Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Eighth Administrative Review, 26595-26600 [E7-9040]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices
and the terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(c), 752,
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 3, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–9038 Filed 5–9–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–504]
Petroleum Wax Candles from the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of the Eighth
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is currently
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on
petroleum wax candles from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)
covering the period August 1, 2005,
through July 31, 2006. This review
covers imports of subject merchandise
from one manufacturer/exporter:
Deseado International, Ltd. (‘‘Deseado’’).
If these preliminary results are adopted
in our final results of review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries in accordance with these results.
We invite interested parties to comment
on these preliminary review results and
will issue the final review results no
later than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Irene Gorelik, 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)
482–6905.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Background
On August 28, 1986, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on petroleum
wax candles from the PRC. See
Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum
Wax Candles From the People’s
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 May 09, 2007
Jkt 211001
Republic of China, 51 FR 30686 (August
28, 1986) (‘‘Candles Order’’).
On August 31, 2006, Deseado
submitted a timely request for an
administrative review. On September
29, 2006, in response to Deseado’s
request and in accordance with section
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the ‘‘Act’’), and section
351.213(b) of the Department’s
regulations, the Department initiated the
eighth administrative review of
petroleum wax candles from the PRC on
14 companies.1 See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 57465
(September 29, 2006).
On October 12, 2006, the Department
issued a Q&V questionnaire to Deseado
and the other 13 companies upon which
we initiated the review.2 On October 30,
2006, the Department sent a letter to
Deseado notifying the company of its
failure to submit a Q&V questionnaire
response by the deadline date.3 We
provided Deseado with a new deadline
of November 3, 2006, to submit a Q&V
questionnaire response, which Deseado
timely submitted. On December 7, 2006,
the Department issued its standard non–
market economy (‘‘NME’’) questionnaire
to Deseado. On January 4, 2007,
Deseado submitted its section A
response to the Department’s
antidumping duty questionnaire.4 In its
section A questionnaire response,
Deseado informed the Department that
it is a trading company/exporter of the
merchandise under consideration with
an unaffiliated manufacturer/supplier in
the PRC.5
1 The following companies upon which we
initiated an administrative review, except Deseado,
withdrew their requests for review after the
issuance of the quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’)
questionnaire: Amstar Business Company Limited
(‘‘Amstar’’), Apex Enterprises International Ltd.
(‘‘Apex’’) and Apex’s producer, Golden Industrial
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Golden’’), Fuzhou Eastown Arts Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Fuzhou’’), Gift Creative Company, Ltd. (‘‘Gift’’),
Maverick Enterprise Co., Ltd. (‘‘Maverick’’) and
Maverick’s producer Great Founder International
Co. (‘‘Great Founder’’), Qingdao Kingking Applied
Chemistry Co., Ltd. (‘‘KingKing’’), Shantou Jinyuan
Mingfeng Handicraft Co. (‘‘Shantou Jinyuan’’),
Shanghai Shen Hong Arts and Crafts Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Shen Hong’’) and Shen Hong’s producer Shanghai
Changran Enterprise, Ltd . (‘‘Changran’’), Shenzhen
Sam Lick Manufactory (and affiliated exporter
Prudential (HK) Candles Manufacturing Co., Ltd).
(‘‘Sam Lick,’’ collectively), Transfar International
Corp. (‘‘Transfar’’);
2 The original deadline for the quantity and value
questionnaire was October 26, 2006.
3 See Letter dated October 30, 2006, to Deseado
regarding the missed deadline for Q&V
questionnaire response.
4 Sections A (Organization, Accounting Practices,
Markets and Merchandise), C (Sales to the United
States), D (Factors of Production), E (Cost of Further
Manufacturing Performed in the United States) and
Sales and Factors of Production Reconciliations.
5 See Deseado’s Section A questionnaire response
dated January 4, 2007, at 19.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26595
On January 8, 2007, the National
Candle Association (‘‘Petitioner’’)
submitted deficiency comments with
respect to Deseado’s Separate Rates
Application. On January 26, 2007,
Petitioner submitted additional
deficiency comments with respect to
Deseado’s separate rates application and
its section A response.
On January 29, 2007, Deseado
submitted the CBP 7501 entry
summaries for its sales of subject
merchandise to the United States, as
requested by the Department, as well as
its sections C and D questionnaire
responses. On February 6, 2007,
Petitioner submitted deficiency
comments with respect to Deseado’s
section C response. On February 16,
2007, Petitioner submitted additional
deficiency comments regarding
Deseado’s section C response relative to
Deseado’s submission of its CBP 7501
entry summaries. On February 16, 2007,
the Department issued a supplemental
section A questionnaire to Deseado. On
March 6, 2007, Deseado submitted its
supplemental section A response.
On March 8, 2007, the Department
issued a letter to Deseado stating that,
upon review of Deseado’s sections C
and D questionnaire responses, Deseado
had not provided any data that the
Department could use to calculate an
antidumping duty margin. The
Department provided instructions
within this letter for Deseado to correct
its data deficiencies by March 19, 2007.
On March 19, 2007, Deseado informed
the Department that it was unable to
provide the information requested by
the Department in the March 8, 2007,
letter.6 On April 3, 2007, Petitioner
submitted a request to terminate the
administrative review with respect to
Deseado. On April 10, 2007, Deseado
submitted a letter stating that because it
was the only party to have requested the
administrative review, Petitioner had no
grounds upon which to request a
termination of the administrative
review.
Period of Review
The period of review (‘‘POR’’) covers
August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by Candles
Order are certain scented or unscented
petroleum wax candles made from
petroleum wax and having fiber or
paper–cored wicks. They are sold in the
following shapes: tapers, spirals, and
6 In its March 19, 2007, letter, Deseado stated that
it was unable to provide the information requested
in the Department’s March 8, 2007, letter due to its
supplier’s unwillingness to cooperate and provide
the information.
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
26596
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices
straight–sided dinner candles; round,
columns, pillars, votives; and various
wax–filled containers. The products
were classified under the Tariff
Schedules of the United States
(‘‘TSUS’’) 755.25, Candles and Tapers.
The product covered are currently
classified under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) item 3406.00.00. Although
the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience purposes, our written
description remains dispositive. See
Candles Order and Notice of Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review: Petroleum Wax
Candles from the People’s Republic of
China, 69 FR 77990 (December 29,
2004).
(February 10, 2006). None of the parties
to this proceeding has contested such
treatment.
Non–Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a NME country.
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the
Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See Freshwater
Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 7013
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department begins with a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty deposit rate (i.e., a PRC–wide rate).
In its separate rates application,
Deseado reported that it is owned
wholly by an entity located and
registered in a market–economy country
(i.e., Hong Kong). Thus, because we
have no evidence indicating that
Deseado is under the control of the PRC
government, a separate–rate analysis is
not necessary to determine whether it is
independent from government control.
