48594 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices

CEP profit, we frequently refer to the

term ‘‘total profit’’ and ‘‘all expenses’’,

thus making it clear that the calculation

of CEP profit is based on the company’s

profits net of all expenses, i.e., net

income. See Certain Cold-Rolled and

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat

Products From Korea: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 62 FR 18404, 18440 (April 15,

1997); Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 30326, 30352

(June 14, 1996). Therefore, we disagree

with DuPont that an operating profit is

appropriate for determining a CEP-profit

adjustment in this instance. For these

final results, we have calculated

respondent’s CEP-profit ratio based on

total profit and total expenses and

ensured that we have included cost for

manufacturing operations in the United

States in the computation of the profit

rate to apply to U.S. expenses.

With regard to respondent’s claim that

it was inappropriate for the Department

to accept petitioner’s untimely

submission of an affirmative argument,

we disagree with the respondent. The

Department has the right to seek

comments or additional information at

any time during a proceeding. 19 CFR

353.38(a). The CEP-profit calculation is

a new methodology to implement

provisions of the URAA. Therefore, the

Department chose to exercise its

prerogative to consider the argument

and solicit rebuttal from respondent in

order to more fully explore the issue.

The Department has now had the

opportunity to consider comments and

make a fully informed determination.

Final Results of the Review

We determine the that following

weighted-average dumping margin

exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin

(percent)

Ausimont S.p.A. ..................................................................................................................................................... 08/01/95–07/31/96 5.95

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Ausimont’s sales were all

through its subsidiary in the United

States. Therefore, we divided the total

dumping margins for the reviewed sales

by the total entered value of those

reviewed sales. We will direct Customs

to assess the resulting percentage

margin against the entered Customs

values for the subject merchandise on

entries during the period of review

(POR). While the Department is aware

that the entered value of sales during

the POR is not necessarily equal to

entered value of entries during the POR,

use of entered value of sales as the basis

of the assessment rate permits the

Department to collect a reasonable

approximation of the antidumping

duties which would have been

determined if the Department had

reviewed those sales of merchandise

actually entered during the POR. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of these final results of

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for Ausimont will

be 5.95 percent; (2) for merchandise

exported by manufacturers or exporters

not covered in this review but covered

in the original less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigation or a previous

review, the cash deposit will continue

to be the most recent rate published in

the final determination or final results

for which the manufacturer or exporter

received a company-specific rate; (3) if

the exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, a previous review, or the

original investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be that established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in the

final results of this review, a previous

review, or the LTFV investigation; and

(4) if neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or

any previous review, the cash deposit

rate will be 46.46 percent, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation (50 FR 26019, June 24,

1985).

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 353.26 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 notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders (APOs)

of their responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). 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 the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

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

of the Tariff Act (19 USC 1675(a)(1)) and

section 353.22 of the Department’s

regulations (19 CFR 353.22 (1997)).

Dated: September 9, 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–24562 Filed 9–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–835]

Oil Country Tubular Goods From

Japan; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Final results of antidumping

duty administrative review.

SUMMARY: On May 12, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published the preliminary

results of the administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on oil

country tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’) from

Japan. This review covers one producer/

exporter, NKK Corporation of Japan

(‘‘NKK’’), entries of drill pipe during the

period August 11, 1995 through July 31,

1996, and entries of OCTG other than

drill pipe during the period February 2,

1995 through July 31, 1996. We gave

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results.

After reviewing the comments received,

we have determined not to change the

results from those presented in the

preliminary results of review.

This review was initiated in response

to requests by importers, Helmerich &

Payne, Inc. (‘‘H&P’’) and Caprock Pipe

and Supply (‘‘Caprock’’), for a review of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices 48595

NKK and HEBRA AS (‘‘HEBRA’’),

respectively. Although we initiated a

review of both NKK and HEBRA, we

rescinded the review with respect to

HEBRA because Caprock timely

withdrew its request for review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Bezirganian, Alain Letort, or John

Kugelman, AD/CVD Enforcement Group

III—Office 8, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone 202/

482–1395 (Bezirganian), 202/482–4243

(Letort), or 202/482–0649 (Kugelman),

fax 202/482–1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 (April 1997).

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on OCTG from

Japan on August 11, 1995 (60 FR 41058).

The Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order for the 1995/96

review period on August 12, 1996 (61

FR 41768). On August 28, 1996, H&P, an

importer of drill pipe, requested an

administrative review of sales of subject

merchandise produced by NKK and

imported, or withdrawn from a foreign

trade zone, during the review period

(August 11, 1995, through July 31, 1996)

for drill pipe. We initiated a review of

NKK on September 17, 1996 (61 FR

48882). Caprock, an importer of used

OCTG, requested a review of HEBRA

(which Caprock identified as a

Norwegian-based export company), but

later timely withdrew that request.

On May 12, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of the first

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on OCTG from

Japan (62 FR 25889). The Department

has now completed this administrative

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise covered by this

order is OCTG, hollow steel products of

circular cross-section, including only oil

well casing, tubing and drill pipe, of

iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both

carbon and alloy), whether seamless or

welded, whether or not conforming to

American Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) or

non-API specifications, whether

finished or unfinished (including green

tubes and limited service OCTG

products). This scope does not cover

casing, tubing, or drill pipe containing

10.5 percent or more of chromium. The

OCTG subject to this order are currently

classified in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers:

7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20,

7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40,

7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60,

7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10,

7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30,

7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50,

7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80,

7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20,

7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40,

7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60,

7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10,

7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30,

7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50,

7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80,

7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30,

7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60,

7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15,

7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45,

7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75,

7304.21.30.00, 7304.21.60.30,

7304.21.60.45, 7304.21.60.60,

7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00,

7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00,

7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90,

7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00,

7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10,

7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and

7306.20.80.50.

Many of these HTSUS numbers reflect

changes made to the HTSUS since the

less-than-fair value (‘‘LTFV’’)

investigation. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is

August 11, 1995 through July 31, 1996,

for drill pipe, and February 2, 1995

through July 31, 1996, for OCTG other

than drill pipe. This review covers

entries of OCTG produced by NKK.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received

comments from H&P on June 10, 1997.

H&P requested a public hearing, which

was held on July 2, 1997.

H&P’s Comments

H&P argues that sales of merchandise

entered by H&P during the POR are not

subject to this administrative review

because the dates of sale associated with

these entries are prior to the POR, and,

in fact, prior to the imposition of the

antidumping order.

H&P states that it purchased the

merchandise from MC Tubular

Products, Inc. (‘‘MCTP’’), a Japanese

corporation, and imported it into a

foreign trade zone. H&P indicates it

believes MCTP had purchased this

merchandise from Mitsubishi

Corporation, a Japanese trading

company, and that Mitsubishi

Corporation (‘‘MC’’) had purchased the

merchandise from NKK, an unaffiliated

Japanese manufacturer. Furthermore,

H&P indicates that it was its

understanding that NKK had known

that the ultimate destination of the

merchandise was the United States.

H&P concludes that ‘‘[g]iven the

structure of these transactions, the sale

from NKK to Mitsubishi Corporation

constituted an exporter’s price sale (see

e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From the Federal Republic of

Germany; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR

31747 (July 11, 1991); Antifriction

Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof From

France et al.; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 57 FR 28428 (June 24, 1992),’’

and, ‘‘[a]s such, the date of sale should

be considered to be the date of NKK’s

invoice to MC.’’ Case Brief of H&P (June

10, 1997) at 3. Alternatively, H&P

submits that the date of the purchase

agreement between H&P and MCTP

could be the date of sale. H&P notes that

regardless of which date is considered

the date of sale, the sale dates for the

merchandise in question were prior to

the effective date of the order in this

case, and thus should not be subject to

the assessment of antidumping duties.

H&P’s submission dated November 4,

1996, at 3.

H&P relies upon General Electric v.

United States, 17 CIT 268 (1993)

(‘‘General Electric’’) in support of its

argument that sales prior to the period

of review are not subject to review (see

page 3 of H&P’s case brief) and ‘‘should

not be subject to the assessment of

antidumping duties’’ (see H&P

submission, November 4, 1996, at 3).

H&P states that the plaintiff in the

General Electric case argued that since

entries occurred during the POR, the

Department was required to calculate a

margin for the sales even if the sales
48596 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices

were outside the POR. H&P notes that in

General Electric, the Department

requested a remand since those sales

identified by the plaintiff which

occurred before the POR should have

been excluded from the antidumping

duty calculations. H&P further notes

that the Court of International Trade

(‘‘CIT’’) agreed with this Department

position and ordered a remand to

exclude those sales made prior to the

POR from the calculation of the

assessment rate. Thus, H&P concludes

that the Department must exclude the

subject sales from administrative

review, and requests the Department to

instruct U.S. Customs to liquidate the

entries of this merchandise without the

assessment of antidumping duties.

Department’s Position

Section 751(a)(2) of the Act specifies

that, for the purposes of a review under

section 751(a)(1)(B), the Department is

to determine ‘‘the normal value and

export price (or constructed export

price) of each entry of the subject

merchandise, and * * * the dumping

margin for each such entry.’’ 19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(2)(A)(i) (emphasis added).

Because H&P requested a review of NKK

merchandise, and because there were

entries of NKK merchandise during the

POR, we requested that NKK submit a

complete response to our antidumping

questionnaire. NKK’s failure to provide

such a response to the questionnaire

warrants the application of facts

available in determining the appropriate

margin. Pursuant to section

1675(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the margin

determination shall be the basis for both

the assessment of antidumping duties

and the deposit of estimated

antidumping duties. Thus, as discussed

below, the assessment and cash deposit

rates for NKK will be 44.20 percent, the

highest rate from the petition.

The circumstances in General Electric

differed from those in this review. The

issue before the CIT in General Electric

was whether the Department properly

calculated the amount of antidumping

duties to be assessed on all entries

during the POR. In General Electric, the

Department reviewed sales rather than

entries during the POR, and therefore

could not derive duties on an entry by

entry basis. As the Department stated in

the final results of the administrative

review being reviewed by the CIT,

‘‘[s]ince units entered and units sold are

almost identical in purchase price

situations, we can collect a close

approximation of the total dumping

duty liability by calculating importerspecific per-unit amounts for sales

during the period of review and

applying those per-unit amounts to

entries during the period.’’ The CIT

ruled that by examining the amount of

dumping on sales during the POR, the

Department would assess the correct

amount of antidumping duties on all of

General Electric’s entries during the

POR. While the parties in General

Electric focused on the proper way to

assess entries during the POR, there was

no dispute over whether entries should

have been assessed antidumping duties.

As a result, General Electric does not

support H&P’s argument that entries

that occurred during the POR should be

excluded from administrative review if

sales occurred outside the POR.

In this review, H&P has not argued

that the POR entries could not be linked

to the sales, or that the Department

intended to base its calculations only

upon U.S. sales during the POR. Unlike

General Electric, in this administrative

review the Department never suggested

that it would diverge from its preferred

practice for reviewing EP (formerly

purchase price) transactions. Thus, the

Department requested that respondents

respond fully to the Department’s

questionnaire, including reporting all

entries of subject merchandise during

the POR that were associated with U.S.

sales. The September 19, 1996,

questionnaire sent to NKK indicated, at

page C–1, that the respondent should

‘‘[r]eport each U.S. sale of merchandise

entered for consumption during the

POR, except: (1) for EP sales, if you do

not know the entry dates, report each

transaction involving merchandise

shipped during the POR * * *’’

(emphasis added).

Furthermore, the Department’s notice

of opportunity to request a review of the

antidumping order on OCTG stated that

‘‘[i]f the Department does not receive, by

August 31, 1996, a request for review of

entries covered by an order or finding

listed in this notice and for the period

identified above, the Department will

instruct the Customs Service to assess

antidumping or countervailing duties on

those entries at a rate equal to the cash

deposit of (or bond for) estimated

antidumping or countervailing duties

required on those entries at the time of

entry, or withdrawal from warehouse,

for consumption and to continue to

collect the cash deposit previously

ordered’’ (emphasis added). See

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty

Order, Finding, or Suspended

Investigation; Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review, 61 FR 41768,

41771. Therefore, it was clear that all

POR entries would be subject to the

review process, regardless of whether

the date of sale was within the POR. See

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review:

Ferrosilicon From Brazil, 62 FR 43504,

43510 (August 14, 1997).

H&P indicated that a Department

official had confirmed ‘‘that a full

review of sales made during the relevant

period by NKK will result from the

filing of [its] administrative review

request dated August 28, 1996.’’ Page 1

of H&P’s September 4, 1996,

submission, at 1 (emphasis added).

However, such a full review would have

been consistent with normal practice,

since typically EP sales made during the

POR are associated with entries during

the POR. In fact, in part because of

NKK’s failure to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire, it is not

clear from the record of this review that

NKK did not make U.S. sales during the

POR, or that there were no additional

POR entries into the United States of

subject merchandise produced by NKK.

Furthermore, H&P’s admission that

various dates may be considered the

date of sale, the speculative nature of its

description of stages of the sales

process, and NKK’s failure to provide a

complete response to the Department’s

questionnaire casts further doubt upon

any assertions regarding POR entries of

subject merchandise produced by NKK.

As indicated in our preliminary

results, NKK’s failure to respond to our

questionnaire requires the Department

to resort to the use of facts available. For

these final results we have continued to

assign to NKK the corroborated petition

rate of 44.20 percent, which constitutes

the highest rate for any company for the

same class or kind of merchandise from

the same country from this or any prior

segment of the proceeding. See Oil

Country Tubular Goods from Japan;

Notice of Partial Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review,

62 FR 25889, 25890 (May 12, 1997).

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review we have

determined that the following margin

exists for entries of drill pipe during the

period August 11, 1995 through July 31,

1996, and for entries of OCTG other

than drill pipe during the period

February 2, 1995 through July 31, 1996:

OCTG

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Weightedaverage

margin

(percent)

NKK ........................................... 44.20

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices 48597

entries. The Department shall issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements shall be effective upon

publication of this notice of final results

of review for all shipments of OCTG

from Japan 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) The cash

deposit rates for NKK will be the rate for

the firm as stated above; (2) for

previously investigated companies not

listed above, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

these reviews, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this review, the cash deposit

rate will continue to be 44.20 percent,

which was the ‘‘all others’’ rate in the

LTFV investigation.

The deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative reviews.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 353.26 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 notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with section 353.34(d) of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

These administrative reviews 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: September 9, 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–24470 Filed 9–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–815]

Sulfanilic Acid From the People’s

Republic of China; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of the

1995–1996 antidumping administrative

review of Sulfanilic Acid from the

People’s Republic of China.

SUMMARY: On May 12, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

sulfanilic acid from the People’s

Republic of China (PRC). This review

covers the period August 1, 1995

through July 31, 1996, and all PRC

exporters of the subject merchandise.

We gave all interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. After we reviewed

the comments received, the margins in

the final results did not change from

those presented in the preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristen Smith or Kristen Stevens,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington

D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 (April 1997).

Background

On May 12, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 25917) the preliminary results of its

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on sulfanilic

acid from the PRC (57 FR 37524, August

19, 1992). This review covers exports of

subject merchandise to the United

States for the period August 1, 1995

through July 31, 1996, and all PRC

exporters of sulfanilic acid, including,

but not limited to, the following thirteen

firms: China National Chemical Import

and Export Corporation, Hebei Branch

(Sinochem Hebei); China National

Chemical Construction Corporation,

Beijing Branch; China National

Chemical Construction Corporation,

Qingdao Branch; Sinochem Qingdao;

Sinochem Shandong; Baoding No. 3

Chemical Factory; Jinxing Chemical

Factory; Zhenxing Chemical Factory;

Mancheng Zinyu Chemical Factory,

Shijiazhuang; Mancheng Xinyu

Chemical Factory, Bejing; Hainan

Garden Trading Company; Yude

Chemical Company and Shunping Lile.

We have now completed the

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are all

grades of sulfanilic acid, which include

technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid,

refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and

sodium salt of sulfanilic acid. Sulfanilic

acid is a synthetic organic chemical

produced from the direct sulfonation of

aniline with sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic

acid is used as a raw material in the

production of optical brighteners, food

colors, specialty dyes, and concrete

additives. The principal differences

between the grades are the undesirable

quantities of residual aniline and alkali

insoluble materials present in the

sulfanilic acid. All grades are available

as dry, free flowing powders.

Technical sulfanilic acid contains 96

percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0

percent maximum aniline, and 1.0

percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials. Refined sulfanilic acid

contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic

acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and

0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials.

Sodium salt is a powder, granular or

crystalline material which contains 75

percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic

acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline

based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid

content, and 0.25 percent maximum

alkali insoluble materials based on the

equivalent sulfanilic acid content.

This merchandise is classifiable under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

subheadings 2921.42.22 and 2921.42.90.

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs