[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 2, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9804-9809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4613]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-570-836


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review: Glycine from the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a 
new shipper review (NSR) of the antidumping duty order on glycine from 
the People's Republic of China (PRC) in response to a request from 
Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co. Ltd. (New Donghua). The period of 
review (POR) is March 1, 2002, through February 28, 2003. The 
preliminary results are listed below in the ``Preliminary Results of 
Review'' section. Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
preliminary results. (See the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section 
of this notice.)

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christian Hughes or Matthew Renkey, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0190 or (202) 482-2312, respectively.

Background

    On March 29, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on glycine from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty 
Order: Glycine from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 16116 (March 
29, 1995). In accordance with section 351.214(b) of the Department's 
regulations, on March 26, 2003, the Department received a timely 
request for a new shipper review from New Donghua. On May 6, 2003, the 
Department published its initiation of this new shipper review for the 
period March 1, 2002, through February 28, 2003. See Glycine from the 
People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping New Shipper 
Review, 68 FR 23962.
    On May 20, 2003, we issued a questionnaire to New Donghua. On July 
10, 2003, New Donghua submitted copies of the Chinese laws and 
regulations that apply to the export activities of New Donghua. On July 
10, 2003, we received New Donghua's response to Sections A, C, and D of 
the Department's questionnaire.
    Due to the complex nature of the case, on November 4, 2003, the 
Department decided to extend the time limit for the completion of the 
preliminary results to 300 days after the date of initiation, in 
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), and section 351.214(i)(2) of the Department's 
regulations. See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New 
Shipper Review, 68 FR 62430 (November 4, 2003). On November 26, 2003, 
we issued a supplemental questionnaire to New Donghua. We received the 
response to

[[Page 9805]]

the supplemental questionnaire on December 19, 2003. On December 31, 
2003, the Department sent New Donghua a second supplemental 
questionnaire and released the verification outline. On January 7, 
2004, we received New Donghua's second supplemental response. On 
February 5, 2004, we sent New Donghua a third supplemental 
questionnaire, which included a request for information from New 
Donghua's U.S. importer. We received the response to the supplemental 
questionnaire on February 12, 2004. We have not had sufficient time to 
consider this response for purposes of these preliminary results; 
however, we will evaluate the information contained therein for the 
purposes of the final results of this new shipper review.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    The product covered by this antidumping duty order is glycine, 
which is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. 
Glycine is produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a 
sweetener/taste enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, 
chemical intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. Glycine is 
currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This order covers glycine 
of all purity levels.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification 
of the questionnaire responses of New Donghua. We used standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the production 
and sales facilities, and an examination of relevant sales and 
financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the New 
Shipper Review of Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Sales 
and Factors Verification Report for Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., 
Ltd., dated February 23, 2004. A public version of this report is on 
file in the Central Records Unit located in room B-099 of the Main 
Commerce Building. At verification, certain information on related 
companies was presented to the Department for the first time. While we 
have not been able to fully analyze this information for purposes of 
the preliminary results, we intend to fully examine this information 
for the final results.

Application of Facts Available

    At verification, New Donghua reported, for the first time, that, in 
addition to producing its own industrial grade glycine, it also 
purchased industrial grade glycine from one of its related companies. 
Company officials provided the total amount of industrial grade glycine 
purchased from its related company during the POR. However, this 
information was not reported in New Donghua's original response to the 
Department's questionnaire, nor in any subsequent supplemental 
questionnaire response. Thus, New Donghua's responses were incomplete 
because it failed throughout to report the factors of production for 
the factory from which New Donghua purchased the industrial grade 
glycine.
    Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act provide for the 
use of facts available when an interested party withholds information 
that has been requested by the Department, or when an interested party 
fails to provide the information requested in a timely manner and in 
the form required. New Donghua failed to provide accurate and complete 
factor values for the POR in a timely manner.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time}  for 
information, notifies {the Department{time}  that such party is unable 
to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner,'' 
the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an 
unreasonable burden on that party. Throughout the course of this 
review, New Donghua had several opportunities to correct the reported 
data. However, at no time, prior to the verification, did New Donghua 
notify the Department that it had any difficulty in obtaining accurate 
and complete factors of production (FOP) information for the relevant 
POR. At no point during the review did New Donghua seek guidance on 
alternative reporting requirements, or propose an alternate form for 
submitting the required data, as contemplated in section 782(c)(1) of 
the Act.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent 
responses, as appropriate. In its original questionnaire, the 
Department asked New Donghua to provide production and FOP data for the 
POR. Prior to the verification, the Department had no means of 
determining whether the FOP data submitted by New Donghua was complete, 
and therefore could not inform the respondent that its response was 
deficient. On the other hand, New Donghua could have acquired the 
necessary FOP information for the industrial grade glycine it 
purchased. In addition, New Donghua had ample opportunities to report 
that it purchased industrial grade glycine and, in doing so, New 
Donghua could have reported complete FOP data for industrial grade 
glycine prior to verification. However, New Donghua did not report this 
information.
    Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if: (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. From the time it received the 
original questionnaire until verification, New Donghua had ample time 
to submit accurate and complete FOP information for glycine. However, 
New Donghua never reported, at any point in the proceeding, that it had 
purchased industrial grade glycine from one of its related companies 
and, consequently, failed to report a complete and accurate FOP data 
for its glycine.
    New Donghua did not act to the best of its ability to comply and 
report all necessary data in response to the Department's requests for 
information; New Donghua should have been able to report complete and 
accurate FOP data. New Donghua's failure to provide essential 
information, namely, complete and accurate FOP data for industrial 
grade glycine it purchased, hindered the Department's ability to 
accurately calculate a dumping margin. Thus, the information that New 
Donghua reported for its FOP data for industrial grade glycine is 
incomplete. At no time did New Donghua report that it purchased 
industrial grade glycine or report that it had trouble obtaining or 
submitting a complete and accurate FOP data.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is 
adverse to the interests of the respondent, if it determines that