See Brake Rotors From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Fifth New Shipper
Review, 66 FR 44331 (Aug. 23, 2001),
results unchanged from Brake Rotors
From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Fifth New Shipper Review,
66 FR 29080, 29081 (May 29, 2001)
(where the respondent was wholly
owned by a U.S. registered company);
Brake Rotors From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Fourth New
Shipper Review and Rescission of Third
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 66 FR 27063 (May 16, 2001)
(where the respondent was wholly
owned by a company located in Hong
Kong), results unchanged from Brake
Rotors From the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of the Fourth New Shipper
Review and Rescission of the Third
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8,
2001); and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from
the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR
71104, 71105 (Dec. 20, 1999) (‘‘Creatine
from the PRC’’) (where the respondent
was wholly owned by persons located
in Hong Kong).
7 On October 25, 2006, Nantucket Distributing
Co., Inc., a U.S. importer, withdrew request for
administrative reviews with respect to Sam Lick; on
October 26, 2006, KingKing, withdrew its request
for an administrative review; on October 25, 2006,
Amstar withdrew its request for an administrative
review; on October 26, 2007, Specialty Merchandise
Corporation (≥SMC≥), a U.S. importer withdrew its
request for administrative reviews with respect to
Fuzhou, Gift, Maverick (and its producer Great),
Shantou Jinyuan, Shen Hong (and its producer
Changran), and Transfar; on November 22, 2006,
SMC withdrew its request for administrative
reviews with respect to Apex (and its producer,
Golden).
Application of Adverse Facts Available
As discussed further below, pursuant
to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C),
and 776(b) of the Act, the Department
preliminarily determines that the use of
total adverse facts available is warranted
for Deseado. Section 776(a)(2) of the
Act, provides that, if an interested party
(A) withholds information that has been
requested by the Department; (B) fails to
provide such information in a timely
manner or in the form or manner
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Partial Rescission of Administrative
Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary must rescind an
administrative review if a party
requesting a review withdraws the
request within ninety (90) days of the
date of publication of the notice of
initiation. As noted above, thirteen
companies upon which the Department
initiated an administrative review
submitted timely withdrawals of their
requests for review, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).7 No interested
party provided any comments on the
withdrawals. Therefore, because no
other interested party requested a
review of these companies, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),
and consistent with our practice, we are
rescinding the administrative review of
these thirteen companies for the POR.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 May 09, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requested subject to sections 782(c)(1)
and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly
impedes a proceeding; or (D) provides
such information but the information
cannot be verified, the Department
shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the
Act, use facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides
that if an interested party ‘‘promptly
after receiving a request from {the
Department} for information, notifies
{the Department} that such party is
unable to submit the information
requested in the requested form and
manner, together with a full explanation
and suggested alternative form in which
such party is able to submit the
information,’’ the Department may
modify the requirements to avoid
imposing an unreasonable burden on
that party.
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 the
requirements listed in 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 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.
Use of Facts Available
We find that, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, we
should apply facts available to exports
by Deseado because Deseado (1) failed
to provide information requested by the
Department; (2) failed to report in a
timely manner information that was
requested by the Department; and (3)
significantly impeded the proceeding.
As discussed above, the Department
reviewed Deseado’s section C and D
questionnaire responses, which should
have contained detailed information
regarding Deseado’s sales of subject
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
merchandise to the United States and
factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) data,
respectively.
Deseado failed to provide accurate or
complete information with respect to:
(1) A sales reconciliation, as requested;
(2) data fields in the sales database that
are supposed to contain sale–specific
data were instead populated with
information other than numerical data,
which renders the database unuseable;
(3) payment data for each sale invoice
amount of subject merchandise sold to
the United States; and (4) inland freight,
which was reported as an estimation of
distance rather than an accurate
reporting of inland freight distance for
each sale to the United States.8
Consequently, the breadth of the
deficient, incorrect, or missing data
alone forced the Department to send its
letter dated March 8, 2007, to enumerate
the deficiencies and receive a response
upon which we could conduct an
accurate analysis of Deseado’s POR sales
to the United States. As discussed
below, the Department attempted to
provide Deseado with an opportunity to
remedy the deficiencies contained
within its original section C response.
In the March 8, 2007, letter to
Deseado, the Department stated that
Deseado’s sales data was unusable in
the format in which it was submitted.
Specifically, Deseado’s sales data
included a control number assigned to
each sale that did not contain any
physical characteristics of the
merchandise under consideration, as
requested by the Department in its
initial questionnaire.9 The Department’s
March 8, 2007, letter provided the steps
necessary for Deseado to reconstruct its
CONNUM methodology into a format
that is specific to the physical
characteristics of the subject
merchandise, which would reconcile to
the FOPs used in manufacturing the
8 See Deseado’s section C questionnaire response
(‘‘SCQR’’) dated January 29, 2007, at C-9 through C11 and Exhibit C-1.
9 The control number (‘‘CONNUM’’) is assigned to
each unique product reported in the sales database.
Each identical product would be assigned the same
CONNUM. However, products with physical
variations require multiple CONNUMs assigned to
it. The CONNUM methodology is based on the
‘‘physical characteristics’’ of each unique product
sold by Deseado, which is used to tie each unique
product sold to the cost of materials, labor, energy
and packing, i.e., the FOPs, to manufacture that
unique product. Rather, Deseado provided the bar
code numbers (‘‘SKU’’) numbers associated with the
finished good rather than constructing a CONNUM
for each unique product based in the physical
characteristics of the merchandise. See SCQR at 89. The SKU numbers are not descriptive of the
physical characteristics of the unique product.
Thus, the Department could not compare the sale
of the product with the FOPs used in manufacturing
that product in the data submitted by Deseado as
required by the dumping calculation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 May 09, 2007
Jkt 211001
merchandise. Moreover, the March 8,
2007, letter also stated that the sales
database must be formatted pursuant to
the Department’s instructions in its
initial questionnaire for use in the
Department’s margin calculation.
Deseado’s response in its March 19,
2007, letter did not address any of the
sales data deficiencies remarked upon
in our March 8, 2007, letter.
Additionally, in reviewing Deseado’s
section D questionnaire response, which
should have contained information and
data related to FOPs and the cost
portion of the merchandise under
consideration, the Department found
that Deseado entirely omitted the FOP
database and narrative descriptions of
the FOPs from the section D
questionnaire response.10 Deseado did
not provide any consumption data11 for
the FOPs used to produce the subject
merchandise, without which the
Department is unable to construct a
normal value (‘‘NV’’). FOP information
is fundamental for calculating a
dumping margin. Section 771(35)(A) of
the Act requires that dumping margins
are calculated by comparing the NV to
the export price or constructed export
price. For NME countries, the Act states
that the NV is determined ‘‘on the basis
of the value of the factors of production
utilized in producing the merchandise.’’
See section 773(c)(1) of the Act.
Deseado also failed to submit a cost
reconciliation, as requested in the
original questionnaire. The
Department’s letter dated March 8,
2007, also addressed Deseado’s
omission of the entire FOP narrative and
data, providing it an opportunity to
remedy this deficiency as well. On
March 19, 2007, Deseado provided a
brief response with respect to the
missing FOP data, stating that its
supplier was uncooperative. Deseado
did not provide any further detail
regarding the failures of its supplier to
provide FOP data.
Therefore, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act, the
Department has determined that it is
appropriate to apply the facts available
to Deseado’s sales of subject
10See Deseado’s Section D questionnaire response
dated January 29, 2007, at Exhibit D-1. The
Department notes that Exhibit D-1, which Deseado
referred to as the FOP database, is simply the FOP
worksheet we include in the original questionnaire
for respondents to provide information such as
percentages of NME versus market economy
purchases, supplier distance information, units of
measurement, modes of transport, etc.
11 Consumption data consist of the POR
consumption quantity of FOP inputs used to
produce subject merchandise divided by the total
POR production of subject merchandise. This
methodology for calculating FOP consumption
ratios is fully explained in the original Section D
questionnaire.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26597
merchandise to the United States during
the POR because Deasado has failed to
provide FOP information requested by
the Department. Because the
Department provided Deseado with an
opportunity on March 8, 2007, to
remedy the defects in its section D
questionnaire response and Deseado
failed to comply with the Department’s
request for information, we find that the
information Deaseado submitted is so
incomplete that the Department’s
reliance upon it would not result in an
accurate measurement or reflection of
Deseado’s selling practices. Therefore,
we find that the curative provisions of
sections 782(d) and (e) are not
applicable. In addition, we find that
Deseado’s statement that it is unable to
provide its own sales data because it
cannot obtain other information from its
supplier does not satisfy the
requirements of section 782(c)(1) of the
Act. Deasado has neither demonstrated
the steps it undertook to gather the
information, nor demonstrated its
supplier’s unwillingness to provide the
information, nor suggested alternative or
substitutable information for use in
place of the missing FOP data.
Therefore, as discussed above, we find
that the application of facts available
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B)
of the Act is warranted in calculating a
margin for Deseado for these
preliminary results.
We also find, pursuant to section
776(a)(2)(C) of the Act, that it
appropriate to apply facts available to
Deseado because its failure to respond
to the Department’s questionnaires and
its failure to provide complete FOP data
significantly impeded the progress of
this proceeding. Because Deseado has
not provided its FOP data as requested
by the Department, the Department
cannot construct Deseado’s NV and,
therefore, it cannot determine an
accurate dumping margin for Deseado.
In addition, the questionnaire responses
that Deseado provided were so
incomplete that they could not be used
by the Department. Therefore, we find
that the application of the facts available
is also warranted, pursuant to section
776(a)(2)(C), because Deseado’s actions
significantly impeded the progress of
this proceeding.
Use of Adverse Inferences
In selecting from among facts
available, pursuant to section 776(b) of
the Act, the Department may apply an
adverse inference when it has
determined that a respondent has
‘‘failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with a
request for information.’’ An adverse
inference may include reliance on
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
26598
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
information derived from (1) the
petition; (2) a final determination in the
investigation under this title; (3) any
previous review under section 751 of
the Act or determination under section
753 of the Act, or (4) any other
information on the record. See section
776(b) of the Act.
Congress has noted that 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
accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No.
103–316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’);
Mannesmannrohren–Werke AG v.
United States, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (CIT
1999). The Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (‘‘the Federal Circuit’’)
in Nippon Steel Corporation v. United
States, 337 F. 3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
2003) (‘‘Nippon’’), provided an
explanation of the ‘‘failure to act to the
best of its ability’’ standard, stating that
the ordinary meaning of ‘‘best’’ means
‘‘one’s maximum effort,’’ and that the
statutory mandate that a respondent act
to the ‘‘best of its ability’’ requires the
respondent to do the maximum it is able
to do. Id. The Federal Circuit
acknowledged, however, that
‘‘deliberate concealment or inaccurate
reporting’’ would certainly be sufficient
to find that a respondent did not act to
the best of its ability, although it
indicated that inadequate responses to
agency inquiries ‘‘would suffice’’ as
well. Id. Compliance with the ‘‘best of
the ability’’ standard is determined by
assessing whether a respondent has put
forth its maximum effort to provide the
Department with full an complete
answers to all inquiries in an
investigation. Id. The Federal Circuit
further noted that while the standard
does not require perfection and
recognizes that mistakes sometimes
occur, it does not condone
inattentiveness, carelessness, or
inadequate record keeping. Id.
As discussed above, we determine
that, within the meaning of section
776(b) of the Act, Deseado failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with the Department’s
multiple requests for information and
significantly impeded this proceeding,
and that the application of adverse facts
otherwise available (‘‘AFA’’) is
warranted.12 The Department finds that
12 See Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Final
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 75710 (December 18,
2006), results unchanged from Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of
China: Notice of Rescission, In Part, and
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 May 09, 2007
Jkt 211001
Deseado failed to cooperate to the best
of its ability because it did not respond
accurately to the Department’s questions
on such basic information as payment
received for its POR sales. Furthermore,
Deseado provided an unuseable
CONNUM to compare sales to FOPs, did
not provide sales or cost reconciliations,
and omitted an entire database and
narrative description of production data
consumption for the POR. The
information requested by the
Department can only be supplied by
Deseado and cannot be obtained from
any other sources. Without this
information, the Department cannot
calculate a dumping margin for
Deseado. Therefore, the Department
finds that, by not providing the
necessary responses to the
questionnaires issued by the
Department, Deseado has failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability.
First, because this is an NME
proceeding, it is necessary that the
Department have valid FOP information
in order to calculate the NV, as stated
above. In cases such as this, when we
are precluded from reviewing the FOPs
of the suppliers, and absent any FOP
information provided, the Department
cannot simply create or postulate the
costs of the uncooperative suppliers.
Additionally, the Department has no
other FOP information on the record.
