[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 50 (Monday, March 15, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12121-12127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-5802]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-504]


Notice of Final Results and Rescission, in Part, of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles From the 
People's Republic of China

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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 2004.

[[Page 12122]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Gannon at (202) 482-0162 or Mark 
Hoadley at (202) 482-3148, 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 2, 2003, the Department issued the preliminary results 
of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on petroleum 
wax candles from the People's Republic of China in the Federal 
Register, 68 FR 53109 (September 9, 2003) (Preliminary Results). On 
August 26, 2003, prior to the Preliminary Results, we received a letter 
from the Petitioner describing Fay Candle's involvement as a 
petitioning creditor in an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding brought 
against TIJID in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern 
District of Florida. On August 29, 2003, we received comments from Fay 
Candle, TIJID, and Palm Beach on the above-referenced bankruptcy 
proceeding. Both of these submissions were received too late for the 
Department to examine them for purposes of the Preliminary Results. On 
September 8, 2003, we received rebuttal comments from the Petitioner on 
the bankruptcy proceeding. On September 16, 2003, the Department issued 
a memorandum to the file notifying interested parties that it was 
postponing the October 9, 2003 case brief and October 14, 2003 rebuttal 
brief deadlines until further notice. On September 29, 2003, we 
received comments on surrogate value data from Fay Candle. On September 
30, 2003, the Department issued a fourth supplemental questionnaire to 
Fay Candle.
    On October 3, 2003, we received a request for a public hearing from 
Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd. (Li & Fung). On October 7, 2003, the 
Petitioner requested a public hearing to address the dumping margin for 
Kingking. On October 8, 2003, we received comments from the Petitioner 
regarding discrepancies between the U.S. sales quantity and value 
totals which Kingking reported to the Department and CBP data. On 
October 8, 2003, we received a request from Fay Candle to extend the 
time to respond to the Department's fourth supplemental questionnaire. 
On October 9, 2003, we received rebuttal comments from the Petitioner 
on the surrogate value data previously submitted by Fay Candle. On 
October 9, 2003, Fay Candle requested a hearing in this matter to 
address the issues from the Preliminary Results. On October 9, 2003, 
J.C. Penney Purchasing Corporation and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-
Mart), importers of the subject merchandise, submitted a letter raising 
objections to aspects of the Department's Preliminary Results.
    On October 9, 2003, we received a letter from Fay Candle requesting 
that the Department postpone verification of Fay Candle scheduled to 
start on October 20, 2003 in the PRC. On October 10, 2003, the 
Department extended the time for Fay Candle to respond to the 
Department's fourth supplemental questionnaire to October 15, 2003. In 
a letter dated October 10, 2003, we asked Fay Candle to explain why it 
requested a postponement of the verification scheduled to begin October 
20, 2003 in the PRC. On October 10, 2003, we received comments from the 
Petitioner regarding the involuntary bankruptcy petition for TIJID and 
a related civil suit by TIJID against Wal-Mart. On October 10, 2003, we 
received comments from the Petitioner regarding the Department's 
factors of production verification of Fay Candle. On October 15, 2003, 
the Department issued a verification outline to Fay Candle for the PRC 
verification. On October 15, 2003, we received a request from Fay 
Candle for a second extension of the deadline to respond to the 
Department's fourth supplemental questionnaire. On October 16, 2003, 
the Department issued a memorandum to the file offering to postpone the 
PRC verification scheduled to start on October 20, 2003 and proposing 
to conduct the PRC verification starting October 27, 2003. On October 
16, 2003, the Department issued a second memorandum to the file noting 
that Fay Candle had accepted the Department's offer to postpone the PRC 
verification scheduled to begin on October 20, 2003 and had agreed to 
starting the PRC verification on October 27, 2003.
    On October 16, 2003, the Department issued a memorandum to the file 
notifying the parties that it was accepting the submissions from the 
Petitioner and Fay Candle, respectively, regarding the involuntary 
bankruptcy petition of TIJID. On October 16, 2003, the Department 
issued a memorandum to the file granting Fay Candle an extension of 
time to respond to the Department's fourth supplemental questionnaire. 
On October 20, 2003, we received another request from Fay Candle to 
postpone the PRC verification, which had been rescheduled to begin on 
October 27, 2003. In its letter, Fay Candle proposed that the 
Department commence the verification of the U.S. importers on November 
10, 2003 and commence verification of Fay Candle in the PRC on November 
17, 2003. On October 20, 2003, we received Fay Candle's response to the 
Department's fourth supplemental questionnaire. On October 20, 2003, 
the Department issued a memorandum to the file noting that Fay Candle 
no longer consented to the PRC verification of Fay Candle starting on 
October 27, 2003. On October 24, 2003, the Department received comments 
from the Petitioner objecting to further delays in the verification of 
Fay Candle. On October 24, 2003, the Department issued a memorandum to 
the file outlining a briefing schedule for the interested parties, the 
Petitioner, and Respondents.
    On October 28, 2003, the Department received a letter from Fay 
Candle withdrawing its request for an administrative review; however, 
the review could not be rescinded because the Petitioner had also 
requested a review of Fay Candle. On October 29, 2003, the Department 
issued a verification outline to Fay Candle for the Florida 
verification. On October 29, 2003, the Department issued a memorandum 
to the file notifying the parties that the Department had previously 
accepted the Petitioner's submissions dated August 26, 2003 and 
September 8, 2003 regarding the involuntary bankruptcy petition against 
TIJID, and notifying Fay Candle that if it intended to submit rebuttal 
information regarding the involuntary bankruptcy petition, then Fay 
Candle would need to request an extension of time for any such 
submissions. On October 30, 2003, the Department received comments from 
the Petitioner objecting to Fay Candle's request to withdraw from this 
administrative review. On November 4, 2003, we received comments from 
Fay Candle clarifying that it did not request withdrawal from this 
administrative review in its letter dated October 28, 2003. According 
to Fay Candle, it requested the Department to exercise its discretion 
to extend the time limit for Fay Candle to withdraw its August 30, 2002 
request for review so that the Department could then rescind the review 
with respect to Fay Candle.
    The Department conducted verification of Fay Candle at the office 
of its U.S. importers, TIJID and Palm Beach, on November 6, 2003 and 
November 7, 2003. On November 13, 2003, we received case briefs from 
the Petitioner and Fay Candle. On November 18, 2003, we received 
rebuttal briefs from Fay Candle, Li & Fung, American Greetings Company,

