 3.
    To value water, we used the water tariff rate, as reported on the 
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. This factor was reported in 
Indian rupees and converted into USD using the average exchange rate 
for the POI. Because this data is contemporaneous with the POI, no 
adjustment has been made for inflation/deflation. See Factor Valuation 
Memo at 3.
    To value electricity, we used the 2000 total average price per 
kilowatt hour (kwh) for ``Electricity for Industry'' as reported in the 
International Energy Agency's publication, Energy Prices and Taxes, 
Second Quarter, 2002. This factor was reported in Indian rupees and 
converted into USD using the average exchange rate for the POI. We 
adjusted the average total surrogate cost of electricity to reflect 
inflation. We then multiplied the inflation factor by the surrogate 
value to derive the adjusted surrogate value. See Factor Valuation Memo 
at 4.
    To value packing, we used a surrogate value, ``Tank, ET 50-300 
Liter, Others,'' derived from India import statistics as published by 
the Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India (``Monthly 
Statistics''), covering the period April 2002 through January 2003. 
World Trade Atlas reported the packing in USD. We multiplied the 
surrogate value, which was for one kilogram of a packing drum by the 
weight of the drum in kilograms to obtain a surrogate value for one 
drum. We used the value that petitioner provided in the petition for 
the weight of the barrel. See June 23, 2003 at Exhibit 9, page 7. We 
then multiplied the surrogate value per drum by the amount of drums 
used to pack one metric ton of THFA. See Factor Valuation Memo at 5.
    To value truck freight, we used an average truck freight cost based 
on Indian market truck freight rates on a rupees per-metric ton per 
kilometer basis published in the Iron and Steel Newsletter, April 2002. 
We then inflated the rate using the WPI published by the International 
Monetary Fund. We then divided by the POI average exchange rate to 
obtain a factor value for truck freight in USD. See Factor Valuation 
Memo at 5.
    In accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit in Sigma Corporation v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 
1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997), we added to surrogate values, as applicable, 
a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distances 
from either the closest PRC port of exportation to the factory, or from 
the domestic supplier to the factory. See Factor Valuation Memo at 5.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general and administrative 
expenses (``SG&A''), and profit, the Department did not use the data 
from the financial statements of an Indian company, Delta Agro 
Chemicals Ltd. (``Delta''), because although it appeared initially to 
produce the comparable merchandise furfuryl alcohol as one of its main 
products, the FCS's cable, received on January 4, 2004, and a previous 
email, received on December 30, 2003, reported that Delta only 
manufactured the feedstock product, furfural. For a copy of the cable 
and email, See Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment X. As the 
Department prefers the use of financial data from a producer of the 
comparable merchandise, use of this source is less than ideal. 
Therefore, to value factory overhead, selling, general and 
administrative expenses (``SG&A''), and profit, we calculated surrogate 
financial ratios based on the financial information from the Reserve 
Bank of India (``RBI''). See Factor Valuation Memo at 4 and 5.
    For labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the 
regression-based wage rate at Import Administration's home page, Import 
Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in September 
2002, and corrected in February 2003, (see http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/corrected00wages/). The source of the wage rate data on the Import 
Administration's Web site can be found in the Yearbook of Labour 
Statistics 2000, International Labor Office (Geneva: 2000), Chapter 5B: 
Wages in Manufacturing.

Catalyst

    When determining whether an input should be treated as a factor of 
production or as an overhead item, the Department's practice is to 
consider inputs as part of overhead only when they are small in value 
relative to the total cost of manufacturing. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Saccharin from the 
People's Republic of China, 59 FR 58818, 58824, (November 15, 1994). 
The respondent reported that catalyst is used in the production process 
from furfuryl alcohol to THFA.\7\ In determining how

