Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 66304-66308 [E6-19187]

Download as PDF 66304 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Notices Company v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Publication of this notice fulfills that obligation. The CAFC also held that, in such a case, the Department must suspend liquidation until there is a ‘‘conclusive’’ decision in the action. Id. Therefore, the Department must suspend liquidation pending the expiration of the period to appeal the CIT’s October 23, 2006, decision or pending a final decision of the CAFC if that decision is appealed. Because entries of ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan produced by, exported to, or imported into the United States by Koyo are currently being suspended pursuant to the court’s injunction order, the Department does not need to order U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of affected entries. The Department will not order the lifting of the suspension of liquidation on entries of ball bearings and parts thereof made during the review period before a court decision in this lawsuit becomes final and conclusive. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: November 6, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–19186 Filed 11–13–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A–570–846) Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 8, 2006, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published the preliminary results of the 2004/2005 administrative and new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Preliminary Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 26736 (May 8, 2006) (‘‘Preliminary Results/Intent to Rescind’’). At that sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES AGENCY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:07 Nov 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 time, we invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary results and preliminary notice of intent to rescind the new shipper review. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes to our calculations. The final dumping margins for these reviews are listed in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Begnal or Michael Quigley, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1442 and (202) 482–4047, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. We published the preliminary results in the 2004/2005 administrative review and preliminary intent to rescind the new shipper review in the Federal Register on May 8, 2006. See Preliminary Results/Intent to Rescind, 71 FR 26736. On June 19, 2006, we received a case brief on behalf of the petitioner, the Coalition for the Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor After Market Manufacturers (‘‘petitioner’’). In addition, we received a case brief on behalf of respondents China National Industrial Machinery Import & Export Corporation (‘‘CNIM’’), Qingdao Gren (‘‘Group’’) Co. (‘‘Gren’’), Shanxi Fengkun Metallurgical Limited Company and Shanxi Fengkun Foundry Limited Company (‘‘Fengkun’’), Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yinghao’’), Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Company (‘‘LABEC’’), Yantai Winhere Auto–Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Winhere’’), Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Haimeng’’), Laizhou Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Luqi’’), Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co. (‘‘Hongda’’), Hongfa Machinery (‘‘Dalian’’) Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hongfa’’), Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Meita’’), and Shandong Huanri (‘‘Group’’) General Company, Shandong Huanri Group Co., Ltd., and Laizhou Huanri Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huanri’’). Additionally, we received a case brief on behalf of Wecly International, an importer of subject merchandise, on June 19, 2006. On June 22, 2006, we requested that all mandatory respondents in the administrative and new shipper reviews submit consumption data, for the POR, for both bentonite and coal powder. On PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 July 5, 2006, we received responses to our June 22, 2006, questionnaire from Haimeng, Xiangfen Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hengtai’’), Hongfa, Meita, Winhere and Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘SZAP’’). On July 11, 2006, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and from LABEC, Winhere, Haimeng, Luqi, Hongda, Hongfa, Meita, and Huanri (collectively, the ‘‘Trade Pacific respondents’’). On July 10, 2006, we issued a request for comments on the Department’s proposed methodology to value bentonite and coal powder as direct materials, as well as the consumption data obtained from respondents. On July 17, 2006, the Trade Pacific respondents and the petitioner each filed comments. On July 24, 2006, both the Trade Pacific respondents and the petitioner filed rebuttal comments. In the case and rebuttal briefs received from the parties after the Preliminary Results/Intent to Rescind, we received extensive comments on the Department’s decision to select respondents via sampling. For further details on these comments, as well as others, and the Department’s positions on each, please see the memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China (November 6, 2006) (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) and the company– specific analysis memoranda, which are on file in Import Administration’s Central Records Unit, room B–099 of the Department of Commerce building. The Decision Memorandum is also available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters (weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all–terrain vehicles, vans and recreational vehicles under ‘‘one ton and a half,’’ and light trucks designated as ‘‘one ton and a half.’’ Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and installation without any further operations. Semi– finished rotors are those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and have E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM 14NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Notices undergone some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those that have undergone some grinding or turning. These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) that produces vehicles sold in the United States. (e.g., General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in this order are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the United States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that are made of gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but otherwise meet the above criteria. Excluded from the scope of this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 inches or greater than 16 inches (less than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 40.64 centimeters) and a weight less than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than 20.41 kilograms). Brake rotors are currently classifiable under subheading 8708.39.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).1 Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Partial Rescission of Administrative Review We are rescinding the administrative review with respect to Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co., Ltd.; Xianghe Xumingyuan Auto Parts Co.; National Automotive Industry Import & Export Corporation or China National Automotive Industry Import & Export Corporation, and manufactured by any company other than Shandong Laizhou Capco Industry; Shandong Laizhou Capco Industry, and manufactured by any company other than Shandong Laizhou Capco Industry; Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., and manufactured by any company other than Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co. or Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd.; Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd., and manufactured by any company other than Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., or Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd.; Dixion Brake System (Longkou) Ltd.; and Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. We are rescinding these reviews either because we found no evidence that any of these companies made shipments of 1 As of January 1, 2005, the HTS classification for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.50.10 to 8708.39.50.30. See HTSUS (2005), available at www.usitc.gov. VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:07 Nov 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 the subject merchandise during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), or these companies consented to a rescission of the administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j). Bona Fide Sale Analysis—SZAP For the reasons stated below, we continue to find that SZAP’s reported U.S. sale during the POR does not appear to be a bona fide sale, based on the totality of the facts on the record. See, e.g., Glycine From The People’s Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd., 69 FR 47405, 47406 (August 5, 2004). In examining the totality of the circumstances, the Department examines whether the transaction is ‘‘commercially reasonable’’ or ‘‘atypical.’’ See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 68 FR 1439, 1440 (January 10, 2003). Atypical or non–typical in this context means unrepresentative of a normal business practice. See Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 992, 995 (CIT 2000). The Department considers a number of factors in its bona fides analysis, ‘‘all of which may speak to the commercial realities surrounding an alleged sale of subject merchandise.’’ See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342, (CIT 2005) (‘‘New Donghua’’) (citation omitted). Although some bona fides issues may share commonalities across various Department cases, the Department examines the bona fide nature of a sale on a case–by-case basis, and the analysis may vary with the facts surrounding each sale. See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1260 (CIT 2005) (‘‘TTPC’’) (citing Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 20). In TTPC, the court affirmed the Department’s practice of considering that ‘‘any factor which indicates that the sale under consideration is not likely to be typical of those which the producer will make in the future is relevant,’’ and that ‘‘the weight given to each factor investigated will depend on the circumstances PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 66305 surrounding the sale.’’ Id., 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1250, 1263. In New Donghua, the court upheld the Department’s practice of ‘‘examin{ing} objective, verifiable factors to ensure that a sale is not being made to circumvent an antidumping duty order.’’ New Donghua, 374 F. Supp. 2d at 1339. In examining the bona fide nature of SZAP’s sale, we find that: 1) the difference in the sales price of SZAP’s single POR sale as compared to the prices of its subsequent sales; 2) the quantity of its single POR sale as compared to its subsequent sales; 3) questionable sales documentation pertaining to SZAP’s U.S. sale; and finally, 4) other indicia of a non–bona fide transaction, all demonstrate that the single sale under review was not bona fide. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle through Christopher D. Riker from Erin C. Begnal regarding Bona Fides Analysis and Intent to Rescind New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China for Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (May 1, 2006). Therefore, we find that this sale does not provide a reasonable or reliable basis for calculating a dumping margin. For the reasons mentioned above, the Department continues to find that SZAP’s sole U.S. sale during the POR was not a bona fide commercial transaction and is rescinding the new shipper review of SZAP. See Decision Memorandum, at Comment 10. Separate Rates In our Preliminary Results, we found that all respondents except Huanri, Qingdao Rotec Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Rotec’’), and China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export (Xianjiang) Corporation’s exports except for those produced by Zibo Botai Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xianjiang/ Other than Zibo’’), qualified for separate rates. Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26741. On March 8, 2006, Huanri filed a letter with the Department indicating that it wished to cancel the scheduled verification before it began. Huanri acknowledged in this letter that it understood, because of the verification cancellation, that the Department may find that Huanri did not cooperate to the best of its ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). Therefore, in the preliminary results, the Department found that Huanri did not demonstrate a de facto absence of government control with respect to making its own decisions in key personnel selections, the use of its profits from the proceeds of export sales, and the authority to E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM 14NON1 66306 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Notices sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements. This is consistent with the Department’s practice. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586 (May 2, 1994). Huanri is therefore not entitled to a separate rate. See Decision Memorandum, at Comment 11; see also Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26741. Because Rotec and Xianjiang/Other than Zibo failed to respond to the quantity and value questionnaire and did not participate further in this review, we did not have the necessary information to determine their separate rate status. Therefore, we find that Rotec and Xianjiang/Other than Zibo are not eligible to receive separate rates. Because we continue to find that Huanri, Rotec, and Xianjiang/ Other than Zibo do not qualify for separate rates, these respondents are deemed to be part of the PRC–wide entity and thus, are subject to the PRC– wide rate. The PRC–wide rate will apply to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from PRC producers/ exporters that have their own calculated rate. Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(1) of the Act provides that, when necessary information is not available on the record, the Department may use the facts otherwise available (‘‘FA’’) to reach a determination. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party or any other person: (A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable results under this title. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department shall promptly inform the party submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. Section 782(d) further states that, if the party submits further information that is unsatisfactory or untimely, the administering authority VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:07 Nov 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to make a determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the administering authority if (1) the information is submitted by the deadline established for its submission; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable results; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the administering authority with respect to the information; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the FA, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the respondent if it determines that a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session, at 870 (1994). In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department considers whether a party could comply with the request for information, and whether a party paid insufficient attention to its statutory duties. See Pacific Giant, Inc. v. United States, 223 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1342 (August 6, 2002). The focus of section 776(b) of the Act is on a respondent’s failure to cooperate to the best of its ability, rather than just its failure to provide the requested information. See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final results in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See Section 776(b) of the Act. Hengtai Hengtai withheld and failed to provide information concerning its relationship with SZAP, as well as sales and FOP information for its sales of merchandise produced by SZAP. Moreover, by providing information that was contradicted by evidence discovered at the verification of another PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 company (i.e., SZAP), Hengtai significantly impeded the Department’s ability to calculate a relevant and meaningful margin. Therefore, application of facts available is warranted pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act. Additionally, because Hengtai failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by withholding necessary information in its possession in response to the Department’s specific questions, the application of adverse facts available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, is also warranted. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Group 9, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Group 9, from Erin C. Begnal, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Group 9, regarding 2004/ 2005 Antidumping Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts Available to Xiangfen Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd. (May 1, 2006). PRC–Wide Entity In the initiation notice, the Department stated that if one of the companies on which we initiated a review does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of brake rotors from the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate will be deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC–wide entity of which the named exporter is a part. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 30694 (May 27, 2005). For these final results, Rotec, Xianjiang/Other than Zibo, and Huanri are not eligible to receive separate rates and are thus considered to be part of the PRC–wide entity, subject to the PRC–wide rate. As explained above, the PRC–wide entity (including Rotec, Xianjiang/Other than Zibo, and Huanri) did not respond to the Department’s requests for information and precluded the Department from verifying information that was submitted. Therefore, we find that the PRC–wide entity withheld requested information from the Department and did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Because the PRC–wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability in the proceeding, the Department finds it necessary, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (D), and 776(b) of the Act, to use adverse facts available as the basis for these final results of review for the PRC–wide entity. E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM 14NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Notices Corroboration Changes Since the Preliminary Results PRC–Wide Rate In accordance with the Department’s practice, we have assigned the rate for the PRC–wide entity to Hengtai as adverse facts available. See, e.g., Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China , 64 FR 61581 (November 12, 1999), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at comment 1. In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.’’ See Final Results of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). Consistent with section 776(c) of the Act, this rate is the highest dumping margin from any segment of this proceeding and was established in the less–than-fair–value investigation based on information contained in the petition, and corroborated in the final results of the first administrative review. See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 61581, 61585 (November 12, 1999). For the reasons stated in the Preliminary Results, the Department continues to find this rate to be both reliable and relevant, and, therefore, to have probative value in accordance with the SAA. See SAA, at 870; see also Preliminary Results. We received no comments on our preliminary analysis of this rate for purposes of these final results. Therefore, we determine that the rate of 43.32 percent is still reliable, relevant, and, has probative value within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. Accordingly, for these final results we continue to assign the rate of 43.32 percent to Hengtai and the PRC– wide entity (including Rotec, Xianjiang/ Other than Zibo and Huanri) as adverse facts available. Based on the comments received from the interested parties, the Department has made company–specific changes to the margin calculation for Hongfa. Additionally, based on information submitted since the Preliminary Results, some surrogate values have changed. Specifically, we have revised the surrogate values for steel scrap, cartons, bentonite, coal powder and pallet wood. See Decision Memorandum at comments 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. PRC–Wide Rate ........... sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Analysis of Comments Received A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Decision Memorandum, accompanies this notice and is attached as Appendix 1. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:07 Nov 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 Final Results of Review We determine that the following percentage margins exist on exports of brake rotors from the PRC for the period April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005: BRAKE ROTORS FROM THE PRC Individually Reviewed Exporters 2004/2005 Administrative Review Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. ........ Xiangfen Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd. ....... Hongfa Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd. ....... Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Company, Ltd. .................. Yantai Winhere Auto– Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd. .................... ‘‘Sample Rate’’ Exporters 2004/2005 Administrative Review Weighted–Average Margin (Percent) 5.29 43.32 13.59 0.03 (de minimis) 0.01 (de minimis) ‘‘Sample Rate’’ Margin (Percent) China National Industrial Machinery Import & Export Corporation Laizhou Automobile Brake Equipment Co., Ltd. ............................ Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd. .................... Laizhou City Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd. ........ Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd. .............. Qingdao Gren (Group) Co. ............................. Shanxi Fengkun Metallurgical Limited Company ................... Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co. ................ Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company ................... Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. ........... PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 8.90 8.90 8.90 8.90 8.90 8.90 8.90 8.90 8.90 8.90 Sfmt 4703 66307 Margin (Percent) 43.32 2 The PRC-wide entity includes Rotec, Xianjiang/Other than Zibo, and Huanri. For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted–average margin for each company, see the respective company’s Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China, November 6, 2006. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and US Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer- or customer– specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. Where the respondent did not report actual entered value, we calculated individual importer- or customer– specific assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales examined and dividing that amount by the total quantity of the sales examined. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, all entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer–specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). To determine whether the per–unit duty assessment rates are de minimis, we calculated importer- or customer- specific ad valorem ratios based on export prices. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. The following deposit rates shall be required for merchandise subject to the order, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(1) and (a)(2)(B) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Meita and Winhere will be zero; (2) the cash deposit rate for Haimeng, Hentai, Honfa, and the ‘‘sample rate’’ exporters will be the rate indicated above; (3) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (4) the cash deposit rate for E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM 14NON1 66308 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Notices the PRC NME entity will continue to be the PRC–wide rate (i.e., 43.32 percent); and (5) the cash deposit rate for non– PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC producer that supplied the exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as the final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. These results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 6, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I List of Issues in Decision Memorandum General Issues Comment 1: Sampling Methodology A. The Department’s Decision to Sample sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES C. Including Adverse Facts Available in the Sample Rate D. Sampling’s Effect on Revocation and Cash Deposit Rates Comment 2: Surrogate Value for Labor Rate Comment 3: Surrogate Value for Pig Iron Comment 4: Surrogate Value for Steel Scrap VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:07 Nov 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 Company–Specific Issues Comment 8: Hongfa - Pallet Wood Comment 9: Haimeng - Valuation of Components Supplied by U.S. Customers Comment 10: SZAP - Bona Fides of New Shipper Sale Comment 11: Hengtai, Rotec and Xianjiang - Denial of Separate Rates Comment 12: Meita - Valuation of Ferro–Manganese Comment 13: Cash Deposit Rate for Xianjiang [FR Doc. E6–19187 Filed 11–13–06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A–570–868) Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita or Matthew Quigley, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4243 or (202) 482– 4551, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background B. Probability–Proportional-to–Size Methodology Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Plywood Comment 6: Surrogate Value for Cartons Comment 7: Bentonite and Carbon Powder as Raw Materials or Overhead Expense On July 21, 2005, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 42028 (July 21, 2005). On July 10, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results. See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38852 (July 10, 2006). This review covers the PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 period June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005. The final results are currently due by November 7, 2006. Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Review Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department shall make a final determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is published. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 120-day period to 180 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the final results of the administrative review of folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC within the 120-day period due to complex issues the parties have raised regarding the proper treatment of certain U.S. transactions. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the final results of this review to 144 days until December 1, 2006. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: November 3, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–19183 Filed 11–13–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–570–890 Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of New Shipper Reviews of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6412. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM 14NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66304-66308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-19187]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-570-846)


Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and 
Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 8, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published the preliminary results of the 2004/2005 
administrative and new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on 
brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (PRC). See Brake 
Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and 
Preliminary Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2004/2005 New Shipper 
Review, 71 FR 26736 (May 8, 2006) (``Preliminary Results/Intent to 
Rescind''). At that time, we invited interested parties to comment on 
our preliminary results and preliminary notice of intent to rescind the 
new shipper review. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 
have made certain changes to our calculations. The final dumping 
margins for these reviews are listed in the ``Final Results of Review'' 
section below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Begnal or Michael Quigley, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1442 and (202) 482-4047, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The period of review (``POR'') is April 1, 2005, through March 31, 
2006. We published the preliminary results in the 2004/2005 
administrative review and preliminary intent to rescind the new shipper 
review in the Federal Register on May 8, 2006. See Preliminary Results/
Intent to Rescind, 71 FR 26736.
    On June 19, 2006, we received a case brief on behalf of the 
petitioner, the Coalition for the Preservation of American Brake Drum 
and Rotor After Market Manufacturers (``petitioner''). In addition, we 
received a case brief on behalf of respondents China National 
Industrial Machinery Import & Export Corporation (``CNIM''), Qingdao 
Gren (``Group'') Co. (``Gren''), Shanxi Fengkun Metallurgical Limited 
Company and Shanxi Fengkun Foundry Limited Company (``Fengkun''), 
Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co., Ltd. (``Yinghao''), Laizhou Auto Brake 
Equipment Company (``LABEC''), Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing 
Co., Ltd. (``Winhere''), Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. 
(``Haimeng''), Laizhou Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd. (``Luqi''), Laizhou 
Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co. (``Hongda''), Hongfa Machinery 
(``Dalian'') Group Co., Ltd. (``Hongfa''), Qingdao Meita Automotive 
Industry Co., Ltd. (``Meita''), and Shandong Huanri (``Group'') General 
Company, Shandong Huanri Group Co., Ltd., and Laizhou Huanri Automobile 
Parts Co., Ltd. (``Huanri''). Additionally, we received a case brief on 
behalf of Wecly International, an importer of subject merchandise, on 
June 19, 2006.
    On June 22, 2006, we requested that all mandatory respondents in 
the administrative and new shipper reviews submit consumption data, for 
the POR, for both bentonite and coal powder. On July 5, 2006, we 
received responses to our June 22, 2006, questionnaire from Haimeng, 
Xiangfen Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd. (``Hengtai''), Hongfa, Meita, 
Winhere and Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (``SZAP''). On July 
11, 2006, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and from 
LABEC, Winhere, Haimeng, Luqi, Hongda, Hongfa, Meita, and Huanri 
(collectively, the ``Trade Pacific respondents'').
    On July 10, 2006, we issued a request for comments on the 
Department's proposed methodology to value bentonite and coal powder as 
direct materials, as well as the consumption data obtained from 
respondents. On July 17, 2006, the Trade Pacific respondents and the 
petitioner each filed comments. On July 24, 2006, both the Trade 
Pacific respondents and the petitioner filed rebuttal comments.
    In the case and rebuttal briefs received from the parties after the 
Preliminary Results/Intent to Rescind, we received extensive comments 
on the Department's decision to select respondents via sampling. For 
further details on these comments, as well as others, and the 
Department's positions on each, please see the memorandum to David M. 
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. 
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding 
Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the 2004/2005 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the 
People's Republic of China (November 6, 2006) (``Decision Memorandum'') 
and the company-specific analysis memoranda, which are on file in 
Import Administration's Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the 
Department of Commerce building. The Decision Memorandum is also 
available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are brake rotors made of gray 
cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in 
diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight 
from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters 
(weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the 
following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, 
vans and recreational vehicles under ``one ton and a half,'' and light 
trucks designated as ``one ton and a half.''
    Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and 
installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are 
those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and have

[[Page 66305]]

undergone some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those that have 
undergone some grinding or turning.
    These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in 
the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (``OEM'') that 
produces vehicles sold in the United States. (e.g., General Motors, 
Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in this 
order are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the United 
States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that are made of 
gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but otherwise meet the 
above criteria. Excluded from the scope of this order are brake rotors 
made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, 
with a diameter less than 8 inches or greater than 16 inches (less than 
20.32 centimeters or greater than 40.64 centimeters) and a weight less 
than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less than 3.63 kilograms or 
greater than 20.41 kilograms).
    Brake rotors are currently classifiable under subheading 
8708.39.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'').\1\ Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
of this order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As of January 1, 2005, the HTS classification for brake 
rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.50.10 to 8708.39.50.30. See 
HTSUS (2005), available at www.usitc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    We are rescinding the administrative review with respect to Longkou 
Jinzheng Machinery Co., Ltd.; Xianghe Xumingyuan Auto Parts Co.; 
National Automotive Industry Import & Export Corporation or China 
National Automotive Industry Import & Export Corporation, and 
manufactured by any company other than Shandong Laizhou Capco Industry; 
Shandong Laizhou Capco Industry, and manufactured by any company other 
than Shandong Laizhou Capco Industry; Laizhou Luyuan Automobile 
Fittings Co., and manufactured by any company other than Laizhou Luyuan 
Automobile Fittings Co. or Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd.; 
Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd., and manufactured by any company 
other than Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., or Shenyang Honbase 
Machinery Co., Ltd.; Dixion Brake System (Longkou) Ltd.; and Laizhou 
Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. We are rescinding these reviews either 
because we found no evidence that any of these companies made shipments 
of the subject merchandise during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(3), or these companies consented to a rescission of the 
administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j).

Bona Fide Sale Analysis--SZAP

    For the reasons stated below, we continue to find that SZAP's 
reported U.S. sale during the POR does not appear to be a bona fide 
sale, based on the totality of the facts on the record. See, e.g., 
Glycine From The People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty New Shipper Review of Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd., 69 
FR 47405, 47406 (August 5, 2004). In examining the totality of the 
circumstances, the Department examines whether the transaction is 
``commercially reasonable'' or ``atypical.'' See Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Final Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 68 FR 1439, 1440 (January 10, 
2003). Atypical or non-typical in this context means unrepresentative 
of a normal business practice. See Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States, 
110 F. Supp. 2d 992, 995 (CIT 2000). The Department considers a number 
of factors in its bona fides analysis, ``all of which may speak to the 
commercial realities surrounding an alleged sale of subject 
merchandise.'' See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342, (CIT 2005) (``New Donghua'') 
(citation omitted).
    Although some bona fides issues may share commonalities across 
various Department cases, the Department examines the bona fide nature 
of a sale on a case-by-case basis, and the analysis may vary with the 
facts surrounding each sale. See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., 
Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1260 (CIT 2005) (``TTPC'') 
(citing Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review 
and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 2003), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at 20). In TTPC, the court affirmed the 
Department's practice of considering that ``any factor which indicates 
that the sale under consideration is not likely to be typical of those 
which the producer will make in the future is relevant,'' and that 
``the weight given to each factor investigated will depend on the 
circumstances surrounding the sale.'' Id., 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1250, 
1263. In New Donghua, the court upheld the Department's practice of 
``examin{ing{time}  objective, verifiable factors to ensure that a sale 
is not being made to circumvent an antidumping duty order.'' New 
Donghua, 374 F. Supp. 2d at 1339.
    In examining the bona fide nature of SZAP's sale, we find that: 1) 
the difference in the sales price of SZAP's single POR sale as compared 
to the prices of its subsequent sales; 2) the quantity of its single 
POR sale as compared to its subsequent sales; 3) questionable sales 
documentation pertaining to SZAP's U.S. sale; and finally, 4) other 
indicia of a non-bona fide transaction, all demonstrate that the single 
sale under review was not bona fide. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle 
through Christopher D. Riker from Erin C. Begnal regarding Bona Fides 
Analysis and Intent to Rescind New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from 
the People's Republic of China for Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., 
Ltd. (May 1, 2006). Therefore, we find that this sale does not provide 
a reasonable or reliable basis for calculating a dumping margin.
    For the reasons mentioned above, the Department continues to find 
that SZAP's sole U.S. sale during the POR was not a bona fide 
commercial transaction and is rescinding the new shipper review of 
SZAP. See Decision Memorandum, at Comment 10.

Separate Rates

    In our Preliminary Results, we found that all respondents except 
Huanri, Qingdao Rotec Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (``Rotec''), and China 
National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export (Xianjiang) 
Corporation's exports except for those produced by Zibo Botai 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (``Xianjiang/Other than Zibo''), qualified for 
separate rates. Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26741.
    On March 8, 2006, Huanri filed a letter with the Department 
indicating that it wished to cancel the scheduled verification before 
it began. Huanri acknowledged in this letter that it understood, 
because of the verification cancellation, that the Department may find 
that Huanri did not cooperate to the best of its ability, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). 
Therefore, in the preliminary results, the Department found that Huanri 
did not demonstrate a de facto absence of government control with 
respect to making its own decisions in key personnel selections, the 
use of its profits from the proceeds of export sales, and the authority 
to

[[Page 66306]]

negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements. This is consistent 
with the Department's practice. See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of 
China, 59 FR 22585, 22586 (May 2, 1994). Huanri is therefore not 
entitled to a separate rate. See Decision Memorandum, at Comment 11; 
see also Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26741. Because Rotec and 
Xianjiang/Other than Zibo failed to respond to the quantity and value 
questionnaire and did not participate further in this review, we did 
not have the necessary information to determine their separate rate 
status. Therefore, we find that Rotec and Xianjiang/Other than Zibo are 
not eligible to receive separate rates. Because we continue to find 
that Huanri, Rotec, and Xianjiang/Other than Zibo do not qualify for 
separate rates, these respondents are deemed to be part of the PRC-wide 
entity and thus, are subject to the PRC-wide rate.
    The PRC-wide rate will apply to all entries of subject merchandise 
except for entries from PRC producers/exporters that have their own 
calculated rate.

Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(1) of the Act provides that, when necessary 
information is not available on the record, the Department may use the 
facts otherwise available (``FA'') to reach a determination. Section 
776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party or any other 
person: (A) withholds information that has been requested by the 
administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the 
deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and 
manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; 
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the Department shall, subject to section 
782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable results under this title.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department shall promptly inform the party submitting 
the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or 
explain the deficiency. Section 782(d) further states that, if the 
party submits further information that is unsatisfactory or untimely, 
the administering authority may, subject to subsection (e), disregard 
all or part of the original and subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of 
the Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider 
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary 
to make a determination but does not meet all the applicable 
requirements established by the administering authority if (1) the 
information is submitted by the deadline established for its 
submission; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is 
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching 
the applicable results; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that 
it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and 
meeting the requirements established by the administering authority 
with respect to the information; and (5) the information can be used 
without undue difficulties.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the FA, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the 
interests of the respondent if it determines that a party has failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability. Adverse inferences are 
appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See 
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the URAA, H. 
Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session, at 870 (1994).
    In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the best of 
its ability, the Department considers whether a party could comply with 
the request for information, and whether a party paid insufficient 
attention to its statutory duties. See Pacific Giant, Inc. v. United 
States, 223 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1342 (August 6, 2002). The focus of 
section 776(b) of the Act is on a respondent's failure to cooperate to 
the best of its ability, rather than just its failure to provide the 
requested information. See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 
F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). An adverse inference may include 
reliance on information derived from the petition, the final results in 
the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed 
on the record. See Section 776(b) of the Act.

Hengtai

    Hengtai withheld and failed to provide information concerning its 
relationship with SZAP, as well as sales and FOP information for its 
sales of merchandise produced by SZAP. Moreover, by providing 
information that was contradicted by evidence discovered at the 
verification of another company (i.e., SZAP), Hengtai significantly 
impeded the Department's ability to calculate a relevant and meaningful 
margin. Therefore, application of facts available is warranted pursuant 
to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act. Additionally, 
because Hengtai failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by 
withholding necessary information in its possession in response to the 
Department's specific questions, the application of adverse facts 
available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, is also warranted. 
See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Group 9, 
through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Group 
9, from Erin C. Begnal, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Group 9, 
regarding 2004/2005 Antidumping Administrative Review of Brake Rotors 
from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse 
Facts Available to Xiangfen Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd. (May 1, 
2006).

PRC-Wide Entity

    In the initiation notice, the Department stated that if one of the 
companies on which we initiated a review does not qualify for a 
separate rate, all other exporters of brake rotors from the PRC who 
have not qualified for a separate rate will be deemed to be covered by 
this review as part of the single PRC-wide entity of which the named 
exporter is a part. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 
30694 (May 27, 2005). For these final results, Rotec, Xianjiang/Other 
than Zibo, and Huanri are not eligible to receive separate rates and 
are thus considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the 
PRC-wide rate.
    As explained above, the PRC-wide entity (including Rotec, 
Xianjiang/Other than Zibo, and Huanri) did not respond to the 
Department's requests for information and precluded the Department from 
verifying information that was submitted. Therefore, we find that the 
PRC-wide entity withheld requested information from the Department and 
did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Because the PRC-wide 
entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability in the proceeding, 
the Department finds it necessary, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) 
and (D), and 776(b) of the Act, to use adverse facts available as the 
basis for these final results of review for the PRC-wide entity.

[[Page 66307]]

Corroboration

    In accordance with the Department's practice, we have assigned the 
rate for the PRC-wide entity to Hengtai as adverse facts available. 
See, e.g., Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China , 64 FR 61581 
(November 12, 1999), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, 
at comment 1.
    In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the Department 
selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the 
purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide 
the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely 
manner.'' See Final Results of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 
(February 23, 1998). Consistent with section 776(c) of the Act, this 
rate is the highest dumping margin from any segment of this proceeding 
and was established in the less-than-fair-value investigation based on 
information contained in the petition, and corroborated in the final 
results of the first administrative review. See Brake Rotors From the 
People's Republic of China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 64 FR 61581, 61585 (November 12, 1999).
    For the reasons stated in the Preliminary Results, the Department 
continues to find this rate to be both reliable and relevant, and, 
therefore, to have probative value in accordance with the SAA. See SAA, 
at 870; see also Preliminary Results. We received no comments on our 
preliminary analysis of this rate for purposes of these final results. 
Therefore, we determine that the rate of 43.32 percent is still 
reliable, relevant, and, has probative value within the meaning of 
section 776(c) of the Act. Accordingly, for these final results we 
continue to assign the rate of 43.32 percent to Hengtai and the PRC-
wide entity (including Rotec, Xianjiang/Other than Zibo and Huanri) as 
adverse facts available.

Analysis of Comments Received

    A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded 
in the Decision Memorandum, accompanies this notice and is attached as 
Appendix 1. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on the comments received from the interested parties, the 
Department has made company-specific changes to the margin calculation 
for Hongfa. Additionally, based on information submitted since the 
Preliminary Results, some surrogate values have changed. Specifically, 
we have revised the surrogate values for steel scrap, cartons, 
bentonite, coal powder and pallet wood. See Decision Memorandum at 
comments 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following percentage margins exist on exports 
of brake rotors from the PRC for the period April 1, 2004, through 
March 31, 2005:

                        Brake Rotors from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Individually Reviewed Exporters 2004/2005        Weighted-Average
                Administrative Review                  Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd..................                5.29
Xiangfen Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd..............               43.32
Hongfa Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd..................               13.59
Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Company, Ltd......   0.03 (de minimis)
Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd.....   0.01 (de minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ``Sample Rate'' Exporters 2004/2005 Administrative     ``Sample Rate''
                       Review                          Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China National Industrial Machinery Import & Export                 8.90
 Corporation........................................
Laizhou Automobile Brake Equipment Co., Ltd.........                8.90
Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd......                8.90
Laizhou City Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd................                8.90
Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd......................                8.90
Qingdao Gren (Group) Co.............................                8.90
Shanxi Fengkun Metallurgical Limited Company........                8.90
Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co.......................                8.90
Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company.......                8.90
Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts Co., Ltd...............                8.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    PRC-Wide Rate                      Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate.......................................               43.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The PRC-wide entity includes Rotec, Xianjiang/Other than Zibo, and
  Huanri.

    For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-
average margin for each company, see the respective company's Analysis 
Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review 
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's 
Republic of China, November 6, 2006.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and US Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated 
importer- or customer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based 
on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for 
the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. 
Where the respondent did not report actual entered value, we calculated 
individual importer- or customer-specific assessment rates by 
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales 
examined and dividing that amount by the total quantity of the sales 
examined.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, all entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment 
rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). To determine 
whether the per-unit duty assessment rates are de minimis, we 
calculated importer- or customer- specific ad valorem ratios based on 
export prices. The Department will issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these 
final results of review.
    The following deposit rates shall be required for merchandise 
subject to the order, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) and (a)(2)(B) of the Act: (1) the cash 
deposit rate for Meita and Winhere will be zero; (2) the cash deposit 
rate for Haimeng, Hentai, Honfa, and the ``sample rate'' exporters will 
be the rate indicated above; (3) the cash deposit rate for PRC 
exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the 
proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the 
proceeding; (4) the cash deposit rate for

[[Page 66308]]

the PRC NME entity will continue to be the PRC-wide rate (i.e., 43.32 
percent); and (5) the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC 
producer that supplied the exporter.
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and in the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective 
order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
    These results are issued and published in accordance with sections 
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 6, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

List of Issues in Decision Memorandum

General Issues

Comment 1: Sampling Methodology
    A. The Department's Decision to Sample
    B. Probability-Proportional-to-Size Methodology
    C. Including Adverse Facts Available in the Sample Rate
    D. Sampling's Effect on Revocation and Cash Deposit Rates
Comment 2: Surrogate Value for Labor Rate
Comment 3: Surrogate Value for Pig Iron
Comment 4: Surrogate Value for Steel Scrap
Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Plywood
Comment 6: Surrogate Value for Cartons
Comment 7: Bentonite and Carbon Powder as Raw Materials or Overhead 
Expense

Company-Specific Issues

Comment 8: Hongfa - Pallet Wood
Comment 9: Haimeng - Valuation of Components Supplied by U.S. Customers
Comment 10: SZAP - Bona Fides of New Shipper Sale
Comment 11: Hengtai, Rotec and Xianjiang - Denial of Separate Rates
Comment 12: Meita - Valuation of Ferro-Manganese
Comment 13: Cash Deposit Rate for Xianjiang
[FR Doc. E6-19187 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am]
Billing Code: 3510-DS-S