[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 174 (Monday, September 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52012-52015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20752]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-533-838


Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from an interested party, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on carbazole violet pigment 23 
from India. The review covers two manufacturers/exporters, Alpanil 
Industries and Pidilite Industries Limited. The period of review is 
December 1, 2006, through November 30, 2007. We have preliminarily 
determined that Alpanil Industries and Pidilite Industries Limited made 
sales below normal value. We invite interested parties to comment on 
these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this review 
are requested to submit with each argument a statement of each issue 
and a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun or Hermes Pinilla, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5760 or (202) 482-3477, respectively.

[[Page 52013]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 29, 2004, we published in the Federal Register the 
antidumping duty order on carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP 23) from 
India. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From 
India, 69 FR 77988 (December 29, 2004) (Antidumping Duty Order). On 
December 3, 2007, we published in the Federal Register a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on CVP 23 from India. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 67889 (December 3, 2007). On December 31, 
2007, pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), Nation Ford Chemical Company and Sun 
Chemical Corporation, the petitioners in this proceeding, requested an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CVP 23 from 
India produced and/or exported by Alpanil Industries (Alpanil) and 
Pidilite Industries Limited (Pidilite). On January 28, 2008, in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), 
we published a notice of initiation of administrative review of this 
order. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 4829 
(January 28, 2008). The administrative review covers the period 
December 1, 2006, through November 30, 2007. We are conducting this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is CVP 23 identified as Color 
Index No. 51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358-30-1, with the chemical 
name of diindolo [lsqb]3,2-b:3 ,2 -m[rsqb]\1\ triphenodioxazine, 8,18-
dichloro-5, 15-diethyl-5, 15-dihydro-, and molecular formula of 
C34H22Cl2N4O2. 
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., pigment 
dispersed in oleoresins, flammable solvents, water) are not included 
within the scope of the order. The merchandise subject to the order is 
classifiable under subheading 3204.17.90.40 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 the order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The bracketed section of the product description, [lsqb]3,2-
b:3 ,2 -m[rsqb], is not business-proprietary information. In this 
case, the brackets are simply part of the chemical nomenclature. See 
Antidumping Duty Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Adverse Facts Available

    For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of 
adverse facts available is appropriate for the preliminary results with 
respect to Alpanil and Pidilite.

A. Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails 
to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the 
information and in the form or manner requested, significantly impedes 
a proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the 
Act, the administering authority shall use facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination.
    On February 21, 2008, the Department transmitted its questionnaire 
to Alpanil and Pidilite via Federal Express. We confirmed that Alpanil 
and Pidilite signed for and received the questionnaire on February 25, 
2008. The due date for the questionnaire response was March 31, 2008, 
for both respondents. On March 27, 2008, we received a request from 
Pidilite for an extension of the due date for the questionnaire 
response. We granted Pidilite's extension request in part and extended 
the due date for the questionnaire response to April 21, 2008. Although 
Pidilite received the letter granting the extension on April 4, 2008, 
it did not file its response by the due date.
    On April 4, 2008, we received a request from Alpanil for an 
extension of the due date for the questionnaire response. Because 
Alpanil filed an extension request in an untimely manner, we did not 
grant Alpanil's request for the extension of the due date for the 
questionnaire response.
    Because Alpanil and Pidilite did not provide their responses to the 
Department's questionnaire, Alpanil and Pidilite failed to provide any 
information to the Department within the meaning of section 776(a)(2) 
of the Act. As a result, the Department is unable to calculate the 
margins for Alpanil and Pidilite and, therefore, must rely entirely on 
facts available.

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts 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 an inference adverse to the interests of that party 
in selecting the facts otherwise available. In addition, the Statement 
of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 
H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) (SAA), establishes that 
the Department may employ an adverse inference ``to ensure that the 
party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate 
than if it had cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870. It also instructs 
the Department to consider, in employing adverse inferences, ``the 
extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation.'' 
Id.
    Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a 
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse 
inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). We find that, by failing completely 
to respond to our questionnaire, i.e., withholding requested 
information, Alpanil and Pidilite failed to cooperate to the best of 
their abilities. Therefore, we find it appropriate to use an inference 
that is adverse to these companies' interests in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that these 
companies will not obtain a more favorable rate by failing to cooperate 
than had they cooperated fully.

C. Selection of Information Used as Facts Available

    Where the Department applies an adverse facts-available rate 
because a respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of 
its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of 
the Act authorizes the Department to rely on information derived from 
the petition, a final determination, a previous administrative review, 
or other information placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c) 
and the SAA at 870. The petition rate is 147.59 percent. See the 
November 21, 2003, petition for initiation of an antidumping duty 
investigation on CVP 23 from India, et al., at 21, unchanged in the 
December 3, 2003, amendment to the petition. Because we were not able 
to corroborate the petition rate based on the results of

[[Page 52014]]

examination in previous segments of the proceeding, we have selected 
66.59 percent as the adverse facts-available dumping margin. This is 
the highest calculated margin for a company in this proceeding; we 
calculated this margin for Pidilite in the investigation. See 
Antidumping Duty Order, 69 FR at 77989. This rate is sufficiently high 
as to reasonably ensure that Alpanil and Pidilite do not obtain a more 
favorable result by failing to cooperate.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information as facts available, it must corroborate, to 
the extent practicable, that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' 
means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. The SAA 
also states that independent sources used to corroborate may include, 
for example, published price lists, official import statistics, and 
customs data as well as information obtained from interested parties 
during the particular proceeding. Id.
    To corroborate secondary information, to the extent practicable, 
the Department normally examines the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. Unlike other types of information such as input 
costs or selling expenses, however, there are no independent sources 
for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is 
administrative determinations. Thus, with respect to an administrative 
review, if the Department chooses as facts available a calculated 
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not 
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
period. See Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et 
al.: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 
Partial Rescission of Administrative Reviews, Notice of Intent to 
Rescind Administrative Reviews, and Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in 
Part, 69 FR 5949, 5953 (February 9, 2004), unchanged in Antifriction 
Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Rescission of Administrative 
Reviews in Part, and Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 
55574, 55576-77 (September 15, 2004).
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and 
determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest 
margin in that case as adverse best information available (the 
predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another 
company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually 
high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has 
been discredited or judicially invalidated. See D & L Supply Co. v. 
United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (CAFC 1997).
    None of these unusual circumstances is present here. Moreover, 
there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates 
that 66.59 percent is not an appropriate adverse facts-available rate 
for Alpanil and Pidilite. Therefore, we consider the dumping margin of 
66.59 percent, which is a margin percentage we determined in the less-
than-fair-value investigation, relevant for use as adverse facts 
available for this review. Because we are making an adverse inference 
with regard to Alpanil and Pidilite, we find that the rate of 66.59 
percent is a reasonable indication of the margins that Alpanil and 
Pidilite would have received on their U.S. transactions had they 
responded to our request for information. We find that use of the rate 
of 66.59 percent as adverse facts available is sufficiently high to 
ensure that Alpanil and Pidilite do not benefit from failing to 
cooperate in our review by refusing to respond to our questionnaire. 
See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from the 
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, 73 FR 15132, 
15133 (March 21, 2008).

Adjustment for Export Subsidies

    For Pidilite in the original investigation, we subtracted the 
portion of the countervailing duty rate attributable to export 
subsidies (17.02 percent) from the final dumping margin of 66.59 
percent in order to calculate the cash-deposit rate of 49.57 percent. 
See Antidumping Duty Order. Since the publication of the Antidumping 
Duty Order we have not conducted an administrative review of the 
countervailing duty order on CVP 23 from India. See Carbazole Violet 
Pigment 23 from India: Notice of Rescission of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 15113 (March 30, 2007), and Carbazole 
Violet Pigment 23 from India: Rescission of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 44704 (July 31, 2008). Therefore, the 
portion of the countervailing duty rate attributable to export 
subsidies currently in effect for Pidilite is 17.02 percent. Further, 
imports from both Alpanil and Pidilite during the review period were 
subject to countervailing duties to offset export subsidies of 17.02 
percent or more. Because the adverse facts-available rate we selected 
for this review is the margin we calculated for Pidilite in the 
investigation, we have adjusted the dumping margin to ensure that, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, we do not collect 
duties attributable to export subsidies twice.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
weighted-average dumping margins for CVP 23 from India for the period 
December 1, 2006, through November 30, 2007, are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Company                           Margin (percent)            Rate Adjusted for Export Subsidies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpanil...............................                                66.59                                49.57
Pidilite..............................                                66.59                                49.57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    We will disclose the draft liquidation instructions to parties to 
this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 
days after the date of publication of this notice of preliminary 
results of review. Rebuttal briefs from interested parties, limited to 
the issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted not later than 
five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs or comments.

[[Page 52015]]

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties who wish to 
request a hearing, or to participate in a hearing if a hearing is 
requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Requests should contain the following: (1) the party's name, 
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) 
a list of issues to be discussed.
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
case and rebuttal briefs. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two 
days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. 
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are 
requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a 
summary of the arguments not exceeding five pages, and a table of 
statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. We intend to issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of 
review. We will instruct CBP to assess the antidumping liability for 
all shipments of CVP 23 from India produced and/or exported by Alpanil 
or Pidilite and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
during the period of review. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping 
duties at the adjusted rate of 49.57 percent if CBP has collected the 
appropriate countervailing duties on the same entry. We will instruct 
CBP to assess antidumping duties at the unadjusted rate of 66.59 
percent if the appropriate countervailing duties are not collected by 
CBP.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for 
all shipments of CVP 23 from India 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 Alpanil and Pidilite will be the rates established in the final 
results of this review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in 
this review, a previous review, or the less-than-fair-value 
investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; (3) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has 
its own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 27.48 percent, the all-
others rate published in Antidumping Duty Order, 69 FR at 77989. These 
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

Notification to Importer

    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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act.

    Dated: September 2, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[lsqb]FR Doc. E8-20752 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am[rsqb]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S