Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices 42747

deadline for completion of an

administrative review if it determines

that it is not practicable to complete the

review within the statutory time limit of

365 days. In the instant case, the

deadline for the preliminary results of

this review was extended from 245 days

to 345 days under section 751(a)(3)(A)

due to an allegation from petitioners

that respondent’s sales were made

below the cost of production. 62 FR

3661 (1997). The Department has

determined that it is not practicable to

complete the review within this

extended period because the case

involves complex analysis and issues

associated with the implementation of

the new law.

Since it is not practicable to complete

this review within the extended period,

in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A)

of the Act, the Department is extending

the time limit as follows:

Product Country Review period Initiation

date

Prelim due

date

Final due

date*

Gray Portland Cement (A–201–802) ..................... Mexico ........................... 08/1/95–07/31/96 9/17/96 9/2/97 12/13/97

* The Department shall issue the final determination 120 days after the publication of the preliminary determination. This final due date is estimated based on publication of the preliminary notice five business days after signature.

Dated: July 28, 1997.

Roland L. MacDonald,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary For

Enforcement III.

[FR Doc. 97–20933 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–802]

Industrial Nitrocellulose From the

People’s Republic of China;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

respondent, China North Industries

Guangzhou Corp. (CNIGC), the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on industrial

nitrocellulose from the People’s

Republic of China (PRC). The review

covers one exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States and

the period July 1, 1995 through June 30,

1996. The review indicates the existence

of dumping margins during the period

of review.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV). If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties equal to the

difference between United States price

(U.S. price) and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Trainor or Maureen Flannery,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington

D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4733.

Applicable Statute

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’s regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 353 (1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 10, 1990, the Department

published in the Federal Register (55

FR 28267) the antidumping duty order

on industrial nitrocellulose (INC) from

the PRC. On July 8, 1996, the

Department published in the Federal

Register (61 FR 35712) a notice of

opportunity to request an administrative

review of this antidumping duty order.

On July 31, 1996, in accordance with 19

CFR 353.22(a), one exporter of the

subject merchandise to the United

States, CNIGC, requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of its exports of subject

merchandise to the United States. We

published the notice of initiation of this

review on August 15, 1996 (61 FR

42416).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of INC from the PRC. INC is

a dry, white, amorphous synthetic

chemical with a nitrogen content

between 10.8 and 12.2 percent, and is

produced from the reaction of cellulose

with nitric acid. INC is used as a filmformer in coatings, lacquers, furniture

finishes, and printing inks. The scope of

this order does not include explosive

grade nitrocellulose, which has a

nitrogen content of greater than 12.2

percent.

INC is currently classified under

Harmonized Tariff System (HTS)

subheading 3912.20.00. While the HTS

item number is provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description remains dispositive

as to the scope of the product coverage.

The review period is July 1, 1995

through June 30, 1996.

Separate Rates

CNIGC claims to be eligible for a

separate antidumping rate, as an

independent trading company owned by

‘‘all the people.’’ As stated in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s

Republic of China (Silicon Carbide), 59

FR 22585, 22586 (May 2, 1994), and

Final Determination of Sales at Less

than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from

the People’s Republic of China (Furfuryl

Alcohol) 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995),

ownership of a company by all the

people does not require the application

of a single rate. Therefore, CNIGC is

eligible for consideration for a separate

rate.

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 the test

originally established in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s

Republic of China (Sparklers), 56 FR

20588 (May 6, 1991), and amplified in

Silicon Carbide. Under this test, the

Department assigns separate rates in

nonmarket-economy (NME) cases only if

an exporter can affirmatively

demonstrate the absence of both (1) de

jure and (2) de facto governmental

control over export activities. See

Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol.
42748 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices

1. De Jure Control

CNIGC has placed on the

administrative record documents to

demonstrate absence of de jure control.

CNIGC submitted the ‘‘Law of the

People’s Republic of China on Industrial

Enterprises Owned by the Whole

People,’’ adopted on April 13, 1988 (the

Industrial Enterprises Law), and the

1992 regulations that supplemented it,

‘‘Provisions on Changing the System of

Business Operation for State Owned

Enterprises’’ (Business Operation

Provisions). We have analyzed these

laws in previous cases and have found

them to sufficiently establish an absence

of de jure control of companies ‘‘owned

by the whole people,’’ such as CNIGC.

(See Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Postponement of Final

Determination: Certain PartialExtension Steel Drawer Slides with

Rollers from the People’s Republic of

China, 60 FR 29571, 29573 (June 5,

1995); and Furfuryl Alcohol. The

Industrial Enterprises Law provides that

enterprises owned by ‘‘the whole

people’’ shall make their own

management decisions, be responsible

for their own profits and losses, choose

their own suppliers, and purchase their

own goods and materials. The Business

Operation Provisions confer upon stateowned enterprises the responsibility for

making investment decisions, the right

to dispose of retained capital and assets,

and the authority to form joint ventures

and to merge with other enterprises.

CNIGC states that INC does not appear

on any government lists regarding

export provisions or export licensing,

and that no quotas are imposed on INC.

In sum, in prior cases, the Department

has analyzed the Chinese laws on the

record in this case, and found that it

establishes an absence of de jure

control. We have no new information in

these proceedings which would cause

us to reconsider this determination.

2. 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 are 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 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. See, e.g., Silicon Carbide and

Furfuryl Alcohol. These factors are not

necessarily exhaustive, and other

relevant indicia of government control

may be considered.

In the Final Determinations of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums

and Brake Rotors from the People’s

Republic of China (Brake Drums and

Rotors), 62 FR 9160 (February 28, 1997),

we found that this respondent, CNIGC,

could not affirmatively demonstrate an

absence of de facto government control.

In Brake Drums and Rotors we found

that CNIGC remains a branch of China

North Industries Corporation

(NORINCO), and that NORINCO is

controlled by the PRC government. As

there are no facts on the record of this

administrative review to contradict our

findings in Brake Drums and Rotors, we

have not granted a separate rate to

CNIGC in this review. We have placed

on the record of this review documents

used to reach the separate rates

determination in Brake Drums and

Rotors and which form the basis for our

determination not to grant a separate

rate to CNIGC in this review. See

Memorandum to the file from Leah

Schwartz dated March 26, 1997, on file

in Room B–099 of the Commerce

Department.

PRC-Wide Rate

Because we have not granted a

separate rate to CNIGC, we are

preliminarily applying a single

antidumping rate—the PRC-wide rate—

to all exporters in the PRC. We have

preliminarily based the PRC-wide rate

on the information submitted by CNIGC

for this review because we have reason

to believe that CNIGC was the only

exporter of INC from the PRC to the

United States during the POR. See the

proprietary memorandum to the file

from Rebecca Trainor, dated July 23,

1997, on file in Room B–099 of the

Commerce Department.

United States Price

The Department used export price

(EP), in accordance with section 772(a)

of the Act, in calculating U.S. price,

because the subject merchandise was

sold to unrelated purchasers prior to

importation into the United States and

the constructed export price

methodology was not warranted based

on the facts of record. We calculated EP

based on the price to unrelated

purchasers. We deducted amounts for

inland freight from the factory to the

port and for brokerage and handling. We

valued foreign inland freight using data

on Indonesian freight rates. See the

proprietary analysis memo dated July

23, 1997, on file in Room B–099, for

discussion of our treatment of brokerage

and handling expenses. We selected

Indonesia as the primary surrogate

country for reasons explained in the

‘‘Normal Value’’ section below.

Normal Value

For companies located in NME

countries, section 773(c)(1) of the Act

provides that the Department shall

determine NV using a factors of

production methodology if (1) the

subject merchandise is exported from an

NME country, and (2) available

information does not permit the

calculation of NV using home market

prices or third country prices, in

accordance with section 773(a) of the

Act.

In every case conducted by the

Department involving the PRC, the PRC

has been treated as an NME country.

None of the parties to this proceeding

has contested such treatment.

Accordingly, we calculated NV in

accordance with section 773(c) of the

Act. We valued the factors of production

using prices or costs in one or more

surrogate market economy countries.

We first determined that India, Pakistan,

Egypt, Sri Lanka and Indonesia are each

at a level of economic development

comparable to the PRC in terms of per

capita gross national product, the

growth rate in per capita income, and

the national distribution of labor. Of

these potential surrogate countries, we

determined that both Indonesia and

India are significant producers of INC.

However, price data for one of the major

inputs used in the production of INC

was unavailable from Indian sources,

whereas price data for all of the

principal production inputs is available

from Indonesian sources. Therefore, we

used Indonesia as the primary surrogate

country. We valued one of the packing

materials, steel drums, using publicly

available data from India, because

Indonesian data was not available for

this factor. See Memorandum to

Maureen Flannery from David Mueller,

dated January 29, 1997, ‘‘Industrial

Nitrocellulose from the People’s

Republic of China: Non-market

Economy Status and Surrogate Country

Selection,’’ and Memorandum to the

File dated March 24, 1997: ‘‘Industrial

Nitrocellulose from the People’s

Republic of China: Significant

Production in Indonesia and India of

Comparable Merchandise,’’ which are

on file in room B–099 of the Commerce

Department.

Petitioner and respondent submitted

publicly available information on

surrogate values for the Department’s

consideration. For purposes of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices 42749

calculating NV, we valued PRC factors

of production as follows, in accordance

with section 773(c) of the Act:

To value cotton linters, nitric acid,

sulphuric acid, chlorine, caustic soda,

rosin, and ethyl alcohol, we used a per

kilogram value obtained from the

Foreign Trade Statistical Bulletin of

Indonesia: Imports (Indonesian Import

Statistics). We adjusted these values to

reflect inflation through the period of

review (POR). We included freight costs

incurred between the supplier and

CNIGC, valued using the Indonesian

freight rates.

For direct labor, we used the

unskilled labor rate published by the

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of

International Labor Affairs in its 1992

publication, Foreign Labor Trends:

Indonesia. This source shows the

number of hours worked per week. We

adjusted the labor rate to reflect

inflation through the POR using the

wholesale price index (WPI) published

by the International Monetary Fund.

For factory overhead, we used

information reported in a December 2,

1994 fax from the U.S. Foreign

Commercial Service of the American

Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia. This data

was received for the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigation of furfuryl alcohol

from the PRC, and provides an

estimated range of factory overhead in

Indonesia. This information was used in

the LTFV investigation of disposable

pocket lighters from the PRC. From this

information, we were able to determine

factory overhead as a percentage of

materials and labor. The surrogate

overhead rate included energy;

therefore, we did not include CNIGC’s

reported energy factors in the margin

calculation.

For selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses and

profit, we used information obtained

from a September 1991 cable from the

U.S. Embassy in Jakarta. This cable was

received for the LTFV investigation of

certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe

fittings from the PRC, and provides

estimated ranges of SG&A expenses and

profit margins.

To value plastic bags used in packing,

we used the Indonesian Import

Statistics. To value steel drums, we used

a per kilogram value obtained from the

Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade

of India (Indian Import Statistics), as

these values were unavailable for

Indonesia. We adjusted these values to

reflect inflation through the POR. We

also adjusted these values to include

freight costs incurred between the

suppliers and the INC factory. Because

CNIGC did not report the distances

between its INC factory and the packing

materials suppliers, we relied on the

facts otherwise available. We used the

average distance between the INC

factory and the factory’s raw materials

suppliers.

To value truck freight, we used the

rates reported in a September 1991 cable

from the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta,

Indonesia. This cable was received for

the LTFV investigation of certain carbon

steel butt-weld pipe fittings from the

PRC. We adjusted the rates to reflect

inflation using the WPI published by the

IMF.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions

pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act

and section 353.60 of the Department’s

regulations based on the rates certified

by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996:

Manufacturer/exporter

Margin

(percent)

PRC-Wide Rate .............................. 48.91

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which

must be limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication. See

19 CFR 353.38(d). Parties who submit

argument in this proceeding are

requested to submit with the argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument. The

Department will publish a notice of

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

comments, not later than 120 days after

the date of publication of this notice.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

U.S. price and NV may vary from the

percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of INC from the PRC entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for all PRC

exporters, the cash deposit rate will be

the PRC-wide rate established in the

final results of this review; and (2) the

cash deposit rates for non-PRC exporters

of subject merchandise from the PRC

will be the rates applicable to the PRC

supplier of that exporter. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

Notification of Interested Parties

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under section 353.26 of

the Department’s regulations 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 administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and

section 353.22 of the Department’s

regulations.

Dated: July 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–20938 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–813]

Light-Scattering Instruments and Parts

Thereof From Japan; Termination of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of termination of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is terminating the

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on lightscattering instruments and parts thereof