Potassium Permanganate From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-570-001]

Potassium Permanganate From the People's Republic of China; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration/International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative

review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On December 30, 1993, the Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping

duty order on potassium permanganate from the People's Republic of

China. The review covers 15 Chinese producers/exporters and 32 third-

country resellers for the period January 1, 1990, through December 31,

1990. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we determine the

country-wide dumping margin for the People's Republic of China to be

128.94 percent. Since none of the third-country resellers have

demonstrated entitlement to a separate rate for sales made during this

period or review, they will receive the same rate as their suppliers in

the People's Republic of China.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 23, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Stolz or Thomas Futtner, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 20230;

telephone (202) 482-4474 or 482-3814 respectively.

Background

On December 30, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the preliminary results (58 FR 69330) of its administrative

review of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the

People's Republic of China (PRC) (49 FR 3898, January 31, 1984). The

Department has now completed this administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff

Act).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are shipments of potassium

permanganate, an inorganic chemical produced in free-flowing,

technical, and pharmaceutical grades. During the review period,

potassium permanganate was classifiable under item 2841.60.0010 of the

harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) The HTS item number is provided for

convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains

dispositive. The review covers 15 producers/ exporters and 32 third-

country resellers for the period January 1, 1990, through December 31,

1990.

Analysis of Comments Received

We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary

results. At the request of the following respondents, Zunyi Chemical

Factory (Zunyi), Yue Pak Co. Ltd. (Yue Pak), He-Ro Chemicals, Ltd. (He-

Ro), ICD (HK) Ltd, (ICD (HK)) and an interested party, Novachem, Inc.

(Novahem), we held a public hearing on February 10, 1994. We received

timely comments from the above-named respondents, the above-named

interested party, and the petitioner, Carus Chemical Company.

Comment 1

Methodology: Zunyi and Novachem assert that, in this review, the

Department should have provided them with an opportunity to respond to

a separate rates questionnaire specifically based on the test announced

in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from

the People's Republic of China (Sparklers) on May 6, 1991 rather than

that based on the separate rates criteria set forth in Iron

Construction Casting from the People's Republic of China; Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (Castings) on January 24,

1991. Zunyi and Novachem assert that in Castings, the Department stated

``Our determination that the PRC is a state-controlled economy in which

all entities are presumed to export under the control of the state

leads us to question the application of multiple rates, absent a clear

showing of legal, financial and economic independence. Thus, we

conclude that a single country-wide rate is application for this

case.'' Zunyi and Novachem contrast that with Sparklers, where the

Department adopted the following position: ``We have determined that

exporters in non-market economy countries are entitled to separate,

company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of

control by the central government, both in law and in fact, with

respect to exports. Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a

finding of de jure absence of central control includes: (1) An absence

of restrictive stipulation associated with an individual exporter's

business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments

decentralizing control of companies; or (3) any other formal measures

by the government decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence

of central government control with respect to exports is based on two

prerequisites: (1) Whether each exporter sets its own export prices

independently of the government and other exporters; and (2) whether

each exporter can keep the proceeds from its sales.''

Zunyi and Novachem assert that the application in this case of the

test utilized in Castings is inappropriate for the following reasons.

First, since questionnaires were not issued until three months after

the Sparklers decision was rendered, Zunyi and Novachem maintain that

reliance on an approach in place at time of initiation is

inappropriate. Second, Zunyi and Novachem state that the Court of

International Trade (CIT) has directed the Department to apply the

Sparklers methodology in a remand of Castings, the very case on which

the Department based its approach in this review. Third, Zunyi and

Novachem claim that in reviews being conducted during the same time

period as this one, the Department has utilized the methodology set

forth in Sparklers. As an example, Zunyi and Novachem point to the

1988-1989 review of Shop Towels from the People's Republic of China,

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 60,969

(Nov. 29, 1991), where the Department requested information after the

preliminary determination to determine whether the respondent qualified

for a separate rate under the Sparklers criteria. Zunyi and Novachem

argue that not to issue a new separate rates questionnaire in this

review would be arbitrary and capricious. Finally, Zunyi and Novachem

assert that it is within the capacity of the Department to change

methodologies within reviews and that, in light of the above claims,

the Department should now issue a questionnaire based on the Sparklers

test to determine whether PRC respondents qualify for a separate rate.

Petitioner points out that the separate rates test set forth in

Sparklers does not, in fact, constitute a new methodology, but is

merely a continuation and elaboration of that set forth in Castings.

Furthermore, petitioner asserts that respondents were on notice

regarding what they were required to show to obtain a separate rate

under Castings, since that decision was cited in the petitioner's

request for review and because the Department requested from them the

information needed to make a separate rate decision. Petitioner also

notes that the remand of the Department's determination in Castings was

based on the fact that because the Castings test was not enunciated

until the final results of that review, respondents had not been given

an opportunity to attempt to demonstrate their entitlement to a

separate rate, even under the Castings criteria (``a clear showing of

legal, financial and economic independence''). Finally, petitioner

states that the Department has broad discretion in choosing

methodologies, and that the choice of methodology may vary on a case-

by-case basis.

DOC Position: The Department agrees with the petitioner. The

Castings test and the methodology utilized in Sparklers and most

recently in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China (Silicon Carbide)

59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) require that producers and exporters in the

PRC receive a single rate unless it is clearly demonstrated that a

particular entity is not subject to governmental control and therefore

merits its own rate. The test employed in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide

built upon that used in Castings by outlining specific criteria that we

would consider in determining whether an entity had shown such

autonomy. In this case, Zunyi did not demonstrate adequately that it

was free of governmental control under any of these tests.

Indeed, information on the record indicates that Zunyi was

controlled by municipal authorities. For example, during this period of

review, Zunyi was subject to guidance from municipal authorities

regarding output in terms of value and production, and was not allowed

to enter into contracts with foreign entities or to export directly.

(See DOC Position to Comment 2.)

Furthermore, the Department's use of a questionnaire based on the

Castings test has not prejudiced respondents' position. The respondents

were on notice with respect to their burden of showing their

independence from governmental control if they desired to be given a

separate rate. The supplemental questionnaire sent to Zunyi and other

PRC entities states: ``[I]f you feel that your client is entitled to a

separate rate, submit for the record all documentation that supports

your client's claim of legal, financial, and economic independence.''

Furthermore, respondents were specifically requested to provide

information regarding their corporate organization, relationships with

other businesses, state-ownership, decision making processes, and

corporate accounting information. In addition, Part Two of Appendix V

of the questionnaire, the section directed specifically to

manufacturers, requested information on production for export,

relationships with exporters and how pricing decisions were made with

them, pricing and production methods in general, government policy

directives affecting pricing and production quantity decisions, and

relevant regulatory systems. Thus, respondents have already been

afforded an opportunity to provide whatever information they feel may

support their request for separate rates.

The fact that the Department's decision in Castings was remanded

does not invalidate the fundamental approach outlined therein. In that

case, the CIT found that the Department had not made clear until its

final determination that the respondents had to demonstrate that they

were not subject to governmental control to receive a separate rate.

The CIT's decision merely requires that respondents be put on notice

that they have the burden of demonstrating their independence if they

wish to receive a separate rate. Respondents in this review were made

aware of that burden, but were unable to establish that they were in

fact entitled to any separate rate.

Finally, the Department's decision to issue a Sparklers

questionnaire to a respondent in the Shop Towels case does not require

that it do so in this case. In Shop Towels, the Department had found

the sole responding PRC firm, an import/export firm, to be independent

of governmental control in a previous review and sought only to

ascertain whether that determination remained valid. The record in this

review establishes that Zunyi did not meet the Sparklers standard for

independence. Moreover, as already noted, respondents in the present

case were provided several opportunities to submit evidence

demonstrating lack of governmental control. Under these circumstances,

we have determined that issuing a Sparklers questionnaire in this

review was not necessary.

Comment 2

Separate Rates for PRC Producers: Zuny and Novachem state that the

preliminary results do not fairly represent the information already

submitted by Zunyi on the lack of state control and that Zunyi merits a

separate rate. They assert that state ownership and state control are

two different things. Additionally, Zunyi notes that its response

included the following information which supported its claim that it

functions autonomously. First, Zunyi is totally separate from the

import-export corporations with which it deals; second, the import-

export corporations sign a purchase contract with Zunyi according to a

price agreed upon in a calculation made in U.S. dollars; third, Zunyi's

selling prices are decided by the factory according to cost and market;

fourth Zunyi implemented a contract system in 1987; and fifth, Zunyi is

autonomous in terms of management and accounting, and assumes sole

responsibility in paying taxes and for profits and losses. Based on

these assertions, Zunyi and Novachem claim that they have submitted

enough information to merit a separate rate for Zunyi, alleging that

the Department did not ask for further information.

Petitioner argues that the evidence on the record indicates that

Zunyi is not qualified to receive a separate rate, and that the

Department should make an adverse assumption on this issue due to

Zunyi's failure to provide certain required evidence to support its

claim of independence.

DOC Position: We agree with petitioner. Based on the totality of

information on the record, we have determined that Zunyi is subject to

government control. First Zunyi is under the control of the Economic

Commission of Zunyi City (the Commission), and the Commission gave

``guiding instructions'' as to the ``planning of production in terms of

value and quantity.'' Second, as a ``Zhongguo Faren'', Zunyi was not

allowed by Chinese law to engage in contractual relations with foreign

entities, nor was it allowed to export directly. Instead, it was

required to export through PRC import/export companies. This point was

specifically mentioned in the Sparklers test as a factor weighing

against a finding of independence. Furthermore, Zunyi did not provide

copies of its financial statements despite our two requests for these,

nor did it provide the detailed information we requested regarding its

ownership. Without this critical evidence, the Department is unable to

affirm that Zunyi is entitled to separate rate status, despite the

assertions Zunyi makes in its case brief.

With respect to Zunyi and Novachem's claim that the Department

should have asked for any information that was lacking, the Department

requested on more than one occasion critical information (e.g., Zunyi's

financial statements and specific information regarding ownership), and

that information was not provided by Zunyi. In addition, as noted

above, the information on the record is sufficient for the Department

to determine that Zunyi did not possess the requisite independence to

merit a separate rate.

Comment 3

Market Oriented Industry: Zunyi and Novachem assert that Zunyi

operated under market conditions during the period of review and that

the Department should utilize local factor prices to determine foreign

market value as outlined in the methodology announced in Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts

from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 175 (September 10, 1991). At

the minimum, they argue, the Department should base fair market value

on a surrogate economy other than Thailand.

DOC Position: Since the margin for this period is based on best

information available, any questions as to which methodology would have

been used have we been able to calculate a margin are moot.

Furthermore, the failure of the PRC Embassy in the United States to

respond to our inquiry regarding industry and market conditions in the

PRC would, in any case, preclude us from determining that market

conditions existed in the PRC for this industry.

Comment 4

Separate Rates Under the Reseller Provision: Zunyi and Novachem

urge the Department to reconsider the decision in its preliminary

results of review that the Hong Kong resellers do not qualify for

separate rates under the intermediate country reseller provisions.

Section 353.47 of the Department's regulations (19 CFR 353.47) calls

for a separate rate to be calculated for an intermediate country

reseller if all of the following criteria are met:

(1) A reseller in an intermediate country purchases the merchandise

from the producer,

(2) The producer does not know (at the time of the sale) the

country to which the reseller intends to export the merchandise,

(3) The merchandise enters the commerce of the intermediate country

but is not substantially transformed in that country, and

(4) The merchandise is subsequently exported to the United States.

Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD(HK) argue that Hong Kong should be treated

as the country from which the subject merchandise was exported and they

should be given separate rates under this provision, which allows for

qualifying intermediate country resellers to be assigned a margin based

on a comparison between their above cost-of-production sales to the

United States and a fair market value based on the reseller's sales in

its home country or a third country, rather than the margin(s) of its

supplier(s). With respect to the ``enters commerce'' prong, Yue Pak,

He-Ro and ICD (HK) claim that since they filed import/export

declarations and paid fees applicable only to imports and exports, the

merchandise entered the commerce of Hong Kong, rather than merely being

transshipped through Hong Kong. Furthermore, these parties note that it

is uncontested that the merchandise was not transformed between its

manufacture in the PRC and its shipment to the United States.

In refuting arguments raised by petitioner, these resellers argue

that (1) the length of time that merchandise remains in a third country

should not be a basis for determining intermediate country reseller

status, (2) the amount paid in import/export fees should not be a

criterion, (3) the term ``transshipment'' as used by Yue Pak, He-Ro,

and ICD (HK) in the questionnaire responses does not refer to the

statutory meaning of the term, and (4) the export provisions of the

Tariff Act cited by petitioner are not relevant to the construction of

the reseller provision.

Yue Pak, He-Ro and ICD (HK) also argue that the Department's

comparison of their sales and order-filling process to the practices

described in the final determination in Sulfur Dyes, Including Sulfur

Vat Dyes, From the People's Republic of China (Sulfur Dyes), 58 FR 7537

(February 8, 1993), is not appropriate because, ``unlike respondents

herein, respondents in Sulfur Dyes had separate procedures for handling

merchandise which was destined to the United States as opposed to

merchandise that was sold in Hong Kong.''

With respect to the knowledge requirement, Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD

(HK) state that the producers from whom they purchased the subject

merchandise had no knowledge of the ultimate destination of this

merchandise. Producer Zunyi, on the other hand, states that it knew, at

the time of sale, the destination of the potassium permanganate it sold

during the period of review.

Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD (HK) also claim that, since in the PRC only

import and export corporations had the legal capacity to enter into

``foreign economic contracts'' during the period of review, purchasing

from these entities rather than from the producer/manufacturer should

fulfill this requirement. Zunyi and Novachem also make this point.

Finally, these parties note that export of the merchandise to the

United States is not at issue.

Petitioner argues that no reseller in this case meets the

qualifications for a rate distinct from its producer(s) under 19 CFR

353.47. Petitioner also notes that since the intermediate country

reseller provision constitutes an exception to the general rule that a

reseller's rate is the rate of its supplier(s), the responding

resellers have the burden to showing that each prong of the testy is

fully met.

With respect to the ``enters commerce'' prong, petitioners assert

that the merchandise was merely transshipped through Hong Kong and did

not enter commerce there, noting that the questionnaire responses of

Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD (HK) describe circumstances involved in the

sales of subject merchandise through the resellers which indicate that

the merchandise was never intended to enter the commerce of Hong Kong.

Petitioner also cites the appraisement provisions of the tariff laws to

support its proposition that to ``enter commerce'' is a term of art

that involves merchandise which (1) is intended to be diverted into the

commerce of a third country and was in fact diverted; (2) is not

passing through a third country enroute to a purchaser in a different

country; (3) is not merely passing through a third country; (4) is

intended for consumption in the third country; and (5) is sold or

offered for sale in the third country. In petitioner's view,

warehousing, and/or repackaging, and/or relabelling in a third country

is not considered evidence that the merchandise has entered the

commerce of a country, unless there are other supporting factors. In

addition, petitioner contends that a decision as to whether merchandise

``enters the commerce'' of a country must include consideration of

whether or not the producer country receives any undue benefit by

shipping through a third country.

With respect to the ``knowledge'' prong, petitioner asserts that

resellers have not demonstrated that the producers did not know the

merchandise was destined for the United States. As evidence to the

contrary, they note that U.S.-specific labels were affixed to the

merchandise in the PRC. Furthermore, petitioners note that Zunyi and

Sinochem, the only PRC parties that responded in this review, both

stated in their questionnaire responses that they were aware that some

of their sales of potassium permanganate were destined for the United

States.

Petitioner also points to the fact that the Hong Kong resellers did

not purchase directly from the manufacturer or producer. As mentioned

above, export of the merchandise to the United States is not at issue.

Finally, petitioner urges that even if a reseller in this case had

been able to demonstrate that it qualified for a separate rate under

the intermediate country reseller provision, Hong Kong or third country

sales should not be used as the basis of foreign market value for any

reseller, since there is reason to believe that sales through Hong Kong

are made at below the cost of production.

DOC Position: We agree with petitioner that none of the resellers

have met the requirements for separate rates in this review.

With respect to the ``enters commerce'' prong, we have considered

the totality of the circumstances in determining whether it has been

shown that this merchandise entered the commerce of Hong Kong before

being shipped to the United States. No isolated factor, such as whether

import/export fees or duties were paid or whether the merchandise was

warehoused in Hong Kong was treated as controlling. Instead, we have

evaluated all factors which may be relevant.

In this case, there are compelling indications that the merchandise

was never intended to be offered for sale in Hong Kong, and that it

entered the territory of Hong Kong for the sole purpose of being

shipped from there to the United States. The questionnaire responses of

Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD (HK) clearly and explicitly indicate the

following order pattern. First, a U.S. customer would place an order

with a Hong Kong reseller for a certain quantity of potassium

permanganate. Then the Hong Kong reseller would place an order for the

exact same quantity with the PRC import/export company. The import/

export company would then place an order with the manufacturer for the

same exact quantity which was ultimately shipped through Hong Kong to

the United States. Thus, the record shows that throughout the entire

procedure, the merchandise was always intended only for the U.S.

market.

The treatment of the merchandise in Hong Kong, while not

controlling, is also consistent with the fact that these shipments did

not enter the commerce of Hong Kong. For example, Hong Kong law exempts

from import/export declarations (and associated fees) shipments

consigned under ``through bills of lading'' only. The fact that the

Hong Kong resellers paid import/export fees suggests only that the

merchandise was not shipped under a ``through bill of lading''. In

addition, the fact that the Hong Kong resellers performed ``various

tasks'' in Hong Kong in relation to the merchandise in and of itself is

not sufficient to demonstrate that the merchandise entered the commerce

Hong Kong.

With respect to the ``knowledge'' prong of the test, we note that

labelling placed on the merchandise in the PRC included references to

U.S. Department of Transportation specifications, Occupational Safety

and Health Administration requirements, and even a U.S. ``800''

telephone number for ``Chemtrec''. Many buyers throughout the world

rely on U.S. standards regardless of origin or destination for a wide

variety of products, and reference to a given country's specifications

in labelling does not necessarily imply that the product is destined

for sale in that country. Thus, the labelling in this case is not

considered conclusive evidence of knowledge of the product's ultimate

destination. However, the existence of an ``800'' number carries

somewhat greater weight and no explanation has been offered for the

inclusion of the number on the label. In fact, both Zunyi and Sinochem

have stated in their questionnaire responses that they were aware at

the time of sale that the merchandise was destined for the United

States. After considering the totality of the evidence on the record

with regard to the knowledge prong, including the ordering procedure

discussed above in connection with the ``enter commerce'' prong, we

determine that the evidence is consistent with knowledge by the

producers that the merchandise would be sold to the United States, and

that the resellers have failed to sustain their burden of proof with

respect to this prong.

Because no reseller has shown that its suppliers were unaware that

their merchandise was destined for the United States or that the

shipments of potassium permanganate entered the commerce of Hong Kong,

we need not reach other aspects of the reseller test. Furthermore,

since no reseller has shown that it is entitled to a rate other than

that of its supplier(s), we need not reach the question of whether the

resellers were selling below the cost of production. Therefore, our

preliminary determination that the rate for all resellers for this

review should be that of their suppliers remains unchanged.

Comment 5

Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD (HK) state that because they were

cooperative respondents in this review, they should not be ``assigned''

the high best information available (BIA) margin from the 1989 review.

DOC Position: These resellers have not ``been assigned'' a margin

as individual firms. Resellers have no inherent right to a separately

calculated rate, regardless of how cooperative they may be. For the

reasons stated above, the circumstances in which the transactions

occurred during this period do not allow the Department to calculate

separate rates for these sales. Thus, we have not assigned individual

rates to the resellers, and all sales for this review period will be

assessed a duty based on the margin of the procedures.

Comment 6

Alternatively, Yue-Pak, He-Ro, and ICD (HK) argue that the

methodology used to determine the dumping margin in the 1989 review was

flawed, and that therefore the margin determined in that review should

not be applied as BIA for the PRC manufacturers in this review. They

also claim that in selecting a BIA margin, the Department must consider

the most recent information available, and that any data on which BIA

is based is rebuttable. In contesting the use of the 1989 figure, these

resellers claim that the use of Thailand as a surrogate and the use of

petitioner's own cost data were inappropriate in the 1989 review, and

that costs were improperly calculated in that review.

DOC Position: In selecting a BIA margin for the PRC potassium

permanganate industry, we followed our usual practice of assigning an

uncooperative respondent the higher of the highest margin determined

for any firm in any previous review, or the original investigation, or

the highest rate for a responding company in the current review. See 56

FR 393. The Department's two-tier BIA methodology was upheld by the

Court of Appeals in Allied Signal Aerospace Co., et al. v. United

States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, we used the

highest margin from the immediately preceding review, the 1989 review.

The CIT has specifically affirmed, in Novachem, Inc. v. United States,

Slip Op. 92-149 (CIT, August 28, 1992), that the Department acted

reasonably in utilizing Thai factor data and petitioner's data in

determining that rate. Even if the use of Thailand as a surrogate had

not already been upheld by the CIT, however, the use of a margin from

an earlier review does not permit a rearguing of the merits of a rate

in a previous review for which the Department has issued final results

of review. The appropriate time for challenging the merits of the 1989

review has passed. Thus, criticism of our use of the 1989 BIA margin is

unfounded.

Comment 7

Zunyi and the importer Novachem state that Zunyi was responsive in

this review, and that the Department should therefore not apply to it

the same BIA rate that it applied to non-responsive PRC firms.

The petitioner states that the Department properly applied the

highest rate from the 1989 review as BIA for the PRC firms, noting that

this determination was proper due to the presumption of state control

in a non-market economy and the fact that there was no clear showing in

this review that any of the PRC manufacturers of subject merchandise

are independent from the state legally, financially, or economically.

DOC Response: We agree with the petitioner. For the reasons

discussed in response to Comment 2, Zunyi failed to show that it was

sufficiently independent to merit a separate rate for this review.

Indeed, the record contains sufficient information to determine that

separate status would be inappropriate. Thus, Zunyi must be considered

part of the country-wide potassium permanganate industry for the

purposes of this review. Since the government of the PRC and the

industry as a whole did not adequately respond to our questionnaires

(most firms did not respond at all), we have followed our usual

practice in assigning, as BIA for uncooperative respondents, a country-

wide margin (see our response to Comment 6). When a country-wide margin

is assigned, the degree of cooperativeness assessed must be that of the

industry as a whole. To assign a country-wide margin based on the

response of a single firm could mask dumping by other non-responsive

firms within the industry. Therefore, it is not appropriate to evaluate

the extent of Zunyi's cooperation.

Final Results of Review

Upon review of comments submitted, the Department has determined

that the margin for all PRC manufacturers/producers/exporters of

potassium permanganate for the period January 1, 1990 through December

31, 1990, is 128.94 percent. The margin for all third country exporters

of potassium permanganate from the PRC for the period January 1, 1990

through December 31, 1990 shall also be 128.94 percent, the rate of

their suppliers.

The Customs Service shall assess antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement

instructions concerning all respondents directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the

final results of administrative review, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the PRC

country-wide firms will be 128.94 percent, and (2) because no non-PRC

exporter has established on the record, for this administrative review,

that it qualifies as an intermediate country reseller under the terms

of the statute, the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters will be

the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise. Specifically, that rate will be the PRC country-wide

rate of 128.94 percent we have established in this administrative

review.

Because any PRC firm must affirmatively show that it is entitled to

a separate rate before such a rate can be given and any intermediate

country reseller must affirmatively show that it is entitled to such

status under the intermediate country reseller provision of the

regulations (19 CFR 353.47), any new shippers will also be subject to

the PRC country-wide deposit rate until they request review and

demonstrate an entitlement to an exception. Therefore, there is no need

for an ``all others'' cash deposit rate for intermediate country

resellers. Furthermore, no ``all others'' rate will be established for

the PRC. Because a country-wide rate is applied to all imports of

potassium permanganate from the PRC, there is no need for an ``all

others'' cash deposit rate for PRC entities.

These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification or

conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to

comply with the regulations and the terms of the APO is a sanctionable

violation.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Tarriff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR

353.22.

Dated: May 11, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-12445 Filed 5-20-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M