Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-825]

Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty

administrative review of sebacic acid from the People's Republic of

China.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid

from the People's Republic of China (PRC) in response to requests from

the petitioner, Union Camp Corporation, and four respondents: Tianjin

Chemicals Import and Export Corporation (Tianjin), Guangdong Chemicals

Import and Export Corporation (Guangdong), Sinochem International

Chemicals Company, Ltd. (SICC) and Sinochem Jiangsu Import and Export

Corporation (Jiangsu). This review covers four exporters of the subject

merchandise. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 1996, through June

30, 1997.

We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below

normal value (NV) during this period. If these preliminary results are

adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on

the difference between the United States price (USP) and NV. These

assessment rates, if adopted for the final results of the review, will

be calculated on an importer-specific ad valorem duty basis. Interested

parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Stephen Jacques,

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0182 or (202) 482-1391.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the

Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department's regulations are in reference to the regulations, codified

at 19 CFR part 351, published on May 19, 1997.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping

duty order on sebacic acid from the PRC on July 14, 1995 (59 FR 35909).

On July 21, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register (62

FR 38973) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from the PRC covering the

period July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997.

On July 30, 1997, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), Union Camp

requested that we conduct an administrative review of Tianjin,

Guangdong, SICC, and Jiangsu. On July 29, 1997, Tianjin, Guangdong and

SICC requested that we conduct an administrative review. Also on July

29, 1997, Tianjin has requested partial revocation of the antidumping

duty order on sebacic acid from the PRC. However, because we have

preliminarily determined a margin of 3.53 percent for Tianjin, which is

above the Department's de minimis standard of 0.5 percent, we

preliminarily determine that Tianjin has not met the requirements for

revocation. We published a notice of initiation of this antidumping

duty administrative review on August 28, 1997 (62 FR 45621). On August

30, 1997, we issued questionnaires to the four respondents. Jiangsu did

not respond to the Department's questionnaire. The Department is

conducting this

[[Page 17368]]

administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The products covered by this order are all grades of sebacic acid,

a dicarboxylic acid with the formula (CH2)8(COOH)2, which include but

are not limited to CP Grade (500ppm maximum ash, 25 maximum APHA

color), Purified Grade (1000ppm maximum ash, 50 maximum APHA color),

and Nylon Grade (500ppm maximum ash, 70 maximum ICV color). The

principal difference between the grades is the quantity of ash and

color. Sebacic acid contains a minimum of 85 percent dibasic acids of

which the predominant species is the C10 dibasic acid. Sebacic acid is

sold generally as a free-flowing powder/flake.

Sebacic acid has numerous industrial uses, including the production

of nylon 6/10 (a polymer used for paintbrush and toothbrush bristles

and paper machine felts), plasticizers, esters, automotive coolants,

polyamides, polyester castings and films, inks and adhesives,

lubricants, and polyurethane castings and coatings.

Sebacic acid is currently classifiable under subheading

2917.13.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and

customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this

proceeding remains dispositive.

This review covers the period July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997,

and four exporters of Chinese sebacic acid.

Verification

We conducted verification of the sales and factor information

provided by respondent Tianjin located in Tianjin, PRC and one of its

producers, Hengshui Dongfeng Chemical Plant (Hengshui), located in

Hengshui, PRC. We conducted the verifications using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the

manufacturer's facilities, the examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the

public versions of the verification reports.

Separate Rates

1. Background and Summary of Findings

It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of

the merchandise subject to review in non-market-economy countries a

single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of

government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports.

To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of

government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department

analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the

People's Republic of China (56 FR 20588, May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''),

as amplified in 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''). Evidence supporting, though

not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over

export activities includes: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations

associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;

(2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and

(3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control

of companies. Evidence relevant to a de facto absence of government

control with respect to exports is based on four factors, whether the

respondent: (1) sets its own export prices independent from the

government and other exporters; (2) can retain the proceeds from its

export sales; (3) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts;

and (4) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of

management. See Silicon Carbide at 22587; See also Sparklers at 20589.

In our final determination of sales at less than fair value for the

POR covering July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996, the Department

determined that there was de jure and de facto absence of government

control of each company's export activities and determined that each

company warranted a company-specific dumping margin. See Final Results

of Antidumping Administrative Review: Sebacic Acid From the People's

Republic of China (62 FR 65674, December 15, 1997) (``Sebacic Acid'').

For this period of review, SICC , Tianjin and Guangdong have responded

to the Department's request for information regarding separate rates.

We have found that the evidence on the record is consistent with the

final determination in the previous administrative review and continues

to demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in

fact, with respect to their exports, in accordance with the criteria

identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. During verification of

Tianjin, we examined its business and financial statements. We found no

evidence of government control of Tianjin's export activities.

2. Separate Rate Determination for Non-Responsive Company

For Jiangsu, which did not respond to the questionnaire, we

preliminarily determine that this company does not merit a separate

rate. Because the Department assigns a single rate to companies in a

non-market economy unless an exporter can demonstrate absence of

government control, we preliminarily determine that Jiangsu is subject

to the country-wide rate for this case.

United States Price

For SICC, Tianjin and Guangdong, the Department based USP on export

price (EP), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We made

deductions from EP, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight,

ocean freight, brokerage and handling, and marine insurance. See

``Factor Valuation'' section of this notice. We selected India as the

surrogate country for the reasons explained in the ``Normal Value''

section of this notice.

Normal Value

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall

determine the normal value (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.

The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all

previous antidumping cases. Furthermore, available information does not

permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country

prices, or CV under section 773(a) of the Act. In accordance with

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. None of the parties to this proceeding has

contested such treatment in this review. Therefore, we treated the PRC

as an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV by

valuing the factors of production in a comparable market economy

country which is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.

Factors of production include, but are not limited to: (1) hours of

labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts

of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital

cost, including depreciation.

[[Page 17369]]

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section 351.408 of the

Department's regulations direct us to select a surrogate country that

is economically comparable to the PRC. On the basis of per capita gross

domestic product (GDP), the growth rate in per capita GDP, and the

national distribution of labor, we find that India is a comparable

economy to the PRC (See Memorandum from Director, Office of Policy, to

Office Director, AD/CVD Group III, Office 9, dated February 5, 1998).

The statute (section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section 351.408 of

the Department's regulations) also requires that, to the extent

possible, the Department use a surrogate country that is a significant

producer of merchandise comparable to sebacic acid. The countries that

we confirmed to be producers of sebacic acid, such as Japan and the

United States, do not have economies comparable to the PRC. We found

that information contained in respondent's December 4, 1997 submission

indicates that India was a producer of sebacic acid during the POR.

Although we do not have information about the quantity of sebacic acid

produced in India, we reviewed a fax from an Indian sebacic acid

producer with a price quote to a U.S. importer. Moreover, in the last

administrative review of this order, we determined that India is a

significant producer of comparable merchandise (e.g., oxalic acid)

during the POR. (See the Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary

Results of the 1996/1997 Review for sebacic acid, page 2) Therefore, we

find that India fulfills both requirements of the statute.

For purposes of calculating NV, we valued PRC factors of

production, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. In

examining surrogate values, we selected, where possible, the publicly

available value which was: (1) an average non-export value; (2)

representative of a range of prices within the POR or most

contemporaneous with the POR; (3) product-specific; and (4) tax-

exclusive. For those values not contemporaneous with the POR, we

adjusted for inflation using the wholesale price indices published in

the IMF's International Financial Statistics. When necessary, we

adjusted the values reported in the Chemical Weekly to exclude sales

and excise taxes. In accordance with our practice, we added to CIF

import values from India a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of

the reported distances from either the closest PRC port to the factory,

or from the domestic supplier to the factory. See Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate From the People's Republic of China (62 FR 61977, November 20,

1997) In accordance with this methodology, we valued the factors of

production as follows:

For castor oil, the Department did not use the surrogate values for

castor oil submitted by petitioners in their December 4, 1997

submission because there was no source documentation. We did not use

respondent's data because we could not determine whether they were

contemporaneous with the POR. Therefore, we have valued this material

using price data reported in The Economic Times (Bombay), adjusted for

inflation, for Hyderabad, Kanpur, Calcutta, and Delhi during the months

of June 1995 through December 1995. The Department adjusted these

values to account for freight costs between the supplier and the

respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.

For castor seed, the Department did not use the surrogate values

for castor oil submitted by petitioners in their December 4, 1997

submission because there was no source documentation. We did not use

respondent's data as we could not determine whether they were the

contemporaneous with the POR. Therefore, we have valued this material

using price data reported in The Economic Times (Bombay), adjusted for

inflation, for Hyderabad and Kanpur during the months of June 1995

through December 1995. The Department adjusted these values to account

for freight costs between the supplier and the respondents' sebacic

acid manufacturing facilities.

For caustic soda, the Department used a value reported in the

publication Chemical Weekly (published in India), using a value

published in July 1997 (with a June 1997 price value) submitted by

respondents. Because price quotes for caustic soda reported by Chemical

Weekly are for chemicals with a 100% concentration level of caustic

soda, we made chemical purity adjustments according to the particular

concentration level of caustic soda used by respondents. We adjusted

this value to exclude taxes and to include freight expenses incurred

from the suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing

facilities.

For macropore resin, we are using the value for activated carbon

because the valuations are interchangeable, according to an April 1997

Memorandum from Richard Moreland, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Import Administration to all reviewers. For activated carbon, we are

using a value from Chemical Weekly from December 1996 submitted by

respondent. The Department adjusted this value to account for freight

costs between the supplier and the respondents' sebacic acid

manufacturing facilities.

For cresol, we are using respondents December 4, 1997 submission of

data for price quotes for meta cresol, ortho cresol, and para cresol

from Chemical Weekly from January 1997. We followed the same

methodology to calculate a value for cresol that we used in the

previous administrative review. Before calculating the cresol value, we

adjusted the para cresol value to exclude sales and excise taxes but we

did not have to adjust the meta cresol or ortho cresol values to

exclude sales and excise taxes. We adjusted the value to include

freight expenses incurred from the suppliers to the respondents'

sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.

In Hengshui's questionnaire response to the Department, it

submitted a usage factor for activated carbon. However, in pre-

verification corrections, Hengshui stated it no longer uses activated

carbon to produce sebacic acid, so we did not use activated carbon as

an input.

For sodium chloride (also referred to as sodium chlorite or vacuum

salt), we are using a published market price reported in Chemical

Weekly from January 1997 submitted by respondents. We adjusted this

value to exclude taxes and to include freight expenses incurred from

the suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing

facilities.

For phenol, we are using a published market price reported in

Chemical Weekly from January 1997 submitted by respondents. We adjusted

this value to exclude taxes and to include freight expenses incurred

from the suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing

facilities.

For zinc oxide, we are using a published market price reported in

Chemical Weekly from January 1997 submitted by respondents. We adjusted

this value to exclude taxes and to include freight expenses incurred

from the suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing

facilities.

For sulphuric acid, we are using a published market price reported

in Chemical Weekly from January 1997 submitted by respondents. Because

price quotes for sulphuric acid reported by Chemical Weekly are for

chemicals with a 100% concentration level of sulphuric acid, we made

chemical purity adjustments according to the particular concentration

level of sulphuric acid used by respondents. We adjusted this value to

exclude taxes and to include freight expenses incurred from the

suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.

[[Page 17370]]

For labor, we used the PRC regression-based wage rate at Import

Administration's homepage, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected

NME Countries, revised on June 2, 1997. Because of the variability of

wage rates in countries with similar per capita GDPs, section

351.408(c)(3) of the Department's new AD regulations (62 FR 27296, May

19, 1997) requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. The source

of this wage rate data on the Import Administration's homepage is found

in the 1996 Year Book of Labour Statistics, International Labour Office

(``ILO''), (Geneva: 1996), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The

years of the reported wage rates range from 1990 to 1995.

At verification, we discovered that Hengshui underreported

unskilled labor employees because Hengshui was not able to substantiate

its verbal claim, with source documentation, that additional unskilled

labor employees were not involved in producing sebacic acid. At

verification, we reviewed the employee salary ledger and the labor

worksheet for the sebacic acid production unit and determined that the

additional unskilled labor employees on the employee salary list for

the sebacic acid production unit were involved in producing sebacic

acid. Therefore, we increased the number of unskilled direct labor

hours used to make sebacic acid to the reported labor usage factors. As

this subject involves proprietary information, please see the Analysis

Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 1996/1997 Review for

sebacic acid for a more complete discussion of this issue.

For factory overhead, we used information obtained from the April

1995 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin. From ``Statement 1--Combined

Income, Value of Production, Expenditure and Appropriation Accounts,

Industry Group-wise'' of that report for the Indian metals and

chemicals industries, we summed those components which pertain to

overhead expenses and divided them by the sum of those components

pertaining to the cost of manufacturing to calculate a factory overhead

rate of 15.41 percent. We multiplied this factory overhead rate of

15.41 percent by the cost of manufacture divided by one minus the

factory overhead rate of 15.41 percent.

For steam coal, we used prices published in Monthly Statistics of

the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports for the period of April

1995 through January 1996, adjusted for inflation. We did not use the

respondents' submitted OECD/IEA data for steam coal from 1990 because

we had more recent data. Hengshui reported one aggregate category of

coal in its questionnaire response. However, at verification, Hengshui

presented corrections at the beginning of verification which split the

single coal category into two sub-categories: soft and hard coal. We

verified that Hengshui's use of two types of coal were correctly

presented to the Department at verification. Consequently, for

Hengshui, we have used the value for soft coal from the Gazette of

India, June 1994, adjusted for inflation. However, we were unable to

obtain publicly available information for hard coal. Therefore, for

Hengshui's hard coal, we are using the steam coal value from the

Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports for

the period of April 1995 through January 1996, adjusted for inflation.

For all three types of coal used (hard, soft, and steam), we adjusted

the values to include freight expenses incurred from the suppliers to

the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.

For electricity, the respondents submitted electricity data from

1990, which was not used because we had more recent data. We used

information obtained from the Current Energy Scene in India for July

1995 and adjusted this value for inflation. At verification, we

discovered that Hengshui did not report the electricity used to process

crude glycerine, a by-product, into refined glycerine. We added the

amount of electricity used to process crude glycerine into refined

glycerine to the electricity usage factor reported to the Department in

Hengshui's questionnaire response. At verification, we also could not

substantiate, with source documentation, the amount deducted for an

electric sub-meter. Therefore, we did not allow the deduction of the

amount of electricity recorded at the sub-meter from the total amount

of electricity used to produce sebacic acid. As this subject involves

proprietary information, please see the Analysis Memorandum for the

Preliminary Results of the 1996/1997 Review for sebacic acid for a more

complete discussion of this issue.

For the value of export packing (plastic bags and woven bags), the

Department used the value of imports into India during April 1995

through February 1996, as reported in the Monthly Statistics of Foreign

Trade of India, Volume II, and adjusted these values for inflation. We

did not use values from respondents because there was no supporting

documentation. Also, we adjusted this value to account for freight

expenses.

For foreign inland freight, the Department relied upon the trucking

freight rates reported in The Times of India, April 20, 1994, which

source was also applied to Polyvinyl Alcohol (60 FR 52647, October 10,

1995), and the value was adjusted for inflation. The rail freight rates

used, which were adjusted for inflation, were reported to the

Department in a December 1989 embassy cable for the final results of

the antidumping administrative review for Shop Towels of Cotton from

the PRC (56 FR 60969).

For ocean freight, we used the surrogate value used in the last

administrative review. This value, provided by the Federal Maritime

Commission on January 24, 1997, includes delivery destination charges

and fuel adjustment charges and was not adjusted because the value was

within the POR. For Tianjin, we used actual market economy shipping

costs as reported by respondents where applicable.

To calculate the expense for marine insurance, we used information

from a publicly summarized version of the questionnaire response for

the investigation of sales of less than fair value of Sulphur Vat Dyes

from India (62 FR 42758). The marine insurance rate reported in the

public version of the October 8, 1992 response was adjusted for

inflation to reflect marine insurance charges during the POR.

For foreign brokerage and handling charges, we used information

from publicly available data for foreign brokerage and handling

reported for the investigation for Sulphur Vat Dyes, (62 FR 42758)

adjusted for inflation.

Consistent with the methodology employed in the previous

administrative review for sebacic acid, we have determined that fatty

acid, glycerine, and castor seed cake (when castor oil is self-

produced) are by-products. Therefore, as by-products, we subtracted the

sales revenue of fatty acid, glycerine, and, where applicable, castor

seed cake, from the estimated production costs of sebacic acid. This

treatment of by-products is also consistent with generally accepted

accounting principles. (See Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis

(1991) at pages 539-544).

To value fatty acid, we used publicly available published

information from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India

(Monthly Statistics) for the period April 1995 through February 1996

and adjusted this data for inflation.

To value glycerine, we used the average price for glycerine (IW and

CP) in the publication Chemical Weekly from January 1997 from the

[[Page 17371]]

respondents. We adjusted these values to include freight expenses

incurred from the suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid

manufacturing facilities.

We also allocated a by-product credit for glycerine to the

production cost for the co-product capryl alcohol. We deducted a by-

product credit for glycerine from both sebacic acid and capryl alcohol

based on the ratio of the value of sebacic acid to the total value of

both sebacic acid and capryl alcohol.

Consistent with the methodology employed in the previous

administrative review, we have determined that capryl alcohol is a co-

product. Therefore, we have allocated the factor inputs, based on the

relative quantity of output of this product and sebacic acid.

Additionally, we have used the production times necessary to complete

each production stage of sebacic acid as a basis for allocating the

amount of labor, energy usage, and factory overhead among the co-

product(s). This treatment of co-products is consistent with generally

accepted accounting principles. (See Cost Accounting: A Managerial

Emphasis (1991) at pages 528-533).

To value capryl alcohol, we used publicly available published

information for octanol from Chemical Weekly from June 1997 and

adjusted the price for sales and excise taxes. We used the Chemical

Weekly octanol value from June 1997. Also, respondents submitted value

data from the Chemical Marketing Reporter (U.S.). Octanol is used as

the surrogate value for capryl alcohol because, in a letter submitted

by respondents in attachment four of their December 4, 1997 submission

concerning surrogate values, the editor of Chemical Weekly states that

the reference to octanol in the journal refers to the more common 2-

octanol (2-ethylhexanol). We adjusted these values to exclude taxes and

to include freight expenses incurred from the suppliers to the

respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.

To value castor seed cake, we used the value for castor seed from

The Economic Times (Bombay) submitted by respondents, and adjusted this

value for inflation.

For selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, we used

information from the same source we used for factory overhead. We

summed the values which comprised the components of SG&A and divided

that figure by the same cost of manufacturing figure used to determine

factory overhead, to arrive at an SG&A rate of 21.67 percent. We

multiplied this SG&A rate of 21.67 percent by the total cost of

manufacture, which includes factory overhead.

For the calculation of profit, we used information from the April

1995 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin. We divided the reported before-tax

profit for the ``processing and manufacture: metals, chemicals, and

products thereof'' category by the sum of those components pertaining

to the cost of manufacturing plus SG&A to calculate a profit rate of

5.24 percent. We multiplied this profit rate of 5.24 percent by the sum

of the total cost of manufacture and SG&A.

Preliminary Results of Review

For Jiangsu, which failed to respond to the Department's

questionnaire, we have not granted a separate rate and the country-wide

rate will apply to all sales.

We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins

exist:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)

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

Sinochem Jiangsu I/E Corp...................................................... 7/01/96-6/30/97 243.40%

Tianjin Chemicals I/E Corp..................................................... 7/01/96-6/30/97 3.53

Sinochem International Chemicals Corp.......................................... 7/01/96-6/30/97 0.35

Guangdong Chemicals I/E Corp................................................... 7/01/96-6/30/97 16.35

Country-Wide Rate.............................................................. 7/01/96-6/30/97 243.40

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

Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of

the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may

request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit written

comments (case briefs) within 30 days of the date of publication of

this notice. Rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited

to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37

days after the date of publication. The Department will publish a

notice of final results of this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such

comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall

determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping

duties on all entries. We will calculate an importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rate for each class or kind of merchandise

based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated

for the examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value

of the sales used to calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the

POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the total amount of antidumping

duties, which are calculated by taking the difference between statutory

NV and statutory EP, by the total statutory EP value of the sales

compared, and adjusting the result by the average difference between EP

and customs value for all merchandise examined during the POR.)

Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be

effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for the

reviewed companies named above which have separate rates (SICC,

Tianjin, and Guangdong), the cash deposit rates will be the rates for

those firms established in the final results of this administrative

review; (2) for companies previously found to be entitled to a separate

rate and for which no review was requested, the cash deposit rates 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

rates will be the PRC country-wide rate indicated above; and (4) the

cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the

PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter.

These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

[[Page 17372]]

Notification of Interested Parties

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: April 2, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-9436 Filed 4-8-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P