[[Page 9806]]

a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. In applying 
the facts otherwise available, the Department finds that an adverse 
inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, because 
the Department has determined that New Donghua has failed to cooperate 
to the best of its ability. New Donghua did not report significant data 
regarding its FOP. Furthermore, the Department issued, in all, three 
supplemental requests for information to New Donghua, which required 
New Donghua to examine the information it had submitted to the 
Department. Nevertheless, on none of these three occasions did New 
Donghua ever report that it purchased industrial grade glycine or 
revise its FOP data to reflect the FOP of this purchased industrial 
grade glycine, nor did it indicate that it had not included this 
information. We therefore determine that New Donghua did not cooperate 
to the best of its ability within the meaning of 776(b) of the Act, and 
the application of adverse facts available is warranted.
    Although the failure to report that it purchased industrial grade 
glycine and its failure to report a complete and accurate FOP data for 
industrial grade glycine purchased warrants the application of adverse 
facts available, we do not find that the application of total adverse 
facts available is appropriate since New Donghua responded to the 
Department's questionnaires; New Donghua allowed for verification; its 
reported sales information was verified; and the FOP for glycine 
produced in its own factory were verified. See New Donghua Verification 
Report. As such, the Department has determined that partial adverse 
facts available should be applied to account for New Donghua not 
reporting that it purchased industrial grade glycine from a related 
company nor reporting complete and accurate FOP data for purchased 
industrial grade glycine.
    As partial adverse facts available, we are applying the highest 
monthly factor usage rates that were reported by New Donghua, and 
multiplying those by their corresponding surrogate values. In addition, 
for those factors for which we used Indian import statistics from the 
World Trade Atlas as surrogate values, we are using the highest non-
aberrational monthly data from the POR. For monochloroacetic acid, we 
used the highest reported price during the POR from Chemical Weekly. 
These measures are applied to the production of industrial grade 
glycine. For further details, see the memorandum entitled ``Analysis 
for the Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review of Glycine from 
the People's Republic of China: Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. 
(New Donghua),'' dated February 24, 2004.

Separate Rates

    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)), and in prior segments of this proceeding. A 
designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the 
Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there is a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are subject to 
government control and, thus, should be assessed a single antidumping 
duty rate.
    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless 
an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government 
control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to 
exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to 
be eligible for a separate, company-specific rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test 
established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 
6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified by the 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 this policy, exporters in NME countries are eligible for 
separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence 
of government control, in law and in fact, with respect to export 
activities. Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de 
jure absence of government control over export activities includes: 1) 
an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; 2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; and 3) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence 
of government control over exports is based on four factors: 1) whether 
each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; 2) 
whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing 
of losses; 3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and 
sign contracts and other agreements; and 4) whether each exporter has 
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management.
De Jure Control
    With respect to the absence of de jure government control over the 
export activities of the company reviewed, evidence on the record 
supports the claim made by New Donghua that its export activities are 
not controlled by the government. New Donghua submitted evidence of its 
legal right to set prices independently of all government oversight. 
The business license of New Donghua indicates that the company is 
permitted to engage in the exportation of glycine. We found no evidence 
of de jure government control restricting this company's exportation of 
glycine.
    There are no export quotas that apply to glycine. The 
Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China for 
Controlling the Registration of Enterprises as Legal Persons (Legal 
Persons Law), issued on June 13, 1988 by the State Administration for 
Industry and Commerce of the PRC, the Company Law of the People's 
Republic of China (Company Law), adopted by the National People's 
Congress, promulgated by the President on December 29, 1993 and 
effective on July 1, 1994, and the Foreign Trade Law of the People's 
Republic of China (Foreign Trade Law), adopted by the National People's 
Congress, promulgated by the President on May 12, 1994 and effective on 
July 1, 1994, provided in the record of this review, all indicate a 
lack of de jure government control over privately-owned companies, such 
as New Donghua. They demonstrate that control over the company rests 
with the enterprise itself. The Legal Persons Law, Company Law, and 
Foreign Trade Law provide that, to qualify as legal entities, companies 
must have the ``ability to bear civil liability independently'' and the 
right to control and manage their businesses. These laws also state 
that, as an independent legal entity, a company is responsible for its 
own profits and losses. 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) (Manganese Metal).

