Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission, in Part, and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 45768-45773 [E6-13038]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
45768
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Notices
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 21, 2004, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
final results of the 2002 antidumping
duty administrative review of pencils
from the PRC. See Certain Cased Pencils
From the People’s Republic of China;
Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 69 FR 29266 (2002 Final Results
of Review). In that review, the
Department used Monthly Statistics of
the Foreign Trade of India (MSFTI) for
the period of review (POR) to value
black and color pencil cores, material
inputs used in the production of certain
cased pencils.
During July 2004, the respondents in
the 2002 antidumping duty review of
pencils from the PRC filed complaints
with the CIT contesting, among other
things, the surrogate value assigned to
pencil cores in the 2002 Final Results of
Review.1 On September 1, 2004, the
Department filed a motion with the CIT
for a voluntary remand with respect to
the pencil core issue. On September 20,
2004, the CIT remanded this case to the
Department to conduct further
proceedings concerning the valuation of
pencil cores. On December 20, 2004, the
Department issued its final results of
voluntary redetermination.
In its redetermination, the Department
concluded that it was better to value
pencils cores using MSFTI data covering
the immediately preceding POR (2001
MSFTI data), adjusted for inflation and
valuation differences between black and
color cores, rather than MSFTI data
covering the instant POR. The
Department reached this conclusion
because, unlike the MSFTI data for the
instant POR, the 2001 MSFTI data were
consistent with price information
obtained by the Department during the
course of the redetermination. On
March 7, 2006, the CIT affirmed the
Department’s voluntary
redetermination, as well as its position
on other issues arising from the 2002
Final Results of Review. See China First
Pencil Co. Ltd., et al. v. United States
and Sanford Corporation, et al., 427 F.
Supp 2d 1236 (CIT 2006). Consistent
with the decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(Federal Circuit) in The Timken
Company v. United States and China
National Machinery and Equipment
Import and Export Corporation, 893 F.
2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), on
April 3, 2006, the Department published
a notice announcing that the CIT’s
decision was not in harmony with the
Department’s determination in the 2002
antidumping duty administrative review
of pencils from the PRC. No party
appealed the CIT’s decision.
Amended Final Results of Review
As the litigation in this case has
concluded, the Department is amending
the 2002 Final Results of Review. The
dumping margins in the amended final
results of review are as follows:
Exporter/Manufacturer
Margin (percent)
China First Pencil Company, Ltd./Three Star Stationery Industry Corp .................................................................
Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co. Ltd ...............................................................................
Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Company Ltd .................................................................................................
The PRC–wide rate continues to be
114.90 percent.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Assessment
rwilkins on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Consistent with the 2002 Final
Results of Review, for each of the above
respondents we calculated exporter–
specific assessment rates because there
is no information on the record which
identifies the importers of record.
Specifically, for these respondents we
calculated duty assessment rates for
subject merchandise based on the ratio
of the total amount of antidumping
duties calculated for the examined sales
to the total quantity of those sales. The
Department will issue appropriate
assessment instructions directly to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection within
15 days of publication of this notice.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended.
Dated: August 1, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–13040 Filed 8–9–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
1 The respondents are China First Pencil Co., Ltd.,
Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:27 Aug 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
[A–570–849]
Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
the People’s Republic of China: Notice
of Rescission, in Part, and Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from
Nucor Corporation, a domestic producer
and interested party in this proceeding,
the Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of cut–to-length
carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL plate’’) from
the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)
for the period November 1, 2004,
through October 31, 2005. We
preliminarily determine that application
of adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) is
warranted with respect to the sole
company participating in this
administrative review, China
Metallurgical Import & Export Liaoning
Company (‘‘Liaoning Company’’). In
AGENCY:
Trade Co., Ltd., Three Star Stationery Industry
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16.50
5.63
4.21
addition, the Department is
preliminarily rescinding the
administrative review with respect to
Angang New Steel Co., Ltd. and Angang
Group Hong Kong Co., Limited
(collectively ‘‘Angang’’), as its request
for review was properly and timely
withdrawn. If these preliminary results
are adopted in our final results of
administrative review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries of subject
merchandise. Interested parties are
invited to comment on these
preliminary results. We will issue the
final results no later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
August 10, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Juanita H. Chen, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 8, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–1904.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Corp. (collectively ‘‘CFP et al.’’) and Shandong
Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Shandong).
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Notices
Background
On November 1, 2005, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on CTL plate
from the PRC. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 70
FR 65883 (November 1, 2005). On
November 30, 2005, domestic producer
Nucor Corporation (‘‘Nucor’’) requested
that the Department conduct an
administrative review of Liaoning
Company. Also on November 20, 2005,
Chinese producer Angang requested that
the Department conduct an
administrative review on the
antidumping duty order on CTL plate
from the PRC. On December 22, 2005,
the Department published a notice of
the initiation of this administrative
review of CTL plate from the PRC for
the period November 1, 2004, through
October 31, 2005. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 70 FR 76024
(December 22, 2005).
Angang
On December 27, 2005, the
Department issued an antidumping
questionnaire to Angang. On February 8
and February 24, 2006, the Department
received Angang’s responses to Sections
A, C and D of the questionnaire. On
March 3, 2006, the Department received
Angang’s FOP reconciliation. On March
1 and March 14, 2006, Nucor submitted
comments on Angang’s Sections A, C
and D responses.
On March 22, 2006, Angang requested
an extension of time in which to
withdraw its request for an
administrative review, which the
Department granted until March 29,
2006. On March 29, 2006, Angang
timely withdrew its request for an
administrative review. On April 10,
2006, Nucor submitted comments on
Angang’s withdrawal of its request for
an administrative review. On May 15,
2006, the Department received a request
from Angang to issue liquidation
instructions regarding a shipment made
during the POR.
rwilkins on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Liaoning
On December 27, 2005, the
Department issued an antidumping
questionnaire to the legal representative
for Liaoning Company in a prior
segment of this case. On February 1,
2006, the Department sent a letter to the
same legal representative concerning
Liaoning Company’s failure to respond
to the Department’s questionnaire, and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:27 Aug 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
extended the deadline for responding to
February 8, 2006. On February 8, 2006,
the legal representative submitted a
letter to the Department stating that the
firm no longer represented Liaoning
Company, that the firm had contacted
Liaoning Company, and that Liaoning
Company wished to inform the
Department it would not participate in
this administrative review. On April 5,
2006, the Department sent a letter to the
legal representative, inquiring whether
the firm was authorized by Liaoning
Company to act as its representative in
notifying the Department that Liaoning
Company intended not to participate in
this administrative review. On April 17,
2006, the legal representative submitted
a letter to the Department confirming
that, as the firm no longer represented
Liaoning Company, it was no longer
authorized to notify the Department as
to Liaoning Company’s participation
status in this administrative review.
On April 18, 2006, the Department
issued an antidumping questionnaire
directly to Liaoning Company
specifying the following deadlines for
responding to the various sections of the
questionnaire: May 9, 2006 for Section
A and May 19, 2006, for Sections C, D,
and the Factors of Production and Sales
Reconciliations. On May 15, 2006, the
Department sent a letter to Liaoning
Company concerning its failure to
respond to the Department’s Section A
questionnaire by the due date of May 9,
2006, and extended the deadline for
responding to the questionnaire, in its
entirety, to May 19, 2006. On May 17,
2006, Liaoning Company requested an
extension of time in which to respond
to the Department’s questionnaire,
which the Department granted until
May 26, 2006. On May 22, 2006,
Liaoning Company submitted its
questionnaire response, which the
Department rejected on June 15, 2006,
for numerous deficiencies, including
failure to provide requested
information, failure to follow filing
procedures and requirements, and
failure to serve copies of the submission
on parties to the review. In the rejection
letter, the Department also provided
Liaoning Company with extensive
guidance and instructions to assist
Liaoning Company in revising its
questionnaire response, and gave
Liaoning Company until July 6, 2006, to
submit a revised questionnaire
response. On June 20, 2006, the
Department returned the sole copy of
the rejected questionnaire response to
Liaoning Company. On June 27, 2006,
Nucor requested that the Department
not grant Liaoning Company any further
extensions or opportunities to provide
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45769
information past the July 6, 2006,
deadline, and argued that if the deadline
is missed or the revised questionnaire
response rejected, the Department
should terminate the review of Liaoning
Company and apply AFA.
On July 5, 2006, Liaoning Company
submitted its revised questionnaire
response (‘‘revised response’’) to the
Department. On July 13, 2006, Nucor
filed a letter noting it had not received
service of the revised response and
requested that the Department terminate
the review of Liaoning Company
immediately, for its failure to
participate. Liaoning Company’s revised
response, other than adding an index
page and a proper case heading to the
first page of the Sections A, C and D
responses and the appendices, appeared
to be identical to the submission
rejected by the Department on June 15,
2006. As a result, on July 31, 2006, the
Department rejected Liaoning
Company’s revised response in its
entirety, for the same deficiencies under
which the prior response was rejected.
Period of Review
The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is
November 1, 2004, through October 31,
2005.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
include hot–rolled carbon steel
universal mill plates (i.e., flat–rolled
products rolled on four faces or in a
closed box pass, of a width exceeding
150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250
millimeters and of a thickness of not
less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and
without patterns in relief), of
rectangular shape, neither clad, plated
nor coated with metal, whether or not
painted, varnished, or coated with
plastics or other nonmetallic substances;
and certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat–
rolled products in straight lengths, of
rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither
clad, plated, nor coated with metal,
whether or not painted, varnished, or
coated with plastics or other
nonmetallic substances, 4.75
millimeters or more in thickness and of
a width which exceeds 150 millimeters
and measures at least twice the
thickness, as currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item
numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060,
7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045,
7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000,
7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000,
7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000,
7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030,
7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000,
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and
7212.50.0000. Included in this order are
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
45770
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Notices
flat–rolled products of non–rectangular
cross-section where such cross-section
is achieved subsequent to the rolling
process (i.e., products which have been
‘‘worked after rolling’’) for example,
products which have been beveled or
rounded at the edges. Excluded from
this order is grade X–70 plate. Also
excluded from this order is certain
carbon cut–to-length steel plate with a
maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel
grades BS 7191, 355 EM, and 355 EMZ,
as amended by Sable Offshore Energy
Project specification XB MOO Y 15
0001, types 1 and 2. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope is
dispositive.
Partial Rescission of Review
The Department’s regulations at 19
C.F.R. 351.213(d)(1) provide that the
Department will rescind an
administrative review if the party that
requested the review withdraws its
request for review within 90 days of the
date of publication of the notice of
initiation of the requested review, or
withdraws its request at a later date if
the Department determines that it is
reasonable to extend the time limit for
withdrawing the request. Nucor alleged
in its April 10, 2006, submission that
Angang withdrew its request for an
administrative review to avoid
responding to issues Nucor raised in its
comments to Angang’s questionnaire
responses. However, Angang timely
withdrew its request for administrative
review within the extended time limit
granted by the Department.
Accordingly, regardless of the reasons
for withdrawal, pursuant to the
Department’s regulations, the request for
withdrawal was proper. As no other
party requested that the Department
conduct an administrative review of
Angang, the Department is preliminarily
rescinding the administrative review
with respect to Angang, in accordance
with 19 C.F.R. 351.213(d)(1).
rwilkins on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Non–Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non–market
economy (‘‘NME’’’) country. Pursuant to
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), any
determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect
until revoked by the administering
authority. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail
Meat from the People’s Republic of
China: Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:27 Aug 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
None of the parties to this proceeding
has contested such treatment.
Separate Rates Determination
Because the PRC is treated as an NME
country for this review, there is a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the PRC are subject to
government control and, thus, should be
assessed a single antidumping duty rate.
It is the Department’s policy to assign
all exporters of the merchandise subject
to review in an NME country a single
rate unless an exporter can demonstrate
an absence of government control, both
in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto),
with respect to exports. To establish
whether an exporter is sufficiently
independent of government control to
be entitled to a separate company–
specific rate, the Department analyzes
the exporter following the criteria
established in the Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People’s Republic of
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991); and
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). The
Department gave Liaoning Company
numerous extensions of time and
opportunities to submit a proper
questionnaire response, and provided
detailed guidance and instructions on
how to prepare a questionnaire
response. Despite these opportunities
and assistance, Liaoning Company
failed to follow the Department’s
instructions in submitting its
questionnaire response. We find the
information provided by Liaoning
Company to be incomplete and
unreliable, and are therefore, unable to
perform a separate rates analysis. As a
result, Liaoning Company has not
demonstrated that it is entitled to a
separate rate. Accordingly, we
preliminarily find that Liaoning
Company is part of the PRC–wide
entity, as discussed, infra.
The PRC–Wide Rate and Adverse Facts
Available
Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates
that the Department shall, subject to
section 782(d) of the Act, use facts
otherwise available in reaching its
determination if the necessary
information is not available on the
record of an antidumping proceeding. In
addition, section 776(a)(2) of the Act
states that the Department shall use
facts otherwise available when an
interested party or any other person: (A)
withholds information requested by the
Department; (B) fails to provide the
requested information by the requested
date or in the form and manner
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requested; (C) significantly impedes an
antidumping proceeding; or (D)
provides information that cannot be
verified. In the instant review, the
Department gave Liaoning Company
multiple opportunities pursuant to
section 782(d) of the Act to provide the
requested information and remedy or
explain the deficiencies pointed out in
its submissions. Pursuant to section
782(e) of the Act, the Department must
consider information submitted by an
interested party if all of the following
criteria are met: (1) The information is
submitted by the deadline established
for its submission; (2) the information
can be verified; (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as
a reliable basis for reaching the
applicable determination; (4) the
interested party has demonstrated that it
acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information and meeting
the requirements established by the
Department with respect to the
information; and (5) the information can
be used without undue difficulties.
Liaoning Company has failed to meet
any of these criteria. Liaoning Company
missed the deadlines set for its
questionnaire response submissions.
Nevertheless, the Department gave
Liaoning Company additional
opportunities to submit a response.
However, despite these additional
opportunities, Liaoning Company failed
to adequately correct its deficiencies
and submitted a questionnaire response
so incomplete that the information
could not be used or verified in this
administrative review. The original
questionnaire response lacked proper
case header information, did not
include the proper number of copies,
was not served upon interested parties,
failed to include requested narrative
detail and descriptions, provided little
supporting paperwork and
documentation, failed to include
detailed product and sales information,
declined to provide factors of
production by deferring to data
submitted by other companies in other
proceedings and not on the record of
this review, failed to include electronic
U.S. sales and factors of production
information, and failed to provide
reconciliation worksheets, among other
discrepancies. See Letter from
Department of Commerce to Liaoning
Company, dated June 15, 2006
(‘‘Opportunity to Revise Letter’’).
Finally, Liaoning Company failed to
demonstrate that it acted to the best of
its ability in providing the information,
as Liaoning Company made no effort to
follow the specific, detailed instructions
provided by the Department in revising
its questionnaire response. As
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Notices
previously noted, although Liaoning
Company’s original response was
severely deficient, the Department
provided Liaoning Company an
opportunity to revise its response and
gave extensive instructions to assist
Liaoning Company in revising its
questionnaire response. See
Opportunity to Revise Letter. The
Department included copies of our
regulations explaining our classification
of information, and filing, service and
certification requirements, the public
and proprietary service lists, as well as
the General Instructions to the
questionnaire, with the Opportunity to
Revise Letter. Id. at Attachments 1
through 4. The Department also
requested that Liaoning Company
contact the reviewing analyst if it had
any questions regarding the revised
response. Id. at 4. Liaoning Company
failed to follow the Department’s
instructions and did not contact the
reviewing analyst (or any Department
official) regarding revising its
questionnaire response. When Liaoning
Company submitted its revised
response, it had added an index page
and followed the Department’s request
to properly include a case heading in
the upper right hand corner (pursuant to
instruction 1 of the Opportunity to
Revise Letter) and to properly address
the revised response (pursuant to
instruction 2 of the Opportunity to
Revise Letter). Other than these minor
revisions, however, Liaoning Company’s
revised response appeared to be
identical to the original submission
rejected by the Department, with the
same deficiency of information, and the
same filing format and service
deficiencies. See Letter from
Department of Commerce to Liaoning
Company, dated July 31, 2006. These
deficiencies in the revised response, in
view of the Department’s detailed
instructions and guidance, indicate that
Liaoning Company did not act to the
best of its ability in providing the
requested information. Furthermore, as
discussed above, it is appropriate to
consider Liaoning Company part of the
PRC–wide entity. Accordingly, pursuant
to section 776(a) of the Act, the margin
for the PRC–wide entity (including
Liaoning Company) must be based on
facts otherwise available.
In selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, section 776(b) of
the Act provides that if an interested
party fails to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information, the Department
may use an inference that is adverse to
the interests of the party. An adverse
inference is appropriate ‘‘to ensure that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:27 Aug 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate
than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See
Statement of Administrative Action
(‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No.
103–316, at 870 (1994). Section 776(b)
of the Act states that, in applying AFA,
such an adverse inference may include
reliance on information derived from
the petition, a final determination in an
antidumping investigation or review, or
any other information placed on the
record. Because Liaoning Company
failed to adequately respond to our
questionnaire, and made no effort to
follow the specific, detailed instructions
provided by the Department in revising
its questionnaire response, we
preliminarily determine that the PRC–
wide entity, including Liaoning
Company, did not act to the best of its
ability to comply with the Department’s
requests. Therefore, pursuant to section
776(b) of the Act, we are preliminarily
basing the margin for the PRC–wide
entity on AFA.
The Department’s practice in reviews
is to select, as an AFA rate, the highest
rate determined for any respondent in
any segment of the proceeding. See, e.g.,
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Final
Partial Rescission: Certain Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania, 71 FR 7008, 7010–11
(February 10, 2006), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at
Issue 1; Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat
from the People’s Republic of China;
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR
19504, 19506 (April 21, 2003) (citing
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People’s Republic of China; Notice of
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, and Final
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546
(April 22, 2002)). The courts have
consistently upheld this practice. See
Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v.
United States, 298 F.3d 1330,1339 (Fed.
Cir. 2002); Sigma Corp. v. U.S., 117
F.3rd 1401, 1411 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(stating that the Department has a ‘‘long
standing practice of assigning to
respondents who fail to cooperate with
Commerce’s investigation the highest
margin calculated for any party in the
less–than-fair–value investigation or in
any administrative review’’); NSK Ltd. v.
United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312,
1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55
percent total AFA rate, the highest
available dumping margin from a
different respondent in a less–than-fair–
value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation); Kompass
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45771
Food Trading Int’l v. United States, 24
CIT 678, 682–84 (2000) (upholding a
51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest
available dumping margin from a
different, fully cooperative respondent);
Shanghai Taoen International Trading
Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp.
2d. 1339, 1347–48 (CIT 2005)
(upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA
rate, the highest available dumping
margin from a different respondent in a
previous administrative review).
The Department’s practice, when
selecting an AFA rate from among the
possible sources of information, is to
ensure that the margin is sufficiently
adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the statutory
purposes of the adverse facts available
rule to induce respondents to provide
the Department with complete and
accurate information in a timely
manner.’’ See, e.g., Carbon and Certain
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Final Negative
Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 55792
(August 30, 2002); Static Random
Access Memory Semiconductors from
Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at
Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909
(February 23, 1998).
In accordance with the Department’s
practice, we are preliminarily applying
as AFA to the PRC–wide entity
(including Liaoning Company) the rate
of 128.59 percent, which is the rate
currently applicable to the PRC–wide
entity and is a rate calculated for
another respondent in the LTFV
investigation. See Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate From the People’s Republic of
China, 62 FR 61964, 61966 (November
20, 1997). This rate reflects the
Department’s practice of selecting the
highest rate determined for any
respondent in any segment of the
proceeding as AFA and is sufficiently
adverse to effectuate the purpose of
AFA.
Corroboration of Secondary
Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that
when the Department relies on the facts
otherwise available and uses ‘‘secondary
information,’’ the Department shall, to
the extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary
information is defined in the SAA as
‘‘{i}nformation derived from the
petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final
determination concerning subject
merchandise, or any previous review
under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.’’ See SAA at 870.
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
45772
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Notices
The SAA also states that to
‘‘corroborate’’ the Department must
satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative
value. Id.
To corroborate secondary information,
the Department will consider the
reliability and relevance of the
information used. In an administrative
review, if the Department selects as
AFA a calculated dumping margin from
a prior segment of the proceeding, it is
not necessary to question the reliability
of that margin. See Anhydrous Sodium
Metasilicate from France: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 68 FR 44283
(July 28, 2003) (unchanged in final).
However, the Department will consider
information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether that margin
continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected
margin is not appropriate as AFA, the
Department will disregard the margin
and determine an appropriate margin.
See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812
(February 22, 1996) (the Department
disregarded the highest margin as AFA
because the margin was based on
another company’s uncharacteristic
business expense resulting in an
unusually high margin). Similarly, the
Department does not apply a margin
that has been discredited. D&L Supply
Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220,
1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department
will not use a margin that has been
judicially invalidated). None of these
circumstances are present here. The
information used in calculating this
margin was based on data submitted by
the respondents in the LTFV
investigation, along with the most
appropriate surrogate value information
submitted by the parties and gathered
by the Department in the LTFV
investigation. Furthermore, the
calculation of this margin was subject to
comment from interested parties in the
LTFV investigation proceeding. As the
only source for calculated margins is
administrative determinations, it is not
necessary to question the reliability of a
calculated dumping margin from a prior
segment of the proceeding. As for the
relevance of the rate selected, this rate
is the rate currently applicable to the
PRC–wide entity. Moreover, no
information has been presented in the
current review that calls into question
the relevance of this information. As
there is no information on the record of
this review that demonstrates that this
rate is not appropriately used as AFA,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:27 Aug 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
we determine that this rate has
relevance.
Based on our analysis, we find that
the margin of 128.59 percent is both
reliable and relevant and, as a result, we
determine that this rate has probative
value. Accordingly, we determine that
the calculated rate of 128.59 percent,
which is the current PRC–wide rate, is
in accordance with section 776(c) of the
Act, which requires that secondary
information be corroborated to the
extent practicable (i.e., that it have
probative value). As a result, the
Department determines that this rate is
corroborated to the extent practicable
for the purposes of this administrative
review and may reasonably be applied
to the PRC–wide entity, based on
Liaoning Company’s failure to cooperate
to the best of its ability in this
administrative review, as the total AFA
rate. Consequently, we have assigned
this AFA rate to exports of the subject
merchandise from all companies subject
to the PRC–wide rate, including
Liaoning Company.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
preliminarily determine that a
weighted–average dumping margin of
128.59 exists for the PRC–wide entity
for the period November 1, 2004,
through October 31, 2005. For Angang,
we preliminarily rescind the
administrative review.
Interested parties may submit written
comments (‘‘case briefs’’) to be received
by the Department no later than 30 days
after the date of publication of these
preliminary results. See 19 C.F.R.
351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal comments
(‘‘rebuttal briefs’’), which must be
limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed with the Department
no later than 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice. See 19 C.F.R.
351.309(d).
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
these preliminary results. See 19 C.F.R.
351.310(c). Any request for a hearing
should contain the following
information: 1) the party’s name,
address, and telephone number; 2) the
number of participants; and 3) a list of
the issues to be discussed. Any hearing,
if requested, shall be held two working
days after the deadline for submission of
the rebuttal briefs. See 19 C.F.R.
351.310(d). Any hearing, if held, will be
take place at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC 20230. Oral
presentations will be limited to issues
raised in the briefs.
The Department will publish a notice
of the final results of this administrative
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
review, which will include the results of
its analysis of issues raised by the
parties, within 120 days of publication
of these preliminary results. See 19
C.F.R. 351.213(h).
Assessment Rates
On May 15, 2006, the Department
received a request from Angang to issue
liquidation instructions clarifying that
the sole shipment of merchandise
exported jointly by Angang Group Hong
Kong Co. Limited and Angang Group
International Trade Corporation be
liquidated at the current 30.68 percent
cash deposit rate assigned to Anshan
Iron & Steel Complex, Angang
International Trade Corporation, and
Sincerely Asia, Limited, from the
original LTFV investigation and
subsequent antidumping duty order.
However, as Angang withdrew its
request for review and the Department
did not have an opportunity to conduct
an analysis of Angang’s shipments or
relationship with Angang Group
International Trade Corporation for the
POR, the Department cannot issue
specific liquidation instructions with
regard to this shipment.
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. Because the
Department is applying AFA to all
exports of subject merchandise exported
by the PRC–wide entity, including
Liaoning Company, we will instruct
CBP to liquidate entries according to the
AFA ad valorem rate for all importers.
The Department will issue appropriate
assessment instructions directly to CBP
within 15 days of publication of the
final results of this administrative
review.
Cash–Deposit Requirements
The following cash–deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of CTL plate from the PRC entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for previously
investigated or reviewed companies not
subject to this review that have separate
rates, the cash–deposit rate will
continue to be the company–specific
rate published in the most recent
proceeding prior to this administrative
review; (2) for all other PRC exporters,
including Liaoning Company, the cash–
deposit rate will be 128.59 percent; and
(3) for all other non–PRC exporters, the
cash–deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter that
supplied that exporter. These cash
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Notices
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 C.F.R.
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these
preliminary results of administrative
review in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, as
well as 19 C.F.R. 351.221(b)(4) and 19
C.F.R. 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: August 2, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–13038 Filed 8–9–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory
Board: Conference Call Meeting of the
U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory
Board
International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of an open conference
call meeting.
rwilkins on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Travel and Tourism
Advisory Board (Board) will hold an
open conference call meeting to discuss
topics related to the travel and tourism
industry. The Board was established on
October 1, 2003, and reconstituted
October 1, 2005, to advise the Secretary
of Commerce on matters relating to the
travel and tourism industry.
DATES: August 23, 2006.
Time: TBD.
For the Conference Call-In Number
and Further Information Contact: The
U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory
Board Executive Secretariat, Room 4043,
Washington, DC, 20230, telephone: 202–
482–4501, e-mail:
Marc.Chittum@mail.doc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J.
Marc Chittum, U.S. Travel and Tourism
Advisory Board, Room 4043, 1401
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:27 Aug 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC, 20230, telephone: 202–482–4501, email: Marc.Chittum@mail.doc.gov.
Dated: August 4, 2006.
J. Marc Chittum,
Executive Secretary, U.S. Travel and Tourism
Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 06–6842 Filed 8–7–06; 3:34 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration,
North American Free-Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel
Reviews
NAFTA Secretariat, United
States Section, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of decision of panel.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On July 28, 2006, the
binational panel issued its decision in
the review of the final determination
made by the International Trade
Administration, respecting Oil Country
Tubular Goods from Mexico Final
Results of Sunset Review of
Antidumping Duty Order, Secretariat
File No. USA–MEX–2001–1904–03. The
binational panel remanded the
redetermination on remand to the
International Trade Administration.
Copies of the panel decision are
available from the U.S. Section of the
NAFTA Secretariat.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Caratina L. Alston, United States
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite
2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue,
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482–5438.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter
19 of the North American Free-Trade
Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a
mechanism to replace domestic judicial
review of the final determinations in
antidumping and countervailing duty
cases involving imports from a NAFTA
country with review by independent
binational panels. When a Request for
Panel Review is filed, a panel is
established to act in place of national
courts to review expeditiously the final
determination to determine whether it
conforms with the antidumping or
countervailing duty law of the country
that made the determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement,
which came into force on January 1,
1994, the Government of the United
States, the Government of Canada and
the Government of Mexico established
Rules of Procedure for Article 1904
Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’).
These Rules were published in the
Federal Register on February 23, 1994
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45773
(59 FR 8686). The panel review in this
matter has been conducted in
accordance with these Rules.
Panel Decision: The Panel concluded
and ordered the Department as follows:
The Department is directed to
reconsider its likelihood determination
and either issue a determination of no
likelihood or give a reasoned analysis to
support a conclusion that TAMSA’s
dumping is likely to continue or recur.
In particular, the Department is directed
to explain why TAMSA’s high financial
expense ratio is likely to recur
considering the decrease in TAMSA’s
foreign currency denominated debt
during the sunset review period as
evidenced by the actual financial
expense ratio established in the record
of this proceeding.
The Department was directed to
report the results of its remand decision
within 20 days of the date of the
opinion, or not later than August 17,
2006.
Dated: August 3, 2006.
Caratina L. Alston,
United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. E6–13020 Filed 8–9–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Minority Business Development
Agency
[Docket No: 000724217–6209–13]
Amendment to the Solicitation of
Applications for the Minority Business
Enterprise Center (MBEC) (Formerly
Minority Business Development Center
(MBDC))
Minority Business
Development Agency, DOC.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with Executive
Order 11625 and 15 U.S.C. Section
1512, the Minority Business
Development Agency (MBDA) is
amending its solicitation, originally
published on July 26, 2006, for
competitive applications from
organizations to operate a Minority
Business Enterprise Center (MBEC)
(formerly Minority Business
Development Center). This amendment
separates the Alabama/Mississippi
MBEC into two geographic service areas,
creating the Mississippi MBEC and the
Alabama MBEC. The geographic service
area for the Mississippi MBEC will be
limited to the State of Mississippi only.
All programmatic requirements,
including funding levels, length of
award and competition/selection
processes, for the Mississippi MBEC
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 154 (Thursday, August 10, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45768-45773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-13038]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-849]
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Rescission, in Part, and Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from Nucor Corporation, a domestic
producer and interested party in this proceeding, the Department of
Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an administrative review of
cut-to-length carbon steel plate (``CTL plate'') from the People's
Republic of China (``PRC'') for the period November 1, 2004, through
October 31, 2005. We preliminarily determine that application of
adverse facts available (``AFA'') is warranted with respect to the sole
company participating in this administrative review, China
Metallurgical Import & Export Liaoning Company (``Liaoning Company'').
In addition, the Department is preliminarily rescinding the
administrative review with respect to Angang New Steel Co., Ltd. and
Angang Group Hong Kong Co., Limited (collectively ``Angang''), as its
request for review was properly and timely withdrawn. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'')
to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject
merchandise. Interested parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120
days from the date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanita H. Chen, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1904.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 45769]]
Background
On November 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on CTL plate from the PRC. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 70 FR 65883 (November 1, 2005). On November 30,
2005, domestic producer Nucor Corporation (``Nucor'') requested that
the Department conduct an administrative review of Liaoning Company.
Also on November 20, 2005, Chinese producer Angang requested that the
Department conduct an administrative review on the antidumping duty
order on CTL plate from the PRC. On December 22, 2005, the Department
published a notice of the initiation of this administrative review of
CTL plate from the PRC for the period November 1, 2004, through October
31, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 76024
(December 22, 2005).
Angang
On December 27, 2005, the Department issued an antidumping
questionnaire to Angang. On February 8 and February 24, 2006, the
Department received Angang's responses to Sections A, C and D of the
questionnaire. On March 3, 2006, the Department received Angang's FOP
reconciliation. On March 1 and March 14, 2006, Nucor submitted comments
on Angang's Sections A, C and D responses.
On March 22, 2006, Angang requested an extension of time in which
to withdraw its request for an administrative review, which the
Department granted until March 29, 2006. On March 29, 2006, Angang
timely withdrew its request for an administrative review. On April 10,
2006, Nucor submitted comments on Angang's withdrawal of its request
for an administrative review. On May 15, 2006, the Department received
a request from Angang to issue liquidation instructions regarding a
shipment made during the POR.
Liaoning
On December 27, 2005, the Department issued an antidumping
questionnaire to the legal representative for Liaoning Company in a
prior segment of this case. On February 1, 2006, the Department sent a
letter to the same legal representative concerning Liaoning Company's
failure to respond to the Department's questionnaire, and extended the
deadline for responding to February 8, 2006. On February 8, 2006, the
legal representative submitted a letter to the Department stating that
the firm no longer represented Liaoning Company, that the firm had
contacted Liaoning Company, and that Liaoning Company wished to inform
the Department it would not participate in this administrative review.
On April 5, 2006, the Department sent a letter to the legal
representative, inquiring whether the firm was authorized by Liaoning
Company to act as its representative in notifying the Department that
Liaoning Company intended not to participate in this administrative
review. On April 17, 2006, the legal representative submitted a letter
to the Department confirming that, as the firm no longer represented
Liaoning Company, it was no longer authorized to notify the Department
as to Liaoning Company's participation status in this administrative
review.
On April 18, 2006, the Department issued an antidumping
questionnaire directly to Liaoning Company specifying the following
deadlines for responding to the various sections of the questionnaire:
May 9, 2006 for Section A and May 19, 2006, for Sections C, D, and the
Factors of Production and Sales Reconciliations. On May 15, 2006, the
Department sent a letter to Liaoning Company concerning its failure to
respond to the Department's Section A questionnaire by the due date of
May 9, 2006, and extended the deadline for responding to the
questionnaire, in its entirety, to May 19, 2006. On May 17, 2006,
Liaoning Company requested an extension of time in which to respond to
the Department's questionnaire, which the Department granted until May
26, 2006. On May 22, 2006, Liaoning Company submitted its questionnaire
response, which the Department rejected on June 15, 2006, for numerous
deficiencies, including failure to provide requested information,
failure to follow filing procedures and requirements, and failure to
serve copies of the submission on parties to the review. In the
rejection letter, the Department also provided Liaoning Company with
extensive guidance and instructions to assist Liaoning Company in
revising its questionnaire response, and gave Liaoning Company until
July 6, 2006, to submit a revised questionnaire response. On June 20,
2006, the Department returned the sole copy of the rejected
questionnaire response to Liaoning Company. On June 27, 2006, Nucor
requested that the Department not grant Liaoning Company any further
extensions or opportunities to provide information past the July 6,
2006, deadline, and argued that if the deadline is missed or the
revised questionnaire response rejected, the Department should
terminate the review of Liaoning Company and apply AFA.
On July 5, 2006, Liaoning Company submitted its revised
questionnaire response (``revised response'') to the Department. On
July 13, 2006, Nucor filed a letter noting it had not received service
of the revised response and requested that the Department terminate the
review of Liaoning Company immediately, for its failure to participate.
Liaoning Company's revised response, other than adding an index page
and a proper case heading to the first page of the Sections A, C and D
responses and the appendices, appeared to be identical to the
submission rejected by the Department on June 15, 2006. As a result, on
July 31, 2006, the Department rejected Liaoning Company's revised
response in its entirety, for the same deficiencies under which the
prior response was rejected.
Period of Review
The period of review (``POR'') is November 1, 2004, through October
31, 2005.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order include hot-rolled carbon steel
universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces
or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not
exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4
millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of
rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether
or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic
substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in
straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad,
plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or
coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters
or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and
measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item
numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045,
7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,
7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000,
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included in this order
are
[[Page 45770]]
flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-
section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products
which have been ``worked after rolling'') for example, products which
have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order is
grade X-70 plate. Also excluded from this order is certain carbon cut-
to-length steel plate with a maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel grades
BS 7191, 355 EM, and 355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy
Project specification XB MOO Y 15 0001, types 1 and 2. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Partial Rescission of Review
The Department's regulations at 19 C.F.R. 351.213(d)(1) provide
that the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party
that requested the review withdraws its request for review within 90
days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the
requested review, or withdraws its request at a later date if the
Department determines that it is reasonable to extend the time limit
for withdrawing the request. Nucor alleged in its April 10, 2006,
submission that Angang withdrew its request for an administrative
review to avoid responding to issues Nucor raised in its comments to
Angang's questionnaire responses. However, Angang timely withdrew its
request for administrative review within the extended time limit
granted by the Department. Accordingly, regardless of the reasons for
withdrawal, pursuant to the Department's regulations, the request for
withdrawal was proper. As no other party requested that the Department
conduct an administrative review of Angang, the Department is
preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to
Angang, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.213(d)(1).
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME''') country.
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``Act''), any determination that a foreign country is an NME country
shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority.
See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71
FR 7013 (February 10, 2006). None of the parties to this proceeding has
contested such treatment.
Separate Rates Determination
Because the PRC is treated as an NME country for this review, there
is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate.
It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of the
merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate unless an
exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law
(de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to exports. To establish
whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control
to be entitled to a separate company-specific rate, the Department
analyzes the exporter following the criteria established in the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991); and 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). The
Department gave Liaoning Company numerous extensions of time and
opportunities to submit a proper questionnaire response, and provided
detailed guidance and instructions on how to prepare a questionnaire
response. Despite these opportunities and assistance, Liaoning Company
failed to follow the Department's instructions in submitting its
questionnaire response. We find the information provided by Liaoning
Company to be incomplete and unreliable, and are therefore, unable to
perform a separate rates analysis. As a result, Liaoning Company has
not demonstrated that it is entitled to a separate rate. Accordingly,
we preliminarily find that Liaoning Company is part of the PRC-wide
entity, as discussed, infra.
The PRC-Wide Rate and Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department shall,
subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in
reaching its determination if the necessary information is not
available on the record of an antidumping proceeding. In addition,
section 776(a)(2) of the Act states that the Department shall use facts
otherwise available when an interested party or any other person: (A)
withholds information requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide
the requested information by the requested date or in the form and
manner requested; (C) significantly impedes an antidumping proceeding;
or (D) provides information that cannot be verified. In the instant
review, the Department gave Liaoning Company multiple opportunities
pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act to provide the requested
information and remedy or explain the deficiencies pointed out in its
submissions. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department must
consider information submitted by an interested party if all of the
following criteria are met: (1) The information is submitted by the
deadline established for its submission; (2) the information can be
verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve
as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the
interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its
ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements
established by the Department with respect to the information; and (5)
the information can be used without undue difficulties.
Liaoning Company has failed to meet any of these criteria. Liaoning
Company missed the deadlines set for its questionnaire response
submissions. Nevertheless, the Department gave Liaoning Company
additional opportunities to submit a response. However, despite these
additional opportunities, Liaoning Company failed to adequately correct
its deficiencies and submitted a questionnaire response so incomplete
that the information could not be used or verified in this
administrative review. The original questionnaire response lacked
proper case header information, did not include the proper number of
copies, was not served upon interested parties, failed to include
requested narrative detail and descriptions, provided little supporting
paperwork and documentation, failed to include detailed product and
sales information, declined to provide factors of production by
deferring to data submitted by other companies in other proceedings and
not on the record of this review, failed to include electronic U.S.
sales and factors of production information, and failed to provide
reconciliation worksheets, among other discrepancies. See Letter from
Department of Commerce to Liaoning Company, dated June 15, 2006
(``Opportunity to Revise Letter'').
Finally, Liaoning Company failed to demonstrate that it acted to
the best of its ability in providing the information, as Liaoning
Company made no effort to follow the specific, detailed instructions
provided by the Department in revising its questionnaire response. As
[[Page 45771]]
previously noted, although Liaoning Company's original response was
severely deficient, the Department provided Liaoning Company an
opportunity to revise its response and gave extensive instructions to
assist Liaoning Company in revising its questionnaire response. See
Opportunity to Revise Letter. The Department included copies of our
regulations explaining our classification of information, and filing,
service and certification requirements, the public and proprietary
service lists, as well as the General Instructions to the
questionnaire, with the Opportunity to Revise Letter. Id. at
Attachments 1 through 4. The Department also requested that Liaoning
Company contact the reviewing analyst if it had any questions regarding
the revised response. Id. at 4. Liaoning Company failed to follow the
Department's instructions and did not contact the reviewing analyst (or
any Department official) regarding revising its questionnaire response.
When Liaoning Company submitted its revised response, it had added an
index page and followed the Department's request to properly include a
case heading in the upper right hand corner (pursuant to instruction 1
of the Opportunity to Revise Letter) and to properly address the
revised response (pursuant to instruction 2 of the Opportunity to
Revise Letter). Other than these minor revisions, however, Liaoning
Company's revised response appeared to be identical to the original
submission rejected by the Department, with the same deficiency of
information, and the same filing format and service deficiencies. See
Letter from Department of Commerce to Liaoning Company, dated July 31,
2006. These deficiencies in the revised response, in view of the
Department's detailed instructions and guidance, indicate that Liaoning
Company did not act to the best of its ability in providing the
requested information. Furthermore, as discussed above, it is
appropriate to consider Liaoning Company part of the PRC-wide entity.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, the margin for the
PRC-wide entity (including Liaoning Company) must be based on facts
otherwise available.
In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section
776(b) of the Act provides that if an interested party fails to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information, the Department may use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of the party. An adverse inference is
appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994). Section
776(b) of the Act states that, in applying AFA, such an adverse
inference may include reliance on information derived from the
petition, a final determination in an antidumping investigation or
review, or any other information placed on the record. Because Liaoning
Company failed to adequately respond to our questionnaire, and made no
effort to follow the specific, detailed instructions provided by the
Department in revising its questionnaire response, we preliminarily
determine that the PRC-wide entity, including Liaoning Company, did not
act to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's
requests. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we are
preliminarily basing the margin for the PRC-wide entity on AFA.
The Department's practice in reviews is to select, as an AFA rate,
the highest rate determined for any respondent in any segment of the
proceeding. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Partial Rescission: Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, 71 FR 7008, 7010-11 (February
10, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Issue 1;
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China;
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68
FR 19504, 19506 (April 21, 2003) (citing Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat
from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002)).
The courts have consistently upheld this practice. See Ta Chen
Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330,1339 (Fed.
Cir. 2002); Sigma Corp. v. U.S., 117 F.3rd 1401, 1411 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(stating that the Department has a ``long standing practice of
assigning to respondents who fail to cooperate with Commerce's
investigation the highest margin calculated for any party in the less-
than-fair-value investigation or in any administrative review''); NSK
Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding
a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin
from a different respondent in a less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'')
investigation); Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT
678, 682-84 (2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the
highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative
respondent); Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United
States, 360 F. Supp. 2d. 1339, 1347-48 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a
different respondent in a previous administrative review).
The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among
the possible sources of information, is to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the
adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.''
See, e.g., Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final
Negative Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 55792 (August 30, 2002); Static
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan: Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909 (February 23, 1998).
In accordance with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily
applying as AFA to the PRC-wide entity (including Liaoning Company) the
rate of 128.59 percent, which is the rate currently applicable to the
PRC-wide entity and is a rate calculated for another respondent in the
LTFV investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's
Republic of China, 62 FR 61964, 61966 (November 20, 1997). This rate
reflects the Department's practice of selecting the highest rate
determined for any respondent in any segment of the proceeding as AFA
and is sufficiently adverse to effectuate the purpose of AFA.
Corroboration of Secondary Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies
on the facts otherwise available and uses ``secondary information,''
the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is defined in the SAA as ``{i{time} nformation
derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any
previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.''
See SAA at 870.
[[Page 45772]]
The SAA also states that to ``corroborate'' the Department must satisfy
itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value.
Id.
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will consider
the reliability and relevance of the information used. In an
administrative review, if the Department selects as AFA a calculated
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not
necessary to question the reliability of that margin. See Anhydrous
Sodium Metasilicate from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 44283 (July 28, 2003) (unchanged in
final). However, the Department will consider information reasonably at
its disposal to determine whether that margin continues to have
relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and
determine an appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812
(February 22, 1996) (the Department disregarded the highest margin as
AFA because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). Similarly, the
Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. D&L
Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the
Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated).
None of these circumstances are present here. The information used in
calculating this margin was based on data submitted by the respondents
in the LTFV investigation, along with the most appropriate surrogate
value information submitted by the parties and gathered by the
Department in the LTFV investigation. Furthermore, the calculation of
this margin was subject to comment from interested parties in the LTFV
investigation proceeding. As the only source for calculated margins is
administrative determinations, it is not necessary to question the
reliability of a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the
proceeding. As for the relevance of the rate selected, this rate is the
rate currently applicable to the PRC-wide entity. Moreover, no
information has been presented in the current review that calls into
question the relevance of this information. As there is no information
on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not
appropriately used as AFA, we determine that this rate has relevance.
Based on our analysis, we find that the margin of 128.59 percent is
both reliable and relevant and, as a result, we determine that this
rate has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the calculated
rate of 128.59 percent, which is the current PRC-wide rate, is in
accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, which requires that
secondary information be corroborated to the extent practicable (i.e.,
that it have probative value). As a result, the Department determines
that this rate is corroborated to the extent practicable for the
purposes of this administrative review and may reasonably be applied to
the PRC-wide entity, based on Liaoning Company's failure to cooperate
to the best of its ability in this administrative review, as the total
AFA rate. Consequently, we have assigned this AFA rate to exports of
the subject merchandise from all companies subject to the PRC-wide
rate, including Liaoning Company.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that a
weighted-average dumping margin of 128.59 exists for the PRC-wide
entity for the period November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005. For
Angang, we preliminarily rescind the administrative review.
Interested parties may submit written comments (``case briefs'') to
be received by the Department no later than 30 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 C.F.R. 351.309(c)(ii).
Rebuttal comments (``rebuttal briefs''), which must be limited to
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed with the Department no
later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19
C.F.R. 351.309(d).
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 C.F.R. 351.310(c). Any
request for a hearing should contain the following information: 1) the
party's name, address, and telephone number; 2) the number of
participants; and 3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Any hearing,
if requested, shall be held two working days after the deadline for
submission of the rebuttal briefs. See 19 C.F.R. 351.310(d). Any
hearing, if held, will be take place at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Oral
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised by the parties, within 120 days of publication of
these preliminary results. See 19 C.F.R. 351.213(h).
Assessment Rates
On May 15, 2006, the Department received a request from Angang to
issue liquidation instructions clarifying that the sole shipment of
merchandise exported jointly by Angang Group Hong Kong Co. Limited and
Angang Group International Trade Corporation be liquidated at the
current 30.68 percent cash deposit rate assigned to Anshan Iron & Steel
Complex, Angang International Trade Corporation, and Sincerely Asia,
Limited, from the original LTFV investigation and subsequent
antidumping duty order. However, as Angang withdrew its request for
review and the Department did not have an opportunity to conduct an
analysis of Angang's shipments or relationship with Angang Group
International Trade Corporation for the POR, the Department cannot
issue specific liquidation instructions with regard to this shipment.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
Because the Department is applying AFA to all exports of subject
merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity, including Liaoning
Company, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries according to the AFA
ad valorem rate for all importers. The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of
publication of the final results of this administrative review.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of CTL plate from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for previously
investigated or reviewed companies not subject to this review that have
separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published in the most recent proceeding prior to this
administrative review; (2) for all other PRC exporters, including
Liaoning Company, the cash-deposit rate will be 128.59 percent; and (3)
for all other non-PRC exporters, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These cash
[[Page 45773]]
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of
administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act, as well as 19 C.F.R. 351.221(b)(4) and 19 C.F.R.
351.213(d)(4).
Dated: August 2, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-13038 Filed 8-9-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