Because Deseado and its supplier have
failed to provide FOP information for
this administrative review, the
Department cannot properly calculate a
dumping margin in accordance with
section 773(c)(1) of the Act. See Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the
People’s Republic of China; Final
Results of 1997–998 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final
Results of New Shipper Review, 64 FR
61837, 61846 (November 15, 1999)
(‘‘TRBs–11’’); see also Freshwater
Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s
Republic of China; Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504
(April 21, 2003), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum,
Comment 7 (‘‘Crawfish’’). Thus, the
Administrative Review, 71 FR 45768, 45771 (August
10, 2006) (where the Department stated that
‘‘...these deficiencies in the revised response, in
view of the Department’s detailed instructions and
guidance, indicate that Liaoning Company did not
act to the best of its ability in providing the
requested information’’); see also Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review: Foundry Coke
From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 4108
(January 28, 2004), results unchanged from Notice
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Foundry Coke from the
People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 57869, 57873
(October 7, 2003).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Department finds that Deseado and its
supplier have not acted to the best of
their ability.
Second, Deseado and its supplier
have failed to provided any explanation
why they were unable provide the FOP
information, nor did they offer any
alternative forms by which they might
be able to comply with the Department’s
requests. As the Federal Circuit has
held, a respondent must ‘‘put forth its
maximum efforts’’ in complying with
the Department’s requests. See Nippon,
337 F.3d at 1382.
Additionally, it has been the
Department practice to apply adverse
facts available when a respondent has
failed to provide convincing evidence
‘‘claiming that their suppliers cannot
supply requested factors of production
information.’’ See Creatine from the
PRC, 64 FR at 71108 (applying adverse
facts available because the respondent
did not provide an acceptable
explanation on the record for its
suppliers failure to provide the FOP
information); see also TRBs–11, 64 FR at
61846 (finding that the respondent did
not act to the best of its ability when it
was unable to provide letters from
unrelated suppliers stating their
unwillingness to supply factors of
production information); see also Notice
of Fresh Garlic From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,
68 FR 36767, 36768 (June 19, 2003)
(‘‘Garlic’’) (applying adverse facts
available when a supplier stated that it
was unwilling to provide details on its
production process or its FOPs; and the
respondent did not provide an
explanation as to why it or its supplier
could not provide the FOP information);
see also Notice of Certain Cased Pencils
from the People’s Republic of China;
Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 67 FR 48612 (July 25, 2002),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 10 (finding
that there was no acceptable
explanation on the record for the
supplier’s failure to provide factor of
production information, an adverse
inference in applying facts available was
warranted due to the supplier’s failure
to act to the best of its ability).
Although Deseado claimed that it
attempted to obtain the information
from its supplier, it is ultimately
Deseado’s responsibility for submitting
accurate FOP information, as it is the
party that is seeking the rate based on
the FOP information and it is more
readily available to them, and any
‘‘failures, even if made by a supplier,
may provide grounds for the application
of adverse facts available.’’ See
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Crawfish, 68 FR at 19504; see also
Garlic, 68 FR at 36768.
Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b)
of the Act, we are preliminarily
applying the AFA rate to Deseado’s
sales of subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR. In the
instant proceeding, we find it
appropriate to use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of Deseado in
selecting from among the facts
otherwise available because Deseado
failed to comply with the Department’s
request for sales and cost data required
in the original questionnaire and its
subsequent failure to provide corrected
data upon the second opportunity to do
so, despite the Department’s specific
and detailed explanations within the
March 8, 2007, letter. See, e.g. Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon
from the People’s Republic of China, 72
FR 9508 (March 2, 2007) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 27 (where
‘‘the Department found that Jilin Bright
Future failed to cooperate to the best of
its ability to comply with the
Department’s request for information’’).
Deseado failed to provide the
Department with complete or revised
responses during this administrative
review and the application of total AFA
in this case is appropriate because it
should not be rewarded for its
noncompliance. See, e.g., Ta Chen
Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United
States, 298 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir.
2002). Accordingly, we are applying as
AFA the rate of 108.3 percent, the
highest calculated rate from any
segment of this proceeding. See the
‘‘Corroboration’’ section below for a
discussion of the probative value of the
108.30 percent rate.
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. As
described in the SAA, it is the
Department’s practice to use secondary
information from the petition, the final
determination, or any previous review
under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise. See SAA at 870.
The Department will satisfy itself that
the secondary information has probative
value and, to the extent practicable, will
examine the reliability and relevance of
the information to be used.
The AFA rate being assigned to
Deseado (108.30 percent) is the highest
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 May 09, 2007
Jkt 211001
calculated rate determined in any
segment of this proceeding (the 2001–
2002 administrative review). See
Amended Notice of Final Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from
the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘Amended Final’’) 69 FR 20858 (April
19, 2004). This rate was corroborated in
the most recently completed new
shipper review subsequent to the
Amended Final. See Notice of Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review: Petroleum Wax
Candles from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘2002–2003 New Shipper
Review’’) 69 FR 77990 (December 29,
2004). Furthermore, no information has
been presented in the current review
that calls into question the reliability of
this information. We note that this is the
highest rate from any segment of the
proceeding and the rate is less than four
years old. Thus, the Department finds
that the information continues to be
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 at
Comment 4 (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 judicially
invalidated. See D&L Supply Co. v.
United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use
a margin that has been judicially
invalidated). The information used in
calculating this margin was based on
sales and production data submitted by
the respondents in the 2001–2002
administrative review, together with the
most appropriate surrogate value
information available to the Department,
chosen from submissions by the parties
in the 2001–2002 administrative review,
as well as gathered by the Department
itself. Furthermore, the calculation of
this margin was subject to comment
from interested parties in the
proceeding. Moreover, as there is no
information on the record of this review
that demonstrates that this rate is not
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26599
appropriately used as AFA, we
determine that this rate has relevance.
Based on our analysis, we find that
the margin of 108.30 percent is reliable
and has relevance. As the rate is both
reliable and relevant, we determine that
it has probative value. Accordingly, we
determine that the calculated rate of
108.30 percent, which is the current
PRC–wide rate, is in accordance with
the requirement of section 776(c) of the
Act that secondary information be
corroborated (that it have probative
value). Consequently, we have assigned
this AFA rate to exports of the subject
merchandise from Deseado.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the
following margin exists during the
period August 1, 2005, through July 31,
2006:
PETROLEUM WAX CANDLES FROM THE
PRC
Manufacturer/Exporter
Deseado Industrial Co.,
Ltd. ............................
Weighted–Average
Margin (Percent)
108.30
Public Comment
The Department will disclose to
parties of this proceeding the
information utilized in reaching the
preliminary results within ten days of
the date of announcement of the
preliminary results. An interested party
may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of the preliminary results.
See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested
parties may submit written comments
(case briefs) within 30 days of
publication of the preliminary results
and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs),
which must be limited to issues raised
in the case briefs, within five days after
the time limit for filing case briefs. See
19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR
351.309(d). Parties who submit
arguments are requested to submit with
the argument: (1) A statement of the
issue; (2) a brief summary of the
argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
Further, the Department requests that
parties submitting written comments
provide the Department with a diskette
containing the public version of those
comments. Unless the deadline is
extended pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department
will issue the final results of this
administrative review, including the
results of our analysis of the issues
raised by the parties in their comments,
within 120 days of publication of the
preliminary results. The assessment of
antidumping duties on entries of
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
26600
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices
merchandise covered by this review and
future deposits of estimated duties shall
be based on the final results of this
review.
