[Federal Register: March 17, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 12664-12669]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17mr03-38]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-880]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Barium Carbonate From
the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value and
postponement of final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 2003.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that barium carbonate from the
People's Republic of China (the PRC) is being sold, or is likely to be
sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided
in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The
estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown below in the ``Suspension
of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Layton or Tisha Loeper-Viti at
(202) 482-0371 or (202) 482-7425, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement,
Office 5, Group II, Import Administration, Room 1870, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
[[Page 12665]]
Case History
The petitioner in this investigation is Chemical Products
Corporation. This investigation was initiated on October 21, 2002. See
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Barium Carbonate from the
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 65534 (October 25, 2002) (Initiation
Notice). Since the initiation of this investigation, the following
events have occurred.
On November 14, 2002, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)
preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that an
industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of barium
carbonate imports from the PRC. See Barium Carbonate from China, 67 FR
70092 (November 20, 2002).
On November 18, 2002, the Department issued its antidumping
questionnaire \1\ to the PRC Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports and
Exports (BOFT). The Department requested that BOFT send the
questionnaire to all companies that manufacture and export barium
carbonate to the United States, as well as manufacturers that produce
barium carbonate for companies that were engaged in exporting subject
merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation
(POI). In addition, we sent the questionnaire to all of the
manufacturers and exporters listed in the petition. See complete list
of 10 manufacturers and 12 exporters in the petition (September 30,
2002) at Exhibit 4. Only Qingdao Red Star Chemical Import & Export Co.,
Ltd. (Qingdao Red Star) and its suppliers responded to the Department's
questionnaire. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires on
January 10 and February 3, 2003. We received deficiency comments from
the petitioner on January 15 and 30, and March 4, 2003. Due to the
statutory deadline, we were unable to take into consideration for
purposes of the preliminary determination the petitioner's most
recently filed comments. The Department does intend to carefully review
the issues raised in that submission, including that of affiliation,
and will verify the information provided by the respondent, as
appropriate, prior to the final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section of A of the questionnaire requests general
information concerning a company's corporate structure and business
practices, the merchandise under this investigation that it sells,
and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its
markets. Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales.
Section D requests information on the factors of production of the
merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on
further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 31, 2003, we invited interested parties to provide
comments on the surrogate country selection and publicly available
information for valuing the factors of production. We received comments
from Qingdao Red Star on February 10 and 13, 2003. We received comments
from the petitioner on February 10, 13 and 19, 2003.
Postponement of Final Determination
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by
the petitioner. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2)
(2002), require that requests by respondents for postponement of a
final determination be accompanied by a request for an extension of the
provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six
months.
On February 13, 2003, Qingdao Red Star requested that, in the event
of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the
Department postpone its final determination until not more than 135
days after the publication of the preliminary determination. The
respondent included a request to extend the provisional measures to not
more than six months after the publication of the preliminary
determination. In accordance with section 351.210(e) of the
Department's regulations, because we have made an affirmative
preliminary determination, the requesting party accounts for a
significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and no
compelling reasons exist to deny the request, we have postponed the
final determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the
publication of the preliminary determination, and are extending the
provisional measures accordingly.
Period of Investigation
The POI is January 1, 2002, through June 30, 2002. This period
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month
of the filing of the petition (i.e., September 2002). See 19 CFR
351.204(b)(1).
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is barium carbonate,
regardless of form or grade. The product under investigation is
currently classifiable under subheading 2836.60.0000 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME)
country in all its past antidumping investigations. See, e.g., Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Non-Malleable
Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 7765
(February 18, 2003); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value Ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China, 67
FR 71137 (November 29, 2002). In accordance with section 771(18)(C) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country
shall remain in effect until revoked. No party in this investigation
has sought revocation of the NME status of the PRC. Therefore, pursuant
to section 771(18)(C) of the Act, the Department will continue to treat
the PRC as an NME country.
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base normal
value (NV) on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a
market economy at a comparable level of development that is a
significant producer of comparable merchandise. The sources of
individual factor prices are discussed under the ``Normal Value''
section, below.
Separate Rates
In an NME proceeding, the Department presumes that all companies
within the country are subject to governmental control and should be
assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless the respondent
demonstrates the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental
control over its export activities. See Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic
of China, 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996). Qingdao Red Star has
provided the requested company-specific separate rate information and
has indicated that there is no element of government ownership or
control over its operations. We have
[[Page 12666]]
considered whether Qingdao Red Star is eligible for a separate rate as
discussed below.
The Department's separate-rates test is not concerned, in general,
with macroeconomic/border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, quotas,
and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed
to prevent dumping. Rather, the test focuses on controls over the
export-related investment, pricing, and output decision-making process
at the individual firm level. See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
From Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); and 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).
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from
government control 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), as modified in
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon
Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22587 (May 2,
1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this test, the Department assigns
separate rates in NME cases only if an exporter can demonstrate the
absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over its
export activities. See Silicon Carbide and the Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From
the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).
A. 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.
Qingdao Red Star has placed on the record a number of documents to
demonstrate the absence of de jure control, including its business
license, and the ``Company Law of the People's Republic of China'' of
December 29, 1993. Other than limiting Qingdao Red Star's operations to
the activities referenced in the license, we noted no restrictive
stipulations associated with the license. In addition, in previous
cases, the Department has analyzed the ``Company Law of the People's
Republic of China'' and found that it establishes 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). We have no information in this proceeding which would cause us
to reconsider this determination. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we
have preliminarily found an absence of de jure control.
B. 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
subject to, the approval of a governmental authority; (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 its 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.
With regard to the issue of de facto control, Qingdao Red Star has
reported the following: (1) There is no government participation in
setting export prices; (2) its managers have the authority to bind
sales contracts; (3) the government does not participate in the
selection of Qingdao Red Star's management, and (4) there are no
restrictions on the use of its export revenues or the disposition of
its profits, and it is responsible for financing its own losses.
Additionally, Qingdao Red Star's questionnaire responses do not suggest
that pricing is coordinated among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis
of Qingdao Red Star's questionnaire responses reveals no other
information indicating governmental control of export activities.
Therefore, based on the information provided, we preliminarily
determine that there is an absence of de facto government control over
Qingdao Red Star's export functions, and that Qingdao Red Star has met
the criteria for the application of separate rates.
The PRC-Wide Rate
Although the Department provided BOFT and all PRC exporters of the
subject merchandise, including Qingdao Red Star, with the opportunity
to respond to its questionnaire, only Qingdao Red Star submitted
responses thereto. Our review of U.S. import statistics reveals that
there are other PRC companies, in addition to Qingdao Red Star, that
exported barium carbonate to the United States during the POI. Because
these exporters did not submit a response to the Department's
questionnaire, and thus did not demonstrate their entitlement to a
separate rate, we have implemented the Department's rebuttable
presumption that these exporters constitute a single enterprise under
common control by the PRC government, and we are applying adverse facts
available to determine the single antidumping duty rate, the PRC-wide
rate, applicable to all other PRC exporters comprising this single
enterprise. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR
25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
Section 776(a)(2) 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. As
explained above, with the exception of the exporter, Qingdao Red Star,
and its manufacturer, Guizhou Red Star Development Co., Ltd. (Guizhou
Red Star), no other Chinese manufacturer or exporter of the subject
merchandise responded to the Department's request for information.
Therefore, the curative provisions of section 782 of the Act are not
applicable because there is no information on the record of this
investigation on which the Department can determine separate rates for
these manufacturers and exporters. Accordingly, the Department is
applying the PRC-wide rate to all PRC exporters of the subject
merchandise except for Qingdao Red Star. The Department cannot
determine a separate rate for these companies because this information
is within the sole possession of the parties at issue and cannot be
obtained otherwise. No other Chinese manufacturer or exporter of the
subject merchandise responded to the Department's request for
information. For this reason, we are unable to
[[Page 12667]]
calculate a PRC-wide rate. Therefore, the Department must resort to the
use of the facts available to ensure that these exporters do not obtain
a more favorable result than they would by responding to the
Department's request for information. The failure of the parties at
issue to respond significantly impedes this proceeding because the
Department cannot accurately determine a margin for these parties.
Thus, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, in reaching
our preliminary determination, we have based the PRC-wide rate on the
facts available.
In applying facts otherwise available, 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. Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the
party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate
than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of Administrative
Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870
(1994). Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of
the respondent is not required before the Department may make an
adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). In this case, the complete failure
of these parties to respond to the Department's requests for
information constitutes a failure to cooperate to the best of their
ability. Since the information is within the sole possession of the
parties at issue, the Department is precluded from determining an
accurate margin for the other producers and exporters and must
therefore resort to the use of adverse facts available.
An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived
from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any
previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See
section 776(b) of the Act. However, section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than
on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review,
the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its
disposal. Independent sources may include published price lists,
official import statistics and Customs data, and information obtained
from interested parties during the particular investigation or review.
See SAA at 870 and 19 CFR 351.308(d). ``Corroborate'' means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information used. See Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996).
For our preliminary determination, as adverse facts available, we
have used as the PRC-wide rate, the highest recalculated dumping margin
from the petition with certain adjustments made to the values (see
below). In the petition, the petitioner based export price (EP) on
actual price quotes for barium carbonate produced in the PRC and
offered for sale by several different Chinese trading companies.\2\ For
the NV calculation, the petitioner based the factors of production, 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
the petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In calculating export price, the petitioner adjusted for
foreign inland freight using a surrogate value for rail freight in
accordance with our NME calculation methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the EP calculation in the petition, the petitioner
also provided AUVs by port of entry which the petitioner obtained from
the ITC's Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb (DataWeb). See October
16, 2002 Response to Supplemental Request at Exhibit 1 and Web site:
http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp. As discussed in the
memorandum to Gary Taverman, Director, Office 5, from David Layton,
Tisha Loeper-Viti and Kristina Boughton, Case Analysts regarding
Corroboration of Secondary Information (Corroboration Memo), dated
March 10, 2003, we were unable to corroborate the petitioner's price
quotations with data submitted by Qingdao Red Star in its questionnaire
responses because the petitioner's price quotations did not correspond
to any of the export prices reported by the respondent in this
proceeding. The Department was also unable to corroborate these prices
with average unit values (AUVs) for the POI that were based on
quarterly quantities and values of total barium carbonate imports from
the PRC reported on DataWeb. In addition, the terms of sale related to
the petitioner's price quotes appear to differ from the terms
underlying the respondent's prices as explained in the Corroboration
Memorandum.\3\ Since the Department was unable to corroborate the
petitioner's price quotations for purposes of using them in the
Department's calculation of the PRC-wide rate, we have substituted an
EP based on the weighted average of all of the port-specific AUVs
provided by the petitioner except for one port-specific AUV that
appeared to be aberrationally high. See Corroboration Memo at
Attachment 1. These AUVs are based on actual POI customs values for
imports from the PRC falling under the only tariff classification
subheading covering subject merchandise. The publicly available AUVs
reflect barium carbonate prices net of international freight for all
Chinese exporters including those who did not respond. Therefore, we
consider the AUVs to have probative value for purposes of calculating
the PRC-wide rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The explanation of the difference in terms of sale involves
some proprietary information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We compared the petitioner's factor consumption rates to the
respondent's factor consumption rates, which is the only other factor
consumption data on the record of this investigation. As discussed in
the Corroboration Memo, we were unable to corroborate the petitioner's
factor consumption data with the data provided by the respondent.
Nevertheless, we consider the petitioner's factor consumption rates for
materials, labor and energy to have probative value on the basis that
these consumption factors are derived from the petitioner's own
experience in producing the subject merchandise. See Corroboration Memo
at 7.
The surrogate values for the factors of production in the petition
were based on publicly available information for comparable inputs in
India, and in the case of barite ore, on a price quote from an
Australian producer. With the exception of the values for packing
material, which differed only slightly, and water, which was the same,
we updated Indian surrogate values used in the petition with values
based on more current values from publicly available sources and
revised the NV calculation accordingly. See FOP Memo. We replaced the
price quote value for barite ore with a value based on Indonesian
imports from a publicly available source. See discussion in the Factors
of Production section below and in the FOP Memo. We consider the Indian
values, and the Indonesian value, both
[[Page 12668]]
from publicly available sources, to have probative value. Therefore, we
find that the surrogate values used to calculate the PRC-wide rate are
sufficiently corroborated.
Because all elements of NV have been corroborated, we consider this
revised NV to be reasonable and of probative value. As a result of this
recalculation, the PRC-wide rate is, for the preliminary determination,
75.10 percent. See Corroboration Memo; see also the October 16, 2002
supplement to the petition. For the purpose of determining the most
appropriate final PRC-wide margin, the Department will consider all
information on the record at the time of the final determination.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Qingdao Red Star's sales of barium carbonate
to customers in the United States were made at LTFV, we compared EP to
NV, calculated using our NME methodology, as described below 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, export price is the
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c). In
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for Qingdao Red
Star 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.
We calculated EP for Qingdao Red Star based on packed F.O.B. and
C.I.F. prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made
deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included domestic inland freight,
international freight, and marine insurance, where applicable. Because
transportation for all sales was provided by an NME company, we based
movement expenses associated with these sales on surrogate values. See
the memorandum to Gary Taverman, Director, Office 5, from David Layton,
Tisha Loeper-Viti and Kristina Boughton, Case Analysts regarding,
Factors of Production Valuation for Preliminary Determination, dated
March 10, 2003 (FOP Memo), on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU)
located in B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.
Normal Value
1. Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires that the Department value the
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, on the
prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market economy
countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable
to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable
merchandise. The Department's Office of Policy initially identified
five countries that are at a level of economic development comparable
to the PRC in terms of per capita GNP and the national distribution of
labor. Those countries are India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and
the Philippines (see the memorandum from Jeffrey May, Director, Office
of Policy to Gary Taverman, Director, Office 5, regarding Request for a
List of Surrogate Countries, dated December 11, 2002, on file in the
CRU). Based on available information of export data provided in United
Nations Trade Statistics under HTSUS subheading 2836.60, we have found
that India is a producer of barium carbonate. The petitioner also
provided evidence that India is a significant producer of subject
merchandise, including Indian producers' advertisements and an article
from the Asia Pulse citing aggregate Indian production figures for
barium carbonate from 1995-1999. In addition, for most factors of
production, India has quantifiable, contemporaneous, and publicly
available data. India had the best available financial data of the five
countries on specific barium carbonate producers. Therefore, for
purposes of the preliminary determination, we have selected India as
the primary surrogate country. However, for one material input, barite
ore, we were unable to obtain a reliable Indian value. For this reason,
we used data from a secondary surrogate country, Indonesia, to value
this input. We have evidence to suggest that Indonesia is also a
significant producer of comparable merchandise and we were able to
obtain publicly available data for barite ore. For further discussion,
see the FOP Memo.
Factors of Production
In its questionnaire response, Qingdao Red Star reported factors of
production for the manufacture of the subject merchandise during the
POI. The 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. See
section 773(c)(3) of the Act. To calculate NV, we multiplied the
reported quantities by publicly available surrogate per-unit values
from India and, when appropriate, from Indonesia.
In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. For those values not
contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the values to account for
inflation using the applicable price indices published in the
International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics
(January 2003, July 2002 and September 2000). We inflated the values
denominated in Indian rupees using Indian wholesale price indices and
inflated values denominated in U.S. dollars using U.S. producer price
indices. As appropriate, we included freight costs in input prices to
make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to the surrogate
values a surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter of the
reported distance from the domestic input supplier to the factory
processing subject merchandise or the distance from the nearest seaport
to the relevant 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, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We valued certain material inputs, packing materials, and
byproducts (including coal, limestone, plastic bags, and sulfur) using
publicly available 2002 Indian import statistics from the appropriate
Indian Trade Classification categories, based on the Harmonized
Commodity Description and Coding System (HS), published by the Monthly
Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India. Volume II: Imports (March
2002) (Indian Import Statistics). Because Indian imports of barite ore
for this period were insignificant, we valued barite ore using 2001
Indonesian import data from the World Trade Atlas. We valued water
based on an average of several rates for metropolitan areas in India,
published by the Asian Development Bank in the Second Water Utilities
Data Book: Asian and Pacific Region in 1997.
For energy, we valued coal using Indian Import Statistics for 2002.
We valued electricity using Indian retail prices found in the
International Energy Agency's Key World Energy Statistics 2002 covering
the fourth quarter of 2001. We valued kerosene using rates quoted in a
press release from the Government of India dated February 28, 2002.
[[Page 12669]]
We valued labor using the latest regression-based wage rate for
China found on Import Administration's Web page (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/
wages/
) as described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
To value foreign inland truck freight costs, we relied upon per-
kilometer price quotes used by the Department in the Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate
From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 10892 (March 11, 2002). To
value foreign inland rail freight costs, we used an average per-metric-
ton rate published in the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin, July 2001.
This rate was used by the Department in the Notice of Preliminary
Results in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Potassium
Permanganate from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 7768 (February
18, 2003). We valued ocean freight based on publicly available rates
from a large liner shipping company, Maersk Sealand. We valued marine
insurance based on an Indian rate which was reported in the public
version of the questionnaire response placed on the record in Certain
Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India: Final Results of Administrative
and New Shipper Review, 64 FR 856 (January 6, 1999).
To value factory overhead, selling, general and administrative
expenses (SG&A) and profit, we used the audited financial statements
for the year ended March 31, 2000, from an Indian producer of barium
carbonate, Victory Chemicals Pvt., Ltd. (Victory).
For a complete analysis of surrogate values used in the preliminary
determination, see the FOP Memo.
Verification
In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify
all information relied upon in making our final determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
We are directing the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to suspend
liquidation of all entries of barium carbonate from the PRC that are
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
date on which this notice is published in the Federal Register. In
addition, we are instructing Customs 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 in the chart below. These instructions
suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins
exist for the POI:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qingdao Red Star Chemical Import & Export Co., Ltd......... 7.66
PRC-Wide Rate.............................................. 75.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise
except for entries from Qingdao Red Star.
Disclosure
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose
to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of
this notice the calculations performed in the preliminary
determination.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the
final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC will
determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this
preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination
whether imports of barium carbonate from the PRC are materially
injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties may
submit publicly available information to value the factors of
production for purposes of the final determination within 40 days after
the date of publication of this preliminary determination. Case briefs
or other written comments must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration no later than one week after issuance of the
verification reports. Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited
to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days
after the deadline for the submission of case briefs. A list of
authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of
issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department.
Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including
footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting briefs and
rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the public
version of such briefs on diskette.
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. If a request
for a hearing is made, we will tentatively hold the hearing two days
after the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties
should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing
48 hours before the scheduled date.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
in a hearing 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. 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, oral presentations will be
limited to issues raised in the briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). The
Department will make its final determination no later than 135 days
after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 10, 2003.
Joseph Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-6339 Filed 3-14-03; 8:45 am]