[[Page 3894]]

the catalyst should be classified when calculating the factors of 
production for the THFA investigation, we examined what percentage of 
the total cost of manufacturing the catalyst represented. Accordingly, 
based on the normal value summary information submitted by the 
petitioner for India, the value of the catalyst used in the production 
process is less than 0.5% of the total cost of manufacturing of THFA. 
See Petitioner's Antidumping Duty Investigation of Tetrahydrofurfuryl 
Alcohol from the People's Republic of China; Publicly Available 
Information to Value Factors of Production, (December 16, 2003). Since 
the catalyst is an insignificant portion of the cost of manufacture, we 
maintain that it would typically be recorded as an overhead item in a 
company's books and records. Therefore, due to the insignificant cost 
impact of the catalyst, we are classifying this as overhead item rather 
than a separate factor of production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ According to The American Heritage Dictionary, a catalyst is 
defined as a ``substance, usually present in small amounts relative 
to the reactants, that modifies and especially increases the rate of 
a chemical reaction without being consumed in the process.'' See The 
American Heritage Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, including the catalyst as a factor of production could, in 
this case, result in double counting the cost in one of two ways: (1) 
since the amount of the catalyst is insignificant, it is most likely 
accounted for as an indirect material and included in the surrogate 
company's overhead costs; or (2) if the surrogate company capitalizes 
the cost of the catalyst, then an allocated amount is already included 
in the overhead costs. If a company purchases property, plant or piece 
of equipment that benefits future periods, then it can capitalize the 
asset in accordance with its internal policy. Typically, companies set 
up an internal policy that dictates the threshold for capitalizing 
assets. Normally, if an asset is being depreciated, then it is 
considered to have a life in excess of one year and the cost is 
allocated over the life of the asset and is considered to be a part of 
fixed overhead. See Antidumping Duty Investigation of Urea Ammonium 
Nitrate Solutions from Belarus and the Russian Federation: 
Classification of Catalysts as Overhead Expense, Memorandum from Paige 
Rivas, Team Leader, through Thomas F. Futtner, Program Manager, Group 
II, Office IV, (September 26, 2002). Although we do not have 
information on the record to determine whether the catalyst cost for 
the surrogate companies data are included in overhead, record evidence 
indicates that this cost is included as an overhead cost by the 
respondent. In support of this, the Department points to the useful 
life of the catalyst as reported by the respondent, which although 
below the one year threshold, indicates that the catalyst is being 
capitalized over a long-term time period. Therefore, to avoid any 
double counting, for the analysis of factor of production data 
submitted in this antidumping investigation of THFA from the PRC, we 
are preliminarily treating the reported catalyst as an overhead 
expense.

Weighted Average Dumping Margin

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the PRC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-Average
           Producer/Manufacturer/ Exporter              Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qingdao Wenkem (F.T.Z.) Trading Company, Ltd.........              31.33
PRC - Wide Rate......................................              31.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

    As provided in section 782(I)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all company information relied upon in making our final determination.

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).

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
CBP to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise, 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register with respect 
to QWTC. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting 
of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal 
value exceeds EP, as indicated above. With respect to all other PRC 
exporters, the Department will direct the CBP to suspend liquidation of 
all entries of THFA from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication in the 
Federal Register of our preliminary determinations in this 
investigation. CBP shall require a cash deposit or posting of a bond 
equal to the estimated preliminary dumping margins reflected in the 
preliminary determination published in the Federal Register. The 
suspension of liquidation to be issued after our preliminary 
determination will remain in effect until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination of sales 
at less than fair value. If our final determination is affirmative, the 
ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this 
preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination 
whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially 
injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of 
THFA, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the 
subject merchandise.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) of the Department's 
regulations, interested parties may submit publicly available 
information to value the factors of production for purposes of the 
final determination within 40 days after the date of publication of 
this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments 
may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration 
no later than fifty days after the date of publication of this notice, 
and rebuttal briefs, whose content is limited to issues raised in case 
briefs, no later than fifty-five days after the date of publication of 
this preliminary determination. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i); 19 CFR 
351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities used and an executive summary of 
issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This 
summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested , to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs.
    If a request for a hearing is made, we will tentatively hold the 
hearing two days after the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at 
the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, at a time and location to be determined. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the 
hearing two days before the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain: (1) the party's name,

[[Page 3895]]

address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) 
a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may 
make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's 
case brief, and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments 
included in that party's rebuttal brief.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 20, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-1697 Filed 1-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S