67434 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

parties, within the deadline specified in 

section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the 

Department’s regulations. The domestic 

interested parties claimed interested 

parties status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act, as manufacturers, producers, or 

wholesalers in the United States of a 

domestic like product. On July 29, 2005, 

and August 1, 2005, the Department 

received complete substantive responses 

from the domestic interested parties 

within the deadline specified in section 

351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. The Department did not 

receive a response from any respondent 

interested parties to this proceeding. As 

a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and section 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department conducted an expedited 

review of this order. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain paper clips, wholly of wire 

of base metal, whether or not 

galvanized, whether or not plated with 

nickel or other base metal (e.g., copper), 

with a wire diameter between 0.025 

inches and 0.075 inches (0.64 to 1.91 

millimeters), regardless of physical 

configuration, except as specifically 

excluded. The products subject to this 

order may have a rectangular or ring–

like shape and include, but are not 

limited to, clips commercially referred 

to as No. 1 clips, No. 3 clips, Jumbo or 

Giant clips, Gem clips, Frictioned clips, 

Perfect Gems, Marcel Gems, Universal 

clips, Nifty clips, Peerless clips, Ring 

clips, and Glide–On clips. The products 

subject to this order are currently 

classifiable under subheading 

8305.90.3010 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

of this order are plastic and vinyl 

covered paper clips, butterfly clips, 

binder clips, or other paper fasteners 

that are not made wholly of wire of base 

metal and are covered under a separate 

subheading of the HTSUS. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision Memo’’) 

from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD 

Operations, to Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated October 31, 2005, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memo include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the order were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum which is on 

file in room B–099 of the main 

Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memo are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on paper clips 

from China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following weighted–average 

percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted Average 

Margin (percent) 

Shanghai Lansheng 

Corporation ............... 57.64 

Zhejiang Light Industrial 

Products Import & Export Corporation ........ 46.01 

Zhejiang Machinery and 

Equipment Import & 

Export Corporation .... 60.70 

China–wide Rate .......... 126.94 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with section 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22144 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–879 

Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting the 

first administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on polyvinyl 

alcohol (‘‘PVA’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the 

period August 11, 2003, through 

September 30, 2004. We have 

preliminarily determined that sales have 

been made below normal value. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of this review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) for which the importer–

specific assessment rates are above de 

minimis. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit 

Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 8, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–6412. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 1, 2003, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on PVA from 

the PRC. See Antidumping Duty Order: 

Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People’s 

Republic of China, 68 FR 56620 

(October 1, 2003). On October 1, 2004, 

the Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on PVA from the PRC for the period 

March 20, 2003, through September 30, 

2004. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation: Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 69 

FR 58889 (October 1, 2004). On October 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67435 

1Celanese Chemicals, Ltd. and E.I. DuPont de 

Nemours and Co. (collectively ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

2We note that the beginning date (i.e., March 20, 

2003) of the announced POR was not correct. The 

Department inadvertently published an incorrect 

beginning date using the date of the preliminary 

determination of sales at less than fair value 

(‘‘LTFV’’) investigation. Because the only 

respondent in this proceeding had a de minimis rate 

in the preliminary determination, the correct 

beginning date for the POR should have been the 

date of the final determination in the investigation. 

Thus, the Department corrected the beginning date 

of the POR to reflect the correct POR which is 

August 11, 2003, through September 30, 2004. See 

Memorandum to the File from Lilit Astvatsatrian, 

Case Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program 

Manager, dated May 9, 2005. 

3Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, 

Markets and Merchandise. 

Section C: Sales to the United States. 

Section D: Factors of Production. 

29, 2004, Petitioners1 requested an 

administrative review of Sinopec 

Sichuan Vinylon Works (‘‘SVW’’), a 

producer and exporter of the subject 

merchandise. SVW did not separately 

request an administrative review. On 

November 19, 2004, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of the initiation of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of PVA from the PRC for the period 

March 20, 2003, through September 30, 

2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 69 FR 67701 (November 19, 

2004).2 On May 9, 2005, the Department 

corrected the beginning of the POR date 

to August 11, 2003. See Memorandum 

to the File from Lilit Astvatsatrian, Case 

Analyst, through Robert Bolling, 

Program Manager, dated May 9, 2005. 

On June 23, 2005, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register extending the time limit for the 

preliminary results of review until 

August 2, 2005. See Extension of Time 

Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polyvinyl Alcohol from the 

People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 36375 

(June 23, 2005). Additionally, on July 

22, 2005, the Department published a 

notice in the Federal Register further 

extending the time limit for the 

preliminary results of review until 

September 16, 2005. See Extension of 

Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polyvinyl Alcohol from the 

People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 42309 

(July 22, 2005). Finally, on September 6, 

2005, the Department published a notice 

in the Federal Register further 

extending the time limit for the 

preliminary results of review until 

October 31, 2005. See Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polyvinyl Alcohol from the 

People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 52984 

(September 6, 2005). 

On December 9, 2004, the Department 

issued its standard antidumping 

questionnaire3 to SVW. SVW submitted 

its Section A questionnaire response on 

December 29, 2004, and its Sections C 

and D responses on January 18, 2005. 

The Department issued a Section A 

supplemental questionnaire to SVW on 

March 16, 2005, to which SVW 

responded on April 4, 2005. The 

Department issued a Sections C and D 

supplemental questionnaire to SVW on 

May 3, 2005, to which SVW responded 

on May 17, 2005. On June 15, 2005, the 

Department issued a second Sections A–

D supplemental questionnaire to SVW, 

to which SVW responded on July 15, 

2005. On September 13, 2005, the 

Department issued a third Sections A–

D supplemental questionnaire to SVW, 

to which SVW responded on September 

20, 2005. Finally, on October 6, 2005, 

the Department issued a fourth Section 

D supplemental questionnaire to SVW, 

to which SVW responded on October 

17, 2005. 

Period of Review 

The POR is August 11, 2003, through 

September 30, 2004. 

Scope of Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is PVA. This product consists of 

all PVA hydrolyzed in excess of 80 

percent, whether or not mixed or 

diluted with commercial levels of 

defoamer or boric acid, except as noted 

below. 

The following products are 

specifically excluded from the scope of 

this investigation: 

A. PVA in fiber form. 

2) PVA with hydrolysis less than 83 

mole percent and certified not for 

use in the production of textiles. 

3) PVA with hydrolysis greater than 

85 percent and viscosity greater 

than or equal to 90 cps. 

4) PVA with a hydrolysis greater than 

85 percent, viscosity greater than or 

equal to 80 cps but less than 90 cps, 

certified for use in an ink jet 

application. 

5) PVA for use in the manufacture of 

an excipient or as an excipient in 

the manufacture of film coating 

systems which are components of a 

drug or dietary supplement, and 

accompanied by an end–use 

certification. 

6) PVA covalently bonded with 

cationic monomer uniformly 

present on all polymer chains in a 

concentration equal to or greater 

than one mole percent. 

7) PVA covalently bonded with 

carboxylic acid uniformly present 

on all polymer chains in a 

concentration equal to or greater 

than two mole percent, certified for 

use in a paper application. 

8) PVA covalently bonded with thiol 

uniformly present on all polymer 

chains, certified for use in emulsion 

polymerization of non–vinyl acetic 

material. 

9) PVA covalently bonded with 

paraffin uniformly present on all 

polymer chains in a concentration 

equal to or greater than one mole 

percent. 

10) PVA covalently bonded with silan 

uniformly present on all polymer 

chains certified for use in paper 

coating applications. 

11) PVA covalently bonded with 

sulfonic acid uniformly present on 

all polymer chains in a 

concentration level equal to or 

greater than one mole percent. 

12) PVA covalently bonded with 

acetoacetylate uniformly present on 

all polymer chains in a 

concentration level equal to or 

greater than one mole percent. 

13) PVA covalently bonded with 

polyethylene oxide uniformly 

present on all polymer chains in a 

concentration level equal to or 

greater than one mole percent. 

14) PVA covalently bonded with 

quaternary amine uniformly present 

on all polymer chains in a 

concentration level equal to or 

greater than one mole percent. 

15) PVA covalently bonded with 

diacetoneacrylamide uniformly 

present on all polymer chains in a 

concentration level greater than 

three mole percent, certified for use 

in a paper application. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is currently classifiable under 

subheading 3905.30.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. 

Nonmarket Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non–market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

67436 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

administering authority. See Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results 2001–2002 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). 

None of the parties to this proceeding 

has contested such treatment. 

Accordingly, we calculated normal 

value (‘‘NV’’) in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME 

countries. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base 

normal value on the NME producer’s 

factors of production, valued in a 

surrogate market–economy country or 

countries considered to be appropriate 

by the Department. In accordance with 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing 

the factors of production, the 

Department shall utilize, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of factors of 

production in one or more market–

economy countries that are: (1) at a level 

of economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country; and (2) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. 

The Department has determined that 

India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 

Philippines, and Egypt are countries 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development. See 

Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to 

Wendy Frankel: Antidumping 

Administrative Review of Polyvinyl 

Alcohol from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC): Request for a List of 

Surrogate Countries, dated March 7, 

2005. Customarily, we select an 

appropriate surrogate country based on 

the availability and reliability of data 

from the countries that are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

For PRC cases, the primary surrogate 

country has often been India if it is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise. In this case, we have 

found that India is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise. 

See Memo to Wendy Frankel and Robert 

Bolling from Lilit Astvatsatrian: 

Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People’s 

Republic of China: Selection of a 

Surrogate Country, June 13, 2005. 

The Department used India as the 

primary surrogate country and, 

accordingly, has calculated normal 

value using Indian prices to value the 

PRC producers’ factors of production, 

when available and appropriate. The 

sources of the surrogate factor values are 

discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’

section below and in the Preliminary 

Results of Review of the Order on 

Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People’s 

Republic of China: Factor Valuation 

Memorandum from Lilit Astvatsatrian, 

Case Analyst, through Robert Bolling, 

Program Manager, Office VIII to the File, 

dated October 31, 2005 (‘‘Factor 

Valuation Memorandum’’). We have 

obtained and relied upon publicly 

available information wherever 

possible. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in 

an administrative review, interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value factors of 

production within 20 days after the date 

of publication of these preliminary 

results. 

Separate Rates 

In an NME proceeding, the 

Department presumes that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty rate unless the 

respondent demonstrates the absence of 

both de jure and de facto government 

control over its export activities. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From 

the People’s Republic of China, 61 FR 

19026 (April 30, 1996). SVW provided 

company–specific separate rates 

information and stated that it met the 

standards for the assignment of a 

separate rate. In determining whether 

companies should receive separate 

rates, the Department focuses its 

attention on the exporter, in this case 

SVW, rather than the manufacturer, as 

our concern is the manipulation of 

dumping margins. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Manganese Metal from the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 56045 

(November 6, 1995). Consequently, the 

Department analyzed whether the 

exporter of the subject merchandise, 

SVW, should receive a separate rate. 

The Department’s separate rate test is 

not concerned, in general, with 

macroeconomic, border–type controls 

(e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices), particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on 

controls over the investment, pricing, 

and output decision–making process at 

the individual firm level. See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine, 62 FR 

61754 (November 19, 1997); Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, from the 

People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276 

(November 17, 1997); and Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Honey from the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 14725 

(March 20, 1995). 

To establish whether a firm is 

sufficiently independent from 

government–control to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the Department analyzes 

each exporting entity under a test 

arising out of the Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as modified by, 

Notice of 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 the separate rates test, 

the Department assigns separate rates in 

NME cases only if the respondent can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto government control over 

export activities. See Silicon Carbide 

and Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl 

Alcohol from the People’s Republic of 

China, 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995) 

(‘‘Furfuryl Alcohol’’). 

A. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual exporter may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

an individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; and (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies. 

SVW has placed on the record 

statements and documents to 

demonstrate absence of de jure control. 

In its questionnaire responses, SVW 

reported that, other than paying taxes, it 

has no relationship with any level of the 

PRC government. See page A–2 of 

SVW’s December 29, 2004, Section A 

questionnaire response (‘‘AQR’’). SVW 

stated that it legally became an 

independent entity responsible for its 

own profits and losses. See page A–6 of 

the AQR. SVW submitted a copy of the 

Foreign Trade Law of the PRC to 

demonstrate that there is no centralized 

control over its export activities. See 

Attachment A–1 of the AQR. SVW also 

confirmed that the subject merchandise 

is not subject to export quotas or export 

control licenses. See page A–4 of the 

AQR. Furthermore, SVW stated that the 

Chongqing City Economic and Trade 

Commission has no involvement in 

SVW’s daily activities and price 

negotiations with its customers. See 

page SA–5 of SVW’s April 4, 2005, 

supplemental Section A response 

(‘‘SAQR’’). SVW reported that it is 

required to obtain a business license, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67437 

which is issued by the Chongqing 

Municipal Industry and Commerce 

Administration. See page A–3 of the 

AQR. We examined the laws and SVW’s 

business license which it provided in its 

questionnaire responses, and 

determined that these documents 

demonstrate an authority for 

establishing the absence of de jure 

control over the export activities and 

provide evidence demonstrating the 

absence of government control 

associated with SVW’s business license. 

B. Absence of De Facto Control 

As stated in previous cases, there is 

some evidence that certain enactments 

of the PRC central government have not 

been implemented uniformly among 

different sectors and/or jurisdictions in 

the PRC. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 

(December 31, 1998). Therefore, the 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

government control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. The Department typically 

considers four factors in evaluating 

whether a particular exporter is subject 

to de facto government control of its 

export functions: (1) whether the 

exporter sets its own export prices 

independent of the government and 

without the approval of a government 

authority; (2) whether the exporter has 

authority to negotiate and sign 

contracts, and other agreements; (3) 

whether the exporter has autonomy 

from the government in making 

decisions regarding the selection of its 

management; and (4) whether the 

exporter retains the proceeds of its 

export sales and makes independent 

decisions regarding disposition of 

profits or financing of losses. 

SVW states it is owned by ‘‘all the 

people’’ and has provided separate rates 

information in its AQR, SAQR, and in 

its July 25, 2005, supplemental 

response. SVW has stated that there is 

no element of government control and 

has requested a separate, company–

specific rate. 

As stated in Furfuryl Alcohol, 

ownership of the company by ‘‘all the 

people’’ does not require the application 

of a single rate. Accordingly, SVW is 

eligible for consideration of a separate 

rate. 

In support of demonstrating an 

absence of de facto control, SVW has 

asserted the following: (1) SVW 

established its own export prices; (2) 

SVW negotiated contracts without 

guidance from any government entities 

or organizations; (3) SVW made its own 

personnel decisions; and (4) SVW 

retained the proceeds of its export sales 

and independently used profits 

according to its business needs. See 

pages A–4 through A–7 of the AQR. 

Additionally, SVW’s questionnaire 

responses indicate that it does not 

coordinate with other exporters in 

setting prices. See page A–5 of the AQR. 

This information supports a preliminary 

finding that there is an absence of de 

facto government control of the export 

functions of SVW. Consequently, we 

preliminarily determine that SVW has 

met the criteria for the application of a 

separate rate. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this administrative review by SVW 

demonstrates an absence of government 

control, both in law and in fact, with 

respect to its exports of the merchandise 

under review. As a result, for the 

purposes of these preliminary results, 

the Department is granting a separate, 

company–specific rate to SVW, the 

exporter which shipped the subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. 

Partial Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department, fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form requested, significantly impedes a 

proceeding under the antidumping 

statute, or provides information that 

cannot be verified, the Department shall 

use facts available in reaching the 

applicable determination. As discussed 

in detail below, we have preliminarily 

determined that the use of partial facts 

available is warranted for production 

labor hours not reported by SVW. 

SVW failed to provide information 

regarding its classification of selling, 

general, and administrative labor 

(‘‘SG&A’’). In its October 6, 2005, fourth 

supplemental questionnaire, the 

Department requested that SVW 

describe the types of labor included in 

its general and administrative labor 

hours and discuss the rationale behind 

this classification. In response, SVW 

explained that the workers in this 

category do not directly participate in 

the production process and therefore, 

are considered to be general and 

administrative labor. See page 5 of SVW 

October 17, 2005, fourth supplemental 

Section D response (‘‘FSDQR’’). Further, 

SVW provided a worksheet indicating 

the number of workers and hours under 

different SG&A categories. See 

Attachment S4–7 of id. However, SVW 

did not explain why some of the 

categories are considered SG&A when 

they appear to be oriented toward 

production labor, in particular 

‘‘Production management’’ and 

‘‘Engineering management.’’ Since SVW 

withheld the descriptions that the 

Department requested, the Department 

determines that the workers and labor 

hours under the headings of 

‘‘Production management’’ and 

‘‘Engineering management’’ represent 

production workers and labor hours. 

Therefore, after determining the 

percentage of subject merchandise, we 

have allocated the same portion of 

‘‘Production management’’ and 

‘‘Engineering management’’ to direct 

labor of PVA production. See Exhibit 5 

of Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works 

Program Analysis for the Preliminary 

Results of Review, October 31, 2005 

(‘‘SVW Analysis Memorandum’’). 

Normal Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of PVA to 

the United States by SVW were made at 

less than normal value (‘‘NV’’), we 

compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as 

described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, EP is the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) before the date of 

importation by the producer or exporter 

of the subject merchandise outside of 

the United States to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States or to an 

unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 

the United States, as adjusted under 

section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act, we used 

EP for all of SVW’s U.S. sales because 

the subject merchandise was sold 

directly to the unaffiliated customers in 

the United States prior to importation 

and because constructed export price 

was not otherwise indicated for those 

transactions. 

We calculated EP for SVW based on 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchaser(s) in the United States. We 

made deductions from the U.S. sale 

price for movement expenses in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act. These included foreign inland 

freight from the plant to the port of 

exportation and domestic brokerage and 

handling charges. See SVW Analysis 

Memorandum. 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine NV 

using a factors–of-production 

methodology if: (1) the merchandise is 

exported from an NME country; and (2) 

the information does not permit the 

67438 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

calculation of NV using home–market 

prices, third–country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department will base NV 

on factors of production because the 

presence of government controls on 

various aspects of these economies 

renders price comparisons and the 

calculation of production costs invalid 

under our normal methodologies. 

Factors of production include: (1) 

hours of labor required; (2) quantities of 

raw materials employed; (3) amounts of 

energy and other utilities consumed; 

and (4) representative capital costs. We 

used factors of production reported by 

respondents for materials, energy, labor, 

by–products, and packing. 

Our general policy, consistent with 

section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, is to 

value the factors of production that a 

respondent uses to produce the subject 

merchandise, based on the best 

available information regarding the 

values of such factors in a market 

economy country. See Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 

2003). In accordance with section 773(c) 

of the Act, we calculated NV based on 

factors of production reported by SVW 

for the POR. As the basis for NV, SVW 

reported factors of production 

information for each separate stage of 

production, including the factors used 

in the production of all self–produced 

material and energy inputs, and by–

products. We have valued the factors 

reported for each self–produced input 

for purposes of the preliminary results. 

If the NME respondent is an 

integrated producer, we take into 

account the factors utilized in each stage 

of the production process. For example, 

in the case of preserved canned 

mushrooms produced by a fully 

integrated firm, the Department valued 

the factors used to grow the mushrooms, 

the factors used to further process and 

preserve the mushrooms, and any 

additional factors used to can and 

package the mushrooms, including any 

used to manufacture the cans (if 

produced in–house). If, on the other 

hand, the firm was not integrated, but 

simply a processor that bought fresh 

mushrooms to preserve and can, the 

Department valued the purchased 

mushrooms and not the factors used to 

grow them. See the final results 

valuation memorandum for Final 

Results of First New Shipper Review and 

First Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China, 66 

FR 31204 (June 11, 2001). This policy 

has been applied to both agricultural 

and industrial products. See, e.g., 

Persulfates from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 6712 

(February 10, 2003) and Notice of Final 

Determinations of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake 

Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China 62 FR 9160 (February 28, 1997). 

Accordingly, our standard NME 

questionnaire asks respondents to report 

the factors used in the various stages of 

production. 

There are, however, two limited 

exceptions to this general rule. First, in 

some cases a respondent may report 

factors used to produce an intermediate 

input that accounts for a small or 

insignificant share of total output. The 

Department recognizes that, in those 

cases, the increased accuracy in our 

overall calculations that would result 

from valuing (separately) each of those 

factors may be so small so as to not 

justify the burden of doing so. 

Therefore, in those situations, the 

Department would value the 

intermediate input directly. See Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol 

from the People’s Republic of China, 68 

FR 47538 (August 11, 2003) (‘‘Polyvinyl 

Alcohol’’). 

Second, in certain circumstances, it is 

clear that attempting to value the factors 

used in a production process yielding 

an intermediate product would lead to 

an inaccurate result because a 

significant element of cost would not be 

adequately accounted for in the overall 

factors buildup. For example, in a recent 

case, we addressed whether we should 

value the respondent’s factors used in 

extracting iron ore an input to its wire 

rod factory. The Department determined 

that, if it were to use those factors, it 

would not sufficiently account for the 

capital costs associated with the iron ore 

mining operation given that the 

surrogate used for valuing production 

overhead did not have mining 

operations. Therefore, because ignoring 

this important cost element would 

distort the calculation, the Department 

declined to value the inputs used in 

mining iron ore and valued the iron ore 

instead. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod From Ukraine, 67 FR 

55785 (August 30, 2002); Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon 

Steel Flat Products From the People’s 

Republic of China; 66 FR 49632 

(September 28, 2001); 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 

(November 20, 1997); and Furfuryl 

Alcohol, 60 FR 22544. 

We have examined the information on 

the record of this review related to the 

purity level of PVA and issued several 

supplemental questionnaires to SVW on 

this issue. We find that despite its 

responses to these supplemental 

questionnaires, SVW has not 

demonstrated clearly that it accounted 

for the actual purity level of PVA in its 

calculation of the vinyl acetate 

monomer (‘‘VAM’’) usage factors. See 

page 4 of SVW’s September 20, 2005 

third supplemental questionnaire 

response; and pages 2–3 and 

Attachments 3 and 4 of FSDQR. The 

burden is on the respondent in an 

antidumping proceeding to create a 

complete and accurate record upon 

which the Department can make its 

determination. Therefore, consistent 

with our determination in the 

investigation, we have preliminarily 

determined to adjust the reported VAM 

factor for each type of PVA to reflect the 

actual PVA purity level. Accordingly, 

we have adjusted the reported VAM 

utilization factor for each type of PVA 

by the ratio of the actual purity level for 

each type of PVA to the standard purity 

level reported by SVW. See SVW 

Analysis Memorandum, and Polyvinyl 

Alcohol, 68 FR 47538 and its 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at Comment 4. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department will 

normally use publicly available 

information to value factors of 

production, but when a producer 

sources an input from a market 

economy and pays for it in market–

economy currency, the Department will 

normally value the factor using the 

actual price paid for the input. See 19 

CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal 

Products v. United States, 43 F. 3d 1442, 

1445–1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, 

when the Department has reason to 

believe or suspect that such prices may 

be distorted by subsidies, the 

Department will disregard the market–

economy purchase prices and use 

surrogate values to determine the NV. 

See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Automotive Replacement Glass 

Windshields from the People’s Republic 

of China, 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002). 

SVW reported that all of its inputs 

were sourced from non–market 

economies and paid for in a non–

market-economy currency. See Factor 

Valuation Memorandum for a listing of 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67439 

4These by-products included alkynes gas and 

recovered low pressure nitrogen. 

