37528 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

Initiation of Cost Investigations

Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act,

petitioners provided information

demonstrating reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that sales in the home

markets of France, Germany, Italy,

Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom were made at prices

below the fully allocated COP and,

accordingly, requested that the

Department conduct a country-wide

sales-below-COP investigation in

connection with the requested

antidumping investigations in each of

these countries. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA), submitted

to the Congress in connection with the

interpretation and application of the

Uruguay Round Agreements, states that

an allegation of sales below COP need

not be specific to individual exporters

or producers. SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316,

103d Cong., 2d Sess., at 833 (1994). The

SAA, at 833, states that ‘‘Commerce will

consider allegations of below-cost sales

in the aggregate for a foreign country,

just as Commerce currently considers

allegations of sales at less than fair value

on a country-wide basis for purposes of

initiating an antidumping

investigation.’’

Further, the SAA provides that ‘‘new

section 773(b)(2)(A) retains the current

requirement that Commerce have

‘reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’ that below cost sales have

occurred before initiating such an

investigation. ‘Reasonable grounds’

* * * exist when an interested party

provides specific factual information on

costs and prices, observed or

constructed, indicating that sales in the

foreign market in question are at belowcost prices.’’ Id. Based upon the

comparison of the adjusted prices from

the petition of the representative foreign

like products in their respective home

markets to their costs of production, we

find the existence of ‘‘reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect’’ that sales

of these foreign like products in each of

the listed countries were made below

their respective COPs within the

meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the

Act. Accordingly, the Department is

initiating the requested country-wide

cost investigations (see country-specific

sections above).

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of SSSS from France,

Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the

Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom are being, or are likely

to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The petitions allege that the U.S.

industry producing the domestic like

product is being materially injured, and

is threatened with material injury, by

reason of the individual and cumulated

imports of the subject merchandise sold

at less than NV. Petitioners explained

that the industry’s injured condition is

evident in the declining trends in net

operating profits, net sales volumes,

profit to sales ratios, and capacity

utilization. The allegations of injury and

causation are supported by relevant

evidence including U.S. Customs import

data, lost sales, and pricing information.

The Department assessed the allegations

and supporting evidence regarding

material injury and causation and

determined that these allegations are

supported by accurate and adequate

evidence and meet the statutory

requirements for initiation (see

Attachments to Initiation Checklist, Re:

Material Injury, June 30, 1998).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

Based upon our examination of the

petitions on SSSS, as well as our

discussion with the authors of the

foreign market research reports (See,

memoranda to the file, dated June 30,

1998), we have found that the petitions

meet the requirements of section 732 of

the Act. Therefore, we are initiating

antidumping duty investigations to

determine whether imports of SSSS

from France, Germany, Italy, Japan,

Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan,

and the United Kingdom are being, or

are likely to be, sold in the United States

at less than fair value. Unless this

deadline is extended, we will make our

preliminary determinations by

November 17, 1998.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of each petition has been

provided to the representatives of

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico,

the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom. We will attempt to

provide a copy of the public version of

each petition to each exporter named in

the petition (as appropriate).

International Trade Commission

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiations, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine by July 27,

1998, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of SSSS from

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico,

the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom are causing material

injury, or threatening to cause material

injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative

ITC determination for any country will

result in the investigations being

terminated with respect to that country;

otherwise, these investigations will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 777 (i) of the Act.

Dated: June 30, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18602 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A–570–815]

Sulfanilic Acid From the People’s

Republic of China; Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on sulfanilic

acid from the People’s Republic of

China. The review covers exports of this

merchandise to the United States for the

period August 1, 1996 through July 31,

1997, and 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

Xinyu Chemical Factory, Shijiazhuang;

Mancheng Zinyu Chemical Factory,

Bejing; Hainan Garden Trading

Company; Yude Chemical Company and

Shunping Lile. The preliminary results

of this review indicate that there were

dumping margins for the two

responding parties: Yude Chemical

Company (Yude) and Zhenxing

Chemical Factory (Zhenxing), and for

the ‘‘PRC enterprise.’’

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37529

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristen Stevens, Nithya Nagarajan, or

Doug Campau Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all ctitations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, published in the

Federal Register on May 19, 1997 (62

FR 27296).

Background

On August 4, 1997, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register (62 FR 41925) a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ for the August

1, 1996 through July 31, 1997, period of

review (POR) of the antidumping duty

order on Sulfanilic Acid from the

People’s Republic of China, 57 FR 37524

(1992). In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213, Zhenxing Chemical Industry

Co. (Zhenxing), PHT International and

the petitioners, Nation Ford Chemical

Company, requested a review for the

aforementioned period. On September

25, 1997, the Department published a

notice of ‘‘Initiation of Antidumping

Review.’’ 62 FR 50292. The Department

is now conducting a review pursuant to

section 751(a) of the Act. On October 14,

1997, Yude Chemical Industry Company

(Yude) reported that it had made no

sales of subject merchandise to the

United States during the POR.

Scope of 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, classifiable

under the subheading 2921.42.24 of the

Hamonized Tariff Schedule (HTS),

contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic

acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and

1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also

classifiable under the subheading

2921.42.24 of the HTS, contains 98

percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5

percent maximum aniline and 0.25

percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials.

Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate),

classifiable under the HTS subheading

2921.42.79, 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.

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

This review covers thirteen

producers-exporters of Chinese

sulfanilic acid. The review period is

August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by the Respondent using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s

facilities and the examination of

relevant sales and financial records. Our

verification results are outlined in

verification reports in the official file for

this case (public versions of these

reports are on file in room B–099 of the

Department’s main building).

Separate Rates

To establish whether a company is

sufficiently independent to be entitled

to a separate rate, the Department

analyzes each exporting entity in a

nonmarket economy (NME) country

under the test established in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,

1991) (Sparklers), as amplified by the

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR

22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide).

Under this policy, exporters in NME

countries are entitled to separate,

company-specific margins when they

can demonstrate an absence of

government control, both in the law (de

jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect

to exports of the subject merchandise.

Evidence supporting, though not

requiring, a finding of de jure absence

of government control includes: (1) An

absence of restrictive stipulations

associated with an individual exporter’s

business and export licenses; (2) any

legislative enactments decentralizing

control of companies; and (3) any other

formal measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies. De

facto absence of government control

with respect to exports is based on four

criteria: (1) Whether the export prices

are set by or subject to the approval of

a government authority; (2) whether

each exporter retains the proceeds from

its sales and makes independent

decisions regarding the disposition of

profits and financing of losses; (3)

whether each exporter has autonomy in

making decisions regarding the

selection of management; and (4)

whether each exporter has the authority

to sign contracts and other agreements.

Yude and Zhenxing were the only

companies to respond to the

Department’s request for information.

We have found that the evidence on the

record demonstrates an absence of

government control, both in law and in

fact, with respect to their exports

according to the criteria identified in

Sparklers and Silicon Carbide for this

period of review, and have assigned to

these companies a single separate rate.

(See ‘‘Collapsing’’ section, below). For

further discussion of the Department’s

preliminary determination that these

two companies are entitled to a separate

rate, see Decision Memorandum to Joe

Spetrini, Assistant Deputy Secretary,

DAS III, dated July 6, 1998, and titled

‘‘Separate rates in the 1996/1997

administrative review of sulfanilic acid

from the People’s Republic of China.’’

This memorandum is on file in the

Central Record Unit (room B–099 of the

Main Commerce Building).

Collapsing

We have determined, after examining

the relevant criteria, that Yude and

Zhenxing, are affiliated parties within

the meaning of section 771(33)(F) of the

Act. We have further determined that

these affiliated producers should be

treated as a single entity (i.e.,

‘‘collapsed’’) for purposes of assigning

an antidumping margin in this review.

Section 351.401(f) of the Department’s

antidumping regulations provides that

the Department ‘‘will treat two or more

affiliated producers as a single entity

where those producers have production
37530 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

facilities for similar or identical

products that would not require

substantial retooling of either facility in

order to restructure manufacturing

priorities and the Secretary concludes

that there is a significant potential for

the manipulation of price or

production.’’ 62 FR at 27410. In

identifying the potential for

manipulation of price or production,

section 351.401(f)(2) provides that the

Department may consider the following

factors: level of common ownership;

whether managerial employees or board

members of one of the affiliated

producers sit on the board of directors

of the other affiliated person; and

whether operations are intertwined,

such as through the sharing of facilities

or employees, or significant transactions

between the affiliated parties. A full

discussion of our conclusions, requiring

reference to proprietary information, is

contained in a Department

memorandum in the official file for this

case (a public version of this

memorandum is on file in room B–099

of the Department’s main building).

Generally, however, we have found that:

Yude and Zhenxing are ‘‘affiliated’’

parties, substantial retooling would not

be necessary to restructure

manufacturing priorities and there is

potential for manipulating price and

production between the two producers.

As a result we are collapsing Yude and

Zhenxing for purposes of conducting

the 1996/1997 administrative review.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

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 in arriving at 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, 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 wage 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. However, we will continue to

evaluate this information on the basis of

more current data.

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.

As a result of the home market

verification of Zhenxing, we have relied

on facts available in determining the

quantities of the factor inputs for coal,

electricity, and labor. The number of

kilowatt hours of electricity recorded in

company records did not reconcile to

the actual factory electric bills.

Therefore, as facts available, we have

used the kilowatt hours reported on the

actual electric bills. Because the bill for

August 1996 was missing, as facts

available we have substituted the

highest monthly amount recorded on

the available electric bills. Because we

were unable to reconcile the coal factor

value to company usage and inventory

records, as facts available, we have

calculated the coal usage factor using

the coal amounts in the raw materials

usage ledger increased by the amount of

purchased coal which could not be

reconciled to the raw materials usage

ledger or inventory records. Finally, the

reported labor hours did not reconcile to

the daily factory attendance sheets.

Therefore, as facts available, we have

used the number of labor hours reported

on the daily attendance sheets.

At the U.S. sales verification, we

found that two sales of Zhenxing’s

sodium sulfanilate, which falls within

the scope of subject merchandise, were

sold through a trading company. On

May 1, 1998, the Department issued a

supplemental questionnaire to the

trading company involved and to P.H.T.

and Zhenxing. The Department received

a response from P.H.T. and Zhenxing on

May 14, 1998. In this response, P.H.T.

and Zhenxing stated that the subject

merchandise was never sold to the

trading company, and that the trading

company acted only as a facilitator for

the export of the goods. In addition, as

a part of this response, P.H.T. and

Zhenxing stated that they are not

affiliated with this trading company. As

a part of the May 14, 1998 submission,

the trading company provided a letter

describing the services performed by the

trading company, on behalf of

Zhenxing. In order to account for costs

Zhenxing incurred in connection with

these sales, we have deducted from

Zhenxing’s U.S. price, as facts available,

an additional expense for brokerage and

handling.

United States Price

For sales made by P.H.T. for

Zhenxing, we calculated constructed

export price based on FOB prices to

unrelated purchasers in the United

States. We made deductions for foreign

inland freight, foreign brokerage and

handling, ocean freight, marine

insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S.

transportation, credit, warehousing,

repacking in the United States, indirect

selling expenses and constructed export

price profit, as appropriate, in

accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the

Act.

Normal Value

For companies located in NME

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

provides that the Department shall
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37531

determine NV using a factors of

production methodology if (1) the

merchandise is exported from an NME

country, and (2) the available

information does not permit the

calculation of NV using home-market

prices, third-country prices, or

constructed value under section 773(a)

of the Act.

In every case conducted by the

Department involving the PRC, the PRC

has been treated as an NME country.

Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i), and

determination that a foreign country is

an NME country shall remain in effect

until revoked by the administering

authority. None of the parties to the

proceeding. has contested such

treatment in this review. Accordingly,

we treated the PRC as an NME country

for purposes of this review and

calculated NV by valuing the factors of

production as set forth in section

773(c)(3) of the Act in a comparable

market economy country which is a

significant producer of comparable

merchandise. Pursuant to section

773(c)(4) of the Act, we determine that

India is comparable to the PRC in terms

of per capita gross national product

(GNP), the growth rate in per capita

GNP, and the national distribution of

labor, and that India is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise.

For further discussion of the

Department’s selection of India as the

primary surrogate country, see

Memorandum from Jeff May, Director,

Office of Policy, to Steve Presing, dated

April 22, 1998, ‘‘Sulfanilic Acid from

the PRC: Nonmarket Economy Status

and Surrogate Country Selection,’’ and

File Memorandum, dated May 8, 1998,

‘‘India as a significant producer of

comparable merchandise in the 1996/

1997 administrative review of sulfanilic

acid from the People’s Republic of

China,’’ which are on file in the Central

Records Unit (room B–099 of the Main

Commerce Building).

For purposes of calculating NV, we

valued PRC factors of production as

follows, in accordance with section

773(c)(1) of the Act:

To value aniline used in the

production of sulfanilic acid, we used

the rupee per kilogram value of imports

into India during April 1996–December

1996, obtained from the December 1996,

Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade

of India, Volume II-Imports (Indian

Import Statistics.) Using the Indian

rupee wholesale price indices (WPI)

obtained from the International

Financial Statistics, published by the

International Monetary Fund (IMF), we

adjusted this value to reflect inflation in

India through the period of review. We

made adjustments to include costs

incurred for freight between the Chinese

aniline suppliers and Zhenxing’s factory

using the minimum of (1) the distance

from the factory to the supplier or (2)

the distance from the factory to the port.

The surrogate freight rates were based

on truck freight rates from The Times of

India April 20, 1994, and rail freight

rates from the December 22, 1989

embassy cable for the Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Shop Towels of Cotton from the

People’s Republic of China (56 FR 4040,

February 1, 1991) and used in Lock

Washers. These rates were inflated to be

concurrent with the period of review

and have been placed on the record of

this review.

To value sulfuric acid used in the

production of sulfanilic acid, we used

the rupee per kilogram value for sales in

India during the period of review as

reported in Chemical Weekly. We have

adjusted this value to exclude the

Central Excise Tariff of India and the

Bombay Sales Tax. We made additional

adjustments to include costs incurred

for freight between the Chinese sulfuric

acid supplier and Zhenxing’s factory in

the PRC.

Consistent with our final

determination in the 1995/96

administrative review, we have used the

public price quotes, in this case those

submitted by Zhenxing on December 17,

1997, which are specific to the type and

grade of activated carbon reported in the

Chinese sulfanilic acid producer’s

factors of production. We made

adjustments to include cost incurred for

inland freight between the Chinese

activated carbon supplier and

Zhenxing’s factory in the PRC.

The Department’s regulations (19 CFR

351.408(c)(3)) state that ‘‘[f]or labor, the

Secretary will use regression-based

wage rates reflective of the observed

relationship between wages and

national income in market economy

countries. The Secretary will calculate

the wage rate to be applied in

nonmarket economy proceedings each

year. The calculation will be based on

current data, and will be made available

to the public.’’ To value the factor

inputs for labor, we used the wage rates

calculated for the PRC in the

Department’s ‘‘Expected Wages of

Selected NME Countries’’ as revised on

June 2, 1997.

For factory overhead, we used

information reported in the April 1995

Reserve Bank of India Bulletin. From

this information, we were able to

determine factory overhead as a

percentage of total cost of manufacture.

For selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses, we

used information obtained from the

April 1995 Reserve Bank of India

Bulletin. We calculated an SG&A rate by

dividing SG&A expenses by the cost of

manufacture.

To calculate a profit rate, we used

information obtained from the April

1995 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin. We

calculated a profit rate by dividing the

before-tax profit by the sum of those

components pertaining to the cost of

manufacturing plus SG&A.

To value the inner and outer bags

used as packing materials, we used

import statistics for India obtained from

Indian Import Statistics. Using the

Indian rupee WPI data obtained from

International Financial Statistics, we

adjusted these values to reflect inflation

through the period of review. We

adjusted these values to include freight

costs incurred between the Chinese

plastic bag suppliers and Zhenxing’s

factory in the PRC.

To value coal, we used the price of

steam coal of industry reported in

Energy, Prices, and Taxes, Second

Quarter 1997 published by the

International Energy Agency.

To value electricity, we used the price

of electricity reported in Energy, Prices,

and Taxes, Second Quarter 1997

published by the International Energy

Agency.

To value truck freight, we used the

rate reported in The Times of India,

April 20, 1994. We adjusted the truck

freight rates to reflect inflation through

the period of review using WPI data

published by the IMF.

To value rail freight, we used the

price reported in a December 1989 cable

from the U.S. Embassy in India

submitted for the Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Shop Towels of Cotton from the

People’s Republic of China (56 FR 4040,

February 1, 1991) and added to the

record of this review. We adjusted the

rail freight rates to reflect inflation

through the period of review using WPI

data published by the IMF.

To value brokerage and handling, we

used the brokerage and handling rate

used in the Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel

Bar from India, 59 FR 66915 (1994). See

April 1997 Memorandum to All

Reviewers from Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary

‘‘Index of Factor Values for Use in

Antidumping Duty Investigations

Involving Products from the People’s

Republic of China.’’ We adjusted the

value for brokerage and handling to

reflect inflation through the POR using

WPI data published by the IMF.

To value marine insurance, we used

information from a publicly

summarized version of a questionnaire
37532 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

response in Investigation of Sales at

Less than Fair Value: Sulphur Vat Dyes

from India (62 FR 42758). See April

1997 Memorandum to All Reviewers

from Richard W. Moreland, Acting

Deputy Assistant Secretary ‘‘Index of

Factor Values for Use in Antidumping

Duty Investigations Involving Products

from the People’s Republic of China.’’

We adjusted the value for marine

insurance to reflect inflation through the

POR using the Indian rupee WPI data

published by the IMF.

To value ocean freight, we used a

value for ocean freight provided by the

Federal Maritime Commission used in

the Final Determination of the

Antidumping Administrative Review of

Sebacic Acid from the PRC, 62 FR 65674

(1974). We adjusted the value for ocean

freight to reflect inflation through the

POR using WPI data published by the

IMF.

Preliminary Results of the Review

We preliminarily determine the

dumping margin for Yude and Zhenxing

for the period August 1, 1996–July 31,

1997 to be 0.89 percent. The rate for all

other firms which have not

demonstrated that they are entitled to a

separate rate is 85.20 percent. This rate

will be applied to all firms other than

Yude and Zhenxing, including all firms

which did not respond to our

questionnaire requests: 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; Sinchem Qingdao; Sinochem

Shandong; Baoding No. 3 Chemical

Factory; Jinxing Chemical Factory;

Mancheng Zinyu Chemical Factory,

Shijiazhuang; Mancheng Xinyu

Chemical Factory, Bejing; Hainan

Garden Trading Company; and

Shunping Lile.

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which

must be limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with the argument

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

brief summary of the arguments. The

Department will publish a notice of

final results of this administrative

review, including its analysis of issues

raised in any written comments or at a

hearing, not later than 120 days after the

date of publication of this notice.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

the United States prices and NV may

vary from the percentage stated above.

Upon completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective with respect to 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 rate for reviewed

companies listed below will be the rates

for those firms established in the final

results of this review; (2) for companies

previously found to be entitled to a

separate rate and for which no review

was requested, the cash deposit rate will

be the rate established in the most

recent review of that company; (3) for

all other PRC exporters of subject

merchandise, the cash deposit rate will

be the China-wide rate of 85.20 percent;

and (4) the cash deposit rate for nonPRC exporters of subject merchandise

from the PRC will be the rate applicable

to the PRC supplier of that exporter.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

Manufacturer/producer/exporter Margin

percentage

Yude Chemical Industry, Co./Zhenxing Chemical Industry, Co. ......................................................................................................... 0.89

PRC Rate ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 85.20

Notification of Interested Parties

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under section 351.402 of

the Department’s regulations to file a

certificate regarding the reimbursement

of antidumping duties prior to

liquidation of the relevant entries

during this review period. Failure to

comply with this requirement could

result in the Secretary’s presumption

that reimbursement of antidumping

duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties.

This administrative review and notice

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

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1674(a)(1)) and

section 351.213 of the Department’s

regulations.

Dated: July 6, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18597 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–351–406]

Certain Agricultural Tillage Tools From

Brazil; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

Countervailing Duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on certain

agricultural tillage tools from Brazil for

the period January 1, 1996 through

December 31, 1996. For information on

the net subsidy for Marchesan

Implementos Agricolas, S.A.

(‘‘Marchesan’’), the reviewed company,

as well as for all non-reviewed

companies, please see the Preliminary

Results of Review section of this notice.

If the final results remain the same as

these preliminary results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service (‘‘Customs’’)

to liquidate, without regard to

countervailing duties, all shipments of

the subject merchandise from