Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 1998 / Notices 43373 creation of the model matching duties calculated for the examined sales Dated: August 6, 1998. hierarchy. As a result, the variables to the total entered value of the same Robert S. LaRussa, were improperly sorted. In addition, sales. The rate will be assessed Assistant Secretary for Import petitioner claims that the Department uniformly on all entries of that Administration. incorrectly defined three product particular company made during the [FR Doc. 98–21789 Filed 8–12–98; 8:45 am] characteristic codes in the model match POR. The Department will issue BILLING CODE 3510±DS±M program. Respondent agrees that there is appraisement instructions directly to a programming error in the model the Customs Service. matching hierarchy, but disagrees with Furthermore, the following deposit DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE petitioner’s suggested solution. requirements will be effective for all International Trade Administration Respondent argues that the problem shipments of industrial nitrocellulose with the model match program from Germany, entered, or withdrawn A±570±825 identified by the petitioner is not solely from warehouse, for consumption on or caused by the COMPRESS code, but also after the publication date of the final Sebacic Acid From the People's by the Department’s methodology in results of this administrative review, as Republic of China; Final Results of hand-coding viscosity levels in the provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: Antidumping Duty Administrative program. Respondent argues that in (1) the cash deposit rates for the Review addition to petitioner’s reviewed company will be the rate for AGENCY: Import Administration, recommendation, the Department must the firm as stated above; (2) if the International Trade Administration, also alter the U.S. viscosity hand-coding exporter is not covered in this review, Department of Commerce section of the program to result in a or the original investigation, but the ACTION: Notice of final results of more accurate model matching. manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate Department’s Position: The antidumping duty administrative review will be the rate established for the most of sebacic acid from the People’s Department agrees with both petitioner recent period for the manufacturer of Republic of China and respondent that there is a the merchandise; (3) if the exporter is programming error with three models in not a firm covered in this review, SUMMARY: On April 9, 1998, the the matching hierarchy. The Department previous reviews, or the original LTFV Department of Commerce (the has corrected the programming errors in investigation, but the manufacture is, Department) published the preliminary the model matching hierarchy and the the cash deposit rate will be the rate results of its administrative review of error in the hand coding section. established for the most recent period the antidumping duty order on sebacic However, the Department disagrees with for the manufacturer of the acid from the People’s Republic of petitioner and that the SAS function, merchandise; and (4) for all other China (PRC) (63 FR 17367). This review COMPRESS, caused an improper sorting producers and/or exporters of this covers shipments of this merchandise to of models. The compress function is merchandise, the cash deposit rate will the United States during the period of used to minimize space and has no be 3.84 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997. We impact on the model matching from the LTFV investigation. These cash gave interested parties an opportunity to hierarchy. deposit requirements, when imposed, comment on our preliminary results. Comment 7: Petitioner contends that shall remain in effect until publication Based upon our analysis of the only sales to the United States within of the final results of the next comments received we have changed the 12-month review period should be administrative review. the results from those presented in the included in the model match program, preliminary results of the review. This notice serves as a final reminder and that the month code should be EFFECTIVE DATE: August 13, 1998. corrected. Respondent did not to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comment. Brandon Farlander or Stephen Jacques, Department’s Position: The certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to Import Administration, International Department agrees with petitioner and Trade Administration, U.S. Department has corrected these programming errors. liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Final Results of the Review comply with this requirement could Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; result in the Secretary’s presumption telephone: (202) 482–0182 or (202) 482- As a result of the comments received 1391, respectively. we have revised our analysis and that reimbursement of antidumping APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: determine that the following margins duties occurred and the subsequent Unless otherwise indicated, all citations exist for the period July 1, 1996, through assessment of double antidumping to the statute are references to the June 30, 1997: duties. provisions effective January 1, 1995, the This notice also serves as the only effective date of the amendments made Margin reminder to parties subject to Manufacturer/exporter (percent) to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the administrative protective order (APO) of Uruguay Round Agreements Act Wolff Walsrode AG (WWAG) ... 7.18 their responsibility concerning the (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise disposition of proprietary information indicated, all citations to the The Department shall determine, and disclosed under APO. Timely Department’s regulations are in the Customs Service shall assess, notification of return/destruction of reference to the regulations, codified at antidumping duties on all appropriate APO materials or conversion to judicial 19 CFR Part 351 (62 FR 27295, May 19, entries. Individual differences between protective order is hereby requested. 