Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 29303-29310 [E6-7763]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices
Health and Human Services,
Department of Agriculture, National
Institutes of Health, Food and Drug
Administration, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, etc.). The
goal of each of these groups is to assess
the impact of the OIG’s
recommendations and to address
concerns raised by the regulated
communities.
BIS has also increased its enforcement
focus on deemed exports. A number of
cases involving violations of deemed
export requirements have been
concluded with criminal and civil
penalties and BIS will continue to
pursue violations of the EAR’s deemed
export requirements to ensure U.S.
national security is not compromised by
unauthorized technology transfers to
foreign nationals. In addition, BIS is
collaborating with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation on related enforcement
issues through the National Security
Higher Education Advisory Board.
Finally, BIS received funding in the
FY2006 budget to implement an
Enhanced Deemed Export Control
Initiative. This initiative has two
components—licensing and
enforcement. The initiative will enable
BIS to: (1) Process an increased volume
of license applications in a timely
manner, in order to ensure that U.S.
entities are able to gain access to the
expertise of foreign nationals who do
not pose security concerns; and (2)
ensure that U.S. entities are aware of
and comply with U.S. deemed export
license requirements through expanded
outreach and enforcement activities.
Both aspects are necessary to enhance
U.S. national and economic security.
Dated: May 17, 2006.
Matthew Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Export Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–7778 Filed 5–19–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
[A–570–900]
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Final Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2006.
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:16 May 19, 2006
Jkt 208001
SUMMARY: On December 29, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published its preliminary
determination of sales at less than fair
value (‘‘LTFV’’) and preliminary
determination of partial affirmative
critical circumstances in the
antidumping investigation of certain
diamond sawblades and parts thereof
(‘‘diamond sawblades’’) from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).
The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
October 1, 2004, through March 31,
2005. The investigation covers four
manufacturers/exporters which are
mandatory respondents and twenty–one
separate rate applicants. We invited
interested parties to comment on our
preliminary determination of sales at
LTFV and partial affirmative critical
circumstances. Based on our analysis of
the comments we received, we have
made changes to our calculations for
certain of the mandatory respondents
and the weight–averaged margins for the
separate rate applicants.1 We have also
granted a separate rate to four additional
applicants. The final dumping margins
for this investigation are listed in the
‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anya Naschak or Carrie Blozy, 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) 482–6375 or 482–5403,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Final Determination
We determine that diamond
sawblades from the PRC are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States
at LTFV as provided in section 735 of
1 Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,
Danyang Youhe Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Fujian
Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co. Ltd., Guilin Tebon
Superhard Material Co. Ltd., Huzhou Gu Import &
Export Co., Ltd, Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tools
Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Jiangyin LIKN Industry Co.
Ltd., Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Ltd.,
Rizhao Hein Saw Co. Ltd., Shanghai Deda Industry
& Trading Co. Ltd., Sichuan Huili Tools Co., Weihai
Xiangguang Mechanical Industrail Co., Ltd., Wuhan
Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Company, Ltd.,
Xiamen ZL Diamond Tools Co. Ltd., Zhejiang Tea
Import & Export Co. Ltd., Zhejiang Wanli Tools
Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wanli’’), Zhenjiang Inter-China
Import & Export Co., Ltd., (collectively,
‘‘preliminary separate rate applicants’’), as well as
four additional separate rate companies, Qingdao
Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘Qingdao
Shinhan’’), Shijiazhuang Global New Century Tools
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Global’’), Shanghai Robtol Tool
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Robtol’’), and Huachang
Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Huachang’’) (collectively with preliminary
separate rate applicants, ‘‘final separate rate
companies’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29303
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at
LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Final
Determination Margins’’ section of this
notice.
Case History
The Department published its
preliminary determination of sales at
LTFV on December 29, 2005. See
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of
Final Determination, and Preliminary
Partial Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, 70 FR 77121
(December 29, 2005) (‘‘Preliminary
Determination’’). The Department
conducted verification of Bosun Tools
Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Bosun’’), Beijing Gang
Yan Diamond Product Company
(‘‘BGY’’), and Hebei Jikai Industrial
Group Co. Ltd. (‘‘Hebei Jikai’’)
(collectively, ‘‘respondents’’), the three
mandatory respondents participating in
this investigation2 in both the PRC and
the United States (where applicable),
and Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading
Co. Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Deda’’), one of the
separate rate applicants. See the
‘‘Verification’’ section below for
additional information.
On February 6, 2006, the Department
solicited comments from all interested
parties regarding changes to its
calculation of financial ratios. On
February 7, 2006, Bosun and Petitioner
submitted additional comments on the
valuation of factors of production
(‘‘FOPs’’) for the final determination. On
February 13, 2006, BGY also submitted
additional comments on the valuation of
FOPs for the final determination. On
February 21, 2006, Bosun submitted a
rebuttal to Petitioner’s February 7, 2006,
comments.
On February 1, 2006, the Department
received a separate rate application from
Qingdao Shinhan. The Department
determined on February 24, 2006, that
Qingdao Shinhan’s separate rate
application was timely filed. See
Memorandum to the File from Catherine
Bertrand dated February 24, 2006. On
March 22, 2006, the Department
preliminarily determined that the
information contained in Qingdao
Shinhan’s separate rate application
demonstrated that it qualified for a
separate rate in this investigation.
We invited parties to comment on the
Preliminary Determination. We received
comments from the Diamond Sawblade
Manufacturers’ Coalition (‘‘Petitioner’’),
2 One mandatory respondent, Saint-Gobain
Abrasives (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Saint Gobain’’) did
not participate in this investigation.
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
29304
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices
the mandatory respondents, Quanzhou
Shuangyang Diamond Tool Co., Ltd.
(‘‘QSY’’), Global, Robtol, Electrolux
Construction Products (Xiamen) Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Electrolux’’), and Huachang.
On April 3, 2006, parties submitted
case briefs. On April 10, 2006, parties
submitted rebuttal briefs. On April 14,
2006, the Department rejected the case
brief of Petitioner and the rebuttal briefs
of Petitioner and BGY, because they
contained unsolicited new factual
information. Petitioner and BGY
resubmitted their respective briefs on
April 18, 2006.
On January 6, 2006, Bosun requested
that the Department hold a public
hearing in this proceeding. On January
19, 2006, Petitioner requested the
Department hold a public hearing in
this proceeding. On April 3, 2006,
Petitioner requested that the hearing
held by the Department be a closed
hearing. On April 25, 2006, the
Department held a hearing in this
proceeding.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
investigation are addressed in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Determination in the Investigation
of Diamond Sawblades and parts
thereof from the People’s Republic of
China, dated May 15, 2006, which is
hereby adopted by this notice (‘‘Issues
and Decision Memorandum’’). A list of
the issues which parties raised and to
which we respond in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum is attached to
this notice as an Appendix. The
Decision Memorandum is a public
document and is on file in the Central
Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main Commerce
Building, Room B–099, and is accessible
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov. The
paper copy and electronic version of the
memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments
received, we have made changes in the
margin calculation for Bosun, BGY, and
Hebei Jikai as follows:
The Department has revised the
surrogate financial ratios to utilize a
source placed on the record by
Petitioner after the Preliminary
Determination. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 1 for a
discussion of this issue. See also
Memorandum to the File: Antidumping
Duty Investigation of Diamond
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China:
Recalculation of Surrogate Financial
Ratios for the Final Determination,
dated May 15, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:16 May 19, 2006
Jkt 208001
Bosun
The Department made corrections to
Bosun’s factors of production (‘‘FOP’’)
database based on the minor corrections
submitted by Bosun on the first day of
the PRC verification, and changes to
Bosun’s constructed export price
(‘‘CEP’’) database based on the minor
corrections submitted by Bosun on the
first day of the U.S. sales verification.
See Memorandum to the File:
Verification of the Sales and Factors
Response of Bosun Tools Group Co.,
Ltd. in the Antidumping Investigation of
Diamond Saw Blades and Parts Thereof
from the People’s Republic of China
dated March 24, 2006 (‘‘Bosun PRC
Verification Report’’), at Exhibit 2;
Memorandum to the File: Verification of
the U.S. CEP Sales Response of Bosun
Tools Group Co., Ltd. in the
Antidumping Investigation of Diamond
Saw Blades and Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China dated March
27, 2006 (‘‘Bosun US Verification
Report’’) at Exhibit 1 for a list of the
corrections submitted by Bosun. For a
description of how these changes were
incorporated, see Memorandum to the
File: Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd.
Program Analysis for the Final
Determination dated May 15, 2006
(‘‘Bosun Final Analysis Memo’’). The
Department has also corrected three
clerical errors identified by Bosun after
the Preliminary Determination. See, e.g.,
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 33; Bosun Final Analysis
Memo.
In addition, the Department made
changes to Bosun’s FOP and CEP
databases based on comments received
by Bosun and Petitioner. For a
description of these changes, see Issues
and Decision Memorandum, and Bosun
Final Analysis Memo.
BGY
Based on the Department’s
determination in the Preliminary
Determination to treat as a single entity
with BGY, Advanced Technology &
Materials Co., Ltd. (‘‘AT&M’’), and
Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial
Co., Ltd (‘‘HXF’’), the Department
requested U.S. sales and FOP databases
from the AT&M single entity.3 The
AT&M single entity certified that BGY
and HXF were the only entities within
the AT&M single entity to have
exported, or sold for export, subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POI, and submitted complete U.S.
sales and FOP information with respect
to HXF. The Department has continued
to find that BGY, AT&M, and HXF
3 As discussed below under ‘‘Affiliation,’’ the
AT&M entity includes BGY and HXF.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
should be treated as a single entity for
purposes of this final determination
and, therefore, has incorporated HXF’s
and BGY’s U.S. sales and FOP
information in the calculation of a
margin for the AT&M single entity. See
‘‘Affiliation’’ section below, and
Memorandum to the File: Advanced
Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. Entity
Program Analysis for the Final
Determination, dated May 15, 2006
(‘‘AT&M Final Analysis Memo’’), for a
more detailed explanation of these
changes.
The Department made corrections to
BGY’s FOP database based on the minor
corrections submitted by BGY on the
first day of the PRC verification, and
changes to BGY’s CEP database based on
the minor corrections submitted by BGY
on the first day of the U.S. sales
verification. See Memorandum to the
File: Verification of the Sales and
Factors Response of Beijing Gang Yan
Diamond Product Company in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation on
Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof
from the People’s Republic of China,
dated March 27, 2006 (‘‘BGY
Verification Report’’) at Exhibit 3;
Memorandum to the File: Verification of
the Sales and Factors Response of Gang
Yan Diamond Products, Inc. in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation on
Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof
from the People’s Republic of China,
dated March 27, 2006 (‘‘GYDP
Verification Report’’). For a complete
description of how these changes were
made see AT&M Final Analysis Memo.
See also Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 19.
In addition, the Department made
changes to the AT&M entity’s FOP and
U.S. sales databases based on comments
received by parties. For a description of
these changes see Issues and Decision
Memorandum, and AT&M Final
Analysis Memo.
Hebei Jikai
The Department made corrections to
Hebei Jikai’s FOP database based on the
minor corrections submitted by Hebei
Jikai on the first day of the verification.
See Memorandum to the File:
Verification of the Sales and Factors
Response of Hebei Jikai Industrial
Group Co. Ltd. in the Antidumping
Investigation of Diamond Saw Blades
and Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China dated March 23, 2006
(‘‘Hebei Jikai Verification Report’’), at
Exhibit 1. The Department also made
corrections to the gross weight in Hebei
Jikai’s U.S. sales database based on
information collected at the verification
of Hebei Jikai. See Hebei Jikai
Verification Report at 3. For a
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices
description of how these changes were
incorporated in the final margin
program, see Memorandum to the File:
Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co. Ltd.
(‘‘Hebei Jikai’’) Program Analysis for the
Final Determination, dated May 15,
2006 (‘‘Hebei Jikai Final Analysis
Memo’’).
In addition, the Department made
changes to Hebei Jikai’s FOP and U.S.
sales databases based on comments
received by Hebei Jikai and Petitioner.
For a description of these changes see
Issues and Decision Memorandum, and
Hebei Jikai Final Analysis Memo.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this
investigation are all finished circular
sawblades, whether slotted or not, with
a working part that is comprised of a
diamond segment or segments, and
parts thereof, regardless of specification
or size, except as specifically excluded
below. Within the scope of this
investigation are semifinished diamond
sawblades, including diamond sawblade
cores and diamond sawblade segments.
Diamond sawblade cores are circular
steel plates, whether or not attached to
non–steel plates, with slots. Diamond
sawblade cores are manufactured
principally, but not exclusively, from
alloy steel. A diamond sawblade
segment consists of a mixture of
diamonds (whether natural or synthetic,
and regardless of the quantity of
diamonds) and metal powders
(including, but not limited to, iron,
cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are
formed together into a solid shape (from
generally, but not limited to, a heating
and pressing process).
Sawblades with diamonds directly
attached to the core with a resin or
electroplated bond, which thereby do
not contain a diamond segment, are not
included within the scope of the
investigation. Diamond sawblades and/
or sawblade cores with a thickness of
less than 0.025 inches, or with a
thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are
excluded from the scope of the
investigation. Circular steel plates that
have a cutting edge of non–diamond
material, such as external teeth that
protrude from the outer diameter of the
plate, whether or not finished, are
excluded from the scope of this
investigation. Diamond sawblade cores
with a Rockwell C hardness of less than
25 are excluded from the scope of the
investigation. Diamond sawblades and/
or diamond segment(s) with diamonds
that predominantly have a mesh size
number greater than 240 (such as 250 or
260) are excluded from the scope of the
investigation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:16 May 19, 2006
Jkt 208001
Merchandise subject to this
investigation is typically imported
under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). When
packaged together as a set for retail sale
with an item that is separately classified
under headings 8202 to 8205 of the
HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts
thereof may be imported under heading
8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. The tariff
classifications are provided for
convenience and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection purposes; however,
the written description of the scope of
this investigation is dispositive.
Scope Rulings
During the course of this
investigation, the Department issued
several scope rulings, all of which are
affirmed through this final
determination. Specifically, in the
Preliminary Determination, the
Department ruled that concave and
convex cores, and finished diamond
sawblades produced from such cores,
are within the scope of this
investigation. See Memorandum from
Maisha Cryor, Senior International
Trade Compliance Analyst, to Thomas
F. Futtner, Acting Office Director,
‘‘Consideration of Scope Exclusion and
Clarification Requests,’’ dated December
20, 2005, at page 8. The Department also
ruled that metal–bonded 1A1R grinding
wheels are within the scope of this
investigation. Id. at 11. On April 7,
2006, the Department found granite
contour diamond sawblades within the
scope of the investigation. See
Memorandum from Maisha Cryor,
Senior International Trade Compliance
Analyst, to Thomas F. Futtner, Acting
Office Director, ‘‘Consideration of Scope
Exclusion Request,’’ dated April 7,
2006. In this decision, the Department
confirmed that the Rockwell C hardness
threshold contained in the scope of the
investigation applies only to cores, and
not to finished diamond sawblades. Id.
at 7. Lastly, the term ‘‘sawblade’’ is
defined as those products that meet the
1A1R specification, where the segment
thickness is larger than the thickness of
the core. See Petitioner’s May 3, 2005,
submission at Exhibit I–10 (‘‘The
segment or rim is slightly wider than the
steel blade to allow the attacking edge
to penetrate the material without the
steel blade rubbing against it’’);
Petitioner’s May 10, 2005, submission,
at page 14 (‘‘the segment or rim is
slightly wider than the steel blade to
allow the attacking edge to penetrate the
material without the steel blade rubbing
against it’’); Transcript to April 25,
2006, Public Hearing in the companion
investigation of diamond sawblades
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29305
from the People’s Republic of China
(statement by the petitioner that the
‘‘international codes for sawblades are
1A1R, 1A1RS, and 1A1RSS, where the
R means recessed. And that refers to the
core, {where} the core is thinner than
the segments’’); and ITC Investigation
No. 731–TA–1093, August 2005 (‘‘The
segment, or rim, is slightly wider than
the steel blade to permit the leading
edge to penetrate the material without
the steel blade rubbing against it and to
discourage blade binding’’). For this
final determination, the Department has
determined not to revise the scope of
the investigation. See also Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, we verified the information
submitted by the respondents and one
separate rate applicant for use in our
final determination. See the
Department’s verification reports on the
record of this investigation in the CRU
with respect to Bosun, BGY, Hebei Jikai,
and Shanghai Deda. For all verified
companies, we used standard
verification procedures, including
examination of relevant accounting and
production records, as well as original
source documents provided by
respondents.
Critical Circumstances
On November 21, 2005, Petitioner
alleged that there is a reasonable basis
to believe or suspect critical
circumstances exist with respect to the
antidumping investigations of diamond
sawblades and parts thereof from the
PRC. In the Preliminary Determination,
the Department found that critical
circumstances exist for imports of
diamond sawblades from Bosun and the
PRC–wide entity, but that critical
circumstances did not exist for the
preliminary separate rate applicants,
BGY, or Hebei Jikai. See Memorandum
to Stephen J. Claeys: Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances, dated December 20,
2005 (‘‘Prelim Critical Circumstances
Memo’’). Based on the changes made to
Bosun, BGY, Hebei Jikai, and the final
separate rate companies’ margins, and
as discussed further in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 10,
the Department has re–examined its
preliminary finding that critical
circumstances exist for imports of
diamond sawblades from Bosun, and
Hebei Jikai, and the PRC–wide entity,
but that critical circumstances did not
exist for the AT&M entity. In addition,
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
29306
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices
the Department has examined the final
separate rate companies.
Section 735(2)(3) of the Act provides
that a final critical circumstances
determination will include a finding
that: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping
and material injury by reason of
dumped imports in the United States or
elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or
(ii) the person by whom, or for whose
account, the merchandise was imported
knew or should have known that the
exporter was selling the subject
merchandise at less than its fair value
and that there was likely to be material
injury by reason of such sales; and (B)
there have been massive imports of the
subject merchandise over a relatively
short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of
the Department’s regulations provides
that, in determining whether imports of
the subject merchandise have been
‘‘massive,’’ the Department normally
will examine: (i) the volume and value
of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and
(iii) the share of domestic consumption
accounted for by the imports. In
addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the
Department’s regulations provides that
an increase in imports of 15 percent
during the ‘‘relatively short period’’ of
time may be considered ‘‘massive.’’
As discussed in detail in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment
10, the Department continues to find
that there is a reasonable basis to believe
or suspect that the importer knew or
should have known that there was likely
to be material injury by means of sales
at LTFV of subject merchandise from
the PRC. In the Preliminary
Determination, the Department found
that (1) Bosun and the PRC–wide entity
had margins of more than 25 percent for
export price sales and more than 15
percent for constructed export price
sales, and (2) BGY, Hebei Jikai, and the
preliminary separate rate applicants did
not have margins of more than 25
percent for export price sales and more
than 15 percent for constructed export
price sales. See Prelim Critical
Circumstances Memo at Attachment II.
For this final determination, Bosun,
Hebei Jikai, and the PRC–wide entity
each have margins of more than 25
percent for export price sales and more
than 15 percent for constructed export
price sales, while the AT&M single
entity and the final separate rate
companies have margins less than 25
percent for export price sales and more
than 15 percent for constructed export
price sales. Therefore, the Department
finds, for this final determination, that
Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and the PRC–wide
entity have sufficient margins to impute
importer knowledge of sales at less than
fair value. See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:16 May 19, 2006
Jkt 208001
Steel Wire Rod From Germany, Mexico,
Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and
Ukraine: Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Critical
Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225
(February 11, 2002); Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 10. However,
the AT&M single entity and the final
separate rate companies’ margins are
insufficient to impute importer
knowledge of sales at less than fair
value. In addition, as no party in this
proceeding has called into question the
Department’s preliminary determination
of massive imports with respect to
Bosun, BGY, Hebei Jikai, the final
separate rate companies, and the PRC–
wide entity, the Department also
continues to find that there have been
massive imports of the subject
merchandise over a relatively short
period for Bosun, the AT&M single
entity, Hebei Jikai, the final separate rate
companies, and the PRC–wide entity.
See Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 10 and Prelim Critical
Circumstances Memo at Attachment I.
Therefore, given the analysis
summarized above, and described in
more detail in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 10, we
determine that critical circumstances
exist for imports of diamond sawblades
from Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and the PRC–
wide entity. However, we do not find
that critical circumstances exist for the
AT&M single entity or the final separate
rate companies.
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we
stated that we had selected India as the
appropriate surrogate country to use in
this investigation for the following
reasons: (1) It is a significant producer
of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at
a similar level of economic development
pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3)
we have reliable data from India that we
can use to value the factors of
production. See Preliminary
Determination, 70 FR at 77124–77125.
For the final determination, we made no
changes to our findings with respect to
the selection of a surrogate country.
Affiliation
In the Preliminary Determination,
based on the evidence on the record, we
preliminarily found that BGY was
affiliated with AT&M and HXF pursuant
to sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the
Act. In addition, based on the evidence
presented in BGY’s questionnaire
responses, we preliminarily found that
BGY, HXF, and AT&M should be treated
as a single entity for the purposes of the
antidumping duty investigation of
diamond sawblades from the PRC. See
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Memorandum to the File from Anya
Naschak: Affiliation and Treatment as a
Single Entity of Beijing Gang Yan
Diamond Product Company, Advanced
Technology & Materials Co., Ltd., and
Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial
Co., Ltd.; Affiliation of Gang Yan
Diamond Products, Inc. and Beijing
Gang Yan Diamond Product Company;
and Affiliation of Gang Yan Diamond
Products, Inc., SANC Materials, Inc.,
and Cliff (Tianjin) International, Ltd.,
dated December 20, 2005 (‘‘AT&M
Affiliation Memo’’). This finding was
based on the determination that BGY,
HXF, and AT&M are affiliated, that BGY
and HXF have production facilities for
‘‘identical products,’’ and no substantial
retooling of either facility would be
necessary in order to ‘‘restructure
manufacturing priorities.’’ See 19 CFR
351.401(f)(1). Additionally, based on
levels of common ownership and
control, and intertwined operations, the
Department found that there is
significant potential for manipulation of
price or production between the parties.
See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). Accordingly,
the Department requested after the
Preliminary Determination that the
AT&M single entity provide complete
responses to sections C and D of the
Department’s questionnaire with respect
to all of the AT&M single entity’s sales
to the first U.S. unaffiliated customer
and factors of production for these sales.
See Letter from Carrie Blozy to BGY
dated December 23, 2005. On January
26, 2006, the AT&M Group submitted
the requested information. Based on the
information contained in the AT&M
single entity’s responses to date, and
based on information collected at
verification (see BGY Verification
Report), the Department finds no
evidence to countermand the
Department’s finding in the Preliminary
Determination that BGY, HXF, and
AT&M are affiliated pursuant to sections
771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the Act, and
that these companies should be treated
as a single entity for the purposes of the
antidumping duty investigation of
diamond sawblades from the PRC, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1)
and (2). Therefore, the Department
continues to find, for this final
determination, that BGY, HXF, and
AT&M are a single entity, and will
calculate a single antidumping margin
for the AT&M entity.
In addition, the Department also
found in its Preliminary Determination
that Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc.
(‘‘GYDP’’), is affiliated with BGY,
pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the
Act, and that GYDP, SANC Materials,
Inc. (‘‘SANC’’), and Cliff (Tianjin)
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices
International, Ltd. (‘‘Cliff’’) are affiliated
with each other pursuant to sections
771(33)(B), (E), and (F) of the Act. See
BGY Affiliation Memo. Since the
Preliminary Determination, the
Department has found no information
that would rebut this determination.
Therefore, the Department continues to
find GYDP, SANC, and Cliff to be
affiliated with each other pursuant to
sections 771(33)(B), (E), and (F) of the
Act, and that BGY and GYDP are
affiliated with each other pursuant to
section 771(33)(E) of the Act, for this
final determination.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non–marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the
Department begins with a rebuttable
presumption that all companies within
the country are subject to government
control and, thus, should be assigned a
single antidumping duty deposit rate. It
is the Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to an
investigation in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s
Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as amplified by
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide
from the People’s Republic of China, 59
FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon
Carbide’’), and Section 351.107(d) of the
Department’s regulations.
In the Preliminary Determination, we
found that BGY, Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and
the Separate Rate Applicants
demonstrated their eligibility for
separate–rate status. For the final
determination, we continue to find that
the evidence placed on the record of
this investigation by the AT&M entity,
Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and the Separate
Rate Applicants demonstrate both a de
jure and de facto absence of government
control, with respect to their respective
exports of the merchandise under
investigation, and, thus are eligible for
separate rate status.
The AT&M Single Entity
With respect to the AT&M single
entity, in the Preliminary
Determination, based on the evidence
on the record, we preliminarily found
that BGY had both de jure and de facto
control over its export activities, but
noted that the Department would
further examine this issue for the final
determination. In light of the
Department’s decision in the
Preliminary Determination that BGY
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:16 May 19, 2006
Jkt 208001
was affiliated with AT&M and HXF, and
that BGY, AT&M, and HXF should be
treated as a single entity, the
Department further examined AT&M,
BGY, and HXF’s claim to a separate rate.
The Department finds, based on
information submitted on the record of
this proceeding after the Preliminary
Determination, that the AT&M single
entity has demonstrated both a de jure
and de facto absence of government
control and should be granted a separate
rate. As discussed further in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment
16, the evidence provided by HXF and
AT&M after the Preliminary
Determination supports a finding of de
jure absence of governmental control
based on the following: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) the applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing
control of the companies; and (3) any
other formal measures by the
government decentralizing control of
companies.4 The evidence on the record
with respect to HXF also supports a
finding of de facto absence of
governmental control based on record
statements and supporting
documentation showing the following:
(1) It sets its own export prices
independent of the government and
without the approval of a government
authority; (2) it retains the proceeds
from its sales and makes independent
decisions regarding disposition of
profits or financing of losses; (3) it has
the authority to negotiate and sign
contracts and other agreements; and (4)
it has autonomy from the government
regarding the selection of management.
See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87.
Therefore, because the Department
found no evidence that AT&M made
shipments of subject merchandise to the
United States during the POI, and
because AT&M is a single entity
including BGY and HXF, and BGY and
HXF have demonstrated a de facto
independence from government control,
we find that the AT&M single entity has
demonstrated a de facto independence
from government control with respect to
its export activities. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 16.
Other Separate Rate Applicants
Additionally, in the Preliminary
Determination, the Department
considered for a separate rate only the
seventeen applicants whose
applications were considered complete
by the sixty-day deadline established by
the application, and these companies,
4 See Sparklers 56 FR 20588 and Silicon Carbide
59 FR 22585.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29307
the Separate Rate Applicants, were
granted a separate rate. For the final
determination, we continue to find that
the evidence placed on the record of
this investigation for the Separate Rate
Applicants that we granted a separate
rate to in the Preliminary Determination
demonstrates a de jure and de facto
absence of government control, with
respect to their respective exports of the
merchandise under investigation, and,
thus are eligible for separate rate status.
Therefore, for the final determination
we are continuing to grant these
seventeen applicants a separate rate.
On February 1, 2006, the Department
received a separate rate application from
Qingdao Shinhan, and determined that
Qingdao Shinhan’s separate rate
application was timely filed. See
Memorandum to the File from Catherine
Bertrand dated February 24, 2006. On
March 22, 2006, the Department
preliminarily determined that the
information contained in Qingdao
Shinhan’s separate rate application
demonstrated that it qualified for a
separate rate in this investigation. See
Memorandum to the File from Catherine
Bertrand: Separate Rates Application of
Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial
Co., Ltd. dated March 22, 2006. For the
final determination, we continue to find
that the evidence placed on the record
of this investigation by Qingdao
Shinhan demonstrates an absence of
government control, both in law and in
fact, with respect to its exports of the
merchandise under investigation, and,
thus is eligible for separate rate status.
For a further discussion of this issue See
Issues and Decision Memo at Comment
15.
In addition, the Department received
case briefs from QSY, Global, Robtol,
Electrolux, and Huachang, arguing that
the Department should grant these
companies a separate rate. These
companies had been denied a separate
rate in the Preliminary Determination
because the Department determined
these applications were not filed in a
complete manner by the deadline. See
Memorandum to James C. Doyle from
Carrie Blozy: Antidumping Investigation
of Diamond Sawblades and Parts
Thereof from the People’s Republic of
China: Deficient Separate Rate
Applications, dated October 12, 2005.
With respect to Global, Robtol, and
Huachang the Department finds that,
after analyzing their separate rates
applications, these companies have
demonstrated both a de jure and de
facto absence of government control and
should be granted a separate rate. The
evidence provided by these companies
in their respective separate rates
applications supports a finding of de
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
29308
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
jure absence of governmental control
based on the following: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) the applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing
control of the companies; and (3) any
other formal measures by the
government decentralizing control of
companies. See, e.g., Sparklers, 56 FR
20588 and Silicon Carbide, 59 FR
22586–87. The evidence on the record
with respect to these companies also
supports a finding of de facto absence
of governmental control based on record
statements and supporting
documentation showing the following
for each company: (1) It sets its own
export prices independent of the
government and without the approval of
a government authority; (2) it retains the
proceeds from its sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses; (3) it has the authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; and (4) it has autonomy
from the government regarding the
selection of management. See Sparklers,
56 FR 20589; Silicon Carbide, 59 FR
22586–87. Therefore, the Department is
granting Global, Robol, and Huachang a
separate rate. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 13 and 14
for a further discussion of this issue.
Further, the Department is continuing
to deny a separate rate to QSY and
Electrolux because the Department still
finds that the separate rate applications
of QSY and Electrolux are deficient.
Therefore, the Department will not
conduct a separate rates analysis for
these two companies. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 12
and 14.
The PRC–Wide Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department found that certain
companies and the PRC–wide entity did
not respond to our request for Q&V
information and Saint Gobain, one of
the largest exporters of the merchandise
under investigation,5 did not respond to
the Department’s questionnaire. In the
Preliminary Determination we treated
these PRC producers/exporters as part of
the PRC–wide entity because they did
not demonstrate that they operate free of
government control. No additional
information has been placed on the
record with respect to these entities
after the Preliminary Determination.
The PRC–wide entity, including Saint
Gobain, has not provided the
Department with the requested
information. Therefore, pursuant to
5 See
Respondent Selection Memo.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:16 May 19, 2006
Jkt 208001
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the
Department continues to find that the
use of facts available is appropriate to
determine the PRC–wide rate. Section
776(b) of the Act provides that, in
selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, the Department
may employ an adverse inference if an
interested party fails to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information. See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled Flat–
Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products
from the Russian Federation, 65 FR
5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). See also
‘‘Statement of Administrative Action’’
accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No.
103–316, 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). We find
that, because the PRC–wide entity did
not respond to our request for
information, it has failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability. Therefore, the
Department finds that, in selecting from
among the facts otherwise available, an
adverse inference is appropriate.
Because we begin with the
presumption that all companies within
a NME country are subject to
government control and because only
the companies listed under the ‘‘Final
Determination Margins’’ section below
have overcome that presumption, we are
applying a single antidumping rate—the
PRC–wide rate—to all other exporters of
subject merchandise from the PRC. Such
companies did not demonstrate
entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g.,
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from
the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR
25706 (May 3, 2000). The PRC–wide
rate applies to all entries of subject
merchandise except for entries from the
respondents which are listed in the
‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section
below (except as noted).
Corroboration
At the Preliminary Determination, in
accordance with section 776(c) of the
Act, we corroborated our adverse facts
available (‘‘AFA’’) margin using
information submitted by certain
respondents. See Memorandum to the
File: Corroboration of the PRC–Wide
Facts Available Rate for the Preliminary
Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, dated December 20,
2005 (‘‘Corroboration Memo’’). The
Statement of Administration Action also
clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’ means that
the Department will satisfy itself that
the secondary information to be used
has probative value, i.e., reliable and
relevant. See ‘‘Statement of
Administrative Action’’ accompanying
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 870
(1994) (‘‘SAA’’) at 870.
To assess the probative value of the
total AFA rate it has chosen for Saint
Gobain and the PRC–wide entity, the
Department compared the final margin
calculations of certain respondents in
this investigation with the rate of 164.09
percent from the petition. We find that
the rate is within the range of the
highest margins we have determined in
this investigation. See Memorandum to
the File: Corroboration of the PRC–Wide
Facts Available Rate for the Final
Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, dated May 15, 2006
(‘‘Final Corroboration Memo’’). Since
the record of this investigation contains
margins within the range of the petition
margin, we determine that the rate from
the petition continues to be relevant for
use in this investigation. As discussed
therein, we found that the margin of
164.09 percent has probative value. See
Final Corroboration Memo.
Accordingly, we find that the rate of
164.09 percent is corroborated within
the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
Combination Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. See
Initiation Notice, 70 FR 35625, 35629.
This change in practice is described in
Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at https://
www.trade.gov/ia/. The Policy Bulletin
05.1 states:
‘‘[w]hile continuing the practice of
assigning separate rates only to
exporters, all separate rates that the
Department will now assign in its
NME investigations will be specific
to those producers that supplied the
exporter during the period of
investigation. Note, however, that
one rate is calculated for the
exporter and all of the producers
which supplied subject
merchandise to it during the period
of investigation. This practice
applies both to mandatory
respondents receiving an
individually calculated separate
rate as well as the pool of non–
investigated firms receiving the
weighted–average of the
individually calculated rates. This
practice is referred to as the
application of ‘‘combination rates’’
because such rates apply to specific
combinations of exporters and one
or more producers. The cash–
deposit rate assigned to an exporter
will apply only to merchandise
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
29309
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices
both exported by the firm in
question and produced by a firm
that supplied the exporter during
the period of investigation.’’ See
Policy Bulletin 05.1, at page 6.
Therefore, for the final determination,
we have assigned a combination rate to
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate.
As discussed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 18,
the Department will continue to not
issue a combination rate for exports
made by Cliff and manufactured by
BGY, as these sales were made by BGY.
Further, the Department continues to
find that BGY should be treated as a
single entity with AT&M and HXF, and
the AT&M single entity has
demonstrated its eligibility for a
separate rate in this case. Therefore, the
Department will apply a single
combination rate for the AT&M single
entity as the producer and exporter.
However, exports where Cliff acted as a
facilitator for the AT&M single entity are
eligible to claim AT&M’s antidumping
duty cash deposit rate. For a further
discussion of this issue, see Issues and
Decision Memorandum, at Comments
16–18.
Final Determination Margins
We determine that the following
percentage weighted–average margins
exist for the POI:
Weighted–Average
Deposit Rate
Exporter
Producer
Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. .........................
Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. .................................................
Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. .....................
Danyang Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd. .......................
Fujian Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co., Ltd. ..........................
Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co., Ltd. ...........................
Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd. ...................................
Huzhou Gu’s Import & Export Co., Ltd. ................................
Huzhou Gu’s Import & Export Co., Ltd. ................................
Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd. .........
Jiangyin Likn Industry Co., Ltd. .............................................
Jiangyin Likn Industry Co., Ltd. .............................................
Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. .....................
Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Ltd. ........................
Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd. ....................................................
Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading Co., Ltd. ........................
Shanghai Robtol Tool Manufacturing Co., Ltd. .....................
Shijiazhuang Global New Century Tools Co., Ltd. ................
Sichuan Huili Tools Co. .........................................................
Sichuan Huili Tools Co. .........................................................
Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd. .............
Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co. ........................
Xiamen ZL Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. .....................................
Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Ltd. ................................
Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Ltd. ................................
Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Ltd. ................................
Zhejiang Wanli Tools Group Co., Ltd. ...................................
Zhenjiang Inter–China Import & Export Co., Ltd. ..................
PRC–Wide Rate ....................................................................
Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd.
Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd.
Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Danyang Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd.
Fujian Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co., Ltd.
Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co., Ltd.
Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd.
Danyang Aurui Hardware Products Co., Ltd.
Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd.
Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd.
Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co.
Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd.
Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Ltd.
Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd.
Hua Da Superabrasive Tools Technology Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Robtol Tool Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Shijiazhuang Global New Century Tools Co., Ltd.
Chengdu Huifeng Diamond Tools Co., Ltd.
Sichuan Huili Tools Co.
Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd.
Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co.
Xiamen ZL Diamond Tools Co., Ltd.
Danyang Dida Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Danyang Tsunda Diamond Tools Co., Ltd.
Wuxi Lianhua Superhard Material Tools Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Wanli Super–hard Materials Co., Ltd.
Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
..................................................................................................
62.50%
34.19%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
48.50%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
20.72%
164.09%
6 Including Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company as an exporter when merchandise was also produced by Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company, and Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd. as an exporter when merchandise was also produced by Yichang
HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations
performed within five days of the date
of publication of this notice to parties in
this proceeding in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the
Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to suspend
liquidation of all entries of subject
merchandise from the PRC entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption as follows: for the final
separate rate companies, on or after the
date of publication of the Preliminary
Determination in the Federal Register,
December 29, 2005; for Bosun, Hebei
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:16 May 19, 2006
Jkt 208001
Jikai, and the PRC–wide entity, on or
after the date which is 90 days prior to
the date of publication of the
Preliminary Determination, September
30, 2005, due to the final determination
of critical circumstances. See e.g.,
Preliminary Determination; Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
CBP shall continue to require a cash
deposit or the posting of a bond equal
to the estimated amount by which the
normal value exceeds the U.S. price as
shown above. In addition, with respect
to the AT&M single entity, in the
Preliminary Determination, due to
BGY’s de minimus preliminary margin,
the Department did not require any cash
deposit or posting of a bond. However,
based on this final determination that
the AT&M single entity does not have a
de minimus margin rate, the Department
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation
of all entries of subject merchandise
from the AT&M single entity7 entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption, on or after the date of
publication of the Final Determination
in the Federal Register. These
instructions suspending liquidation will
remain in effect until further notice.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of
the Act, we have notified the ITC of our
final determination of sales at LTFV. As
our final determination is affirmative, in
accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the
Act, within 45 days the ITC will
determine whether the domestic
industry in the United States is
7 Including
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
BGY and HXF.
22MYN1
29310
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices
materially injured, or threatened with
material injury, by reason of imports or
sales (or the likelihood of sales) for
importation of the subject merchandise.
If the ITC determines that material
injury or threat of material injury does
not exist, the proceeding will be
terminated and all securities posted will
be refunded or canceled. If the ITC
determines that such injury does exist,
the Department will issue an
antidumping duty order directing CBP
to assess antidumping duties on all
imports of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the effective
date of the suspension of liquidation.
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely
notification of return or destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of an APO is a
sanctionable violation.
This determination and notice are
issued and published in accordance
with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: May 15, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
List of Issues
General Issues
Comment 1: Whether The Department
Should Revise Its Selection of Surrogate
Financial Ratios
Comment 2: Whether Process Materials
and Energy Inputs Should Be Valued As
Factors of Production
Comment 3: Preliminary Scope
Determinations
Comment 4: Country of Origin
Determination
Comment 5: Whether the Department
Should Revise the Physical
Characteristics and Model Match
Criteria
Comment 6: Whether Employee Benefits
Should Be Moved from Direct Labor To
Manufacturing Overhead
Comment 7: Treatment of Negative
Margins
Comment 8: Application of Sigma Cap
Comment 9: Treatment of Packing Costs
and Byproducts
Comment 10: Whether the Department
Should Reevaluate its Preliminary
Partial Determination of Critical
Circumstances
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:16 May 19, 2006
Jkt 208001
Comment 11: Surrogate Value Issues
A. Cores
B. Oxygen
C. Graphite and Steel Molds
D. Copper Powder
E. Diamonds
F. Steel Sheet 5
Separate Rate Applicant–Specific
Issues
Comment 12: Separate Rate Status of
Electrolux
Comment 13: Separate Rate Status of
Huachang
Comment 14: Separate Rate Status of
QSY, Robtol, and Global
Comment 15: Separate Rate Status of
Qingdao Shinhan
Company–Specific Issues
BGY Issues:
Comment 16: Whether the Department
should Deny a Separate Rate to BGY,
Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial
Co., Ltd. (‘‘HXF’’), and Advanced
Technology & Materials Co., Ltd.
(‘‘AT&M’’)
Comment 17: Whether BGY was the
Seller of Sawblades to the United States
Comment 18: Whether the Department
Should Revise the Combination Rates
for BGY
Comment 19: Whether the Department
should Apply Total Adverse Facts
Available to BGY
Comment 20: Whether the Department
should Calculate CEP Profit Based on
BGY’s U.S. and Third Country Sales
Comment 21: Whether the Department
Should Adjust BGY’s Reported
Electricity and Labor FOPs.
Comment 22: Whether to Modify the
Steel Surrogate Values for BGY
Comment 23: Whether to Continue to
Apply an Inflator to Market Economy
(‘‘ME’’) Purchases of Diamond Powder
Made Prior to the POI
Comment 24: Whether the Department
Should Revise the Surrogate Value for
Gasoline
Comment 25: Whether to Deduct BGY’s
Reported Interest Revenue from Gross
Unit Price
Comment 26: Whether BGY’s Reported
Billing Adjustments Should Be
Considered Direct Selling Expenses
Comment 27: Whether the Department
Erred in Certain Statements in the BGY
and GYDP Verification Reports
Bosun Issues:
Comment 28: Whether Returns Should
Be Treated As A Selling Expense
Comment 29: Whether Bosun’s U.S.
Indirect Selling Expenses Should Be
Revised
Comment 30: Whether Movement
Expenses and Repacking Expenses
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Should Be Included In The Calculation
of CEP Profit
Comment 31: Surrogate Value for Tape
Comment 32: Surrogate Value for
Acrylic Lacquer and Pallet Lacquer
Comment 33: Whether The Department
Should Correct Certain Ministerial
Errors
Comment 34: Whether The Surrogate
Value For International Freight Should
Be Revised
Comment 35: Whether The Department
Should Make Additional Adjustments to
Bosun’s U.S. Sales Data and Supplier
Databases
Hebei Jikai Issues:
Comment 36: Whether to apply AFA to
Hebei Jikai’s Process Materials
Comment 37: Whether International
Freight to Two U.S. Customers Should
Be Deducted
Comment 38: Whether Labor and
Electricity Should Be Adjusted For
Certain Product Codes
Comment 39: Surrogate Value for Nickel
Comment 40: Surrogate Value for
Copper Plate
Comment 41: Surrogate Value Packaging
Film
Comment 42: Valuation of Steel
[FR Doc. E6–7763 Filed 5–19–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–855]
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Final
Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the Republic of
Korea
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2006.
SUMMARY: On December 29, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published its preliminary
determination of sales at less than fair
value (LTFV) in the antidumping duty
investigation of diamond sawblades and
parts thereof from the Republic of Korea
(Korea). The period of investigation
(POI) is April 1, 2004, through March
31, 2005.
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made
changes in the margin calculations.
Therefore, the final determination
differs from the preliminary
determination. The final weighted–
average dumping margins for the
investigated companies are listed below
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29303-29310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7763]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-900]
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final
Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2006.
SUMMARY: On December 29, 2005, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at less
than fair value (``LTFV'') and preliminary determination of partial
affirmative critical circumstances in the antidumping investigation of
certain diamond sawblades and parts thereof (``diamond sawblades'')
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of
investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005. The
investigation covers four manufacturers/exporters which are mandatory
respondents and twenty-one separate rate applicants. We invited
interested parties to comment on our preliminary determination of sales
at LTFV and partial affirmative critical circumstances. Based on our
analysis of the comments we received, we have made changes to our
calculations for certain of the mandatory respondents and the weight-
averaged margins for the separate rate applicants.\1\ We have also
granted a separate rate to four additional applicants. The final
dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the ``Final
Determination Margins'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Danyang Youhe
Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Fujian Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co. Ltd.,
Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co. Ltd., Huzhou Gu Import & Export
Co., Ltd, Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co. Ltd.,
Jiangyin LIKN Industry Co. Ltd., Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co.,
Ltd., Rizhao Hein Saw Co. Ltd., Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading Co.
Ltd., Sichuan Huili Tools Co., Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical
Industrail Co., Ltd., Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Company,
Ltd., Xiamen ZL Diamond Tools Co. Ltd., Zhejiang Tea Import & Export
Co. Ltd., Zhejiang Wanli Tools Group Co., Ltd. (``Wanli''),
Zhenjiang Inter-China Import & Export Co., Ltd., (collectively,
``preliminary separate rate applicants''), as well as four
additional separate rate companies, Qingdao Shinhan Diamond
Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Qingdao Shinhan''), Shijiazhuang Global New
Century Tools Co., Ltd. (``Global''), Shanghai Robtol Tool
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (``Robtol''), and Huachang Diamond Tools
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (``Huachang'') (collectively with
preliminary separate rate applicants, ``final separate rate
companies'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anya Naschak or Carrie Blozy, 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-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6375 or 482-5403, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Final Determination
We determine that diamond sawblades from the PRC are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV as provided in section
735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The estimated
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Final Determination
Margins'' section of this notice.
Case History
The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at
LTFV on December 29, 2005. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and
Preliminary Partial Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR
77121 (December 29, 2005) (``Preliminary Determination''). The
Department conducted verification of Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd.
(``Bosun''), Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Product Company (``BGY''), and
Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co. Ltd. (``Hebei Jikai'') (collectively,
``respondents''), the three mandatory respondents participating in this
investigation\2\ in both the PRC and the United States (where
applicable), and Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading Co. Ltd. (``Shanghai
Deda''), one of the separate rate applicants. See the ``Verification''
section below for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ One mandatory respondent, Saint-Gobain Abrasives (Shanghai)
Co., Ltd. (``Saint Gobain'') did not participate in this
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 6, 2006, the Department solicited comments from all
interested parties regarding changes to its calculation of financial
ratios. On February 7, 2006, Bosun and Petitioner submitted additional
comments on the valuation of factors of production (``FOPs'') for the
final determination. On February 13, 2006, BGY also submitted
additional comments on the valuation of FOPs for the final
determination. On February 21, 2006, Bosun submitted a rebuttal to
Petitioner's February 7, 2006, comments.
On February 1, 2006, the Department received a separate rate
application from Qingdao Shinhan. The Department determined on February
24, 2006, that Qingdao Shinhan's separate rate application was timely
filed. See Memorandum to the File from Catherine Bertrand dated
February 24, 2006. On March 22, 2006, the Department preliminarily
determined that the information contained in Qingdao Shinhan's separate
rate application demonstrated that it qualified for a separate rate in
this investigation.
We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. We
received comments from the Diamond Sawblade Manufacturers' Coalition
(``Petitioner''),
[[Page 29304]]
the mandatory respondents, Quanzhou Shuangyang Diamond Tool Co., Ltd.
(``QSY''), Global, Robtol, Electrolux Construction Products (Xiamen)
Co., Ltd. (``Electrolux''), and Huachang.
On April 3, 2006, parties submitted case briefs. On April 10, 2006,
parties submitted rebuttal briefs. On April 14, 2006, the Department
rejected the case brief of Petitioner and the rebuttal briefs of
Petitioner and BGY, because they contained unsolicited new factual
information. Petitioner and BGY resubmitted their respective briefs on
April 18, 2006.
On January 6, 2006, Bosun requested that the Department hold a
public hearing in this proceeding. On January 19, 2006, Petitioner
requested the Department hold a public hearing in this proceeding. On
April 3, 2006, Petitioner requested that the hearing held by the
Department be a closed hearing. On April 25, 2006, the Department held
a hearing in this proceeding.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
for the Final Determination in the Investigation of Diamond Sawblades
and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated May 15,
2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice (``Issues and Decision
Memorandum''). A list of the issues which parties raised and to which
we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this
notice as an Appendix. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and
is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), Main Commerce
Building, Room B-099, and is accessible on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum
are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in
the margin calculation for Bosun, BGY, and Hebei Jikai as follows:
The Department has revised the surrogate financial ratios to
utilize a source placed on the record by Petitioner after the
Preliminary Determination. See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at
Comment 1 for a discussion of this issue. See also Memorandum to the
File: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Diamond Sawblades and Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Recalculation of Surrogate
Financial Ratios for the Final Determination, dated May 15, 2006.
Bosun
The Department made corrections to Bosun's factors of production
(``FOP'') database based on the minor corrections submitted by Bosun on
the first day of the PRC verification, and changes to Bosun's
constructed export price (``CEP'') database based on the minor
corrections submitted by Bosun on the first day of the U.S. sales
verification. See Memorandum to the File: Verification of the Sales and
Factors Response of Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping
Investigation of Diamond Saw Blades and Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China dated March 24, 2006 (``Bosun PRC Verification
Report''), at Exhibit 2; Memorandum to the File: Verification of the
U.S. CEP Sales Response of Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. in the
Antidumping Investigation of Diamond Saw Blades and Parts Thereof from
the People's Republic of China dated March 27, 2006 (``Bosun US
Verification Report'') at Exhibit 1 for a list of the corrections
submitted by Bosun. For a description of how these changes were
incorporated, see Memorandum to the File: Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd.
Program Analysis for the Final Determination dated May 15, 2006
(``Bosun Final Analysis Memo''). The Department has also corrected
three clerical errors identified by Bosun after the Preliminary
Determination. See, e.g., Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 33;
Bosun Final Analysis Memo.
In addition, the Department made changes to Bosun's FOP and CEP
databases based on comments received by Bosun and Petitioner. For a
description of these changes, see Issues and Decision Memorandum, and
Bosun Final Analysis Memo.
BGY
Based on the Department's determination in the Preliminary
Determination to treat as a single entity with BGY, Advanced Technology
& Materials Co., Ltd. (``AT&M''), and Yichang HXF Circular Saw
Industrial Co., Ltd (``HXF''), the Department requested U.S. sales and
FOP databases from the AT&M single entity.\3\ The AT&M single entity
certified that BGY and HXF were the only entities within the AT&M
single entity to have exported, or sold for export, subject merchandise
to the United States during the POI, and submitted complete U.S. sales
and FOP information with respect to HXF. The Department has continued
to find that BGY, AT&M, and HXF should be treated as a single entity
for purposes of this final determination and, therefore, has
incorporated HXF's and BGY's U.S. sales and FOP information in the
calculation of a margin for the AT&M single entity. See ``Affiliation''
section below, and Memorandum to the File: Advanced Technology &
Materials Co., Ltd. Entity Program Analysis for the Final
Determination, dated May 15, 2006 (``AT&M Final Analysis Memo''), for a
more detailed explanation of these changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As discussed below under ``Affiliation,'' the AT&M entity
includes BGY and HXF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department made corrections to BGY's FOP database based on the
minor corrections submitted by BGY on the first day of the PRC
verification, and changes to BGY's CEP database based on the minor
corrections submitted by BGY on the first day of the U.S. sales
verification. See Memorandum to the File: Verification of the Sales and
Factors Response of Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Product Company in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation on Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof
from the People's Republic of China, dated March 27, 2006 (``BGY
Verification Report'') at Exhibit 3; Memorandum to the File:
Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Gang Yan Diamond
Products, Inc. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Diamond
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated
March 27, 2006 (``GYDP Verification Report''). For a complete
description of how these changes were made see AT&M Final Analysis
Memo. See also Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 19.
In addition, the Department made changes to the AT&M entity's FOP
and U.S. sales databases based on comments received by parties. For a
description of these changes see Issues and Decision Memorandum, and
AT&M Final Analysis Memo.
Hebei Jikai
The Department made corrections to Hebei Jikai's FOP database based
on the minor corrections submitted by Hebei Jikai on the first day of
the verification. See Memorandum to the File: Verification of the Sales
and Factors Response of Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co. Ltd. in the
Antidumping Investigation of Diamond Saw Blades and Parts Thereof from
the People's Republic of China dated March 23, 2006 (``Hebei Jikai
Verification Report''), at Exhibit 1. The Department also made
corrections to the gross weight in Hebei Jikai's U.S. sales database
based on information collected at the verification of Hebei Jikai. See
Hebei Jikai Verification Report at 3. For a
[[Page 29305]]
description of how these changes were incorporated in the final margin
program, see Memorandum to the File: Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co.
Ltd. (``Hebei Jikai'') Program Analysis for the Final Determination,
dated May 15, 2006 (``Hebei Jikai Final Analysis Memo'').
In addition, the Department made changes to Hebei Jikai's FOP and
U.S. sales databases based on comments received by Hebei Jikai and
Petitioner. For a description of these changes see Issues and Decision
Memorandum, and Hebei Jikai Final Analysis Memo.
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are all finished
circular sawblades, whether slotted or not, with a working part that is
comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and parts thereof,
regardless of specification or size, except as specifically excluded
below. Within the scope of this investigation are semifinished diamond
sawblades, including diamond sawblade cores and diamond sawblade
segments. Diamond sawblade cores are circular steel plates, whether or
not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. Diamond sawblade cores
are manufactured principally, but not exclusively, from alloy steel. A
diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of diamonds (whether
natural or synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and
metal powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel,
tungsten carbide) that are formed together into a solid shape (from
generally, but not limited to, a heating and pressing process).
Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin
or electroplated bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond segment,
are not included within the scope of the investigation. Diamond
sawblades and/or sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025
inches, or with a thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from
the scope of the investigation. Circular steel plates that have a
cutting edge of non-diamond material, such as external teeth that
protrude from the outer diameter of the plate, whether or not finished,
are excluded from the scope of this investigation. Diamond sawblade
cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are excluded from the
scope of the investigation. Diamond sawblades and/or diamond segment(s)
with diamonds that predominantly have a mesh size number greater than
240 (such as 250 or 260) are excluded from the scope of the
investigation.
Merchandise subject to this investigation is typically imported
under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (``HTSUS''). When packaged together as a set for retail
sale with an item that is separately classified under headings 8202 to
8205 of the HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be imported
under heading 8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. The tariff classifications
are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
purposes; however, the written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
Scope Rulings
During the course of this investigation, the Department issued
several scope rulings, all of which are affirmed through this final
determination. Specifically, in the Preliminary Determination, the
Department ruled that concave and convex cores, and finished diamond
sawblades produced from such cores, are within the scope of this
investigation. See Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, Senior International
Trade Compliance Analyst, to Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director,
``Consideration of Scope Exclusion and Clarification Requests,'' dated
December 20, 2005, at page 8. The Department also ruled that metal-
bonded 1A1R grinding wheels are within the scope of this investigation.
Id. at 11. On April 7, 2006, the Department found granite contour
diamond sawblades within the scope of the investigation. See Memorandum
from Maisha Cryor, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, to
Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, ``Consideration of Scope
Exclusion Request,'' dated April 7, 2006. In this decision, the
Department confirmed that the Rockwell C hardness threshold contained
in the scope of the investigation applies only to cores, and not to
finished diamond sawblades. Id. at 7. Lastly, the term ``sawblade'' is
defined as those products that meet the 1A1R specification, where the
segment thickness is larger than the thickness of the core. See
Petitioner's May 3, 2005, submission at Exhibit I-10 (``The segment or
rim is slightly wider than the steel blade to allow the attacking edge
to penetrate the material without the steel blade rubbing against
it''); Petitioner's May 10, 2005, submission, at page 14 (``the segment
or rim is slightly wider than the steel blade to allow the attacking
edge to penetrate the material without the steel blade rubbing against
it''); Transcript to April 25, 2006, Public Hearing in the companion
investigation of diamond sawblades from the People's Republic of China
(statement by the petitioner that the ``international codes for
sawblades are 1A1R, 1A1RS, and 1A1RSS, where the R means recessed. And
that refers to the core, {where{time} the core is thinner than the
segments''); and ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-1093, August 2005 (``The
segment, or rim, is slightly wider than the steel blade to permit the
leading edge to penetrate the material without the steel blade rubbing
against it and to discourage blade binding''). For this final
determination, the Department has determined not to revise the scope of
the investigation. See also Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment
3.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by the respondents and one separate rate
applicant for use in our final determination. See the Department's
verification reports on the record of this investigation in the CRU
with respect to Bosun, BGY, Hebei Jikai, and Shanghai Deda. For all
verified companies, we used standard verification procedures, including
examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as
original source documents provided by respondents.
Critical Circumstances
On November 21, 2005, Petitioner alleged that there is a reasonable
basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect
to the antidumping investigations of diamond sawblades and parts
thereof from the PRC. In the Preliminary Determination, the Department
found that critical circumstances exist for imports of diamond
sawblades from Bosun and the PRC-wide entity, but that critical
circumstances did not exist for the preliminary separate rate
applicants, BGY, or Hebei Jikai. See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys:
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof
from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, dated December 20, 2005
(``Prelim Critical Circumstances Memo''). Based on the changes made to
Bosun, BGY, Hebei Jikai, and the final separate rate companies'
margins, and as discussed further in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 10, the Department has re-examined its preliminary finding
that critical circumstances exist for imports of diamond sawblades from
Bosun, and Hebei Jikai, and the PRC-wide entity, but that critical
circumstances did not exist for the AT&M entity. In addition,
[[Page 29306]]
the Department has examined the final separate rate companies.
Section 735(2)(3) of the Act provides that a final critical
circumstances determination will include a finding that: (A)(i) There
is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports
in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or (ii)
the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported
knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject
merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be
material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short
period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides
that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have
been ``massive,'' the Department normally will examine: (i) the volume
and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of
domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section
351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase
in imports of 15 percent during the ``relatively short period'' of time
may be considered ``massive.''
As discussed in detail in the Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 10, the Department continues to find that there is a reasonable
basis to believe or suspect that the importer knew or should have known
that there was likely to be material injury by means of sales at LTFV
of subject merchandise from the PRC. In the Preliminary Determination,
the Department found that (1) Bosun and the PRC-wide entity had margins
of more than 25 percent for export price sales and more than 15 percent
for constructed export price sales, and (2) BGY, Hebei Jikai, and the
preliminary separate rate applicants did not have margins of more than
25 percent for export price sales and more than 15 percent for
constructed export price sales. See Prelim Critical Circumstances Memo
at Attachment II. For this final determination, Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and
the PRC-wide entity each have margins of more than 25 percent for
export price sales and more than 15 percent for constructed export
price sales, while the AT&M single entity and the final separate rate
companies have margins less than 25 percent for export price sales and
more than 15 percent for constructed export price sales. Therefore, the
Department finds, for this final determination, that Bosun, Hebei
Jikai, and the PRC-wide entity have sufficient margins to impute
importer knowledge of sales at less than fair value. See, e.g., Carbon
and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and
Tobago, and Ukraine: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February 11, 2002); Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. However, the AT&M single entity and
the final separate rate companies' margins are insufficient to impute
importer knowledge of sales at less than fair value. In addition, as no
party in this proceeding has called into question the Department's
preliminary determination of massive imports with respect to Bosun,
BGY, Hebei Jikai, the final separate rate companies, and the PRC-wide
entity, the Department also continues to find that there have been
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short
period for Bosun, the AT&M single entity, Hebei Jikai, the final
separate rate companies, and the PRC-wide entity. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 10 and Prelim Critical Circumstances
Memo at Attachment I.
Therefore, given the analysis summarized above, and described in
more detail in the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10, we
determine that critical circumstances exist for imports of diamond
sawblades from Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and the PRC-wide entity. However, we
do not find that critical circumstances exist for the AT&M single
entity or the final separate rate companies.
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected
India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation
for the following reasons: (1) It is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a similar level of economic
development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have reliable
data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. See
Preliminary Determination, 70 FR at 77124-77125. For the final
determination, we made no changes to our findings with respect to the
selection of a surrogate country.
Affiliation
In the Preliminary Determination, based on the evidence on the
record, we preliminarily found that BGY was affiliated with AT&M and
HXF pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the Act. In
addition, based on the evidence presented in BGY's questionnaire
responses, we preliminarily found that BGY, HXF, and AT&M should be
treated as a single entity for the purposes of the antidumping duty
investigation of diamond sawblades from the PRC. See Memorandum to the
File from Anya Naschak: Affiliation and Treatment as a Single Entity of
Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Product Company, Advanced Technology &
Materials Co., Ltd., and Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd.;
Affiliation of Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc. and Beijing Gang Yan
Diamond Product Company; and Affiliation of Gang Yan Diamond Products,
Inc., SANC Materials, Inc., and Cliff (Tianjin) International, Ltd.,
dated December 20, 2005 (``AT&M Affiliation Memo''). This finding was
based on the determination that BGY, HXF, and AT&M are affiliated, that
BGY and HXF have production facilities for ``identical products,'' and
no substantial retooling of either facility would be necessary in order
to ``restructure manufacturing priorities.'' See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1).
Additionally, based on levels of common ownership and control, and
intertwined operations, the Department found that there is significant
potential for manipulation of price or production between the parties.
See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). Accordingly, the Department requested after
the Preliminary Determination that the AT&M single entity provide
complete responses to sections C and D of the Department's
questionnaire with respect to all of the AT&M single entity's sales to
the first U.S. unaffiliated customer and factors of production for
these sales. See Letter from Carrie Blozy to BGY dated December 23,
2005. On January 26, 2006, the AT&M Group submitted the requested
information. Based on the information contained in the AT&M single
entity's responses to date, and based on information collected at
verification (see BGY Verification Report), the Department finds no
evidence to countermand the Department's finding in the Preliminary
Determination that BGY, HXF, and AT&M are affiliated pursuant to
sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the Act, and that these companies
should be treated as a single entity for the purposes of the
antidumping duty investigation of diamond sawblades from the PRC, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2). Therefore, the Department
continues to find, for this final determination, that BGY, HXF, and
AT&M are a single entity, and will calculate a single antidumping
margin for the AT&M entity.
In addition, the Department also found in its Preliminary
Determination that Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc. (``GYDP''), is
affiliated with BGY, pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act, and
that GYDP, SANC Materials, Inc. (``SANC''), and Cliff (Tianjin)
[[Page 29307]]
International, Ltd. (``Cliff'') are affiliated with each other pursuant
to sections 771(33)(B), (E), and (F) of the Act. See BGY Affiliation
Memo. Since the Preliminary Determination, the Department has found no
information that would rebut this determination. Therefore, the
Department continues to find GYDP, SANC, and Cliff to be affiliated
with each other pursuant to sections 771(33)(B), (E), and (F) of the
Act, and that BGY and GYDP are affiliated with each other pursuant to
section 771(33)(E) of the Act, for this final determination.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non-market-economy (``NME'') countries,
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to
an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter
can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,
56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide
from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994)
(``Silicon Carbide''), and Section 351.107(d) of the Department's
regulations.
In the Preliminary Determination, we found that BGY, Bosun, Hebei
Jikai, and the Separate Rate Applicants demonstrated their eligibility
for separate-rate status. For the final determination, we continue to
find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by
the AT&M entity, Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and the Separate Rate Applicants
demonstrate both a de jure and de facto absence of government control,
with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise under
investigation, and, thus are eligible for separate rate status.
The AT&M Single Entity
With respect to the AT&M single entity, in the Preliminary
Determination, based on the evidence on the record, we preliminarily
found that BGY had both de jure and de facto control over its export
activities, but noted that the Department would further examine this
issue for the final determination. In light of the Department's
decision in the Preliminary Determination that BGY was affiliated with
AT&M and HXF, and that BGY, AT&M, and HXF should be treated as a single
entity, the Department further examined AT&M, BGY, and HXF's claim to a
separate rate.
The Department finds, based on information submitted on the record
of this proceeding after the Preliminary Determination, that the AT&M
single entity has demonstrated both a de jure and de facto absence of
government control and should be granted a separate rate. As discussed
further in the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16, the
evidence provided by HXF and AT&M after the Preliminary Determination
supports a finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on
the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) the
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the
companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.\4\ The evidence on the record with
respect to HXF also supports a finding of de facto absence of
governmental control based on record statements and supporting
documentation showing the following: (1) It sets its own export prices
independent of the government and without the approval of a government
authority; (2) it retains the proceeds from its sales and makes
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of
losses; (3) it has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and
other agreements; and (4) it has autonomy from the government regarding
the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87.
Therefore, because the Department found no evidence that AT&M made
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI,
and because AT&M is a single entity including BGY and HXF, and BGY and
HXF have demonstrated a de facto independence from government control,
we find that the AT&M single entity has demonstrated a de facto
independence from government control with respect to its export
activities. See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Sparklers 56 FR 20588 and Silicon Carbide 59 FR 22585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Separate Rate Applicants
Additionally, in the Preliminary Determination, the Department
considered for a separate rate only the seventeen applicants whose
applications were considered complete by the sixty-day deadline
established by the application, and these companies, the Separate Rate
Applicants, were granted a separate rate. For the final determination,
we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this
investigation for the Separate Rate Applicants that we granted a
separate rate to in the Preliminary Determination demonstrates a de
jure and de facto absence of government control, with respect to their
respective exports of the merchandise under investigation, and, thus
are eligible for separate rate status. Therefore, for the final
determination we are continuing to grant these seventeen applicants a
separate rate.
On February 1, 2006, the Department received a separate rate
application from Qingdao Shinhan, and determined that Qingdao Shinhan's
separate rate application was timely filed. See Memorandum to the File
from Catherine Bertrand dated February 24, 2006. On March 22, 2006, the
Department preliminarily determined that the information contained in
Qingdao Shinhan's separate rate application demonstrated that it
qualified for a separate rate in this investigation. See Memorandum to
the File from Catherine Bertrand: Separate Rates Application of Qingdao
Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. dated March 22, 2006. For the
final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on
the record of this investigation by Qingdao Shinhan demonstrates an
absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to
its exports of the merchandise under investigation, and, thus is
eligible for separate rate status. For a further discussion of this
issue See Issues and Decision Memo at Comment 15.
In addition, the Department received case briefs from QSY, Global,
Robtol, Electrolux, and Huachang, arguing that the Department should
grant these companies a separate rate. These companies had been denied
a separate rate in the Preliminary Determination because the Department
determined these applications were not filed in a complete manner by
the deadline. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle from Carrie Blozy:
Antidumping Investigation of Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from
the People's Republic of China: Deficient Separate Rate Applications,
dated October 12, 2005.
With respect to Global, Robtol, and Huachang the Department finds
that, after analyzing their separate rates applications, these
companies have demonstrated both a de jure and de facto absence of
government control and should be granted a separate rate. The evidence
provided by these companies in their respective separate rates
applications supports a finding of de
[[Page 29308]]
jure absence of governmental control based on the following: (1) An
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) the applicable legislative
enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) any other
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.
See, e.g., Sparklers, 56 FR 20588 and Silicon Carbide, 59 FR 22586-87.
The evidence on the record with respect to these companies also
supports a finding of de facto absence of governmental control based on
record statements and supporting documentation showing the following
for each company: (1) It sets its own export prices independent of the
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) it
retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions
regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) it has the
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4)
it has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of
management. See Sparklers, 56 FR 20589; Silicon Carbide, 59 FR 22586-
87. Therefore, the Department is granting Global, Robol, and Huachang a
separate rate. See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 13 and 14
for a further discussion of this issue.
Further, the Department is continuing to deny a separate rate to
QSY and Electrolux because the Department still finds that the separate
rate applications of QSY and Electrolux are deficient. Therefore, the
Department will not conduct a separate rates analysis for these two
companies. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12 and 14.
The PRC-Wide Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that certain
companies and the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for
Q&V information and Saint Gobain, one of the largest exporters of the
merchandise under investigation,\5\ did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire. In the Preliminary Determination we treated these PRC
producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not
demonstrate that they operate free of government control. No additional
information has been placed on the record with respect to these
entities after the Preliminary Determination. The PRC-wide entity,
including Saint Gobain, has not provided the Department with the
requested information. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of
the Act, the Department continues to find that the use of facts
available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. Section 776(b)
of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise
available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if an
interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with requests for information. See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled
Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation,
65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). See also ``Statement of
Administrative Action'' accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316,
870 (1994) (``SAA''). We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not
respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department finds that, in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse
inference is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Respondent Selection Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a
NME country are subject to government control and because only the
companies listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section
below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single
antidumping rate--the PRC-wide rate--to all other exporters of subject
merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate
entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of
China, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate applies to all
entries of subject merchandise except for entries from the respondents
which are listed in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section below
(except as noted).
Corroboration
At the Preliminary Determination, in accordance with section 776(c)
of the Act, we corroborated our adverse facts available (``AFA'')
margin using information submitted by certain respondents. See
Memorandum to the File: Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Facts Available
Rate for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China, dated December 20, 2005 (``Corroboration Memo'').
The Statement of Administration Action also clarifies that
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has probative value, i.e., reliable
and relevant. See ``Statement of Administrative Action'' accompanying
the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870 (1994) (``SAA'') at 870.
To assess the probative value of the total AFA rate it has chosen
for Saint Gobain and the PRC-wide entity, the Department compared the
final margin calculations of certain respondents in this investigation
with the rate of 164.09 percent from the petition. We find that the
rate is within the range of the highest margins we have determined in
this investigation. See Memorandum to the File: Corroboration of the
PRC-Wide Facts Available Rate for the Final Determination in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof
from the People's Republic of China, dated May 15, 2006 (``Final
Corroboration Memo''). Since the record of this investigation contains
margins within the range of the petition margin, we determine that the
rate from the petition continues to be relevant for use in this
investigation. As discussed therein, we found that the margin of 164.09
percent has probative value. See Final Corroboration Memo. Accordingly,
we find that the rate of 164.09 percent is corroborated within the
meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
Combination Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice, 70 FR
35625, 35629. This change in practice is described in Policy Bulletin
05.1, available at https://www.trade.gov/ia/. The Policy Bulletin 05.1
states:
``[lsqb]w[rsqb]hile continuing the practice of assigning separate
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will
now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those
producers that supplied the exporter during the period of
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the
exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to
it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to
mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate
rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the
weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply
only to merchandise
[[Page 29309]]
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.'' See Policy
Bulletin 05.1, at page 6.
Therefore, for the final determination, we have assigned a combination
rate to respondents that are eligible for a separate rate.
As discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18,
the Department will continue to not issue a combination rate for
exports made by Cliff and manufactured by BGY, as these sales were made
by BGY. Further, the Department continues to find that BGY should be
treated as a single entity with AT&M and HXF, and the AT&M single
entity has demonstrated its eligibility for a separate rate in this
case. Therefore, the Department will apply a single combination rate
for the AT&M single entity as the producer and exporter. However,
exports where Cliff acted as a facilitator for the AT&M single entity
are eligible to claim AT&M's antidumping duty cash deposit rate. For a
further discussion of this issue, see Issues and Decision Memorandum,
at Comments 16-18.
Final Determination Margins
We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins
exist for the POI:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Exporter Producer Deposit Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Technology & Materials Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. \6\2.50[percnt]
Co., Ltd..........................
Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd......... Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. 34.19[percnt]
Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Manufacturing Co., Ltd............
Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Co., Ltd..........................
Danyang Youhe Tool Manufacturer Danyang Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Co., Ltd..........................
Fujian Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co., Fujian Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Ltd...............................
Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Co., Ltd..........................
Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd. 48.50[percnt]
Ltd...............................
Huzhou Gu's Import & Export Co., Danyang Aurui Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Ltd...............................
Huzhou Gu's Import & Export Co., Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Ltd...............................
Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Manufacture Co., Ltd..............
Jiangyin Likn Industry Co., Ltd.... Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Jiangyin Likn Industry Co., Ltd.... Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co. 20.72[percnt]
Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Co., Ltd..........................
Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Ltd...............................
Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd........... Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading Hua Da Superabrasive Tools Technology Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Co., Ltd..........................
Shanghai Robtol Tool Manufacturing Shanghai Robtol Tool Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Co., Ltd..........................
Shijiazhuang Global New Century Shijiazhuang Global New Century Tools Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Tools Co., Ltd....................
Sichuan Huili Tools Co............. Chengdu Huifeng Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Sichuan Huili Tools Co............. Sichuan Huili Tools Co. 20.72[percnt]
Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Industrial Co., Ltd...............
Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co. 20.72[percnt]
Co................................
Xiamen ZL Diamond Tools Co., Ltd... Xiamen ZL Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Danyang Dida Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Ltd...............................
Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Danyang Tsunda Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Ltd...............................
Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Wuxi Lianhua Superhard Material Tools Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Ltd...............................
Zhejiang Wanli Tools Group Co., Zhejiang Wanli Super-hard Materials Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Ltd...............................
Zhenjiang Inter-China Import & Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72[percnt]
Export Co., Ltd...................
PRC-Wide Rate...................... ....................................................... 164.09[percnt]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Including Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company as an exporter when merchandise was also produced by
Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company, and Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd. as an exporter
when merchandise was also produced by Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend liquidation of all
entries of subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption as follows: for the final separate rate
companies, on or after the date of publication of the Preliminary
Determination in the Federal Register, December 29, 2005; for Bosun,
Hebei Jikai, and the PRC-wide entity, on or after the date which is 90
days prior to the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination,
September 30, 2005, due to the final determination of critical
circumstances. See e.g., Preliminary Determination; Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 10. CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit
or the posting of a bond equal to the estimated amount by which the
normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above. In addition, with
respect to the AT&M single entity, in the Preliminary Determination,
due to BGY's de minimus preliminary margin, the Department did not
require any cash deposit or posting of a bond. However, based on this
final determination that the AT&M single entity does not have a de
minimus margin rate, the Department will instruct CBP to suspend
liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from the AT&M single
entity\7\ entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or
after the date of publication of the Final Determination in the Federal
Register. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in
effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Including BGY and HXF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final
determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of
the Act, within 45 days the ITC will determine whether the domestic
industry in the United States is
[[Page 29310]]
materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of
imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the
subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or
threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be
terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will
issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the
suspension of liquidation.
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination and notice are issued and published in
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 15, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
List of Issues
General Issues
Comment 1: Whether The Department Should Revise Its Selection of
Surrogate Financial Ratios
Comment 2: Whether Process Materials and Energy Inputs Should Be Valued
As Factors of Production
Comment 3: Preliminary Scope Determinations
Comment 4: Country of Origin Determination
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Revise the Physical
Characteristics and Model Match Criteria
Comment 6: Whether Employee Benefits Should Be Moved from Direct Labor
To Manufacturing Overhead
Comment 7: Treatment of Negative Margins
Comment 8: Application of Sigma Cap
Comment 9: Treatment of Packing Costs and Byproducts
Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Reevaluate its Preliminary
Partial Determination of Critical Circumstances
Comment 11: Surrogate Value Issues
A. Cores
B. Oxygen
C. Graphite and Steel Molds
D. Copper Powder
E. Diamonds
F. Steel Sheet 5
Separate Rate Applicant-Specific Issues
Comment 12: Separate Rate Status of Electrolux
Comment 13: Separate Rate Status of Huachang
Comment 14: Separate Rate Status of QSY, Robtol, and Global
Comment 15: Separate Rate Status of Qingdao Shinhan
Company-Specific Issues
BGY Issues:
Comment 16: Whether the Department should Deny a Separate Rate to BGY,
Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd. (``HXF''), and Advanced
Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. (``AT&M'')
Comment 17: Whether BGY was the Seller of Sawblades to the United
States
Comment 18: Whether the Department Should Revise the Combination Rates
for BGY
Comment 19: Whether the Department should Apply Total Adverse Facts
Available to BGY
Comment 20: Whether the Department should Calculate CEP Profit Based on
BGY's U.S. and Third Country Sales
Comment 21: Whether the Department Should Adjust BGY's Reported
Electricity and Labor FOPs.
Comment 22: Whether to Modify the Steel Surrogate Values for BGY
Comment 23: Whether to Continue to Apply an Inflator to Market Economy
(``ME'') Purchases of Diamond Powder Made Prior to the POI
Comment 24: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value
for Gasoline
Comment 25: Whether to Deduct BGY's Reported Interest Revenue from
Gross Unit Price
Comment 26: Whether BGY's Reported Billing Adjustments Should Be
Considered Direct Selling Expenses
Comment 27: Whether the Department Erred in Certain Statements in the
BGY and GYDP Verification Reports
Bosun Issues:
Comment 28: Whether Returns Should Be Treated As A Selling Expense
Comment 29: Whether Bosun's U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses Should Be
Revised
Comment 30: Whether Movement Expenses and Repacking Expenses Should Be
Included In The Calculation of CEP Profit
Comment 31: Surrogate Value for Tape
Comment 32: Surrogate Value for Acrylic Lacquer and Pallet Lacquer
Comment 33: Whether The Department Should Correct Certain Ministerial
Errors
Comment 34: Whether The Surrogate Value For International Freight
Should Be Revised
Comment 35: Whether The Department Should Make Additional Adjustments
to Bosun's U.S. Sales Data and Supplier Databases
Hebei Jikai Issues:
Comment 36: Whether to apply AFA to Hebei Jikai's Process Materials
Comment 37: Whether International Freight to Two U.S. Customers Should
Be Deducted
Comment 38: Whether Labor and Electricity Should Be Adjusted For
Certain Product Codes
Comment 39: Surrogate Value for Nickel
Comment 40: Surrogate Value for Copper Plate
Comment 41: Surrogate Value Packaging Film
Comment 42: Valuation of Steel
[FR Doc. E6-7763 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
