[Federal Register: July 28, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 144)]
[Notices]
[Page 45012-45017]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28jy04-36]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-851]
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the Seventh New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of seventh new shipper review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is currently
conducting the seventh new shipper review of the antidumping duty order
on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'') covering the period February 1, 2003, through July 31, 2003.
This review covers one exporter.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have not been made at
less than normal value (``NV'') with respect to the exporter who
participated fully in this review. If the preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to not assess antidumping
duties on entries of merchandise subject to this review.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results. We will issue the final results no later than 90 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-1766.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 28 and 29, 2003, the Department received timely requests
from (1) Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light Foods, Inc. (``Guangxi Hengxian'');
(2) Nanning Runchao Industrial Trade Company, Ltd. (``Nanning
Runchao''); (3) Xiamen International Trade and Industry Company, Ltd.
(``XITIC''); (4) Xiamen Zhongjia Import and Export Company, Ltd.
(``Zhongjia''); (5) Zhangzhou Longhai Minhui Industry and Trade Co.,
Ltd., (``Minhui''); and (6) Shanghai Superlucky Import & Export
Company, Ltd. (``Superlucky'') for a new shipper review in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.214(c).
On September 30, 2003, the Department initiated a new shipper
review of Guangxi Hengxian and Nanning Runchao only. (See Certain
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of
Seventh New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 68 FR 57877 (October 7,
2003) for further discussion.)
On October 15, 2003, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire
to Guangxi Hengxian and Nanning Runchao.
On October 23, 2003, the Department provided the parties an
opportunity to submit publicly available information for consideration
in the preliminary results.
On November 26, and December 5, 2003, Guangxi Hengxian and Nanning
Runchao, respectively, submitted their questionnaire responses. On
December
[[Page 45013]]
22, 2003, the petitioner \1\ submitted comments on these questionnaire
responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioner is the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom
Trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 2004, the Department requested from CBP copies of all
customs documents pertaining to the entry of certain preserved
mushrooms from the PRC exported by each respondent during the period of
February 1, 2003, through July 31, 2003 (see January 7, 2004,
Memorandum from Louis Apple, Office Director, to Michael S. Craig of
CBP). On January 22, 2004, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to
both respondents.
On February 5, 2004, the petitioner and Guangxi Hengxian submitted
publicly available information (``PAI'') to be used in the calculation
of normal value. On February 17, 2004, Guangxi Hengxian submitted
additional PAI for consideration in the preliminary results.
On February 13, 2004, the Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of postponement of the preliminary results until no
later than July 26, 2004 (69 FR 7200).
On February 20, and 27, 2004, Nanning Runchao and Guangxi Hengxian,
respectively, submitted their supplemental questionnaire responses.
On March 3, 2004, the petitioner submitted PAI comments. We issued
Nanning Runchao a second supplemental questionnaire on March 12, 2004,
and received its response on March 24, 2004. We issued Guangxi Hengxian
a second supplemental questionnaire on March 18, 2004, and received its
response on April 1, 2004.
On April 1 and 5, 2004, we notified both respondents of our intent
to conduct verification of their responses and provided each company
with a verification outline for purposes of familiarizing the companies
with the verification process. On April 6, 2004, we received
documentation from CBP regarding our January 7, 2004, request for
information.
On April 7, 2004, the petitioner submitted pre-verification
comments on both companies. Also on April 7, 2004, Nanning Runchao's
counsel notified the Department that its U.S. shipment of subject
merchandise during the period of review (``POR'') (i.e., which is the
basis for its new shipper review request) was being returned to the PRC
because it did not comply with U.S. Food and Drug Administration
regulations. As a result, the Department informed Nanning Runchao that
it was cancelling the verification which was to occur in April 2004
(see April 7, 2004, Memorandum from Team Leader to the File). On April
9, 2004, Nanning Runchao withdrew its request for a new shipper review.
On April 19, 2004, the Department rescinded the new shipper review
with respect to Nanning Runchao. (See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Seventh
New Shipper Review, 69 FR 22004 (April 23, 2004).)
From April 21, through April 24, 2004, the Department conducted
verification of the information submitted by Guangxi Hengxian in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.307.
On April 21, 2004, Guangxi Hengxian submitted minor corrections to
its responses which it presented to the Department's verifiers at the
start of verification. On May 18, 2004, Guangxi Hengxian submitted
additional PAI comments. On May 19, 2004, we issued the verification
report for Guangxi Hengxian (``Guangxi Hengxian verification report'').
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The
preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species Agaricus
bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ``Preserved mushrooms'' refer to
mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching,
and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and
heated in containers including, but not limited to, cans or glass jars
in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not limited to, water,
brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported
whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope
of this order are ``brined'' mushrooms, which are presalted and packed
in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further
processing.
Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All
other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and
chilled mushrooms, including ``refrigerated'' or ``quick blanched
mushrooms'; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5)
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms, which are
prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may
contain oil or other additives.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms containing
less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the
antidumping duty order. See ``Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling
of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain Marinated,
Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,''
dated June 19, 2000. This decision is currently on appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable
under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137,
2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is
dispositive.
Period of Review
The POR covers February 1, 2003, through July 31, 2003.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the
Act''), as amended, we verified information provided by Guangxi
Hengxian. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site
inspection of Guangxi Hengxian's facility and examination of relevant
sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in
the Guangxi Hengxian verification report.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non-market-economy (``NME'') countries,
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the country are subject to government control and thus should be
assessed a single antidumping duty rate (i.e., a PRC-wide rate).
Guangxi Hengxian is a limited liability company registered in the
PRC. Thus, a separate-rates analysis is necessary to determine whether
the export activities of this respondent are independent from
government control. (See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China, 61 FR
56570 (April 30, 1996).) To establish whether a firm is sufficiently
independent in its export activities from government control to be
entitled to a separate rate, the Department utilizes a test arising
from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991), and 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''). Under the separate-rates
criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if
the respondent can
[[Page 45014]]
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental
control over export activities.
1. De Jure Control
Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure
absence of government control over exporter 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.
In prior cases involving products from the PRC, the Department has
examined the following PRC laws for purposes of determining whether
there is an absence of de jure control with respect to a respondent's
export functions: the 1994 ``Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic
of China;'' the ``Company Law of the PRC,'' effective as of July 1,
1994; and ``The Enterprise Legal Person Registration Administrative
Regulations,'' promulgated on June 13, 1988. (See July 22, 2004,
Memorandum to the File which places the above-referenced laws on the
record of this proceeding segment.)
As in prior cases, we have analyzed these laws and have found them
to establish sufficiently an absence of de jure control of limited
liability companies absent proof on the record to the contrary. (See,
e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995)
(``Furfuryl Alcohol''), and Preliminary 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 29571 (June 5,
1995).)
2. De Facto Control
As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. (See
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587, and Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR at 22544.)
Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto
control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in
fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude
the Department from assigning separate rates.
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 management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or
financing of losses. (See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587 and Furfuryl
Alcohol, 60 FR at 22545.)
Guangxi Hengxian has asserted the following: (1) It establishes its
own export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts without guidance from
any governmental entities or organizations; (3) it makes its own
personnel decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds of its export
sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the
authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. We examined
documentation at verification which substantiated Guangxi Hengxian's
claims as noted above (see pages 4 through 12 of the Guangxi Hengxian
verification report). As a result, there is a sufficient basis to
determine preliminarily that this respondent has demonstrated a de
facto absence of government control of its export functions and is
entitled to a separate rate. Consequently, we have preliminarily
determined that Guangxi Hengxian has met the criteria for the
application of separate rates.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether the sale of the subject merchandise by Guangxi
Hengxian to the United States was made at a price below NV, we compared
the export price to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below.
Export Price
We used export price (``EP'') methodology in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act because the subject merchandise was first
sold prior to importation by the exporter outside the United States
directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and
constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
We calculated EP based on the packed U.S. port price to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign
inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC,
international freight, U.S. brokerage and handling charges, and U.S.
customs duties (including merchandise processing and harbor maintenance
fees) in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Based on our
verification findings, we revised (1) the inland freight distance
Guangxi Hengxian reported from its factory to the port of exportation;
and (2) the reported per-unit packed weight used to derive PRC movement
expenses (see pages 3 and 16 of the Guangxi Hengxian verification
report).
Because foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling
fees were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we
based those charges on surrogate rates from India (see ``Surrogate
Country'' section below for further discussion of our surrogate-country
selection).
To value foreign inland trucking charges, we used truck freight
rates published in Indian Chemical Weekly (``Chemical Weekly'') and
distance information obtained from the following Web sites: http://www.infreight.com and http://www.sitaindia.com/Packages/CityDistance.php.
To value foreign brokerage and handling expenses, we relied on
October 1999-September 2000 information reported in the public U.S.
sales listing submitted by Essar Steel Ltd. in the antidumping
investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 67 FR
50406 (October 3, 2001). For international freight (i.e., ocean
freight), we used the reported expenses because Guangxi Hengxian used
only a market-economy freight carrier and paid for those expenses in a
market-economy currency (see, e.g., Brake Rotors from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 64 FR 9972, 9974 (March 1, 1999)).
Normal Value
A. Non-Market-Economy Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to 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. (See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003).) None of the
parties to this review has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we
calculated NV in
[[Page 45015]]
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
B. Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or
more market-economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. India was among the
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic
development (see October 7, 2003, Memorandum from the Office of Policy
to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias). In addition, based on publicly available
information placed on the record (e.g., world production data), India
is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we
considered India the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the
factors of production because it meets the Department's criteria for
surrogate-country selection (see Memorandum Re: 7th Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's
Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated July 22,
2004, for further discussion).
C. Factors of Production
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited
to: (A) Hours of labor required; (B) quantities of raw materials
employed; (C) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (D)
representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used the
factors reported by Guangxi Hengxian which produced the preserved
mushrooms it exported to the United States during the POR. To calculate
NV, we multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by publicly
available Indian values.
Based on our verification findings, we revised the following data
in Guangxi Hengxian's response: (1) The per-unit factors reported for
labels, tape, glue, and water (used in the mushroom growing stage); (2)
the per-unit factors reported for unskilled growing, harvesting,
processing, and packing labor; (3) the per-unit factor reported for
electricity; and (4) the supplier distances reported for straw, citric
acid, cans, cartons, tape, and labels (see pages 3, 4, 24, and 27 of
the verification report).
The Department's selection of the surrogate values applied in this
determination was based on the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices
to make them delivered prices. For those values not contemporaneous
with the POR and quoted in a foreign currency or in U.S. dollars, we
adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices (``WPIs'')
published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial
Statistics (``IFS''). (See July 22, 2004, Memorandum Re: Factors
Valuation For the Preliminary Results, from the Team Leader to the
File, for a detailed explanation of the methodology used to calculate
surrogate values.)
Guangxi Hengxian produced (rather than purchased) the fresh
mushrooms which it used in the mushroom canning process during the POR.
Therefore, we valued the inputs which this company used to produce the
fresh mushrooms which were canned during the POR.
To value spawn, cow manure, and straw, we used an average price
based on data contained in the 2002-2003 financial report of Flex Foods
Ltd. (``Flex Foods'') and the 2002-2003 financial report of Agro Dutch
Foods, Ltd. (``Agro Dutch'') (i.e., two Indian producers of the subject
merchandise).
Guangxi Hengxian purchased all of the cans which it used to sell
preserved mushrooms to the U.S. market during the POR. Therefore, for
tin cans we used can-size-specific purchase price data from the May 21,
2001 public version response submitted by Agro Dutch in the 2nd
antidumping duty administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms
from India, and derived per-unit, can-size-specific prices using the
petitioner's methodology contained in its February 5, 2004 PAI
submission.
Guangxi Hengxian reported that it resold mushroom scrap during the
POR (i.e., a by-product from its canned mushroom production). However,
we did not make an offset deduction to the surrogate cost of production
because we were unable to identify an appropriate surrogate value for
this material (see Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Synthetic
Indigo From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 69723, 69728
(December 14, 1999)).
To value coal and tin plate scrap, we used February 2003-July 2003
average Indian import values downloaded from the World Trade Atlas
Trade Information System (Internet Version 4.3e) (``World Trade
Atlas''). We also added an amount for loading and additional
transportation charges associated with delivering coal to the factory
based on June 1999 Indian price data contained in the periodical
Business Line.
To value salt, we used an average import price based on February
2002-January 2003 data contained in the World Trade Atlas because we
were unable to obtain a more current value.
To value citric acid and calcium carbonate, we used an average
import price based on February 2003-July 2003 data contained in the
World Trade Atlas and February 2003-July 2003 Indian domestic price
data contained in Chemical Weekly, consistent with our past practice
(see Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Third New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR
46173 (July 12, 2002) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment
7). For those prices obtained from Chemical Weekly, where appropriate,
we also deducted an amount for excise taxes based on the methodology
applied to values from the same source in a prior review involving the
subject merchandise from the PRC. (See page 4 of the May 31, 2001,
Preliminary Results Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of
New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's
Republic of China, 66 FR 30695 (June 7, 2001) which has been placed on
the record of this proceeding.) To value urea (i.e., carbamide), we
used an average price based on February 2003-July 2003 data contained
in World Trade Atlas and Chemical Weekly, as well as data contained in
Flex Foods' 2002-2003 financial report.
To value water, we used 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 Indian price data
from the Second Water Utilities Data Book. Because this value was not
contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted it for inflation based on
Indian WPIs published in the International Monetary Fund's IFS.
To value electricity, we used 2001 Indian price data from the
International Energy Agency's (``IEA'') report, ``Electricity Prices
for Industry,'' contained in the 2002 Key World Energy Statistics from
the IEA. Because this value was not contemporaneous with the POR, we
adjusted it for inflation based on U.S. wholesale price indices
published in the International Monetary Fund's IFS.
We valued labor based on a regression-based wage rate, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
To value factory overhead and selling, general, and administrative
(``SG&A'') expenses, we used the 2002-2003 financial data of Agro Dutch
and the
[[Page 45016]]
2002-2003 financial data of Flex Foods, both Indian producers of the
subject merchandise. To value profit, we used only the 2002-2003
financial data of Flex Foods because Agro Dutch experienced a loss
during the above-mentioned period. Therefore, in accordance with the
Department's practice, we have excluded the financial data of Agro
Dutch from the surrogate profit calculation. (See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Ball Bearings
and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 10685
(March 6, 2003) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 1).
Guangxi Hengxian leased the farm land which it used to grow fresh
mushrooms canned during the POR. Consistent with recent PRC case
practice, we determined that the cost of land is an important component
in the cost build-up of NV and is not specifically reflected in the
surrogate financial ratios calculated from the financial statements of
Agro Dutch and Flex Foods (see Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Partial Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the
People's Republic of China, 69 FR 42654, 42666 (July 16, 2004)
(``Warmwater Shrimp'')). Accordingly, for purposes of the preliminary
results of this review, we applied a land-lease cost to our calculation
of NV using the methodology established in the recently-completed
preliminary results of new shipper review of the order on fresh garlic
from the PRC covering the period November 1, 2002, through October 31,
2003 (see Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 69 FR 40607 (July 6,
2004) (Fresh Garlic).
Specifically, to value land, we used cost data contained in the
2001 Punjab State Development Report administered by the Planning
Commission of the Government of India (``Punjab Report''). We did not
use the surrogate land value from a 1996 policy notification issued by
the State of Rajasthan (in which the state government set an annual
lease rent for cultivable wasteland) which was used in Warmwater Shrimp
and Fresh Garlic because we found that the ``Punjab Report'' contains
more relevant and contemporaneous information pertaining to the Indian
land-lease market for agrarian farmland. Hence, the subject of the
``Punjab Report'' is clearly more similar to the type of land leased by
the respondent during the POR. Further, the data contained within the
``Punjab Report'' is based on actual experience, whereas that contained
within the 1996 policy notification was based on parameters that may
not have been implemented or that may have since been amended.
Upon review of the record of this new shipper review, we found no
information undermining the figure contained within the ``Punjab
Report.'' As such, based on all available information, we determined
that the figure contained within the ``Punjab Report'' serves as the
most reliable basis for determining a surrogate value for calculating a
cost of the farmland used to grow the subject merchandise.
Where appropriate, we did not include in the surrogate overhead and
SG&A calculations the excise duty amount listed in the financial
reports. We made certain adjustments to the ratios calculated by the
petitioner and the respondent as a result of reclassifying certain
expenses contained in the financial reports. For a further discussion
of the adjustments made, see the Preliminary Results Valuation
Memorandum.
To value PRC inland freight for inputs shipped by truck, we used
Indian freight rates published in the April 2003-July 2003 issues of
Chemical Weekly and obtained distances between cities from the
following Web sites: http://www.infreight.com and http://www.sitaindia.com/Packages/CityDistance.php.
To value corrugated cartons, labels, tape, and glue, we used
February 2003-July 2003 average import values from the World Trade
Atlas.
In accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed.
Cir. 1997), we revised our methodology for calculating source-to-
factory surrogate freight for those material inputs that are valued
based, all or in part, on CIF import values in the surrogate country.
Therefore, we have added to CIF surrogate values from India a surrogate
freight cost using the shorter of the reported distances from either
the closest PRC port of importation to the factory, or from the
domestic supplier to the factory on an input-specific basis.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists during
the period February 1, 2003, through July 31, 2003:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/producer/exporter percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light Foods, Inc......................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to the
parties to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication
of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30
days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be
held on September 28, 2004.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, 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 issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR
351.310(c).
Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in
case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties
may be submitted no later than September 1, 2004. Rebuttal briefs,
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due no later than
September 8, 2004. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in
this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a
statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not
to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases
cited.
The Department will issue the final results of the review,
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 90 days after
the date of issuance of the preliminary results.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue
appropriate appraisement instructions for the company subject to this
review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final
results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will
calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on
the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the
examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate
calculated in the final
[[Page 45017]]
results of this review is above de minimis.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Upon completion of this review, we will require cash deposits at
the rate established in the final results as further described below.
Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security
requirements for shipments of brake rotors from the PRC produced and
exported by Guangxi Hengxian that are entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of the new shipper review. The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of
this review for all shipments of subject merchandise from Guangxi
Hengxian entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the publication date: (1) For subject merchandise manufactured
and exported by Guangxi Hengxian, no cash deposit will be required if
the cash deposit rate calculated in the final results is zero or de
minimis; (2) for subject merchandise exported by Guangxi Hengxian but
not manufactured by Guangxi Hengxian, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the PRC-wide rate (i.e., 198.63 percent); and (3) for
subject merchandise produced by Guangxi Hengxian but not exported by
Guangxi Hengxian, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to
the exporter.
These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.
Dated: July 22, 2004.
Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-17201 Filed 7-27-04; 8:45 am]