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 assessment instructions
to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of
review. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of review,
the Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate
importer–specific (or customer) 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. We will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered
by this review if any importer–specific
assessment rate calculated in the final
results of this review is above de
minimis.
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 this
determination in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: May 2, 2007
David A. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–9040 Filed 5–9–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–557–813]
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
Malaysia: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, 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)
For previously investigated or reviewed
PRC and non–PRC exporters not listed
above that have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter–specific rate published for the
most recent period; (2) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC–wide rate of 108.30 percent;
and (3) the cash deposit rate for all non–
PRC exporters (including Deseado) of
subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporters that supplied that non–
PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until publication of the
final results of the next administrative
review.
Notification to Importers
This notice 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
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from
an interested party, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on
polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs)
from Malaysia. The review covers one
manufacturer/exporter. The period of
review is August 1, 2005, through July
31, 2006. We have preliminarily
determined that sales have not been
made below normal value by the
company subject to this review. We
invite interested parties to comment on
these preliminary results. Parties who
submit comments in this review are
requested to submit with each argument
a statement of each issue and a brief
summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yang Jin Chun or Richard Rimlinger,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5760 and (202)
482–4477, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 9, 2004, we published in
the Federal Register the antidumping
duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia. See
Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:49 May 09, 2007
Jkt 211001
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia, 69
FR 48203 (August 9, 2004). On August
1, 2006, we published in the Federal
Register a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on PRCBs from
Malaysia. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Findings, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 71
FR 43441 (August 1, 2006). Pursuant to
section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR
351.213(b), Euro Plastics Malaysia Sdn.
Bhd. (Euro Plastics) requested an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on PRCBs from
Malaysia on August 8, 2006. On
September 29, 2006, in accordance with
section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice
of initiation of administrative review of
this order. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 57465
(September 29, 2006). We are
conducting an administrative review of
the order on PRCBs from Malaysia for
Euro Plastics for the period August 1,
2005, through July 31, 2006.
Scope of Order
The merchandise subject to this
antidumping duty order is PRCBs which
may be referred to as t–shirt sacks,
merchandise bags, grocery bags, or
checkout bags. The subject merchandise
is defined as non–sealable sacks and
bags with handles (including
drawstrings), without zippers or integral
extruded closures, with or without
gussets, with or without printing, of
polyethylene film having a thickness no
greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and
no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm),
and with no length or width shorter
than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than
40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the
bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not
longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm).
PRCBs are typically provided without
any consumer packaging and free of
charge by retail establishments, e.g.,
grocery, drug, convenience, department,
specialty retail, discount stores, and
restaurants, to their customers to
package and carry their purchased
products. The scope of the order
excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are
not printed with logos or store names
and that are closeable with drawstrings
made of polyethylene film and (2)
polyethylene bags that are packed in
consumer packaging with printing that
refers to specific end–uses other than
packaging and carrying merchandise
from retail establishments, e.g., garbage
bags, lawn bags, trash–can liners.
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 90 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26595-26600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9040]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-504]
Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Eighth Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is currently
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'')
covering the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. This review
covers imports of subject merchandise from one manufacturer/exporter:
Deseado International, Ltd. (``Deseado''). If these preliminary results
are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries in accordance with these results. We invite
interested parties to comment on these preliminary review results and
will issue the final review results no later than 120 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik, 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) 482-6905.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 28, 1986, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the
PRC. See Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum Wax Candles From the
People's Republic of China, 51 FR 30686 (August 28, 1986) (``Candles
Order'').
On August 31, 2006, Deseado submitted a timely request for an
administrative review. On September 29, 2006, in response to Deseado's
request and in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 351.213(b) of the
Department's regulations, the Department initiated the eighth
administrative review of petroleum wax candles from the PRC on 14
companies.\1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The following companies upon which we initiated an
administrative review, except Deseado, withdrew their requests for
review after the issuance of the quantity and value (``Q&V'')
questionnaire: Amstar Business Company Limited (``Amstar''), Apex
Enterprises International Ltd. (``Apex'') and Apex's producer,
Golden Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Golden''), Fuzhou Eastown Arts Co.,
Ltd. (``Fuzhou''), Gift Creative Company, Ltd. (``Gift''), Maverick
Enterprise Co., Ltd. (``Maverick'') and Maverick's producer Great
Founder International Co. (``Great Founder''), Qingdao Kingking
Applied Chemistry Co., Ltd. (``KingKing''), Shantou Jinyuan Mingfeng
Handicraft Co. (``Shantou Jinyuan''), Shanghai Shen Hong Arts and
Crafts Co., Ltd. (``Shen Hong'') and Shen Hong's producer Shanghai
Changran Enterprise, Ltd . (``Changran''), Shenzhen Sam Lick
Manufactory (and affiliated exporter Prudential (HK) Candles
Manufacturing Co., Ltd). (``Sam Lick,'' collectively), Transfar
International Corp. (``Transfar'');
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 12, 2006, the Department issued a Q&V questionnaire to
Deseado and the other 13 companies upon which we initiated the
review.\2\ On October 30, 2006, the Department sent a letter to Deseado
notifying the company of its failure to submit a Q&V questionnaire
response by the deadline date.\3\ We provided Deseado with a new
deadline of November 3, 2006, to submit a Q&V questionnaire response,
which Deseado timely submitted. On December 7, 2006, the Department
issued its standard non-market economy (``NME'') questionnaire to
Deseado. On January 4, 2007, Deseado submitted its section A response
to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire.\4\ In its section A
questionnaire response, Deseado informed the Department that it is a
trading company/exporter of the merchandise under consideration with an
unaffiliated manufacturer/supplier in the PRC.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The original deadline for the quantity and value
questionnaire was October 26, 2006.
\3\ See Letter dated October 30, 2006, to Deseado regarding the
missed deadline for Q&V questionnaire response.
\4\ Sections A (Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and
Merchandise), C (Sales to the United States), D (Factors of
Production), E (Cost of Further Manufacturing Performed in the
United States) and Sales and Factors of Production Reconciliations.
\5\ See Deseado's Section A questionnaire response dated January
4, 2007, at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 8, 2007, the National Candle Association
(``Petitioner'') submitted deficiency comments with respect to
Deseado's Separate Rates Application. On January 26, 2007, Petitioner
submitted additional deficiency comments with respect to Deseado's
separate rates application and its section A response.
On January 29, 2007, Deseado submitted the CBP 7501 entry summaries
for its sales of subject merchandise to the United States, as requested
by the Department, as well as its sections C and D questionnaire
responses. On February 6, 2007, Petitioner submitted deficiency
comments with respect to Deseado's section C response. On February 16,
2007, Petitioner submitted additional deficiency comments regarding
Deseado's section C response relative to Deseado's submission of its
CBP 7501 entry summaries. On February 16, 2007, the Department issued a
supplemental section A questionnaire to Deseado. On March 6, 2007,
Deseado submitted its supplemental section A response.
On March 8, 2007, the Department issued a letter to Deseado stating
that, upon review of Deseado's sections C and D questionnaire
responses, Deseado had not provided any data that the Department could
use to calculate an antidumping duty margin. The Department provided
instructions within this letter for Deseado to correct its data
deficiencies by March 19, 2007. On March 19, 2007, Deseado informed the
Department that it was unable to provide the information requested by
the Department in the March 8, 2007, letter.\6\ On April 3, 2007,
Petitioner submitted a request to terminate the administrative review
with respect to Deseado. On April 10, 2007, Deseado submitted a letter
stating that because it was the only party to have requested the
administrative review, Petitioner had no grounds upon which to request
a termination of the administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In its March 19, 2007, letter, Deseado stated that it was
unable to provide the information requested in the Department's
March 8, 2007, letter due to its supplier's unwillingness to
cooperate and provide the information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The period of review (``POR'') covers August 1, 2005, through July
31, 2006.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by Candles Order are certain scented or
unscented petroleum wax candles made from petroleum wax and having
fiber or paper-cored wicks. They are sold in the following shapes:
tapers, spirals, and
[[Page 26596]]
straight-sided dinner candles; round, columns, pillars, votives; and
various wax-filled containers. The products were classified under the
Tariff Schedules of the United States (``TSUS'') 755.25, Candles and
Tapers. The product covered are currently classified under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') item
3406.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience
purposes, our written description remains dispositive. See Candles
Order and Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China, 69
FR 77990 (December 29, 2004).
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary must rescind an
administrative review if a party requesting a review withdraws the
request within ninety (90) days of the date of publication of the
notice of initiation. As noted above, thirteen companies upon which the
Department initiated an administrative review submitted timely
withdrawals of their requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1).\7\ No interested party provided any comments on the
withdrawals. Therefore, because no other interested party requested a
review of these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), and
consistent with our practice, we are rescinding the administrative
review of these thirteen companies for the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ On October 25, 2006, Nantucket Distributing Co., Inc., a
U.S. importer, withdrew request for administrative reviews with
respect to Sam Lick; on October 26, 2006, KingKing, withdrew its
request for an administrative review; on October 25, 2006, Amstar
withdrew its request for an administrative review; on October 26,
2007, Specialty Merchandise Corporation (SMC),
a U.S. importer withdrew its request for administrative reviews with
respect to Fuzhou, Gift, Maverick (and its producer Great), Shantou
Jinyuan, Shen Hong (and its producer Changran), and Transfar; on
November 22, 2006, SMC withdrew its request for administrative
reviews with respect to Apex (and its producer, Golden).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a NME country. Pursuant to section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006). None of the
parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty deposit rate (i.e., a PRC-wide rate). In its separate
rates application, Deseado reported that it is owned wholly by an
entity located and registered in a market-economy country (i.e., Hong
Kong). Thus, because we have no evidence indicating that Deseado is
under the control of the PRC government, a separate-rate analysis is
not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government
control. See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth New Shipper Review, 66 FR 44331
(Aug. 23, 2001), results unchanged from Brake Rotors From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth
New Shipper Review, 66 FR 29080, 29081 (May 29, 2001) (where the
respondent was wholly owned by a U.S. registered company); Brake Rotors
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of Third
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 27063 (May 16, 2001)
(where the respondent was wholly owned by a company located in Hong
Kong), results unchanged from Brake Rotors From the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth New
Shipper Review and Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8, 2001); and Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine
Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71105
(Dec. 20, 1999) (``Creatine from the PRC'') (where the respondent was
wholly owned by persons located in Hong Kong).
Application of Adverse Facts Available
As discussed further below, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B),
and (C), and 776(b) of the Act, the Department preliminarily determines
that the use of total adverse facts available is warranted for Deseado.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested party (A)
withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B)
fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or
manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding; or (D) provides such information
but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject
to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time} for
information, notifies {the Department{time} that such party is unable
to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner,
together with a full explanation and suggested alternative form in
which such party is able to submit the information,'' the Department
may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on
that party.
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
the requirements listed in 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 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.
Use of Facts Available
We find that, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of
the Act, we should apply facts available to exports by Deseado because
Deseado (1) failed to provide information requested by the Department;
(2) failed to report in a timely manner information that was requested
by the Department; and (3) significantly impeded the proceeding.
As discussed above, the Department reviewed Deseado's section C and
D questionnaire responses, which should have contained detailed
information regarding Deseado's sales of subject
[[Page 26597]]
merchandise to the United States and factors of production (``FOP'')
data, respectively.
Deseado failed to provide accurate or complete information with
respect to: (1) A sales reconciliation, as requested; (2) data fields
in the sales database that are supposed to contain sale-specific data
were instead populated with information other than numerical data,
which renders the database unuseable; (3) payment data for each sale
invoice amount of subject merchandise sold to the United States; and
(4) inland freight, which was reported as an estimation of distance
rather than an accurate reporting of inland freight distance for each
sale to the United States.\8\ Consequently, the breadth of the
deficient, incorrect, or missing data alone forced the Department to
send its letter dated March 8, 2007, to enumerate the deficiencies and
receive a response upon which we could conduct an accurate analysis of
Deseado's POR sales to the United States. As discussed below, the
Department attempted to provide Deseado with an opportunity to remedy
the deficiencies contained within its original section C response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Deseado's section C questionnaire response (``SCQR'')
dated January 29, 2007, at C-9 through C-11 and Exhibit C-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the March 8, 2007, letter to Deseado, the Department stated that
Deseado's sales data was unusable in the format in which it was
submitted. Specifically, Deseado's sales data included a control number
assigned to each sale that did not contain any physical characteristics
of the merchandise under consideration, as requested by the Department
in its initial questionnaire.\9\ The Department's March 8, 2007, letter
provided the steps necessary for Deseado to reconstruct its CONNUM
methodology into a format that is specific to the physical
characteristics of the subject merchandise, which would reconcile to
the FOPs used in manufacturing the merchandise. Moreover, the March 8,
2007, letter also stated that the sales database must be formatted
pursuant to the Department's instructions in its initial questionnaire
for use in the Department's margin calculation. Deseado's response in
its March 19, 2007, letter did not address any of the sales data
deficiencies remarked upon in our March 8, 2007, letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The control number (``CONNUM'') is assigned to each unique
product reported in the sales database. Each identical product would
be assigned the same CONNUM. However, products with physical
variations require multiple CONNUMs assigned to it. The CONNUM
methodology is based on the ``physical characteristics'' of each
unique product sold by Deseado, which is used to tie each unique
product sold to the cost of materials, labor, energy and packing,
i.e., the FOPs, to manufacture that unique product. Rather, Deseado
provided the bar code numbers (``SKU'') numbers associated with the
finished good rather than constructing a CONNUM for each unique
product based in the physical characteristics of the merchandise.