these inputs. Therefore, we did not use 

respondents’ actual prices for any NME 

purchases, and also did not use import 

statistics from Indonesia, Thailand or 

Korea in valuing any factors of 

production, i.e., for material inputs, 

packing materials, and by–product 

credits. It is the Department’s consistent 

practice that, where the facts developed 

in U.S. or third–country countervailing 

duty findings include the existence of 

subsidies that appear to be used 

generally (in particular, broadly 

available, non–industry specific export 

subsidies), it is reasonable for the 

Department to consider that it has 

particular and objective evidence to 

support a reason to believe or suspect 

that prices of the inputs from the 

country granting the subsidies may be 

subsidized. See Tapered Roller Bearings 

and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, from the People’s Republic 

of China; Final Results of the 1998–1999 

Administrative Review, Partial 

Rescission of Review, and 

Determination Not to Revoke Order in 

Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1; see also 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of 1999–2000 Administrative 

Review, Partial Rescission of Review, 

and Determination Not To Revoke Order 

in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 

2001) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; 

China National Machinery Imp & Exp. 

Corp. V. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 

1334, 1339 (CIT 2003). 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on 

factors of production reported by the 

respondent for the POR. To calculate 

NV, we multiplied the reported per–unit 

factor quantities by publicly available 

Indian surrogate values (except as noted 

below). In selecting the surrogate values, 

we considered the quality, specificity, 

and contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory where appropriate (i.e., where 

the sales terms for the market–economy 

inputs were not delivered to the 

factory). This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision of the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 

3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed 

description of all surrogate values used 

for respondents, see Factor Valuation 

Memorandum. 

We valued D–tartaric acid, sodium 

hexametaphosphate, sodium nitrite, 

sulfuric acid, sodium carbonate, caustic 

soda, liquid caustic soda, hydroquinone, 

N–butyl acetate, hydrochloric acid, zinc 

sulfate, acrylic acid–acrylic ester, 

methyl acetate, and zinc oxide using 

Indian domestic market prices reported 

in Chemical Weekly, contemporaneous 

with the POR. We valued 

azodisisobutyronitrile, bacteria killer, 

de–sulfur agent, solid activated carbon, 

quinone, liquid chlorine, steam coal, 

solid sodium hydroxide, poly ferro–

sulfate, and acetic acid using India 

import statistics as published by the 

World Trade Atlas, contemporaneous 

with the POR. 

We valued natural gas using a price 

obtained from the website of the Gas 

Authority of India Ltd., a supplier of 

natural gas in India, contemporaneous 

with the POR. For further discussion, 

see Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

To value paper bags and polyethylene 

plastic bags (i.e., the packing materials 

reported by the respondent), we used 

import values from the World Trade 

Atlas, contemporaneous with the POR. 

Regarding N–methyl–2pydrolidone, 

alkynes gas, and anti–erosion agent, 

reported by SVW, we did not value 

these factors because: 1) surrogate value 

information was not available; and 2) 

the materials were reported as being 

used in minimal amounts. In previous 

cases, where certain materials were 

reportedly consumed in very small 

amounts and the surrogate values for 

these materials were not available, the 

Department did not include surrogate 

values for these materials in its 

calculation of normal value. See 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Polyvinyl 

Alcohol from the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 13680 (March 20, 2003); 

Synthetic Indigo from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000), 

and its accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 8; 

Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium 

from the Russian Federation: Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 62 FE 65656 

(December 15, 1997), and its 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 11; and 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Oscillating Fans and 

Ceiling Fans from the People’s Republic 

of China, 56 FR 55273 (October 25, 

1991). For the same reasons we did not 

value industrial grade salt, and chlorine 

dioxide used in treated water in our 

calculation of NV. In addition, for the 

same reasons we did not value freon. 

Although Petitioners provided a 

surrogate value for freon, the value 

provided reflected a price between 

affiliated parties. See Attachment D of 

Petitioners’ April 21, 2005, submission 

of surrogate values. In selecting 

surrogate values, the Department 

prefers, among other things, publicly 

available prices that are representative 

of a range of prices, and the proposed 

surrogate value does not meet this 

criteria. 

For direct labor, indirect labor, and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression–based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s home page, 

Import Library, Expected Wages of 

Selected NME Countries, revised in 

November 2004, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

wages/corrected02wages/02wages–

corrected.html. The source of these 

wage rate data on the Import 

Administration’s web site is the 

Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO, 

(Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in 

Manufacturing. Because this regression–

based wage rate does not separate the 

labor rates into different skill levels or 

types of labor, we have applied the same 

wage rate to all skill levels and types of 

labor reported by the respondent. 

