68 FR 12664, March 17, 2003

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-880]
 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Barium Carbonate 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: March 17, 2003.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that barium carbonate from the 
People's Republic of China (the PRC) 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 margins of sales at LTFV are shown below in the ``Suspension 
of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Layton or Tisha Loeper-Viti at 
(202) 482-0371 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 Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

[[Page 12665]]

Case History

    The petitioner in this investigation is Chemical Products 
Corporation. This investigation was initiated on October 21, 2002. See 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Barium Carbonate from the 
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 65534 (October 25, 2002) (Initiation 
Notice). Since the initiation of this investigation, the following 
events have occurred.
    On November 14, 2002, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) 
preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that an 
industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of barium 
carbonate imports from the PRC. See Barium Carbonate from China, 67 FR 
70092 (November 20, 2002).
    On November 18, 2002, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire \1\ 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 barium 
carbonate to the United States, as well as manufacturers that produce 
barium carbonate for companies that were engaged in exporting subject 
merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation 
(POI). In addition, we sent the questionnaire to all of the 
manufacturers and exporters listed in the petition. See complete list 
of 10 manufacturers and 12 exporters in the petition (September 30, 
2002) at Exhibit 4. Only Qingdao Red Star Chemical Import & Export Co., 
Ltd. (Qingdao Red Star) and its suppliers responded to the Department's 
questionnaire. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires on 
January 10 and February 3, 2003. We received deficiency comments from 
the petitioner on January 15 and 30, and March 4, 2003. Due to the 
statutory deadline, we were unable to take into consideration for 
purposes of the preliminary determination the petitioner's most 
recently filed comments. The Department does intend to carefully review 
the issues raised in that submission, including that of affiliation, 
and will verify the information provided by the respondent, as 
appropriate, prior to the final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 31, 2003, we invited interested parties to provide 
comments on the surrogate country selection and publicly available 
information for valuing the factors of production. We received comments 
from Qingdao Red Star on February 10 and 13, 2003. We received comments 
from the petitioner on February 10, 13 and 19, 2003.

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 petitioner. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) 
(2002), 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 February 13, 2003, Qingdao Red Star requested that, in the event 
of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination until not more than 135 
days after the publication of the preliminary determination. The 
respondent included a request to extend the provisional measures to not 
more than six months after the publication of the preliminary 
determination. In accordance with section 351.210(e) of the 
Department's regulations, because we have made an affirmative 
preliminary determination, the requesting party accounts for a 
significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and no 
compelling reasons exist to deny the request, we have postponed the 
final determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination, and are extending the 
provisional measures accordingly.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is January 1, 2002, through June 30, 2002. This period 
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the petition (i.e., September 2002). See 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is barium carbonate, 
regardless of form or grade. The product under investigation is 
currently classifiable under subheading 2836.60.0000 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 proceeding is dispositive.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) 
country in all its past 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 Ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China, 67 
FR 71137 (November 29, 2002). 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). Qingdao Red Star has 
provided the requested company-specific separate rate information and 
has indicated that there is no element of government ownership or 
control over its operations. We have

[[Page 12666]]

considered whether Qingdao Red Star is eligible for a separate rate as 
discussed below.
    The Department's separate-rates test is not concerned, in general, 
with macroeconomic/border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, quotas, 
and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed 
to prevent dumping. Rather, the test focuses on controls over the 
export-related investment, pricing, and output decision-making process 
at the individual firm level. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
From Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); and Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of 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) (Silicon Carbide). Under this test, the Department assigns 
separate rates in NME cases only if an exporter can demonstrate the 
absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over its 
export activities. See Silicon Carbide and the 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).

A. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company 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.
    Qingdao Red Star has placed on the record a number of documents to 
demonstrate the absence of de jure control, including its business 
license, and the ``Company Law of the People's Republic of China'' of 
December 29, 1993. Other than limiting Qingdao Red Star's operations to 
the activities referenced in the license, we noted no restrictive 
stipulations associated with the license. In addition, in previous 
cases, the Department has analyzed the ``Company Law of the People's 
Republic of China'' and found that it establishes an absence of de jure 
control. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers 
from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 54472, 54474 (October 24, 
1995). We have no information in this proceeding which would cause us 
to reconsider this determination. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we 
have preliminarily found an absence of de jure control.

B. Absence of De Facto Control

    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or 
subject to, the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses.
    With regard to the issue of de facto control, Qingdao Red Star has 
reported the following: (1) There is no government participation in 
setting export prices; (2) its managers have the authority to bind 
sales contracts; (3) the government does not participate in the 
selection of Qingdao Red Star's management, and (4) there are no 
restrictions on the use of its export revenues or the disposition of 
its profits, and it is responsible for financing its own losses. 
Additionally, Qingdao Red Star's questionnaire responses do not suggest 
that pricing is coordinated among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis 
of Qingdao Red Star's questionnaire responses reveals no other 
information indicating governmental control of export activities. 
Therefore, based on the information provided, we preliminarily 
determine that there is an absence of de facto government control over 
Qingdao Red Star's export functions, and that Qingdao Red Star has met 
the criteria for the application of separate rates.

The PRC-Wide Rate

    Although the Department provided BOFT and all PRC exporters of the 
subject merchandise, including Qingdao Red Star, with the opportunity 
to respond to its questionnaire, only Qingdao Red Star submitted 
responses thereto. Our review of U.S. import statistics reveals that 
there are other PRC companies, in addition to Qingdao Red Star, that 
exported barium carbonate 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 implemented the Department's rebuttable 
presumption 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 all other PRC exporters comprising 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, with the exception of the exporter, Qingdao Red Star, 
and its manufacturer, Guizhou Red Star Development Co., Ltd. (Guizhou 
Red Star), no other Chinese manufacturer or exporter of the subject 
merchandise responded to the Department's request for information. 
Therefore, the curative provisions of section 782 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 
these manufacturers and exporters. Accordingly, the Department is 
applying the PRC-wide rate to all PRC exporters of the subject 
merchandise except for Qingdao Red Star. The Department cannot 
determine a separate rate for these companies because this information 
is within the sole possession of the parties at issue and cannot be 
obtained otherwise. No other Chinese manufacturer or exporter of the 
subject merchandise responded to the Department's request for 
information. For this reason, we are unable to

[[Page 12667]]

calculate a PRC-wide rate. Therefore, the Department must resort to the 
use of the facts available to ensure that these exporters do not obtain 
a more favorable result than they would by responding to the 
Department's request 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 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 these 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).
    For our preliminary determination, as adverse facts available, we 
have used as the PRC-wide rate, the highest recalculated dumping margin 
from the petition with certain adjustments made to the values (see 
below). In the petition, the petitioner based export price (EP) on 
actual price quotes for barium carbonate produced in the PRC and 
offered for sale by several different Chinese trading companies.\2\ For 
the NV calculation, the petitioner based the factors of production, as 
defined by section 773(c)(3) of the Act (raw materials, labor, energy, 
and representative capital costs) on the quantities of inputs used by 
the petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In calculating export price, the petitioner adjusted for 
foreign inland freight using a surrogate value for rail freight in 
accordance with our NME calculation methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the EP calculation in the petition, the petitioner 
also provided AUVs by port of entry which the petitioner obtained from 
the ITC's Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb (DataWeb). See October 
16, 2002 Response to Supplemental Request at Exhibit 1 and Web site: 
http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp. As discussed in the 

memorandum to Gary Taverman, Director, Office 5, from David Layton, 
Tisha Loeper-Viti and Kristina Boughton, Case Analysts regarding 
Corroboration of Secondary Information (Corroboration Memo), dated 
March 10, 2003, we were unable to corroborate the petitioner's price 
quotations with data submitted by Qingdao Red Star in its questionnaire 
responses because the petitioner's price quotations did not correspond 
to any of the export prices reported by the respondent in this 
proceeding. The Department was also unable to corroborate these prices 
with average unit values (AUVs) for the POI that were based on 
quarterly quantities and values of total barium carbonate imports from 
the PRC reported on DataWeb. In addition, the terms of sale related to 
the petitioner's price quotes appear to differ from the terms 
underlying the respondent's prices as explained in the Corroboration 
Memorandum.\3\ Since the Department was unable to corroborate the 
petitioner's price quotations for purposes of using them in the 
Department's calculation of the PRC-wide rate, we have substituted an 
EP based on the weighted average of all of the port-specific AUVs 
provided by the petitioner except for one port-specific AUV that 
appeared to be aberrationally high. See Corroboration Memo at 
Attachment 1. These AUVs are based on actual POI customs values for 
imports from the PRC falling under the only tariff classification 
subheading covering subject merchandise. The publicly available AUVs 
reflect barium carbonate prices net of international freight for all 
Chinese exporters including those who did not respond. Therefore, we 
consider the AUVs to have probative value for purposes of calculating 
the PRC-wide rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The explanation of the difference in terms of sale involves 
some proprietary information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We compared the petitioner's factor consumption rates to the 
respondent's factor consumption rates, which is the only other factor 
consumption data on the record of this investigation. As discussed in 
the Corroboration Memo, we were unable to corroborate the petitioner's 
factor consumption data with the data provided by the respondent. 
Nevertheless, we consider the petitioner's factor consumption rates for 
materials, labor and energy to have probative value on the basis that 
these consumption factors are derived from the petitioner's own 
experience in producing the subject merchandise. See Corroboration Memo 
at 7.
    The surrogate values for the factors of production in the petition 
were based on publicly available information for comparable inputs in 
India, and in the case of barite ore, on a price quote from an 
Australian producer. With the exception of the values for packing 
material, which differed only slightly, and water, which was the same, 
we updated Indian surrogate values used in the petition with values 
based on more current values from publicly available sources and 
revised the NV calculation accordingly. See FOP Memo. We replaced the 
price quote value for barite ore with a value based on Indonesian 
imports from a publicly available source. See discussion in the Factors 
of Production section below and in the FOP Memo. We consider the Indian 
values, and the Indonesian value, both

[[Page 12668]]

from publicly available sources, to have probative value. Therefore, we 
find that the surrogate values used to calculate the PRC-wide rate are 
sufficiently corroborated.
    Because all elements of NV have been corroborated, we consider this 
revised NV to be reasonable and of probative value. As a result of this 
recalculation, the PRC-wide rate is, for the preliminary determination, 
75.10 percent. See Corroboration Memo; see also the October 16, 2002 
supplement to the petition. 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 Qingdao Red Star's sales of barium carbonate 
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 
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c). In 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for Qingdao Red 
Star 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 Qingdao Red Star based on packed F.O.B. and 
C.I.F. 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, 
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 
the memorandum to Gary Taverman, Director, Office 5, from David Layton, 
Tisha Loeper-Viti and Kristina Boughton, Case Analysts regarding, 
Factors of Production Valuation for Preliminary Determination, dated 
March 10, 2003 (FOP Memo), on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) 
located in B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.

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 initially identified 
five 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, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and 
the Philippines (see the memorandum from Jeffrey May, Director, Office 
of Policy to Gary Taverman, Director, Office 5, regarding Request for a 
List of Surrogate Countries, dated December 11, 2002, on file in the 
CRU). Based on available information of export data provided in United 
Nations Trade Statistics under HTSUS subheading 2836.60, we have found 
that India is a producer of barium carbonate. The petitioner also 
provided evidence that India is a significant producer of subject 
merchandise, including Indian producers' advertisements and an article 
from the Asia Pulse citing aggregate Indian production figures for 
barium carbonate from 1995-1999. In addition, for most factors of 
production, India has quantifiable, contemporaneous, and publicly 
available data. India had the best available financial data of the five 
countries on specific barium carbonate producers. Therefore, for 
purposes of the preliminary determination, we have selected India as 
the primary surrogate country. However, for one material input, barite 
ore, we were unable to obtain a reliable Indian value. For this reason, 
we used data from a secondary surrogate country, Indonesia, to value 
this input. We have evidence to suggest that Indonesia is also a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise and we were able to 
obtain publicly available data for barite ore. For further discussion, 
see the FOP Memo.

Factors of Production

    In its questionnaire response, Qingdao Red Star 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 and, when appropriate, from Indonesia.
    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 
(January 2003, July 2002 and September 2000). We inflated the values 
denominated in Indian rupees using Indian wholesale price indices and 
inflated values denominated in U.S. dollars using U.S. producer 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).
    We valued certain material inputs, packing materials, and 
byproducts (including coal, limestone, plastic bags, and sulfur) using 
publicly available 2002 Indian import statistics from the appropriate 
Indian Trade Classification categories, based on the Harmonized 
Commodity Description and Coding System (HS), published by the Monthly 
Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India. Volume II: Imports (March 
2002) (Indian Import Statistics). Because Indian imports of barite ore 
for this period were insignificant, we valued barite ore using 2001 
Indonesian import data from the World Trade Atlas. We valued water 
based on an average of several rates for metropolitan areas in India, 
published by the Asian Development Bank in the Second Water Utilities 
Data Book: Asian and Pacific Region in 1997.
    For energy, we valued coal using Indian Import Statistics for 2002. 
We valued electricity using Indian retail prices found in the 
International Energy Agency's Key World Energy Statistics 2002 covering 
the fourth quarter of 2001. We valued kerosene using rates quoted in a 
press release from the Government of India dated February 28, 2002.

[[Page 12669]]

    We valued labor using the latest regression-based wage rate for 
China found on Import Administration's Web page (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/
wages/
) as described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

    To value foreign inland truck freight costs, we relied upon per-
kilometer price quotes used by the Department in the Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate 
From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 10892 (March 11, 2002). To 
value foreign inland rail freight costs, we used an average per-metric-
ton rate published in the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin, July 2001. 
This rate was used by the Department in the Notice of Preliminary 
Results in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Potassium 
Permanganate from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 7768 (February 
18, 2003). We valued ocean freight based on publicly available rates 
from a large liner shipping company, Maersk Sealand. We valued marine 
insurance based on an Indian rate which was reported in the public 
version of the questionnaire response placed on the record in Certain 
Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India: Final Results of Administrative 
and New Shipper Review, 64 FR 856 (January 6, 1999).
    To value factory overhead, selling, general and administrative 
expenses (SG&A) and profit, we used the audited financial statements 
for the year ended March 31, 2000, from an Indian producer of barium 
carbonate, Victory Chemicals Pvt., Ltd. (Victory).
    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.

Suspension of Liquidation

    We are directing the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to suspend 
liquidation of all entries of barium carbonate from the PRC that are 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date on which this notice is published in the Federal Register. In 
addition, we are instructing Customs 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qingdao Red Star Chemical Import & Export Co., Ltd.........         7.66
PRC-Wide Rate..............................................        75.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise 
except for entries from Qingdao Red Star.

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 barium carbonate 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 no later than one week after issuance of the 
verification reports. 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. 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 date, time, and location of the hearing 
48 hours before the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
in a hearing if one is requested, 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: March 10, 2003.
Joseph Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-6339 Filed 3-14-03; 8:45 am]