See SCQR at 8-9. The SKU numbers are not descriptive of the physical
characteristics of the unique product. Thus, the Department could
not compare the sale of the product with the FOPs used in
manufacturing that product in the data submitted by Deseado as
required by the dumping calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in reviewing Deseado's section D questionnaire
response, which should have contained information and data related to
FOPs and the cost portion of the merchandise under consideration, the
Department found that Deseado entirely omitted the FOP database and
narrative descriptions of the FOPs from the section D questionnaire
response.\10\ Deseado did not provide any consumption data\11\ for the
FOPs used to produce the subject merchandise, without which the
Department is unable to construct a normal value (``NV''). FOP
information is fundamental for calculating a dumping margin. Section
771(35)(A) of the Act requires that dumping margins are calculated by
comparing the NV to the export price or constructed export price. For
NME countries, the Act states that the NV is determined ``on the basis
of the value of the factors of production utilized in producing the
merchandise.'' See section 773(c)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\See Deseado's Section D questionnaire response dated January
29, 2007, at Exhibit D-1. The Department notes that Exhibit D-1,
which Deseado referred to as the FOP database, is simply the FOP
worksheet we include in the original questionnaire for respondents
to provide information such as percentages of NME versus market
economy purchases, supplier distance information, units of
measurement, modes of transport, etc.
\11\ Consumption data consist of the POR consumption quantity of
FOP inputs used to produce subject merchandise divided by the total
POR production of subject merchandise. This methodology for
calculating FOP consumption ratios is fully explained in the
original Section D questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deseado also failed to submit a cost reconciliation, as requested
in the original questionnaire. The Department's letter dated March 8,
2007, also addressed Deseado's omission of the entire FOP narrative and
data, providing it an opportunity to remedy this deficiency as well. On
March 19, 2007, Deseado provided a brief response with respect to the
missing FOP data, stating that its supplier was uncooperative. Deseado
did not provide any further detail regarding the failures of its
supplier to provide FOP data.
Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act,
the Department has determined that it is appropriate to apply the facts
available to Deseado's sales of subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR because Deasado has failed to provide FOP
information requested by the Department. Because the Department
provided Deseado with an opportunity on March 8, 2007, to remedy the
defects in its section D questionnaire response and Deseado failed to
comply with the Department's request for information, we find that the
information Deaseado submitted is so incomplete that the Department's
reliance upon it would not result in an accurate measurement or
reflection of Deseado's selling practices. Therefore, we find that the
curative provisions of sections 782(d) and (e) are not applicable. In
addition, we find that Deseado's statement that it is unable to provide
its own sales data because it cannot obtain other information from its
supplier does not satisfy the requirements of section 782(c)(1) of the
Act. Deasado has neither demonstrated the steps it undertook to gather
the information, nor demonstrated its supplier's unwillingness to
provide the information, nor suggested alternative or substitutable
information for use in place of the missing FOP data. Therefore, as
discussed above, we find that the application of facts available
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act is warranted in
calculating a margin for Deseado for these preliminary results.
We also find, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act, that it
appropriate to apply facts available to Deseado because its failure to
respond to the Department's questionnaires and its failure to provide
complete FOP data significantly impeded the progress of this
proceeding. Because Deseado has not provided its FOP data as requested
by the Department, the Department cannot construct Deseado's NV and,
therefore, it cannot determine an accurate dumping margin for Deseado.
In addition, the questionnaire responses that Deseado provided were so
incomplete that they could not be used by the Department. Therefore, we
find that the application of the facts available is also warranted,
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C), because Deseado's actions
significantly impeded the progress of this proceeding.
Use of Adverse Inferences
In selecting from among facts available, pursuant to section 776(b)
of the Act, the Department may apply an adverse inference when it has
determined that a respondent has ``failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.'' An
adverse inference may include reliance on
[[Page 26598]]
information derived from (1) the petition; (2) a final determination in
the investigation under this title; (3) any previous review under
section 751 of the Act or determination under section 753 of the Act,
or (4) any other information on the record. See section 776(b) of the
Act.
Congress has noted that 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 accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316,
Vol. 1 at 870 (1994) (``SAA''); Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v. United
States, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (CIT 1999). The Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (``the Federal Circuit'') in Nippon Steel Corporation
v. United States, 337 F. 3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon''),
provided an explanation of the ``failure to act to the best of its
ability'' standard, stating that the ordinary meaning of ``best'' means
``one's maximum effort,'' and that the statutory mandate that a
respondent act to the ``best of its ability'' requires the respondent
to do the maximum it is able to do. Id. The Federal Circuit
acknowledged, however, that ``deliberate concealment or inaccurate
reporting'' would certainly be sufficient to find that a respondent did
not act to the best of its ability, although it indicated that
inadequate responses to agency inquiries ``would suffice'' as well. Id.
Compliance with the ``best of the ability'' standard is determined by
assessing whether a respondent has put forth its maximum effort to
provide the Department with full an complete answers to all inquiries
in an investigation. Id. The Federal Circuit further noted that while
the standard does not require perfection and recognizes that mistakes
sometimes occur, it does not condone inattentiveness, carelessness, or
inadequate record keeping. Id.
As discussed above, we determine that, within the meaning of
section 776(b) of the Act, Deseado failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with the Department's multiple
requests for information and significantly impeded this proceeding, and
that the application of adverse facts otherwise available (``AFA'') is
warranted.\12\ The Department finds that Deseado failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability because it did not respond accurately to the
Department's questions on such basic information as payment received
for its POR sales. Furthermore, Deseado provided an unuseable CONNUM to
compare sales to FOPs, did not provide sales or cost reconciliations,
and omitted an entire database and narrative description of production
data consumption for the POR. The information requested by the
Department can only be supplied by Deseado and cannot be obtained from
any other sources. Without this information, the Department cannot
calculate a dumping margin for Deseado. Therefore, the Department finds
that, by not providing the necessary responses to the questionnaires
issued by the Department, Deseado has failed to cooperate to the best
of its ability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 75710 (December 18,
2006), results unchanged from Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission, In Part, and
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
45768, 45771 (August 10, 2006) (where the Department stated that
``...these deficiencies in the revised response, in view of the
Department's detailed instructions and guidance, indicate that
Liaoning Company did not act to the best of its ability in providing
the requested information''); see also Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review: Foundry Coke From the People's Republic of
China, 69 FR 4108 (January 28, 2004), results unchanged from Notice
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Foundry Coke from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 57869, 57873
(October 7, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, because this is an NME proceeding, it is necessary that the
Department have valid FOP information in order to calculate the NV, as
stated above. In cases such as this, when we are precluded from
reviewing the FOPs of the suppliers, and absent any FOP information
provided, the Department cannot simply create or postulate the costs of
the uncooperative suppliers. Additionally, the Department has no other
FOP information on the record. Because Deseado and its supplier have
failed to provide FOP information for this administrative review, the
Department cannot properly calculate a dumping margin in accordance
with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. See Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of
China; Final Results of 1997-998 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Final Results of New Shipper Review, 64 FR 61837, 61846 (November
15, 1999) (``TRBs-11''); see also Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from
the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, Comment 7 (``Crawfish'').
Thus, the Department finds that Deseado and its supplier have not acted
to the best of their ability.
Second, Deseado and its supplier have failed to provided any
explanation why they were unable provide the FOP information, nor did
they offer any alternative forms by which they might be able to comply
with the Department's requests. As the Federal Circuit has held, a
respondent must ``put forth its maximum efforts'' in complying with the
Department's requests. See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382.
Additionally, it has been the Department practice to apply adverse
facts available when a respondent has failed to provide convincing
evidence ``claiming that their suppliers cannot supply requested
factors of production information.'' See Creatine from the PRC, 64 FR
at 71108 (applying adverse facts available because the respondent did
not provide an acceptable explanation on the record for its suppliers
failure to provide the FOP information); see also TRBs-11, 64 FR at
61846 (finding that the respondent did not act to the best of its
ability when it was unable to provide letters from unrelated suppliers
stating their unwillingness to supply factors of production
information); see also Notice of Fresh Garlic From the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 68 FR 36767, 36768 (June 19, 2003) (``Garlic'') (applying
adverse facts available when a supplier stated that it was unwilling to
provide details on its production process or its FOPs; and the
respondent did not provide an explanation as to why it or its supplier
could not provide the FOP information); see also Notice of Certain
Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR
48612 (July 25, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum,
at Comment 10 (finding that there was no acceptable explanation on the
record for the supplier's failure to provide factor of production
information, an adverse inference in applying facts available was
warranted due to the supplier's failure to act to the best of its
ability).
Although Deseado claimed that it attempted to obtain the
information from its supplier, it is ultimately Deseado's
responsibility for submitting accurate FOP information, as it is the
party that is seeking the rate based on the FOP information and it is
more readily available to them, and any ``failures, even if made by a
supplier, may provide grounds for the application of adverse facts
available.'' See
[[Page 26599]]
Crawfish, 68 FR at 19504; see also Garlic, 68 FR at 36768.
Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we are
preliminarily applying the AFA rate to Deseado's sales of subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR. In the instant
proceeding, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse
to the interests of Deseado in selecting from among the facts otherwise
available because Deseado failed to comply with the Department's
request for sales and cost data required in the original questionnaire
and its subsequent failure to provide corrected data upon the second
opportunity to do so, despite the Department's specific and detailed
explanations within the March 8, 2007, letter. See, e.g. Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated
Carbon from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 9508 (March 2, 2007)
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 27 (where
``the Department found that Jilin Bright Future failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request for
information''). Deseado failed to provide the Department with complete
or revised responses during this administrative review and the
application of total AFA in this case is appropriate because it should
not be rewarded for its noncompliance. See, e.g., Ta Chen Stainless
Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir.
2002). Accordingly, we are applying as AFA the rate of 108.3 percent,
the highest calculated rate from any segment of this proceeding. See
the ``Corroboration'' section below for a discussion of the probative
value of the 108.30 percent rate.
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. As described in the SAA, it is the
Department's practice to use secondary information from the petition,
the final determination, or any previous review under section 751
concerning the subject merchandise. See SAA at 870. The Department will
satisfy itself that the secondary information has probative value and,
to the extent practicable, will examine the reliability and relevance
of the information to be used.
The AFA rate being assigned to Deseado (108.30 percent) is the
highest calculated rate determined in any segment of this proceeding
(the 2001-2002 administrative review). See Amended Notice of Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax
Candles from the People's Republic of China (``Amended Final'') 69 FR
20858 (April 19, 2004). This rate was corroborated in the most recently
completed new shipper review subsequent to the Amended Final. See
Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review:
Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China (``2002-2003
New Shipper Review'') 69 FR 77990 (December 29, 2004). Furthermore, no
information has been presented in the current review that calls into
question the reliability of this information. We note that this is the
highest rate from any segment of the proceeding and the rate is less
than four years old. Thus, the Department finds that the information
continues to be 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 at
Comment 4 (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 judicially invalidated. See D&L Supply Co. v.
United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department
will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). The
information used in calculating this margin was based on sales and
production data submitted by the respondents in the 2001-2002
administrative review, together with the most appropriate surrogate
value information available to the Department, chosen from submissions
by the parties in the 2001-2002 administrative review, as well as
gathered by the Department itself. Furthermore, the calculation of this
margin was subject to comment from interested parties in the
proceeding. Moreover, as there is no information on the record of this
review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriately used as
AFA, we determine that this rate has relevance.
Based on our analysis, we find that the margin of 108.30 percent is
reliable and has relevance. As the rate is both reliable and relevant,
we determine that it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine
that the calculated rate of 108.30 percent, which is the current PRC-
wide rate, is in accordance with the requirement of section 776(c) of
the Act that secondary information be corroborated (that it have
probative value). Consequently, we have assigned this AFA rate to
exports of the subject merchandise from Deseado.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists during
the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006:
Petroleum Wax Candles from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deseado Industrial Co., Ltd......................... 108.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comment
The Department will disclose to parties of this proceeding the
information utilized in reaching the preliminary results within ten
days of the date of announcement of the preliminary results. An
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of
the preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may
submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of publication of
the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which
must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, within five days
after the time limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments
are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the
issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of
authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting
written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the
public version of those comments. Unless the deadline is extended
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue
the final results of this administrative review, including the results
of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments,
within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results. The
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of
[[Page 26600]]
merchandise covered by this review and future deposits of estimated
duties shall be based on the final results of this review.
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 assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of the final results of review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, the
Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will
calculate importer-specific (or customer) 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. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above
de minimis.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements, when imposed, 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) For
previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not
listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not
been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate
will be the PRC-wide rate of 108.30 percent; and (3) the cash deposit
rate for all non-PRC exporters (including Deseado) of subject
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied
that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice 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 this determination in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 2, 2007
David A. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-9040 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