[[Page 12123]]

and Petitioner. The Department conducted verification of Fay Candle 
overseas from November 17, 2003 to November 21, 2003. On December 24, 
2003, the Department issued its verification reports. On January 6, 
2003, we received a letter from the Petitioner regarding a safety 
recall of candles made by Kingking and sold in the United States by 
Wal-Mart. On January 7, 2004, the Department issued a memorandum to the 
file notifying the parties that comments on the Department's 
verification reports for Fay Candle would be due by January 16, 2004 
and rebuttal comments would be due on January 23, 2003.
    On January 9, 2004, we received a request from the Petitioner to 
withdraw its request for a public hearing on the issue of Kingking's 
dumping margin. On January 16, 2004, the Department received comments 
from the Petitioner and Fay Candle on the verification reports. On 
January 22, 2004, the Department issued a memorandum to the file 
notifying the parties that it would hold a public hearing on February 
6, 2004, regarding the issue of the status of Li & Fung. On January 23, 
2004, the Department received rebuttal comments on the verification 
reports from the Petitioner and from Fay Candle. On February 3, 2004, 
the Department postponed the hearing scheduled for February 6, 2004. On 
February 13, 2004, Fay Candle withdrew its request for a hearing in 
this matter. On February 13, 2004, the Department re-scheduled the 
hearing on the issue of Li & Fung's status for February 20, 2004, and 
notified parties that we were setting up a special briefing schedule 
for comment solely on Li & Fung's status. On February 17, 2004, the 
Department received special case briefs from Li & Fung and the 
Petitioner. On February 19, 2004, the Department received special 
rebuttal briefs from Li & Fung and the Petitioner. On February 20, 
2004, a hearing was held in this proceeding on the status of Li & Fung. 
We have now completed this administrative review in accordance with 
section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Antidumping Order

    The products covered by this order are certain scented or unscented 
petroleum wax candles made from petroleum wax and having fiber or 
paper-cored wicks. They are sold in the following shapes: tapers, 
spirals, and straight-sided dinner candles; rounds, columns, pillars, 
votives; and various wax-filled containers. The products were 
classified under the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) item 
755.25, Candles and Tapers. The products are currently classified under 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, Annotated for 
Statistical Reporting Purposes (2004) (HTSUS) item 3406.00.00. Although 
the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
our written description of the scope of this proceeding remains 
dispositive.

