Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 20990-20994 [E7-8121]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
20990
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Notices
Exporter
Supplier
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd ............................
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd ............................
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd ............................
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd ............................
Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd ............................................................
Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd ............................................................
Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd ............................................................
Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation ..................................
Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation ..................................
Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation ..................................
Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation ..................................
Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation ..................................
Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation ..................................
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd ..............................................
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd ..............................................
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd ..............................................
Shanxi Xuanzhong Chemical Industry Co., Ltd ..........................
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd ................................................
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd ................................................
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd ................................................
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd ................................................
Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd ................................................
Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd ................................................
Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd ................................................
United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd ........................
United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd ........................
United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd ........................
Xi’an Shuntong International Trade & Industrials Co., Ltd .........
Xi’an Shuntong International Trade & Industrials Co., Ltd .........
PRC-Wide Rate ..........................................................................
Datong Tri-Star & Power Carbon Plant .....................................
Fu Yuan Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ..........................................
Jing Mao (Dongguan) Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .....................
Xi Li Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .................................................
Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ..............................
Ningxia Guanghua Chemical Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ..........
Ningxia Tianfu Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .................................
Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd ........................
Datong Tianzhao Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .............................
Ningxia Huinong Xingsheng Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ...........
Ningxia Yirong Alloy Iron Co., Ltd .............................................
Ninxia Tongfu Coking Co., Ltd ..................................................
Shanxi Xiaoyi Huanyu Chemicals Co., Ltd ................................
Datong Guanghua Activated Co., Ltd ........................................
Ningxia Guanghua-Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .......
Ningxia Pingluo County YaoFu Activated Carbon Factory .......
Ningxia Pingluo Xuanzhong Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ............
Datong Zuoyun Biyun Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .....................
Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ..........................
Ningxia Xingsheng Coal and Active Carbon Co., Ltd ...............
Pingluo Yu Yang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .............................
Hegongye Ninxia Activated Carbon Factory .............................
Ningxia Pingluo County YaoFu Activated Carbon Plant ...........
Yinchuan Lanqiya Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ...........................
Datong Fu Ping Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ...............................
Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemical Co. Ltd ...........................
Xinhua Chemical Company Ltd .................................................
DaTong Tri-Star & Power Carbon Plant ....................................
Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Company Limited ................
....................................................................................................
This notice constitutes the
antidumping duty order with respect to
certain activated carbon from the PRC
pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act.
Interested parties may contact the
Department’s Central Records Unit,
Room B–099 of the main Commerce
building, for copies of an updated list of
antidumping duty orders currently in
effect.
This order is published in accordance
with section 736(a) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.211.
Dated: April 20, 2007.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–8122 Filed 4–26–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
A–570–875
Non–Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings
from the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting the
third administrative review of the
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
antidumping duty order on non–
malleable cast iron pipe fittings (‘‘NMP
fittings’’) from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the period April
1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. We
preliminarily determine to apply
adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) with
respect to Myland Industrial Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Myland’’), and Buxin Myland
(Foundry) Ltd. (‘‘Buxin’’), which failed
to cooperate to the best of their ability
and failed to demonstrate their
eligibility for a separate rate.
If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of this
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise during
the period of review (‘‘POR’’). 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:
April 27, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karine Gziryan and Mark Manning,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4081
and (202) 482–5253, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
WA margin
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
67.14
228.11
Background
On April 7, 2003, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on NMP fittings
from the PRC. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order: Non–
Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Filings
(Sic.)From the People’s Republic of
China, 68 FR 16765 (April 7, 2003). On
April 3, 2006, the Department published
a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on NMP fittings
from the PRC for the period April 1,
2005, through March 31, 2006. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 71 FR 16549
(April 3, 2006). On April 20, 2006,
Myland and Buxin requested an
administrative review of their sales of
NMP fittings to the United States during
the POR. No other party requested a
review of shipments made by Myland or
Buxin. On April 28, 2006, Ward
Manufacturing, Inc. (‘‘Ward’’), a
domestic producer of NMP fittings,
requested an administrative review of
the sales to the United States during the
POR of subject merchandise produced
and/or exported by Jinan Meide
Corporation (‘‘JMC’’) and Shanghai
Foreign Trade Enterprises Co., Ltd.
(‘‘SFTEC’’). On May 31, 2006, the
Department published in the Federal
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Notices
Register a notice of the initiation of the
antidumping duty administrative review
of NMP fittings from the PRC for the
period April 1, 2005, through March 31,
2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 71 FR 30864 (May 31, 2006)
(‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
On July 25, 2006, Ward timely
withdrew its request for an
administrative review of NMP fittings
from the PRC regarding subject
merchandise produced and/or exported
by JMC and SFTEC. No other interested
party requested a review of JMC and
SFTEC. Therefore, the Department
rescinded this review with respect to
JMC and SFTEC, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(d)(1). See Non–Malleable
Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 55430
(September 22, 2006).
On July 24, 2006, the Department
issued its antidumping questionnaire to
Myland and Buxin. Myland and Buxin
submitted a Section A questionnaire
response on August 11, 2006, and
Sections C and D responses on
September 12, 2006. On December 7,
2006, the Department published a notice
in the Federal Register extending the
time limit for the preliminary results of
review until April 30, 2007. See Non–
Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from
the Peoples’(Sic.) Republic of China;
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
70957 (December 7, 2006). From
November 2006 to February 2007, the
Department issued, and Myland and
Buxin responded to, six supplemental
questionnaires.
The verification of the respondents’
responses was scheduled from March 12
through March 17, 2007. On February
23, 2007, the Department released the
verification agenda to Myland and
Buxin. From March 12 through March
13, 2007, the Department conducted
verification of Myland in Hong Kong.
On March 14, 2007, the verification
team arrived in Guangzhou, China, to
continue verification at Buxin. On that
day, Myland and Buxin refused to allow
the verification team access to Buxin’s
factory, refused to provide the
information requested in the verification
agenda, informed the verification team
that they were unable to continue
participating in the verification, and
withdrew from the verification. See
Memorandum from Karina Gziryan and
Melissa Blackledge, to the File, ‘‘Non–
Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from
the People’s Republic of China -
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
Administrative Review,’’ dated March
27, 2007. Myland and Buxin destroyed
the verification exhibits taken in Hong
Kong, and did not serve those exhibits
on the petitioner or the Department. Id.
On March 21, 2007, Myland and Buxin
filed a letter in which they withdrew
their request to conduct the
administrative review and consented to
the assessment of antidumping duties at
the PRC–wide rate.
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2005, through
March 31, 2006.
Scope of Order
The products subject to this
administrative review are finished and
unfinished non–malleable cast iron pipe
fittings with an inside diameter ranging
from 1/4 inch to 6 inches, whether
threaded or un–threaded, regardless of
industry or proprietary specifications.
The subject fittings include elbows, ells,
tees, crosses, and reducers as well as
flanged fittings. These pipe fittings are
also known as ‘‘cast iron pipe fittings’’
or ‘‘gray iron pipe fittings.’’ These cast
iron pipe fittings are normally produced
to ASTM A–126 and ASME B.l6.4
specifications and are threaded to
ASME B1.20.1 specifications. Most
building codes require that these
products are Underwriters Laboratories
(‘‘UL’’) certified. The scope does not
include cast iron soil pipe fittings or
grooved fittings or grooved couplings.
Fittings that are made out of ductile
iron that have the same physical
characteristics as the gray or cast iron
fittings subject to the scope above or
which have the same physical
characteristics and are produced to
ASME B.16.3, ASME B.16.4, or ASTM
A–395 specifications, threaded to ASME
B1.20.1 specifications and UL certified,
regardless of metallurgical differences
between gray and ductile iron, are also
included in the scope of the order.
These ductile fittings do not include
grooved fittings or grooved couplings.
Ductile cast iron fittings with
mechanical joint ends (‘‘MJ’’), or push
on ends (‘‘PO’’), or flanged ends and
produced to the American Water Works
Association (‘‘AWWA’’) specifications
AWWA C110 or AWWA C153 are not
included.
Imports of subject merchandise are
currently classifiable in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers
7307.11.00.30, 7307.11.00.60,
7307.19.30.60 and 7307.19.30.85.
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes. The
written description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20991
Nonmarket Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a nonmarket
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘the Act’’), any determination that a
foreign country is an NME country shall
remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of 2001–2002 Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission of
Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003)
(unchanged in final results of review).
None of the parties to this proceeding
has contested such treatment. Therefore,
we have treated the PRC as an NME
country for purposes of these
preliminary results.
Request for Withdrawal of
Administrative Review
As noted above, Myland and Buxin
submitted a letter to the Department
withdrawing their request for an
administrative review on March 21,
2007. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),
‘‘the Secretary will rescind an
administrative review under this
section, in whole or in part, if a party
that requested a review withdraws the
request within 90 days of the date of
publication of notice of initiation of the
requested review. The Secretary may
extend this time limit if the Secretary
decides that it is reasonable to do so.’’
The 90-day deadline for withdrawing
from this administrative review expired
on August 29, 2006. Therefore,
Myland’s and Buxin’s request to
withdraw from the administrative
review was submitted after the deadline
established by the Department.
The Department reviewed and
analyzed Myland’s and Buxin’s
response to the Department’s original
questionnaire. As a result of the
respondents’ deficient and/or
incomplete questionnaire responses, the
Department sent six supplemental
questionnaires in an attempt to gather
necessary information from the
respondents. Because of the need to
issue an extensive number of
supplemental questionnaires, the
Department extended the deadline for
the preliminary results. In March 2007,
the Department attempted to verify
Myland’s and Buxin’s responses in their
offices in Hong Kong and China. See
Background section of this notice,
above. The Department expended
considerable effort and resources in its
analysis of Myland and Buxin prior to
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
20992
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Notices
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
their late withdrawal request during an
advanced stage of the review. Therefore,
the Department is not granting the
respondents’ request to withdraw their
request for review. This is consistent
with past Department practice. See
Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof
from France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Singapore, and the United Kingdom:
Preliminary Results Of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial
Rescission Of Administrative Reviews,
Notice Of Intent to Rescind
Administrative Reviews, And Notice Of
Intent To Revoke Order In Part, 69 FR
5949, 5951 (February 9, 2004)
(‘‘Although we have accepted untimely
withdrawals of requests for review
elsewhere, the circumstances
surrounding the review of INA are
different from other situations . . .
{because} we had expended effort and
resources in our analysis of INA prior to
the untimely withdrawal such that we
were quite advanced in the review’’)
(unchanged in final results of review).
See also, Petroleum Wax Candles From
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the 2004–2005
Administrative Review, 71 FR 35613
(June 21, 2006) (unchanged in final
results of review).
Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act
provide that the Department shall apply
‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if necessary
information is not on the record or an
interested party or any other person (A)
withholds information that has been
requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines
established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding, or (D) provides information
that cannot be verified as provided by
section 782(i) of the Act.
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 will so
inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent
practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. If the party fails to remedy
the deficiency within the applicable
time limits and subject to section 782(e)
of the Act, the Department may
disregard all or part of the original and
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
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 the determination but does not meet
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
all applicable requirements established
by the administering authority’’ if the
information is timely, can be verified, is
not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the
best of its ability in providing the
information. Where all of these
conditions are met, the statute requires
the Department to use the information if
it can do so without undue difficulties.
On March 14, 2007, Myland and
Buxin refused to provide information
requested in the verification agenda,
and withdrew from verification.
Moreover, Myland and Buxin destroyed
the verification exhibits and did not
serve these on the petitioner or the
Department. Verification is integral to
the Department’s analysis because it
allows the Department to satisfy itself
that the information upon which the
Department relies in calculating a
margin is accurate and, therefore,
enables the Department to comply with
its mandate to calculate the dumping
margin as accurately as possible. By
refusing the Department’s request for
information in the verification agenda,
failing to allow the Department to verify
the reported data, and not serving the
petitioner or Department with the
verification exhibits taken in Hong
Kong, Myland and Buxin withheld
critical information to be used for the
Department’s separate rate analysis and
margin calculation, significantly
impeded the review, and provided
information that cannot be verified, as
provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
Therefore, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, the
Department must apply facts available
to Myland and Buxin.
By failing to respond to the
Department’s request for information
contained in the verification agenda and
by not allowing the Department to
conduct verification, Myland and Buxin
have not proven they are free of
government control and are, therefore,
not eligible to receive a separate rate.
For this reason, the Department has
denied Myland’s and Buxin’s requests
for separate rates. 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 NMP fittings
from the PRC who have not qualified for
a separate rate are 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 Notice
at footnote 2. For these preliminary
results, Myland and Buxin will be part
of the PRC–wide entity, subject to the
PRC–wide rate. As a result, the
Department determines that it is
necessary to review the single PRC–
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
wide entity, including Myland and
Buxin, in this segment of the
proceeding.
The PRC–wide entity, including
Myland and Buxin, withheld
information requested in the verification
agenda, significantly impeded the
review, and did not provide verifiable
information to the Department. Pursuant
to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of
the Act, the Department must resort to
the facts otherwise available with
respect to the PRC–wide entity.
Adverse Inferences
Section 776(b) of the Act further
provides that the Department may use
an adverse inference in applying the
facts otherwise available when a party
has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. 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 Uruguay
Round Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’), H.R.
Rep. No. 103–316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 870.
Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes
the Department to use as adverse facts
available (‘‘AFA’’), information derived
from the petition, the final
determination, a previous
administrative review, or other
information placed on the record.
As explained above, the PRC–wide
entity, including Myland and Buxin,
refused to provide the Department with
verification information and would not
permit the Department to verify
information placed on the record.
Therefore, the PRC–wide entity 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 section 776(b) of
the Act, to use an adverse inference in
applying facts available as the basis for
these preliminary results of review for
the PRC–wide entity.
In this segment of the proceeding, in
accordance with Department practice
(see, e.g., 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, 61584 (November
12, 1999)), as AFA, we have assigned to
exports of the subject merchandise by
the PRC–wide entity (including Myland
and Buxin) a rate of 75.50 percent,
which is the rate established for the
PRC–wide entity in the less than fair
value investigation. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Notices
Fair Value: Non–Malleable Cast Iron
Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic
of China, 68 FR 7765 (February 18,
2003) (‘‘Final Determination’’). The
respondents, Myland and Buxin,
consented to the assessment of
antidumping duties for the period of
April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006, at the
PRC–wide rate. See Letter from Myland
and Buxin to the Department, ‘‘Non–
Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from
the People’s Republic of China Administrative Review,’’ dated March
21, 2007.
Corroboration
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review, it shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
that are reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751
concerning the subject merchandise. See
SAA accompanying the URAA at 870.
Corroborate means that the Department
will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative
value. See SAA at 870. To corroborate
secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine
the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. The Department,
however, need not prove that the
selected facts available are the best
alternative information. See SAA at 869.
To satisfy itself that the secondary
information has probative value the
Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information used. See
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished From
Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings
Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof,
From Japan; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Partial Termination of
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391,
57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged
in final results of review). Independent
sources used to corroborate such
evidence may include, for example,
published price lists, official import
statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested
parties during the particular
investigation. See Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: High and Ultra–High
Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators
from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003)
(unchanged in final determination);
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine
From Canada, 70 FR 12181 (March 11,
2005).
The reliability of the AFA rate was
determined in the final determination of
the investigation. See Final
Determination. The Department has
received no information to date that
warrants revisiting the issue of the
reliability of the rate calculation itself.
See, e.g., 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, 41307–41308 (July
11, 2003). No information has been
presented in the current review that
calls into question the reliability of this
information. Thus, the Department finds
that the information contained in the
investigation is reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect
of corroboration, the Department will
consider information reasonably at its
disposal to determine whether a 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.
For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers From
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812
(February 22, 1996), the Department
disregarded the highest margin in that
case as adverse best information
available (the predecessor to facts
available) 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. See D&L
Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d
1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (ruling that
the Department will not use a margin
that has been judicially invalidated).
Nothing on the record of this review
calls into question the relevance of the
margin selected as AFA. Further, the
selected margin is currently the PRC–
wide rate. Moreover, this rate has not
been invalidated judicially. Thus, it is
appropriate to use the selected rate as
AFA in the instant review. Therefore,
we determine that the rate from the
Final Determination continues to be
relevant for use in this administrative
review.
As the recalculated Final
Determination rate is both reliable and
relevant, we determine that it has
probative value. As a result, the
Department determines that the Final
Determination rate of 75.50 percent,
which is the highest rate from any
segment of this administrative
proceeding, has probative value and,
thus, meets the corroboration
requirement of section 776(c) of the Act.
As noted above, Myland and Buxin
consented to the assessment of
antidumping duties for the period of
April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006, at the
PRC–wide rate.
Weighted–Average Dumping Margin
As a result of our review, we
preliminarily determine that the
following margin exists for the period
April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006:
Manufacturer/Exporter
Period
PRC–Wide Entity(including Myland Industrial Co., Ltd., and Buxin Myland (Foundry) Ltd.) ............
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Disclosure
The Department will disclose all
documents relied upon in these
preliminary results to the parties within
five days of the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b). Any interested party may
request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of these preliminary results.
See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Apr 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
requested, will be held two days after
the scheduled date for submission of
rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
Interested parties may submit case briefs
and/or written comments no later than
30 days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results of review. See
19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs
and rebuttals to written comments,
limited to issues raised in such briefs or
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20993
4/1/2005 - 3/31/2006
Margin (percent)
75.50
comments, may be filed no later than 35
days after the date of publication. See 19
CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties
submitting written comments should
provide the Department with an
additional copy of those comments on
diskette. The Department will issue the
final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of
its analysis of issues raised in any such
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
20994
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Notices
comments, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results,
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act.
Assessment Rates
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of the final
results of this administrative review. If
these preliminary results are adopted in
our final results of review, we will
direct CBP to assess the resulting rate
against the entered customs value for
the subject merchandise on each
importer’s/customer’s entries during the
POR.
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 the subject merchandise 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) the cash
deposit rate for Myland and Buxin will
be the rate listed in the final results of
review; (2) for previously investigated
companies not listed above, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
company–specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) the cash deposit
rate for all other PRC exporters will be
75.50 percent; and (4) the cash deposit
rate for all non–PRC exporters will be
the rate applicable to the PRC exporter
that supplied that exporter. These cash
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary 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 the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these
preliminary results of review in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.221(b).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Apr 26, 2007
Dated: April 23, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–8121 Filed 4–26–07; 8:45 am]
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–570–886)
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
the People’s Republic of China; Notice
of Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev
Primor and Maisha Cryor, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4114 and (202)
482–5831, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On September 29, 2006, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published a notice of
initiation of administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on
polyethylene retail carrier bags from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 71 FR 57465 (September 29,
2006). The period of review is August 1,
2005, through July 31, 2006. The
preliminary results of this
administrative review are currently due
no later than May 3, 2007.
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’),
the Department shall make a
preliminary determination in an
administrative review of an
antidumping order within 245 days after
the last day of the anniversary month of
the date of publication of the order.
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further
provides, however, that the Department
may extend the 245-day period to 365
days if it determines it is not practicable
to complete the review within the
foregoing time period. The Department
determines that it is not practicable to
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
complete this administrative review
within the time limits mandated by
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act because
this review involves examining a
number of complex issues related to
sales information and to factors of
production. The Department requires
additional time to issue and analyze
supplemental questionnaires regarding
these issues. Therefore, in accordance
with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the
Department is extending the time period
for completing the preliminary results of
this administrative review until August
31, 2007, which is 365 days from the
last day of the anniversary month of the
date of publication of the order. The
deadline for the final results of the
review continues to be 120 days after
the publication of the preliminary
results.
This extension notice is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: April 23, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–8130 Filed 4–26–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 042307G]
Marine Mammals; File No. 814–1899
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; receipt of application.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
North Slope Borough Department of
Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 69,
Barrow, AK 99723 [Dr. Cheryl Rosa,
Principal Investigator] has applied in
due form for a permit to obtain and
collect marine mammal parts/samples
for the purpose of scientific research.
DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail
comments must be received on or before
May 29, 2007.
ADDRESSES: The application and related
documents are available for review
upon written request or by appointment
in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room
13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone
(301)713–2289; fax (301)427–2521; and
Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box
21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668; phone
(907)586–7221; fax (907)586–7249.
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 81 (Friday, April 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20990-20994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8121]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-570-875
Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on non-
malleable cast iron pipe fittings (``NMP fittings'') from the People's
Republic of China (``PRC'') covering the period April 1, 2005, through
March 31, 2006. We preliminarily determine to apply adverse facts
available (``AFA'') with respect to Myland Industrial Co., Ltd.
(``Myland''), and Buxin Myland (Foundry) Ltd. (``Buxin''), which failed
to cooperate to the best of their ability and failed to demonstrate
their eligibility for a separate rate.
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of
subject merchandise during the period of review (``POR''). 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: April 27, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan and Mark Manning,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4081 and (202) 482-5253,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 7, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on NMP fittings from the PRC. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order: Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Filings (Sic.)From
the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 16765 (April 7, 2003). On April
3, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on NMP fittings
from the PRC for the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 71 FR
16549 (April 3, 2006). On April 20, 2006, Myland and Buxin requested an
administrative review of their sales of NMP fittings to the United
States during the POR. No other party requested a review of shipments
made by Myland or Buxin. On April 28, 2006, Ward Manufacturing, Inc.
(``Ward''), a domestic producer of NMP fittings, requested an
administrative review of the sales to the United States during the POR
of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Jinan Meide
Corporation (``JMC'') and Shanghai Foreign Trade Enterprises Co., Ltd.
(``SFTEC''). On May 31, 2006, the Department published in the Federal
[[Page 20991]]
Register a notice of the initiation of the antidumping duty
administrative review of NMP fittings from the PRC for the period April
1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation
in Part, 71 FR 30864 (May 31, 2006) (``Initiation Notice'').
On July 25, 2006, Ward timely withdrew its request for an
administrative review of NMP fittings from the PRC regarding subject
merchandise produced and/or exported by JMC and SFTEC. No other
interested party requested a review of JMC and SFTEC. Therefore, the
Department rescinded this review with respect to JMC and SFTEC, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe
Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 55430
(September 22, 2006).
On July 24, 2006, the Department issued its antidumping
questionnaire to Myland and Buxin. Myland and Buxin submitted a Section
A questionnaire response on August 11, 2006, and Sections C and D
responses on September 12, 2006. On December 7, 2006, the Department
published a notice in the Federal Register extending the time limit for
the preliminary results of review until April 30, 2007. See Non-
Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the Peoples'(Sic.) Republic of
China; Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 70957 (December 7, 2006).
From November 2006 to February 2007, the Department issued, and Myland
and Buxin responded to, six supplemental questionnaires.
The verification of the respondents' responses was scheduled from
March 12 through March 17, 2007. On February 23, 2007, the Department
released the verification agenda to Myland and Buxin. From March 12
through March 13, 2007, the Department conducted verification of Myland
in Hong Kong. On March 14, 2007, the verification team arrived in
Guangzhou, China, to continue verification at Buxin. On that day,
Myland and Buxin refused to allow the verification team access to
Buxin's factory, refused to provide the information requested in the
verification agenda, informed the verification team that they were
unable to continue participating in the verification, and withdrew from
the verification. See Memorandum from Karina Gziryan and Melissa
Blackledge, to the File, ``Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from
the People's Republic of China - Administrative Review,'' dated March
27, 2007. Myland and Buxin destroyed the verification exhibits taken in
Hong Kong, and did not serve those exhibits on the petitioner or the
Department. Id. On March 21, 2007, Myland and Buxin filed a letter in
which they withdrew their request to conduct the administrative review
and consented to the assessment of antidumping duties at the PRC-wide
rate.
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006.
Scope of Order
The products subject to this administrative review are finished and
unfinished non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings with an inside
diameter ranging from 1/4 inch to 6 inches, whether threaded or un-
threaded, regardless of industry or proprietary specifications. The
subject fittings include elbows, ells, tees, crosses, and reducers as
well as flanged fittings. These pipe fittings are also known as ``cast
iron pipe fittings'' or ``gray iron pipe fittings.'' These cast iron
pipe fittings are normally produced to ASTM A-126 and ASME B.l6.4
specifications and are threaded to ASME B1.20.1 specifications. Most
building codes require that these products are Underwriters
Laboratories (``UL'') certified. The scope does not include cast iron
soil pipe fittings or grooved fittings or grooved couplings.
Fittings that are made out of ductile iron that have the same
physical characteristics as the gray or cast iron fittings subject to
the scope above or which have the same physical characteristics and are
produced to ASME B.16.3, ASME B.16.4, or ASTM A-395 specifications,
threaded to ASME B1.20.1 specifications and UL certified, regardless of
metallurgical differences between gray and ductile iron, are also
included in the scope of the order. These ductile fittings do not
include grooved fittings or grooved couplings. Ductile cast iron
fittings with mechanical joint ends (``MJ''), or push on ends (``PO''),
or flanged ends and produced to the American Water Works Association
(``AWWA'') specifications AWWA C110 or AWWA C153 are not included.
Imports of subject merchandise are currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item
numbers 7307.11.00.30, 7307.11.00.60, 7307.19.30.60 and 7307.19.30.85.
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes.
The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Nonmarket Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a nonmarket economy (``NME'') country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), any determination that a foreign country is an
NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering
authority. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR
7500 (February 14, 2003) (unchanged in final results of review). None
of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment.
Therefore, we have treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of
these preliminary results.
Request for Withdrawal of Administrative Review
As noted above, Myland and Buxin submitted a letter to the
Department withdrawing their request for an administrative review on
March 21, 2007. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), ``the Secretary will
rescind an administrative review under this section, in whole or in
part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within
90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the
requested review. The Secretary may extend this time limit if the
Secretary decides that it is reasonable to do so.'' The 90-day deadline
for withdrawing from this administrative review expired on August 29,
2006. Therefore, Myland's and Buxin's request to withdraw from the
administrative review was submitted after the deadline established by
the Department.
The Department reviewed and analyzed Myland's and Buxin's response
to the Department's original questionnaire. As a result of the
respondents' deficient and/or incomplete questionnaire responses, the
Department sent six supplemental questionnaires in an attempt to gather
necessary information from the respondents. Because of the need to
issue an extensive number of supplemental questionnaires, the
Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results. In March
2007, the Department attempted to verify Myland's and Buxin's responses
in their offices in Hong Kong and China. See Background section of this
notice, above. The Department expended considerable effort and
resources in its analysis of Myland and Buxin prior to
[[Page 20992]]
their late withdrawal request during an advanced stage of the review.
Therefore, the Department is not granting the respondents' request to
withdraw their request for review. This is consistent with past
Department practice. See Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom:
Preliminary Results Of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial
Rescission Of Administrative Reviews, Notice Of Intent to Rescind
Administrative Reviews, And Notice Of Intent To Revoke Order In Part,
69 FR 5949, 5951 (February 9, 2004) (``Although we have accepted
untimely withdrawals of requests for review elsewhere, the
circumstances surrounding the review of INA are different from other
situations . . . {because{time} we had expended effort and resources
in our analysis of INA prior to the untimely withdrawal such that we
were quite advanced in the review'') (unchanged in final results of
review). See also, Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of the 2004-2005 Administrative Review, 71
FR 35613 (June 21, 2006) (unchanged in final results of review).
Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if necessary information is
not on the record or an interested party or any other person (A)
withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D)
provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section
782(i) of the Act.
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 will so inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. 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 the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements
established by the administering authority'' if the information is
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the
statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so
without undue difficulties.
On March 14, 2007, Myland and Buxin refused to provide information
requested in the verification agenda, and withdrew from verification.
Moreover, Myland and Buxin destroyed the verification exhibits and did
not serve these on the petitioner or the Department. Verification is
integral to the Department's analysis because it allows the Department
to satisfy itself that the information upon which the Department relies
in calculating a margin is accurate and, therefore, enables the
Department to comply with its mandate to calculate the dumping margin
as accurately as possible. By refusing the Department's request for
information in the verification agenda, failing to allow the Department
to verify the reported data, and not serving the petitioner or
Department with the verification exhibits taken in Hong Kong, Myland
and Buxin withheld critical information to be used for the Department's
separate rate analysis and margin calculation, significantly impeded
the review, and provided information that cannot be verified, as
provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, the Department must apply facts
available to Myland and Buxin.
By failing to respond to the Department's request for information
contained in the verification agenda and by not allowing the Department
to conduct verification, Myland and Buxin have not proven they are free
of government control and are, therefore, not eligible to receive a
separate rate. For this reason, the Department has denied Myland's and
Buxin's requests for separate rates. 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 NMP
fittings from the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate are
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 Notice at
footnote 2. For these preliminary results, Myland and Buxin will be
part of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate. As a result,
the Department determines that it is necessary to review the single
PRC-wide entity, including Myland and Buxin, in this segment of the
proceeding.
The PRC-wide entity, including Myland and Buxin, withheld
information requested in the verification agenda, significantly impeded
the review, and did not provide verifiable information to the
Department. Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act,
the Department must resort to the facts otherwise available with
respect to the PRC-wide entity.
Adverse Inferences
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. 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 Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316,
Vol. 1 (1994) at 870. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the
Department to use as adverse facts available (``AFA''), information
derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous
administrative review, or other information placed on the record.
As explained above, the PRC-wide entity, including Myland and
Buxin, refused to provide the Department with verification information
and would not permit the Department to verify information placed on the
record. Therefore, the PRC-wide entity 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 section 776(b) of the Act, to use an adverse inference in
applying facts available as the basis for these preliminary results of
review for the PRC-wide entity.
In this segment of the proceeding, in accordance with Department
practice (see, e.g., 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, 61584 (November 12, 1999)), as AFA, we have assigned to exports
of the subject merchandise by the PRC-wide entity (including Myland and
Buxin) a rate of 75.50 percent, which is the rate established for the
PRC-wide entity in the less than fair value investigation. See Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
[[Page 20993]]
Fair Value: Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's
Republic of China, 68 FR 7765 (February 18, 2003) (``Final
Determination''). The respondents, Myland and Buxin, consented to the
assessment of antidumping duties for the period of April 1, 2005 to
March 31, 2006, at the PRC-wide rate. See Letter from Myland and Buxin
to the Department, ``Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the
People's Republic of China - Administrative Review,'' dated March 21,
2007.
Corroboration
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise. See SAA accompanying the URAA at 870. Corroborate
means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. To
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information
to be used. The Department, however, need not prove that the selected
facts available are the best alternative information. See SAA at 869.
To satisfy itself that the secondary information has probative
value the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the
reliability and relevance of the information used. See Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished From Japan, and
Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and
Components Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged in final
results of review). Independent sources used to corroborate such
evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official
import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from
interested parties during the particular investigation. See Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and
Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR
35627 (June 16, 2003) (unchanged in final determination); Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From
Canada, 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005).
The reliability of the AFA rate was determined in the final
determination of the investigation. See Final Determination. The
Department has received no information to date that warrants revisiting
the issue of the reliability of the rate calculation itself. See, e.g.,
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, 41307-41308 (July 11, 2003). No
information has been presented in the current review that calls into
question the reliability of this information. Thus, the Department
finds that the information contained in the investigation is reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether a 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. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico:
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to
facts available) 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. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (ruling that the Department will not use a margin that
has been judicially invalidated). Nothing on the record of this review
calls into question the relevance of the margin selected as AFA.
Further, the selected margin is currently the PRC-wide rate. Moreover,
this rate has not been invalidated judicially. Thus, it is appropriate
to use the selected rate as AFA in the instant review. Therefore, we
determine that the rate from the Final Determination continues to be
relevant for use in this administrative review.
As the recalculated Final Determination rate is both reliable and
relevant, we determine that it has probative value. As a result, the
Department determines that the Final Determination rate of 75.50
percent, which is the highest rate from any segment of this
administrative proceeding, has probative value and, thus, meets the
corroboration requirement of section 776(c) of the Act. As noted above,
Myland and Buxin consented to the assessment of antidumping duties for
the period of April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006, at the PRC-wide rate.
Weighted-Average Dumping Margin
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margin exists for the period April 1, 2005, through March 31,
2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Period Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Entity(including 4/1/2005 - 3/31/2006 75.50
Myland Industrial Co.,
Ltd., and Buxin Myland
(Foundry) Ltd.)............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
The Department will disclose all documents relied upon in these
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if
requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for
submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested
parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of
review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to
written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments,
may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. See
19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties submitting written comments should
provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on
diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in any such
[[Page 20994]]
comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results,
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final
results of this administrative review. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess
the resulting rate against the entered customs value for the subject
merchandise on each importer's/customer's entries during the POR.
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 the subject merchandise 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) the cash deposit
rate for Myland and Buxin will be the rate listed in the final results
of review; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) the cash deposit rate for all
other PRC exporters will be 75.50 percent; and (4) the cash deposit
rate for all non-PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporter that supplied that exporter. These cash deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19
CFR 351.221(b).
Dated: April 23, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-8121 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
