[Federal Register: August 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 46476-46480]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10au05-32]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-570-847)
Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from FMC Corporation (FMC), a
domestic producer and an interested party in this proceeding, the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the People's
Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2003,
through June 30, 2004. Upon completion of this review, the Department
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise
that were exported by the company under review and entered during the
POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tisha Loeper-Viti at (202) 482-7425 or
Frances Veith at (202) 482-4295, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of this order (69 FR 39903). On
July 30, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), FMC requested
that the Department conduct an administrative review of Shanghai AJ
Import and Export Corporation (Shanghai AJ).
On September 22, 2004, the Department published a notice of
initiation of this administrative review (69 FR 56745). On March 25,
2005, the Department extended the due date for the preliminary results
of this review to August 1, 2005 (70 FR 15293).
On October 13, 2004, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to
Shanghai AJ and its producer, Degussa-AJ (Shanghai) Initiators Co.,
Ltd. (Degussa-AJ), collectively Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ. Shanghai AJ/
Degussa-AJ submitted timely responses to the questionnaire in November
and December 2004. We issued supplemental questionnaires in March,
April, May, and June 2005, and received timely responses to each from
Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ.
On June 10, 2005, FMC submitted publicly available information for
consideration in valuing the factors of production. Shanghai AJ/
Degussa-AJ submitted information for this purpose on June 20 and 27,
2005. FMC submitted rebuttal comments on June 29 and July 8, 2005.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this review are persulfates, including
ammonium, potassium, and sodium persulfates. The chemical formula for
these persulfates are, respectively,
(NH4)2S2O8,
K2S2O8, and
Na2S2O8. Potassium persulfates are
currently classifiable under subheading 2833.40.10 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Sodium persulfates are
classifiable under HTSUS subheading 2833.40.20. Ammonium and other
persulfates are classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 2833.40.50 and
2833.40.60. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), we verified information provided by
[[Page 46477]]
Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ. We used standard verification procedures,
including on-site inspection of the producer's and exporter's
facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records.
The Department conducted the verification at Degussa-AJ's facilities
near Shanghai from July 4 through July 6, 2005, and at Shanghai AJ's
facilities in Shanghai from July 7 through July 8, 2005. Our
verification results are outlined in the verification reports for these
two companies. See Memorandum to the File Re: Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Persulfates from the People's Republic of China
- Verification of Shanghai AJ Import & Export Corporation and Degussa-
AJ (Shanghai) Initiators Co., Ltd., dated August 1, 2005.
Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Department
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other
person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to
provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form
and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1)
and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as
provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the
Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available
(AFA) information derived from the petition, the final determination, a
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the
record.
For the reasons explained below, and pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A) and 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined to
apply partial AFA for certain U.S. sales that Shanghai AJ failed to
report. On October 12, 2004, the Department requested that Shanghai AJ
report all sales of persulfates to the United States during the POR. In
section A(4)(a) of the October 12, 2004, questionnaire, the Department
requested that Shanghai AJ describe the date selected as the date of
sale to be used in the POR. In section C of the questionnaire, the
Department also requested that Shanghai AJ report the date of sale as
defined in the Glossary of Terms at Appendix I, which states the
Department will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the
exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of
business. On November 17, 2004, and December 1, 2004, Shanghai AJ
submitted a questionnaire response to both sections A and C and
responded that its date of sale is the date of invoice.
On March 17, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire for section A, requesting an explanation for Shanghai
AJ's reasons for not choosing the date of the short-term contract as
the date of sale, given that Shanghai AJ's original submission stated
that it used short-term contracts and that there were rarely changes
made to the terms of sale after this date. Shanghai AJ's April 7, 2005,
response to the March 17, 2005, supplemental first noted that it had
incorrectly described Shanghai AJ as using short-term contracts and
that sales were made pursuant to purchase orders. Second, Shanghai AJ's
response noted that approximately 40 percent of sales transactions
during the POR experienced changes to quantities, destinations, and/or
shipping dates between the time of the purchase order and issuance of
the invoice. Also, Shanghai AJ's response indicated that ``substantial
terms of sale, especially sales quantity, were finalized at the time
the commercial invoice was issued. Thus, Shanghai AJ believes the
invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale pursuant to the
definition of the date of sale.'' On December 1, 2004, May 6, 2005, and
June 7, 2005, Shanghai AJ submitted to the Department what it reported
to be all sales of persulfates sold to the United States during the
POR, based upon invoice date.
At the beginning of verification, Shanghai AJ provided the
Department with its submission of clerical errors and minor
corrections. However, during verification, the Department discovered
three sales of persulfates to the United States during the POR which
were not reported to the Department in either of Shanghai AJ's
questionnaire responses or its minor corrections.\1\ Shanghai AJ
explained that it did not report these sales, which it deemed outside
the POR, because the sales invoices were reissued to a customer who had
requested that all of its sales invoices be issued the same month as
the shipment date. In this case, the shipment dates for these three
sales were outside the POR. However, the original sales invoices were
clearly dated within the POR and Shanghai AJ recorded these sales in
its books and records based on the original invoice dates. Moreover,
the Department verified that Shanghai AJ did not adjust its books and
records for the reprinting of the sales invoices. Therefore, because
Shanghai AJ withheld information the Department requested, that is the
sales in question, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the
Department is applying facts available to those transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ placed this submission on the record
on July 6, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, upon having determined to
apply facts available pursuant to the statutory requirements of the
Act, the Department may use adverse inferences in selecting among the
facts otherwise available if the Department determines that the
respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability
to comply with a request for information from the Department. We have
determined that Shanghai AJ has not acted to the best of its ability to
comply with our requests for information in this administrative review.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the
``best of its ability'' standard ``requires the respondent to do the
maximum it is able to do.'' See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States,
337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed Cir. 2003) (Nippon Steel). The Department has
determined that Shanghai AJ did not act to the best of its ability
because it neither included nor notified the Department in a timely
manner that it was not including these sales in its filing. This
information was within Shanghai AJ's control. The company itself
explained that the U.S. sales date should be based on invoice date. The
company treated these sales as sales made pursuant to the original
invoice date. Under these circumstances, it is fully reasonable for the
Department to expect that Shanghai AJ would be forthcoming with this
information, and that its failure to do so demonstrates that Shanghai
AJ failed to put forth the maximum effort. Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at
1382; see also Neuberg Fertigung GmbH v. United States, 797 F.Supp.
1020, 1024 (CIT 1992) (``{u{time} ltimately it is the respondent's
responsibility to make sure that {Commerce{time} understands, and
correctly uses, any information provided by the respondent.'')
Section 776(b) of the Act states that AFA may include information
derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous
administrative review, or other information placed on the record. As
AFA for the preliminary results, and in accordance with section 776(b),
the Department is applying the highest
[[Page 46478]]
transaction margin for Shanghai AJ from the current administrative
review to Shanghai AJ's unreported sales for the preliminary results.
Separate Rates Determination
The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market-economy (NME)
country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative
reviews. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China,
69 FR 34130 (June 18, 2004). A designation as an NME country remains in
effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i)
of the Act.
It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of
subject merchandise subject to review in an NME country 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); and Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of
China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this test,
exporters in NME countries are entitled to separate, company-specific
margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control over
exports, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto). 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 the 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. De facto absence
of government control over exports is based on four factors: 1) whether
an exporter sets its own export prices independently of the government
and without the approval of a government authority; 2) whether an
exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent
decisions regarding the disposition of profits or the financing of
losses; 3) whether an exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign
contracts and other agreements; and 4) whether an exporter has autonomy
from the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon
Carbide, 59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
Based on a review of its responses, and the results of
verification, we have concluded that Shanghai AJ conducts its export
activities independently of control from central, provincial or local
governments in the PRC. Shanghai AJ was established in 1994 as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Shanghai Ai Jian Corporation (AJ Corp.). AJ Corp is
a public company listed and traded on the Shanghai Stock Exchange.
Shanghai AJ has placed on the record documents to demonstrate the
absence of de jure control including its business license and the
business license and a list of the shareholders of AJ Corp., as well as
copies of the PRC Enterprise Legal Person Registration Administrative
Regulations and the Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of
China. Other than limiting Shanghai AJ to activities referenced in its
business license, we found no restrictive stipulations associated with
its license. In addition, Article 16 of the PRC Enterprise Legal Person
Registration Administrative Regulations expressly recognizes the
independent legal status of every company that possesses its own
business license, and grants to these enterprises the right to open
bank accounts, conduct business activities, and sign contracts. The
Foreign Trade Law grants autonomy to foreign trade operations in
management decisions and establishes accountability for their own
profits and losses. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we have
preliminarily found an absence of de jure control for Shanghai AJ.
With regard to de facto control, Shanghai AJ reported the
following: (1) it sets prices to the United States through negotiations
with customers and these prices are not subject to review by any
government organization; (2) it does not coordinate with other
exporters to set the price or determine to which market companies sell
subject merchandise; (3) the PRC Chamber of Commerce does not
coordinate the export activities of Shanghai AJ; (4) Shanghai AJ's
managers have the authority to contractually bind the company to sell
subject merchandise; (5) the general manager of Shanghai AJ is
appointed by the managers of AJ Corp., Shanghai AJ's corporate parent;
(6) there is no restriction on its use of export revenues; and (7)
Shanghai AJ's managers ultimately determine the disposition of the
company's profits and Shanghai AJ has not had a loss on export sales in
the last two years. Additionally, Shanghai AJ's questionnaire responses
do not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters.
Furthermore, our analysis of Shanghai AJ's questionnaire responses
reveals no other information indicating government control of export
activities. Therefore, based on the information provided, we
preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de facto government
control over Shanghai AJ's export functions and that Shanghai AJ has
met the criteria for the application of separate rates.
Affiliation
In its November 7, 2004, submission, Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ
requested clarification from the Department as to whether Degussa
Initiators, LLC (Degussa USA), one of Shanghai AJ's U.S. customers, is
considered an ``affiliate'' under the Department's regulations and
whether it needed to report Degussa USA's sales of the subject
merchandise during the POR. On March 17, 2005, the Department requested
that Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ report Degussa USA's sales. Shanghai AJ/
Degussa-AJ submitted Degussa USA's sales data on April 14 and May 11,
2005.
Based upon information on the record, we have determined that
Shanghai AJ is affiliated with Degussa USA and we have included Degussa
USA's sales in our margin calculations. For a full discussion of this
issue, see Memorandum from Charles Riggle to Wendy J. Frankel Re:
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Persulfates from
the People's Republic of China Affiliation, dated August 1, 2005
(Affiliation Memo).
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, Export
Price (EP) or Constructed Export Price (CEP) as defined in sections
772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. Section 772(a) of the Act
defines EP as 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 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 772(c) of the Act.
Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after
the date of importation, by or for the account of the producer or
exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the
producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under
subsections 772(c) and (d) of the
[[Page 46479]]
Act. We based CEP on the applicable terms of sale through Degussa USA,
Shanghai AJ's affiliate in the United States. See Affiliation Memo.
We calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, based on the packed
prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we calculated the EP
and CEP by deducting movement expenses, including inland freight,
foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S.
inland freight, warehousing, and duties, where appropriate. We valued
those movement services provided by market-economy (ME) suppliers and
paid for in a ME currency, using the actual expenses incurred. We
valued those movement services provided by NME suppliers using
surrogate Indian rates. For further discussion of our use of surrogate
data in an NME proceeding, as well as selection of India as the
appropriate surrogate country, see the Normal Value and Surrogate
Values sections of this notice, below.
Section 772(d)(1) of the Act provides for additional adjustments to
calculate CEP. Accordingly, where appropriate, we deducted indirect
selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs) and direct
selling expenses (credit) related to commercial activity in the United
States. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, where applicable, we
made an adjustment for CEP profit.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME,
the Department shall determine normal value (NV) using a factors-of-
production (FOP) methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME
and 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. Because information on the record does not permit
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices,
or constructed value and no party has argued otherwise, we calculated
NV based on FOP in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
Because we are using surrogate country FOP prices to determine NV,
section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires that the Department use values
from an ME (surrogate) country that is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the PRC and that is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise. We have determined that India,
Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are ME countries at a
comparable level of economic development to that of the PRC. For a
further discussion of our surrogate selection, see the March 7, 2005,
memorandum entitled Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, which is
available in the Department's Central Records Unit (CRU), room B099 of
the main Commerce building. In addition, according to United Nations
export statistics, we found that India exported 555,210 kilograms of
comparable merchandise (i.e., persulfates based on HTS number 2833.40)
in 2003 valued at USD 317,524. See http://unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade.
Therefore, India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.
Additionally, we are able to access Indian data that are
contemporaneous with this POR. As in the previous review of this order,
we have chosen India as the primary surrogate country and are using
Indian prices to value the FOPs. See Memorandum from Tisha Loeper-Viti
to Wendy J. Frankel, Preliminary Valuation of Factors of Production
(August 1, 2005) (FOP Memo).
We selected, where possible, publicly available values from India
that were average non-export values, representative of a range of
prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-
specific, and tax-exclusive. Also, where we have relied upon import
values, we have excluded imports from NME countries as well as from
South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia. The Department has found that
South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia maintain broadly available, non-
industry-specific export subsidies. The existence of these subsidies
provides sufficient reason to believe or suspect that export prices
from these countries may be subsidized. See Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass
Windshields From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February
12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment
1. Our practice of excluding subsidized prices has been upheld in China
National Machinery Import and Export Corporation v. United States, 293
F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1136 (CIT 2003).
Surrogate Values
To value certain material inputs, sulfuric acid and ammonium
sulfate, we used per-kilogram values obtained from the Indian
publication Chemical Weekly. We adjusted these values for taxes and to
account for freight costs incurred between the suppliers and the
factory. To value anhydrous ammonia, potassium hydroxide, and caustic
soda, we used per-kilogram import values obtained from the Monthly
Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India (MSFTI), as published by the
Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, and available
from World Trade Atlas, available at http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. We
adjusted these values to account for freight costs incurred between the
suppliers and the factory.
To value electricity, we used the 2000 electricity price data from
International Energy Agency, Energy Prices and Taxes - Quarterly
Statistics (Second Quarter 2003). To value water, we used the Revised
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation water rates for June 1,
2003, available at http://www.midcindia.com/water_supply. To value
coal, we used the per-kilogram values obtained from MSFTI and made
adjustments to account for freight costs incurred between the suppliers
and the factory.
For labor, we used the regression-based wage rate for the PRC in
``Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries,'' available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html
.
For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses
(SG&A), and profit values, we used the financial statements of two
Indian producers of hydrogen peroxide, Asian Peroxides Ltd. and
National Peroxide Ltd.\2\ From this information, we were able to
determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials,
labor and energy (ML&E) costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus
overhead (i.e., cost of manufacture); and the profit rate as a
percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A. The Department also
used financial statements from these two companies in the 2002-2003
administrative review of persulfates from the PRC. See Persulfates from
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 6836 (Feb. 9, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Persulfates From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 27222,
27229 (May 19, 1997), where the Department determined that hydrogen
peroxide production was comparable to persulfates production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The respondent has placed on the record of the current review the
financial statements of Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. (Gujarat)
and Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (Hindustan), both producers of
hydrogen peroxide. We have preliminary determined not to use these
financial statements. With respect to Hindustan, this company's
financial
[[Page 46480]]
statements indicate that it meets the definition of a ``sick'' company
under the Sick Industrial Companies Act of India. It is the
Department's policy to not use the financial statements of a ``sick''
company for calculating any of the surrogate financial ratios. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color
Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594
(April 16, 2004). Therefore, we are not using Hindustan's financial
statements in our calculations. With respect to Gujarat, we find that
production of the comparable merchandise, hydrogen peroxide, comprises
only 1.3 percent by volume of the company's total production. The
Department has not had sufficient time to determine whether the balance
of Gujarat's production is of merchandise that would also be considered
comparable to persulfates. For these preliminary results, therefore, we
have not used Gujarat's financial statements in our calculation of
surrogate financial ratios for the respondent.
For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained
from the MSFTI and made adjustments to account for freight costs
incurred between the suppliers and the factory.
To value foreign brokerage and handling, we used an average of the
brokerage and handling data reported in Essar Steel's February 28,
2005, public version response submitted in the 2003-2004 antidumping
duty administrative review of Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from India and Pidilite Industries' March 9, 2004, public version
response submitted in the antidumping duty investigation of Carbazole
Violet Pigment 23 from India. To value truck freight, we used the
freight rates published by Indian Freight Exchange available at http://www.infreight.com.
To value marine insurance, we used a price quote
obtained from RJG Consultants and available at http://www.rjgconstultants.com
.
Where necessary, we adjusted the surrogate values to reflect
inflation/deflation using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as
published on the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) website, available at
http://www.rbi.org.in. See FOP Memo.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin
exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degussa-AJ (Shanghai) Initiators Co., Ltd./Shanghai AJ Import 28.91
and Export Corporation......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this
notice. See 19 CFR Sec. 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to
comment on the preliminary results. Interested parties may submit case
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be
filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication of this
notice. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each
argument a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and
a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties
submitting written comments provided an additional copy of the public
version of any such comments on a diskette. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. See 19
CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the
publication of this notice or the first workday thereafter. The
Department will publish a notice of the final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in any written comments or hearing, within 120 days
from publication of this notice.
Assessment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an
assessment rate for each importer of subject merchandise. Within 15
days of the completion of this review, the Department will instruct CBP
to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject
merchandise. We have calculated each importer's duty-assessment rate
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated
for the examined sales to the total quantity of sales examined. Where
the assessment rate is above de minimis, the importer-specific rate
will be assessed uniformly on all entries made during the POR.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication
of the final results for all shipments of persulfates from the PRC
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 Shanghai AJ, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the company-specific rate established in the final results of the
review; (2) the cash deposit rates for any other companies that have
separate rates established in the investigation or a previous
administrative review of this case, but were not reviewed in this
proceeding, will not change; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash
deposit rate will be the PRC rate, 119.02 percent, the PRC-wide rate
established in the less than fair value investigation; and (4) for non-
PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit
rate 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.
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 determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 1, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-15770 Filed 8-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S