[[Page 9807]]

 At verification, company officials provided New Donghua's business 
license and they demonstrated that it was granted in accordance with 
these laws. See New Donghua Verification Report at 4. Compliance with 
these laws supports a finding of de jure absence of central control. 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de 
jure control with respect to New Donghua.
De Facto Control
    With respect to the absence of de facto control over export 
activities, the information submitted on the record and reviewed at 
verification indicates that the management of New Donghua is 
responsible for the determination of export prices, profit 
distribution, marketing strategy, and contract negotiations. Our 
analysis indicates that there is no government involvement in the daily 
operations or the selection of management for this company. In 
addition, we have found that the respondent's pricing and export 
strategy decisions are not subject to the review or approval of any 
outside entity, and that there are no governmental policy directives 
that affect these decisions.
    There are no restrictions on the use of export earnings. The 
general manager of New Donghua has the authority to negotiate, set 
prices and enter into contracts, and may delegate this authority to 
employees within the company.\1\ There is no evidence that this 
authority is subject to any level of governmental approval. New Donghua 
stated that its management is selected by the shareholders and there is 
no government involvement in the selection process. Consequently, 
because evidence on the record indicates an absence of government 
control, both in law and in fact, over the company's activities, we 
preliminarily determine that a separate rate should be applied to New 
Donghua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See New Donghua Verification Report at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether the respondent's sale of the subject 
merchandise to the United States was made at a price below normal value 
(NV), we compared its United States Price to NV, as described in the 
``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

United States Price

    Based on the information we have gathered to date, we preliminarily 
find New Donghua's sale to be bona fide. However, we will continue to 
analyze this issue for purposes of the final results of review. For a 
discussion of our analysis see Memorandum to the File through Maureen 
Flannery from Matthew Renkey entitled Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in 
the New Shipper Review of Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd., dated 
February 24, 2004. A public version of this memo is on file in the 
Central Records Unit located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce 
Building.
    We based the United States price on export price (EP), in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an 
unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed 
export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the 
record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We deducted 
foreign inland freight expenses from the starting price (gross unit 
price) in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.

Normal Value

1. Surrogate Country
    When investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) 
of the Act directs the Department 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, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall 
use, to the extent practicable, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level 
of economic development comparable to the NME country and are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the 
surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Factor Valuations'' 
section below.
    We calculated normal value based on factors of production in 
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section 351.408(c) of 
our regulations. Consistent with the original
    investigation of this order, we determined that India (1) is 
comparable to the PRC in level of economic development, and (2) is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Surrogate Values Used for the Preliminary Results of the 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Glycine from the People's 
Republic of China, dated February 24, 2004 (Factor Values Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Factors of Production
    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using a factors-of-production methodology if (1) the 
merchandise is exported from an NME country, and (2) available 
information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market 
prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) 
of the Act. Factors of production include the following elements: (1) 
hours of labor required, (2) quantities of raw materials employed, (3) 
amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and (4) representative 
capital costs. We valued all the input factors using publicly available 
information.
    In accordance with section 351.301(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's 
regulations, for the final results of an administrative review and a 
new shipper review, interested parties may submit publicly available 
information to value the factors of production no later than 20 days 
following the date of publication of these preliminary results.
3. Factor Valuations
    As discussed above, we are applying partial adverse facts available 
to determine factor values and FOP for industrial grade glycine 
production. For the FOP, we used the highest monthly factor usage 
reported by New Donghau. We applied surrogate values to the FOP to 
determine NV, and where the information was available, we used the 
highest non-aberrational surrogate value identified during the POR. We 
valued the factors of production as follows:

Materials and Energy

    To value chloroacetic acid (also known as monochloroacetic acid), 
we used the highest price concurrent with the POR as reported in 
Chemical Weekly. To value liquid ammonia, formaldehyde, and methanol, 
we used the highest non-aberrational monthly import value derived from 
Indian import statistics in the World Trade Atlas for the period March 
2002 through February 2003. To value activated carbon and hydrogen 
peroxide, we used the weighted-average unit import value derived from 
Indian import statistics in the World Trade Atlas for the period March 
2002 through February 2003. To value electricity, we used the total 
cost per kilowatt hr (KWH) for ``Electricity for Industry'' as reported 
in the International Energy Agency's publication, Key World Energy 
Statistics, 2003. For water, we relied upon public information from the 
October 1997 Second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian and Pacific 
Region, published by the Asian Development Bank. To value steam, we 
used a calculated per metric ton value for low-

[[Page 9808]]

pressure steam based on publicly available company data as was used in 
Hot-Rolled Steel from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 
2001).
    To achieve comparability of steam and water prices to the factors 
reported for the POR, we adjusted these factor values to reflect 
inflation through the POR using the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for 
India, as published in the 2003 International Financial Statistics 
(IFS) by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
    To value packing materials (inner plastic bags, outer woven bags, 
and nylon thread), we used the weighted-average unit import value 
derived from Indian import statistics in the World Trade Atlas for the 
period March 2002 through February 2003.

Labor

    For labor, we used the PRC regression-based wage rate at Import 
Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected 
NME Countries, revised in September 2003 and updated in February 2004. 
See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/01wages/01wages.html Because of the 
variability of wage rates in countries with similar per capita gross 
domestic products, section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's 
regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. The 
source of these wage rate data on the Import Administration's web site 
is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, International Labour Office 
(Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing.

Factory Overhead, SG&A, and Profit

    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (SG&A), and profit, we used financial information from the 
2001-2002 financial statement of an Indian pharmaceutical producer, 
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited (Torrent). We applied these rates to 
the calculated cost of manufacture. See Factor Values Memo.

Transportation Expenses

    To value truck freight expenses, we used Indian freight rates as 
reported in the February 14, 2000 issue of The Financial Express (an 
Indian business publication), which were used in the antidumping duty 
investigation of certain circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from 
the PRC. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Certain Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the 
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 36570 (May 24, 2002) (China Pipe). We 
adjusted the rates to reflect inflation through the POR using the WPI 
for India from the IFS.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the 
Department's regulations at the rates certified by the Federal Reserve 
Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin 
exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Manufacturer/Exporter             Time Period       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd...  3/1/02-2/28/03           8.89%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Upon completion of the review, bonding will no longer be permitted. 
If these preliminary results are not modified in the final results of 
this review, a cash deposit rate of 8.89 percent will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all 
shipments of glycine from the PRC produced and exported by New Donghua 
and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act. 
This cash deposit rate will only be effective for merchandise that is 
both produced and exported by New Donghua. If New Donghua exports 
merchandise produced by any other company, the applicable cash deposit 
rate will be the PRC-wide rate, which is currently 155.89 percent.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this new shipper review, the Department shall 
determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP upon completion of this 
review. For assessment purposes, we will calculate importer-specific 
assessment rates for glycine from the PRC. We divided the total dumping 
margins (calculated as the difference between NV and EP) for the 
importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that 
importer during the POR. Upon the completion of this review, we will 
direct CBP to assess antidumping duties on a per kilogram basis 
equivalent to the company-specific dumping margin established in this 
review for each entry of subject merchandise made by New Donghua during 
the POR. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of 
review.

Schedule for Final Results of Review

    Pursuant to section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations, the 
Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations 
performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to section 351.309 
of the Department's regulations, interested parties may submit written 
comments in response to these preliminary results. Normally, case 
briefs are to be submitted within 30 days of the date of publication of 
this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case 
briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days after the time 
limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this 
proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement 
of the issues, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and 
rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 
section 351.303(f) of the Department's regulations.
    Also, pursuant to section 351.310 of the Department's regulations, 
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested 
parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the 
case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the 
hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for 
submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and 
location. The Department will issue the final results of this new 
shipper review, which will include the results of its analysis of 
issues raised in the briefs, within 90 days from the date of signature 
of these preliminary results, unless the time limit is extended.

Notification to Importers

    At the completion of this new shipper review, the Department will 
notify the CBP that bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill 
security requirements for shipments of glycine

[[Page 9809]]

from the PRC exported and produced by New Donghua that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United States on or 
after the publication of the final results in the Federal Register, and 
that a cash deposit should be collected for any entries produced and 
exported by New Donghua.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 
to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties 
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during these review 
periods. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the 
Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties 
occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This new shipper review and this notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777 (i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 24, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-4613 Filed 3-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S