Period of Review

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

Verification

    Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act, the Department verified the 
information submitted by Fay Candle for use in our final results. The 
Department used standard verification procedures including examination 
of relevant accounting and production records, and original source 
documents provided by the respondents. See PRC Verification Report and 
U.S. Verification Report.

Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised in all the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration regarding the Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's 
Republic of China, dated March 8, 2004 (Decision Memorandum), which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have 
raised and to which we have responded, all of which are addressed in 
the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Attachment I. 
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this 
review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum 
which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main 
Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Rescission, in Part, of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to our regulations, the Department may rescind an 
administrative review if the Secretary concludes that, during the 
period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales 
of the subject merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). In our 
Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily rescinded this review 
with respect to four companies that reported no shipments during the 
POR: Dalian Hanbo Lighting Co., Ltd. (Dalian Hanbo); Premier Candle 
Co., Ltd. (Premier Candle); Zhong Hang-Scanwell International (ZHS); 
Zen Continental Co., Inc. See Memorandum from Javier Barrientos through 
Sally Gannon to Barbara E. Tillman, Regarding Petroleum Wax Candles 
from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Intent to Rescind 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, in Part (POR: August 1, 2001 to 
July 31, 2002), dated September 2, 2003 (Intent to Rescind Memo). In 
the Preliminary Results, we stated that we found no evidence that there 
were entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise by these 
companies. Since the Preliminary Results, no new information has been 
obtained or submitted which would alter our decision to rescind the 
review with respect to these four companies. Therefore, for these final 
results and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department is 
finally rescinding, in part, this review with respect to Dalian Hanbo, 
Premier Candle, ZHS, and Zen Continental.
    With respect to a fifth company, Li & Fung, which claimed it was 
merely a buying agent for the subject merchandise during the POR and 
not an exporter or producer, the Department found in the Preliminary 
Results that its review of the CBP data for the POR did not support Li 
& Fung's claim that it acted only as a buying agent during the POR. See 
Preliminary Results and Intent to Rescind Memo. Since the Preliminary 
Results, Li & Fung and the Petitioner submitted special case and 
rebuttal briefs on this issue and a public and closed hearing was held 
regarding the status of Li & Fung in this administrative review.
    The Department finds for these final results that Li & Fung has not 
demonstrated that the data which the Department obtained from CBP is 
incorrect and that the Department should, thus, rescind this review, in 
part, with respect to Li & Fung. As noted above, in the Preliminary 
Results the Department determined that Li & Fung's claim that it had no 
shipments had not been substantiated, based on data obtained from CBP 
for the POR. See Preliminary Results. As such, Li & Fung bears the 
burden of demonstrating to the Department that the CBP data is 
incorrect or has been misinterpreted. While Li & Fung has provided an 
explanation in its briefs and some

[[Page 12124]]

evidence in its February 6, 2003 submission which supports its claim 
that it has served as a buying agent, it provided no evidence that 
directly rebutted the information obtained from CBP. The Department's 
task in this administrative review is to determine whether or not Li & 
Fung has provided sufficient relevant evidence that it did not sell or 
export subject merchandise during this POR such that the review should 
be rescinded, in part, with respect to Li & Fung. In this respect, Li & 
Fung has failed to present relevant evidence to refute our decision in 
the Preliminary Results. For a more detailed analysis of this issue, 
see Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; see also Memorandum to Barbara E. 
Tillman, through Sally C. Gannon, from Javier Barrientos; Petroleum Wax 
Candles from the People's Republic of China for the Period of August 1, 
2001 through July 31, 2002: Status of Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd., for the 
Final Results, dated March 8, 2004 (Li & Fung Final Memo). Therefore, 
for the final results, because Li & Fung has not demonstrated that it 
did not sell or export the subject merchandise during the POR, the 
Department has not rescinded this review, in part, with respect to Li & 
Fung. See Decision Memorandum, at Comment 3.

Separate Rates

    Fay Candle, Kingking, Shandong Jiaye General Merchandise Co., Ltd. 
(Shandong Jiaye) , and Shanghai Charming Wax Co., Ltd. (Shanghai 
Charming) all requested a separate, company-specific rate.\1\ In the 
Department's Preliminary Results, because evidence on the record 
indicated an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, 
over Fay Candle's, Kingking's, Shandong Jiaye's, and Shanghai 
Charming's export activities, we preliminarily determined that these 
companies met the requirements for receiving a separate rate for 
purposes of this review. There have been no changes to the record 
information since the Preliminary Results with regard to separate rates 
for Fay Candle, Shandong Jiaye, and Shanghai Charming. Therefore, for 
these final results, we continue to determine that these three 
companies will receive separate rates.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As noted in the Preliminary Results, although Smartcord, a 
mandatory respondent, submitted a response to section A of the 
questionnaire, it did not respond to the remainder of the 
Department's questionnaire. As a mandatory respondent, Smartcord was 
required to provide complete questionnaire responses. Therefore, as 
indicated in the ``Application of Adverse Facts Available'' section 
infra, Adverse Facts Available (AFA) was assigned to Smartcord in 
the Preliminary Results and in these final results. As a result, 
Smartcord will not receive a separate rate for these final results.
    \2\ As in the Preliminary Results, for Shandong Jiaye and 
Shanghai Charming, we have calculated a weighted-average margin for 
these final results based on the rates calculated for those 
producers/exporters that were selected as mandatory respondents, 
excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on 
AFA. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic 
of China, 62 FR 41347, 41350 (August 1, 1997). Because Fay Candle's 
rate is the only qualifying rate for this calculation, we applied 
Fay Candle's rate to Shandong Jiaye and Shanghai Charming for these 
final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to Kingking, however, as detailed in the ``Application 
of Adverse Facts Available'' section below, it failed to continue to 
participate in this review after the Preliminary Results were issued 
and, thus, did not cooperate to the best of its ability for these final 
results. As a result, the Department will apply an AFA rate to 
Kingking.

Application of Adverse Facts Available

    In the Preliminary Results, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 
(B) and section 776(b) of the Act, the Department applied total AFA to 
the PRC entity, which included four mandatory respondents, the 88 
companies that failed to respond to the Department's Q&V letter, and 
five other entities that did not demonstrate their eligibility for a 
separate rate. See Attachment II for a listing of these 97 
companies.\3\ In the Preliminary Results, we determined that none of 
the 97 entities were eligible for a separate rate because they failed 
to cooperate with the Department to the best of their ability. We noted 
in the Preliminary Results that some of the companies failed to respond 
to the Department's Q&V letter, while others failed to respond in whole 
or in part to the Department's questionnaire. Because none of these 
companies demonstrated that they were eligible for a separate rate, the 
Department considered them part of the PRC entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As noted above, and discussed infra, Kingking is no longer 
eligible for a separate rate. Therefore, its name has been added to 
the companies that will receive the AFA rate in these final results. 
Accordingly, the number of such companies will increase by one to 
98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the Preliminary Results, the Department has not received any 
information on the record of this matter that would cause us to alter 
our decision in the Preliminary Results regarding the application of 
AFA to the PRC entity. Therefore, for the reasons cited in the 
Preliminary Results and in the Decision Memorandum, at Comment 2, the 
Department will continue to apply the AFA rate to the PRC entity which, 
as noted above, includes the 97 entities identified in Attachment II.
    As noted supra at footnote 3, the Department has determined for 
these final results that Kingking is no longer eligible for a separate 
rate because it failed to continue to cooperate to the best of its 
ability after the Preliminary Results. As further discussed below, 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) and section 776(b) of the 
Act, the Department determines that the application of total adverse 
facts available is warranted for respondent Kingking. 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.
    On September 11, 2003, the Department sent Kingking a letter asking 
Kingking to reconcile its reported quantity and value information with 
data from CBP. On September 23, 2003, the Department sent Kingking 
another letter requesting public summaries of its business proprietary 
information on the record. The Department attempted several times to 
solicit responses to the Department's two letters from Kingking, 
without success. See Memorandum to File from Sally C, Gannon: Qingdao 
Kingking Chronology (with electronic mail (e-mail) attachments) dated 
October 14, 2003. These included: an October 3, 2003 e-mail; an October 
6, 2003 facsimile; an October 7, 2003 e-mail; and, an October 9, 2003 
e-mail. The only response the Department received in reference to its 
letters was an October 8, 2003 e-mail from a Kingking company official 
stating that Kingking did not respond to the Department's previous 
requests. Id. In addition, Kingking did not request further time or 
assistance in fulfilling its obligation in this regard and stopped 
participating in the administrative review. Id. Kingking failed to 
provide information explicitly requested by the Department; therefore, 
we must resort to use of facts otherwise available. Because Kingking 
stopped responding to the Department, section 782 (d) and (e) of the 
Act are not applicable.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is 
adverse to the interests of the respondent, if it determines that a 
party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. The 
Department finds that, by not providing the necessary responses to the 
questionnaires issued by the Department, and not providing any 
explanation, Kingking failed to

[[Page 12125]]

cooperate to the best of its ability. The information requested by the 
Department is integral to its antidumping analysis. In addition, 
because Kingking never responded to the Department's supplemental 
questionnaires and stopped participating in the review, the Department 
could no longer rely on any information in its original questionnaire 
responses to determine whether Kingking was entitled to a separate 
rate. Without complete questionnaire responses, the Department cannot 
calculate normal value, and, therefore, a dumping margin. Kingking is 
the only party which has access to the information requested by the 
Department and therefore is the only party which could have complied 
with the Department's supplemental requests for information.
    Therefore, in selecting from the facts available, the Department 
determines that an adverse inference is warranted. In accordance with 
sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B), as well as section 776(b) of the Act, 
because of the breadth of the missing, unsupported and unverifiable 
data, we are applying total adverse facts available to Kingking. As 
AFA, and as the PRC-wide rate, the Department is assigning Fay Candle's 
calculated rate from the instant review, which is the highest rate 
determined in the current or any previous segment of this proceeding.
    We are also applying Fay Candle's rate to the 97 companies listed 
in Attachment II. Corroboration is not required because this rate is 
based on, and calculated from, information obtained in the course of 
this administrative review, i.e., it is not secondary information. See 
19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d) and section 776(c) of the Act.

Affiliation

    The Department continues to find that Fay Candle and its U.S. 
importers are unaffiliated. Thus, we continue to treat Fay Candle's 
sales as EP sales for these final results. For a full discussion of 
this issue, see Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

Surrogate Value Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    We received comments from Fay Candle and the Petitioner on the 
surrogate values for numerous factors of production used by the 
Department to calculate the dumping margin for Fay Candle in the 
Preliminary Results. As a result of the comments made by the parties, 
we have changed the HTS classifications, updated the data, and 
corrected ministerial errors for a number of factors of production. 
Below is a listing of the factors of production for which we received 
comments and a brief description of the decisions reached by the 
Department. For an in-depth discussion of Fay Candle's and the 
Petitioner's comments and the Department's decisions, see the 
Memorandum from Sebastian Wright and Mark Hoadley through Sally Gannon 
to the File Regarding Determination of Surrogate Values for Use in the 
Final Results of the Administrative Review of Petroleum Wax Candles 
from the People's Republic of China, dated March 8, 2004; see also 
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 4.
    Paraffin Wax: The Department has determined to use the data set 
from Chemical Weekly which does not include the data for imports from 
the PRC to obtain a surrogate value for paraffin wax.
    Banding Strap: The Department has decided to classify banding strap 
under HTS heading 3920.2000, ``other plates, sheets film, foil an strip 
of plastics * * * of polymers of propylene.''
    Metal Plate, Metal Star, and Metal Stand: The Department has 
classified these three inputs under HTS heading 8007.0010, 
``{o{time} ther articles of tin: articles not elsewhere specified or 
included of a type used for household, table or kitchen use; toilet and 
sanitary wares; all the foregoing not coated or plated with precious 
metal.''
    Masonite Board: The Department has classified Masonite board under 
HTS heading 4411.0000, ``fiberboard of wood or other ligneous 
materials, whether or not bonded with resins or other organic 
substances.''
    Styrofoam: The Department has classified Styrofoam under HTS 
heading 3903.1100, ``{p{time} olymers of styrene in primary forms: 
Expandable.''
    Wicks: The Department has classified wicks under HTS heading 
5908.0000, ``{t{time} extile wicks, woven, plaited or knitted, for 
lamps, stoves, lighters, candles or the like; incandescent gas mantles 
and tubular knitted gas mantle fabric therefore, whether or not 
impregnated.''
    Color Boxes: The Department has classified color boxes under HTS 
heading 4819.2000, ``{o{time} ther folding cartons, boxes and cases of 
non-corrugated paper or paperboard.''
    PDQs and Sidekick Displays: The Department has classified PDQs and 
sidekick displays under HTS heading 4819.1000, ``cartons, boxes and 
cases of corrugated paper or paperboard.''
    Cardboard and Mastercase: The Department has classified cardboard 
and mastercase under HTS heading 4819.1000, ``cartons, boxes and cases 
of corrugated paper or paperboard.''
    Polyresin Plate: The Department will continue to exclude 
``aberrational'' data from the Indian import statistics used in our 
calculations for this input.
    Scrap Wax: In accordance with the Preliminary Results, the 
Department will continue to use the scrap wax sold during the POR in 
order to calculate the adjustment to NV. However, the Department will 
limit the adjustment to NV to the amount of scrap wax generated from 
production of subject merchandise during the POR. We also decline to 
use the Chemical Weekly data for residue wax as the surrogate value for 
scrap wax.
    Scrap Silicone: The Department has determined not to permit an 
adjustment to NV for the sale of scrap silicone because the Department 
considers silicone a part of overhead.
    Scrap Packing: The Department has determined to average all of the 
values for Fay Candle's packing material inputs, except for wood 
pallets, together to calculate a surrogate value for scrap packing 
material.
    Electricity: The Department has updated the data from International 
Energy Agency's (IEA's) Energy Prices and Taxes as the source for the 
surrogate value for this input. The Department has also decided to use 
the electricity industry-specific inflator to adjust the surrogate 
value to account for inflation through the POR.
    Inland Freight Distance for Paraffin Wax: In accordance with the 
Sigma rule, the Department has determined not to cap the inland freight 
distance for paraffin wax. The Department has determined that the data 
for this input does not include import statistics and therefore should 
not be capped.
    Truck Freight Rate: The Department has decided to use the truck 
freight rate data from Chemical Weekly because this data provides a 
more accurate surrogate value than the data from Financial Express used 
in the Preliminary Results.
    VYBAR103 Additive: The Department has corrected the ministerial 
error in the calculation of the surrogate value for this input.
    Exchange Rate: The Department has corrected the ministerial error 
in the calculation of the average Indian exchange rate.
    Packing Overhead Cost: The Department has decided not to calculate 
an adjustment to NV for packing overhead cost.
    Coal: The Department has determined to continue to use Indian 
import statistics to calculate a surrogate value for coal.

[[Page 12126]]

    Labor Rate: The Department has used updated data from the 
Department's Web site to calculate a surrogate value for the PRC labor 
rate. See Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected 
Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in September 2003 and updated 
in February 2004, http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/01wages/01wages.html.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following percentage margins exist for the 
period August 1, 2001 through July 31, 2002.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongguan Fay Candle Co., Ltd................................       95.95
Shanghai Charming Wax Co., Ltd..............................       95.95
Shandong Jiaye General Merchandise Co., Ltd.................       95.95
PRC-Wide Rate \4\...........................................       95.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with these final results of review within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This PRC-wide rate will apply, as discussed above, to all 97 
companies listed in Attachment II and to Kingking, as well as to all 
other companies that do not have a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue 
appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of 
publication of these final results of review. For Fay Candle, we will 
direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates, where appropriate, 
on the entered CBP quantity for the subject merchandise for each of the 
importer's entries during the period of review. For all other entries, 
we will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates against the 
entered CBP values for the subject merchandise on each of the 
exporter's entries during the review period.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results for this administrative review for 
all shipments of petroleum wax candles from the PRC entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The 
cash deposit rates for Fay Candle, Shanghai Charming, and Shandong 
Jiaye will be the rates listed above in the ``Final Results of Review'' 
section supra; (2) for previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters 
with separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific 
rate established for the most recent period; (3) for all other PRC 
exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the new PRC-wide rate, as 
listed above in the ``Final Results of Review'' section supra; and, (4) 
for all other non-PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit 
requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final 
results of the next administrative review.

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 8, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Attachment I--Comments

1. Affiliation
2. Application of Adverse Facts Available
3. Status of Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd., (Li & Fung)
4. Paraffin Wax
5. Other Factors of Production

Attachment II

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

ADP (Ningbo, PRC)
ADP Shanghai
Allock Ltd.
Amstar Business Company Limited
Anyway International Trading & Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Aroma Consumer Products (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd.
Candle World Industrial Co.
China Hebei Boye Great Nation Candle Co., Ltd.
China Overseas Trading Dalian Corp.
China Packaging Import & Export Liaoning Co.
China Xinxing Zhongyuan (Wuhan) Imp. & Exp.
CNACC (Zhejiang) Imports & Export Co., Ltd.
Cnart China Gifts Import & Export Corp.
Dandong Hengtong Handicraft Article Co., Ltd.
Dandong Hengtong Handicraftarticle Co., Ltd.
DDP Qingdao
Dongijeng Fecund Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd.
Ever-gain Industrial Co.
Excel Network Limited
Far Going Candle Gifts Co., Ltd.
Fu Kit
Fujian Provincial Arts & Crafts Imp. & Exp. Corp.
Fushun Candle Corporation
Fushun Economy Development Zone Xinyang Candle Factory
Fushun Huaiyuan Wax Products Co., Ltd.
Fushun Yuanhang Paraffin Products Industrial Company
Fushun Yuhua Crafts Factory
Gansu Textiles Imp. & Exp. Corp.
Green Islands Industry Shanghai Co. Ltd.
Huangyan Imp. & Exp. Corp.
Huangyan Imp. & Exp. Corp.
Jason Craft Corp.
Jiangsu Holly Corporation
Jiangsu Yixing Foreign Trade Corp.
Jilin Province Arts and Crafts
Jintan Foreign Trade Corp.
Kingking A.C. Co., Ltd.
Kuehne & Nagel (Hong Kong) Beijing
Kwung's International Trade Co., Ltd.
Li & Fung Trading Ltd.
Liaoning Arts & Crafts Import & Export
Liaoning Light
Liaoning Light Industrial Products Import & Export Corp.
Liaoning Native Product Import & Export Corporation, Ltd.
Liaoning Province Building Materials Industrial Im
Liaoning Xinyuan Textiles Import and Export
Lu Ke Trading Co., Ltd.
Ningbo Free Trade Zone Weicheng Trading Co., Ltd.
Ningbo Free Zone Top Rank Trading Co.
Ningbo Kwung's Giftware Co., Ltd.
Ningbo Kwung's Import & Export Co.
Ningbo Sincere Designers & Manufacturers Ltd.
Qingdao Allite Radiance Candle Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Happy Chemical Products Co., Ltd.
Quanzhou Wenbao Light Industry Co.
Red Sun Arts Manufacture (Yixing) Co., Ltd.

[[Page 12127]]

Rich Talent Trading Ltd./Smartcord Int'l Co. Ltd.
Round-the-World (USA) Corp.
Round-the-World International Trade & Trans. Service (Tianjin) Co., 
Ltd.
Seven Seas Candle Ltd.
Shandong H&T Corp.
Shandong Native Produce International Trading Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Arts and Crafts Company
Shanghai Asian Development Int'l Tr
Shanghai Broad Trading Co. Ltd.
Shanghai Gift & Travel Products Import & Export Corp.
Shanghai Gifts & Travel
Shanghai Jerry Candle Co., Ltd.
Shanghai New Star Im/Ex Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Ornate Candle Art Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Shen Hong Corp.
Shanghai Sincere Gifts Designers & Manufacturers, Ltd.
Shanghai Success Arts & Crafts Factory
Shanghai Xietong Group O/B Asia 2 Trading Company
Shanghai Zhen Hua c/o Shanghai Light Industrial Int'l Corp., Ltd.
Silkroad Gifts
Simon Int'l Ltd.
Suzhou Ind'l Park Nam Kwong Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. (No. 339 East Baodai 
Road, Suzhou)
Suzhou Ind'l Park Nam Kwong Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. (Zhongxing City, 
Conghuan Rd., Suzhou)
T.H.I.. (HK) Ltd.
Taizhou Int'l Trade Corp.
Taizhou Sungod Gifts Co., Ltd.
THI (HK) Ltd.
Thi Group Ltd. and THI (HK) Ltd.
Tianjin Native Produce Import & Export Group Corp., Ltd.
Tonglu Tiandi
Universal Candle Co., Ltd.
Weltach
World Way International (Xiamen)
World-Green (Shangdong) Corp., Ltd.
Xiamen Aider Import & Export Company
Xiamen C&D Inc.
Xietong (Group) Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp.
Zhong Nam Industrial (International) Co., Ltd.
Zhongnam Candle
Zhongxing Shenyang Commercial Building (Group) Co., Ltd.
[FR Doc. 04-5802 Filed 3-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P