[Federal Register: February 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 7725-7727]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14fe06-22]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-847]
Persulfates From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 10, 2005, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty
administrative review of persulfates from the People's Republic of
China (``the PRC''). This review covers one exporter of the subject
merchandise, Shanghai AJ Import and Export Corporation (``Shanghai
AJ''). The period of review (``POR'') is July 1, 2003, through June 30,
2004. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary
results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
certain changes to our calculations. The final weighted-average dumping
margin for this review is listed in the ``Final Results of Review''
section below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 14, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tisha Loeper-Viti or Frances Veith,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
7425 and (202) 482-4295, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 7, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the PRC. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Persulfates From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR
36259 (July 7, 1997). On July 1, 2004, the Department published a
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on persulfates from the PRC for the period July
1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review, 69 FR 39903 (July 1, 2004). On July 30, 2004,
FMC Corporation (FMC), a domestic producer, requested an administrative
review of Shanghai AJ. No other interested party submitted a request
for a review. On September 22, 2004, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of the initiation of the administrative
review of the order on persulfates from the PRC for the period July 1,
2003, through June 30, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation
in Part, 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004).
On March 25, 2005, the Department published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the time limit for the preliminary results of this
review to August 1, 2005. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the 2003-2004 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Persulfates From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 15293
(March 25, 2005). The Department published the preliminary results on
August 10, 2005. See Persulfates From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
46476 (August 10, 2005) (``Preliminary Results'').
We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results of review.
See Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 46480. On September 23, 2005, the
Department received case briefs from FMC and Shanghai AJ. On September
30, 2005, the Department received rebuttal briefs from FMC and Shanghai
AJ. The Department conducted a public hearing on October 7, 2005, at
the main Commerce building. On January 12, 2006, we issued a memorandum
to all interested parties requesting comments regarding a change in the
Department's calculated regression-based wage rate. See January 12,
2006, Memorandum from Tisha Loeper-Viti to the File Re:
[[Page 7726]]
2003-2004 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Persulfates from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Expected PRC
Wage Rate 2003 Income Data. No parties provided comments. On February
2, 2006, we issued a letter to all interested parties requesting
comments regarding changes to the Department's calculation of surrogate
financial ratios. See February 2, 2006, letter from Wendy J. Frankel to
All Interested Parties Re: 2003-2004 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Persulfates from the People's Republic of
China Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios. We received comments
from FMC on February 3, 2006. Shanghai AJ did not comment on this
issue. The Department has conducted this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act'').
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order 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.
Separate Rates
Shanghai AJ has requested a separate, company-specific antidumping
duty rate. In our preliminary results, we found that Shanghai AJ had
met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty
rate. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 46478. We have not received any
other information since the preliminary results which would warrant
reconsideration of our separate-rates determination with respect to
this company. Therefore, we have assigned an individual dumping margin
to Shanghai AJ for this administrative review.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this
administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum (``Decision Memo'') from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 6, 2006, which is
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have
raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision
Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Decision Memo is a
public document which is on file in the Central Records Unit in Room B-
099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of
the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.
The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision
Memo are identical in content.
Changes From the Preliminary Results
For purposes of the final results, we have made certain changes in
the margin calculation for Shanghai AJ. For a discussion of these
changes, see the ``Margin Calculations'' section of the Decision Memo.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following
weighted-average percentage margin exists for persulfates from the PRC
for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai AJ Import and Export Corporation........... 36.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total value of
the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis and the
respondent has reported reliable entered values, we applied the
assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/customer's
entries during the review period. Where an importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis and we do not have
entered values, we calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating
the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or
customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that
importer (or customer). The Department will issue appropriate
assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication
of these final results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of persulfates from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these
final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)
of the Act: (1) for Shanghai AJ, the cash-deposit rate will be 36.53
percent; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not
listed above that have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) the cash-deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be
119.02 percent, the PRC-wide rate established in the less-than-fair-
value investigation; and (4) the cash-deposit rate for non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as the final 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 in the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 7727]]
Dated: February 6, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
Comments and Responses
Comment 1: Whether to Use Financial Data from Indian Peroxide Producers
to Derive Surrogate Financial Ratios
Comment 2: Whether to Include Financial Data from Gujarat Alkalies and
Chemicals Co., Ltd. to Derive Surrogate Financial Ratios
Comment 3: Whether to Include Employee Benefits in Overhead Calculation
Comment 4: Surrogate Labor Rate
Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Water
Comment 6: Surrogate Value for Electricity
Comment 7: Surrogate Value for Caustic Soda
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Apply Total Adverse Facts
Available
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Disregard as Untimely Certain
Record Information
Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Reopen the Record to New
Factual Information
Comment 11: Application of Adverse Facts Available in Preliminary
Results Margin Program
[FR Doc. E6-2088 Filed 2-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S