Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices 25247 

antidumping duty order on ceratin 

preserved mushrooms from the PRC. 

See Initiation Notice. On April 17, 2007, 

all five companies which requested the 

review timely withdrew their requests 

for administrative reviews. 

Rescission of Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Department will rescind an 

administrative review, in whole or in 

part, if a party that requested a review 

withdraws the request within 90 days of 

the date of publication of the notice of 

initiation. In this case, the companies 

listed above withdrew their requests for 

administrative reviews of their exports 

of certain preserved mushrooms for the 

POR, within 90 days from the date of 

initiation. No other interested party 

requested a review of these companies. 

Therefore, the Department is rescinding 

this review of the antidumping duty 

order on certain preserved mushrooms 

from the PRC covering the POR, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). 

Assessment 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries for China Processed 

Food Import and Export Company, 

COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial 

Co. Ltd., China National Cereals, Oils 

and Foodstuffs Import and Export 

Corporation, Fujian Yu Xing Fruit and 

Vegetable Foodstuff Development Co., 

and Xiamen Jiahua Import and Export 

Trading Co., Ltd. Antidumping duties 

shall be assessed at rates equal to the 

cash deposit of estimated antidumping 

duties required at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after of publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final 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 assumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and subsequent assessment of 

double antidumping duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders (‘‘APOs’’) 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to APOs of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under an APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

This notice is in accordance with 

section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(4) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

Dated: April 26, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8585 Filed 5–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–878 

Saccharin from the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of the 

2005–2006 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on saccharin 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’) covering the period July 1, 2005, 

through June 30, 2006. We preliminarily 

determine that sales of subject 

merchandise were made at less than 

normal value (‘‘NV’’) by Shanghai 

Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai 

Fortune’’). If these preliminary results 

are adopted in our final results of this 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise exported 

by Shanghai Fortune during the period 

of review (‘‘POR’’). 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We intend to issue the final results no 

later than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann 

Fornaro or Frances Veith, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–3927 or (202) 482–4295, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 9, 2003, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on saccharin from the PRC. See Notice 

of Antidumping Duty Order: Saccharin 

from the People’s Republic of China, 68 

FR 40906 (July 9, 2003). On July 3, 2006, 

the Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of this order. See Antidumping 

or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 

or Suspended Investigation; 

Opportunity To Request Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351. 213(b)(1), 

the following requests were made: (1) on 

July 28, 2006, Shanghai Fortune and 

Suzhou Fine Chemical Co. Group Ltd. 

(‘‘Suzhou Fine Chemical’’), Chinese 

exporting producers of subject 

merchandise, requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of their exports; (2) on July 28, 

2006, Amgal Chemical Products (1989) 

Ltd. (‘‘Amgal’’), an Israeli exporting 

producer of sodium saccharin made 

from subject merchandise manufactured 

in the PRC, requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of its exports. 

On August 30, 2006, the Department 

initiated this administrative review with 

respect to Shanghai Fortune, Suzhou 

Fine Chemical, and Amgal. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006). 

The Department issued antidumping 

duty questionnaires to Shanghai 

Fortune, Suzhou Fine Chemical, and 

Amgal on August 30, 2006. 

On September 7, 2006, the Office of 

Policy issued a list of five surrogate 

countries at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

PRC for the POR. See the Memorandum 

from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of 

Policy, to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/ 

CVD Enforcement, Office 8, regarding, 

‘‘Administrative Review of Saccharin 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate 

Countries’’ (September 7, 2006) (‘‘Policy 

Memorandum’’). 

On October 16 and November 14, 

2006, Suzhou Fine Chemical and 

Amgal, respectively, withdrew their 

requests for an administrative review. 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
25248 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices 

No other party requested an 

administrative review of Suzhou Fine 

Chemical’s or Amgal’s exports to the 

United States. 

On October 20, 2006, Shanghai 

Fortune submitted its sections A, C, and 

D questionnaire response (‘‘ACD–QR’’). 

On September 8 and 12, 2006, the 

Department invited interested parties to 

submit surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) 

information and to submit comments on 

surrogate country selection. See the 

Letter from Blanche Ziv, Program 

Manager, Office 8, to All Interested 

Parties (September 8, 2006); and Letter 

from Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, 

Office 8, to All Interested Parties 

(September 12, 2006). On November 13, 

2006, Shanghai Fortune submitted 

publicly available information to value 

the factors of production (‘‘FOP’’). No 

interested party submitted comments on 

the selection of a surrogate country. 

The Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to Shanghai Fortune on 

December 20, 2006, and on February 20, 

March 1, and March 14, 2007. Shanghai 

Fortune submitted responses to these 

supplemental questionnaires on January 

17, March 6, March 20, and March 26, 

2007, respectively. The Department also 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Shanghai Fortune’s U.S. customer on 

December 21, 2006. The U.S. customer 

submitted a response to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire on January 18, 2007. 

On December 26, 2006, the 

Department published a notice of partial 

rescission of this administrative review 

with respect to Suzhou Fine Chemical 

and Amgal. See Saccharin from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 77382 

(December 26, 2006). 

On March 23, 2007, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register extending the time limit for 

issuing its preliminary results of review 

until May 2, 2007. See Saccharin from 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

13746 (March 23, 2007). 

Period of Review 

The POR is July 1, 2005, through June 

30, 2006. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this 

antidumping duty order is saccharin. 

Saccharin is defined as a non–nutritive 

sweetener used in beverages and foods, 

personal care products such as 

toothpaste, table top sweeteners, and 

animal feeds. It is also used in 

metalworking fluids. There are four 

primary chemical compositions of 

saccharin: (1) Sodium saccharin 

(American Chemical Society Chemical 

Abstract Service (‘‘CAS’’) Registry 128– 

44–44); (2) calcium saccharin (CAS 

Registry 6485–34–34); (3) acid (or 

insoluble) saccharin (CAS Registry 81– 

07–07); and (4) research grade 

saccharin. Most of the U.S.-produced 

and imported grades of saccharin from 

the PRC are sodium and calcium 

saccharin, which are available in 

granular, powder, spray–dried powder, 

and liquid forms. The merchandise 

subject to this order is currently 

classifiable under subheading 

2925.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) and includes all types of 

saccharin imported under this HTSUS 

subheading, including research and 

specialized grades. Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

scope of this order remains dispositive. 

Non–Market Economy Country Status 

Shanghai Fortune 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 an NME country in all past 

antidumping duty investigations and 

administrative reviews and continues to 

do so in this case. See, e.g., Folding 

Metal Tables and Chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 

(December 11, 2006) (‘‘FMTC–Final–04– 

05’’); and Non–Malleable Cast Iron Pipe 

Fittings from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

69546 (December 1, 2006) (‘‘Non– 

Malleable Pipe’’). No interested party in 

this case has argued that we should do 

otherwise. Designation as an NME 

country remains in effect until it is 

revoked by the Department. See Section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. 

Surrogate Country 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the 

Department 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 use, to the 

extent possible, the prices or costs of the 

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 sources of the 

surrogate factor values are discussed 

under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section below 

and in the Memorandum from Frances 

Veith, International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program 

Manager, to Wendy Frankel, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, 

‘‘Preliminary Results of the 2005–2006 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Saccharin from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Value 

Memorandum’’ (April 27, 2007) 

(‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). 

The Department determined that 

India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 

Philippines, and Egypt are countries 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development. See Policy 

Memorandum. Customarily, we select 

an appropriate surrogate country from 

the Policy Memorandum based on the 

availability and reliability of data from 

the countries that are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

In this case, we found that India is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise. See Memorandum from 

Frances Veith, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, through Blanche 

Ziv, Program Manager, and Wendy 

Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 8, to the File, ‘‘2005–2006 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Saccharin from the People’s 

Republic of China: Selection of a 

Surrogate Country’’ (February 26, 2007) 

(‘‘Surrogate Country Memorandum’’). 

Accordingly, we selected India as the 

primary surrogate country for purposes 

of valuing the FOPs in the calculation 

of NV because it meets the Department’s 

criteria for surrogate country selection. 

See Surrogate Country Memorandum 

and Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

Where Indian data was not available, 

the Department calculated the SV using 

World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’) import 

statistics from the Philippines, available 

at http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. The 

Philippines import data represents 

cumulative values for fiscal year 2005. 

We obtained and relied upon publicly 

available information wherever 

possible. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in 

an antidumping administrative review, 

interested parties may submit publicly 

available information to value factors of 

production within 20 days after the date 

of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices 25249 

1See 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). 

2See ACD-QR at pages A2 through A8. 

3 Id. 

4See FMTC-Final-04-05. 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control, and thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of subject merchandise subject 

to review in an 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 the final 

results);1 and Non–Malleable Pipe, 71 

FR at 69548. 

We considered whether Shanghai 

Fortune, based in the PRC, is eligible for 

a separate rate. The Department’s 

separate–rate test to determine whether 

the exporters are 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 Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 

19, 1997). 

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. 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); 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). 

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’’). 

Shanghai Fortune provided company– 

specific separate–rate information and 

stated that it met the standards for the 

assignment of a separate rate.2 Shanghai 

Fortune reported that it is wholly 

owned by Fortune Knitting Co., Ltd., a 

privately held foreign–owned market 

economy entity.3 Therefore, further 

separate–rate analysis is not necessary 

to determine whether Shanghai 

Fortune’s export activities are 

independent from government control. 

See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and 

Chairs from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 38852, at 38853–38855 

(July 10, 2006) (‘‘FMTC–Prelim–04–05’’) 

(unchanged in the final)4 and 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). 

Date of Sale 

Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s 

regulations states that: 

in identifying the date of sale of the 

subject merchandise or foreign like 

product, the Secretary normally 

will use the date of invoice, as 

recorded in the exporter or 

producer’s records kept in the 

normal course of business. 

However, the Secretary may use a 

date other than the date of invoice 

if the Secretary is satisfied that a 

different date better reflects the date 

on which the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of 

sale. 

See also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. 

v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 

1090–1093 (CIT 2001) (upholding the 

Department’s rebuttable presumption 

that invoice date is the appropriate date 

of sale). After examining the 

questionnaire responses and the sale 

documentation placed on the record by 

Shanghai Fortune, we preliminarily 

determine that invoice date is the most 

appropriate date of sale in this review. 

We made this determination based on 

statements on the record that indicate 

that Shanghai Fortune’s invoice 

establishes the material terms of sale to 

the extent required by our regulations. 

See Shanghai Fortune’s ACD–QR at A11 

and C12. Nothing on the record of this 

review rebuts the presumption that 

invoice date should be the date of sale. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether Shanghai 

Fortune’s sale of saccharin to the United 

States was made at a price below NV, 

we compared Shanghai Fortune’s export 

price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described in the 

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections of this notice, pursuant to 

section 773 of the Act. 

Export Price 

Because Shanghai Fortune sold 

subject merchandise to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation into the United States and 

use of a constructed–export-price 

methodology was not otherwise 

indicated, we used EP in accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act. 

For Shanghai Fortune, we calculated 

EP based on the FOB Shanghai port 

price to an unaffiliated purchaser. From 

this price, we deducted amounts for 

foreign inland freight and brokerage and 

handling, pursuant to section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. See 

Memorandum to the File from Ann 

Fornaro, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst: ‘‘Analysis for the 

Preliminary Results of the 2005–2006 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Saccharin from the People’s 

Republic of China: Shanghai Fortune 

Chemical Co., Ltd.’’ (April 27, 2007) 

(‘‘Shanghai Fortune Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum’’). 

The Department used two sources to 

calculate an SV for domestic brokerage 

and handling expenses. The Department 

averaged December 2003 through 

November 2004 data contained in Essar 

Steel’s February 28, 2005, public 

version response submitted in the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of hot–rolled carbon steel flat products 

from India. See Certain Hot–Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: 

Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 2018, 2022 (January 12, 

2006). The Essar Steel data was 

averaged with the February 2004 

through January 2005 data contained in 

Agro Dutch Industries Limited’s (‘‘Agro 

Dutch’’) May 24, 2005, public version 

response submitted in the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from India. See 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

India: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 

37757 (June 30, 2005); and FMTC– 

Prelim–04–05 at 71 FR 38857 (utilizing 

this same data). The brokerage expense 

data reported by Essar Steel and Agro 

Dutch in their public versions is ranged 

data. Essar Steel reported averaged, 

ranged values for each reported sale 

transaction in its submission, while 

Agro Dutch reported an overall 

averaged, ranged value for its POR. In 

the instant review, the Department first 

derived an overall average value from 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
25250 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices 

5See ACD-QR in Exhibits D-3. 

6For further information, see Expected NonMarket Economy Wages: Request for Comment on 

Calculation Methodology, 70 FR 37761, 37763 (June 

30, 2005) (‘‘Wage Rate FR’’). 

Essar Steel’s data. Then the Department 

adjusted both source’s overall average 

value for inflation. Finally, the 

Department derived an SV for brokerage 

and handling by calculating an average 

from the source’s inflated average value. 

See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 

Attachment 12. 

To value truck freight, we used the 

freight rates published by 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 Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 11. 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that, in the case of an NME, the 

Department shall determine NV using 

an FOP methodology if the merchandise 

is exported from an NME 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 Shanghai Fortune for 

materials, energy, labor, and packing. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department will 

normally use publicly available 

information to value the FOPs, but 

when a producer sources an input from 

a market economy supplier 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). However, when the 

Department has reason to believe or 

suspect that such prices may be 

distorted by subsidies, the Department 

will disregard the market economy 

purchase prices and use SVs to 

determine the NV. See, e.g., Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From the 

People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of the 1998–1999 Administrative 

Review, Partial Rescission of Review, 

and Determination Not to Revoke Order 

in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. Shanghai 

Fortune reported that a significant 

percentage of its consumption of 

phthalic anhydride used in the 

production of saccharin was purchased 

from a market economy and paid for in 

a market economy currency. See the 

‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section of this 

notice, below, for further discussion. 

Shanghai Fortune reported that 

during the production process of 

saccharin, it generates and recycles 

certain chemical by–products for 

resale.5 However, Shanghai Fortune was 

unable to provide documentation 

supporting its production and sales of 

these by–products during the POR. The 

amount of products reused or sold 

during the POR is an integral part of the 

factor calculation for by–products. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Urea 

Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from 

Belarus, 68 FR 9055 (February 27, 2003), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3 (‘‘The 

Department allows such credits, but 

only for the amount of the by–product/ 

recovery actually sold or reused.’’); 

Notice of the Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Saccharin from the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 27530 (May 20, 2003), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6; and 

Saccharin from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative, 71 FR 7515 (February 

13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

Therefore, we are not granting a by– 

product offset to Shanghai Fortune. For 

further details, see Shanghai Fortune 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

FOPs reported by Shanghai Fortune for 

the POR. We relied on the factor– 

specific data submitted by Shanghai 

Fortune in its questionnaire and 

supplemental questionnaire responses 

for purposes of selecting SVs. 

To calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per–unit factor–consumption 

rates by publicly available Indian SVs 

(except as noted below). In selecting the 

SVs, we considered the quality, 

specificity, and contemporaneity of the 

data. As appropriate, we adjusted input 

prices by including freight costs to 

render them delivered prices. 

Specifically, we added to Indian import 

SVs a surrogate freight cost using the 

shorter of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’). 

See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 

3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where 

necessary, we adjusted the SVs for 

inflation/deflation using the Indian 

Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as 

published on the Reserve Bank of India 

(‘‘RBI’’) website, available at http:// 

www.rbi.org.in. For a detailed 

description of all SVs used for Shanghai 

Fortune, see the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Except as noted below, we valued raw 

material inputs using the July 1, 2005, 

through June 30, 2006, weighted– 

average unit import values derived from 

the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign 

Trade of India, as published by the 

Directorate General of Commercial 

Intelligence and Statistics of the 

Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 

Government of India and used in the 

WTA, available at http:www.gtis.com/ 

wta.htm. The Indian WTA import data 

is reported in rupees and is 

contemporaneous with the POR. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum at 

Attachment 4. We adjusted the SVs to 

account for freight costs incurred 

between the supplier and respondent. 

We used the freight rates published by 

Indian Freight Exchange, available at 

http://www.infreight.com, to value truck 

freight. Because the truck freight rates 

are contemporaneous with the POR, we 

made no adjustments for inflation. 

Furthermore, with regard to the WTA 

import–based SVs, for each input value, 

we used the average unit value for that 

input imported into India from all 

countries, with three exceptions. First, 

imports from all countries that the 

Department has previously determined 

to be NME countries were excluded 

from the average.6 Second, it is the 

Department’s current practice that, 

where the facts developed in U.S. or 

third–country countervailing duty 

findings include the existence of 

subsidies that appear to be used 

generally (in particular, broadly 

available, non–industry-specific export 

subsidies), it is reasonable for the 

Department to consider that it has 

particular and objective evidence to 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices 25251 

7See Memorandum to the File, from Frances 

Veith, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, regarding, ‘‘Surrogate 

Value Data for Liquid Chlorine,’’ (March 8, 2007). 

support a reason to believe or suspect 

that prices of the inputs from the 

country granting the subsidies may be 

subsidized. See Tapered Roller Bearings 

and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, from the People’s Republic 

of China; Final Results of the 1998–1999 

Administrative Review, Partial 

Rescission of Review, and 

Determination Not to Revoke Order in 

Part, 66 FR 1953 (Jan. 10, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1; 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 (Nov. 15, 2001), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1; and China 

National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. 

v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 

1339 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the 

Federal Circuit, 104 Fed. Appx. 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. No. 576 100th Cong., 2. Sess. 

590–91 (1988). Rather, the Department 

was instructed by Congress to base its 

decision on information that is available 

to it at the time it is making its 

determination. Therefore, we excluded 

export prices from Indonesia, South 

Korea, Thailand, and India in 

calculating the Indian import–based SVs 

or in calculating the Philippines 

import–based SV. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Finally, we excluded imports that 

were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country from the average 

value because we could not be certain 

that they were not from either an NME 

or a country with general export 

subsidies. For a complete description of 

the factor values we used in these 

preliminary results, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

To value aqueous ammonia, the 

Department used the POR average unit 

value for imports into India from all 

countries, except as noted above. We 

invite parties to submit comments and 

additional information on the valuation 

of aqueous ammonia to be considered 

by the Department for the final results, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii). For 

further discussion of the comments 

submitted to the Department by 

Shanghai Fortune regarding the 

valuation of aqueous ammonia, see 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

In addition to the Indian WTA import 

data, we valued certain raw material 

inputs (i.e., liquid sodium hydroxide, 

hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, sodium 

nitrite, copper sulfate, toluene, sodium 

bicarbonate, ionic membrane sodium 

hydroxide) based on Indian domestic 

price data obtained from the Indian 

publication Chemical Weekly. Because 

the domestic chemical prices obtained 

from Chemical Weekly are reported on 

a 100–percent concentration basis 

unless otherwise noted, we adjusted the 

weighted–average POR price for 

Shanghai Fortune’s reported product 

chemical concentration percentage 

levels, where appropriate. See Sebacic 

Acid from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Review, 64 FR 69503, 69504–69505 

(December 13, 1999) at Comment 2. We 

calculated an average domestic price 

from the multiple publication prices 

within the POR, where applicable. We 

adjusted the average value to exclude 

excise and/or sales tax in each case 

where the price was specifically 

identified as being inclusive of the 16– 

percent excise tax identified in Central 

Excise Tariff 1998–99 (as published by 

Cen–Cus Publications, New Delhi) and/ 

or sales tax, as appropriate. For further 

details, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 5. 

As noted in the ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

section above, Shanghai Fortune 

provided evidence that it had purchased 

phthalic anhydride from a market 

economy supplier and paid for it in a 

market economy currency. Therefore, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), 

the Department has determined to use 

the market economy price as reported 

by Shanghai Fortune to value this input 

because the market economy input 

represents a significant quantity of the 

input purchased during the POR. For 

further details, see Shanghai Fortune 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. 

To value sulfur dioxide, the 

Department used the per–kilogram 

values obtained from Annual Import 

Statistics of the Philippines National 

Statistics Office, as published by the 

WTA, because we found the POR Indian 

data available for this input to be 

unreliable due to small quantities and 

aberrant values. We made adjustments 

to the weighted–average value to 

account for freight costs incurred 

between the PRC supplier and Shanghai 

Fortune. The Philippines WTA data is 

reported in U.S. dollars (‘‘USD’’) and is 

contemporaneous with the POR. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum at 

Attachment 4. 

To value liquid chlorine, the 

Department selected the sales value of 

chlorine from public information the 

Department placed on the record of this 

review7 (i.e., annual reports of three 

Indian Chemical companies: 1) Bihar 

Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.; 2) Kanoria 

Chemicals & Industries Limited; and 3) 

TATA Chemicals) because we found the 

WTA Indian data available for this input 

to be unreliable due to small quantities 

and aberrant values and Chemical 

Weekly price data is not available for 

this input. We averaged the sales prices 

for chlorine reported in the three annual 

reports and made adjustments to 

account for freight costs incurred 

between the PRC supplier and Shanghai 

Fortune. The sales value data is reported 

in rupees per metric ton and is 

contemporaneous with the POR. See 

also, Surrogate Value Memorandum at 

Attachment 6. 

To value electricity, the Department 

used the 2000 electricity price rates 

from Key World Energy Statistics 2003, 

published by the International Energy 

Agency available at http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/ 

elecprii.html. Because this data was not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

adjusted the average value for inflation 

using WPI. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 8. 

To value water, we used the Revised 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation (‘‘MIDC’’) water rates for 

June 1, 2003, available at http:// 

www.midcindia.com/water–supply, 

adjusted for inflation using WPI. 

For direct labor, indirect labor and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression–based wage rates reflective of 

the observed relationship between 

wages and national income in market 

economy countries as reported on 

Import Administration’s home page. See 

‘‘Expected Wages of Selected NME 

Countries’’ (revised January 2007) 

(available at http://www.trade.gov/ia/). 

For further details on the labor 

calculation, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 7. 

For factory overhead, selling, general, 

and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), 

and profit values, consistent with 19 

CFR 351.408(c)(4), we used public 

information gathered from an auditor’s 

report for the year ending March 31, 

2006, from an Indian producer of 

comparable merchandise (i.e., Atul 

Ltd.). From this information, we were 

able to determine factory overhead as a 

percentage of the total raw materials, 

labor and energy (‘‘ML&E’’) costs; SG&A 

as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead 

(i.e., cost of manufacture) and traded 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
25252 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices 

goods; and the profit rate as a 

percentage of the cost of manufacture 

plus SG&A and traded goods. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum for a full 

discussion of the calculation of these 

ratios. 

For packing materials, we used the 

per–kilogram values obtained from the 

Indian WTA import data and made 

adjustments to account for freight costs 

incurred between the PRC supplier and 

Shanghai Fortune. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 4. 

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 

We preliminarily find the weighted– 

average dumping margin for Shanghai 

Fortune for the period July 1 2005, 

through June 30, 2006, to be 47.60 

percent. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our preliminary analysis to parties to 

this proceeding within five days of the 

publication date of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are 

invited to comment on the preliminary 

results and may submit case briefs and/ 

or written comments within 30 days of 

the date of publication of this notice. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Any 

interested party may request a hearing 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 

hearing, if requested, will be held 42 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Rebuttal 

briefs and rebuttals to written 

comments, limited to issues raised in 

such briefs or comments, may be filed 

no later than 35 days after the date of 

publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The 

Department requests that parties 

submitting written comments also 

provide the Department with an 

additional copy of those comments on 

diskette or CD. The Department will 

issue the final results of this 

administrative review, which will 

include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such comments, 

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 appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this administrative review. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 

we calculated an exporter/importer–or 

customer–specific assessment rate or 

value for merchandise subject to this 

review. For these preliminary results, 

we divided the total dumping margins 

for the reviewed sales by the total 

entered quantity of those reviewed sales 

for each applicable importer. In this 

review, if these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of review, 

we will direct CBP to assess the 

resulting rate against the entered 

customs value or per–unit assessment, 

as appropriate, for the subject 

merchandise on each importers’/ 

customers’ entries during the POR. 

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 Shanghai 

Fortune, which has a separate rate, the 

cash deposit rate will be the company– 

specific rate established in the final 

results of 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 that have not been found 

to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 

deposit rate will be the PRC–wide rate 

of 329.33 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 further 

notice. 

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. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: April 27, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8581 Filed 5–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–351–826) 

Certain Small Diameter Seamless 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line 

and Pressure Pipe from Brazil: Notice 

of Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Bailey or Dena Crossland, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0193 or (202) 482– 

3362, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 29, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

small diameter seamless carbon and 

alloy steel standard, line and pressure 

pipe from Brazil, covering the period 

August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. 

See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 

2006). The preliminary results for this 

review are currently due no later than 

May 3, 2007. 

Statutory Time Limits 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department to issue the 

preliminary results of an administrative 

review within 245 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month of an order for 

which a review is requested and the 

final results of review within 120 days 

after the date on which the preliminary 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES