65674 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 240 / Monday, December 15, 1997 / Notices

(202) 482–1777 or (202) 482–5288,

respectively, Office of AD/CVD

Enforcement II, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

14th Street and Constitution Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 14, 1996, the Department

published its final determination of

sales at less than fair value in the

antidumping duty investigation of

certain pasta from Italy. On July 24,

1996, the Department published an

amended final determination.

Subsequently, De Cecco, et al., filed

lawsuits with the Court challenging the

extension of provisional measures

described above. On October 2, 1997,

the CIT issued its opinion granting

plaintiffs’ and plaintiff-intervenors’

motions. In its opinion, the CIT found

that the Department had improperly

extended the provisional measures

period, as there had not been a proper

request from exporters to extend this

period. On October 23, 1997, the CIT

directed the Department to issue

instructions to implement its decision.

In its decision in Timken Co. v.

United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.

1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

held that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

1516a(e), the Department must publish

a notice of a court decision that is not

‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department

determination, and must suspend

liquidation of entries pending a

‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The

decision of the CIT in De Cecco

constitutes a decision not in harmony

with the Department’s final

determination. This notice fulfills the

publication requirements of Timken.

Absent an appeal, or, if appealed,

upon a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision

affirming the CIT’s judgment, the

Department will direct the U.S. Customs

Service to: (1) Lift the suspension of

liquidation, release any bonds or other

security posted, and refund any and all

cash deposits paid as estimated

antidumping duties on any and all

entries of the subject merchandise

which were produced by the following

producers:

F.lli Ce Cecco di Filippo San Martino

S.p.A.

Rummo S.p.A. Molina e Pastificio

La Molisana Industrie Alimentari S.p.A.

Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A.

Industria Alimentari Colavita S.p.A.

or imported by the following importers:

Agrusa, Inc.

Bel Canto Fancy Foods, Ltd.

Cento Fine Foods, Inc. (Alanric Food

Distributors)

George De Lallo Co., Inc.

Domil, Inc.

Ferrara Food Co., Inc.

Gourmet Award Foods

I.T. & M, Inc.

Italfoods, Inc.

La Pace Imports, Ltd.

Med-USA Corporation

Musco Food Corp.

The Pastene Companies, Ltd.

Rienzi & Sons

Ron-Son Mushroom Products, Inc.

Santini Foods, Inc.

Sinco, Inc.

World Finer Foods, Inc

and were entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse for consumption, after May

18, 1996, and before July 24, 1996; and

(2) liquidate those entries without

regard to any antidumping duty; and (3)

pay any such refunds of cash deposits

in accordance with law, including

interest, from the date of entry at the

rate(s) as announced from time to time

by the Customs Service pursuant to

Title 19, United States Code, Section

1505(c). Liquidation of such entries is

suspended pending final and conclusive

disposition.

Dated: December 5, 1997.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–32694 Filed 12–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–825]

Sebacic Acid From the People’s

Republic of China; 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

of sebacic acid from the People’s

Republic of China.

SUMMARY: On August 8, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on sebacic

acid from the People’s Republic of

China (PRC) (62 FR 42755). This review

covers shipments of this merchandise to

the United States during the period of

July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996. We

gave interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results.

Based upon our analysis of the

comments received we have changed

the results from those presented in the

preliminary results of the review. In

accordance with the decision in Sigma

Corp. v. the United States, 117 F.3d

1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997), we revised our

calculations of source-to-factory

surrogate freight for those material

inputs that are based in CIF import

values in the surrogate country. We

have added to CIF surrogate values from

India, a surrogate freight cost using the

shorter of the reported distances from

either the closest PRC port to the

factory, or from the domestic supplier to

the factory. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails from

the People’s Republic of China, 62 FR

51415, 51410 (October 1, 1997); Notice

of Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s

Republic of China 62 FR 61964, 61977

(November 20, 1997).

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doreen Chen or Stephen Jacques, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–0413 or (202) 482–

1391, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations:

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the statute are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the

Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are in

reference to the regulations, codified at

19 CFR 353 (April 1, 1996).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department published in the

Federal Register an antidumping duty

order on sebacic acid from the PRC on

July 14, 1995 (59 FR 35909). On August

8, 1997, the Department of Commerce

(the Department) published the

preliminary results of its administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on sebacic acid from the PRC (62 FR

42755 August 8, 1997) for the period

July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996. We

received written comments from Tianjin

Chemicals Import and Export

Corporation (Tianjin), Guangdong

Chemicals Import and Export

Corporation (Guangdong), and

Sinochem International Chemicals
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 240 / Monday, December 15, 1997 / Notices 65675

Company, Ltd. (SICC) (collectively,

respondents); and from the petitioner,

Union Camp Corporation. On November

24, 1997, the Department informed

parties that certain information in

respondents’ September 15, 1997

rebuttal brief and petitioner’s September

8, 1997 case brief contained untimely

new information that should be stricken

from the record of this review. The

Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The products covered by this order

are all grades of sebacic acid, a

dicarboxylic acid with the formula

(CH2)8(COOH)2, which include but are

not limited to CP Grade (500ppm

maximum ash, 25 maximum APHA

color), Purified Grade (1000ppm

maximum ash, 50 maximum APHA

color), and Nylon Grade (500ppm

maximum ash, 70 maximum ICV color).

The principal difference between the

grades is the quantity of ash and color.

Sebacic acid contains a minimum of 85

percent dibasic acids of which the

predominant species is the C10 dibasic

acid. Sebacic acid is sold generally as a

free-flowing powder/flake.

Sebacic acid has numerous industrial

uses, including the production of nylon

6/10 (a polymer used for paintbrush and

toothbrush bristles and paper machine

felts), plasticizers, esters, automotive

coolants, polyamides, polyester castings

and films, inks and adhesives,

lubricants, and polyurethane castings

and coatings.

Sebacic acid is currently classifiable

under subheading 2917.13.00.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). Although the

HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

proceeding remains dispositive.

This review covers the period July 1,

1995, through June 30, 1996, and four

exporters of Chinese sebacic acid.

Analysis of Comments Received

Comment 1: surrogate country:

Petitioner asserts that India should not

be used as the surrogate country for the

PRC because they claim there is no

sebacic acid production in India.

Petitioner contends that it would be

inconsistent with the statute to use

India as a surrogate because: (1) India is

not a producer of sebacic acid; and (2)

oxalic acid is not commercially or

chemically comparable to sebacic acid.

See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1). Petitioner

argues that while it is true that both

oxalic and sebacic acid are dicarboxylic

acids, oxalic acid has two carbon atoms

(C2H2O4) and sebacic acid has ten

carbon atoms (C10H18O4), giving the two

acids completely different properties

and uses. Petitioner contends that the

production process inputs for the two

acids are very different. Additionally,

petitioner argues that the commercial

value of sebacic acid is nearly 5 times

greater than the U.S. value for oxalic

acid.

Petitioner suggests that the

Department should value the factors of

production based on either U.S. or

Japanese values, the only two market

economies where sebacic acid is

produced using the caustic fusion

process. Petitioner contends that there is

no known sebacic acid production in

India. Petitioner maintains that they did

not find any Indian chemicals

companies which produced sebacic acid

during the period of review and that the

absence of the price for sebacic acid in

the Indian Chemical Weekly publication

suggests further evidence of the lack of

sebacic acid production in India.

Because sebacic acid is not produced in

India, petitioner argues that pursuant to

19 CFR 353.52(c), the United States is

the appropriate surrogate country for

this administrative review.

Respondents maintain that there is

now evidence on the record of this

review that sebacic acid is produced in

India. Respondents note that on January

6, 1997, they submitted a letter dated

September 25, 1996 from an Indian

chemical company, Siris Limited,

stating that sebacic acid is now

produced in India. Consequently,

respondents urge the Department to

reject petitioner’s argument for using

Japan or the United States as the

surrogate country and instead, continue

to use India as the surrogate country.

Respondents argue that 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677b(c)(4) provides that ‘‘[t]he

administering authority, in valuing

factors of production under paragraph

(1), shall utilize, to the extent possible,

the prices or cost of factors of

production in one or more market

economy countries that are—(A) at a

level of economic development

comparable to that of the nonmarket

economy country, and (B) significant

producers of comparable merchandise.’’

(Respondent Rebuttal Brief at p. 2)

(emphasis in original). Respondents

argue that the words ‘‘to the extent

possible’’ give the Commerce

Department the option to choose, as a

surrogate country, a country that does

not produce the same merchandise or

even comparable merchandise, if no

country meets both criteria set forth in

the statute. Respondents argue that

petitioner’s asserted definition of

‘‘comparable’’ merchandise requires that

products have identical characteristics,

including identical chemical formula

and uses. Respondents also note that

under petitioner’s definition of

‘‘comparable’’ merchandise, there is no

country that would meet both aspects of

the statute. Respondents maintain that

such a narrow definition defeats the

Congressional purpose in giving the

Department the discretion to determine

what constitutes a comparable product.

Respondents also note that the statute

suggests that it was Congress’ intent to

give to the Department substantial

discretion in determining what are

comparable products and choosing

surrogate countries.

In addition, respondents contend that

the values of oxalic and sebacic acid are

different should have no bearing on the

choice of a surrogate country since in

this review, the Department is not using

the value of oxalic acid to value sebacic

acid. Respondents also maintain that

there is substantial evidence on the

record of this investigation that India is

a substantial producer of castor oil, the

primary input for sebacic acid.

Furthermore, respondents point out that

the Department verified that Tianjin

Zhonghe, the Chinese sebacic acid

producer, used imported castor oil from

India to produce sebacic acid.

Respondents disagree with petitioner

that the absence of a price for sebacic

acid from Indian Chemical Weekly and

Chemical Business suggests that the

chemical is not produced in India.

Respondents note that the Department

has in the past been forced to rely on

Indian import statistics because neither

the Chemical Weekly nor the Chemical

Business report a certain price for a

chemical.

Department’s Position: In valuing

factors of production, the Department

used surrogate values from India. In

accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(4),

the Department chose India as its

surrogate because it was most

comparable to the PRC in terms of

overall economic development based on

per capita gross national product (GNP),

the national distribution of labor, and

growth rate in per capita GNP, and

because it was a significant producer of

comparable merchandise (oxalic acid).

The statute and the regulations

instruct the Department to value factors

of production in an appropriate

surrogate country. The Department

rarely departs from use of a surrogate

value from a country comparable to the

NME in terms of overall economic

development. See Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Beryllium Metal and High Beryllium

Alloys from the Republic of Kazakstan,

62 FR 2648 (January 17, 1997).
65676 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 240 / Monday, December 15, 1997 / Notices

Surrogate values from countries at a

similar level of development are

considered to be the most appropriate

and comparable for valuation of the

factors of production used in the

similarly situated nonmarket economy

country. While the Department may use

values from the United States or other

countries not at a comparable level of

development for individual factors, its

practice is to do so only if it cannot find

those values in a comparable economy

that produce comparable merchandise.

Use of the United States, Japan or

another country not on the list of

recommended surrogate countries

proposed by the Department’s Office of

Policy is less desirable specifically

because surrogate values from countries

not at a level of economic development

comparable to that of the nonmarket

economy are not considered to be as

representative of the nonmarket

economy country’s costs and prices. See

Memorandum from Director, Office of

Policy to Office Director, AD/CVD

Group II/OIX, Sebacic Acid from the

People’s Republic of China: Nonmarket

Economy Status and Surrogate Country

Selection, June 24, 1997.

The fact that sebacic acid is produced

in the United States or Japan does not

make either country an appropriate

surrogate. Neither the United States nor

Japan are at a level of economic

development comparable to the that of

the PRC. Moreover, the Department has

concluded that using values from India

is appropriate because India is at a

comparable level of development and,

based on U.S. import statistics for the

POR, is a significant producer of

comparable merchandise—oxalic acid.

See Analysis Memorandum for the

Preliminary Results of the 1995/1996

Review. (Preliminary Analysis

Memorandum).

We disagree with petitioner that

oxalic acid is not comparable to sebacic

acid. The statute does not define

‘‘comparable merchandise’’ and the

relevant legislative history evidences

Congress’ intent to allow the agency to

select from a wide category of

merchandise in identifying comparable

merchandise. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No.

100–576 (1988), reprinted in 1988

U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547. Thus, to impose a

requirement that merchandise must be

produced by the same process and share

the same end uses to be considered

comparable would be contrary to the

intent of the statute. Therefore, in the

final determination for the 1994–1995

review, we determined that oxalic acid

and sebacic acid were comparable

products. See Sebacic Acid from the

People’s Republic of China: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 10530,

10533 (March 7, 1997). In that review,

the Department found that although the

chemicals may have different

production processes, oxalic acid and

sebacic acid are comparable products

since both are dicarboxylic acids and

have similar end uses as they are both

used in the rubber industry. Id.

Finally, we determine that the

documents submitted by interested

parties on January 3, 1997 and January

6, 1997 do not conclusively demonstrate

that sebacic acid was produced in India

during the period of review (POR).

Therefore, we have not relied on these

documents as a basis for our decision to

use India as the surrogate country for

this review.

Comment 2: Petitioner argues that the

Department should value capryl alcohol

consistent with the CIT’s decision in

Union Camp Corp. v. United States, 941

F. Supp. 108 (Ct. Int’l Trade, 1996).

Specifically, petitioner asserts that the

CIT ordered the Department to value

capryl alcohol (octanol-2) based on an

appropriate cost of crude octanol-2

rather than the Indian selling price for

refined octanol-1 listed in Chemical

Weekly. Id. at 119.

Petitioner questions the letter from

the editor of Chemical Weekly

submitted by respondents and relied

upon by the Department for the

preliminary results, which states that

‘‘the octanol price referred by you

corresponds to the more common 2-

octanol (2 ethylhexanol).’’ See

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review; Sebacic

Acid from the PRC 62 FR 42,758

(August 8, 1997); (Preliminary Analysis

Memorandum at 6); Letter from

Williams Mullen Christian & Dobbins,

Jan. 3, 1997, at Attachment 4. Petitioner

contends that because respondents

failed to provide the original letter to

the editor of Chemical Weekly, there is

no evidence to indicate whether the

octanol price referred to in the original

letter to the editor corresponds to the

octanol price in the Chemical Weekly. In

addition, petitioner argues that there is

no evidence on the record to indicate

that the Chemical Weekly editor is

sufficiently familiar with the chemical

composition of the octanol product

published in the Chemical Weekly to

declare that it is octanol-2 (2-

ethylhexanol). Petitioner argues because

octanol-1 is not comparable to

octanol-2, the Department should not

use the Chemical Weekly price for

octanol-1 to value crude octanol-2.

Petitioner contends that Union Camp

and respondents Tianjin Zhong He and

Hengshui Dongfeng Chemical Factory

all treat capryl alcohol as a by-product.

Therefore, petitioner argues that

Department should treat capryl alcohol

as a by-product and not a co-product.

Petitioner claims that because the

Department used the high Indian value

of octanol-1 to value octanol-2, the

Department incorrectly determined

octanol-2 to be a co-product rather than

a by-product of the sebacic acid process.

Petitioner argues that because octanol2 is only produced during the sebacic

acid production process and because

there is no sebacic acid production in

India, octanol-2 is not sold in India.

Petitioner points out that there is a large

value difference between the U.S.

octanol-1 price and the U.S. capryl

alcohol price. Moreover, petitioner

rejects respondents’ surrogate price for

capryl alcohol, $0.68/lb., from the

Chemical Marketing Reporter, because it

is the same as Union Camp’s offering

price for refined capryl alcohol.

According to petitioner, crude capryl

alcohol, the subsidiary product of the

sebacic acid process, must be further

processed to achieve a 98 percent pure

refined product. The Chemical

Marketing Reporter reported the market

value of octanol-1 at $0.925/lb during

the POR. Petitioner argues that the U.S.

value of octanol-1 during the POR was

36 percent higher than the U.S. value of

refined capryl alcohol and that the value

difference between octanol-1 and crude

capryl alcohol is even larger. Therefore,

petitioner concludes that because

octanol-1 is not comparable to octanol2 either chemically or commercially, the

Department should not use octanol-1 as

a surrogate value for octanol-2.

Petitioner offers its own by-product

credit value for crude capryl alcohol,

$0.15/lb., as the best available surrogate

price for the subsidiary product.

However, petitioner states that if the

Department chooses to use the $0.68/lb

price, it should make adjustments for

input costs in converting crude capryl

alcohol to refined capryl alcohol.

Petitioner supplies such a calculation

where the resulting value is $0.1544/lb.

Respondents argue that the

Department should continue to use a

surrogate value for octanol from India.

Respondents maintain that the evidence

on the record supports that the octanol

price in Chemical Weekly is equivalent

to the Indian price for octanol-2, not the

octanol-1 as argued by the petitioner.

Respondents submitted a letter from the

Indian Chemical Weekly, which states

that the ‘‘octanol’’ price in the Indian

Chemical Weekly ‘‘corresponds to the

more common octanol-2 (ethylhexanol2).’’ See Submission, January 6, 1997.

Respondents argue that according to

Hawley’s Condensed Chemical

Dictionary, ethylhexanol-2 is another
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 240 / Monday, December 15, 1997 / Notices 65677

form of octanol. Id. Respondents also

submitted additional information from

the U.S. chemical company, Ivanhoe

Industries, which stated that ‘‘octanol’’

is a generic term which can include

octanol-1, octanol-2, octanol-3, ethyl

hexanol-2 and other products. In

addition, respondents argue that all

octyl alcohols can be used

interchangeably to produce plastercizers

for vinyl resins and as esters for lube

oils and therefore are comparable

products.

Respondents disagree with

petitioner’s claims that the octanol price

in the Indian Chemical Weekly

significantly overstates the price of

capryl alcohol. Respondents claim they

provided prices from the U.S. Chemical

Marketing Reporter in their January 6,

1997 PAPI submission, which they

argue, demonstrates that ethyl hexanol2 is less expensive than octanol-2.

Moreover, respondents maintain that

the Indian Chemical Weekly price of

octanol of $1520 per metric ton is

within a reasonable range of the $1450

price quote respondents obtained for

capryl alcohol from SIRIS, a chemical

company in India. Respondents argue

that Union Camp’s internal price for

octanol-2 at 15 cents a pound is a less

reasonable price to value Chinese capryl

alcohol in comparison to the Indian

prices for octanol quoted by SIRIS and

reported by Chemical Weekly.

In addition, respondents maintain

that Tianjin Zhonghe cannot break out

the additional costs for refining capryl

alcohol, which respondents claim,

merely amount to additional electricity

to distill the product. Therefore,

respondents argue for valuing capryl

alcohol, the Department should not use

Union Camp’s unverified internal costs

for production of capryl alcohol, since

Union Camp uses an entirely different

production process from the Chinese

production process.

If, in the alternative, the Department

decides to use a U.S. surrogate value for

octanol-2, respondents urge that we use

a surrogate value from the U.S.

Chemical Marketing Reporter for the

price of capryl alcohol in the United

States because it is publicly available

information rather than Union Camp’s

internal price.

Department’s Position: The

petitioner’s argument that to be

consistent with the CIT’s decision

Union Camp Corp. v. United States, 941

F. Supp. 108, 112 (Ct. Int’l Trade, 1996),

the Department should value capryl

alcohol based on the cost of octanol-2 is

unpersuasive. First, the Department is

not bound by the decision in Union

Camp because the CIT’s decision was

rendered moot by the issuance of the

results of the first administrative review.

See Sebacic Acid From the People’s

Republic of China: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 10530 (March 7, 1997).

Second, use of the value of octanol-1

as a surrogate value is consistent with

the statute and Department practice. In

valuing factors of production, the

Department’s practice is to rely, to the

extent possible, on publicly available

information. The Department prefers to

use publicly available information

because: (1) It alleviates difficulties in

obtaining, and concerns about the

quality of, cable data from embassies

and consulates (previously often used as

sources for surrogate values); (2) it

allows interested parties an opportunity

to actively submit and comment on

surrogate value data; (3) the

establishment of a clear surrogate values

hierarchy, with a preference for

surrogate values from a single country

based on publicly available information,

increases the certainty and

predictability of the outcome of the

Department’s factor valuations; (4) the

methodological framework helps to

focus comments made by petitioner and

respondent in the case and rebuttal

briefs and reduces miscellaneous

submissions throughout the course of

proceedings regarding the

appropriateness of various surrogate

values; and (5) it alleviates the

administrative burden on U.S.

embassies and consulates caused by

requests for large amounts of data. See

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel

Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the

People’s Republic of China, 57 FR

21058, 21062 (May 18, 1992). In

determining which surrogate value to

use for valuing each factor of

production, therefore, the Department

selects, where possible, publicly

available information which is: (1) An

average non-export value; (2)

representative of a range of prices

within the period of review, if

submitted by an interested party, or

most contemporaneous with the POR;

(3) product-specific; and (4) taxexclusive.

In this review, the Department was

unable to locate an Indian value for

octanol-2. In addition, the Department

specifically asked interested parties to

submit any publicly available,

published values for octanol-2. Neither

the petitioner, Union Camp, nor the

respondents were able to locate a

specific Indian value for octanol-2. As a

result, the Department used an Indian

price for octanol-1 as a surrogate value

for octanol-2 as the best available

information. The Department concluded

that, for purposes of factor valuation,

octanol-1 was comparable to octanol-2.

We find that octanol-1 and capryl

alcohol (octanol-2) share very similar

molecular formula though they are not

identical products. Since productspecific price information is not

available from our preferred surrogate

countries, we have relied on the price of

the most physically similar product for

which we could obtain value

information.

We disagree with petitioner’s

argument that we should not use the

octanol price from the Indian Chemical

Weekly because octanol-1 and octanol-2

are not commercially comparable. In

support of their argument, petitioner

relies on the publication Chemical

Marketing Reporter which, petitioner

claims, indicates that there is a

significant difference in value between

capryl alcohol and octanol-1. However,

prices from Chemical Marketing

Reporter are prices from the United

States, which is not the surrogate

country in this case. On the other hand,

respondents have provided sufficient

evidence from India, which is the

surrogate country in this case, to

support the conclusion that octanol-1

and octanol-2 are commercially

comparable. Respondents provided

evidence demonstrating that the octanol

price reported in the Indian Chemical

Weekly is comparable to the octanol-2

price obtained from SIRIS, a chemical

company in India. Since India is the

surrogate country in this case and the

price for octanol reported in Chemical

Weekly is commercially comparable to

the Indian price for octanol-2 from

another source, we used the octanol

price for Chemical Weekly in our

surrogate value analysis.

Moreover, Union Camp’s statements

that octanol-1 is derived from a process

entirely unrelated to the sebacic acid

process and that octanol-1 is a highpriced petrochemical are not dispositive

on the issue of the comparability of

octanol-1 and octanol-2 for purposes of

factor valuation. In a nonmarket

economy case, the Department may

need to value anywhere from a few to

hundreds of factors of production; in

this case we needed to value

approximately 25. Although we strive to

locate exact surrogate matches in our

preferred surrogate country, we often

are unable to do so. In those instances,

the Department’s practice is to use the

most comparable surrogate match that

meets our publicly available

information criteria in an appropriate

surrogate country.

There is no basis in the statute or

legislative history to suggest that the

Department is required to research or
65678 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 240 / Monday, December 15, 1997 / Notices

consider the production process or use

for each factor so as to locate a surrogate

match with an identical or even similar

production process or use. In valuing

factors of production, the Department is

attempting to assign a market-economy

value, i.e., a price or a cost, to some nonmarket economy factor, e.g., 50

kilograms of chemical ‘‘x’’, 12 nuts and

bolts, 3 plastic bags, 7 hours of labor.

The Department does not delve into

intricacies of the production and use of

every potential surrogate factors of

production precisely because

production and use are not necessarily

relevant to valuation of these factors.

The Department is foremost concerned

about assigning an appropriate surrogate

value to a specific factor of production.

As a result, the Department will

consider rejecting a potential surrogate

where it has evidence that a possible

surrogate value does not reasonably

reflect the ‘‘value’’ of the factor. For

example, if the Department had

evidence that a surrogate price was

significantly higher than other potential

surrogate prices for a particular factor,

the Department might find that it was

not reasonable to use that particular

price as a surrogate value.

Similarly, the Department is not

required to consider interchangeability

in determining whether to use a

particular surrogate to value a factor of

production and we disagree with the

Court’s suggestion to the contrary in

Union Camp. If interchangeability were

a prerequisite, the Department would

have extreme difficulty in valuing

factors of production. The Department

would be required to locate precise

matches between surrogates and

factors—an impracticable if not virtually

impossible task given the amount of

data the Department would have to

collect and analyze for each factor. The

very nature of chemicals, in particular,

is such that a small difference in grade

or a change in molecular structure

would preclude ever finding two

different chemicals comparable for

purposes of factor valuation. In this

case, for example, the Department

recognizes that octanol-1 and octanol-2

are two different products, and, hence

not interchangeable. Nevertheless,

octanol-1 and octanol-2 are sufficiently

similar, physically and commercially,

for octanol-1 to serve as a reasonable

surrogate for octanol-2.

The statute and the regulations

instruct the Department to value factors

of production, to the extent practicable,

in an appropriate surrogate country.

Using an internal price from the United

States for an input, as suggested by

petitioner, would be inappropriate.

First, the evidence on the record of this

review establishes that respondents’

octanol-1 value, which is from a

publicly available publication, is a

reasonable substitute for octanol-2 in

our calculations, given the limited

public and published data from India

available to the Department. In contrast,

the petitioner’s cost is neither a value

from one of the selected surrogate

countries nor is it a public or published

figure. As explained above, the

Department’s practice is to use

publically available figures because,

among other reasons, it increases the

certainty and predictability of the

outcome of the Department’s factor

valuations in NME cases, and it affords

all interested parties an opportunity to

submit and comment on surrogate value

data. Thus, based on the facts of this

case, use of an unpublished, internal

cost from a country not on the list of

preferred surrogates is contrary to the

Department’s established practice. See

Magnesium Corp. of America v. United

States, 938 F. Supp. 885 (Ct. Intl’ Trade,

1996) (‘‘It is Commerce’s standard

practice to disregard petitioner’s costs

because they are not ‘an appropriate

benchmark by which to test the

accuracy of surrogate country values.’ ’’)

Furthermore, because preference is for

values from the selected surrogate

country, we did not use the U.S. price

for octanol-2 from Chemical Marketing

Reporter submitted by respondents.

Therefore, we have used the 76 rupees/

kg value from the Indian Chemical

Weekly as a surrogate value for capryl

alcohol as the best information available

to the Department.

We also disagree with petitioner’s

argument that capryl alcohol should be

treated as a by-product rather than a coproduct. Consistent with the

methodology employed in the final

determination in the less-than-fair-value

investigation, we have determined that

capryl alcohol is a co-product.

Therefore, we have allocated the factor

inputs, based on the relative quantity of

output of this product and sebacic acid.

Additionally, we have used the

production times necessary to complete

each production stage of sebacic acid as

a basis for allocating the amount of

labor, energy usage, and factory

overhead among the products. This

treatment of co-products is consistent

with generally accepted accounting

principles. (See Cost Accounting: A

Managerial Emphasis (1991) at pages

528–533). See Final Results Analysis

Memorandum, at Attachment I and II.

Comment 3: Petitioner argues that the

Department was incorrect in making tax

adjustments to prices from the

Economic Times used to value inputs

castor oil, castor seed and castor seed

cake. Petitioner argues that there is no

evidence on the record to support the

assumption that price information from

the Economic Times is tax inclusive.

Petitioner notes that there is evidence

on the record that at least one price for

castor seed oil is tax exclusive, that is

the price for Madras which indicates

‘‘tax extra.’’ Analysis Memorandum, at

Attachment XII. Petitioner notes that it

is the Department’s policy to rely first

on tax-exclusive prices in the surrogate

market. Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

the PRC, 62 FR 31,972, 31,977 (June 11,

1997).

Respondents had no comment on this

issue.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioner. We have not adjusted prices

derived from the Economic Times for

taxes because there is not substantial

evidence on the record to indicate that

the prices from the Economic Times

were tax inclusive.

Comment 4: Petitioner maintains that

the Department should correct certain

ministerial errors discussed in the

Department’s August 13, 1997

Memorandum to the File from Lyn A.

Baranowski, namely: (1) Include a

freight expense for SICC’s transportation

of coal; (2) include a freight expense for

Tianjin’s transportation of castor seed;

(3) adjust sodium chloride, coal, plastic

bags, middle bags, woven bags, and

castor seed in Tianjin’s freight

calculation worksheet; and (4) include a

freight expense for Tianjin’s purchased

castor oil and adjust the expense for

coal.

Respondents had no comment on

these errors.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioner. We revised calculations

accordingly to correct the

aforementioned ministerial errors raised

by the Department in the August 13,

1997 Memorandum.

Comment 5: Respondents contend

that the Department used the incorrect

weights for plastic bags in the

preliminary results. Respondents

maintains that the Department should

use the weights stated in verification

report. In addition, respondents argue

that the Department should not use a

surrogate value for plastic bags which

are abberrational.

Petitioner had no comment on this

issue.

Department’s Position: We agree with

respondents. We have used the correct

weights for the bags as reported at

verification. In addition, we have

continued to use Import Statistics from

India to value bags as the price

information from Import Statistics is a
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 240 / Monday, December 15, 1997 / Notices 65679

publicly available publication and has

been used to value plastic bags in past

determinations. See Notice of the

Preliminary Determination of the Sales

of Less than Fair Value: Bicycles from

the PRC 60 FR 56567, 56573 (November

9, 1995).

Final Results of Review

For Jiangsu, which failed to respond

to the questionnaire, we have not

granted a separate rate and the countrywide rate will apply to all of its sales.

For Guangdong, which reported that it

had no sales during the POR, its

company-specific rate from the previous

administrative review remains

unchanged.

As a result of our review of the

comments received, we have changed

the results from those presented in our

preliminary results of the review.

Therefore, we determine that the

following margins exists as a result of

our review:

Manufacturer/

exporter Time period

Margin

(percent)

Tianjin Chemicals I/E Corp. 7/01/95–6/30/96 0.00

Sinochem International

Chemicals

Corp ............. 7/01/95–6/30/96 1.78

Guangdong

Chemicals I/

E Corp ......... 7/01/95–6/30/96 13.54

Country-Wide

Rate ............. 7/01/95–6/30/96 243.40

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

USP and NV may vary from the

percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, 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)(1) of the Act: (1) For the

reviewed companies named above

which have separate rates (SICC and

Tianjin), the cash deposit rates will be

the rates for those firms indicated above;

(2) for companies previously found to be

entitled to a separate rate and for which

no review was requested, the cash

deposit rates will be the rate established

in the most recent review of that

company; (3) for all other PRC exporters

of subject merchandise from the PRC,

the cash deposit rates will be the PRC

country-wide rate indicated above; and

(4) 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 rates, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

Notification of Interested Parties

This notice also serves as a

preliminary 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 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: December 8, 1997.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–32632 Filed 12–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Application for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instrument

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the

Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.

L. 89–651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part

301), we invite comments on the

question of whether instruments of

equivalent scientific value, for the

purposes for which the instrument

shown below is intended to be used, are

being manufactured in the United

States.

Comments must comply with 15 CFR

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and

be filed within 20 days with the

Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. 20230. The application may be

examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00

P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 97–095. Applicant:

Stanford University, Stanford Medical

Center, 300 Pasteur Drive, Room 5302,

Palo Alto, CA 94304. Instrument:

Ultrasound Bone Densitometer.

Manufacturer: McCue Plc, United

Kingdom. Intended Use: The instrument

will be used to assess the bone density

(strength) of the bone in healthy

children and those with chronic

diseases in studies to help determine

the risk of osteoporosis. Application

accepted by Commissioner of Customs:

November 7, 1997.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 97–32626 Filed 12–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

[Docket No. 970822200–7283–03]

RIN 0693–AB44

Announcement of Availability of

Funding for Competitions—Advanced

Technology Program (ATP)

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Technology

Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Technology

Administration’s National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST)

announces the availability of funding

for the following competitions to be

held in fiscal year 1998 under the

Advanced Technology Program (ATP):

(1) A General Competition 98–01, open

to all areas of technology meeting the

ATP selection criteria and (2) Focused

Program Competitions (approximately

seven to nine) on specific technology or

technology application areas. This

notice provides general information for

the competitions planned for fiscal year

1998.

DATES: The proposal due dates, Focused

Program Competition topics, and other

competition-specific instructions will be

published in the Commerce Business

Daily (CBD) at the time each

competition is announced. Dates, times,

and locations of Proposers’ Conferences

held for interested parties considering

applying for funding will also be

announced in the CBD.

ADDRESSES: Information on the ATP

may be obtained from the following

address: National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Advanced Technology

Program, Administration Building

(Bldg. 101), Room A407, Quince

Orchard & Clopper Roads, Gaithersburg,

MD 20899–0001.