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from Japan entered, or withdrawn from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
48598 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Only two firms, Yude and Zhenxing,

responded to the Department’s

questionnaire and demonstrated that

they are entitled to a separate rate. All

firms that have not demonstrated that

they qualify for a separate rate are

deemed to be part of a single enterprise

under the common control of the

government (the ‘‘PRC enterprise’’).

Therefore, all such entities receive a

single margin, the ‘‘PRC rate.’’ We

preliminarily determine, in accordance

with section 776(a) of the Act, that

resort to the facts otherwise available is

appropriate for the PRC rate because

companies deemed to be part of the PRC

enterprise for which a review was

requested have not responded to the

Department’s antidumping

questionnaire.

Where the Department must resort to

the facts otherwise available because a

respondent fails to cooperate by not

acting to the best of its ability to comply

with a request for information, section

776(b) of the Act authorizes the

Department to use an inference adverse

to the interests of that respondent in

choosing from the facts available.

Section 776(b) also authorizes the

Department to use as adverse facts

available information derived from the

petition, the final determination of the

less than fair value investigation or a

previous administrative review, or other

information placed on the record. The

Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA) accompanying the URAA

clarifies that information from the

petition and prior segments of the

proceeding is ‘‘secondary information.’’

See H.Doc. 3216, 103rd Cong. 2d Sess.

870 (1996). If the Department relies on

secondary information as facts available,

section 776(c) provides that the

Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate such

information using independent sources

reasonably at its disposal. The SAA

further provides that ‘‘corroborate’’

means simply that the Department will

satisfy itself that the secondary

information to be used has probative

value. However, where corroboration is

not practicable, the Department may use

uncorroborated information.

In the present case the Department

has based the margin on information in

the petition. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel

Pipe from South Africa, 61 FR 24272

(May 14, 1996). In accordance with

section 776(c) of the Act, we

corroborated the data contained in the

petition, as adjusted for initiation

purposes, to the extent possible. The

petition data on major material inputs

are consistent with Indian import

statistics, and also with price quotations

obtained by the U.S. Embassies in

Pakistan and India. Both of these

corroborating sources were placed on

the record during the investigation and

have been added to the record of this

review. In addition, we note that the

petition used World Bank labor rates

which we have repeatedly found to be

a probative source of data. Based on our

ability to corroborate other elements of

the petition calculation, we

preliminarily find that the information

contained in the petition has probative

value.

Accordingly, we have relied upon the

information contained in the petition.

We have assigned to all exporters other

than Yude and Zhenxing a margin of

85.20 percent, the margin in the

petition, as adjusted by the Department

for initiation purposes.

Analysis of Comments Received

We invited interested parties to

comment on the preliminary results. We

received written comments from Yude

Chemical Industry Co. (Yude), Zhenxing

Chemical Industry Co. (Zhenxing), PHT

International, Inc. (PHT), and from the

petitioner, Nation Ford Chemical

Company.

Comment 1: Petitioner claims that the

use of Indian import prices for aniline

as the surrogate value for aniline used

by the PRC respondents in this case is

inappropriate because the plain

language of the statute does not permit

the Department to use imported aniline

prices when the NME respondents use

domestically-sourced aniline. Petitioner

contends that the Department

incorrectly based the surrogate value for

aniline on Indian sulfanilic acid

production processes, instead of

reported PRC production processes.

Petitioner contends that the Department

must first identify the NME factors of

production and then, using those same

factors, obtain surrogate values from a

market economy country at a similar

level of economic development.

Petitioner contends that because

respondents use domestically-sourced

aniline to manufacture sulfanilic acid,

the Department must value aniline

using prices for aniline domestically

produced in India.

Petitioner also contends that the

Department has recently stated a clear

preference for using domestic market

prices in the surrogate country to value

factors of production when such prices

are available. As support for this

position, Petitioner cites Brake Drums

and Brake Rotors from the PRC, 62 FR

9163; Persulfates from the PRC, 61 FR

68,232, 68,235; Sebacic Acid from the

PRC, 59 FR 565, 568; and

Tehnoimportexport v. United States, 16

CIT 13, 783 F. Supp. 1401 (1992).

Petitioner also argues that the

profitability of surrogate country

producers in export markets is

irrelevant to the Department’s valuation

of the factors of production utilized by

the NME enterprises under

investigation. Thus, they urge the

Department to disregard respondents’

argument that Indian producers could

not make a profit on export sales if they

used Indian-produced aniline.

Furthermore, Petitioner contends that

the values for imported aniline used in

the preliminary results cannot be used

because, they claim, these values are

based on subsidized prices. According

to petitioners, the Department has

determined that the Indian Advanced

License program is a countervailable

subsidy under U.S. law. Sulfanilic Acid

From India, 57 FR 35,785 (Aug. 11,

1992); Sulfanilic Acid From India, 58

FR 12,026 (Mar. 2, 1993). Under this

program the normal 85% duty on

imported aniline is not collected if

sulfanilic acid produced with imported

aniline is subsequently exported.

Petitioner contends that Indian

sulfanilic acid producers receive a

government subsidy to the extent that

they pay duty-free prices for imported

aniline.

Petitioner states that the Department

is precluded from using imported

aniline prices due to the reasons stated

above. Therefore, Petitioner contends

that the Department should use as

surrogate values the domestic market

prices for aniline published in the

Indian publications Chemical Business

and Chemical Weekly. Petitioner states

that these are ‘‘contemporaneous,

product-specific, tax-exclusive, and

non-export prices.’’ Petitioner maintains

that these publications are reliable

sources as evidenced by the

Department’s use of these sources in

several antidumping investigations and

reviews involving PRC products,

including the Department’s valuation of

activated carbon in the preliminary

results of this case.

Respondent argues that the

Department correctly valued aniline

using Indian import statistics because

Indian sulfanilic acid producers used

imported aniline to produce sulfanilic

acid for export. Respondents refer to the

1993–94 and 1994–95 administrative

reviews of this case in which the

Department previously used Indian

import statistics in valuing aniline.

Respondents also cite the decision of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices 48599

the Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit (CAFC) in Lasko Metal Products,

Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1446

(1994), in which the CAFC stated that in

the underlying case the best available

information on what the supplies used

by the Chinese manufacturers would

cost in a market economy country was

the price charged for those supplies on

the international market. Respondent

argues that the value of the aniline used

by the Indian producer to make

sulfanilic acid for export is the import

price for aniline, which reflects the cost

of aniline on the international market.

Department Position: We agree with

respondent that the Indian import

values provide a better approximation

than Indian domestic prices of what the

inputs used by the Chinese

manufacturers would cost were the PRC

a market economy country. Evidence on

the record of this review indicates that

a two-tier pricing system for aniline

exists in India as a result of the

combination of an 85% tariff on imports

of aniline and the effects of the

advanced license program, which

waives that tariff when imported aniline

is used in the production of sulfanilic

acid for export. Thus, Commerce had

two main options in selecting a

surrogate value for aniline: the Indian

domestic price paid by Indian producers

of sulfanilic acid for the Indian

domestic market and the duty-free,

Indian import price for aniline paid by

Indian producers of sulfanilic acid for

the export market. As in prior reviews,

Commerce has chosen to use the average

Indian import price because it is the

value of the aniline used to produce

sulfanilic acid for the export market

(and the costs constructed using the

surrogate methodology are the costs for

Chinese production for the export

market).

Petitioner’s claim that the ‘‘factor of

production’’ to be valued is ‘‘domestic

aniline,’’ such that the statute requires

that the value of this factor be assigned

based on aniline produced domestically

in India, has no support in law or fact.

There is no indication on the record that

the aniline used by the Chinese

producers, which their public response

indicates is locally sourced rather than

imported, is physically or chemically

different from the aniline that is

produced in India or imported into

India, or that the sulfanilic acid

‘‘production process’’ is different in

either China or India depending upon

whether imported or domesticallysourced aniline is used. There is no

reason why Commerce must base its

valuation on ‘‘domestic’’ (Indianproduced) aniline because the PRC

factories use ‘‘domestic’’ (PRCproduced) aniline. Aniline is a generic,

fungible input, not altered by whether it

is imported or sourced in the same

country in which it is used. The factor

to be valued in this case is not

‘‘domestic aniline’’ but simply

‘‘aniline.’’

Nor is Commerce compelled to use

domestic values simply because some

domestic market values exist. The Court

of International Trade has long

recognized that Commerce has often

used import statistics (to value both

inputs imported into NME countries

and imports sourced locally in NME

countries) and that import prices into

the surrogate country are an acceptable

reflection of the value of that input in

the surrogate country. See, e.g.,

Tehnoimportexport v. United States

(1992), 783 F. Supp. 1401, 1405. In this

case, the prices for domestically

produced aniline on the record of this

review are not suitable for use as

surrogates for the PRC cost of aniline

because these prices are artificially high

due to India’s 85% import tax.

With respect to the question of

whether Indian producers could

profitably produce sulfanilic acid for

export using Indian-sourced aniline, we

note that we have not based our choice

of surrogate value for aniline on

respondents’ suggestion that this would

not be possible. No such finding is

necessary. The aniline purchase choices

of Indian manufacturers of sulfanilic

acid (as reflected in the record) are

relevant primarily as an indication that

the price of aniline when used for

production of sulfanilic acid for sale in

India is unusually high, and thus,

inappropriate for purposes of valuation

of PRC export production costs.

Finally, petitioner’s argument that the

aniline import values are ‘‘subsidized

prices’’ which therefore cannot be used

as surrogate values misses the mark.

Assuming, for the purposes of argument,

that the Indian Advanced License

program identified in 1992 as

constituting a subsidy to Indianproduced sulfanilic acid would still be

found to be countervailable, this

program would constitute a subsidy to

Indian-produced sulfanilic acid, not to

aniline imported into India from other

countries. Thus, Commerce would avoid

using, as a surrogate value, the export

value of Indian-produced sulfanilic

acid, but not of imported aniline. The

Indian Import Statistics used by the

Department to value aniline are pretariff prices, which are unaffected by

whether or not subsequently added

duties charged to the importer are

waived on a given shipment. The sort of

subsidy Commerce is concerned with

when it uses import prices is a

producer-country subsidy that would

artificially lower the import price. India

has no interest in subsidizing aniline

produced in other countries and

imported into India. Because any

subsidy which may be associated with

the importation of aniline under the

Advanced License Program for purposes

of producing sulfanilic acid for export is

a subsidy not to aniline but to sulfanilic

acid, it does not provide a reason for

rejecting aniline import values for

purposes of serving as surrogates for the

cost of aniline (not sulfanilic acid) to

PRC producers.

Comment 2: Petitioner argues that if

the Department uses Indian import

statistics to value aniline in the final

results, the Department should adjust

the import values upward to reflect

Indian import duties. Petitioner

contends that the Indian Advance

License program is similar to duty

drawback. In the case of duty drawback

the customs duty refunded to the

importer would be added to U.S. Price

under 19 U.S. C. 1677a(d)(1)(B) if the

respondent can show that the importer

took advantage of the duty drawback

program. Petitioner argues that there is

no evidence in this review that any of

the Indian producers of sulfanilic acid

took advantage of the Advance License

program. Petitioners contend that the

burden is on the Respondents to show

that Indian sulfanilic acid producers

either did not pay the import duties or

received refunds of import duties

payable on imports of aniline upon the

exportation of finished sulfanilic acid.

Petitioner also argues that because the

Indian Advanced License program has

been found to be a countervailable

subsidy under U.S. law, the Department

should add the import duties to the

import values used as the surrogate

value of aniline for this reason.

Respondents contend that the

Department should follow its precedent

in the prior administrative reviews of

this case and not add the 85% import

duty to the value of aniline taken from

the Indian Import Statistics.

Respondents argue that the only way

that Indian sulfanilic acid factories can

produce sulfanilic acid for export is to

import aniline duty free under India’s

import duty exemption scheme.

Respondents argue that the Department

does not need to verify that every Indian

producer and exporter uses the Advance

License program and should base its

determine on the evidence on the record

of this investigation.

Department’s Position: We agree with

respondents that we should not add to

the Indian import values an amount

corresponding to the 85% tax levied by

the Indian government on imported
48600 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices

aniline which is not subsequently used

in the manufacture of another product

for export. Because these Indian import

duties do not represent costs that a PRC

producer would pay if the PRC were a

market economy, it is the Department’s

practice to refrain from including any

such duties in an NME surrogate price.

See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings from

the PRC, 62 FR 6173, 6177 (February 11,

1997)(Comment 3); Lockwashers from

the PRC, 58 FR 48833, 48843

(September 20, 1993) (Comments 12 and

13).

In this case, there are also two

additional reasons for not adding on the

amount of the import tax. The 85% tax

at issue is not only unique to India; it

is also abnormally high for an import

tax, and is, furthermore, not even paid

by producers of sulfanilic acid for the

export market.

Respondents have placed on the

record of this review published Indian

government materials describing the

operation of the Advance License

system and its use to avoid payment of

duties on aniline used to produce

sulfanilic acid for export from India.

Respondents have also placed on the

record, inter alia, a letter from an Indian

sulfanilic acid exporter explaining in

detail how it imports aniline duty free,

works with an Indian sulfanilic acid

producer to produce sulfanilic acid from

the imported aniline, and then exports

the sulfanilic acid without paying duty

on the imported aniline, and a letter

from an Indian sulfanilic acid producer

stating that it uses imported aniline to

produce sulfanilic acid. Thus,

petitioner’s claim that there is no

evidence on the record of this review

that Indian producers of sulfanilic acid

used the Advance License program and

thus avoided payment of the 85% duty

is without basis.

Also without basis is petitioner’s

claim that Commerce must add the 85%

import tax to the import values absent

the same type of evidence required to

support a duty drawback adjustment to

U.S. price. The PRC respondents in this

review are not seeking a duty drawback

adjustment to a United States price for

sulfanilic acid exports from India (the

country granting the duty drawback),

and are not privy to the confidential

documents of the Indian sulfanilic acid

companies involved. What we are

attempting to determine here is a

surrogate value for Chinese aniline. The

question of whether particular Indian

exporters of sulfanilic acid imported

sufficient aniline to qualify for duty

drawback might be relevant if we were

determining the U.S. price of Indian

sulfanilic acid. However, it is simply

immaterial to the question of the value

of aniline.

Finally, petitioner has no basis for

insisting that the 85% duty be added

onto the aniline import value because of

an alleged subsidy to the price of

imported aniline. As explained above,

any subsidy that may exist is a subsidy

to Indian-produced sulfanilic acid, not

to aniline produced elsewhere and

imported into India.

Comment 3: Respondents contend

that Indian export prices for activated

carbon should be used instead of Indian

import statistics because the import

prices do not reflect the prices of the

liquid phase activated carbon used by

the Indian and Chinese sulfanilic acid

producers. Respondents state that

activated carbon can be classified as gas

phase or liquid phase. Respondents

argue that gas phase activated carbon is

generally higher in price and is used in

small quantities, while liquid phase

activated carbon is a less expensive

industrial grade which is used in larger

quantities. Respondents also state that

liquid phase activated carbon is

generally sold in powder form.

Respondents argue that prices for

imported activated carbon are

aberrational and do not reflect the prices

for liquid phase activated carbon, the

type used by the Chinese respondents.

Respondents cite as precedent the

Department’s approach in the less than

fair value investigation of Polyvinyl

Alcohol from the PRC, (‘‘Polyvinyl

Alcohol’’), in which the Department

used Indian export, rather than import,

values as a surrogate for Chinese

activated carbon. Respondents submit

that due to the great price disparity

between the import and export prices, it

is highly unlikely that Indian sulfanilic

acid producers would use imported

activated carbon to produce sulfanilic

acid for export.

Respondents argue that in using

import values in its preliminary

determination, the Department did not

take into consideration the quality of the

activated carbon used by the Chinese

respondents or the quality of the

activated carbon imported into India.

Respondents argue that the record of

this case contains public price quotes

from an Indian activated carbon

producer and an Indian chemical export

company which support the use of the

submitted published export price.

Additionally, respondents argue that

the quantities associated with the sales

of imported activated carbon used in the

preliminary determination demonstrate

that the imports are for the gas phase

activated carbon, not the industrial

liquid phase activated carbon. The

quantity of the shipments cited in the

Department’s Surrogate Value

Memorandum of May 5th, 1997 for this

review of sulfanilic acid from the PRC,

shows that the valuation of activated

carbon was based on shipments varying

in total weight from 2 to 7.8 metric tons

per shipment and were primarily

imported by laboratories. In contrast,

the record of this review shows that

during the POR the respondent

companies used 90 to 100 metric tons of

activated carbon as compared to the

total of 26.9 metric tons used for

valuation purposes. Respondents

contend that this small quantity

associated with the import sales

supports their argument that these

imports are of the more expensive gas

phase type of activated carbon.

Additionally, respondents contend that

the quantities required by respondents

would surely merit quantity discounts,

not reflected by the subject prices.

Petitioners did not comment on

respondents’ arguments with respect to

activated carbon.

Department Position: We agree with

Respondents that the import prices do

not appear to correspond to the type of

activated carbon used by Chinese

manufacturers. The record of this

review contains two sources of publicly

available published price data on

activated carbon. The published import

prices contain information more

contemporaneous to the period of

review than the submitted published

export price. However, neither of these

sources state which types of activated

carbon are contained in these sales. The

Department consulted with a chemical

products specialist at the International

Trade Commission who confirmed that

there is a distinction between liquid and

gas phase activated carbon, and that

liquid phase activated carbon is

generally sold in powdered form. (See

Memorandum to the File dated August

21, 1997 from Case Analyst.) The great

disparity between the import and export

prices suggests that these price quotes

may be for different grades of activated

carbon. Respondents have additionally

provided public price quotes which are

specific to the type and grade of

activated carbon reported in the Chinese

sulfanilic acid producers’ factors of

production response. These price

quotes, which are contemporaneous to

the POR, are comparable to the

published export price indexed to the

POR.

The Department has previously found

that Indian export prices for activated

carbon are more reliable than import

prices in the Polyvinyl Alcohol

investigation. This issue was not

mentioned in the Federal Register

notice of the final determination, but the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices 48601

Department’s Polyvinyl Alcohol

preliminary determination concurrence

memorandum states that ‘‘in the case of

activated carbon, we compared the

export and import statistics values to

other available data and found that the

import statistics values varied

substantially greater from the other

comparison values, as shown in the

Attachment 1 chart. By comparison the

export value varied by a lesser extent.’’

See Polyvinyl Alcohol attachments to

the Final Analysis Memorandum for

Sulfanilic Acid from the PRC,

September 9, 1997. Because the public

price quotes submitted by respondents

on the record of this sulfanilic acid

review are contemporaneous to the

POR, are supported by publicly

available published information (i.e.,

the export price), and are specific to the

type and grade of activated carbon used

by the Chinese producers, we have used

the average of these prices as the

surrogate value for this factor.

Clerical Errors

Respondents contend that the

Department made one clerical error in

its preliminary results. They state that,

in calculating the surrogate value for

activated carbon, the Department used

incorrect wholesale price indices

(WPI’s) when it adjusted the sales prices

for April 4, May 2, and May 16, 1995,

for inflation. For the final results of

review, we used price quotes

contemporaneous to the time period.

Therefore, the surrogate value for this

factor will not be indexed for inflation

using the WPI.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review of the

comments received, we have

determined that the following margins

exist:

Manufacturer/exporter Time period Margin

(percent)

Yude Chemical Industry Company ........................................................................................................................ 8/1/95–7/31/96 0.00

Zhenxing Chemical Industry Company .................................................................................................................. 8/1/95–7/31/96 0.00

PRC Rate 1 ............................................................................................................................................................. 8/1/95–7/31/96 85.20

1This rate will be applied to all firms other than Yude and Zhenxing, including all firms which did not respond to our questionnaire requests.

*Yude and Zhenxing have been collapsed for the purposes of this administrative review. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review of Sulfanilic Acid from the PRC (62 FR 25917) May 12, 1997. However, we have listed them separately on this chart for Customs

purposes.

The Department will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service. Furthermore, the following

deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of these final results

for all shipments of sulfanilic acid from

the PRC 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) The

cash deposit rates for reviewed

companies named above which have

separate rates will be the rates for those

firms listed above; (2) for all other PRC

exporters, the cash deposit rate will be

the highest margin ever in the LTFV

investigation or in this or prior

administrative reviews, the PRC-wide

rate; and (3) the cash deposit rate for

non-PRC exporters of subject

merchandise from the PRC will be the

rate applicable to the PRC supplier of

that exporter. These deposit

requirements shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice also 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 19 CR 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 terms of an APO is a sanctionable

violation.

This administrative review and notice

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

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

CFR 353.22.

Dated: September 9, 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–24564 Filed 9–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–821–803]

Titanium Sponge From the Russian

Federation; Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of 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 finding on titanium

sponge from the Russian Federation

(Russia). This notice of final results

covers the review period of August 1,

1995 through July 31, 1996. This review

covers one manufacturer, AVISMA

Titanium-Magnesium Works (AVISMA),

and three trading companies, Interlink

Metals & Chemicals, S.A. (Interlink),

TMC Trading International, Ltd. (TMC),

and Cometals, Inc. (Cometals). We gave

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on the preliminary results. We

received comments from AVISMA,

Interlink, TMC, and Titanium Metals

Corporation (TIMET), a petitioner. A

hearing was held on June 30, 1997 with

both public and closed sessions. Based

on our analysis of these comments, we

have not changed the final results from

those presented in the preliminary

results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Terpstra or Mark Manning, Office

of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: