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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-570-804]

Sparklers 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 August 4, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on sparklers from the People's Republic of China

(PRC) (60 FR 39931). The review was requested for one manufacturer,

Guangxi Native Produce Import and Export Corporation, Beihai Fireworks

and Firecrackers Branch (Guangxi), of the subject merchandise and the

review period June 1, 1993, through May 31, 1994.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We received no comments. The final results are

unchanged from those presented in the preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 23, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Blaskovich or Zev Primor,

Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-

5831/4114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 18, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register

the antidumping duty order on sparklers from the PRC (56 FR 27946). On

June 7, 1994, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register

notifying interested parties of the opportunity to request an

administrative review of sparklers from the PRC (59 FR 29411). On June

23, 1994, the petitioners requested, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a), that we conduct an administrative review of exports to the

United States by Guangxi, for the period June 1, 1993 through May 31,

1994. We published a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty

administrative review on July 15, 1994 (59 FR 36160). On August 4, 1995

(60 FR 39931), the Department published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping

duty order on sparklers from the PRC. The Department has now completed

that review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this administrative review are sparklers

from the PRC. Sparklers are fireworks, each comprising a cut-to-length

wire, one end of which is coated with a chemical mix that emits bright

sparks while burning.

[[Page 54336]]

Sparklers are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff System

(HTS) subheading 3604.10.00. The HTS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains

dispositive as to the scope of this proceeding.

Best Information Available

On July 20, 1994, we mailed Guangxi a questionnaire explaining the

review procedures. In addition, a short questionnaire was sent to

Guangxi, the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region People's Government, the

Embassy of the People's Republic of China, the Guangxi Foreign Economic

Relations and Trade Commission and the Guangxi People's Government-

Beijing Office. This questionnaire sought to ascertain whether Guangxi

is entitled to a separate rate by reason of both de jure and de facto

absence of central government control with respect to exports. The

questionnaires, which covered exports to the United States for the

period of review (POR), were due on August 23, 1994. We did not receive

a response from any party by the due date and, thus, asked Skypak

International Express (TNT) to trace the mailing and verify Guangxi's

receipt of the document. On August 3, 1994, TNT's delivery office in

Hong Kong confirmed that the questionnaire was accepted by a

representative of Guangxi on August 2, 1994. Because we received no

response and have not been contacted by Guangxi or any other

respondent, we determine that Guangxi is an uncooperative respondent.

Further, Guangxi is no longer entitled to a separate rate, as absence

of central government control with regard to exports was not

demonstrated. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act,

we are using the best information available (BIA) as the basis for

determining a dumping margin for all entries into the United States of

the subject merchandise during the POR.

In determining what to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-

tiered methodology whereby the Department normally assigns lower

margins to those respondents who cooperate in a review, and margins

based on more adverse assumptions for those respondents who do not

cooperate in a review.

In accordance with our BIA methodology for uncooperative

respondents, we assign as BIA the higher of: (1) the highest of the

rates found for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise in

the same country of origin in the less than fair value (LTFV)

investigation or prior administrative reviews; or (2) the highest rate

found in this review for any firm for the same class or kind of

merchandise in the same country of origin (see Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review: Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France; et. al. (57 FR

28379, June 24, 1992)).

This methodology has been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit (see Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. the United

States, 996 F.2nd 1185 (CAFC 1993); see also Krupp Stahl Ag. et. al. v.

the United States, 822 F. Supp. 789 (CIT 1993).) Given that Guangxi did

not respond to the Department's questionnaires, we find that Guangxi

has not cooperated in this review.

In accordance with our methodology we have used as BIA the highest

rate established in the remand of the LTFV final determination (58 FR

53708, July 29, 1993), the PRC country-wide rate of 93.54 percent.

Final Results of the Review

We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary

results. We received no comments. The final results are therefore

unchanged from those presented in the preliminary results, and we

determine that a margin of 94.54 percent exists for Guangxi for the

period June 1, 1993, through May 31, 1994.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative

review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or

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

publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for Guangxi will be the PRC country-wide rate as stated

above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies that

received separate rates not listed above, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent

period; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be

the PRC country-wide rate of 93.54 percent, the rate established on

remand of the LTFV final determination; and (4) the cash deposit rate

for any non-PRC exporter will be the rate established for that firm; if

a non-PRC exporter does not have its own separate rate, the deposit

rate for that firm's shipments will be the rate applicable to the PRC

supplier of that exporter. In all cases, the rate applicable to a firm

normally should change only as a result of a review of that firm,

except in instances of change of ownership.

These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: October 13, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-26210 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P