Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices 13885

1Shanxi Grand Coalchem recently changed its

name to Shanxi Dajin International (Group) Co. Ltd.

However, in this notice, Shanxi Grand Coalchem

will be referred to as Shanxi Grand Coalchem.

2Minmetals recently changed its name to

Minmetals Townlord Technology Co., Ltd.

However, in this notice, Minmetals will be referred

to as Minmetals.

after the publication date of the final

results of this review, as provided for by

section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Tariff Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for reviewed

companies listed above will be the rates

for those firms established in the final

results of this review; (2) for companies

previously found to be entitled to a

separate rate and for which no review

was requested, the cash deposit rate will

be the rate established in the most

recent review of that company; (3) for

all other PRC exporters of subject

merchandise, the cash deposit rate will

be the PRC-wide rate of 160.80 percent;

and (4) for non-PRC exporters of subject

merchandise from the PRC not covered

by this review, or by the LTFV

investigation, or a previous review, the

cash deposit rate will be the rate

applicable to the PRC supplier of that

exporter. These deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

Notification of Interested Parties

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under section

351.402(f)(2) of the Department’s

regulations to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping

duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review

period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 771 (i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T.

Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: February 28, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–5773 Filed 3–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–862]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Foundry

Coke From the People’s Republic of

China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doreen Chen, Marlene Hewitt, and Alex

Villanueva of Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–0408, (202) 482–0165, and (202)

482–6412, respectively.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR part

351 (2000).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

foundry coke from the People’s

Republic of China (PRC) is being, or is

likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as

provided in section 733 of the Act. The

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are

shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

This investigation was initiated on

October 10, 2000. See Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigation:

Foundry Coke from the People’s

Republic of China, 65 FR 61303

(October 17, 2000). Since the initiation

of this investigation the following

events have occurred.

On November 7, 2000, the Department

issued section A of its antidumping

questionnaire to the Embassy of the

People’s Republic of China, as well as

courtesy copies to the following

possible producers/exporters of subject

merchandise named in the petition:

Shanxi Grand Coalchem Industrial

Company1 (‘‘Shanxi Grand Coalchem’’),

Sinochem International (‘‘Sinochem’’),

CITIC Trading Company Ltd. (‘‘CITIC’’)

and Minmetals Development Co. Ltd.2

(‘‘Minmetals’’).

On November 8, 2000, the Department

requested comments from interested

parties regarding the criteria to be used

for defining products. We received no

comments from interested parties on

defining products.

On November 28, 2000, the following

companies with shipments of subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’)

submitted information regarding the

quantity and value of their shipments:

Shanxi Grand Coalchem, Sinochem,

Minmetals, and CITIC.

We received complete Section A

responses from Shanxi Grand Coalchem,

Sinochem, Minmetals, CITIC and

Taiyuan Yingxian Coal Carbonization

Company (‘‘Taiyuan’’). Taiyuan

reported that it did not have any sales

of foundry coke to the United States;

therefore, in accordance with

Department practice, we decided not to

investigate Taiyuan for this proceeding.

On November 14, 2000, the United

States International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’) preliminarily determined that

‘‘there is a reasonable indication that an

industry in the United States is

threatened with material injury by

reason of imports from China of foundry

coke.’’ Foundry Coke from China,

(Investigation No. 731–TA–891

(Preliminary)), 65 FR 69573 (November

17, 2000).

On November 28, 2000, respondents

submitted their complete section A

responses. On December 19, 2000, the

Department issued section A

supplemental questionnaires to

Sinochem and Shanxi Grand Coalchem.

On December 29, 2000, the Department

issued section A supplemental

questionnaires to CITIC and Minmetals.

On January 8, 2001, respondents

submitted their responses to the

Department’s supplemental section A

questionnaire. On January 23, 2001,

Minmetals submitted its response to

section D from its supplier. On January

23, 2001, CITIC, Sinochem and Shanxi

Grand Coalchem provided section D

responses from only some of their

suppliers. Also on January 23, 2001, we

requested respondents to provide

section D information from all

companies that supplied them subject

merchandise for sales subject to this

investigation. On January 26, 2001, we

issued a second supplemental

questionnaire for section A and

supplemental section C and D

questionnaires to respondents. On

January 30, 2001, CITIC, Sinochem and

Shanxi Grand Coalchem responded that

they could not provide section D

responses from all of their suppliers

because these suppliers were shut down

by the Chinese government for

noncompliance with environmental

standards. In addition, these

respondents noted that these suppliers

are unrelated to these respondents and

13886 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices

only supplied relatively small quantities

to them. On February 8, 2001,

respondents submitted their responses

to supplemental sections C and D

questionnaires and a second

supplemental section A questionnaire.

On January 10, 2001, we requested

publicly-available information for

valuing the factors of production and

comments on surrogate country

selection. On January 23 and 30, 2001,

petitioners and respondents submitted

comments and rebuttal comments on

the surrogate country selection and on

surrogate values, respectively.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is

January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2000.

This period corresponds to the two most

recent fiscal quarters prior to the month

of the filing of the petition (September

20, 2000). 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

product covered is coke larger than 100

mm (4 inches) in maximum diameter

and at least 50 percent of which is

retained on a 100-mm (4 inch) sieve, of

a kind used in foundries.

The foundry coke products subject to

this investigation are currently

classifiable under subheading

2704.00.00.10 (as of Jan 1, 2000) and

2704.00.00.11 (as of July 1, 2000) of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the

United States (HTSUS). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

investigation is dispositive.

On November 13, 2000, USG Interiors,

Inc. (‘‘USG Interiors’’) and Rock Wool

Manufacturing Company (‘‘Rockwool’’)

submitted a written request for an

amendment to the scope of this

investigation to exclude foundry coke

used for industrial purposes. Rockwool

and USG Interiors argued that the scope

of the investigation is over inclusive as

the current scope definition includes

industrial coke, which is not the

intended subject merchandise for this

investigation. Rockwool and USG

Interiors explained that industrial coke

results from foundry coke degraded

during transit.

On November 17, 2000, petitioners

submitted a response in opposition to

USG Interiors and Rockwell’s scope

request, arguing that Rockwool and USG

Interiors have no standing to make a

scope exclusion request since they are

not importers and that Rockwool and

USG Interiors have failed to

demonstrate that the material used by

Rockwool and USG Interiors is imported

as foundry coke. Petitioners argue that

Rockwool and USG Interiors have not

provided any information on the

classification at entry of the

merchandise. According to petitioners,

Rockwool and USG Interiors have not

established the legal and factual

foundation for their claims, i.e., that the

degradation occurs after entry of the

merchandise and prior to delivery.

We agree with petitioners that

Rockwool and USG Interiors have failed

to provide any evidence substantiating

their claim that Rockwool and USG

Interiors use imported foundry coke that

becomes degraded after entry of the

merchandise and prior to delivery.

Morever, in making their request for a

scope exclusion, Rockwool and USG

Interiors have failed to articulate a

product description which distinguishes

industrial coke from foundry coke other

than by end-use. Since the Department

determines the scope of its

investigations by product description

and not intended or actual use, we

preliminary determine to deny this

exclusion.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

The Department has treated the PRC

as a non-market economy (NME)

country in all past antidumping

investigations (see, e.g., Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 33805

(May 25, 2000), and Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Non-Frozen Apple

Juice Concentrate from the People’s

Republic of China, 65 FR 19873 (April

13, 2000). A designation as a NME

remains in effect until it is revoked by

the Department (see section 771(18)(C)

of the Act). The respondents in this

investigation have not requested a

revocation of the PRC’s NME status. We

have, therefore, preliminarily

determined to continue to treat the PRC

as a NME country. When the

Department is investigating imports

from a NME, section 773(c)(1) of the Act

directs us to base the normal value (NV)

on the NME producer’s factors of

production, valued in a comparable

market economy that is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise.

The sources of individual factor prices

are discussed under the Normal Value

section, below.

Furthermore, no interested party has

requested that the foundry coke

industry in the PRC be treated as a

market-oriented industry and no

information has been provided that

would lead to such a determination.

Therefore, we have not treated the

foundry coke industry in the PRC as a

market-oriented industry in this

investigation.

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 assessed a single antidumping

duty deposit rate. It is the Department’s

policy to assign all exporters of

merchandise subject to investigation in

a NME country this single rate, unless

an exporter can demonstrate that it is

sufficiently independent so as to be

entitled to a separate rate. In this case,

each respondent has requested a

separate company-specific rate.

CITIC stated that it is wholly-owned

by China International Trust and

Investment Corporation and that it has

no relationship to the provincial or local

governments, other than having to obey

generally applicable laws regarding

taxation, labor, environmental

protection and other matters. CITIC

claimed that it makes independent

business decisions without state

involvement and that there is no state

involvement in any manner in setting

prices or quantities regarding the sale of

the subject merchandise.

Minmetals stated that it is majorityowned by a company which is in turn

owned by the government. Minmetals

claimed that it has no relationship with

the national, provincial or local

governments, other than having to obey

generally applicable laws regarding

taxation, labor, environmental

protection and other matters.

Shanxi Grand Coalchem stated that its

majority shareholder is the Bureau of

Foreign Trade and Economic

Cooperation Shanxi (BOFTEC), which is

described as a provincial governmental

agency. Shanxi Grand Coalchem

claimed that it operates independently

from the national and local governments

with respect to all significant export

activities. Sinochem stated that it is

majority owned by China National

Chemicals Import & Export Corporation,

which in turn is owned by the state.

Sinochem claimed that it operates

independently from the national,

provincial and local governments with

respect to all significant export

activities.

Based on these claims, we considered

whether each respondent is eligible for

a separate rate. The Department’s

separate rate test to determine whether

the exporters are independent from

government control is not concerned, in

general, with macroeconomic/bordertype controls, e.g., export licenses,

quotas, and minimum export prices,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices 13887

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, e.g., Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754,

61757 (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,

61279 (November 17, 1997); and Honey

from the People’s Republic of China:

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value, 60 FR 14725,

14726 (March 20, 1995).

To establish whether a firm is

sufficiently independent from

government control of its export

activities 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) and amplified in

the Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR

22585 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon

Carbide’’). Under the separate rates

criteria, the Department assigns separate

rates in NME cases only if respondents

can demonstrate the absence of both de

jure and de facto governmental control

over export activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

The Department considers the

following de jure criteria in determining

whether an individual company may be

granted a separate rate: (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.

The respondents have placed on the

record a number of documents to

demonstrate absence of de jure control,

including the ‘‘Foreign Trade Law of the

People’s Republic of China’’ and the

‘‘Company Law of the People’s Republic

of China.’’ In prior cases, the

Department has analyzed these laws and

found that they establish an absence of

de jure control. See, e.g., Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension

Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from

the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR

54472, 54474 (October 24, 1995); see

also Furfuryl Alcohol. We have no

information in this proceeding which

would cause us to reconsider this

determination.

As stated in previous cases, there is

some evidence that the provisions of the

above-cited 1988 Law and 1992

Regulations regarding enterprise

autonomy have not been implemented

uniformly among different sectors and/

or jurisdictions in the PRC, (see ‘‘PRC

Government Findings on Enterprise

Autonomy,’’ in Foreign Broadcast

Information Service-China-93–133 (July

14,1993)). 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 governmental control

which would preclude the Department

from assigning separate rates.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

The Department typically considers

four factors in evaluating whether each

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export

functions: (1) Whether the export prices

are set by or are subject to the approval

of a governmental agency; (2) whether

the respondent has authority to

negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements; (3) whether the respondent

has autonomy from the government in

making decisions regarding the

selection of management; and (4)

whether the respondent retains the

proceeds of its export sales and makes

independent decisions regarding

disposition of profits or financing of

losses. 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 Silicon

Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol.

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 governmental control

which would preclude the Department

from assigning separate rates.

The respondents asserted the

following: (1) They establish their own

export prices; (2) they negotiate

contracts without guidance from any

governmental entities or organizations;

(3) they make their own personnel

decisions; and (4) they retain the

proceeds of their export sales, using

profits according to their business

needs. Additionally, none of the

respondents’ questionnaire responses

suggest pricing is coordinated among

exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of

the respondents’ questionnaire

responses reveals no other information

indicating government control. As

stated in the Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at

22587 and in Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR at

22544, ownership of the company by a

state-owned enterprise does not require

the application of a single rate. Based on

the information provided, we

preliminary determine that there is an

absence of de facto governmental

control of the respondents’ export

functions. Consequently, we

preliminarily determine that CITIC,

Minmetals, Shanxi Grand Coalchem,

and Sinochem have met the criteria for

the application of a separate rate.

Facts Available

Section 776(a) 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 or manner requested, significantly

impedes a proceeding under the

antidumping statute, or provides

information which cannot be verified,

the Department shall use, subject to

sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination. Pursuant to

section 782(e) of the Act, the

Department shall not decline to

consider submitted information if that

information is necessary to the

determination but does not meet all of

the requirements established by the

Department provided that all of the

following requirements are met: (1) The

information is submitted by the

established deadline; (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; and (5)

the information can be used without

undue difficulties. Companies that

failed to respond to our questionnaires

or reported no shipments were assigned

the PRC-wide rate.

The PRC-wide antidumping rate is

based on the facts available. Section

776(a)(2)(B) of the Act requires the

Department to use facts available when

a party does not provide the Department

with information by the established

deadline or in the form and manner

requested by the Department.

In addition, section 776(b) of the Act

provides that, if the Department finds

that an interested party ‘‘has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with a request for

information,’’ the Department may use

information that is adverse to the

interests of that party as facts otherwise

available.

As discussed above, all PRC

producers/exporters that do not qualify

13888 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices

for a separate rate are treated as a single

enterprise. Because some exporters of

the single enterprise failed to respond to

the Department’s requests for

information, that single enterprise is

considered to be uncooperative. In such

situations, the Department generally

selects as total adverse facts available

the higher of the highest margin from

the petition or the highest rate

calculated for a respondent in the

proceeding. See Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Stainless

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from

Germany, 64 FR 30710, 30714 (June 8,

1999). In the present case, the highest

calculated margin is the rate calculated

from the petition.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides

that, when the Department relies on

secondary information (such as the

petition rates) as facts available, it must,

to the extent practicable, corroborate

that information from independent

sources that are reasonably at its

disposal. The SAA clarifies that

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the

Department will satisfy itself that the

secondary information to be used has

probative value (see SAA at 870). The

SAA also states that independent

sources used to corroborate may

include, for example, published price

lists, official import statistics and

customs data, and information obtained

from interested parties during the

particular investigation. See id.

We reviewed the adequacy and

accuracy of the information in the

petition during our pre-initiation

analysis of the petition, to the extent

appropriate information was available

for this purpose. In accordance with

section 776(c) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we examined the key

elements of the U.S. price and normal

value (‘‘NV’’) calculations on which the

petition margin was based and

compared the sources used in the

petition to publicly available

information, where available, and

respondent data as appropriate.

The petitioners based export price

(‘‘EP’’) on import values declared to the

U.S. Customs Service. For the normal

value calculation, petitioners based the

factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) as defined

by section 773(c)(3) of the Act (raw

materials, labor, energy, and

representative capital costs) on the

quantities of inputs used by petitioners.

Petitioners asserted that detailed

information is not available regarding

the quantities of inputs used by the coke

producers in China. Thus, petitioners

assumed, for purposes of the petition,

that the producers in China use the

same inputs in the same quantities as a

petitioners’ most similar plants.

Petitioners selected India as the

appropriate primary surrogate country

for purposes of valuing the factors.

Petitioners valued factors of production,

where possible, on reasonably available,

public surrogate country data.

Our review of the EP and NV

calculations indicated that the

information in the petition has

probative value as certain information

included in the margin calculation in

the petition is from public sources,

concurrent, for the most part, with the

POI. With regard to the EP calculation

in the petition, the information relied

upon was based on publicly available

sources, that is, official U.S. government

statistics; therefore, we find that the

U.S. price from the petition margin is

sufficiently corroborated.

With regard to NV, petitioners relied

on both publicly available data and

information obtained from a U.S. coke

producer. The values for the factors of

production were based on publicly

available information for comparable

inputs; therefore, we find that the

factors of production values are

sufficiently corroborated. We also find

that with the exception of electricity,

the usage rates based on a U.S. coke

producer were sufficiently corroborated

by information submitted by

respondents in the course of this

proceeding, as they fell within the range

of the usage rates based data from the

respondents. For factory overhead,

SG&A expenses, and profit, we used the

1999–2000 financial statement from

Gujarat NRE Coke, Ltd., an Indian

producer of the subject merchandise.

These are the same financial ratios we

used for cooperating respondents.

We could not corroborate the energy

usage rates used in the petition because

we determined that the energy rates

used in the petition reflected an energy

process from the U.S. foundry coke

production process, which differs from

the energy process used in foundry coke

production in the PRC. We recalculated

the petition margin using an electricity

usage rate based on information

reported by respondents. We valued this

electricity using the same data as for

cooperating respondents. For further

information, see Preliminary

Determination in the Investigation of

Foundry Coke from the People’s

Republic of China—Facts Available

Corroboration Memorandum from Alex

Villanueva to James C. Doyle, dated

February 27, 2001.

Accordingly, for the preliminary

determination, the PRC-wide rate is

214.89 percent. For the final

determination, the Department will

consider all margins on the record at

that time for the purpose of determining

the most appropriate margin.

Minmetals fully responded to all of

our requests for information within the

established deadlines. Therefore, for

Minmetals, we did not resort to facts

available in calculating a margin for

Minmetals.

On the other hand, CITIC, Sinochem,

and Shanxi Grand Coalchem did not

fully respond to our Section D

questionnaire within the established

deadlines. Specifically, the

aforementioned respondents did not

comply with our request in the original

questionnaire to provide Section D

questionnaire responses from all of their

suppliers of foundry coke.

CITIC, Sinochem, and Shanxi Grand

Coalchem initially claimed that they

could not obtain responses from all of

their suppliers because certain suppliers

were shut down for environmental

reasons. Respondents further clarified

that those suppliers for which they were

unable to submit section D information

are unrelated to respondents and

represent only a small percentage of the

sales quantity supplied to respondent

exporters. Subsequently, in a

supplemental questionnaire dated

January 26, 2001, we asked CITIC,

Sinochem, and Shanxi Grand Coalchem

to provide evidence substantiating their

claim that certain of their suppliers

were shut down. We also requested that

they provide a copy of the notification

to the government of the company

closure and to indicate when the

company shutdown and to describe the

nature of the shutdown. In response to

these requests, CITIC, Sinochem and

Shanxi Grand Coalchem submitted a

copy of a government decree ordering

the closure of environmentally

hazardous foundry coke plants. (See

February 8, 2001 Supplemental

Questionnaire response.) In addition,

CITIC and Shanxi Grand Coalchem

provided letters from some of the nonresponsive suppliers which indicated

that these suppliers expressed that they

would not participate in this

investigation.

We preliminarily find that CITIC,

Sinochem, and Shanxi Grand Coalchem

did not act to the best of their ability in

obtaining Section D responses from

their suppliers. As for the suppliers

which expressed a lack of interest in

participating in this investigation,

CITIC, Sinochem and Shanxi Grand

Coalchem did not act to the best of their

ability in urging these suppliers to

comply with our requests for

information. Furthermore, these

suppliers are interested parties that, by

withholding requested information,

have failed to cooperate by not acting to

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices 13889

the best of their abilities. As for the

other non-responsive suppliers claimed

to have been shutdown, we determined

the information submitted did not

sufficiently demonstrate their suppliers

were in fact shut down by the

government since the government

document did not provide names of the

foundry coke producers subject to the

governmental decree or any other

information that would suggest that any

specific company had been shut down.

For the above reasons, we find that

CITIC, Sinochem and Shanxi Grand

Coalchem did not act to the best of their

ability in obtaining section D responses

from all of their suppliers; therefore, we

find that the application of adverse facts

available is warranted. As adverse facts

available, we applied the highest

calculated normal value for each

respondent to the total volume of that

respondent’s merchandise produced by

each non-responsive supplier. We then

weight-averaged these resulting normal

values with the calculated normal

values to derive each appropriate

respondent’s preliminary margin.

One supplier of both Shanxi Grand

Coalchem and Sinochem failed to

provide freight information for the raw

material input coking coal. Specifically,

this supplier failed to list the number

and names of the coking coal suppliers,

distances from the supplier, and

quantities purchased. This information

was requested twice by the Department.

(See Antidumping Questionnaire dated

November 7, 2000 and Supplemental

Questionnaire dated January 26, 2001.)

Therefore, since this information was

requested twice by the Department and

not supplied, we have determined that

Shanxi Grand Coalchem and Sinochem

did not act to the best of their ability in

obtaining freight information for coking

coal, and, thus, adverse facts available is

warranted. As adverse facts available,

we used the highest calculated freight

value for coking coal among the

suppliers for each respondent.

Sinochem failed to report a portion of

its sales of foundry coke that are subject

to this investigation. In our

supplemental questionnaires dated

December 20, 2000 and January 26,

2001, we requested Sinochem to report

this sale; however, Sinochem did not

report this sale, claiming that the

amount of subject merchandise in this

sale is minimal. As Sinochem has failed

to provide any information regarding a

sale of subject merchandise to the

United States and since this information

was requested twice by the Department,

as adverse facts available, we applied

the rate from the petition, as applied for

the PRC-wide rate, to the total volume

of the sale potentially representing

subject merchandise. We then weightaveraged this margin with the calculated

margin to derive Sinochem’s

preliminary margin.

Surrogate Country

When investigating imports from an

NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the

Act directs the Department, in most

circumstances, to base normal value

(‘‘NV’’) 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, the Department, in

valuing the factors of production, shall

utilize, to the extent possible, the prices

or costs of factors of production in one

or more market economy countries that

are at a level of economic development

comparable to the NME country and are

significant producers of comparable

merchandise. The sources of the

surrogate factor values are discussed

under the NV section below.

The Department has determined that

India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Egypt,

Indonesia, and the Phillippines are

countries comparable to the PRC in

terms of economic development. See

Memorandum from Jeff May to Edward

Yang: Antidumping Duty Investigation

on Foundry Coke Products from the

People’s Republic of China, dated

January 9, 2001. Customarily, we select

an appropriate surrogate based on the

availability and reliability of data from

these countries. For PRC cases, the

primary surrogate 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.

We used India as the primary

surrogate country and, accordingly, we

have calculated NV using Indian prices

to value the PRC producers’ factors of

production, when available and

appropriate. See Surrogate Country

Selection Memorandum to The File

from James Doyle, Program Manager,

dated February 27, 2001, (‘‘Surrogate

Country Memorandum’’). We have

obtained and relied upon publicly

available information wherever

possible. See Factor Valuation

Memorandum to The File from Alex

Villanueva and Doreen Chen, dated

February 27, 2001 (‘‘Factor Valuation

Memorandum’’).

In accordance with section

351.301(c)(3)(i) of the Department’s

regulations, for the final determination

in an antidumping investigation,

interested parties may submit publicly

available information to value factors of

production within 40 days after the date

of publication of this preliminary

determination.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

foundry coke to the United States by

CITIC, Minmetals, Sinochem, and

Shanxi Grand CoalChem were made at

less than fair value, we compared EP to

NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this

notice. In accordance with section

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

calculated weighted-average EPs.

Export Price

In accordance with section 772(a) of

the Act, we used EP because the subject

merchandise was sold directly to

unaffiliated customers in the United

States prior to importation and because

constructed export price was not

otherwise indicated. In accordance with

section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

compared POI-wide weighted-average

EPs to the NVs. See Valuation

Memorandum. We calculated EP based

on prices to unaffiliated purchasers in

the United States. We made deductions,

where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight and brokerage, billing

adjustments and handling.

Normal Value

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

that the Department shall determine the

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

calculation of NV using home-market

prices, third-country prices, or

constructed value under section 773(a)

of the Act.

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

calculated NV based on factors of

production reported by each

respondent. For a further discussion, see

the Analysis Memo. We valued all the

input factors using publicly available

published information as discussed in

the ‘‘Surrogate Country’’ and ‘‘Factor

Valuations’’ sections of this notice.

Factor Valuations

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated NV based on

factors of production reported by

respondents for the POI. To calculate

NV, the reported per-unit factor

quantities were multiplied by publicly

available Indian surrogate values. In

selecting the surrogate values, we

considered the quality, specificity, and

contemporaneity of the data. As

13890 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by

including freight costs to make them

delivered prices. We added to Indian

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. This

adjustment is in accordance with the

Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v.

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir.

8342 1997). For those values not

contemporaneous with the POI, we

adjusted for inflation using wholesale

price indices published in the

International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics.

We valued the factors of production

as follows: to value paper, coking coal,

supplementary coke and wood, we used

the weighted-average unit import values

derived from the Monthly Trade

Statistics of Foreign Trade of India—

Volume II—Imports (‘‘Indian Import

Statistics’’) for the period of April 1998

through March 1999, adjusted for

inflation through the POI. We rejected

the surrogate value for coking coal

provided by respondents since the

coking coal value provided was for a

significantly lower quality of coking

coal than that which is actually used by

foundry coke producers.

To value electricity, we used data

reported as the average Indian domestic

prices within the category ‘‘Electricity

for Industry,’’ published in the

International Energy Agency’s

publication, Energy Prices and Taxes,

Fourth Quarter, 1999.

We used Indian transport information

to value transport for raw materials. For

domestic inland freight (truck), we used

a price quote from an Indian trucking

company, adjusted for inflation through

the POI. For domestic inland freight

(rail), we used freight rates as quoted

from Indian Railway Conference

Association price lists, adjusted for

inflation through the POI.

To value factory overhead, selling,

general and administrative expenses

(‘‘SG&A’’), and profit, we calculated

simple average rates based on financial

information from an Indian foundry

coke producer. (For a further discussion

of the surrogate values for overhead,

SG&A and profit, see the Factor

Valuation Memorandum.) For labor,

consistent with section 351.408(c)(3) of

the Department’s regulations, we used

the PRC regression-based wage rate at

Import Administration’s home page,

Import Library, Expected Wages of

Selected NME Countries, revised in May

2000 (see http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/wages).

The source of the wage rate data on the

Import Administration’s Web site can be

found in the 1999 Year Book of Labour

Statistics, International Labor Office

(Geneva: 1999), Chapter 5B: Wages in

Manufacturing.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the

Act, we intend to verify all company

information relied upon in making our

final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the U.S.

Customs Service to suspend liquidation

of all imports of subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to require a cash

deposit or the posting of a bond equal

to the weighted-average amount by

which the NV exceeds the EP, as

indicated below. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The

weighted-average dumping margins are

as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

Shanxi Grand Coalchem Industrial Co., Ltd.3 ........................ 147.21

Sinochem International Co., Ltd 211.42

Minmetals Development Co.,

Ltd.4 ....................................... 140.18

CITIC Trading Company, Ltd ... 136.52

PRC-Wide ................................. 214.89

3Otherwise known as Shanxi Dajin International (Group) Co. Ltd. 4Otherwise known as Minmetals Townlord

Technology Co., Ltd.

International Trade Commission

Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination of sales at LTFV. If our

final determination is affirmative, the

ITC will determine before the later of

120 days after the date of this

preliminary determination or 45 days

after our final determination whether

the domestic industry in the United

States is materially injured, or

threatened with material injury, by

reason of imports, or sales (or the

likelihood of sales) for importation, of

the subject merchandise.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

may be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration no

later than fifty days after the date of

publication of this notice, and rebuttal

briefs, limited to issues raised in case

briefs, no later than fifty-five days after

the date of publication of this

preliminary determination. See 19 CFR

351.309(c)(1)(i); 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A

list of authorities used and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

This summary should be limited to five

pages total, including footnotes. In

accordance with section 774 of the Act,

we will hold a public hearing, if

requested, to afford interested parties an

opportunity to comment on arguments

raised in case or rebuttal briefs.

Tentatively, any hearing will be held

fifty-seven days after publication of this

notice at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at

a time and location to be determined.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

date, time, and location of the hearing

two days before the scheduled date.

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, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the date of publication of this

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests

should contain: (1) The party’s name,

address, and telephone number; (2) the

number of participants; and (3) a list of

the issues to be discussed. At the

hearing, each party may make an

affirmative presentation only on issues

raised in that party’s case brief, and may

make rebuttal presentations only on

arguments included in that party’s

rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

If this investigation proceeds

normally, we will make our final

determination no later than 75 days

after the date of the preliminary

determination.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Effective

January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is

fulfilling the duties of the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration.

Dated: February 27, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–5627 Filed 3–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P