[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65073-65077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18787]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-892]


Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From the People's Republic of China; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Rescission in Part

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbazole violet 
pigment 23 (CVP 23) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the 
period June 24, 2004, through November 30, 2005. We are rescinding this 
review with respect to Trust Chem Co., Ltd./Boson Enterprises Ltd. 
(collectively Trust Chem) and Nantong Haidi Chemical Company (Haidi). 
We have preliminarily determined that sales have not been made below 
normal value (NV) by the respondent, Tianjin Hanchem International 
Trading Co., Ltd. (Hanchem). If these preliminary results are adopted 
in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate the appropriate entries without 
regard to antidumping duties.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: November 7, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Brian Smith, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4007 or (202) 482-1766, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on CVP 23 from the PRC for the period June 24, 2004, through 
November 30, 2005. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 72109 (December 1, 2005). On December 27, 
2005, the Department received a request to conduct an administrative 
review from Trust Chem, an exporter of the subject merchandise during 
the review period. On December 28, 2005, we received a request for 
review from Haidi, a producer/exporter of CVP 23, and from Hanchem, an 
exporter of CVP 23 to the United States during the review period. On 
February 1, 2006, we published in the Federal Register a notice of the 
initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of CVP 23 from 
the PRC for the period June 24, 2004, through November 30, 2005. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 5241 (February 1, 
2006).
    On February 6, 2006, we issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to 
Trust Chem, Haidi, and Hanchem. On March 2, 2006, and May 1, 2006, 
Trust Chem and Haidi, respectively, timely withdrew their requests for 
administrative review. Both companies requested that the Department 
rescind the review with respect to them, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1). We received questionnaire and

[[Page 65074]]

supplemental questionnaire responses from Hanchem between March and 
July 2006.
    On April 4, 2006, we invited interested parties to comment on 
surrogate country selection and to provide publicly available 
information for valuing the factors of production (FOP). On July 7, 
2006, we received comments on surrogate country selection from the 
petitioners, Nation Ford Chemical Co. and Sun Chemical Corp. Between 
July 21, 2006, and October 12, 2006, the petitioners and Hanchem filed 
information for valuing the FOPs, as well as argument with respect to 
the valuation of one particular input, chloranil.
    On August 21, 2006, we extended the time limit for the preliminary 
results in this review until November 1, 2006. See Carbazole Violet 
Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of 
Time Limit for 2004-2005 Administration {sic{time}  Review, 71 FR 50386 
(August 25, 2006).

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is June 24, 2004, through November 30, 
2005.

Scope of Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is carbazole violet pigment 
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 C34H 
22Cl2N4O2.\1\ 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 included within the 
scope of this order. The merchandise subject to this order is 
classifiable under subheading 3204.17.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of this order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The bracketed section of the product description, [3,2-
b:3',2'-m], is not business proprietary information, but is part of 
the chemical nomenclature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department may rescind an 
administrative review in whole, or in part, if interested parties that 
requested a review withdraw their requests within 90 days of the date 
of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. As 
noted above in the ``Background'' section of this notice, Trust Chem 
and Haidi withdrew their requests for an administrative review on March 
2, 2006, and May 1, 2006, respectively. Because the petitioners did not 
request an administrative review for these companies and the requests 
to withdraw were made within the time limit specified under section 19 
CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this administrative review with 
respect to Trust Chem and Haidi.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    Hanchem did not contest the Department's treatment of the PRC as a 
non-market economy (NME) country, and the Department has treated the 
PRC as a NME country in all past antidumping duty investigations and 
administrative reviews and continues to do so in this case. See, e.g., 
Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final 
Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 
34893 (June 16, 2006) (Honey); and Final Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006) (Sawblades). No 
interested party in this case has argued that we should do otherwise. 
Designation as a NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by 
the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (Act).

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base NV on the NME 
producer's FOPs, 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 FOPs, the Department 
shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs 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 has previously determined that India, Sri Lanka, 
Indonesia, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the 
PRC in terms of economic development. See the February 9, 2006, 
memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Irene 
Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Director, Office 2, entitled, ``Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 (CVP23) from 
the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate 
Countries.'' Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country 
based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries 
that are significant producers of comparable merchandise. For PRC 
cases, the primary surrogate country has often been India if it is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise. In this case, we found 
that India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. See the 
August 3, 2006, memorandum to the file entitled ``2004-2005 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Carbazole Violet 
Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a 
Surrogate Country.''
    The Department used India as the surrogate country and, 
accordingly, calculated NV using Indian prices to value the PRC 
producer's FOPs, when available and appropriate. The sources of the 
surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' 
section below and in the November 1, 2006, memorandum to the file 
entitled, ``Preliminary Results of Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 
on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China: 
Factor Valuation Memorandum'' (Factor Valuation Memorandum). We 
obtained and relied upon publicly available information whenever 
possible.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly 
available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of subject merchandise subject to review in a NME country a 
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently 
independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate. 
See, e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 74764, 74765 (December 16, 2005) (unchanged in final 
results); and Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307.
    We have considered whether the reviewed company based in the PRC is 
eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to

[[Page 65075]]

determine whether an exporter is independent from government control 
does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, 
e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly 
if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, 
rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-
making process at the individual firm level. See, e.g., Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 
62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997); and Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Honey from the People's Republic of 
China, 60 FR 14725,14727-28 (March 20, 1995).
    To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes the exporter in light of select criteria, discussed below. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from 
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20585, 22587 (May 6, 1991) 
(Sparklers); and 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 test, exporters in NME countries 
are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can 
demonstrate an absence of government control over exports, both in law 
(de jure) and in fact (de facto).Hanchem provided company-specific 
separate-rate information and stated that it met the standards for 
receiving a separate rate. Hanchem has stated that there is no element 
of government control over its export activities and has requested a 
separate, company-specific rate.

A. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual exporter may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Sparklers, 56 FR 20588.
    Hanchem has placed on the record statements and documents to 
demonstrate an absence of de jure control including its list of 
shareholders, business license, and the Company Law of the People's 
Republic of China, as revised Ocotber 27, 2005 (Company Law). Other 
than limiting Hanchem to activities referenced in the business license, 
we found no restrictive stipulations associated with the license. In 
addition, in previous cases the Department has analyzed the Company Law 
and found that it establishes an absence of de jure control. See, e.g., 
Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results, Partial Rescission and Termination of a 
Partial Deferral of the 2002-2003 Administrative Review, 69 FR 65148, 
65150 (November 10, 2004). We have no information in this segment of 
the proceeding that would cause us to reconsider this determination. 
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we have preliminarily found an 
absence of de jure control for Hanchem.

B. Absence of De Facto Control

    As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 
31, 1998). Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates.
    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether a particular exporter is subject to de facto government control 
of its export functions: (1) Whether the exporter sets its own export 
prices independent of the government and without the approval of a 
government authority; (2) whether the exporter has authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the 
exporter has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding 
the selection of its management; and (4) whether the exporter retains 
the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions 
regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. See, e.g., 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995).
    With regard to de facto control, Hanchem reported that: (1) It 
independently set prices for sales to the United States with customers 
and these prices are not subject to review by any government 
organization; (2) it did not coordinate with other exporters or 
producers to set the price or to determine to which market the 
companies will sell subject merchandise; (3) the PRC Chamber of 
Commerce does not coordinate the export activities of Hanchem; (4) its 
general manager has the authority to contractually bind it to sell 
subject merchandise; (5) its shareholders appoint its general manager; 
(6) there is no restriction on its use of export revenues; and (7) its 
shareholders ultimately determine the disposition of its profits. 
Additionally, Hanchem's questionnaire responses did not suggest that 
pricing is coordinated among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of 
Hanchem's questionnaire responses reveals no other information 
indicating government control of its export activities. Therefore, 
based on the information on the record, we preliminarily determine that 
there is an absence of de facto government control with respect to 
Hanchem's export functions, and that Hanchem has met the criteria for 
the application of a separate rate.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of CVP 23 to the United States by 
Hanchem were made at less than NV, we compared export price (EP) to NV, 
as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of 
this notice, pursuant to section 771(35) of the Act.

Export Price

    Because Hanchem sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States prior to importation into the United States (or to 
unaffiliated resellers outside the United States with knowledge that 
the merchandise was destined for the United States) and use of a 
constructed export price methodology is not otherwise indicated, we 
have used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act.
    We calculated EP for Hanchem based on FOB port prices to 
unaffiliated purchaser(s) in the United States. We made deductions from 
the U.S. sale price for movement expenses, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, consisting of inland freight from the plant to 
the port of exportation. To value truck freight, we used the freight 
rates published by the Indian Freight Exchange, available at http://www.infreight.com. The truck freight rates are contemporaneous with the 
POR; therefore, we made no adjustments for inflation. See the November 
1, 2006, memorandum to the file entitled, ``U.S. Price and Factors of 
Production Adjustments for the Preliminary

[[Page 65076]]

Results'' (Preliminary Calculation Memorandum), and the Factor 
Valuation Memorandum.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of a NME, 
the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the 
merchandise is exported from a NME country and the 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.
    The Department will base NV on FOP because the presence of 
government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price 
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our 
normal methodologies. Therefore, we calculated NV based on FOP in 
accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.408(c). The FOPs 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. We used the 
FOPs reported by respondents for materials, energy, labor, and packing.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a producer sources an 
input from a market-economy country and pays for it in market-economy 
currency, the Department will normally value the factor using the 
actual price paid for the input. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also 
Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. 
Cir. 1994) (affirming the Department's use of market-based prices to 
value certain FOPs). Where a portion of the input is purchased from a 
market-economy supplier and the remainder from a NME supplier, the 
Department will normally use the price paid for the inputs sourced from 
market-economy suppliers to value all of the input, provided the volume 
of the market-economy inputs as a share of total purchases from all 
sources is ``meaningful.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 
Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 27295, 27366 (May 19, 1997); Shakeproof v. 
United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(1).
    With regard to both the Indian import-based surrogate values and 
the market-economy input values, we have disregarded prices that we 
have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. See Omnibus Trade 
and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (OCTA), Conference Report to Accompany 
H.R. 3, H. Report No. 100-578, 590-91, 1988 U.S. Code and Adm. N. 1547, 
1623 (1988) (H.R. Rep. 100-578 (1988)); Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of 
China; Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial 
Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 
FR 57420 (November 15, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1. We have found that India, Indonesia, South 
Korea, and Thailand maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific 
export subsidies, and it is reasonable to infer that exports to all 
markets from these countries may be subsidized. See Certain Frozen Fish 
Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results and 
Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011 (September 13, 2005) (unchanged in final 
results); and China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation v. 
United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), aff'd 104 Fed. App. 183 
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
    We are also guided by the statute's legislative history that 
explains that it is not necessary to conduct a formal investigation to 
ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100-578 
(1988). Rather, the Department bases its decision on information that 
is available to it at the time it is making its determination. 
Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in 
calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values or in calculating 
market-economy input values. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.

Factor Valuations

    To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor 
quantities by publicly available Indian surrogate values. In selecting 
the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and 
contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices 
by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, 
we added to the Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost 
calculated using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic 
supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest port of export 
to the factory where appropriate (i.e., where the sales terms for the 
market-economy inputs were not delivered to the factory). This 
adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
    We valued benzene, bromoethane, chlorobenzene, benzene sulfonyl 
chloride, caustic soda, caustic soda solution, chloranil, solvent, 
nekal, ethyl alcohol, methyl alcohol, sodium sulfide, trithylamine, 
catalyst, paper bags, plastic film, plastic bags, pallets, and steam 
coal using India import statistics as published by the World Trade 
Atlas. We valued hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, salt, and dimethyl 
formamide using Indian domestic market prices reported in Chemical 
Weekly. Where necessary, we adjusted the surrogate values to reflect 
inflation/deflation using the Indian Wholesale Price Index as published 
in the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary 
Fund. We further adjusted these prices to account for freight costs 
incurred between the supplier and respondent. The Factor Valuation 
Memorandum includes a detailed description of all surrogate values used 
for the respondent.
    Hanchem reported that meaningful percentages of its purchases of o-
dichlorobenzene and carbazole were sourced from market-economy 
countries and paid for in market-economy currencies. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(1), we used the actual price paid by Hanchem for these 
inputs. We adjusted these values to account for freight costs incurred 
between the supplier and respondent. See Factor Valuation Memorandum 
and Preliminary Calculation Memorandum. We obtained surrogate 
electricity rates from retail pricing data for India found in the 
International Energy Agency's ``Energy Prices & Taxes Quarterly 
Statistics 2003'' report which we inflated to the POR. We valued water 
using rates from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation.
    For direct labor, indirect labor, and packing labor, consistent 
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate 
as reported on Import Administration's Web site, Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2005. See Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries (revised November 2005) (available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). The source of these wage rate data on the Import 
Administration's Web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2003, 
ILO (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this 
regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into 
different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage 
rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. 
See Factor Valuation Memorandum and Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
    To determine factory overhead, depreciation, selling, general, and 
administrative expenses, interest expenses, and profit for the finished

[[Page 65077]]

product, we relied on rates derived from the financial statements of 
Pidilite Industries, Ltd., an Indian producer of comparable 
merchandise. We applied these ratios to Hanchem's costs (determined as 
noted above) for materials, labor, and energy. See Factor Valuation 
Memorandum and Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    The weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/producer/exporter                 percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tianjin Hanchem International Trading Co., Ltd.............         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any 
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of 
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 
requested, will generally be held two days after the scheduled date for 
submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested 
parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of 
review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, 
may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication. See 
19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties submitting written comments should 
provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on 
diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in any comments, and at a hearing, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 
after the date of publication of the final results of review.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate, where 
applicable, the importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rate based 
on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for 
the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We 
will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate 
calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Hanchem, the 
cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this 
review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will 
be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-
PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 217.94 
percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which 
have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the 
rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC 
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 
CFR 351.221(b).

     Dated: November 1, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-18787 Filed 11-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P