Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices 29073

44 FR 33878

June 13, 1979

Contact: Lyn Johnson at (202) 482–5287

Germany

Industrial Belts and Components and

Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or

Uncured, Except Synchronous & V belts

A–428–802

54 FR 25316

June 14, 1989

Contact: Ron Trentham at (202) 482–

4793

Germany

Precipitated Barium Carbonate

A–428–061

46 FR 32884

June 25, 1981

Contact: Tom Futtner at (202) 482–3814

Germany

Sugar

A–428–082

44 FR 33878

June 13, 1979

Contact: Mark Ross at (202) 482–4852

Italy

Industrial Belts and Components and

Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or

Uncured

A–475–802

54 FR 25313

June 14, 1989

Contact: Ron Trentham at (202) 482–

4793

Japan

Nitrile Rubber

A–588–706

53 FR 22553

June 16, 1988

Contact: Sheila Forbes at (202) 482–

5253

Sweden

Stainless Steel Plate

A–401–040

38 FR 15079

June 8, 1973

Contact: Michael Heaney at (202) 482–

4475

Taiwan

Carbon Steel Plate

A–583–080

44 FR 33877

June 13, 1979

Contact: Michael Heaney at (202) 482–

4475

Taiwan

Oil Country Tubular Goods

A–583–505

51 FR 22098

June 18, 1986

Contact: Michael Heaney at (202) 482–

4475

If no interested party requests an

administrative review in accordance

with the Department’s notice of

opportunity to request administrative

review, and no domestic interested

party objects to the Department’s intent

to revoke or terminate pursuant to this

notice, we shall conclude that the

antidumping duty orders, findings, and

suspended investigations are no longer

of interest to interested parties and shall

proceed with the revocation or

termination.

Opportunity To Object

Domestic interested parties, as

defined in § 353.2(k) (3), (4), (5), and (6)

of the Department’s regulations, may

object to the Department’s intent to

revoke these antidumping duty orders

and findings or to terminate the

suspended investigations by the last day

of June 1996. Any submission to the

Department must contain the name and

case number of the proceeding and a

statement that explains how the

objecting party qualifies as a domestic

interested party under § 353.2(k) (3), (4),

(5), and (6) of the Department’s

regulations.

Seven copies of such objections

should be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Room B–099, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230.

You must also include the pertinent

certification(s) in accordance with

§ 353.31(g) and § 353.31(i) of the

Department’s regulations. In addition,

the Department requests that a copy of

the objection be sent to Michael F.

Panfeld in Room 4203.

This notice is in accordance with 19 CFR

353.25(d)(4)(i).

Dated: May 29, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–14310 Filed 6–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–570–845, A–570–846]

Notice of Postponement of Preliminary

Determinations: Antidumping Duty

Investigations of Certain Brake Drums

and Certain Brake Rotors From the

People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Beck or Magd Zalok, Office of

Antidumping Investigations, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–3464 or (202) 482–

4162, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the

Act) are references to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements

Act.

Postponement of Preliminary

Determinations

We have determined that these

investigations are extraordinarily

complicated within the meaning of

section 733(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. The

large number of potential respondents

in both the brake drums and the brake

rotors investigations will make it

necessary to review the volume and

value data from each one in order to

determine the appropriate mandatory

respondents. In addition, claims for

separate rates will have to be analyzed

individually.

Furthermore, we have determined

that the parties concerned are

cooperating, as required by section

733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, and that

additional time is necessary to make

these preliminary determinations in

accordance with section 733(c)(1)(B)(ii)

of the Act.

For these reasons, the deadline for

issuing the preliminary determination

in these cases is now no later than

October 3, 1996.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 733(c)(2) of the Act.

Dated: May 30, 1996.

Barbara R. Stafford,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investigations,

Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–14313 Filed 6–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–570–815]

Sulfanilic Acid From the People’s

Republic of China; Preliminary Results

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.
29074 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices

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 (PRC) in response to requests by

petitioner, Nation Ford Chemical

Company (formerly known as R–M

Industries, Inc.), by a respondent,

Sinochem Hebei Import and Export

Corporation (Sinochem Hebei), and by

an importer, PHT International (PHT).

This review covers shipments of this

merchandise to the United States during

the period August 1, 1994 through July

31, 1995.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV). If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results, we will

instruct U.S. Customs to assess

antidumping duties equal to the

differences between the United States

price and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with each argument

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

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karin Price or Maureen Flannery, Office

of Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–4733.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 19, 1992, the Department

published in the Federal Register (57

FR 37524) an antidumping duty order

on sulfanilic acid from the PRC. On

August 1, 1995, we published in the

Federal Register (60 FR 39150) a notice

of opportunity to request an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on sulfanilic

acid from the PRC covering the period

August 1, 1994 through July 31, 1995.

On August 11, 1995, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1)(1995),

petitioner, Nation Ford Chemical

Company (formerly known as R–M

Industry, Inc.), requested that we

conduct an administrative review of

Sinochem Hebei, China National

Chemical Construction Corporation,

Beijing Branch (CNCCC), China National

Chemical Construction Corporation,

Qingdao Branch (CNCCC Qingdao),

Sinochem Qingdao, Sinochem

Shandong, Baoding No. 3 Chemical

Factory (Baoding), Jinxing Chemical

Factory (Jinxing), Zhenxing Chemical

Industry Company (Zhenxing),

Mancheng Xinyu Chemical Factory,

Shijiazhuang (Xinyu Shijiazhuang),

Mancheng Xinyu Chemical Factory,

Beijing (Xinyu Beijing), Hainan Garden

Trading Company (Hainan Garden),

Yude Chemical Industry Company

(Yude), and Shunping Lile (Shunping).

Petitioner also requested an

administrative review of Mancheng

Xinyu Chemical Factory, Baoding, but

as this company changed its name to

Yude when it formed its joint venture

with PHT, we have considered them to

be one respondent. See File

Memorandum from Karin Price, Case

Analyst, dated February 6, 1996, ‘‘The

questionnaire for Mancheng Xinyu

Chemical Factory, Baoding in the 1994/

1995 administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on sulfanilic

acid from the People’s Republic of

China,’’ which is on file in the Central

Records Unit (room B–099 of the Main

Commerce Building). On August 25,

1995, with a clarification on October 5,

1995, PHT, a U.S. importer of sulfanilic

acid from the PRC, requested that we

conduct a review of its two related

Chinese exporters, Yude and Zhenxing.

On August 25, 1995, Sinochem Hebei

requested that we conduct a review of

its sales. We published a notice of

initiation of this antidumping duty

administrative review on September 15,

1995 (60 FR 47930). The Department is

conducting this administrative review

in accordance with section 751 of the

Act.

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 contains 96

percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0

percent maximum aniline, and 1.0

percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials. Refined sulfanilic acid

contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic

acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and

0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials.

Sodium salt is a powder, granular or

crystalline material which contains 75

percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic

acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline

based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid

content, and 0.25 percent maximum

alkali insoluble materials based on the

equivalent sulfanilic acid content.

This merchandise is classifiable under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

subheadings 2921.42.22 and 2921.42.90.

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

This review covers 13 manufacturers/

exporters of sulfanilic acid from the

PRC, and the period August 1, 1994

through July 31, 1995.

Verification

We conducted verification of Yude’s

and Zhenxing’s sales questionnaire

responses at PHT’s facility in Charlotte,

North Carolina on April 16 and 17,

1995. We conducted the verification

using standard verification procedures,

including the examination of relevant

sales and financial records, and

selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in the

public version of the verification report.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

We preliminarily determine, in

accordance with section 776(a) of the

Act, that the use of facts available is

appropriate for CNCCC, CNCCC

Qingdao, Jinxing, Shunping, Sinochem

Hebei, Sinochem Qingdao, Sinochem

Shandong, Xinyu Beijing, and Xinyu

Shijiazhuang, because these companies

did not respond to the Department’s

antidumping 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices 29075

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) provides that ‘‘corroborate’’

means simply that the Department will

satisfy itself that the secondary

information to be used has probative

value.

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used.

However, unlike other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. The only source for

margins is administrative

determinations. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as total adverse facts available

a calculated dumping margin from a

prior segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of

the margin for that time period. With

respect to the relevance aspect of

corroboration, however, the Department

will consider information reasonably at

its disposal as to whether there are

circumstances that would render a

margin not relevant. Where

circumstances indicate that the selected

margin is not appropriate as adverse

facts available, the Department will

disregard the margin and determine an

appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review (60 FR 49567),

where the Department disregarded the

highest margin in that case as adverse

best information available because the

margin was based on another company’s

uncharacteristic business expense

resulting in an unusually high margin).

In this case, we have used the highest

rate from any prior segment of the

proceeding, 85.20 percent, the PRC rate

established during the less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation of this case.

See Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Sulfanilic Acid from

the People’s Republic of China (57 FR

29705, July 6, 1992). We have no reason

to believe this rate is not relevant.

Separate Rates

To establish whether a company

operating in a state-controlled economy

is sufficiently independent to be

entitled to a separate rate, the

Department analyzes each exporting

entity 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 in Silicon Carbide. Under this

policy, exporters in non-marketeconomy (NME) countries are entitled to

separate, company-specific margins

when they can demonstrate an absence

of government control, both in law (de

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

to exports. Evidence supporting, though

not requiring, a finding of de jure

absence of government control over

export activities 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 negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements.

Yude and Zhenxing have responded

to the Department’s request for

information regarding separate rates. We

have found that the evidence on the

record demonstrates an absence of

government control, both in law and in

fact, with respect to Yude’s and

Zhenxing’s exports according to the

criteria identified in Sparklers and

Silicon Carbide for this period of

review, and have assigned a separate

rate to each of these companies. For

further discussion of this finding, see

Decision Memorandum to Holly A.

Kuga, Director, Office of Antidumping

Compliance, dated May 21, 1996,

‘‘Separate rates in the 1994/1995

administrative review of sulfanilic acid

from the People’s Republic of China,’’

which is on file in the Central Records

Unit (room B–099 of the Main

Commerce Building).

In the LTFV investigation of this case,

we found that Sinochem Hebei was

eligible for a separate rate under the

criteria set forth in Sparklers. However,

since Sparklers does not address the

additional information required by

Silicon Carbide for making a

determination of separate rates (i.e.,

whether each exporter has autonomy in

making decisions regarding the

selection of management and whether

each exporter has the authority to

negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements), we need to analyze

information on the record of this review

to determine whether Sinochem Hebei

merits a separate rate with respect to the

additional criteria. See Certain Helical

Spring Lock Washers from the People’s

Republic of China; Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Administrative Review

(60 FR 42519, August 16, 1995). Since

Sinochem Hebei did not respond to our

separate rates questionnaire, we are not

able to make this determination.

Therefore, we have found that

Sinochem Hebei is not eligible for a

separate rate in this review.

Yude and Zhenxing: Affiliation and

Collapsing

Yude and Zhenxing are each joint

venture partners with PHT. Due to

PHT’s ownership interest in both joint

ventures and the fact that some of the

same people sit on the boards of

directors of each joint venture, and

especially because PHT is legally and

operationally in a position to exercise

restraint or direction over both joint

ventures, we consider Yude and

Zhenxing to be affiliated pursuant to

section 771(33)(F) of the Act.

The Department ‘‘collapses’’ affiliated

firms (i.e., treats them as a single entity

for review purposes and assigns them a

single dumping margin) where the type

and degree of relationship is so

significant that we find that there is a

strong possibility of manipulation of

prices or production. See 19 CFR Parts

351, 353, and 355 Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties; Proposed Rule

(61 FR 7381, February 27, 1996)

(Proposed Rule). See also Nihon Cement

Co., Ltd. v. United States, 17 CIT 400

(1993). Because Yude and Zhenxing are

each joint venture partners with PHT,

we have considered whether Yude and

Zhenxing should be collapsed for

purposes of this administrative review

as a result of their relationships with

PHT.

The Department’s current policy is to

treat two or more affiliated producers as

a single entity where those producers

have production facilities that would

not require substantial retooling of

either facility in order to restructure

manufacturing priorities and the

Department concludes that there is a

significant potential for the

manipulation of prices or production. In

identifying a significant potential for the

manipulation of prices or production,

the Department considers the following:

• The level of common ownership;
29076 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices

• 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 sales

information, information on production

and pricing decisions, the sharing of

facilities or employees, or significant

transactions between the affiliated

producers.

See Proposed Rule

Based on our analysis of these criteria,

we have determined that there is a

strong possibility of manipulation of

prices or production between Yude and

Zhenxing. In addition to PHT’s

ownership percentage in each joint

venture, we have found that some of the

same people sit on Yude’s and

Zhenxing’s boards of directors, and that

PHT makes sales and pricing decisions

for each of the joint ventures. We have

also found that Yude and Zhenxing

have similar production processes such

that substantial retooling of either

facility would not be necessary to

restructure manufacturing priorities.

Therefore, we have determined that

Yude and Zhenxing should be collapsed

as a result of their relationships with

PHT. For a further discussion of this

issue, see Decision Memorandum to

Holly A. Kuga, Director, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, dated May

20, 1996, ‘‘Collapsing in the 1994/1995

administrative review of sulfanilic acid

from the People’s Republic of China,’’

which is on file in the Central Records

Unit (room B–099 of the Main

Commerce Building).

We are collapsing Yude and Zhenxing

for the purposes of calculating margins,

and we are collapsing their factor data

for use in calculating NV. We have

calculated one NV for Yude and

Zhenxing by weight averaging Yude’s

and Zhenxing’s factors based on the

quantities of sulfanilic acid each

produced during the period of review.

United States Price

For sales made by Yude and

Zhenxing, we calculated constructed

export price based on FOB, CIF, or CIP

prices to unrelated purchasers in the

United States. We made deductions for

foreign inland freight, ocean freight,

marine insurance, U.S. duties, U.S.

transportation, credit, commissions,

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

determine NV using a factors of

production methodology if (1) the

merchandise is exported from a 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), any

determination that a foreign country is

a NME country shall remain in effect

until revoked by the administering

authority. None of the parties to this

proceeding has contested such

treatment in this review. Accordingly,

we treated the PRC as a 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) and section 353.52(2) of the

Department’s regulations, we

determined 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 David Mueller,

Director, Office of Policy, to Maureen

Flannery, dated March 28, 1996,

‘‘Sulfanilic Acid from the People’s

Republic of China (PRC): Nonmarket

Economy Status and Surrogate Country

Selection,’’ and File Memorandum,

dated May 23, 1996, ‘‘India as a

significant producer of comparable

merchandise in the 1994/1995

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 1994–April

1995, obtained from the February 1995

and April 1995 Monthly Statistics of the

Foreign Trade of India, Volume II—

Imports (Indian Import Statistics). Using

wholesale price indices (WPI) obtained

from the International Financial

Statistics, published by the International

Monetary Fund (IMF), we adjusted this

value to reflect inflation through the

period of review. We made adjustments

to include freight costs incurred

between the suppliers and the sulfanilic

acid factories.

• To value sulfuric acid used in the

production of sulfanilic acid, we used

the rupee per kilogram value reported in

Chemical Weekly. We made adjustments

to include freight costs incurred

between the suppliers and the sulfanilic

acid factories.

• To value activated carbon used in

the production of sulfanilic acid, we

used the rupee per kilogram value

reported in Chemical Weekly. We made

adjustments to include freight costs

incurred between the suppliers and the

sulfanilic acid factories.

• For direct labor, we used the labor

rates reported in the Economist

Intelligence Unit’s Investing, Licensing

and Trading Conditions Abroad: India,

released November 1994. This source

breaks out labor rates between skilled

and unskilled labor for 1994 and

provides information on the number of

labor hours worked per week. Using

WPI obtained from the International

Financial Statistics, we adjusted the

labor rates to reflect inflation through

the period of review.

• 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

the Indian Import Statistics. Using WPI

obtained from the 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 suppliers and the sulfanilic

acid factories.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices 29077

• To value coal, we used the price of

steam coal reported in The Gazette of

India, June 16, 1994. We adjusted the

value of coal to reflect inflation through

the period of review using WPI

published by the IMF.

• To value electricity, we used the

price of electricity on March 1, 1995

reported in Current Energy Scene in

India, July 1995, by the Centre for

Monitoring Indian Economy.

• To value truck freight, we used the

rate reported in an August 1993 cable

from the U.S. Embassy in India

submitted for the Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Helical Spring Lock Washers from the

People’s Republic of China (58 FR

48833, September 20, 1993). We

adjusted the truck freight rates to reflect

inflation through the period of review

using WPI 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). We adjusted the rail

freight rates to reflect inflation through

the period of review using WPI

published by the IMF.

Non-shippers

Baoding and Hainan Garden stated

that they did not have shipments during

the period of review, and we confirmed

this with the United States Customs

Service. Therefore, we are treating them

as non-shippers for this review, and are

rescinding this review with respect to

these companies. See Proposed Rule,

section 351.213(d)(3) (61 FR 7365). The

cash deposit rates for these firms will

continue to be the rates established in

the most recently completed final

determination.

Preliminary Results of the Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following dumping margins exist:

Manufacturer/

exporter Time period

Margin

(percent)

Yude Chemical Industry

Company ... 8/1/94–7/31/95 20.78 *

Zhenxing

Chemical

Industry

Company ... 8/1/94–7/31/95 20.78 *

Manufacturer/

exporter Time period

Margin

(percent)

PRC Rate 1 .... 8/1/94–7/31/95 85.20

1This rate will be applied to all firms which

have not demonstrated that they are separate

from the PRC government, including, but not

limited to, the following firms for which a review was requested: China National Chemical

Construction Corporation, Beijing Branch;

China National Chemical Construction Corporation, Qingdao Branch; Jinxing Chemical

Factory; Mancheng Xinyu Chemical Factory,

Beijing; Mancheng Xinyu Chemical Factory,

Shijiazhuang; Shunping Lile; Sinochem Hebei

Import and Export Corporation; Sinochem

Qingdao; and Sinochem Shandong.

*Yude and Zhenxing have been collapsed

for the purposes of this administrative review.

However, we have listed them separately on

this chart for Customs purposes.

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.

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. Individual differences between

United States price 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 upon publication

of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of sulfanilic acid from the PRC entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) the cash

deposit rate for reviewed companies

named above which have separate rates

will be the rates for those firms

established in the final results of this

review; (2) for the companies named

above which were not found to have a

separate rate, as well as for all other PRC

exporters, the cash deposit rate will be

the highest margin ever in the LTFV

investigation or in this or prior

administrative reviews, the PRC rate;

and (3) 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 rates, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

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

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

CFR 353.22.

Dated: May 29, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–14309 Filed 6–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–122–825]

Notice of Postponement of Preliminary

Countervailing Duty Determination:

Certain Laminated Hardwood Flooring

From Canada

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Boyland or Daniel Lessard, Office

of Countervailing Duty Investigations,

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room

3099, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482- 4198, or (202) 482–

1778, respectively.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act effective January 1,

1995 (the Act).

Postponement

On March 27, 1996, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) initiated a

countervailing duty investigation of

certain laminated hardwood flooring

(LHF) from Canada (see Notice of

Initiation of Countervailing Duty

Investigation: Certain Laminated