Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices 33805

in the preliminary determination of

sales at less than fair value published in

the Federal Register. This suspension of

liquidation will remain in effect until

further notice. The margin in the

preliminary determination is as follows:

Nova Hut—32.26 percent.

Final Critical Circumstances

Determination

We will make final critical

circumstances determinations when we

issue our final determination in the lessthan-fair-value investigation, which is

due to be made no later than June 19,

2000.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: May 17, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–13097 Filed 5–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–853]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin

From the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is conducting an antidumping duty

investigation of Bulk Aspirin from the

People’s Republic of China. We

determine that sales have been made at

less than fair value. The estimated

dumping margins are shown in the

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 25, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosa

Jeong, Ryan Langan or Blanche Ziv,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3853,

482–1279, or 482–4207, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’) by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’s’’) regulations refer to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351

(1998).

Case History

Since the preliminary determination

(see 65 FR 116 (January 3, 2000)

(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’)), the

following events have occurred:

On December 28, 1999, one of the

respondents, Shandong Xinhua

Pharmaceutical Factory (‘‘Shandong’’),

requested a postponement of the final

determination and, on January 4, 2000,

requested an extension of provisional

measures. On January 20, 2000, we

published in the Federal Register a

notice of postponement of the final

determination and extension of

provisional measures (65 FR 3204).

Supplemental information regarding

surrogate values was submitted on

February 14, 2000, by the petitioner and

respondents.

In February and March 2000, we

conducted verification of the

questionnaire responses submitted by

Shandong and Jilin Pharmaceutical

Import and Export Corporation (‘‘Jilin’’).

We issued reports on our findings of

these verifications on April 5, 2000.

The petitioner and respondents filed

case briefs and rebuttal briefs on April

12 and April 19, 2000, respectively. At

the request of the petitioner and

respondents, the Department held a

public hearing on April 25, 2000.

We also received a case brief from

Dastech International, Inc. (‘‘Dastech’’),

an interested party in this investigation.

After reviewing Dastech’s comments, we

determined that the information

contained in Dastech’s brief constituted

factual information that was filed on an

untimely basis as set forth in section

351.301 of the Department’s regulations.

Therefore, pursuant to section

351.302(d) of the Department’s

regulations, we removed Dastech’s

submission from the record, and did not

consider the comments for the final

determination. See ‘‘Rejection of

Interested Party’s Brief’’ Memorandum

to Richard W. Moreland, Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration, dated May 17, 2000.

Scope of the Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

product covered is bulk acetylsalicylic

acid, commonly referred to as bulk

aspirin, whether or not in

pharmaceutical or compound form, not

put up in dosage form (tablet, capsule,

powders or similar form for direct

human consumption). Bulk aspirin may

be imported in two forms, as pure orthoacetylsalicylic acid or as mixed orthoacetylsalicylic acid. Pure orthoacetylsalicylic acid can be either in

crystal form or granulated into a fine

powder (pharmaceutical form). This

product has the chemical formula

C9H8O4. It is defined by the official

monograph of the United States

Pharmacopoeia (‘‘USP’’) 23. It is

classified under the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 2918.22.1000.

Mixed ortho-acetylsalicylic acid

consists of ortho-acetylsalicylic acid

combined with other inactive

substances such as starch, lactose,

cellulose, or coloring materials and/or

other active substances. The presence of

other active substances must be in

concentrations less than that specified

for particular nonprescription drug

combinations of aspirin and active

substances as published in the

Handbook of Nonprescription Drugs,

eighth edition, American

Pharmaceutical Association. This

product is classified under HTSUS

subheading 3003.90.0000. Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

under investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of this investigation

(‘‘POI’’) is October 1, 1998, through

March 31, 1999.

Nonmarket Economy Country and

Market-Oriented Industry Status

The Department has treated the

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) as

a nonmarket economy (‘‘NME’’) country

in all past antidumping investigations.

See, e.g., Notice of 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) (‘‘Mushrooms’’).

Under section 771(18)(C) of the Act, this

NME designation remains in effect until

it is revoked by the Department.

The respondents in this investigation

have not requested a revocation of the

PRC’s NME status and no further

information has been provided that

would lead to such a revocation.

Therefore, we have continued to treat

the PRC as an NME in this investigation.

Furthermore, no interested party has

requested that the bulk aspirin industry

in the PRC be treated as a marketoriented industry and no further

information has been provided that

would lead to such a determination.

Therefore, we have not treated the bulk

33806 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

aspirin industry in the PRC as a marketoriented industry in this investigation.

Separate Rates

All responding companies have

requested separate, company-specific

antidumping duty rates. In our

Preliminary Determination, we

preliminarily found that all responding

companies had met the criteria for the

application of separate antidumping

duty rates. See 65 FR at 3204. At

verification, we found no discrepancies

with the information provided in the

questionnaire responses of responding

companies. We have not received any

other information since the Preliminary

Determination which would warrant

reconsideration of our separate rates

determinations with respect to these

companies. We, therefore, determine

that the responding companies in this

investigation should be assigned

individual dumping margins.

PRC-Wide Rate

As stated in the preliminary

determination, information on the

record of this investigation indicates

that there are numerous producers/

exporters of the subject merchandise in

the PRC in addition to the companies

participating in this investigation. U.S.

import statistics show that the

responding companies did not account

for all imports of bulk aspirin into the

United States from the PRC. Given this

discrepancy, it appears that not all PRC

exporters of bulk aspirin responded to

our questionnaire. Accordingly, we are

applying a single antidumping deposit

rate (‘‘the PRC-wide rate’’) to all bulk

aspirin exporters in the PRC except

those specifically identified in the

‘‘Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Use of Facts Available

As explained in the preliminary

determination, the PRC-wide

antidumping rate is based on adverse

facts available, in accordance with

section 776 of the Act. Section 776(a)(2)

of the Act provides that ‘‘if an interested

party or any other person— (A)

withholds information that has been

requested by the administering

authority or the Commission under this

title, (B) fails to provide such

information by the deadlines for

submission of the information or in the

form and manner requested, subject to

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782,

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding

under this title, or (D) provides such

information but the information cannot

be verified as provided in section 782(i),

the administering authority and the

Commission shall, subject to section

782(d), use the facts otherwise available

in reaching the applicable

determination under this title.’’ Use of

facts available is warranted in this case

because the producers/exporters other

than those under investigation have

failed to respond to the Department’s

questionnaire.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that adverse inferences may be used

when a party has failed to cooperate by

not acting to the best of its ability to

comply with a request for information.

The producers/exporters that decided

not to respond in any form to the

Department’s questionnaire, failed to act

to the best of their ability in this

investigation. Further, absent a

verifiable response from these firms, we

must presume government control of

these PRC companies. Thus, the

Department has determined that, in

selecting from among the facts

otherwise available, an adverse

inference is warranted and has assigned

them a common, PRC-wide rate based

on adverse inferences.

In accordance with our standard

practice, as adverse facts available, we

are assigning to the PRC-wide entity

(i.e., those companies not receiving a

separate rate), which did not cooperate

in the investigation, the higher of: (1)

the highest margin stated in the notice

of initiation; or (2) the highest margin

calculated for any respondent in this

investigation. See, e.g., Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod

From Japan, 63 FR 40434 (July 29,

1998). In this case, the adverse facts

available margin is 144.02 percent, the

margin from the petition, which is

higher than the margin calculated for

any respondent in this investigation.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that

where the Department selects from

among the facts otherwise available and

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ such

as the petition, the Department shall, to

the extent practicable, corroborate that

information from independent sources

reasonably at the Department’s disposal.

The Statement of Administrative Action

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No.

103–316 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’), states that

‘‘corroborate’’ means to determine that

the information used has probative

value. See SAA at 870. As discussed in

the Preliminary Determination, we

determine that the calculations set forth

in the petition have probative value.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this

investigation are addressed in the May

17, 2000, Decision Memorandum which

is hereby adopted by this notice.

Attached to this notice as an appendix

is a list of the issues which parties have

raised and to which we have responded

in the Decision Memorandum. Parties

can find a complete discussion of all

issues raised in this investigation and

the corresponding recommendations in

this public memorandum which is on

file in the Central Records Unit, Room

B–099 of the Department. In addition, a

complete version of the Decision

Memorandum can be accessed directly

on the internet at www.ita.doc.gov/

import admin/records/frn. The paper

copy and electronic version of the

Decision Memorandum are identical in

content.

Changes Since the Preliminary

Determination

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have made certain changes

in the margin calculations. We have also

corrected certain programming and

clerical errors in our Preliminary

Determination, where applicable. Any

programming or clerical errors are

discussed in the relevant sections of the

Decision Memorandum or in the

company-specific final determination

calculation memoranda dated May 17,

2000.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified the information

submitted by respondents for use in our

final determination. We used standard

verification procedures including

examination of relevant accounting and

production records, and original source

documents provided by respondents.

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation

In accordance with section 735(c) of

the Act, we are directing the U.S.

Customs Service (‘‘Customs’’) to

continue to suspend liquidation of all

imports of the subject merchandise from

the PRC, except for merchandise both

produced and exported by Jilin (which

had a zero margin at the Preliminary

Determination), that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after January 3,

2000, the date of publication of the

Preliminary Determination in the

Federal Register. With respect to Jilin,

Customs shall suspend liquidation of all

imports of the subject merchandise from

the PRC, produced and exported by Jilin

that are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of this notice in

the Federal Register.

Customs shall continue to require a

cash deposit or the posting of a bond

equal to the weighted-average amount

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices 33807

1E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. is not a petitioner

in the Taiwan case.

by which the NV exceeds the EP or CEP,

as appropriate, as indicated in the chart

below. These suspension of liquidation

instructions will remain in effect until

further notice.

The weighted-average dumping

margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weighted-average margin

percentage

Shandong Xinhua Pharmaceutical Factory ................... 42.77

Jilin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd./.

Jilin Pharmaceutical Import

and Export Corporation ....... 4.72

PRC-wide Rate ....................... 144.02

The PRC-wide rate applies to all

entries of the subject merchandise

except for entries from exporters that are

identified individually above.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. As our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will, within 45 days, determine whether

these imports are materially injuring, or

threaten material injury to, the U.S.

industry. If the ITC determines that

material injury, or threat of material

injury does not exist, the proceeding

will be terminated and all securities

posted will be refunded or canceled. If

the ITC determines that such injury

does exist, the Department will issue an

antidumping duty order directing

Customs officials to assess antidumping

duties on all imports of the subject

merchandise entered for consumption

on or after the effective date of the

suspension of liquidation.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: May 17, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Adminstration.

Appendix

List of Comments in the Issues and

Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Valuation of Phenol

Comment 2: Valuation of Caustic Soda

Comment 3: Valuation of Carbon

Dioxide

Comment 4: Valuation of Overhead,

Selling, General, Administrative

Expenses and Profit

Comment 5: Adjustments to Surrogate

Ratios

Comment 6: Valuation of Electricity

Comment 7: Valuation of Water

Comment 8: Valuation of Ocean Freight

Comment 9: Returned Merchandise

Comment 10: Separate Rates

Comment 11: Shandong’s Use of

Technical-Grade Salicylic Acid

Comment 12: Jilin’s Raw Material

Consumption

Comment 13: Jilin’s By-Product Offset

Comment 14: Jilin’s Inland Freight Costs

for Materials

Comment 15: Jilin’s Multiple Shipments

[FR Doc. 00–13095 Filed 5–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–839, A–583–833]

Notice of Amended Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple

Fiber From the Republic of Korea and

Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain

Polyester Staple Fiber From the

Republic of Korea and Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 25, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Craig Matney (Republic of Korea) or

Cynthia Thirumalai (Taiwan), Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–1778 or (202) 482–

4087, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’s’’) regulations are to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351

(1998).

Scope of Orders

The product covered by these orders

is certain polyester staple fiber (‘‘PSF’’).

Certain polyester staple fiber is defined

as synthetic staple fibers, not carded,

combed or otherwise processed for

spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3

decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in

diameter. This merchandise is cut to

lengths varying from one inch (25 mm)

to five inches (127 mm). The

merchandise subject to these orders may

be coated, usually with a silicon or

other finish, or not coated. PSF is

generally used as stuffing in sleeping

bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters,

cushions, pillows, and furniture.

Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex

(less than 3 denier) classified under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheading

5503.20.00.20 is specifically excluded

from these orders. Also specifically

excluded from these orders are polyester

staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier that are

cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers

used in the manufacture of carpeting).

In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded

from these orders. Low-melt PSF is

defined as a bi-component fiber with an

outer sheath that melts at a significantly

lower temperature than its inner core.

The merchandise subject to these

orders is classified in the HTSUS at

subheadings 5503.20.00.40 and

5503.20.00.60. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of these orders is

dispositive.

Amended Final Determination

In accordance with section 735(a) of

the Act, on March 30, 2000, the

Department published the final

determination of the antidumping duty

investigation of certain PSF from the

Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’), in which

we determined that U.S. sales of PSF

from Korea were made at less than

normal value (65 FR 16880 (‘‘Korea

Final Determination’’)). On March 31

and April 4, 2000, we received

ministerial error allegations, timely filed

pursuant to § 351.224(c)(2) of the

Department’s regulations, from the

petitioners E.I. DuPont de Nemours,

Inc.; 1 Arteva Specialities S.a.r.l.; d/b/a

KoSa; Wellman, Inc.; and

Intercontinental Polymers, Inc.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as

‘‘the petitioners’’) regarding the

calculations for Geum Poong

Corporation (‘‘Geum Poong’’) and

Samyang Corporation (‘‘Samyang’’),

respectively. On April 5, 2000, Sam

Young Synthetics Co. (‘‘Sam Young’’)

and Geum Poong timely filed

ministerial allegations, and Geum Poong

also commented on the petitioners’

allegations. On April 6, 2000, Samyang

filed a rebuttal to the petitioners’

ministerial error allegations. We

received comments from the petitioners

concerning the respondents’ clerical

error allegations on April 10, 2000.

We have determined in accordance

with section 735(e) of the Act that

ministerial errors were made in our final

margin calculations. For a detailed