1997). Failure to comply with the terms of an normal value and export price may vary SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: from the percentages stated above. We APO is a sanctionable violation. have calculated a company-specific This administrative review and notice Background duty assessment rate based on the ratio are in accordance with sections The Department published in the of the total amount of antidumping 751(a)(1)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Federal Register an antidumping duty 43374 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 1998 / Notices order on sebacic acid from the PRC on factual information that was stricken Duty Administrative Review; Sebacic July 14, 1994 (59 FR 35909). On July 21, from the record of this review. Acid from the PRC 63 FR 17371 (April 1997, the Department published in the Tianjin requested partial revocation of 9, 1998) and Analysis Memorandum for Federal Register (62 FR 38973) a notice the antidumping duty order on sebacic the Preliminary Results of the 1996/ of opportunity to request an acid from the PRC pursuant to 19 CFR 1997 Review, April 2, 1998, at administrative review of the 351.222(b). However, we have Attachment 5. Petitioner contends that antidumping duty order on sebacic acid determined in these final results a because respondents failed to provide from the PRC covering the period July margin of 1.09 percent for Tianjin, for the record the original inquiry letter 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997. On July which is above the Department’s de sent to the editor of Chemical Weekly, 29, 1997, Tianjin Chemicals Import and minimis standard of 0.5 percent. there is no evidence on the record to Export Corporation (‘‘Tianjin’’), Therefore, we determine that Tianjin indicate whether the octanol price Guangdong Chemicals Import and has not met the requirements for referred to in the inquiry letter to the Export Corporation (‘‘Guangdong’’), and revocation. editor corresponds to the octanol price Sinochem International Chemicals Scope of Review in the Chemical Weekly. In addition, Company, Ltd. (‘‘SICC’’) requested that petitioner argues that there is no we conduct an administrative review. The products covered by this order evidence on the record to indicate that Also, on July 29, 1997, Tianjin are all grades of sebacic acid, a the Chemical Weekly editor is requested partial revocation of the dicarboxylic acid with the formula sufficiently familiar with the chemical antidumping duty order on sebacic acid (CH2)8(COOH)2, which include but are composition of the octanol product from the PRC. On July 30, 1997, in not limited to CP Grade (500ppm published in Chemical Weekly to accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), maximum ash, 25 maximum APHA declare that it is 2-octanol (2- Union Camp requested that we conduct color), Purified Grade (1000ppm ethylhexanol). an administrative review of Tianjin, maximum ash, 50 maximum APHA Respondents maintain that the Guangdong, SICC, and Sinochem color), and Nylon Grade (500ppm Department correctly did not use a Jiangsu Import and Export Corporation. maximum ash, 70 maximum ICV color). surrogate value for 1-octanol for the We published a notice of initiation of The principal difference between the margin calculations (as suggested by this antidumping duty administrative grades is the quantity of ash and color. petitioner), because the octanol value review on August 28, 1997 (62 FR Sebacic acid contains a minimum of 85 from the Chemical Weekly is for 2- 45621). The Department is conducting percent dibasic acids of which the ethylhexanol, which is another type of this administrative review in predominant species is the C10 dibasic octanol, is the best available accordance with section 751 of the Act. acid. Sebacic acid is sold generally as a information. Respondents argue that it is clear that Sinochem Jiangsu was mailed a free-flowing powder/flake. the editor of Chemical Weekly was questionnaire on August 30, 1997 but Sebacic acid has numerous industrial referring in his letter to the price quote did not respond. uses, including the production of nylon 6/10 (a polymer used for paintbrush and for octanol in his own publication, and On April 9, 1998, the Department of toothbrush bristles and paper machine that the editor is knowledgeable about Commerce (the Department) published felts), plasticizers, esters, automotive the price quotes for the various the preliminary results of its coolants, polyamides, polyester castings chemicals found in the Indian market. administrative review of the and films, inks and adhesives, Respondents contend that the Chemical antidumping duty order on sebacic acid lubricants, and polyurethane castings Weekly octanol price quote is for 2- from the PRC (63 FR 17367, April 9, and coatings. ethylhexanol, which they assert is 1998). We received written comments Sebacic acid is currently classifiable comparable in use and in value to 2- from three exporters of the subject under subheading 2917.13.00.00 of the octanol. (See (B) below.) merchandise: Tianjin, Guangdong, and Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the Department’s Position: 1 (A) Octanol SICC (collectively, respondents). We United States (HTSUS). Although the value in Chemical Weekly (Bombay, also received comments from the HTSUS subheading is provided for India). We disagree with petitioner. petitioner, Union Camp Corporation. convenience and customs purposes, our Respondents submitted a letter written On May 28, 1998, the Department written description of the scope of this by the editor of Chemical Weekly stating informed parties that respondents’ May proceeding remains dispositive. that the reference to the octanol value in 11, 1998 case brief, and petitioner’s May This review covers the period July 1, Chemical Weekly refers to 2- 11, 1998 case brief and May 18, 1998 1996, through June 30, 1997, and four ethylhexanol, which is a type of octanol. rebuttal brief, contained untimely new exporters of Chinese sebacic acid. See Attachment V of respondent’s information, pursuant to 19 CFR December 4, 1997 PAPI submission and 351.301(b)(2), which requires that Analysis of Comments Received Analysis Memorandum for the factual information be submitted not Comment 1: Surrogate value for 2- Preliminary Results of the 1996/1997 later than 140 days after the last day of octanol (capryl alcohol). 1 (A) Octanol Review, April 2, 1998, at Attachment 5. the anniversary month. This untimely value in Chemical Weekly (Bombay, Furthermore, contrary to petitioner’s new factual information was stricken India). Petitioner argues that the octanol argument, respondents have placed a from the record of this review. On June value in Chemical Weekly is for 1- copy of the inquiry letter to the editor 12, 1998, the Department informed octanol and not 2-octanol or 2- of Chemical Weekly on the record as an parties that respondents’ May 29, 1998 ethylhexanol. Petitioner questions the attachment to its rebuttal brief pursuant case brief, May 18, 1998 rebuttal brief, reliability of the letter from the editor of to the Department’s request for this and petitioner’s June 1, 1998 rebuttal Chemical Weekly which was submitted information. See Attachment to brief contained untimely new by respondents and used by the respondents’ June 16, 1998 rebuttal information that was stricken from the Department for the preliminary results. brief. Finally, there is no evidence on record of this review. On July 31, 1998, The letter states that ‘‘the octanol price the record suggesting that the editor of the Department informed parties that referred by you corresponds to the more Chemical Weekly is unfamiliar with the presentations in the June 10, 1998 common 2-octanol (2 ethylhexanol).’’ basis of the values reported in his own public hearing contained untimely new See Preliminary Results of Antidumping publication. Therefore, based on the Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 1998 / Notices 43375 above information, and absent any (1991), refers to all octanols as was not based on a reasonable substantiated record evidence to the plasticizer-range alcohols and to 2- interpretation of the statute. contrary, the Department determines octanol as octanol. Respondents For the record of this review, that the octanol value from Chemical maintain that Hawley’s indicates that all however, we have substantial evidence Weekly is for 2-ethylhexanol. octanols, including 2-octanol and 2- on the record establishing that 2- 1 (B) Comparability between 1- ethylhexanol, are used interchangeably ethylhexanol (also known as 2- octanol, 2-octanol, and 2-ethylhexanol. to produce esters which are used to ethylhexanol alcohol and octyl alcohol) Petitioner argues that 2-ethylhexanol, produce plastics. Respondents also and 2-octanol are comparable which the Department used as a assert that the octanol price from merchandise based on similar uses. surrogate value for 2-octanol, is not a Chemical Weekly, which respondents Respondents cite the Kirk-Othmer comparable product to 2-octanol based claim is 2-ethylhexanol, is priced lower article, which states that chemical on evidence on the record. Petitioner in world markets than 2-octanol. family members with 6–11 carbon atoms asserts that the Court of International Therefore, using the value of 2- are known as plasticizer-range alcohols. Trade (‘‘CIT’’), in both Union Camp ethylhexanol would not result in See ‘‘Alcohols, Higher Aliphatic,’’ Kirk- Corp. v. United States, 941 F. Supp. 108, granting respondents an overstated by- Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical 113 (1996) and Union Camp Corp. v. product credit. Technology (‘‘Kirk-Othmer’’) at 865 United States, No. 97–03–00483, Slip Respondents argue that the (1991). All of the octanols, including 1- Op. 98–38, (Ct. Int’l Trade, March 27, Department has not considered octanol, 2-octanol and 2-ethylhexanol, 1998), held that the Department’s use of evidence on the record that 1-octanol are plasticizer range alcohols with eight 1-octanol to value 2-octanol, based on and 2-octanol are interchangeable for carbon atoms. Therefore, 1-octanol, 2- its determination that 1-octanol was certain uses and are used in the octanol and 2-ethylhexanol are comparable to 2-octanol, was production of plasticizers, lube oils, and physically similar. Further, according to Kirk-Othmer, ‘‘unsupported by substantial evidence perfumes. Respondents request that the plasticizer-range alcohols are used on the record and not in accordance Department, in making its primarily as ester derivatives in with law.’’ See petitioner’s June 1, 1998 determination about which surrogate plasticizers and lubricants. Id. at 865. case brief at 2–3. Also, petitioner argues value to use in the final results, consider that there is no substantial evidence on Respondents also submitted excerpts the uses and values of 1-octanol and 2- from Hawley’s in their June 16, 1998 the record to indicate that 2- octanol, in light of the CIT’s previous ethylhexanol is comparable to 2-octanol, case brief demonstrating that 2- ruling that Commerce’s determination ethylhexanol, 1-octanol, and 2-octanol which is a subsidiary product produced that 1-octanol and 2-octanol were not as a result of the Chinese sebacic acid are comparable products with similar comparable products solely because uses. Hawley’s states that di(2- production process. In addition, they have the same molecular structure. petitioner asserts that 2-ethylhexanol is ethylhexyl) phthalate is created by See Union Camp Corp. v. United States, a form of 1-octanol with a chemical mixing 2-ethylhexanol and phthalic No. 97–03–00483, Slip Op. 98–38, (Ct. formula of CH3(CH2)6CH2OH, which is anhydride and is used as a plasticizer Int’l Trade, March 27, 1998). different from 2-octanol’s chemical for many resins and elastomers; thus, 2- Respondents contend that if the formula of CH3(CH2)5CH2OCH3. ethylhexanol, when mixed with another Department uses the petitioner’s Petitioner further alleges that the uses chemical, is used as a plasticizer for internal cost as the surrogate value, the for 2-ethylhexanol and 2-octanol differ. many resins and elastomers. In addition, petitioner, rather than the Department, In this point, petitioner notes that other data in Hawley’s indicates that 1- will be controlling the dumping Hawley’s Condensed Chemical octanol, 2-ethylhexanol and 2-octanol margins. Moreover, respondents will not Dictionary, 12th ed. (‘‘Hawley’s’’) lists have similar uses. the following uses for 1-octanol: know in the future whether a particular Finally, in respondents’ December 4, ‘‘perfumery, cosmetics, organic U.S. price will be considered a dumped 1997 PAPI submission, Attachment 4, synthesis, solvent manufacture of high- price, because the petitioner’s internal the Chemical Marketing Reporter (U.S.) boiling esters, antifoaming agent, cost is not publicly available. (June 30, 1997) lists the following U.S. flavoring agent,’’ page 848. Hawley’s Petitioner asserts that there is no prices, in cents per pound: 2- lists the following uses for 2-octanol: common usage for 1-octanol and 2- ethylhexanol, $0.56; and 2-octanol, ‘‘solvent, manufacture of plasticizers, octanol listed in Hawley’s. Petitioner $0.68. These prices are evidence that 2- wetting agents, foam control agents, argues that the Kirk-Othmer citation (the ethylhexanol may be priced lower than hydraulic oils, petroleum additives, Alcohols, Higher Aliphatic article) 2-octanol. Therefore, petitioner’s perfume intermediaries, masking of submitted by respondents does not state argument that respondents are getting a industrial odors.’’ Id. at 848. Therefore, that 2-octanol is referred to as an higher co-product allocation with the petitioner’s argue that 2-ethylhexanol is octanol or that all octanols are use of the octanol value in Chemical not comparable to 2-octanol. plasticizer range alcohols. Weekly is unfounded. Respondents contend that the Department’s Position: 1 (B) Based on the above information, we Chemical Weekly octanol price quote is Comparability of 1-octanol, 2-octanol, find that 2-ethylhexanol, 2-octanol, and for 2-ethylhexanol, and it is comparable and 2-ethylhexanol. We disagree with 1-octanol are all comparable products. in use and in value to 2-octanol. petitioner’s contention that the CIT held Therefore, given the Department’s Respondents argue that 2-ethylhexanol in Union Camp Corp. v. United States, preference for publicly available and 2-octanol are both plasticizer-range No. 97–03–00483, Slip Op. 98–38 surrogate values, we have concluded alcohol chemicals that can be used (March 27, 1998), that 1-octanol and 2- that the Chemical Weekly value for 2- interchangeably for certain applications octanol are not comparable. The CIT ethylhexanol is the most appropriate and thus have some of the same uses. held that the Department’s surrogate value. Because the octanol Respondents argue that an article (in determination that 1-octanol and 2- value in Chemical Weekly is reported their June 16, 1998 case brief, Exhibit 1) octanol are comparable merchandise inclusive of taxes, we deducted taxes entitled, ‘‘Alcohols, Higher Aliphatic,’’ based solely on the fact the fact that the from the octanol value. from Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of two chemicals have similar molecular 1 (C) Crude versus refined 2-octanol Chemical Technology (‘‘Kirk-Othmer’’) structure was contrary to law because it surrogate value. Petitioner asserts that 43376 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 1998 / Notices instead of the value from the Chemical 1981). Respondents also argue that the products because the Chinese sebacic Weekly used by the Department for the Department has used the sales price of acid producers are unable to separate preliminary results, the Department the subsidiary product to determine the additional factors of production should use the U.S. value for 2-octanol whether it is a by-product or a co- used to convert crude subsidiary and deduct the inputs used to convert product, citing: Final Determination of products into refined subsidiary crude 2-octanol to refined 2-octanol. Sales at Less Than Fair Value: products. For example, respondents Petitioner argues that using the U.S. Coumarin from the People’s Republic of state that, for producer Tianjin Zhong value for refined 2-octanol is consistent China, 59 FR 66895, 66901 (December He, any additional factors of production with the Department’s practice of using 28, 1994); Final Determination of Sales to process crude 2-octanol to refine 2- a U.S. surrogate value, citing Final at Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums octanol have already been reported to Determination of Sales at Less Than and Brake Rotors from the People’s the Department and are included in the Fair Value: Certain Cased Pencils from Republic of China, 62 FR 9160, 9172 sebacic acid factors of production, the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR (February 28, 1997); Magnesium Corp. because these additional factors of 55625, 55630 (November 8, 1994) of America v. United States, 938 F. production cannot be separated from the (‘‘Cased Pencils’’). Respondents allege Supp. 885 (Ct. Int’l Trade, 1996). sebacic acid factors of production. See that the petitioner is selling crude 2- Respondents argue, that based on the respondents’ January 20, 1998 octanol at a much higher value than the above arguments, the Department supplemental questionnaire response at value reported to the Department. should grant a by-product credit for page 7. Moreover, at verification, we Petitioner counters that the source of refined 2-octanol and not crude 2- made certain that the additional factors this information is suspect, because the octanol. of production to convert the crude respondent’s source is not a qualified Petitioner asserts that respondent subsidiary products into refined expert nor are his opinions objective, should not receive a by-product credit subsidiary products had either been since he is employed by a firm which for refined 2-octanol because reported to the Department or, if these imports subject merchandise. respondents did not state in their additional factors of production had not Next, respondents argue that the submissions to the Department that the been reported to the Department, we Department should grant a by-product additional factors of production to added these additional factors of credit for refined 2-octanol because the convert crude 2-octanol to refined 2- production used to convert crude Chinese sebacic acid producers only sell octanol have already been included in subsidiary products into refined refined 2-octanol and the additional the sebacic acid factors of production. subsidiary products to the reported factors of production for the refining of Petitioner notes that there was no cite to sebacic acid factors of production. For the subsidiary product have been the record and their review of example, we discovered at verification reported to the Department. Therefore if respondents’s Section D questionnaire that the electricity used to convert crude the Department decides not to use the response found no discussion of glycerine into refined glycerine was not octanol value from Chemical Weekly, additional factors for refining 2-octanol. reported to the Department, but we the Department should use a refined Therefore, petitioner maintains that, in added this additional electricity used to price for 2-octanol, because the Chinese the event that the Department uses the the reported sebacic acid factors of producers sell refined 2-octanol not octanol value from Chemical Weekly, production. See Verification report to crude 2-octanol. Also, respondents state the Department should reduce the the File, page 13 (March 24, 1998). that the additional factors for converting surrogate value by the purity levels at crude 2-octanol into refined 2-octanol which each firm produces 2-octanol. Also, a more accurate by-product/co- are already included in the sebacic acid Department’s Position: 1 (C) Crude product analysis results by using the factors of production. Respondents versus refined 2-octanol surrogate value. refined value of 2-octanol rather than a maintain that the Department requires We disagree with petitioner. Petitioner crude value for 2-octanol. The that the additional factors of production cites Final Determination of Sales at Department’s practice is to use the for refining a by-product or co-product Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to- subsidiary product’s sales value and must be included in the factors of Length Carbon Plate from the People’s factories’ material yield amounts for production reported to the Department Republic of China, 62 FR 61964 determining the by-product/co-product before a subsidiary by-product credit(s) (November 20, 1997), which states, ‘‘(i)t analysis. In Preliminary Determination can be granted. is the Department’s policy to only grant of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Respondents argue that, in past cases, by-product credits for by-products Postponement of Final Determination: the Department has granted a by- actually produced directly as a result of Sebacic Acid from the People’s Republic product or co-product credit when: (1) the production process. A respondent of China, 59 FR 565, 569 (January 5, the foreign producer proves that the by- must report the factors associated with 1994), the Department ‘‘used surrogate product or co-product was sold, and (2) the further refining of a by-product if it values from India for sebacic acid, the additional factors of production for wishes to receive a credit for the further glycerine, caproyl (sic) alcohol, and the refining of the subsidiary product refined by-product.’’ Id. at 61997. We fatty acid to determine the relative value are reported to the Department, citing: note that, in contrast to petitioner’s of each product based on the production Final Determination of Sales at Less assertion, the sebacic acid factors of on one metric ton of sebacic acid, as Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length production used to calculate normal well as to determine the total value of Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s value (‘‘NV’’) already incorporate the one metric ton of sebacic acid.’’ Since Republic of China, 62 FR 61964, 61997 relatively few factors of production the Chinese producers sell refined 2- (November 20, 1997); Final Results of (labor and energy) necessary to convert octanol, as confirmed at verification, Antidumping Duty Administrative crude 2-octanol to refined 2-octanol. and they do not sell crude 2-octanol, we Review and Determination Not to Production of sebacic acid results in the believe that it is more appropriate to Revoke in Part: Silicon Metal from production of crude 2-octanol as a apply the surrogate value of refined 2- Brazil, 62 FR 1954, 1964 (January 14, subsidiary product. The sebacic acid octanol in conducting the by-product/ 1997); and Final Determination of Sales factors of production already include co-product analysis. Moreover, there is at Less Than Fair Value: Strontium the factors of production used to refine a publicly published sales price on Nitrate from Italy, 46 FR 25496 (May 7, 2-octanol and the other subsidiary which we can base a surrogate value for Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 1998 / Notices 43377 refined 2-octanol, which is the octanol octanol. We disagree with petitioner’s Respondents state that the Department value (2-ethylhexanol) from Chemical reliance on the above case because the should not use an identical surrogate Weekly. evidence on the record confirms that the value match from the U.S. for 2-octanol 1 (D) Treatment of 2-octanol by octanol value in Chemical Weekly is for when a surrogate value for a comparable Chinese producers. Petitioner contends 2-ethylhexanol. product is available from India, the that both it and respondent producers We determine whether a subsidiary chosen surrogate country used in this Handan Fuyan Sebacic Acid Factory, product is either a by-product or a co- review. Tianjin Zhong He, and Hengshui product by comparing the subsidiary Department’s Position: 1 (E) Use of an Dongfeng Chemical Factory all treat 2- products’ surrogate value to the value of exact match. We disagree with octanol as a by-product in their the subject merchandise. If we petitioner. In valuing factors of respective accounting systems. determine that the surrogate value of the production, the Department used Therefore, petitioner argues that the subsidiary product was significant surrogate values from India. In Department should also treat 2-octanol relative to the surrogate value of subject accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the as a by-product, rather than a co- merchandise, we treat the subsidiary Act, the Department chose India as its product. Petitioner asked the product as a co-product; otherwise, we surrogate, because it was most Department to verify how the Chinese treat it as a by-product. We do not comparable to the PRC in terms of producers treat 2-octanol but the determine if a subsidiary product is a overall economic development based on Department chose not verify how the by-product or co-product based on how per capita gross national product (GNP), Chinese producers treat 2-octanol. a particular company classifies the the national distribution of labor, Petitioner claims that because the subsidiary product in its accounting growth rate in per capita GNP, and Department used what petitioner records. Therefore, the treatment of 2- because it was a significant producer of suggests to be the value of 1-octanol to octanol by Chinese producers or by the comparable merchandise (oxalic acid). value 2-octanol in the preliminary U.S. producer of sebacic acid is As noted in Comment 4 below, both results, the Department incorrectly irrelevant to the Department’s analysis. petitioner and respondent do not object determined 2-octanol to be a co-product This is precisely why the Department to the Department’s use of India as the rather than a by-product of the sebacic did not verify how the Chinese producer surrogate country. acid production process. Petitioner cites Hengshui classifies 2-octanol. In this Section 773(c)(4) of the statute and 19 to Preliminary Determination of Sales at case, the Department determines that 2- CFR 351.408 of the Department’s Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to- octanol is a co-product, because its regulations instruct the Department to Length Carbon Steel Plate from the value is significant relative to the value factors of production in an People’s Republic of China (‘‘Carbon surrogate value of sebacic acid. appropriate surrogate country. The Steel Plate’’), 62 FR 31972, 31977 (June 1 (E) Use of an exact match. Petitioner Department rarely departs from use of a 11, 1997), where the Department argues that the Department should use surrogate value from a country determined that slag is a by-product and the U.S. value of 2-octanol because it is comparable to the NME in terms of not a co-product, using a U.S. value for an exact product match, instead of the overall economic development. See slag when surrogate values for slag in octanol value (2-ethylhexanol) from the Final Determination of Sales at Less India or Indonesia were aberrationally Chemical Weekly. Petitioner contends Than Fair Value: Beryllium Metal and high. that past Department practice supports High Beryllium Alloys from the Republic Respondents argue that the Chinese the use of a U.S. value for 2-octanol, in of Kazakstan, 62 FR 2648 (January 17, producers do not view 2-octanol as a by- accordance with Final Determination of 1997). Surrogate values from countries product and such characterization was Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain at a similar level of development are made by their counsel and not by the Cased Pencils from the People’s considered to be the most appropriate producers themselves. Whether Chinese Republic of China, 59 FR 55625, 55630 and comparable for valuation of the producers classify 2-octanol as a by- (November 8, 1994) (‘‘Cased Pencils’’); factors in the similarly situated product or a co-product, respondents Union Camp Corp. v. United States, 941 nonmarket economy country. While the argue, is only relevant in the context of F. Supp. 108, 113 (1996) (‘‘Union Camp Department may use values from the the Chinese accounting system and the I’’); Union Camp Corp. v. United States, United States or other countries not at relationship of the costs of 2-octanol to No. 97–03–00483, Slip Op. 98–38 a comparable level of development for the actual Chinese sebacic acid (1998)(‘‘Union Camp II’’); and Writing individual factors, its practice is to do production costs. Respondents contend Instruments Mfrs. Assoc. v. United so only if it cannot find those values in that the Department determines whether States, 984 F. Supp. 629 (Ct. Int’l Trade, a comparable economy that produce 2-octanol is a by-product or co-product 1997), appeal docketed, Nos. 981178, comparable merchandise. See based on the surrogate values used and 981292 (Fed. Cir., January 9, 1998 and Memorandum from David Mueller to not based on recorded Chinese costs. January 21, 1998). In contrast, petitioner Laurie Parkhill, Serbacic (sic) Acid from Respondents dismiss petitioner’s asserts that the product associated with the People’s Republic of China: citation of the Carbon Steel Plate case the Chemical Weekly value (which Nonmarket Economy Status and because it addresses a specific by- petitioner suggests may be 1-octanol) is Surrogate Country Selection, March 4, product and provides no guidance as to ‘‘not even ‘quite similar’ to 2-octanol 1996. whether a specific subsidiary product is either chemically or commercially.’’ In this review, the Department was either a by-product or a co-product. Respondents argue that 2- unable to locate an Indian value for 2- Department’s Position: 1 (D) ethylhexanol (which respondents octanol in India, the surrogate country. Treatment of 2-octanol by Chinese contend to be the product with which Additionally, neither the petitioner nor producers. We disagree with petitioner. the Chemical Weekly value is the respondents were able to locate a Petitioner cited Carbon Steel Plate to associated) and 2-octanol are specific Indian value for 2-octanol. support their position that the comparable in both use and value and, Petitioner cites Cased Pencils and the Department should use the U.S. 2- therefore, the Department should use Union Camp I and Union Camp II court octanol value instead of the allegedly the surrogate value 2-ethylhexanol. decisions to support their position that high octanol value from Chemical Respondents note that 2-ethylhexanol is the Department should use the U.S. 2- Weekly, which petitioner suggests is 1- produced in the surrogate country. octanol value instead of the octanol 43378 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 1998 / Notices value from Chemical Weekly for a inflator, correct the WPI inflator used to data that reflected water costs. In surrogate value for 2-octanol. In Cased calculate coal and use the WPI inflator Preliminary Determination of Sales at Pencils, the Department used a U.S. for the SICC/Hengshui coal calculation. Less Than Fair Value: Freshwater value (basswood) as the surrogate value Respondents disagree with Crawfish Tail Meat, 62 FR 14392 (March that was ‘‘most similar’’ (Id. at 55630) petitioner’s assertions concerning the 26, 1997), water was considered a instead of an Indian value (a basket following alleged ministerial errors: (1) separate factor of production because it category of woods which included the profit calculation for SICC/Hengshui is an agricultural product that uses a jelutong) which was ‘‘quite similar’’ to and Tianjin/Hengshui is calculated large amount of water to clean and boil the Chinese product (lindenwood) (Id. correctly; (5) use an average of the crude the crawfish to extract the tail meat and at 55629). In the Cased Pencils case, and refined glycerine values because the to operate the freezer. For sebacic acid, wood is the most significant input, and Department has already included the as in the other Chinese chemical case jelutong, which was in the basket factors of production to convert crude mentioned above, water is considered category of Indian import values, was glycerine to refined glycerine in the part of the factory overhead data in the priced ‘‘much higher than the most sebacic acid factors of production; and Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, we comparable wood.’’ Id. at 55630. (8) water is not a separate factor of determine that, in this case, water is not Because of these case specific reasons, production since water is already a separate factor of production. While the Department selected a U.S. surrogate included in the factory overhead we agree with petitioner that, for value instead of a surrogate value from calculations from the Reserve Bank of Hengshui, taxes were incorrectly a country that is at a comparable level India for the chemical industry. deducted twice for caustic soda (alleged Department’s Position: We agree with # of economic development. We disagree # error 2), we note that the result of this with petitioner that the situation here is petitioner concerning alleged errors 2, correction is a value of 5.5 Rs/kg and the same for selecting a surrogate value 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and have corrected these not the 4.43 Rs/kg value submitted by errors. We disagree with petitioner for 2-octanol. For the valuation of 2- # petitioner. octanol, India has been determined to be concerning alleged errors 1, 5, and 8. Comment 3: Ministerial errors alleged a significant producer of comparable With respect to the calculation of profit by respondents. Respondents maintain as a percentage of COP (alleged error merchandise and India is economically that the Department should correct #1), profit was calculated as a comparable to the People’s Republic of certain ministerial errors discussed in percentage of COP for both Tianjin/ China in the following: per capita gross the Department’s Analysis Hengshui and SICC/Hengshui. See domestic product (GDP), growth rate in Memorandum for the Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for the per capita GDP, and the national Results of the 1996/1997 Review, April Preliminary Results of the 1996/1997 distribution of labor. See Analysis 2, 1998, namely: (1) for Hengshui, the Review, April 2, 1998, page 19i. With Memorandum for the Preliminary plastic inner bag consumption per respect to the subsidiary products’ Results of the 1996/1997 Review, April sebacic acid metric ton was overstated; surrogate value (alleged error #5), as 2, 1998, page 2. Also, the octanol in (2) for Tianjin, the weighted-average mentioned in the Comment 1, (C) above, Chemical Weekly (2-ethylhexanol) and any additional factors of production to margin was calculated incorrectly; and 2-octanol are comparable merchandise. convert crude subsidiary products into (3) ocean freight charge was calculated See Department’s Position (B). Because refined subsidiary products are already incorrectly by dividing by 17.5 metric we have a suitable value from India, the included in the sebacic acid factors of tons instead of 18 metric tons for most Department need not, and, indeed, production. Therefore, we are granting of the shipments via a NME carrier. should not, use a U.S. surrogate value. either by-product credits or co-product Petitioner did not comment on Comment 2: Ministerial errors alleged allocations based on the refined value respondents’ ministerial error by petitioner. Petitioner maintains that and not a crude value of the subsidiary allegations. the Department should correct certain products. With respect to water being Department’s Position: We agree with alleged ministerial errors discussed in considered as a separate factor of respondents’ allegations with regard to the Department’s Analysis production (alleged error #8), as we errors # 2, and 3, and have corrected Memorandum for the Preliminary have established in many Chinese these errors. With respect to the Results of the 1996/1997 Review, April chemical dumping cases, such as in calculation of the amount of plastic bags 2, 1998, namely: (1) for both Tianjin/ Final Determination of Sales at Less consumed at Tianjin/Hengshui (alleged Hengshui and SICC/Hengshui, profit Than Fair Value, Polyvinyl Alcohol error #1), we disagree. We discovered at was incorrectly calculated by from the People’s Republic of China, 61 verification at Tianjin/Hengshui that multiplying profit by COM and not FR 14058 (March 29, 1996); Final sale #8 did not use any plastic bags but COP; (2) for the caustic soda surrogate Results of Antidumping Review for instead used only woven bags. value, taxes were incorrectly deducted Sebacic Acid from the People’s Republic Consequently, we divided the total twice; (3) for the method of allocation— of China, 62 FR 65674 (December 15, plastic inner bag weight for all sales coal sections, the amount of coal used 1997); Final Results of Antidumping except sale #8 by the total weight of the was misallocated; (4) for ocean freight Review for Sebacic Acid from the sebacic acid shipped in plastic bags. rates, the rates for sales 5, 6, 7, 9, and People’s Republic of China, 62 FR 10530 Then, we added the weight of the 10 for Tianjin were miscalculated; (5) (March 7, 1997), Final Determination of woven bags used for shipment for sale for the glycerine and fatty acid by- Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Sulfur #8 to the total weight of woven bags products, by-product credits need to be Dyes, Including Sulfur Vat Dyes from used for the shipment for all other sales adjusted by each producers respective the People’s Republic of China, 58 FR except sale #8 and divided the total purity level; (6) for the truck freight 7537 (February 8, 1993); and Final weight of the woven bags used by the inflator, the WPI inflator used is Results of Antidumping Review for total amount of sebacic acid shipped for incorrect; (7) for the surrogate value for Sulfanilic Acid from the People’s all sales. See Analysis Memorandum for castor seed cake, use the castor seed Republic of China, 62 FR 48597 the Preliminary Results of the 1996/ cake surrogate value from the Economic (September 16, 1997), we did not value 1997 Review, April 2, 1998, pages 2–3. Times; (8) for water, include it as a water as a separate factor of production Therefore, for the final results, we have factor of production; (9) for the coal but relied instead on factory overhead made no further adjustment to Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 1998 / Notices 43379

Hengshui’s reported plastic inner bag Petitioner states that it does not object not granted a separate rate and the consumption figure. to use of India as the surrogate country country-wide rate will apply to all of its Comment 4: Use of India as the for this administrative review. sales. Department’s Position: Since there is surrogate country. Respondent argues As a result of our review of the no argument as to which surrogate that petitioner has stated that India is country to use, the Department will comments received, we have changed not an appropriate surrogate country continue to use India as the surrogate the results from those presented in our and that the Department should use country for this administrative review. preliminary results of the review. either Japan or the United States as an Therefore, we determine that the appropriate surrogate country. Final Results of Review following margins exists as a result of For Sinochem Jiangsu, which failed to our review: respond to the questionnaire, we have

Margin Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)

Tianjin Chemicals I/E Corp ...... 7/01/96±6/30/97 1.09 Sinochem International Chemicals Corp ...... 7/01/96±6/30/97 0.11 Guangdong Chemicals I/E Corp ...... 7/01/96±6/30/97 10.18 Country-Wide Rate ...... 7/01/96±6/30/97 243.40 Sinochem Jiangsu I/E Corp ...... 7/01/96±6/30/97 243.40

The Department shall determine, and Notification of Interested Parties International Trade Administration, the Customs Service shall assess, This notice also serves as a final (202) 482–5131. This is not a toll-free antidumping duties on all appropriate reminder to importers of their number. entries. The Department will issue responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of appraisement instructions on each to file a certificate regarding the exporter directly to the Customs the Export Trading Company Act of reimbursement of antidumping duties 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the Service. For assessment purposes, we prior to liquidation of the relevant have calculated importer specific duty Secretary of Commerce to issue Export entries during this review period. Trade Certificates of Review. An Export assessment rates for the merchandise Failure to comply with this requirement based on the ratio of the total amount of Trade Certificate of Review protects the could result in the Secretary’s holder and the members identified in antidumping duties calculated for the presumption that reimbursement of examined sales during the POR to the the Certificate from state and federal antidumping duties occurred and the government antitrust actions and from total entered value of sales examined subsequent assessment of double during the POR. private treble damage antitrust actions antidumping duties. for the export conduct specified in the This determination is issued and Furthermore, the following cash Certificate and carried out in deposit requirements will be effective published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. compliance with its terms and upon publication of the final results of conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the this administrative review for all Dated: August 7, 1998. Export Trading Company Act of 1982 shipments of the subject merchandise Robert S. LaRussa, and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, Assistant Secretary for Import Secretary to publish a notice in the for consumption on or after the Administration. Federal Register identifying the publication date, as provided for by [FR Doc. 98–21790 Filed 8–12–98; 8:45 am] applicant and summarizing its proposed section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for the BILLING CODE 3510±DS±P export conduct. reviewed companies named above which have separate rates (SICC, Request for Public Comments Tianjin, and Guangdong), the cash DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE deposit rates will be the rates for those Interested parties may submit written firms established in the final results of International Trade Administration comments relevant to the determination this administrative review; (2) for whether an amended Certificate should companies previously found to be Export Trade Certificate of Review be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business entitled to a separate rate and for which ACTION: Notice of Application to Amend no review was requested, the cash Certificate. information, it must be clearly marked deposit rates will be the rate established and a nonconfidential version of the in the most recent review of that SUMMARY: The Office of Export Trading comments (identified as such) should be company; (3) for all other PRC exporters Company Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’), included. Any comments not marked of subject merchandise, the cash deposit International Trade Administration, privileged or confidential business rates will be the PRC country-wide rate Department of Commerce, has received information will be deemed to be indicated above; and (4) the cash an application to amend an Export nonconfidential. An original and five deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of Trade Certificate of Review copies, plus two copies of the subject merchandise from the PRC will (‘‘Certificate’’). This notice summarizes nonconfidential version, should be be the rate applicable to the PRC the proposed amendment and requests submitted no later than 20 days after the supplier of that exporter. These deposit comments relevant to whether the date of this notice to: Office of Export rates, when imposed, shall remain in Certificate should be issued. Trading Company Affairs, International effect until publication of the final FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trade Administration, Department of results of the next administrative Morton Schnabel, Director, Office of Commerce, Room 1800H, Washington review. Export Trading Company Affairs, D.C. 20230. Information submitted by