To determine factory overhead, 

depreciation, SG&A expenses, interest 

expenses, and profit for the finished 

product, we relied on rates derived from 

the financial statements of Jubilant 

Organosys Ltd., an Indian producer of 

comparable merchandise. We applied 

these ratios to SVW’s costs (determined 

as noted above) for materials, labor, and 

energy. For further discussion, see the 

Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

Finally, SVW reported that it 

generated certain by–products as a 

result of the production of PVA or the 

inputs used to produce PVA.4 Because 

SVW did not provide sufficient 

information to permit the accurate 

valuation of these by–products and we 

were unable to obtain appropriate 

surrogate value data for them, we did 

not value these by–products for these 

preliminary results. 

Weighted–Average Dumping Margin 

The weighted–average dumping 

margin is as follows: 

67440 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

1The petitioner is the Coalition for Fair Preserved 

Mushroom Trade which includes the following 

domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc., Monterey 

Mushrooms, Inc., Mushroom Canning Company, 

and Sunny Dell Foods, Inc. 

POLYVINYL ALCOHOL FROM THE PRC 

Producer/Manufacturer/ 

Exporter 

Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

SVW .............................. 8.04 % 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 

requested, will generally be held two 

days after the scheduled date for 

submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may 

submit case briefs and/or written 

comments no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and 

rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in such briefs or 

comments, may be filed no later than 37 

days after the date of publication. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties 

submitting written comments should 

provide the Department with an 

additional copy of those comments on 

diskette. The Department will issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, which will include the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any 

comments, and at a hearing, within 120 

days of publication of these preliminary 

results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. Within 15 days of 

the completion of this review, the 

Department will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise. The 

Department will issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

upon completion of this review. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of review, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting rate against 

the entered customs value for the 

subject merchandise on each importer’s/ 

customer’s entries during the POR. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

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)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash 

deposit rate for the reviewed company 

will be the rate listed in the final results 

of review (except where the rate for a 

particular company is de minimis, i.e., 

less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit 

will be required for that company); (2) 

for previously investigated companies 

not listed above that have separate rate, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company–specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) the cash 

deposit rate for all other PRC exporters 

will be 97.86 percent, the current PRC–

wide rate; and (4) the cash deposit rate 

for all non–PRC exporters will be the 

rate applicable to the PRC exporter that 

supplied that exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) 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. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results of review in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 

351.221(b). 

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22143 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–533–813 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms from 

India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests 

by Agro Dutch Industries, Ltd. (Agro 

Dutch) and the petitioner,1 the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from India with 

respect to Agro Dutch. The period of 

review (POR) is February 1, 2004, 

through January 31, 2005. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

have been made below normal value 

(NV). Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

our final results of administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David J. Goldberger or Gemal Brangman, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4136 or (202) 482–

3773, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 19, 1999, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

amended final determination and 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from India (64 FR 

8311). 

In response to timely requests by a 

manufacturer/exporter, Agro Dutch, and 

the petitioner, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of an 

administrative review with respect to 

the following companies: Agro Dutch, 

Alpine Biotech Ltd. (Alpine Biotech), 

Dinesh Agro Products, Ltd. (Dinesh 

Agro), Flex Foods, Ltd. (Flex Foods), 

Himalya International, Ltd. (Himalya), 

KICM (Madras) Ltd. (KICM), Mandeep 

Mushrooms Ltd. (Mandeep), Premier 

Mushroom Farms (Premier), Saptarishi 

Agro Industries Ltd. (Saptarishi Agro), 

Transchem Ltd. (Transchem), Techtran 

Agro Industries Limited (Techtran) and 

Weikfield Agro Products Ltd. 

(Weikfield) (70 FR 14643, March 23, 

2005). The POR is February 1, 2004, 

through January 31, 2005. 

On March 29, 2005, the Department 

issued antidumping duty questionnaires 

to the above–mentioned companies. We 

received responses to these 

questionnaires during the period May