Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 52007 

including the availability from other 

countries of the goods, software or 

technology proposed for such controls; 

2. Whether the foreign policy 

objective of such controls can be 

achieved through negotiations or other 

alternative means; 

3. The compatibility of the controls 

with the foreign policy objectives of the 

United States and with overall United 

States policy toward the country subject 

to the controls; 

4. Whether the reaction of other 

countries to the extension of such 

controls is not likely to render the 

controls ineffective in achieving the 

intended foreign policy objective or be 

counterproductive to United States 

foreign policy interests; 

5. The comparative benefits to U.S. 

foreign policy objectives versus the 

effect of the controls on the export 

performance of the United States, the 

competitive position of the United 

States in the international economy, the 

international reputation of the United 

States as a supplier of goods and 

technology; and 

6. The ability of the United States to 

enforce the controls effectively. 

BIS is particularly interested in 

receiving comments on the economic 

impact of proliferation controls. BIS is 

also interested in industry information 

relating to the following: 

1. Information on the effect of foreign 

policy-based export controls on sales of 

U.S. products to third countries (i.e., 

those countries not targeted by 

sanctions), including the views of 

foreign purchasers or prospective 

customers regarding U.S. foreign policybased export controls. 

2. Information on controls maintained 

by U.S. trade partners. For example, to 

what extent do they have similar 

controls on goods and technology on a 

worldwide basis or to specific 

destinations? 

3. Information on licensing policies or 

practices by our foreign trade partners 

that are similar to U.S. foreign policybased export controls, including license 

review criteria, use of conditions, 

requirements for pre- and post-shipment 

verifications (preferably supported by 

examples of approvals, denials and 

foreign regulations). 

4. Suggestions for revisions to foreign 

policy-based export controls that would 

bring them more into line with 

multilateral practice. 

5. Comments or suggestions as to 

actions that would make multilateral 

controls more effective. 

6. Information that illustrates the 

effect of foreign policy-based export 

controls on trade or acquisitions by 

intended targets of the controls. 

7. Data or other information on the 

effect of foreign policy-based export 

controls on overall trade at the level of 

individual industrial sectors. 

8. Suggestions as to how to measure 

the effect of foreign policy-based export 

controls on trade. 

9. Information on the use of foreign 

policy-based export controls on targeted 

countries, entities, or individuals. 

BIS is also interested in comments 

relating generally to the extension or 

revision of existing foreign policy-based 

export controls. 

Entity List 

The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to 

Part 744 of the EAR) provides notice to 

the public that certain exports and 

reexports to parties identified on the 

Entity List require a license from BIS 

and that availability of License 

Exceptions in such transactions is 

limited. In connection with the annual 

review of all foreign policy-based export 

controls, BIS is particularly interested in 

public comments regarding the Entity 

List, including but not limited to those 

specific to the entities on the List and 

the licensing policies and requirements 

assigned to each of them, and on the 

Entity List’s utility and suggestions for 

ways it might be improved through 

changes in format, organization or 

otherwise. 

Parties submitting comments are 

asked to be as specific as possible. All 

comments received before the close of 

the comment period will be considered 

by BIS in reviewing the controls and 

developing the report to Congress and/ 

or in implementing changes to the 

Entity List. 

BIS will not accept public comments 

accompanied by a request that a part or 

all of the material be treated 

confidentially because of its business 

proprietary nature or for any other 

reason. BIS will return such comments 

and materials to the persons submitting 

the comments and will not consider 

them in the development of a response. 

All information relating to the notice 

will be a matter of public record and 

will be available for public inspection 

and copying. In the interest of accuracy 

and completeness, BIS requires written 

comments. Oral comments must be 

followed by written memoranda, which 

will also be a matter of public record 

and will be available for public review 

and copying. 

The Office of Administration, Bureau 

of Industry and Security, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, displays 

these public comments on BIS’s 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web 

site at http://www.bis.doc.gov/foia. This 

office does not maintain a separate 

public inspection facility. If you have 

technical difficulties accessing this Web 

site, please call BIS’s Office of 

Administration at (202) 482–0637 for 

assistance. 

Dated: August 29, 2008. 

Christopher R. Wall, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–20672 Filed 9–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–892 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on carbazole 

violet pigment 23 (CVP 23) from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC). The 

period of review (POR) is December 1, 

2006, through November 30, 2007. We 

preliminarily determine that 11 

companies have failed to cooperate by 

not acting to the best of their ability to 

comply with our requests for 

information and, as a result, should be 

assigned a rate based on adverse facts 

available (AFA). We are also rescinding 

this administrative review with respect 

to three companies. 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 all 

appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR. 

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: September 8, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah Scott or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2657 or (202) 482–

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

52008 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 

Background 

On December 29, 2004, the 

Department published the antidumping 

duty order on CVP 23 from the PRC. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Carbazole 

Violet Pigment 23 From the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 77987 

(December 29, 2004). On December 3, 

2007, the Department published 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 67889 

(December 3, 2007). On December 31, 

2007, Nation Ford Chemical Company 

and Sun Chemical Corporation 

(collectively, petitioners) requested an 

administrative review of entries of 

subject merchandise made during the 

POR by 14 Chinese exporters, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). 

The 14 exporters included in 

petitioners’ request for review were: 

Aesthetic Colortech (Shanghai) 

Company, Limited (Aesthetic 

Colortech); Anhui Worldbest IE 

Company, Limited (Anhui Worldbest); 

Cidic Company, Limited (Cidic); 

Ganguink Company, Pigment Division 

(Ganguink); Goldlink Industries 

Company, Limited (Goldlink); Hunan 

Sunlogistics International Company, 

Limited (Hunan Sunlogistics); Hygeia–

Chem (Shanghai) Company, Limited 

(Hygeia–Chem); Nantong Haidi 

Chemical Company, Limited (Nantong 

Chemical); Pudong Prime International 

Logistic Incorporated (Pudong Prime); 

Shanghai Rainbow Dyes Import and 

Export (Shanghai Rainbow); Sinocol 

Corporation, Limited (Sinocol); Tianjin 

Hanchem International Trading 

Company, Limited (Tianjin Hanchem); 

Trust Chem Company, Limited (Trust 

Chem); and Yangcheng Tiacheng 

Chemical Company, Limited 

(Yangcheng Chemical). 

On January 28, 2008, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of 

these 14 companies. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Request for 

Revocation in Part, 73 FR 4829 (January 

28, 2008). On February 1, 2008, the 

Department issued a letter to interested 

parties announcing its intention to limit 

the number of respondents selected for 

review and to select respondents based 

on CBP data for U.S. imports of CVP 23 

during the POR. On February 4, 2008, 

the Department requested that 

petitioners submit addresses for each of 

the companies included in their request 

for review; petitioners provided address 

information to the Department on that 

same date. On February 5, 2008, the 

Department released the letter regarding 

its respondent–selection methodology 

and the CBP import data to the 14 

Chinese exporters and extended the 

deadline for parties to submit comments 

until February 12, 2008. For information 

related to the delivery of these letters, 

see the memorandum entitled 

‘‘Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the 

People’s Republic of China: Delivery of 

Various Documents to Respondents in 

the 2006–2007 Administrative Review,’’

dated August 27, 2008 (Delivery 

Tracking Memorandum) at Attachment 

1. No interested parties submitted 

comments to the Department. 

On February 25, 2008, because it was 

not feasible to examine all 14 exporters 

of the subject merchandise, for purposes 

of this administrative review, the 

Department selected the largest 

company by export volume, Goldlink, as 

a mandatory respondent in accordance 

with section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act). See 

Memorandum from Blanche Ziv to 

Wendy J. Frankel, ‘‘2006–2007 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Selection of Respondents,’’ dated 

February 25, 2008. On February 26, 

2008, the Department issued an 

antidumping questionnaire to Goldlink. 

For information regarding the delivery 

of this questionnaire, see the Delivery 

Tracking Memorandum at Attachment 

2. Goldlink did not respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire. 

On March 3, 2008, the Department 

sent separate rate applications/ 

certifications to the following 12 

Chinese exporters of CVP 23: Aesthetic 

Colortech; Anhui Worldbest; Cidic; 

Ganguink; Goldlink; Hunan 

Sunlogistics; Nantong Chemical; 

Pudong Prime; Shanghai Rainbow; 

Sinocol; Tianjin Hanchem; and Trust 

Chem. On March 4, 2008, the 

Department sent separate rates 

applications/certifications to Hygeia–

Chem and Yangcheng Chemical after 

petitioners provided more accurate 

addresses for these two exporters. For 

information regarding the delivery of 

the separate rate applications/ 

certifications, see the Delivery Tracking 

Memorandum at Attachment 3. The 

Department did not receive a response 

to the separate rate application/ 

certification from any of the 14 

companies. 

On April 18, 2008, the Department 

sent a second letter to each of the four 

companies that had been assigned a 

separate rate in a prior segment of this 

proceeding, namely, Goldlink, Nantong 

Chemical, Tianjin Hanchem, and Trust 

Chem. For information regarding the 

delivery of these letters, see the Delivery 

Tracking Memorandum at Attachment 

4. In its letter to Goldlink, the 

Department stated that since Goldlink 

did not respond to the antidumping 

questionnaire, the Department may 

resort to the use of facts available with 

an adverse inference. The Department 

further stated that because Goldlink did 

not submit its response by the 

Department’s deadline, Goldlink may 

not be eligible to receive a separate rate 

in this proceeding and thus would be 

considered part of the PRC entity and 

assigned the PRC–wide rate. The 

Department granted Goldlink until April 

28, 2008, to provide an explanation as 

to why it did not submit a response to 

the questionnaire, and stated the 

Department would determine at that 

time whether an extension was 

warranted for Goldlink to submit its 

questionnaire response. In its April 18, 

2008, letters to Nantong Chemical, 

Tianjin Hanchem, and Trust Chem, the 

Department declared that as each 

company did not provide a response to 

the Department’s separate rate 

certification, these companies may not 

be eligible to receive a separate rate in 

this proceeding and thus would be 

considered part of the PRC entity and 

assigned the PRC–wide rate. The 

Department granted Nantong Chemical, 

Tianjin Hanchem, and Trust Chem until 

April 28, 2008, to provide an 

explanation as to why they were unable 

to submit a separate rate certification, 

and stated the Department would 

determine at that time whether an 

extension was warranted for each 

company to submit a separate rate 

certification. None of the four 

companies responded to the 

Department’s April 18, 2008, letters by 

the established deadline. 

On April 29, 2008, Tianjin Hanchem 

submitted a letter stating it did not make 

any sales or exports during the POR, 

and explaining it did not respond to the 

Department’s separate rate application/ 

certification letter because it was not 

aware it needed to respond when it had 

no shipments to the United States. On 

May 7, 2008, Trust Chem filed a letter 

stating it had no shipments and no sales 

of CVP 23 during the POR. 

On July 17, 2008, the Department sent 

another separate rate application/ 

certification to one company, Ganguink, 

because the Department found the 

separate rate application/certification 

sent to this company on March 3, 2008, 

had not been delivered. For information 

related to the delivery of this document, 

see the Delivery Tracking Memorandum 

at Attachment 5. The Department did 

not receive a response from Ganguink. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 52009 

1The bracketed section of the product 

description, [3,2-b:3’,2’-m], is not business 

proprietary information, but is part of the chemical 

nomenclature. 

Period of Review 

The POR is December December 1, 

2006, through November 30, 2007. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is carbazole violet pigment 23 

identified as Color Index No. 51319 and 

Chemical Abstract No. 6358–30–1, with 

the chemical name of diindolo [3,2–

b:3’,2’-m] triphenodioxazine, 8,18–

dichloro–5, 15–diethy–5,15–dihydro-, 

and molecular formula of 

C34H22Cl2N4O2.1 The subject 

merchandise includes the crude 

pigment in any form (e.g., dry powder, 

paste, wet cake) and finished pigment in 

the form of presscake and dry color. 

Pigment dispersions in any form (e.g., 

pigments dispersed in oleoresins, 

flammable solvents, water) are not 

included within the scope of this order. 

The merchandise subject to this order is 

classifiable under subheading 

3204.17.9040 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. 

Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review 

Section 351.213(d)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations provides that 

the Department will rescind an 

administrative review if the party that 

requested the review withdraws its 

request for review within 90 days of the 

date of publication of the notice of 

initiation of the requested review, or 

withdraws at a later date if the 

Department determines it is reasonable 

to extend the time limit for withdrawing 

the request. 

In this case, the 90–day deadline to 

withdraw requests for an administrative 

review fell on April 28, 2008. However, 

on April 25, 2008, petitioners requested 

that the Department extend this 

deadline by ten days. Consequently, on 

April 28, 2008, the Department granted 

petitioners’ request and extended the 

deadline until May 8, 2008. On May 8, 

2008, petitioners submitted a letter 

withdrawing their request for an 

administrative review of Nantong 

Chemical, Tianjin Hanchem, and Trust 

Chem. 

Thus, the petitioners timely withdrew 

their requests for an administrative 

review of Nantong Chemical, Tianjin 

Hanchem, and Trust Chem within the 

extended deadline. Because the 

petitioners were the only party to 

request administrative review of each of 

these companies, we are rescinding this 

administrative review with respect to 

Nantong Chemical, Tianjin Hanchem, 

and Trust Chem. Each of these three 

companies has a separate rate, and we 

will issue liquidation instructions for 

these companies’ entries 15 days after 

publication of this notice. 

Non–Market 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. See, e.g., 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 72 FR 51588, 

51590 (September 10, 2007), unchanged 

in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 73 FR 14216 

(March 17, 2008). Pursuant to section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. See, e.g., Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 From the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Rescission in Part, 71 FR 

65073, 65074 (November 7, 2006) 

unchanged in Carbazole Violet Pigment 

23 from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 26589 

(May 10, 2007). None of the parties to 

this proceeding have contested such 

treatment. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise in an NME 

country subject to review this single rate 

unless an exporter can demonstrate it is 

sufficiently independent so as to be 

entitled to a separate rate. To establish 

whether a company is sufficiently 

independent from government control 

of its export activities to be entitled to 

a separate company–specific rate, the 

Department analyzes each entity 

exporting the subject merchandise 

under a test arising from Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 at 

Comment 1 (May 6, 1991), as amplified 

by Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 

Carbide from the People’s Republic of 

China, 59 FR 22585, 22586–7 (May 2, 

1994). The Department assigns separate 

rates in NME cases only if respondents 

can affirmatively demonstrate the 

absence of both de jure and de facto 

government control over export 

activities. The Department has 

preliminarily determined that none of 

the 11 respondents remaining in this 

administrative review qualify for a 

separate rate. For more information, see 

‘‘The PRC–Wide Entity’’ section below. 

The PRC–Wide Entity 

Based on a timely request by 

petitioners, the Department originally 

initiated this administrative review with 

respect to 14 companies. As noted 

above, petitioners timely withdrew their 

request for review of three of these 

companies. Of the 11 companies 

remaining in this review, none of them 

responded to the Department’s separate 

rate application/certification, including 

the mandatory respondent in this 

review, Goldlink, which also did not 

respond to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire. See 

‘‘Background’’ section above. Thus, 

Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui Worldbest, 

Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan 

Sunlogistics, Hygeia–Chem, Pudong 

Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and 

Yangcheng Chemical have not 

demonstrated the lack of both de jure 

and de facto government control over 

export activities. Therefore, we have 

preliminarily determined that none of 

these 11 exporters have demonstrated 

their eligibility for separate–rate status. 

As a result, the Department is treating 

these 11 companies as part of the PRC–

wide entity. Because we have 

determined Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui 

Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, 

Hunan Sunlogistics, Hygeia–Chem, 

Pudong Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, 

Sinocol, and Yangcheng Chemical are 

part of the PRC–wide entity, the PRC–

wide entity is now under review. 

Application of Facts Available 

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

that the Department use the facts 

available if necessary information is not 

available on the record of an 

antidumping proceeding. In addition, 

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

that if an interested party or any other 

person: (A) withholds information that 

has been requested by the administering 

authority; (B) fails to provide such 

information by the deadlines for the 

submission of the information or in the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

52010 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 

form and manner requested, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding under this title; or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified as 

provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the 

Department shall, subject to section 

782(d) of the Act, use the facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination under this 

title. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department shall 

promptly inform the party submitting 

the response of the nature of the 

deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party with an 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. Section 782(d) of the Act 

additionally states that if the party 

submits further information that is 

unsatisfactory or untimely, the 

administering authority may, subject to 

subsection (e), disregard all or part of 

the original and subsequent responses. 

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all the applicable requirements 

established by the administering 

authority if: (1) the information is 

submitted by the deadline established 

for its submission; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability in 

providing the information and meeting 

the requirements established by the 

administering authority with respect to 

the information; and (5) the information 

can be used without undue difficulties. 

The Department finds that the PRC–

wide entity (including Aesthetic 

Colortech, Anhui Worldbest, Cidic, 

Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan 

Sunlogistics, Hygeia–Chem, Pudong 

Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and 

Yangcheng Chemical) did not respond 

to our requests for information and that 

necessary information is not available 

on the record. Therefore, we have 

preliminarily determined that the use of 

facts otherwise available is warranted 

for the PRC–wide entity under sections 

776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. 

As stated above in the ‘‘Background’’

section, on February 25, 2008, the 

Department selected Goldlink, the 

largest exporter of subject merchandise 

by volume, as a mandatory respondent. 

On February 26, 2008, the Department 

sent an antidumping questionnaire to 

Goldlink. On March 3, 2008, the 

Department also sent a separate rate 

application/certification to Goldlink. 

Goldlink did not respond to the 

questionnaire or the separate rate 

application/certification. On April 18, 

2008, the Department sent a letter to 

Goldlink stating that since it did not 

respond to the antidumping 

questionnaire, the Department may 

resort to the use of facts available with 

an adverse inference. The Department 

also informed Goldlink that because it 

did not submit its response by the 

Department’s deadline, Goldlink may 

not be eligible to receive a separate rate 

in this proceeding and thus would be 

considered part of the PRC entity and 

assigned the PRC–wide rate. In its April 

18, 2008, letter, the Department granted 

Goldlink until April 28, 2008, to 

provide an explanation as to why it did 

not submit a response to the 

questionnaire and stated it would 

determine at that time whether an 

extension was warranted for Goldlink to 

submit its questionnaire response. 

Goldlink did not respond to the 

Department’s April 18, 2008, letter. The 

Department has no information on the 

record for Goldlink with which to 

calculate a dumping margin or 

determine if it is eligible for a separate 

rate in this proceeding, and hence we 

preliminarily find that Goldlink has 

significantly impeded the proceeding by 

withholding information and failing to 

respond to the Department’s request for 

information within the specified 

deadlines. Therefore, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2)(A),(B), 

and (C) of the Act, the Department 

preliminarily determines that the 

application of facts available is 

appropriate. Because Goldlink did not 

respond to the Department’s requests for 

information, sections 782(d) and (e) of 

the Act are not applicable. 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use an adverse 

inference in applying the facts 

otherwise available when a party has 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Section 776(b) 

of the Act also authorizes the 

Department to use as AFA information 

derived from the petition, the final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 

we find the PRC–wide entity, which 

includes Goldlink and the other 

companies remaining under review that 

did not provide separate rate 

applications or certifications (Aesthetic 

Colortech, Anhui Worldbest, Cidic, 

Ganguink, Hunan Sunlogistics, Hygeia–

Chem, Pudong Prime, Shanghai 

Rainbow, Sinocol, and Yangcheng 

Chemical), failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability. As noted 

above, the PRC–wide entity did not 

provide the requested information. This 

information was in the sole possession 

of the respondents, and could not be 

obtained otherwise. Thus, because the 

PRC–wide entity refused to participate 

fully in this proceeding, we 

preliminarily determine that in selecting 

from among the facts otherwise 

available, an adverse inference is 

warranted for the PRC–wide entity 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. By 

using an inference that is adverse to the 

interests of the PRC–wide entity, we 

ensure the companies that are part of 

the PRC–wide entity will not obtain a 

more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than had they cooperated 

fully in this review. 

Selection of Adverse Facts Available 

Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.308(c) authorize the 

Department to rely on information 

derived from: (1) the petition; (2) a final 

determination in the investigation; (3) 

any previous review or determination; 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In reviews, the Department 

normally selects, as AFA, the highest 

rate on the record of any segment of the 

proceeding. See, e.g., Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504, 

19506 (April 21, 2003). The U.S. Court 

of International Trade (CIT) and the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

have consistently upheld the 

Department’s practice in this regard. See 

Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 

899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) 

(Rhone Poulenc); NSK Ltd. v. United 

States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 

2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total 

AFA rate, the highest available dumping 

margin from a different respondent in a 

less–than-fair–value investigation); see 

also Kompass Food Trading Int’l v. 

United States, 24 CIT 678, 683–84 

(2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent total 

AFA rate, the highest available dumping 

margin from a different, fully 

cooperative respondent); and Shanghai 

Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 

1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 

percent total AFA rate, the highest 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 52011 

available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in a previous 

administrative review). 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting an adverse rate from among 

the possible sources of information is to 

ensure that the margin is ‘‘sufficiently 

adverse so as to effectuate the statutory 

purposes of the adverse facts available 

rule to induce respondents to provide 

the Department with complete and 

accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 

63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 

The Department’s practice also ensures 

‘‘that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See 

Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, 

vol. 1 (1994) (SAA) at 870; see also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

Brazil, 69 FR 76910, 76912 (December 

23, 2004). In choosing the appropriate 

balance between providing respondents 

with an incentive to respond accurately 

and imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondent’s prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common 

sense inference that the highest prior 

margin is the most probative evidence of 

current margins, because, if it were not 

so, the importer, knowing of the rule, 

would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less.’’ See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 

1190. 

Consistent with the statute, court 

precedent, and its normal practice, the 

Department has preliminarily assigned 

the rate of 241.32 percent, the highest 

rate determined in any segment of this 

proceeding, to the PRC–wide entity, 

which includes Aesthetic Colortech, 

Anhui Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, 

Goldlink, Hunan Sunlogistics, Hygeia–

Chem, Pudong Prime, Shanghai 

Rainbow, Sinocol, and Yangcheng 

Chemical, as AFA. See Final Results of 

Redetermination Pursuant to United 

States Court of International Trade 

Remand Order, Goldlink Industries Co., 

Ltd. v. United States, 431 F. Supp. 2d 

1323 (CIT May 4, 2006), affirmed by the 

CIT on December 8, 2006 (CVP 23 from 

the PRC – Remand on Final 

Determination); see also Carbazole 

Violet Pigment 23 from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Amended 

Final Determination in Accordance with 

Court Decision, 72 FR 15101 (March 30, 

2007) (CVP 23 from the PRC – Amended 

Final Determination). As discussed 

further below, this rate has been 

corroborated. 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information Used as Adverse Facts 

Available 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, where the Department selects from 

among the facts otherwise available and 

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the 

Department shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that information 

from independent sources reasonably at 

the Department’s disposal. Secondary 

information is described in the SAA as 

‘‘{i}nformation derived from the 

petition that gave rise to the 

investigation or review, the final 

determination covering the subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise.’’ See SAA at 870. 

The SAA states that ‘‘corroborate’’

means to determine that the information 

used has probative value. Id. The 

Department has determined that to have 

probative value, information must be 

reliable and relevant. See Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, 

and Tapered Roller Bearings Four 

Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 

Components Thereof, from Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Partial Termination of Administrative 

Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 

6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 

and Unfinished, From Japan, and 

Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 

Less in Outside Diameter, and 

Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and 

Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). The SAA also states 

that independent sources used to 

corroborate such evidence may include, 

for example, published price lists, 

official import statistics and customs 

data, and information obtained from 

interested parties during the particular 

investigation or review. See SAA at 870; 

see also Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: High and Ultra–High 

Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators 

from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 

2003), unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: High and Ultra–High 

Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators 

from Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 

2003); and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 

FR 12181, 12183 (March 11, 2005). 

To be considered corroborated, 

information must be found to be both 

reliable and relevant. Unlike other types 

of information, such as input costs or 

selling expenses, there are no 

independent sources for calculated 

dumping margins. The only sources for 

calculated margins are administrative 

determinations. The AFA rate we are 

applying for the current review was 

calculated pursuant to a remand order 

from the CIT with respect to the original 

investigation of CVP 23 from the PRC. 

See CVP 23 from the PRC – Remand on 

Final Determination and CVP 23 from 

the PRC – Amended Final 

Determination. Furthermore, no 

information has been presented in the 

current review that calls into question 

the reliability of this information. Thus, 

the Department finds that the 

information is reliable. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. Where 

circumstances indicate the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from 

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 

6814 (February 22, 1996). Similarly, the 

Department does not apply a margin 

that has been discredited. See D & L 

Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F. 3d 

1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the 

Department will not use a margin that 

has been judicially invalidated.) The 

AFA rate we are applying for the instant 

review was calculated based on export 

price information from the petition, as 

well as on production data of a 

respondent in the investigation and the 

most appropriate surrogate value 

information available to the Department. 

Furthermore, the calculation of this 

margin was subject to comment from 

interested parties in the proceeding. See 

CVP 23 from the PRC – Remand on 

Final Determination and CVP 23 from 

the PRC – Amended Final 

Determination. Moreover, as there is no 

information on the record of this review 

that demonstrates this rate is not 

appropriately used as AFA, we 

determine this rate has relevance. 

As the AFA rate is both reliable and 

relevant, we find it has probative value. 

As a result, the Department 

preliminarily determines that the AFA 

margin (i.e., the PRC–wide rate from 

CVP 23 from the PRC – Remand on 

Final Determination and CVP 23 from 

the PRC – Amended Final 

Determination) is corroborated for the 

purposes of this administrative review 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

52012 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 

and may reasonably be applied to the 

PRC–wide entity, which includes 

Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui Worldbest, 

Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan 

Sunlogistics, Hygeia–Chem, Pudong 

Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and 

Yangcheng Chemical. Because these are 

the preliminary results of review, the 

Department will consider all margins on 

the record at the time of the final results 

of review for the purpose of determining 

the most appropriate final margin for 

Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui Worldbest, 

Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan 

Sunlogistics, Hygeia–Chem, Pudong 

Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and 

Yangcheng Chemical. See Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer 

Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the 

Russian Federation, 65 FR 1139 

(January 7, 2000), unchanged in Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value; Solid Fertilizer Grade 

Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian 

Federation, 65 FR 42669 (July 11, 2000). 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following antidumping duty margins 

exist for the period December 1, 2006, 

through November 30, 2007: 

Exporter/Manufacturer Margin 

(percent) 

PRC–Wide Rate (including Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui 

Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, 

Goldlink, Hunan Sunlogistics, 

Hygeia–Chem, Pudong Prime, 

Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, 

and Yangcheng Chemical) ..... 241.32 

Schedule for Final Results of Review 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, may 

be filed no later than five days after the 

time limit for filing the case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 

case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding 

are requested to submit with each 

argument (1) a statement of the issue 

and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. Parties are also encouraged to 

provide a summary of the arguments not 

to exceed five pages and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate if one is 

requested must submit a written request 

to the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration within 30 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should 

contain the following information: (1) 

the party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of the issues 

to be discussed. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the case and rebuttal briefs. Any 

hearing, if requested, will be held 37 

days after the date of publication, or the 

first business day thereafter, unless the 

Department alters the date pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, which will include the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, 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. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of review, 

the Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash–deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results for 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results, as 

provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for PRC 

exporters who received a separate rate 

in a prior segment of the proceeding 

(i.e., Nantong Chemical, Tianjin 

Hanchem, and Trust Chem) will 

continue to be the rate assigned in that 

segment of the proceeding; (2) for all 

other PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate 

(including Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui 

Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, 

Hunan Sunlogistics, Hygeia–Chem, 

Pudong Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, 

Sinocol, and Yangcheng Chemical), the 

cash–deposit rate will be the PRC–wide 

rate of 241.32 percent; (3) for all non–

PRC exporters of subject merchandise, 

the cash–deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC supplier of that 

exporter. 

These deposit requirements 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)(2) 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 notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–20750 Filed 9–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–533–838 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 

India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

an interested party, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

carbazole violet pigment 23 from India. 

The review covers two manufacturers/ 

exporters, Alpanil Industries and 

Pidilite Industries Limited. The period 

of review is December 1, 2006, through 

November 30, 2007. We have 

preliminarily determined that Alpanil 

Industries and Pidilite Industries 

Limited made sales below normal value. 

We invite interested parties to comment 

on these preliminary results. Parties 

who submit comments in this review 

are requested to submit with each 

argument a statement of each issue and 

a brief summary of the argument. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yang Jin Chun or Hermes Pinilla, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5760 or (202) 482–

3477, respectively. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES