1734 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Notices

[A–570–827]

Certain Cased Pencils From the

People’s Republic of China;

Preliminary Results and Partial

Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results

and partial rescission of antidumping

duty administrative review.

SUMMARY: On February 1, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published a notice of

initiation of an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

cased pencils from the People’s

Republic of China (PRC) covering the

period of December 21, 1994 through

November 30, 1995. The Department is

now rescinding this review in part with

respect to respondents who had no

shipments of the subject merchandise

during the period of review, including

Guangdong Provincial Stationery &

Sporting Goods Import and Export

Corporation (Guangdong), and China

First Pencil Company, Ltd. (China First).

We are basing the preliminary results on

‘‘facts available’’ for those companies

that did not respond to our

questionnaire.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 13, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Stolz or Thomas Futtner, Office of

Antidumping Countervailing Duty

Enforcement, Import Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone

(202) 482–4474/3814.

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

Departments regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are certain cased pencils of any shape or

dimension which are writing and/or

drawing instruments that feature cores

of graphite or other materials encased in

wood and/or man-made materials,

whether or not decorated and whether

or not tipped (e.g., with erasers, etc.) in

any fashion, and either sharpened or

unsharpened. The pencils subject to this

review are classified under subheading

9609.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Specifically excluded from

the scope of this investigation are

mechanical pencils, cosmetic pencils,

pens, non-case crayons (wax), pastels,

charcoals, and chalks. Although the

HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

review is dispositive.

Background

On November 8, 1994 the Department

issued its final determination of sales at

less-than-fair value (LTFV) on certain

cased pencils from the PRC (59 FR

55625). In it, we calculated zero margins

for certain producer/exporter

combinations: China First/Company A

and Guangdong/Company B. China

First/Any other manufacturer received a

rate of 44.66 percent (formerly called

the all others rate, now the PRC rate)

and Guangdong/Any other manufacturer

also received a rate of 44.66 percent. We

stated that, consistent with Jia Farn

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. United

States, 817 F.Supp. 969 (CIT 1993) (‘‘Jia

Farn’’), we would exclude from the

application of the order any imports of

‘‘subject merchandise sold by the

exporter and manufactured by that

specific producer. Merchandise that is

sold by the exporter but manufactured

by other producers will be subject to the

order * * *’’ (59 FR at 55631). These

exclusions based on exporter/producer

combinations are consistent with 19

CFR 353.21(c).

On December 28, 1994, we published

an antidumping duty order (59 FR

66909) that stated that imports of the

two producer/exporter combinations

identified in the LTFV investigation had

margins of zero. We stated in the

antidumping duty order that we would

exclude from the order imports of

subject merchandise that are sold by

‘‘either China First or Guangdong and

manufactured by the producers whose

factors formed the basis for the zero

margin’’ (59 FR at 66910). In the final

determination, we referred to the

corresponding producers as Company A

and Company B. Those producer/

exporter combinations were

subsequently identified in the order as

China First/China First and Guangdong/

Three Star Stationery.

In response to our notice of

opportunity to request administrative

review, for this first administrative

review, the petitioner (the Writing

Instrument Manufacturers Association)

requested by letter dated January 11,

1996 that the Department conduct an

administrative review of China First and

Guangdong ‘‘to determine whether

merchandise purportedly produced and

exported by the excluded combinations

was, in fact, produced or exported by a

combination of companies that are

subject to the order.’’ On February 1,

1996, the Department published a notice

of initiation of an administrative review

of China First, Guangdong and 94 other

potential producers/exporters named by

the petitioner in its review request

covering the period of review (POR)

December 21, 1994, through November

30, 1995.

On February 23, 1996, we sent a

questionnaire to the companies for

which the petitioner requested a review,

including China First and Guangdong.

In it, we specifically stated that pencils

produced and exported by the excluded

company combinations are not subject

merchandise.

Rescission

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) of

the Department’s proposed regulations

(61 FR 7308, 7365; February 27, 1996),

we have determined that during the

POR, China First did not export pencils

to the United States that were

manufactured by producers other than

China First, and Guangdong did not

export pencils to the United States that

were manufactured by producers other

than Three Star Stationery. We

conducted on-site verification of this

information in Shanghai and

Guangzhou, China, from December 11,

1996, through December 13, 1996. We

found no evidence of shipments of

subject merchandise manufactured by

producers other than China First or

Three Star Stationery made by the

exporters China First and Guangdong,

respectively, to the United States during

the POR. Therefore, we rescind this

review with respect to China First and

Guangdong. Furthermore, this review is

also rescinded with respect to those

respondents in this review, in addition

to China First and Three Star Stationery,

which reported that they made no

shipments of subject merchandise

during this POR, namely: (1) Tru Blue

Products Ltd., (2) Onan Shipping Ltd.,

(3) Anhui Provincial Import & Export

Corporation, (4) Aempac System Ltd.,

(5) The Merton Company Limited, (6)

King Sun Company, (7) Shanghai

Machinery & Equipment Import and

Export Corporation, (8) China North

Industries Tianjin Corporation, and (9)

Panalpina, Inc.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Notices 1735

Facts Available

Shanghai Lansheng (Shanghai), an

exporter and a named respondent in this

review, and a respondent in the LTFV

investigation, did not respond to the

questionnaire issued in this review.

Because of Shanghai’s failure to provide

a questionnaire response, the

administrative record in this proceeding

lacks information necessary to make an

informed determination regarding

Shanghai’s separate rate status, and we

preliminarily determine that Shanghai

is no longer entitled to a separate rate.

Further, because Shanghai and other

named respondents did not respond to

our questionnaire in this review, as

adverse facts available, imports of

subject merchandise from Shanghai and

all other producers/exporters who have

not qualified for a separate rate will be

subject to the PRC rate of 44.66 percent,

the highest rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates

that the Department use the facts

available if necessary information is not

available on the record of an

antidumping proceeding. In addition,

section 776(a)(2) of the Act mandates

that the Department use the facts

available where an interested party or

any other person: (A) Withholds

information requested by the

Department; (B) fails to provide

requested information by the requested

date or in the form and manner

requested; (C) significantly impedes an

antidumping proceeding; or (D)

provides information that cannot be

verified. In this case, Shanghai and

other named respondents failed to

respond to the Department’s

questionnaire. Where the Department

must base the entire dumping margin

for a respondent in an administrative

review on the facts available because

that respondent failed to cooperate,

section 776(b) authorizes the

Department to use an inference adverse

to the interests of that respondent in

choosing the facts available. Section

776(b) also authorizes the Department to

use as adverse facts available

information derived from the petition,

the final determination, a previous

administrative review, or other

information placed on the record.

Because information from prior

proceedings constitutes secondary

information, section 776(c) provides

that the Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate that secondary

information from independent sources

reasonably at its disposal. The

Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA) (H. Doc. 316, 103d Cong., 2nd

Sess. 870) provides that ‘‘corroborate’’

means that the Department will satisfy

itself that the secondary information to

be used has probative value.

The SAA, at page 870, clarifies that

the petition is ‘‘secondary information,’’

and that ‘‘corroborate’’ means to

determine that the information has

probative value. Id. During our analysis

of the petition in the LTFV

investigation, we reviewed all of the

data submitted and the assumptions that

petitioners had made when calculating

estimated dumping margins. US

purchase price (now export price) was

based on multiple price quotes. The

factors values for calculation of the

foreign market value (now normal

value) were based on public data, where

available. However, as a result of our

analysis, we recalculated the petition

rates due to errors made by the

petitioner in the calculation of paint

costs, profit, and depreciation expenses.

(See concurrence memorandum to file

dated November 29, 1993.) We also

rejected petitioner’s methodology of

using the cost of a finished core in our

factors analysis, as this would have

resulted in double counting of certain

expenses included in the cost of a

finished core. (See initiation notice, (58

FR 64548, December 8, 1993).) Thus,

because we reviewed the petitioners

assumptions and calculations from

which the petition rates were derived,

and made appropriate corrections, we

determine that the petition rates, as

corrected, have probative value.

The weighted-average dumping

margins are as follows:

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter

Weighted

Average

Margin Percentage

PRC Rate .................................. 44.66

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which

must be limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication. See

§ 353.38 of the Department’s

regulations. The Department will

publish a notice of final results of this

administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such comments.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall 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 the final

results of this administrative review for

all shipments of pencils from the PRC

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided for by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for all Chinese exporters,

will be the rate established in the final

results of this review; and (2) for nonPRC exporters of subject merchandise

from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will

be the rate of its supplier, i.e., the PRC

rate. These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under § 353.26 of the

Department’s regulations to file a

certificate regarding the reimbursement

of antidumping duties prior to

liquidation of the relevant entries

during this review period. Failure to

comply with this requirement could

result in the Secretary’s presumption

that reimbursement of antidumping

duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties.

This administrative review and notice

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

of the Act and § 353.22 of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: January 2, 1997.

Robert S. La Russa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–750 Filed 1–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–580–807]

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,

Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of

Korea; Amendment of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amendment of final

results of antidumping duty

administrative review.

SUMMARY: On November 14, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the final results

of its administrative review of and

notice of revocation in part of the

antidumping duty order on