[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 121 (Thursday, June 24, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35287-35293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-14362]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-892]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Carbazole Violet Pigment 
23 From the People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value and 
postponement of final determination.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 24, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Welty or Tisha Loeper-Viti 
at (202) 482-0186 or (202) 482-7425, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, 
Office 5, Group II, Import Administration, Room 1870, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

[[Page 35288]]

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP-
23) from the People's Republic of China is being sold, 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 margin of sales at LTFV is shown in the 
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on December 11, 2003.\1\ See 
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Carbazole 
Violet Pigment 23 from India and the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 
70761 (December 19, 2003) (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation of 
the investigation, the following events have occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this investigation are Sun Chemical 
Corporation and Nation Ford Chemical Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) set aside a period 
for all interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. 
See Initiation Notice, 68 FR at 70762. We received no comments.
    On January 5, 2004, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable 
indication that the domestic industry producing CVP-23 is materially 
injured by reason of imports from the People's Republic of China (PRC). 
See Determinations and Views of the Commission, USITC Publication No. 
3662 (January 2004); see also Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from China 
and India, 69 FR 2002 (January 13, 2004).
    On January 9, 2004, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire \2\ to the PRC Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports and 
Exports (BOFT). The Department requested that BOFT send the 
questionnaire to all companies that manufacture and export CVP-23 to 
the United States, as well as manufacturers that produce CVP-23 for 
companies that were engaged in exporting subject merchandise to the 
United States during the period of investigation (POI). Seven companies 
filed responses to section A of the questionnaire on February 6, 2004. 
On February 18, 2004, the Department informed the PRC companies that 
the Department was not considering limiting the number of respondents, 
and that the Department intended to investigate all seven companies 
that had filed a response to section A.\3\ On March 2, 2004, the 
following companies responded to sections C and D of the Department's 
questionnaire: GoldLink Industries Co., Ltd. (GoldLink), Nantong Haidi 
Chemical Co., Ltd. (Haidi), Trust Chem Co., Ltd. (Trust Chem) and 
Tianjin Hanchem Int'l Trading Co., Ltd. (Hanchem).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section of A of the questionnaire requests general 
information concerning a company's corporate structure and business 
practices, the merchandise under this investigation that it sells, 
and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its 
markets. Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. 
Section D requests information on the factors of production of the 
merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on 
further manufacturing.
    \3\ See February 18, 2004 Memo to the File from Charles Riggle.
    \4\ Hanchem was established subsequent to the POI out of the 
U.S. sales department of a company named Tianjin Heng An Trading 
Co., Ltd. (Heng An). During the POI, sales of subject merchandise to 
the United States were made by Heng An. We have preliminarily 
determined that it is appropriate to treat Heng An and Hanchem as a 
single entity for the purposes of the margin calculations for this 
antidumping duty investigation and for the application of the 
antidumping law. See Memorandum from Marin Weaver, International 
Trade Compliance Analyst, to Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, concerning the Analysis of Successorship and Assignment 
of Separate Rate for Respondents in the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's 
Republic of China, dated June 18, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 23, 2004, the petitioners alleged that there was a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances 
exist with respect to imports of CVP-23 from the PRC. On June 18, 2004, 
the Department preliminarily determined that critical circumstances 
exist with regard to imports of CVP-23 from the PRC for three of the 
four respondent exporters. See Memorandum from Jeffery A. May, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary, 
concerning Antidumping Duty Investigation of Carbazole Violet Pigment 
23 from the People's Republic of China--Preliminary Determinations on 
Critical Circumstances, dated June 18, 2004.
    The Department issued supplemental questionnaires on March 23, 
2004. On April 20, 2004, the four respondents listed above filed 
responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires.

Postponement of Final Determination

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioners. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), 
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for an extension of the 
provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six 
months. On May 26, 2004, GoldLink, Haidi, Trust Chem, and Hanchem 
requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary 
determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final 
determination until 135 days after the publication of the preliminary 
determination. The respondent companies also included a request to 
extend the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more 
than six months. Accordingly, because we have made an affirmative 
preliminary determination, and the requesting parties account for a 
significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, we have 
postponed the final determination until not later than 135 days after 
the date of the publication of the preliminary determination.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is April 1, 2003, through September 30, 
2003. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters 
prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., November 2003). 
See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is carbazole violet 
23 identified as Color Index No. 51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358-
30-1, with the chemical name of diindolo [3,2-b:3',2'-
m]triphenodioxazine, 8, 18-dichloro-5, 15-diethy-5,15-; dihydro-, and 
molecular formula of 
C34H22Cl2N4O2.\5\
 The subject merchandise includes the crude pigment in any form (e.g., 
dry powder, paste, wet cake) and finished pigment in the form of 
presscake and dry color. Pigment dispersions in any form (e.g., 
pigments dispersed in oleoresins, flammable solvents, water) are not

[[Page 35289]]

included within the scope of the investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Please note that the bracketed section of the product 
description, [3,2-b:3',2'-m], is not business proprietary 
information. In this case, the brackets are simply part of the 
chemical nomenclature. See December 4, 2003, amendment to petition 
at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable under 
subheading 3204.17.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) 
country in all its previous antidumping investigations. See, e.g., 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Non-
Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China, 
68 FR 7765 (February 18, 2003); and Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Barium Carbonate From the People's 
Republic of China, 68 FR 46577 (August 6,2003). In accordance with 
section 771(18)(C) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country 
is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked. No party in 
this investigation has sought revocation of the NME status of the PRC. 
Therefore, pursuant to section 771(18)(C) of the Act, the Department 
will continue to treat the PRC as an NME country.
    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base normal 
value (NV) on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a 
market economy at a comparable level of development that is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise. The sources of 
individual factor prices are discussed under the Normal Value section, 
below.

Separate Rates

    In an NME proceeding, the Department presumes that all companies 
within the country are subject to governmental control and should be 
assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless the respondent 
demonstrates the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental 
control over its export activities. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic 
of China, 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996). GoldLink, Haidi, 
Hanchem, and Trust Chem have provided the requested company-specific 
separate rate information and have indicated that there is no element 
of government ownership or control over their operations.
    We have determined, according to the criteria identified 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), as modified 
in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 
Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22587 (May 2, 
1994), that the evidence of record demonstrates an absence of 
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports by 
GoldLink, Haidi, Trust Chem, and Hanchem, and these companies are, 
therefore, entitled to separate rates. For a complete discussion of the 
Department's determination, see the June 18, 2004 memorandum, Analysis 
of Successorship and Assignment of Separate Rates for Respondents in 
the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 
the People's Republic of China, which is on file in the CRU.

The PRC-Wide Rate

    Although the Department provided BOFT and all PRC exporters of the 
subject merchandise, including those companies identified in the 
petition, with the opportunity to respond to its questionnaire, only 
GoldLink, Haidi, Trust Chem, and Hanchem submitted complete responses 
thereto. After filing responses to section A, manufacturer Hangzhou 
Baihe Chemical Co. Ltd., exporter Oriental Color Co. Ltd., and exporter 
Shanghai Jiehong Color Int'l Trading Co. Ltd. failed to respond to 
sections C or D. In addition, our review of U.S. import statistics 
reveals that there are other PRC companies, not identified in the 
petition, that exported CVP-23 to the United States during the POI. 
Because these exporters did not submit a response to the Department's 
questionnaire, and thus did not demonstrate their entitlement to a 
separate rate, we have applied the Department's presumption, which is 
rebuttable, that these exporters constitute a single enterprise under 
common control by the PRC government, and we are applying adverse facts 
available to determine the single antidumping duty rate, the PRC-wide 
rate, applicable to the PRC exporters that comprise this single 
enterprise. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 
25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or provides information which cannot be verified, the 
Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, 
facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. As 
explained above, GoldLink and its manufacturer Jiangsu Multicolor Fine 
Chemical Co., Ltd. (Multicolor),\6\ Haidi and its manufacturer Jiangsu 
Haimen Industrial Chemical Factory (Haimen), Trust Chem and its 
manufacturer Nantong Longteng Chemical Co. Ltd. (Longteng), and Hanchem 
provided us with the information we requested, but no other Chinese 
manufacturer or exporter of the subject merchandise responded 
completely to the Department's requests for information. The curative 
provisions of section 782(e) of the Act are not applicable because 
there is no information on the record of this investigation on which 
the Department can determine separate rates for those manufacturers and 
exporters. Accordingly, the Department is applying the PRC-wide rate to 
all PRC exporters of the subject merchandise except for the four 
respondents listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ GoldLink indicated in its initial response that it purchased 
the subject merchandise from a producer named Wuxi Xinguang Chemical 
Industry Co., Ltd. (Xinguang). However, in its supplemental 
response, GoldLink stated that Xinguang had not produced the subject 
merchandise itself but had purchased it from its own parent company, 
Multicolor. Nevertheless, GoldLink stated that the factors 
originally reported to the Department were those of the actual 
producer, Multicolor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, we are unable to calculate a PRC-wide rate 
based on the questionnaire responses because several respondents failed 
to comply with our requests for information. The failure of the parties 
at issue to respond significantly impedes this proceeding because the 
Department cannot accurately determine a margin for these parties. 
Thus, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, in reaching 
our preliminary determination, we have based the PRC-wide rate on the 
facts available.
    In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act 
provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party ``has 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply 
with a request for information,'' the Department may use information 
that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise 
available. Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the 
party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to

[[Page 35290]]

cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-
316, at 870 (1994). Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on 
the part of the respondent is not required before the Department may 
make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Countervailing Duties; 
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). In this case, the 
complete failure of several parties to respond to the Department's 
requests for information constitutes a failure to cooperate to the best 
of their ability. Since the information is within the sole possession 
of the parties at issue, the Department is precluded from determining 
an accurate margin for the other producers and exporters and must 
therefore resort to the use of adverse facts available.
    An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived 
from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any 
previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See 
section 776(b) of the Act. However, section 776(c) of the Act provides 
that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than 
on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, 
the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that 
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. Independent sources may include published price lists, 
official import statistics and Customs data, and information obtained 
from interested parties during the particular investigation or review. 
See SAA at 870 and 19 CFR 351.308(d). ``Corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information used. See Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996).
    To determine the probative value of the petition margin for use as 
AFA, for purposes of the preliminary determination in this 
investigation, we have examined the evidence supporting the petition 
calculations. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India and the People's 
Republic of China, 68 FR 70761 (December 19, 2003) (Initiation Notice). 
We have relied on the information in the petition, as amended, to 
establish the facts available rate. Evidence from the relevant time 
period such as customs statistics or market studies not generated for 
purposes of the trade action are considered to be reliable because they 
are based on actual independent trade data and analysis. See Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 76, 84 (January 4, 1999), 
at Comment 13. Invoices for actual sales and expenses from the relevant 
time period are also considered probative because they reflect the 
actual commercial activity at issue. Id.
    Therefore, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we re-examined the export price (EP) and normal 
value (NV) calculations on which the petition margin was based and 
compared them to the EPs and NVs calculated by the Department for 
purposes of this investigation as described below.
    For EP, the petitioners calculated a single average gross unit 
price, $4.23 per pound, by using average unit values (AUV) from import 
statistics for CVP-23 from the PRC to the United States, under HTSUS 
subheading 3204.17.9040. See petition at 19-20 and amendment at Exhibit 
3. The petitioners based the calculation on import quantities and 
values reported on the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) 
Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb. See Web site: http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp. We confirmed that the AUV data 
used by the petitioners accurately reflects ITC import statistics for 
CVP-23 and we converted the average unit value for the six month period 
of investigation to a price per kilogram, $9.31, based on the quantity 
unit of measure reported by the respondents. The publicly available 
import statistics on which we base the AUV reflect CVP-23 prices net of 
international freight for all Chinese exporters, including those who 
did not respond to our questionnaire. Furthermore, we observe that for 
those companies that did respond, the combined AUV based on Customs 
entry data is $25.08 per kilogram. This value falls within the range of 
U.S. prices reported by these companies to the Department in their 
questionnaire responses. Therefore, we consider the AUV data to be 
reliable and to have probative value for purposes of calculating the 
PRC-wide rate.
    Because the Department considers the PRC to be a non-market 
economy, the petitioners calculated NV based on factors of production 
(FOP) methodology, as defined by section 773(c)(3) of the Act. The 
petitioners used the consumption rates of materials, energy, and labor 
of an Indian producer because, the petitioners asserted, information 
regarding the Chinese producers' consumption rates were not available. 
For those inputs for which Indian consumption rates were not available, 
the petitioners used their own consumption rates. The petitioners 
calculated a single margin using a weighted average of the calculated 
normal values for crude CVP-23, $18.26 per pound or $40.16 per 
kilogram, and finished (presscake/dry powder) CVP-23, $21.58 per pound 
or $47.47 per kilogram.
    We compared the normal values calculated by the petitioners to the 
normal values the Department calculated for the respondent companies 
using the respondents' own consumption rates and publicly available 
surrogate values. We found that the normal values in the petition were 
within the range of those calculated by the Department. Therefore, we 
consider the normal values within the petition to be reliable and of 
probative value.
    As detailed above, to the extent practicable, we have corroborated 
the export price and normal values used in the petition, as amended. 
The PRC-wide rate is, for the preliminary determination, 370.06 
percent. For the purpose of determining the most appropriate final PRC-
wide margin, the Department will consider all information on the record 
at the time of the final determination.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether respondents' sales of CVP-23 to customers in 
the United States were made at LTFV, we compared EP to NV, calculated 
using our NME methodology, as described below 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.

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, export price 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

[[Page 35291]]

exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c).

GoldLink

    Pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for GoldLink 
because the subject merchandise was sold directly to unaffiliated 
customers in the United States prior to importation and because 
constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
    We calculated EP for GoldLink based on packed CIF 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 domestic inland freight, brokerage and handling, 
international freight, and marine insurance, where applicable. Because 
transportation for all sales was provided by an NME company, we based 
movement expenses associated with these sales on surrogate values. See 
FOP Memo.

Haidi

    Pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for Haidi because 
the subject merchandise was sold directly to unaffiliated customers in 
the United States prior to importation and because constructed export 
price was not otherwise indicated.
    We calculated EP for Haidi based on packed FOB prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for 
movement expenses (domestic inland freight) in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Because transportation for all sales was 
provided by an NME company, we based movement expenses associated with 
these sales on surrogate values. See id. Haidi's producer, Haimen, 
purchased two of its inputs from market economy suppliers. We used 
Haimen's market economy purchase to value one of the inputs; however, 
because the purchase of the other input was from a market economy 
affiliate of Haidi we valued that input using a surrogate value.

Trust Chem

    Pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for Trust Chem 
because the subject merchandise was sold directly to unaffiliated 
customers in the United States prior to importation and because 
constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
    We calculated EP for Trust Chem based on packed CIF 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 domestic inland freight, brokerage and handling, 
international freight, and marine insurance, where applicable. Because 
domestic inland freight and marine insurance transportation for all 
sales were provided by an NME company, we based movement expenses 
associated with these sales on surrogate values. See id.

Hanchem

    Pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for Hanchem 
because the subject merchandise was sold directly to unaffiliated 
customers in the United States prior to importation and because 
constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
    We calculated EP for Hanchem based on packed CIF 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 domestic inland freight, brokerage and handling, 
international freight, and marine insurance, where applicable. Where 
transportation was provided by an NME company, we based movement 
expenses associated with these sales on surrogate values. See id. Where 
it was provided by a market economy company and Hanchem paid in U.S. 
dollars, we used Hanchem's actual transportation expense.
    We also made deductions for commissions.

Normal Value

1. Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires that the Department value the 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, on the 
prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market economy 
countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable 
to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. The Department's Office of Policy identified six countries 
that are at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC in 
terms of per capita GNP and the national distribution of labor. Those 
countries are India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Morocco and 
Egypt (see the memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office 
of Policy to Gary Taverman, Director, Office 5, regarding Request for a 
List of Surrogate Countries, dated March 9, 2004). Based on the 
companion antidumping duty investigation on CVP-23 from India, we know 
that India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. In 
addition, for most factors of production, India has quantifiable, 
contemporaneous, and publicly available data. Of the six potential 
surrogate countries, India had the best available financial data on 
specific CVP-23 producers. Therefore, for purposes of the preliminary 
determination, we have selected India as the surrogate country.

2. Factors of Production

    In their questionnaire responses, Haimen, Multicolor/Xinguang and 
Longteng reported factors of production for the manufacture of the 
subject merchandise during the POI. The factors of production include: 
(1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; 
(3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) 
representative capital costs. See section 773(c)(3) of the Act. To 
calculate NV, we multiplied the reported quantities by publicly 
available surrogate per-unit values from India.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. For those values not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the values to account for 
inflation using the applicable price indices published in the 
International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics (April 
2004, February 2002, and December 1999). We inflated the values 
denominated in Indian rupees using Indian wholesale price indices. As 
appropriate, we included freight costs in input prices to make them 
delivered prices. Specifically, we added to the surrogate values a 
surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter of the reported 
distance from the domestic input supplier to the factory processing 
subject merchandise or the distance from the nearest seaport to the 
relevant factory. 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, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    With the exception of four material inputs sourced from NME 
suppliers, we applied a surrogate value using Indian import prices 
during the POI reported in the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade 
of India, as published by the Directorate General of Commercial 
Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 
Government of India and available from World Trade Atlas. We valued the 
remaining four material inputs using domestic prices contemporaneous 
with the POI, excluding sales and excise tax where appropriate, as 
listed in the Indian publication Chemical Weekly. We valued water based 
on an average of several rates for metropolitan areas in

[[Page 35292]]

India, published by the Asian Development Bank in the Second Water 
Utilities Data Book: Asian and Pacific Region in 1997.
    For energy, we valued steam coal using Indian imports 
contemporaneous with the POI as reported in the World Trade Atlas. We 
valued electricity using Indian retail prices found in the 
International Energy Agency's Key World Energy Statistics 2003 covering 
the fourth quarter of 2002. We have declined to value one energy input, 
steam, for this preliminary determination as we are unable to find an 
appropriate surrogate value.
    We valued labor using the latest regression-based wage rate for 
China found on Import Administration's Web page (http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/01wages/01wages.html) as described in 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3).
    To value foreign inland truck freight costs, we relied upon per-
kilometer, per-kilogram price quotes obtained from the web-based Indian 
Freight Exchange. See http://infreight.com. We valued ocean freight 
based on publicly available rates from a large liner shipping company, 
Maersk Sealand. See http://www.maersksealand.com. The Department valued 
marine insurance using the transaction-specific Indian information that 
was reported in the public versions of the questionnaire responses 
placed on the record by Pidilite Industries Ltd. (Pidilite) and Alpanil 
Industries (Alpanil) in the companion case for India. See Pidilite's 
and Alpanil's April 16, 2004 Sections B and C Supplemental 
Questionnaire responses at Exhibit Supp--2 and page 9 respectively.
    In the companion countervailing duty case for India, the Department 
preliminarily determined that countervailable subsidies are being 
provided to producers and exporters of CVP-23 from India. See Notice of 
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment 
with Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 
from India, 69 FR 22763 (April 27, 2004). However, as the Department 
has stated in previous cases, the fact that it has been preliminarily 
determined that a company receives government subsidies does not 
necessarily mean that its financial ratios are unuseable. See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 33522 (June 
22, 2001) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 8. Therefore, to value factory overhead, selling, general and 
administrative expenses (SG&A) and profit for the preliminary 
determination, we used the audited financial statements for Pidilite 
from its 2002-2003 annual report.
    For a complete analysis of surrogate values used in the preliminary 
determination, see the FOP Memo.

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all information relied upon in making our final determination.

Final Critical Circumstances Determination

    We will make a final determination concerning critical 
circumstances in this case when we make our final determination 
regarding sales at LTFV in this investigation, which will be no later 
than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register.

Suspension of Liquidation

    Because we have made a preliminary affirmative critical 
circumstances finding for GoldLink, Haidi, and Hanchem, we are 
directing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend 
liquidation of any unliquidated entries of CVP-23 from the PRC exported 
by these companies, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date which is 90 days prior to the date on 
which this notice is published in the Federal Register. For all other 
exporters, including Trust Chem, we are directing the CBP to suspend 
liquidation of entries that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register. In addition, we are instructing CBP to require a 
cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average 
amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart below. 
These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until 
further notice.
    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins 
exist for the POI:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GoldLink Industries Co., Ltd...............................        76.50
Nantong Haidi Chemical Co., Ltd............................       124.71
Trust Chem Co., Ltd........................................       168.01
Tianjin Hanchem Int'l Trading Co...........................        53.22
PRC-Wide Rate..............................................       370.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise 
except for entries from the four exporters listed above.

Disclosure

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose 
to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice the calculations performed in the preliminary 
determination.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the 
final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC will 
determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this 
preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination 
whether imports of CVP-23 from the PRC are materially injuring, or 
threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), 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 must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration on the later of 50 days after the date of 
publication of this notice or one week after issuance of the 
verification reports. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the 
content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, 
must be filed within five days after the deadline for the submission of 
case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). A list of authorities used, a table 
of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any 
briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be 
limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we request 
that parties submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the 
Department with a copy of the public version of such briefs on 
diskette.
    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 for submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties 
should confirm by telephone the

[[Page 35293]]

date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled 
date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's 
name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; 
and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. See 19 
CFR 351.310(c). The Department will make its final determination no 
later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary 
determination.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 18, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-14362 Filed 6-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P