Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 69937-69941 [05-22893]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Notices
Dated: November 10, 2005.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05–22927 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
Foreign–Trade Zone 127 West
Columbia, South Carolina, Application
for Subzone, JBE, Inc. (Automotive
Parts), Hartsville, South Carolina
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign–Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 1417]
Expansion/Reorganization of FTZ 147,
Reading, Pennsylvania, Area
Pursuant to its authority under the
Foreign–Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign–
Trade Zones Board adopts the following
Order:
Whereas, the Foreign–Trade Zone
Corporation of Southeastern
Pennsylvania, grantee of Foreign–Trade
Zone 147, submitted an application to
the Board for authority to reorganize
and expand FTZ 147 to modify existing
Sites 4 and 5 and to include nine
additional sites in south eastern and
south central Pennsylvania, adjacent to
the Harrisburg Customs port of entry
(FTZ Docket 12–2005; filed 3/1/05);
Whereas, notice inviting public
comment was given in the Federal
Register (70 FR 11611, 3/9/05), and the
application has been processed
pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s
regulations; and,
Whereas, the Board adopts the
findings and recommendations of the
examiner’s report, and finds that the
requirements of the FTZ Act and
Board’s regulations are satisfied, and
that the proposal is in the public
interest;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby
orders:
The application to expand/reorganize
FTZ 147 is approved, subject to the Act
and the Board’s regulations, including
Section 400.28, and subject to the
2,000–acre activation limit.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of
November 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Import Administration, Alternate Chairman,
Foreign–Trade Zones Board.
Attest:
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05–22925 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Nov 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
Foreign–Trade Zones Board
(Docket 55–2005)
An application has been submitted to
the Foreign–Trade Zones Board (the
Board) by the Columbia Metropolitan
Airport, grantee of FTZ 127, requesting
special–purpose subzone status for the
warehousing and distribution facility of
JBE, Inc. (JBE), located in Hartsville,
South Carolina. The application was
submitted pursuant to the provisions of
the Foreign–Trade Zones Act, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the
regulations of the Board (15 CFR part
400). It was formally filed on November
2, 2005.
The JBE facility (80 employees, 13.5
acres) is located at 512 Hartland Drive,
Hartsville, Darlington County, South
Carolina. The facilities are used for the
storage, distribution and inspection of
automotive parts and components, and
may also be used for manufacturing
activity in the future.
Zone procedures would exempt JBE
from Customs duty payments on
products that are re–exported. Some 10
percent of the products are re–exported.
On its domestic sales, the company
would be able to defer duty payments
until merchandise is shipped from the
plant and entered for consumption. FTZ
designation may further allow JBE to
utilize certain Customs procedures
resulting in increased efficiencies for its
logistics and distribution operations. In
addition, JBE is requesting authority for
a secondary scope to provide for future
contract manufacturing. Finished
products and components included in
the secondary scope include automotive
parts and accessories (HTS 8414, 8708
and 8709, duty rate ranges from duty–
free to 2.5%). The request indicates that
the savings from FTZ procedures would
help improve the plant’s international
competitiveness.
In accordance with the Board’s
regulations, a member of the FTZ staff
has been appointed examiner to
investigate the application and report to
the Board.
Public comment is invited from
interested parties. Submissions (original
and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the
Board’s Executive Secretary at one of
the following addresses:
1. Submissions Via Express/Package
Delivery Services: Foreign–Trade-Zones
Board, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Franklin Court Building - Suite 4100W,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69937
1099 14th St. NW, Washington, D.C.
20005; or
2. Submissions Via the U.S. Postal
Service: Foreign–Trade-Zones Board,
U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave.
NW, Washington, D.C. 20230.
The closing period for their receipt is
January 17, 2006. Rebuttal comments in
response to material submitted during
the foregoing period may be submitted
during the subsequent 15-day period to
February 1, 2006.
A copy of the application and
accompanying exhibits will be available
for public inspection at the Office of the
Foreign–Trade Zones Board’s Executive
Secretary at the first address listed
above, and at the U.S. Department of
Commerce Export Assistance Center,
1201 Main Street, Suite 1720, Columbia,
SC 29201.
Dated: November 2, 2005.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05–22926 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–570–846)
Brake Rotors From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of the Seventh
Administrative Review; Final Results
of the Eleventh New Shipper Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 9, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published the preliminary
results of this administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on brake
rotors from the People’s Republic of
China (PRC). See Brake Rotors From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Results and Partial Rescission of the
Seventh Administrative Review and
Preliminary Results of the Eleventh New
Shipper Review, 70 FR 24382
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). At that time,
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 dumping
margins for this review are listed in the
‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section
below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Killiam or Christopher Riker,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\18NON1.SGM
18NON1
69938
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Notices
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–5222 and (202)
482–3441, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is April
1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. We
published the preliminary results in the
2003/2004 administrative review in the
Federal Register on May 9, 2005. See
Preliminary Results. On June 6, 2005,
we invited the interested parties to
comment on our preliminary
determination that a Chinese Village
Committee was an arm of the PRC
Government, and affected export–
related decisions at respondent,
Shandong Huanri Group General
Company, together with Laizhou Huanri
Automobile Parts Co.,Co., Ltd.
(collectively, ‘‘Huanri’’). On June 14,
2005, we received comments from
petitioners and Huanri in response to
our June 6, 2005, letter. Additionally, on
June 21, 2005, we received comments
from petitioners in rebuttal to Huanri’s
June 14, 2005, letter.
On June 30, 2005, we received case
briefs from the petitioners, the Coalition
for the Preservation of American Brake
Drum and Rotor Aftermarket
Manufacturers, and from the following
respondents: China National Industrial
Machinery Import & Export Corporation
(‘‘CNIM’’), Qingdao Gren (Group) Co.
(‘‘GREN’’), Shanxi Fengkun Foundry
Ltd., Co. and Shanxi Fengkun
Metallurgical Limited Company
(collectively, ‘‘Fengkun’’), Zibo Luzhou
Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘ZLAP’’),
Laizhou Automobile Brake Equipment
Co., Ltd. (‘‘LABEC’’), Yantai Winhere
Auto–Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd
(‘‘Winhere’’), Longkou Haimeng
Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Haimeng’’),
Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement
Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hongda’’), Hongfa
Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hongfa’’),
Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry
Co., Ltd (‘‘Meita’’), and Huanri.1 On July
11, 2005, we received rebuttal briefs
from the petitioners and from LABEC,
Winhere, Haimeng, Hongda, Hongfa,
Meita, and Huanri.
On August 24, 2005, we invited the
interested parties to comment on
1 The Department did not receive briefs from the
following respondents: Zibo Golden Harvest
Machinery Limited Co. (‘‘ZGOLD’’), Xianfeng
Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hengtai’’),
Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jinzheng’’),
Longkou TLC Machinery Co. Ltd. (‘‘Longkou TLC’’),
Qingdao Rotec Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Rotec’’), and
China National Machinery and Equipment Import &
Export (Xianjiang) Corporation (‘‘Xianjiang’’).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:21 Nov 17, 2005
Jkt 208001
revisions to the Department’s
calculations for the surrogate value of
labor. On August 29, 2005, we received
comments from petitioners and from
respondents LABEC, Winhere, Haimeng,
Hongda, Hongfa, Meita, and Huanri on
this issue.
Based on the comments summarized
below, we have made revisions to the
data used for the final results. For
further details, please see the Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final
Results in the 2003/2004 Administrative
Review of Brake Rotors from the
People’s Republic of China, to Stephen
J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, from Edward
Yang, Senior Enforcement Coordinator /
NME Unit, Import Administration
(November 7, 2005) (‘‘Decision
Memorandum’’) and the company–
specific analysis memoranda, which are
on file in Import Administration’s
Central Records Unit, room B–099 of the
Department of Commerce building. The
Decision Memorandum is also available
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are brake rotors made of gray cast iron,
whether finished, semifinished, or
unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8
to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters)
and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63
to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters
(weight and dimension) of the brake
rotors limit their use to the following
types of motor vehicles: automobiles,
all–terrain vehicles, vans and
recreational vehicles under ‘‘one ton
and a half,’’ and light trucks designated
as ‘‘one ton and a half.’’
Finished brake rotors are those that
are ready for sale and installation
without any further operations. Semi–
finished rotors are those on which the
surface is not entirely smooth, and have
undergone some drilling. Unfinished
rotors are those which have undergone
some grinding or turning.
These brake rotors are for motor
vehicles, and do not contain in the
casting a logo of an original equipment
manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) which produces
vehicles sold in the United States. (e.g.,
General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda,
Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in
this order are not certified by OEM
producers of vehicles sold in the United
States. The scope also includes
composite brake rotors that are made of
gray cast iron, which contain a steel
plate, but otherwise meet the above
criteria. Excluded from the scope of this
order are brake rotors made of gray cast
iron, whether finished, semifinished, or
unfinished, with a diameter less than 8
inches or greater than 16 inches (less
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
than 20.32 centimeters or greater than
40.64 centimeters) and a weight less
than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds
(less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than
20.41 kilograms).
Brake rotors are currently classifiable
under subheading 8708.39.5010 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the
HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.
Partial Rescission of Administrative
Review
We are rescinding the review of the
following four exporter companies
because they certified for this review
that they did not export subject
merchandise to the United States other
than from the manufacturer/exporter
combination specifically excluded from
the order following the investigation,
and the shipment data that we
examined did not show U.S. entries of
subject merchandise, during the POR,
from the exempted producer/exporter
combinations: China National
Automotive Industry Import & Export
Corporation, Laizhou CAPCO
Machinery Co., Ltd., Laizhou Luyuan
Automobile Fittings Co., and Shenyang
Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd. See
Preliminary Results 70 FR at 24382,
24383; see also Notice of Antidumping
Duty Order: Brake Rotors from the
People’s Republic of China, 62 FR
18740, 18741 (April 17, 1997)
(‘‘Investigation’’).
We are also rescinding the review of
the following three exporter/producers
because they also certified that they
made no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR, and the shipment data that we
examined did not show U.S. entries of
subject merchandise during the POR
from these companies: Laizhou City
Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd., Shenyang
Yinghao Machinery Co., Ltd., Xianghe
Xumingyuan Auto Parts Co., Ltd.
Finally, in the Preliminary Results,
and in accordance with section
351.213(d)(3) of the Department’s
regulations, we stated that we were
rescinding the review of exports made
by Xianjiang, which were manufactured
by any company other than Zibo Botai
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Zibo Botai).
However, upon due consideration of the
arguments of interested parties, and the
facts of the case as summarized in the
Decision Memorandum (comment 8), for
the final results we have assigned to
exports of Xianjiang, manufactured by
any company other than Zibo Botai, the
China–wide rate, because it failed to
respond to our questionnaire. See id.
E:\FR\FM\18NON1.SGM
18NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Notices
Separate Rates
In our Preliminary Results, we found
that all respondents except Huanri and
Rotec qualified for separate rates. We
found in the course of the review that
export–related decisions at Huanri were
controlled by the Panjacun Village
Committee, and we determined that this
entity was subject to central government
control. We continue to find that Huanri
is not entitled to a separate rate in these
final results. See Decision Memorandum
at Comment 7; see also Preliminary
Results at 24387–24389. Because the
Department has determined that Huanri
does not qualify for a separate rate, we
determine that Huanri is part of the
PRC–wide entity and will be subject to
the PRC–wide rate. We received no
comments with respect to Rotec. For
these final results we continue to find
that Rotec is not eligible to receive a
separate rate and will be subject to the
PRC–wide rate.
Analysis of Comments Received
A list of the issues which parties
raised and to which we responded in
the Decision Memorandum which
accompanies this notice is attached as
Appendix 1. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on the comments received from
the interested parties, the Department
has made company–specific changes to
the margin calculations for CNIM,
Winhere, GREN, and ZLAP.
Additionally, based on information
submitted since the Preliminary Results,
some surrogate values have changed.
Specifically, we have revised the
surrogate values for labor, cartons, and
lug nuts. See Decision Memorandum at
comments 1, 2, 5 and 13.
For the final results, we have also
revised the calculation of surrogate
financial ratios for factory overhead and
selling, general and administrative
expenses (‘‘SG&A’’) and profit,
excluding the scrap revenue offset
which we had deducted from the cost of
manufacture at two surrogate companies
for the Preliminary Results. See Decision
Memorandum at Comment 4.
The PRC–Wide Rate and Application of
Facts Otherwise Available
The PRC–wide rate will apply to all
entries of subject merchandise except
for entries from PRC producers/
exporters that have their own calculated
rate. See ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section
above.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:21 Nov 17, 2005
Jkt 208001
Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, (‘‘the Act’’) provides
that, when (1) necessary information is
not available on the record, the
Department may use the facts otherwise
available to reach a determination.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that, if an interested party or any other
person: (A) withholds information that
has been requested by the administering
authority; (B) fails to provide such
information by the deadlines for the
submission of the information or in the
form and manner requested, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782;
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding
under this title; or (D) provides such
information but the information cannot
be verified as provided in section 782(i),
the Department shall, subject to section
782(d) of the Act, use the facts
otherwise available in reaching the
applicable results under this title.
Where the Department determines
that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department shall
promptly inform the party submitting
the response of the nature of the
deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that party with an
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. Section 782(d) further states
that, if the party submits further
information that is unsatisfactory or
untimely, the administering authority
may, subject to subsection (e), disregard
all or part of the original and subsequent
responses. Section 782(e) of the Act
provides that the Department shall not
decline to consider information that is
submitted by an interested party and is
necessary to make a determination but
does not meet all the applicable
requirements established by the
administering authority if (1) the
information is submitted by the
deadline established for its submission,
(2) the information can be verified, (3)
the information is not so incomplete
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for
reaching the applicable results, (4) the
interested party has demonstrated that it
acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information and meeting
the requirements established by the
administering authority with respect to
the information, and (5) the information
can be used without undue difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that, in selecting from among the facts
available, the Department may use an
inference that is adverse to the interests
of the respondent if it determines that
a party has failed to cooperate to the
best of its ability. Adverse inferences are
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69939
appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party
does not obtain a more favorable result
by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of
Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’)
accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No.
316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870
(1994).
In determining whether a party failed
to cooperate to the best of its ability, the
Department considers whether a party
could comply with the request for
information, and whether a party paid
insufficient attention to its statutory
duties. See Tung Mung Dev. Co. v.
United States, 223 F. Supp. 2d 1336,
1342 (August 6, 2002). The focus of
776(b) of the Act is respondent’s failure
to cooperate to the best of its ability,
rather than its failure to provide
requested information. See Nippon Steel
Corp. v. United States, 337 F. 3d 1373,
1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). An adverse
inference may include reliance on
information derived from the petition,
the final results in the investigation, any
previous review, or any other
information placed on the record. See
Section 776(b) of the Act.
Rotec and Xianjiang
As noted above, section 776(a) of the
Act provides that the Department may
make a facts available (‘‘FA’’)
determination if a party withholds
information requested by the
Department, significantly impedes a
proceeding, and/or provides
unverifiable information in a
proceeding. By not responding to
Department inquiries, Rotec and
Xianjiang withheld requested
information from the Department,
impeded this proceeding, and precluded
the Department from verifying
information placed on the record in this
case.
Consistent with Section 776(a) of the
Act, the Department has determined to
apply total facts available to Rotec and
Xianjiang for the final results. The
application of total facts available is
warranted in this case because the
unresponsiveness of Rotec and
Xianjiang made it impossible for the
Department to review or verify
information on their U.S. sales, if any.
The Department further finds that by
not responding to our inquiries, Rotec
and Xianjiang failed to cooperate to the
best of their abilities in this proceeding.
Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of
the Act, we find it appropriate to use an
inference that is adverse to the interests
of Rotec and Xianjiang in selecting from
among the facts otherwise available
with respect to its request for a separate
rate. By doing so, we ensure that the
companies that fail to cooperate will not
E:\FR\FM\18NON1.SGM
18NON1
69940
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Notices
obtain a more favorable result than
those companies that complied fully
with the Department’s requests in this
review. See below for a discussion of
the probative value of the 42.32 percent
rate. Pursuant to section 776(b) of the
Act, we have applied total adverse facts
available with respect to the PRC–wide
entity, including Rotec and Xianjiang.
Corroboration
In accordance with the Department’s
practice, we have assigned the rate for
the PRC–wide entity to Rotec and
Xianjiang as adverse facts available. See,
e.g., Rescission of Second New Shipper
Review and Final Results and Partial
Rescission of First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Brake Rotors
from the People’s Republic of China, 64
FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 1999).
In selecting a rate for adverse facts
available, the Department selects a rate
that is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to
effectuate the purpose of the facts
available rule to induce respondents to
provide the Department with complete
and accurate information in a timely
manner.’’ See Final Results of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Static Random
Access Memory Semiconductors from
Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23,
1998). Consistent with section 776(c) of
the Act, this rate is the highest dumping
margin from any segment of this
proceeding and was established in the
less–than-fair–value investigation based
on information contained in the
petition, and corroborated in the final
results of the first administrative review.
See Brake Rotors From the People’s
Republic of China: Rescission of Second
New Shipper Review and Final Results
and Partial Rescission of First
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 65 FR 61581 (November 12,
1999).
For the reasons stated in the
Preliminary Results, the Department
continues to find this rate to be both
reliable and relevant, and, therefore, to
have probative value in accordance with
the SAA. See SAA at 870; see also
Preliminary Results at 70 FR 10965. We
received no comments on our
preliminary analysis of this rate for
purposes of these final results.
Therefore, we determine that the rate of
43.32 percent is still reliable, relevant,
and, has probative value within the
meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following
percentage margins exist on exports of
brake rotors from the PRC for the period
April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:21 Nov 17, 2005
Jkt 208001
liquidate entries of the subject
merchandise during the POR from
Producer/Manufacturer/
Weighted–Average companies not subject to this review at
Exporter
Margin (Percent)
the cash deposit rate in effect at the time
of entry. Bonding will no longer be
CNIM ............................. 0.28% (de minimis)
permitted to fulfill security
Fengkun ........................
1.43%
GREN ........................... 0.32% (de minimis) requirements for shipments of brake
Haimeng ....................... 0.20% (de minimis) rotors from the PRC that are
Hengtai .........................
0.00% manufactured and exported by Jinzheng,
Hongda ......................... 0.04% (de minimis) and entered, or withdrawn from
Hongfa .......................... 0.00% (de minimis) warehouse, for consumption on or after
Jinzheng .......................
0.00% the publication date of the final results
LABEC .......................... 0.09% (de minimis) of the new shipper review.
Longkou TLC ................ 0.10% (de minimis)
The following deposit rates shall be
Meita .............................
0.00%
required for merchandise subject to the
Winhere ........................ 0.31% (de minimis)
ZGOLD .........................
0.00% order, entered, or withdrawn from
ZLAP ............................. 0.17% (de minimis) warehouse, for consumption on or after
PRC–Wide Entity ..........
43.32% the publication date of these final
results, as provided by section 751(a)(1)
For details on the calculation of the
and (a)(2)(B) of the Act: (1) the cash
antidumping duty weighted–average
deposit rate for CNIM,, GREN, Haimeng,
margin for each company, see the
Hengtai, Hongda, Hongfa, Jinzheng (i.e.,
respective company’s Analysis
for subject merchandise manufactured
Memorandum for the Final Results of
and exported by Jinzheng), LABEC,
the Seventh Administrative Review of
Meita, Winhere, ZGOLD, ZLAP, and
the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake
Longkou TLC will be zero; (2) the cash
Rotors from the People’s Republic of
deposit rate for Fengkun will be the rate
China, dated November 7, 2005.
indicated above; (3) the cash deposit
rate for PRC exporters who received a
Assessment Rates
separate rate in a prior segment of the
The Department shall determine, and
proceeding will continue to be the rate
US Customs and Border Protection
assigned in that segment of the
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping
proceeding; (4) the cash deposit rate for
duties on all appropriate entries.
the PRC NME entity and for subject
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we
merchandise exported by Jinzheng but
calculated importer- or customer–
not manufactured by it will continue to
specific ad valorem duty assessment
be the PRC–wide rate (i.e., 43.32
rates based on the ratio of the total
percent); and (5) the cash deposit rate
amount of the dumping margins
for non–PRC exporters of subject
calculated for the examined sales to the
merchandise from the PRC will be the
total entered value of those same sales.
rate applicable to the PRC exporter that
Where the respondent did not report
supplied the exporter.
actual entered value, we calculated
These deposit requirements shall
individual importer- or customer–
remain in effect until publication of the
specific assessment rates by aggregating final results of the next administrative
the dumping margins calculated for all
review.
of the U.S. sales examined and dividing
Notification to Interested Parties
that amount by the total quantity of the
This notice also serves as the final
sales examined.
In accordance with 19 CFR
reminder to importers of their
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to
responsibility under 19 CFR
liquidate, without regard to
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
antidumping duties, all entries of
regarding the reimbursement of
subject merchandise during the POR for antidumping duties prior to liquidation
which the importer–specific assessment of the relevant entries during this
rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than review period. Failure to comply with
0.50 percent). To determine whether the this requirement could result in the
per–unit duty assessment rates are de
Secretary’s presumption that
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), in
reimbursement of antidumping duties
accordance with the requirement set
occurred and in the subsequent
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we
assessment of double antidumping
calculated importer- or customer duties.
This notice also serves as the only
specific ad valorem ratios based on
reminder to parties subject to
export prices.
The Department will issue
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
appropriate assessment instructions
of their responsibility concerning the
directly to CBP within 15 days of
return/destruction or conversion to
publication of these final results of
judicial protective order of proprietary
review. We will instruct CBP to
information disclosed under APO in
PO 00000
BRAKE ROTORS FROM THE PRC
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18NON1.SGM
18NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Notices
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3).
Failure to comply is a violation of the
APO.
These results are issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: November 7, 2005.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
List of Issues in Decisions
Memorandum
General Issues
General Issues
Comment 1: Labor Rate
Comment 2: Surrogate Value
Calculations for Cartons
Comment 4: Scrap Offset in Surrogate
Financial Ratios
Comment 5: Financial Ratios Applied to
Inputs Supplied by Customers
Comment 6: Surrogate Value for Lug
Nuts
Company–Specific Issues
Comment 7: Huanri–Separate Rate
Comment 8: Xianjiang–Non-Responsive
Comment 9: CNIM–Margin Calculation
Comment 10: Winhere–Plywood
Valuation
Comment 11: GREN–Returned Sales
Comment 12: Fengkun–Customs
Instructions
Comment 13: ZLAP–Surrogate Value for
Lug Nuts
[FR Doc. 05–22893 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–846
Brake Rotors From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of
Changed Circumstances Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 20, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published the notice of
preliminary results of its changed
circumstances review examining
whether Shandong Huanri Group Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Huanri Group’’) is the successor–
in-interest to Shandong Huanri Group
General Company (‘‘Huanri Group
General’’) for purposes of determining
antidumping liability. See Brake Rotors
From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:21 Nov 17, 2005
Jkt 208001
Duty Changed Circumstances Review,
70 FR 55107 (September 20, 2005)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). In those
Preliminary Results, the Department
found that Huanri Group was the
successor–in-interest to Huanri Group
General.
However, after consideration of
factual information evaluated in the
Department’s seventh administrative
review of brake rotors from the People’s
Republic of China (PRC), the
Department finds that although Huanri
Group remains the successor–in-interest
to Huanri Group General, information in
the above–referenced administrative
review has led the Department to deny
Huanri Group General a separate rate.
See Comment 7 of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final
Results in the 2003/2004 Administrative
Review of Brake Rotors from the
People’s Republic of China, to Stephen
J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, from Edward
Yang, Senior Enforcement Coordinator /
NME Unit, Import Administration
(November 7, 2005) (‘‘2003/2004 Issues
and Decision Memorandum’’), which is
on file in the Central Records Unit,
Room B–099 of the main Department
building. We have now completed this
changed circumstances review in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.216 and
351.221(c)(3).
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin
Begnal or Christopher Riker, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1442 or (202) 482–
3441, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 13, 2004, the
Department initiated a changed
circumstances review of Huanri Group’s
claim that it is the successor–in-interest
to Huanri Group General. See Brake
Rotors from the People’s Republic of
China: Notice of Initiation of Changed
Circumstances Review, 69 FR 75508
(December 17, 2004).
On September 20, 2005, the
Department published the preliminary
results of its changed circumstances
review. See Preliminary Results. In
making such a successor–in-interest
determination, the Department
examines several factors including, but
not limited to, changes in: (1)
management; (2) production facilities;
(3) supplier relationships; and (4)
customer base. See, e.g., Brass Sheet
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69941
and Strip from Canada: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992).
While no single factor or combination of
these factors will necessarily provide a
dispositive indication of a successor–ininterest relationship, the Department
will generally consider the new
company to be the successor to the
previous company if the new company’s
resulting operation is not materially
dissimilar to that of its predecessor. See,
e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from
Israel: Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944
(February 14, 1994); Canadian Brass,
and Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon
from Norway: Initiation and Preliminary
Results of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 63 FR 50880 (September 23,
1998). Thus, if the evidence
demonstrates that, with respect to the
production and sale of the subject
merchandise, the new company
operates as the same business entity as
the former company, the Department
will accord the new company the same
antidumping treatment as its
predecessor.
In this case, data placed on the record
and verified by the Department
indicates that Huanri Group has the
same management, production facilities,
customer base, and supplier
relationships as Huanri Group General.
Although the Department found
Huanri Group was the successor–ininterest to Huanri Group General, the
Department indicated in the Preliminary
Results that it was currently conducting
an administrative review regarding
Huanri Group General. The Department
preliminarily determined that Huanri
Group General did not demonstrate that
it was entitled to a separate rate under
the Department’s test. See Brake Rotors
From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of the Seventh
Administrative Review and Preliminary
Results of the Eleventh New Shipper
Review, 70 FR 24382 (May 9, 2005). The
Department informed the public that it
would issue the final results of this
changed circumstances review at the
same time as the concurrent
administrative review as both segments
involve the company at issue, and that
the separate rate issue will be decided
in the context of the administrative
review.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are
brake rotors made of gray cast iron,
whether finished, semifinished, or
unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8
to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters)
E:\FR\FM\18NON1.SGM
18NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69937-69941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22893]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-570-846)
Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results
and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; Final
Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 9, 2005, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published the preliminary results of this administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the People's
Republic of China (PRC). See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh
Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of the Eleventh New
Shipper Review, 70 FR 24382 (``Preliminary Results''). At that time, 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 dumping margins for this review are
listed in the ``Final Results of Review'' section below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or Christopher Riker,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import
[[Page 69938]]
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230; telephone (202) 482-5222 and (202) 482-3441, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The period of review (``POR'') is April 1, 2003, through March 31,
2004. We published the preliminary results in the 2003/2004
administrative review in the Federal Register on May 9, 2005. See
Preliminary Results. On June 6, 2005, we invited the interested parties
to comment on our preliminary determination that a Chinese Village
Committee was an arm of the PRC Government, and affected export-related
decisions at respondent, Shandong Huanri Group General Company,
together with Laizhou Huanri Automobile Parts Co.,Co., Ltd.
(collectively, ``Huanri''). On June 14, 2005, we received comments from
petitioners and Huanri in response to our June 6, 2005, letter.
Additionally, on June 21, 2005, we received comments from petitioners
in rebuttal to Huanri's June 14, 2005, letter.
On June 30, 2005, we received case briefs from the petitioners, the
Coalition for the Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor
Aftermarket Manufacturers, and from the following respondents: China
National Industrial Machinery Import & Export Corporation (``CNIM''),
Qingdao Gren (Group) Co. (``GREN''), Shanxi Fengkun Foundry Ltd., Co.
and Shanxi Fengkun Metallurgical Limited Company (collectively,
``Fengkun''), Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (``ZLAP''),
Laizhou Automobile Brake Equipment Co., Ltd. (``LABEC''), Yantai
Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd (``Winhere''), Longkou Haimeng
Machinery Co., Ltd. (``Haimeng''), Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement
Parts Co., Ltd. (``Hongda''), Hongfa Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd.
(``Hongfa''), Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd (``Meita''),
and Huanri.\1\ On July 11, 2005, we received rebuttal briefs from the
petitioners and from LABEC, Winhere, Haimeng, Hongda, Hongfa, Meita,
and Huanri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department did not receive briefs from the following
respondents: Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Co. (``ZGOLD''),
Xianfeng Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd. (``Hengtai''), Longkou
Jinzheng Machinery Co., Ltd. (``Jinzheng''), Longkou TLC Machinery
Co. Ltd. (``Longkou TLC''), Qingdao Rotec Auto Parts Co., Ltd.
(``Rotec''), and China National Machinery and Equipment Import &
Export (Xianjiang) Corporation (``Xianjiang'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 24, 2005, we invited the interested parties to comment on
revisions to the Department's calculations for the surrogate value of
labor. On August 29, 2005, we received comments from petitioners and
from respondents LABEC, Winhere, Haimeng, Hongda, Hongfa, Meita, and
Huanri on this issue.
Based on the comments summarized below, we have made revisions to
the data used for the final results. For further details, please see
the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the 2003/
2004 Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic
of China, to Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, from Edward Yang, Senior Enforcement Coordinator / NME
Unit, Import Administration (November 7, 2005) (``Decision
Memorandum'') and the company-specific analysis memoranda, which are on
file in Import Administration's Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the
Department of Commerce building. The Decision Memorandum is also
available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are brake rotors made of gray
cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in
diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight
from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters
(weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the
following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles,
vans and recreational vehicles under ``one ton and a half,'' and light
trucks designated as ``one ton and a half.''
Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and
installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are
those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and have undergone
some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those which have undergone some
grinding or turning.
These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in
the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (``OEM'')
which produces vehicles sold in the United States. (e.g., General
Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in
this order are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the
United States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that are
made of gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but otherwise meet
the above criteria. Excluded from the scope of this order are brake
rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or
unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 inches or greater than 16
inches (less than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 40.64 centimeters)
and a weight less than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less than
3.63 kilograms or greater than 20.41 kilograms).
Brake rotors are currently classifiable under subheading
8708.39.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review
We are rescinding the review of the following four exporter
companies because they certified for this review that they did not
export subject merchandise to the United States other than from the
manufacturer/exporter combination specifically excluded from the order
following the investigation, and the shipment data that we examined did
not show U.S. entries of subject merchandise, during the POR, from the
exempted producer/exporter combinations: China National Automotive
Industry Import & Export Corporation, Laizhou CAPCO Machinery Co.,
Ltd., Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., and Shenyang Honbase
Machinery Co., Ltd. See Preliminary Results 70 FR at 24382, 24383; see
also Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Brake Rotors from the People's
Republic of China, 62 FR 18740, 18741 (April 17, 1997)
(``Investigation'').
We are also rescinding the review of the following three exporter/
producers because they also certified that they made no shipments of
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and the
shipment data that we examined did not show U.S. entries of subject
merchandise during the POR from these companies: Laizhou City Luqi
Machinery Co., Ltd., Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co., Ltd., Xianghe
Xumingyuan Auto Parts Co., Ltd.
Finally, in the Preliminary Results, and in accordance with section
351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations, we stated that we were
rescinding the review of exports made by Xianjiang, which were
manufactured by any company other than Zibo Botai Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd. (Zibo Botai). However, upon due consideration of the arguments of
interested parties, and the facts of the case as summarized in the
Decision Memorandum (comment 8), for the final results we have assigned
to exports of Xianjiang, manufactured by any company other than Zibo
Botai, the China-wide rate, because it failed to respond to our
questionnaire. See id.
[[Page 69939]]
Separate Rates
In our Preliminary Results, we found that all respondents except
Huanri and Rotec qualified for separate rates. We found in the course
of the review that export-related decisions at Huanri were controlled
by the Panjacun Village Committee, and we determined that this entity
was subject to central government control. We continue to find that
Huanri is not entitled to a separate rate in these final results. See
Decision Memorandum at Comment 7; see also Preliminary Results at
24387-24389. Because the Department has determined that Huanri does not
qualify for a separate rate, we determine that Huanri is part of the
PRC-wide entity and will be subject to the PRC-wide rate. We received
no comments with respect to Rotec. For these final results we continue
to find that Rotec is not eligible to receive a separate rate and will
be subject to the PRC-wide rate.
Analysis of Comments Received
A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we responded
in the Decision Memorandum which accompanies this notice is attached as
Appendix 1. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on the comments received from the interested parties, the
Department has made company-specific changes to the margin calculations
for CNIM, Winhere, GREN, and ZLAP. Additionally, based on information
submitted since the Preliminary Results, some surrogate values have
changed. Specifically, we have revised the surrogate values for labor,
cartons, and lug nuts. See Decision Memorandum at comments 1, 2, 5 and
13.
For the final results, we have also revised the calculation of
surrogate financial ratios for factory overhead and selling, general
and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and profit, excluding the scrap
revenue offset which we had deducted from the cost of manufacture at
two surrogate companies for the Preliminary Results. See Decision
Memorandum at Comment 4.
The PRC-Wide Rate and Application of Facts Otherwise Available
The PRC-wide rate will apply to all entries of subject merchandise
except for entries from PRC producers/exporters that have their own
calculated rate. See ``Separate Rates'' section above.
Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (``the Act'')
provides that, when (1) necessary information is not available on the
record, the Department may use the facts otherwise available to reach a
determination. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an
interested party or any other person: (A) withholds information that
has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide
such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information
or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
verified as provided in section 782(i), the Department shall, subject
to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable results under this title.
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department shall promptly inform the party submitting
the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or
explain the deficiency. Section 782(d) further states that, if the
party submits further information that is unsatisfactory or untimely,
the administering authority may, subject to subsection (e), disregard
all or part of the original and subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of
the Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary
to make a determination but does not meet all the applicable
requirements established by the administering authority if (1) the
information is submitted by the deadline established for its
submission, (2) the information can be verified, (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching
the applicable results, (4) the interested party has demonstrated that
it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and
meeting the requirements established by the administering authority
with respect to the information, and (5) the information can be used
without undue difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among
the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of the respondent if it determines that a
party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Adverse
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying
the URAA, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994).
In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the best of
its ability, the Department considers whether a party could comply with
the request for information, and whether a party paid insufficient
attention to its statutory duties. See Tung Mung Dev. Co. v. United
States, 223 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1342 (August 6, 2002). The focus of
776(b) of the Act is respondent's failure to cooperate to the best of
its ability, rather than its failure to provide requested information.
See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F. 3d 1373, 1382 (Fed.
Cir. 2003). An adverse inference may include reliance on information
derived from the petition, the final results in the investigation, any
previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See
Section 776(b) of the Act.
Rotec and Xianjiang
As noted above, section 776(a) of the Act provides that the
Department may make a facts available (``FA'') determination if a party
withholds information requested by the Department, significantly
impedes a proceeding, and/or provides unverifiable information in a
proceeding. By not responding to Department inquiries, Rotec and
Xianjiang withheld requested information from the Department, impeded
this proceeding, and precluded the Department from verifying
information placed on the record in this case.
Consistent with Section 776(a) of the Act, the Department has
determined to apply total facts available to Rotec and Xianjiang for
the final results. The application of total facts available is
warranted in this case because the unresponsiveness of Rotec and
Xianjiang made it impossible for the Department to review or verify
information on their U.S. sales, if any.
The Department further finds that by not responding to our
inquiries, Rotec and Xianjiang failed to cooperate to the best of their
abilities in this proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of
the Act, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to
the interests of Rotec and Xianjiang in selecting from among the facts
otherwise available with respect to its request for a separate rate. By
doing so, we ensure that the companies that fail to cooperate will not
[[Page 69940]]
obtain a more favorable result than those companies that complied fully
with the Department's requests in this review. See below for a
discussion of the probative value of the 42.32 percent rate. Pursuant
to section 776(b) of the Act, we have applied total adverse facts
available with respect to the PRC-wide entity, including Rotec and
Xianjiang.
Corroboration
In accordance with the Department's practice, we have assigned the
rate for the PRC-wide entity to Rotec and Xianjiang as adverse facts
available. See, e.g., Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final
Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 61581,
61584 (November 12, 1999).
In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the Department
selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the
purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide
the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely
manner.'' See Final Results of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932
(February 23, 1998). Consistent with section 776(c) of the Act, this
rate is the highest dumping margin from any segment of this proceeding
and was established in the less-than-fair-value investigation based on
information contained in the petition, and corroborated in the final
results of the first administrative review. See Brake Rotors From the
People's Republic of China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and
Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 65 FR 61581 (November 12, 1999).
For the reasons stated in the Preliminary Results, the Department
continues to find this rate to be both reliable and relevant, and,
therefore, to have probative value in accordance with the SAA. See SAA
at 870; see also Preliminary Results at 70 FR 10965. We received no
comments on our preliminary analysis of this rate for purposes of these
final results. Therefore, we determine that the rate of 43.32 percent
is still reliable, relevant, and, has probative value within the
meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following percentage margins exist on exports
of brake rotors from the PRC for the period April 1, 2003, through
March 31, 2004:
Brake Rotors from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNIM................................................ 0.28% (de minimis)
Fengkun............................................. 1.43%
GREN................................................ 0.32% (de minimis)
Haimeng............................................. 0.20% (de minimis)
Hengtai............................................. 0.00%
Hongda.............................................. 0.04% (de minimis)
Hongfa.............................................. 0.00% (de minimis)
Jinzheng............................................ 0.00%
LABEC............................................... 0.09% (de minimis)
Longkou TLC......................................... 0.10% (de minimis)
Meita............................................... 0.00%
Winhere............................................. 0.31% (de minimis)
ZGOLD............................................... 0.00%
ZLAP................................................ 0.17% (de minimis)
PRC-Wide Entity..................................... 43.32%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-
average margin for each company, see the respective company's Analysis
Memorandum for the Final Results of the Seventh Administrative Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's
Republic of China, dated November 7, 2005.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and US Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated
importer- or customer-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.
Where the respondent did not report actual entered value, we calculated
individual importer- or customer-specific assessment rates by
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales
examined and dividing that amount by the total quantity of the sales
examined.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to
liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, all entries of subject
merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment
rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). To determine
whether the per-unit duty assessment rates are de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19
CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer- or customer - specific ad
valorem ratios based on export prices.
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of
review. We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of the subject
merchandise during the POR from companies not subject to this review at
the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. Bonding will no
longer be permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments of
brake rotors from the PRC that are manufactured and exported by
Jinzheng, and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on
or after the publication date of the final results of the new shipper
review.
The following deposit rates shall be required for merchandise
subject to the order, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) and (a)(2)(B) of the Act: (1) the cash
deposit rate for CNIM,, GREN, Haimeng, Hengtai, Hongda, Hongfa,
Jinzheng (i.e., for subject merchandise manufactured and exported by
Jinzheng), LABEC, Meita, Winhere, ZGOLD, ZLAP, and Longkou TLC will be
zero; (2) the cash deposit rate for Fengkun will be the rate indicated
above; (3) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a
separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be
the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (4) the cash
deposit rate for the PRC NME entity and for subject merchandise
exported by Jinzheng but not manufactured by it will continue to be the
PRC-wide rate (i.e., 43.32 percent); and (5) 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 the exporter.
These deposit requirements 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)(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 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/destruction or conversion to judicial protective
order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in
[[Page 69941]]
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation
of the APO.
These results are issued and published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: November 7, 2005.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
List of Issues in Decisions Memorandum
General Issues
General Issues
Comment 1: Labor Rate
Comment 2: Surrogate Value Calculations for Cartons
Comment 4: Scrap Offset in Surrogate Financial Ratios
Comment 5: Financial Ratios Applied to Inputs Supplied by Customers
Comment 6: Surrogate Value for Lug Nuts
Company-Specific Issues
Comment 7: Huanri-Separate Rate
Comment 8: Xianjiang-Non-Responsive
Comment 9: CNIM-Margin Calculation
Comment 10: Winhere-Plywood Valuation
Comment 11: GREN-Returned Sales
Comment 12: Fengkun-Customs Instructions
Comment 13: ZLAP-Surrogate Value for Lug Nuts
[FR Doc. 05-22893 Filed 11-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
