Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2005/2006 New Shipper Reviews, 28467-28472 [E7-9703]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices
making the decision. The rationale for
the decision will be included in the
Record of Decision.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
21)
Dated: May 14, 2007.
Forrest Cole,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 07–2507 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Deemed Export Advisory Committee;
Notice To Solicit Meeting Speakers and
Presentations
The Deemed Export Advisory
Committee (DEAC), which advises the
Secretary of Commerce on deemed
export licensing policy, will meet on
Tuesday, June 19, 2007 from
approximately 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
The DEAC is a Federal Advisory
Committee that was established under
the auspices of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C.
app. 2. The meeting location will be
Boston, MA, with exact details to be
announced in a subsequent Federal
Register Notice. At this time, the
Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Industry and Security (BIS), would like
to solicit stakeholders from industry,
academia and other backgrounds to
address the DEAC members on June 19
in an open session on issues related to
deemed exports and, in particular, their
organizations’ perspectives and
concerns related to U.S. deemed export
control policies. Stakeholders are those
individuals or organizations who have
some experience in or knowledge of
export control regulations and policies,
who must apply these rules in the
course of normal business or whose
operations are directly impacted by
those export regulations and policies
mandated by the U.S. government. BIS
seeks to have an equal number of
presenters from industry, academia, and
other backgrounds. There may be up to
three presenters from each group and
speaking time may be limited to 10
minutes or less per speaker depending
on the number of interested parties.
Speakers may be selected on the basis
of one or more of the following criteria
(not in any order of importance): (1)
Demonstrated experience in and
knowledge of export control regulations;
(2) demonstrated ability to provide
DEAC members with relevant
information related to deemed export
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
policies and issues; (3) the degree to
which the organization is impacted by
the U.S. Government’s export policies
and regulations; and (4) industry area or
academic type of institution
represented. BIS reserves the right to
limit the number of participants based
on time considerations. For planning
purposes, BIS requests that (1) that
interested parties inform BIS of their
commitment, via e-mail or telephone
call, to address the DEAC no later than
5 p.m. EST May 30, 2007, as well as
provide a brief outline of the topics to
be discussed by this same deadline; and,
(2) that once interested parties receive
confirmation of their participation at the
meeting, they provide either an
electronic or paper copy of any prepared
remarks/presentations no later than 5
p.m. EST June 12, 2007. Interested
parties may contact Ms. Yvette Springer
at Yspringer@bis.doc.gov or (202) 482–
2813. The purpose of this solicitation is
only to accept speakers for the June 19,
2007 DEAC meeting. However, all
members of the public may submit
written comments to BIS at any time for
the DEAC’s consideration.
Dated: May 16, 2007.
Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 07–2509 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–JT–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–806]
Silicon Metal From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of the 2005/2006 New Shipper Reviews
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is currently
conducting the 2005/2006 new shipper
reviews of the antidumping duty order
on silicon metal from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). We
preliminarily determine that sales have
been made below normal value (‘‘NV’’)
with respect to certain exporters and
that certain exporters are entitled to a
separate rate in the new shipper
reviews. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of these
reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the period of
review (‘‘POR’’) for which the importer–
specific assessment rates are above de
minimis.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28467
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: May 21, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot
Fullerton or Christopher Riker, 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) 482–1386 or (202) 482–
3441, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department received timely
requests from Shanghai Jinneng
International Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai
Jinneng’’) and Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon
Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jiangxi Gangyuan’’)
on June 23, 2006, pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B) the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’), and in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for new shipper
reviews of the antidumping duty order
on silicon metal from the PRC. See
Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal
From the People’s Republic of China, 56
FR 26649 (June 10, 1991).
On June 2, 2006, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on silicon
metal from the PRC. See Notice of
Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review of Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation, 71 FR 32032
(June 2, 2006).
On July 25, 2006, the Department
initiated new shipper reviews of
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan
covering the period June 1, 2005,
through May 31, 2006. See Silicon Metal
From the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 42084 (July 25,
2006).
On December 21, 2006, the
Department extended the deadline for
the preliminary results of the new
shipper reviews until May 14, 2007. See
Notice of Extension of the Preliminary
Results of New Shipper Antidumping
Duty Reviews: Silicon Metal from the
People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 76637
(December 21, 2006).
Scope of Order
The product covered by the order and
this review is silicon metal containing at
least 96.00 but less than 99.99 percent
of silicon by weight, and silicon metal
with a higher aluminum content
containing between 89 and 96 percent
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
28468
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
silicon by weight. The merchandise
under investigation is currently
classifiable under item numbers
2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) as a chemical
product, but is commonly referred to as
a metal. Semiconductor–grade silicon
(silicon metal containing by weight not
less than 99.99 percent of silicon and
provided for in subheading 2804.61.00
of the HTSUS) is not subject to this
order. This order is not limited to
silicon metal used only as an alloy agent
or in the chemical industry. Although
the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise
is dispositive.
Respondents
On July 26, 2006, we issued
antidumping duty questionnaires to
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan.
See letters to Shanghai Jinneng and
Jiangxi Gangyuan from Christopher D.
Riker, Program Manager, China/NME
Group, Office 9, Import Administration,
regarding Silicon Metal from the
People’s Republic of China, New
Shipper Review (6/1/05 - 5/31/06), (July
26, 2006).
On August 31, 2006, both Shanghai
Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan
responded to section A of the
Department’s questionnaire. The
Department received responses to
sections C & D of its questionnaire from
both Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi
Gangyuan on September 18, 2006. On
October 2, 2006, the Department
received responses to its importer
questionnaire from both Shanghai
Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan.
On September 28, 2006, the
Department issued a supplemental
section A questionnaire to Jinagxi
Gangyuan. On October 18, 2006, the
Department issued a second
supplemental questionnaire to Jiangxi
Gangyuan. On October 27, 2006, the
Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Shanghai Jinneng. On
November 3, 2006, Jianxi Gangyuan
submitted its response to the
Department’s supplemental section A
questionnaire. On November 16, 2006,
Jiangxi Gangyuan submitted its response
to the Department’s second
supplemental questionnaire. On
December 4, 2006, Shanghai Jinneng
submitted its response to the
Department’s October 27, 2006,
questionnaire.
On February 2, 2007, the Department
issued a third supplemental
questionnaire to Jiangxi Gangyuan. On
March 5, 2007, Jinagxi Gangyuan
submitted its response to the third
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
supplemental questionnaire. On March
6, 2007, the Department issued a second
supplemental response to Shanghai
Jinneng. Shanghai Jinneng submitted its
response to the Department’s second
questionnaire on March 28, 2007.
Surrogate Country and Factors
On October 19, 2006, the Department
provided parties with an opportunity to
submit publicly available information
(‘‘PAI’’) on surrogate countries and
values for consideration in these
preliminary results. SeeLetter to All
Interested Parties, from Christopher D.
Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, regarding 2005/
2006 New Shipper Reviews of Silicon
Metal from the People’s Republic of
China (October 19, 2006). On November
6, 2006, however, the Department
extended the deadline for the
aforementioned comments until
December 29, 2006. See Letter to All
Interested Parties, from Christopher D.
Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, regarding 2005/2006
New Shipper Reviews of Silicon Metal
from the People’s Republic of China:
Deadline for Submitting Comments on
Surrogate Country Selection and
Publicly Available Information to Value
Factors of Production (November 6,
2006). Furthermore, on December 21,
2006, in response to a request by Globe
Metallurgical Inc., the petitioner, the
Department extended the deadline
again, until February 15, 2007. See
Letter to All Interested Parties, from
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, regarding 2005/2006
New Shipper Reviews of Silicon Metal
from the People’s Republic of China:
Additional Extension of Deadline for
Submitting Comments on Surrogate
Country Selection and Publicly
Available Information to Value Factors
of Production (December 21, 2006).
On February 15, 2007, the
respondents1 and petitioner both
submitted comments on the selection of
a surrogate country. See Letter to the
U.S. Department of Commerce, from
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan,
regarding Silicon Metal from the
People’s Republic of China (February
15, 2007) (‘‘Respondents’ First
Submission’’); see also Letter to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, from
petitioner, regarding Silicon Metal from
the People’s Republic of China; New
Shipper Reviews; Comments on
Surrogate Country Selection (February
1 The respondents are Shanghai Jinneng
International Trade Co., Ltd. and Jiangxi Gangyuan
Silicon Industry Company, Ltd.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15, 2007) (‘‘Petitioner’s First
Submission’’). On February 26, 2007,
petitioner and the respondents both
submitted comments rebutting the other
party’s February 15, 2007, comments on
the selection of a surrogate country. See
Letter to the U.S. Department of
Commerce, from Shanghai Jinneng and
Jiangxi Gangyuan, regarding Silicon
Metal from the People’s Republic of
China (February 26, 2007)
(‘‘Respondents’ Second Submission’’),
see also Letter to the U.S. Department of
Commerce, from petitioner, regarding
Silicon Metal from the People’s
Republic of China; New Shipper
Reviews; Rebuttal Comments and
Factual Information regarding the
Selection of a Surrogate Country and
Surrogate Values (February 26, 2007)
(‘‘Petitioner’s Second Submission’’). On
March 8, 2007, petitioner rebutted the
respondents’ February 26, 2007, rebuttal
comments. See Letter to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, from
petitioner, regarding Silicon Metal from
the People’s Republic of China; New
Shipper Reviews; Rebuttal Comments
and Factual Information regarding the
Selection of a Surrogate Country and
Surrogate Values (March 8, 2007)
(‘‘Petitioner’s Third Submission’’). On
March 14, 2007, respondents submitted
rebuttal comments on petitioner’s
March 8, 2007, submission (see Letter to
the U.S. Department of Commerce, from
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan,
regarding Silicon Metal from the
People’s Republic of China (March 14,
2007) (‘‘Respondents’ Third
Submission’’)), and on March 16, 2007,
petitioner responded to the respondents’
March 14, 2007, submission (see Letter
to the U.S. Department of Commerce,
from petitioner, regarding Silicon Metal
from the People’s Republic of China;
New Shipper Reviews; Response to
Respondents’ March 13 Letter (March
16, 2007)).
On April 6, 2007, petitioner submitted
rebuttal surrogate value data (see Letter
to the U.S. Department of Commerce,
from petitioner, regarding Silicon Metal
from the People’s Republic of China;
New Shipper Review; Submission of
Rebuttal Surrogate Value Factual
Information and Comments (April 6,
2007)). On April 20, 2007, respondents
responded to the preceding petitioner
surrogate value submission (see Letter to
U.S. Department of Commerce, from
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan,
regarding Silicon Metal from the
People’s Republic of China: Surrogate
Value Rebuttal (April 20, 2007)).
Finally, petitioner submitted surrogate
value information and comments on
April 27, 2007 (see Letter to the U.S.
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices
Department of Commerce, from
petitioner, regarding Silicon Metal from
the People’s Republic of China; New
Shipper Review; Submission of Rebuttal
Surrogate Value Factual Information
and Comments (April 27, 2007)).
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Verification
The Department verified the
questionnaire responses of Jiangxi
Gangyuan on April 4–6, 2007, and
Shanghai Jinneng on April 9–10, 2007
(which included a verification of
Shanghai Jinneng’s affiliated producer,
Datong Jinneng, on April 11–12, 2007).
For these companies, we used standard
verification procedures, including on–
site inspection of the manufacturers’
and exporters’ facilities, and
examination of relevant sales and
financial records. Our verification
results are outlined in the verification
report for each company. For a further
discussion, see Memorandum to the
File, through Christopher D. Riker,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operation,
Office 9, from Scot T. Fullerton, Senior
International Trade Compliance
Analyst, regarding Verification of the
Questionnaire Responses of Jiangxi
Gangyuan Silicon Industry Co., Ltd., in
the Antidumping New Shipper Review
of Silicon Metal from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘Jiangxi Gangyuan
Verification Report’’); see also
Memorandum to the File, through
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operation, Office 9, from Scot
T. Fullerton, Senior International Trade
Compliance Analyst, and Michael J.
Quigley, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, regarding
Verification of the Questionnaire
Responses of Shanghai Jinneng
International Trade Co., Ltd., in the
Antidumping New Shipper Review of
Silicon Metal from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘Shanghai Jinneng
Verification Report’’); and see also
Memorandum to the File, through
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operation, Office 9, from Scot
T. Fullerton, Senior International Trade
Compliance Analyst, and Michael J.
Quigley, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, regarding
Verification of the Questionnaire
Responses of Shanghai Jinneng that
relate to Datong Jinneng Industrial
Silicon Co., Ltd., in the Antidumping
New Shipper Review of Silicon Metal
from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘Datong Jinneng Verification Report’’).
Bona Fide Sale Analysis - Shanghai
Jinneng & Jiangxi Gangyuan
For the reasons stated below, we
preliminarily find that Shanghai
Jinneng’s and Jiangxi Gangyuan’s
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
reported U.S. sales during the POR
appear to be bona fide based on the
totality of the facts on the record.
Specifically, we find that: (1) The prices
of Shanghi Jinneng’s and Jiangxi
Gangyuan’s sales were within the range
of the prices of other entries of subject
merchandise from the PRC into the
United States during the POR; (2)
Shanghai Jinneng’s and Jiangxi
Gangyuan’s sales were made to
unaffiliated parties at arm’s length; and
(3) there is no record evidence that
indicates that Shanghai Jinneng’s and
Jiangxi Gangyuan’s sales were not made
based on commercial principles. See
Memorandum to James C. Doyle,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Import Administration, through
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from
Michael J. Quigley, International Trade
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
regarding 2005/2006 Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Silicon
Metal from the People’s Republic of
China: Bona Fide Analysis of the Sale(s)
Reported by Shanghai Jinneng
International Trade Co., Ltd. (May 11,
2007); see also Memorandum to James
C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, through Christopher D. Riker,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, from Scot T. Fullerton, Senior
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, regarding 2005/
2006 Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Silicon Metal from the People’s
Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis
of the Sale(s) Reported by Jiangxi
Gangyuan Silicon Industry Co., Ltd.
(May 11, 2007).
Non–Market Economy Country
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non–market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. Pursuant to
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is
a NME country shall remain in effect
until revoked by the administering
authority. See, e.g., 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.
Accordingly, we calculated NV in
accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act, which applies to NME countries.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires
the Department to value an NME
producer’s factors of production, to the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28469
extent possible, in one or more market–
economy countries that (A) are at a level
of economic development comparable to
that of the NME country, and (B) are
significant producers of comparable
merchandise. Of the five countries
identified by the Office of Policy as
economically comparable to the PRC,
data supplied by respondents and
petitioner indicate that both India and
Egypt are both significant producers of
merchandise comparable to silicon
metal. The record, however, lacks
Egyptian data to value quartzite (the
source of silicon in silicon metal),
charcoal, and rice straw, as well as
contemporaneous Egyptian values for
certain other inputs as well as freight.
However, with respect to India,
sufficient publicly available surrogate
value information is available on the
record. Therefore, we used India as the
primary surrogate country to value all
inputs. See Memorandum to the File,
through Christopher D. Riker, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
from Michael J. Quigley, International
Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, regarding Surrogate Values
Used for the Preliminary Results of the
2005–2006 New Shipper Reviews of
Silicon Metal from the People’s
Republic of China (May 11, 2007)
(‘‘Factor Valuation Memo’’).
For further discussion of our surrogate
country selection, see Memorandum to
the File, through James C. Doyle
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9
and Christopher D. Riker, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
from Michael Quigley, International
Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, regarding Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Reviews of Silicon Metal
from the People’s Republic of China:
Selection of a Surrogate Country (May
11, 2007) (‘‘Surrogate Country
Memorandum’’).
Separate Rates
To establish whether a company
operating in an NME is sufficiently
independent to be entitled to a separate
rate, the Department analyzes each
exporting entity under the test
established in the Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People’s Republic of
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991)
(‘‘Sparklers’’), as amplified by the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994). Under the separate–rates
criteria, the Department assigns separate
rates in NME cases only if the
respondent can demonstrate the absence
of both de jure and de facto
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
28470
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
governmental control over export
activities.
De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following criteria in determining
whether an individual company is free
of de jure absence of government control
over export activities: (1) an absence of
restrictive stipulations associated with
an individual exporter’s business and
export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) any other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20588.
In their questionnaire responses,
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan
stated that they are independent legal
entities, and placed evidence on the
record that indicates that the PRC
government does not have de jure
control over their export activities.
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan
submitted evidence of their legal right to
set prices independent of governmental
oversight. Furthermore, the business
licenses of Shanghai Jinneng and Jianxi
Gangyuan indicate that they are
permitted to engage in the exportation
of silicon metal. We also found no
evidence of de jure governmental
control restricting Shanghai Jinneng’s
and Jiangxi Gangyuan’s exportation of
silicon metal.
The following laws, which have been
placed on the record of this review,
indicate a lack of de jure government
control. The Company Law of the
People’s Republic of China, made
effective on July 1, 1994, with the
amended version promulgated on
August 28, 2004, states that a company
is legal entity, that shareholders shall
assume liability towards the company to
the extent of their shareholdings and
that the company shall be liable for its
debts to the extent of all its assets.
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan
also provided copies of the Foreign
Trade Law of the PRC, promulgated on
May 12, 1994, which identifies the
rights and responsibilities of
organizations engaged in foreign trade,
grants autonomy to foreign–trade
operators in management decisions and
establishes the foreign trade operator’s
accountability for profits and losses.
The Department, therefore,
preliminarily determines that there is an
absence of de jure control over the
export activities of Shanghai Jinneng
and Jiangxi Gangyuan.
De Facto Control
The Department typically considers
four factors in evaluating whether a
respondent is subject to de facto
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
government control over its exports: (1)
Whether each exporter sets its own
export prices independently of the
government and without the approval of
a government authority; (2) whether
each exporter retains the proceeds from
its sales and makes independent
decisions regarding the disposition of
profits or financing of losses; (3)
whether each exporter has the authority
to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; and (4) whether each
exporter has autonomy from the
government regarding the selection of
management. See, e.g., Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR
22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi
Gangyuan have both asserted the
following:
(1) Each establishes its own export
prices; (2) each negotiates contracts
without guidance from any
governmental entities or organizations;
(3) each makes its own personnel
decisions; and
(4) each retains the proceeds of its
export sales, uses profits according to its
business needs, and has the authority to
sell its assets and to obtain loans.
Moreover, the Department verified that
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan
are free of de facto government control.
Based upon information on the record,
there is a sufficient basis to
preliminarily determine that Shanghai
Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan have
demonstrated an absence of de facto
governmental control over their export
functions. Therefore, because Shanghai
Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan operate
free of de jure and de facto government
control, the Department has
preliminarily determined that Shanghai
Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan have
satisfied the criteria for separate rates
based on the documentation each has
submitted on the record.
Normal–Value Comparisons
To determine whether Shanghai
Jinneng’s and Jiangxi Gangyuan’s sales
of the subject merchandise to the United
States were made at prices below NV,
their United States prices were
compared to NV, as described in the
‘‘United States Price’’ and ‘‘Normal
Value’’ sections of this notice.
United States Price
For Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi
Gangyuan, the Department based U.S.
price on export price (‘‘EP’’) in
accordance with section 772(a) of the
Act, because the first sales to
unaffiliated purchasers were made prior
to importation, and constructed export
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
price (‘‘CEP’’) was not otherwise
warranted by the facts on the record. We
calculated EP based on packed prices
from the exporter to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States. Where
applicable, foreign inland freight,
foreign brokerage and handling
expenses, and ocean freight were
deducted from the starting price (gross
unit price) in accordance with section
772(c) of the Act.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine NV
using a factors of production (‘‘FOP’’)
methodology if the merchandise is
exported from an NME country and the
available information does not permit
the calculation of NV using home–
market prices, third–country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408. The
Department will base NV on the factors
of production because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of these economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under its
normal methodologies. See Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished or Unfinished, From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Notice of
Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 29744,
39754 (July 11, 2005) (unchanged in
final results). See Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or
Unfinished, From the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results of 2003–2004
Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review.
For purposes of calculating NV, we
selected surrogate values for the PRC
factors of production in accordance with
section 773(c)(1) of the Act. Factors of
production include, but are not limited
to, hours of labor required, quantities of
raw materials employed, amounts of
energy and other utilities consumed,
and representative capital costs,
including depreciation. See section
773(c)(3) of the Act. In choosing
surrogate values, we selected, where
possible, a publicly available value
which was an average country–wide,
non–export value, representative of a
range of prices within the POR or most
contemporaneous with the POR,
product–specific, and tax–exclusive.
See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination: Chlorinated
Isocyanurates from the People’s
Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300
(December 16, 2004) (‘‘Chlorinated
Isocyanurates’’), unchanged in Notice of
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Chlorinated
Isocyanurates From the People’s
Republic of China, 70 FR 24502 (May
10, 2005). In selecting the surrogate
values, we considered the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity of the
data. See Manganese Metal from the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 63 FR 12442 (March 13, 1998).
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, the Department calculated NV
based on the FOPs reported by Shanghai
Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan for the
POR. To calculate NV, the reported per–
unit factor quantities was multiplied by
publicly available surrogate values. As
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to reflect
delivered prices. For a detailed
explanation of all surrogate values used
for respondents, see Factor Valuation
Memo.
Except where discussed below, we
valued raw material inputs using June
2005–May 2006 weighted–average
Indian import values derived from the
World Trade Atlas online (‘‘WTA’’) (see
Factor Valuation Memo). The Indian
import statistics we obtained from the
WTA were published by the Directorate
General of Commercial Intelligence and
Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of
India and are contemporaneous with the
POR. As the Indian surrogate values
were denominated in rupees, they were
converted to U.S. dollars using the
exchange rate for India on the date of
the applicable sale. The daily exchange
rate was the exchange rate data from the
Department’s website, which are taken
from publicly available data from the
Federal Reserve and Dow Jones. See
https://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/
index.html. Where we could not obtain
publicly available information
contemporaneous with the POR with
which to value factors, we adjusted the
publicly available information for
inflation using Indian wholesale price
indices (‘‘WPIs’’) as published in the
International Monetary Fund’s
International Financial Statistics
(‘‘IFS’’). See Factor Valuation Memo.
In instances where we relied on
Indian import data to value inputs, in
accordance with the Department’s
practice, we excluded imports from both
NME countries and countries deemed to
maintain broadly available, non–
industry-specific subsidies which may
benefit all exporters to all export
markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea,
and Thailand) from our surrogate value
calculations. See, e.g., Final
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Automotive
Replacement Glass Windshields from
the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR
6482 (February 12, 2002) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1. See, also,
Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination,
and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People’s Republic of
China, 68 FR 66800, 66808 (November
28, 2003), unchanged in the
Department’s final determination at 69
FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Additionally,
imports that were labeled as originating
from an ‘‘unspecified’’ country were
excluded from the average value,
because the Department could not be
certain that they were not from either an
NME or a country with generally
available export subsidies.
Surrogate Valuations
To value the input of quartzite, data
from the 2005 edition of the Indian
Minerals Yearbook published by the
Indian Bureau of Mines that accounted
for the period April 2004 through March
2005. This data precedes the POR and
was adjusted for inflation. See Factor
Valuation Memo, Attachment 3.
To value charcoal, we used Indian
import data that accounted for the POR
from the Monthly Statistics for HTS
number 4402. This data coincides with
the POR and was not adjusted for
inflation. See Factor Valuation Memo,
Attachment 5.
To value carbon electrodes, we used
Indian import data that accounted for
the POR from the Monthly Statistics for
HTS number 8545.11.00. This data
coincides with the POR and was not
adjusted for inflation. See Factor
Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
To value petroleum coke, we used
Indian import data that accounted for
the POR from the Monthly Statistics for
HTS numbers 2713.11.00 (petroleum
coke not calcined). This data coincides
with the POR and was not adjusted for
inflation. See Factor Valuation Memo,
Attachment 5.
To value coal, we used Indian import
data that accounted for the POR from
the Monthly Statistics for HTS number
2719.10.20, for steam coal. This data
coincides with the POR and was not
adjusted for inflation. See Factor
Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
To value fuel wood, we used Indian
import data that accounted for the POR
from the Monthly Statistics for HTS
numbers 4401.10. This data coincides
with the POR and was not adjusted for
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28471
inflation. See Factor aluation Memo,
Attachment 5.
To value rice straw, we used Indian
import data that accounted for the POR
from the Monthly Statistics for HTS
numbers 1213.00.00. The data coincides
with the POR and was not adjusted for
inflation. See Factor Valuation Memo,
Attachment 5.
To value silica fume, we used Indian
import data that accounted for the POR
from the Monthly Statistics for HTS
numbers 2811.22.00. This data
coincides with the POR and was not
adjusted for inflation. See Factor
Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
To value the bags used as packing
materials for subject merchandise and
silica fume, we used Indian import data
that accounted for the POR from the
Monthly Statistics for HTS number
6305.33.00. This data coincides with the
POR and was not adjusted for inflation.
See Factor Valuation Memo,
Attachment 5.
Section 351.408(c)(3) of the
Department’s regulations requires the
use of a regression–based wage rate.
Therefore, to value the labor input, the
Department used the regression–based
wage rate for the PRC published by
Import Administration on its website.
See https://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/
index.html.
We valued electricity using rates from
Key World Energy Statistics 2003,
published by the International Energy
Agency (‘‘IEA’’). We adjusted the rate to
make it contemporaneous with the POR.
See Factor Valuation Memo,
Attachment 7.
To value truck freight expenses for
both raw materials and subject
merchandise, we used an average rate
per kilometer per metric ton calculated
from data obtained from the web site of
an Indian transport company, InFreight
Technologies India Ltd. This data
coincides with the POR and was not
adjusted for inflation. See Factor
Valuation Memo, Attachment 8.
To value rail freight expenses for the
shipment of petroleum coke, we used
the rail freight tariff in effect for August
2004 as published by Indian Railways,
and inflated it for the POR. See Factor
Valuation Memo, Attachment 9.
To value SG&A, factory overhead and
profit, the Department used the 2005–
2006 financial statements from Indsil
Eletrosmelts Limited and Nava Bharat
Ferro Alloys Limited. See Factor
Valuation Memo, Attachment 10.
We also note that Jiangxi Gangyuan
erred in reporting the total product used
in the calculation of the factors of
production. Therefore, for purposes of
these preliminary results, we are
amending the reported total production
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
28472
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
figure. For a more detailed explanation,
see Jiangxi Gangyuan Verification
Report; see also Memorandum to the
File from Scot T. Fullerton, Senior
International Trade Compliance
Analyst, through Christopher D. Riker,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, regarding, Silicon Metal From
the People’s Republic of China Analysis Memorandum for the
Preliminary Results of New Shipper
Review Jiangxi Gangyuan Industry
Silicon Co., Ltd. Calculation
Memorandum (May 11, 2007).
Finally, we also note that Shanghai
Jinneng erred in reporting its silica fume
bags, and labor consumption. Therefore,
for purposes of these preliminary
results, we are amending the calculated
consumption of both the silica fume
bags and labor calculation. For a more
detailed explanation, see Datong
Jinneng Verification Report; see also
Memorandum to the File from Michael
Quigley, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, through
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding,
Silicon Metal From the People’s
Republic of China - Analysis
Memorandum for the Preliminary
Results of New Shipper Review
Shanghai Jinneng International Trade
Co., Ltd. Calculation Memorandum
(May 11, 2007).
case briefs, will be due five days later,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties
who submit case or rebuttal briefs in
this proceeding are requested to submit
with each argument (1) a statement of
the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. Parties are also encouraged to
provide a summary of the arguments not
to exceed five pages and a table of
statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
this notice. Interested parties who wish
to request a hearing or to participate if
one is requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration within 30 days
of the date of publication of this notice.
Requests should contain: (1) The party’s
name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3)
a list of issues to be discussed. See 19
CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the
hearing will be limited to those raised
in the briefs.
The Department will issue the final
results of these reviews, including the
results of its analysis of issues raised in
any such written briefs or at the hearing,
if held, not later than 120 days after the
date of publication of this notice.
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
Currency Conversions
appropriate entries. The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
We made currency conversions using
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
exchange rates obtained from the
after publication of the final results of
website of Import Administration at
these new shipper reviews. For
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/
assessment purposes, where possible,
index.html.
we calculated importer–specific
Preliminary Results of Reviews
assessment rates for silicon metal from
the PRC via \ duty assessment rates
We preliminarily determine that the
based on the ratio of the total amount of
following margins exist for Shanghai
the dumping margins calculated for the
Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan during
examined sales to the total entered
the period June 1, 2005, through May
value of those same sales. We will
31, 2006:
instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered
SILICON METAL FROM THE PRC
by these new shipper reviews if any
Weighted–Average assessment rate calculated in the final
Company
Margin (Percent)
results of this review is above de
minimis. The final results of these new
Shanghai Jinneng Intershipper reviews shall be the basis for
national Trade Co.,
Ltd. ............................
80.74 the assessment of antidumping duties
on entries of merchandise covered by
Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon Industry Co., Ltd.
124.79 the final results of these reviews and for
future deposits of estimated duties,
We will disclose the calculations used where applicable.
in our analysis to parties to these
proceedings within five days of the date Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
of publication of this notice.
Case briefs from interested parties
requirements will be effective upon
may be submitted not later than 30 days publication of the final results of these
of the date of publication of this notice,
reviews for all shipments of the subject
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal merchandise entered, or withdrawn
briefs, limited to issues raised in the
from warehouse, for consumption on or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
after the publication date, as provided
for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1)
For the manufacturers/exporters listed
above, the cash deposit rate will be that
established in the final results of this
review (except, if the rate is zero or de
minimis, no cash deposit will be
required); (2) for subject merchandise
exported by Shanghai Jinneng or Jiangxi
Gangyuan, but not manufactured by
Datong Jinneng or Jiangxi Gangyuan,
respectively, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the PRC–wide rate (i.e.,
139.49 percent); and (3) for subject
merchandise produced by Jiangxi
Gangyuan or Datong Jinneng but not
exported by Jiangxi Gangyuan or
Shanghai Jinneng, respectively, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate applicable
to the exporter. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, should
remain in effect until further notice.
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.
These new shipper reviews and notice
are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214.
Dated: May 11, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–9703 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), Article 1904; Binational Panel
Reviews: Notice of Termination of
Panel Review
NAFTA Secretariat, United
States Section, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: On April 18, 2007, a Notice of
Motion to Terminate the Panel Review
of the Final Determination of the
Antidumping Investigation on Imports
of Fresh Apples, merchandise classified
in tariff item 08.08.10.01 from the
United States of America, independent
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 97 (Monday, May 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28467-28472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9703]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-806]
Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of the 2005/2006 New Shipper Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is currently
conducting the 2005/2006 new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty
order on silicon metal from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').
We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value
(``NV'') with respect to certain exporters and that certain exporters
are entitled to a separate rate in the new shipper reviews. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these reviews,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period
of review (``POR'') for which the importer-specific assessment rates
are above de minimis.
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: May 21, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton or Christopher Riker,
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-
1386 or (202) 482-3441, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department received timely requests from Shanghai Jinneng
International Trade Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Jinneng'') and Jiangxi
Gangyuan Silicon Industry Co., Ltd. (``Jiangxi Gangyuan'') on June 23,
2006, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for
new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from
the PRC. See Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal From the People's
Republic of China, 56 FR 26649 (June 10, 1991).
On June 2, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
silicon metal from the PRC. See Notice of Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 71 FR 32032 (June 2, 2006).
On July 25, 2006, the Department initiated new shipper reviews of
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan covering the period June 1, 2005,
through May 31, 2006. See Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of
China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 42084
(July 25, 2006).
On December 21, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the
preliminary results of the new shipper reviews until May 14, 2007. See
Notice of Extension of the Preliminary Results of New Shipper
Antidumping Duty Reviews: Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of
China, 71 FR 76637 (December 21, 2006).
Scope of Order
The product covered by the order and this review is silicon metal
containing at least 96.00 but less than 99.99 percent of silicon by
weight, and silicon metal with a higher aluminum content containing
between 89 and 96 percent
[[Page 28468]]
silicon by weight. The merchandise under investigation is currently
classifiable under item numbers 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') as a
chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a metal.
Semiconductor-grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not
less than 99.99 percent of silicon and provided for in subheading
2804.61.00 of the HTSUS) is not subject to this order. This order is
not limited to silicon metal used only as an alloy agent or in the
chemical industry. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Respondents
On July 26, 2006, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan. See letters to Shanghai Jinneng
and Jiangxi Gangyuan from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, China/
NME Group, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding Silicon Metal
from the People's Republic of China, New Shipper Review (6/1/05 - 5/31/
06), (July 26, 2006).
On August 31, 2006, both Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan
responded to section A of the Department's questionnaire. The
Department received responses to sections C & D of its questionnaire
from both Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan on September 18, 2006.
On October 2, 2006, the Department received responses to its importer
questionnaire from both Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan.
On September 28, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section
A questionnaire to Jinagxi Gangyuan. On October 18, 2006, the
Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Jiangxi
Gangyuan. On October 27, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Shanghai Jinneng. On November 3, 2006, Jianxi Gangyuan
submitted its response to the Department's supplemental section A
questionnaire. On November 16, 2006, Jiangxi Gangyuan submitted its
response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire. On
December 4, 2006, Shanghai Jinneng submitted its response to the
Department's October 27, 2006, questionnaire.
On February 2, 2007, the Department issued a third supplemental
questionnaire to Jiangxi Gangyuan. On March 5, 2007, Jinagxi Gangyuan
submitted its response to the third supplemental questionnaire. On
March 6, 2007, the Department issued a second supplemental response to
Shanghai Jinneng. Shanghai Jinneng submitted its response to the
Department's second questionnaire on March 28, 2007.
Surrogate Country and Factors
On October 19, 2006, the Department provided parties with an
opportunity to submit publicly available information (``PAI'') on
surrogate countries and values for consideration in these preliminary
results. SeeLetter to All Interested Parties, from Christopher D.
Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding 2005/
2006 New Shipper Reviews of Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of
China (October 19, 2006). On November 6, 2006, however, the Department
extended the deadline for the aforementioned comments until December
29, 2006. See Letter to All Interested Parties, from Christopher D.
Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, regarding 2005/2006 New Shipper Reviews of Silicon
Metal from the People's Republic of China: Deadline for Submitting
Comments on Surrogate Country Selection and Publicly Available
Information to Value Factors of Production (November 6, 2006).
Furthermore, on December 21, 2006, in response to a request by Globe
Metallurgical Inc., the petitioner, the Department extended the
deadline again, until February 15, 2007. See Letter to All Interested
Parties, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, Import Administration, regarding 2005/2006 New Shipper
Reviews of Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China:
Additional Extension of Deadline for Submitting Comments on Surrogate
Country Selection and Publicly Available Information to Value Factors
of Production (December 21, 2006).
On February 15, 2007, the respondents\1\ and petitioner both
submitted comments on the selection of a surrogate country. See Letter
to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi
Gangyuan, regarding Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China
(February 15, 2007) (``Respondents' First Submission''); see also
Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from petitioner, regarding
Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China; New Shipper Reviews;
Comments on Surrogate Country Selection (February 15, 2007)
(``Petitioner's First Submission''). On February 26, 2007, petitioner
and the respondents both submitted comments rebutting the other party's
February 15, 2007, comments on the selection of a surrogate country.
See Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from Shanghai Jinneng
and Jiangxi Gangyuan, regarding Silicon Metal from the People's
Republic of China (February 26, 2007) (``Respondents' Second
Submission''), see also Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from
petitioner, regarding Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of
China; New Shipper Reviews; Rebuttal Comments and Factual Information
regarding the Selection of a Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values
(February 26, 2007) (``Petitioner's Second Submission''). On March 8,
2007, petitioner rebutted the respondents' February 26, 2007, rebuttal
comments. See Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from
petitioner, regarding Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of
China; New Shipper Reviews; Rebuttal Comments and Factual Information
regarding the Selection of a Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values
(March 8, 2007) (``Petitioner's Third Submission''). On March 14, 2007,
respondents submitted rebuttal comments on petitioner's March 8, 2007,
submission (see Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan, regarding Silicon Metal from the
People's Republic of China (March 14, 2007) (``Respondents' Third
Submission'')), and on March 16, 2007, petitioner responded to the
respondents' March 14, 2007, submission (see Letter to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, from petitioner, regarding Silicon Metal from
the People's Republic of China; New Shipper Reviews; Response to
Respondents' March 13 Letter (March 16, 2007)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The respondents are Shanghai Jinneng International Trade
Co., Ltd. and Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon Industry Company, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 6, 2007, petitioner submitted rebuttal surrogate value
data (see Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from petitioner,
regarding Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China; New
Shipper Review; Submission of Rebuttal Surrogate Value Factual
Information and Comments (April 6, 2007)). On April 20, 2007,
respondents responded to the preceding petitioner surrogate value
submission (see Letter to U.S. Department of Commerce, from Shanghai
Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan, regarding Silicon Metal from the People's
Republic of China: Surrogate Value Rebuttal (April 20, 2007)). Finally,
petitioner submitted surrogate value information and comments on April
27, 2007 (see Letter to the U.S.
[[Page 28469]]
Department of Commerce, from petitioner, regarding Silicon Metal from
the People's Republic of China; New Shipper Review; Submission of
Rebuttal Surrogate Value Factual Information and Comments (April 27,
2007)).
Verification
The Department verified the questionnaire responses of Jiangxi
Gangyuan on April 4-6, 2007, and Shanghai Jinneng on April 9-10, 2007
(which included a verification of Shanghai Jinneng's affiliated
producer, Datong Jinneng, on April 11-12, 2007). For these companies,
we used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection
of the manufacturers' and exporters' facilities, and examination of
relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are
outlined in the verification report for each company. For a further
discussion, see Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operation, Office 9, from Scot T. Fullerton,
Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, regarding Verification
of the Questionnaire Responses of Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon Industry
Co., Ltd., in the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Silicon Metal from
the People's Republic of China (``Jiangxi Gangyuan Verification
Report''); see also Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D.
Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operation, Office 9, from Scot T.
Fullerton, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, and Michael
J. Quigley, International Trade Compliance Analyst, regarding
Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Shanghai Jinneng
International Trade Co., Ltd., in the Antidumping New Shipper Review of
Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China (``Shanghai Jinneng
Verification Report''); and see also Memorandum to the File, through
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operation, Office 9, from
Scot T. Fullerton, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, and
Michael J. Quigley, International Trade Compliance Analyst, regarding
Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Shanghai Jinneng that
relate to Datong Jinneng Industrial Silicon Co., Ltd., in the
Antidumping New Shipper Review of Silicon Metal from the People's
Republic of China (``Datong Jinneng Verification Report'').
Bona Fide Sale Analysis - Shanghai Jinneng & Jiangxi Gangyuan
For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Shanghai
Jinneng's and Jiangxi Gangyuan's reported U.S. sales during the POR
appear to be bona fide based on the totality of the facts on the
record. Specifically, we find that: (1) The prices of Shanghi Jinneng's
and Jiangxi Gangyuan's sales were within the range of the prices of
other entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United
States during the POR; (2) Shanghai Jinneng's and Jiangxi Gangyuan's
sales were made to unaffiliated parties at arm's length; and (3) there
is no record evidence that indicates that Shanghai Jinneng's and
Jiangxi Gangyuan's sales were not made based on commercial principles.
See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office
9, Import Administration, through Christopher D. Riker, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael J. Quigley,
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding
2005/2006 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide
Analysis of the Sale(s) Reported by Shanghai Jinneng International
Trade Co., Ltd. (May 11, 2007); see also Memorandum to James C. Doyle,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, through Christopher D. Riker,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Scot T. Fullerton,
Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
regarding 2005/2006 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of
China: Bona Fide Analysis of the Sale(s) Reported by Jiangxi Gangyuan
Silicon Industry Co., Ltd. (May 11, 2007).
Non-Market Economy Country
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country.
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a
foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until revoked
by the administering authority. See, e.g., 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.
Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act, which applies to NME countries.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or
more market-economy countries that (A) are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (B) are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. Of the five countries
identified by the Office of Policy as economically comparable to the
PRC, data supplied by respondents and petitioner indicate that both
India and Egypt are both significant producers of merchandise
comparable to silicon metal. The record, however, lacks Egyptian data
to value quartzite (the source of silicon in silicon metal), charcoal,
and rice straw, as well as contemporaneous Egyptian values for certain
other inputs as well as freight. However, with respect to India,
sufficient publicly available surrogate value information is available
on the record. Therefore, we used India as the primary surrogate
country to value all inputs. See Memorandum to the File, through
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
from Michael J. Quigley, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, regarding Surrogate Values Used for the
Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 New Shipper Reviews of Silicon
Metal from the People's Republic of China (May 11, 2007) (``Factor
Valuation Memo'').
For further discussion of our surrogate country selection, see
Memorandum to the File, through James C. Doyle Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9 and Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, from Michael Quigley, International Trade
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Reviews of Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China:
Selection of a Surrogate Country (May 11, 2007) (``Surrogate Country
Memorandum'').
Separate Rates
To establish whether a company operating in an NME is sufficiently
independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes
each exporting entity under the test established in the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''),
as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994). Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department
assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto
[[Page 28470]]
governmental control over export activities.
De Jure Control
The Department considers the following criteria in determining
whether an individual company is free of de jure absence of government
control over export activities: (1) an absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and
export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control
of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20588.
In their questionnaire responses, Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi
Gangyuan stated that they are independent legal entities, and placed
evidence on the record that indicates that the PRC government does not
have de jure control over their export activities. Shanghai Jinneng and
Jiangxi Gangyuan submitted evidence of their legal right to set prices
independent of governmental oversight. Furthermore, the business
licenses of Shanghai Jinneng and Jianxi Gangyuan indicate that they are
permitted to engage in the exportation of silicon metal. We also found
no evidence of de jure governmental control restricting Shanghai
Jinneng's and Jiangxi Gangyuan's exportation of silicon metal.
The following laws, which have been placed on the record of this
review, indicate a lack of de jure government control. The Company Law
of the People's Republic of China, made effective on July 1, 1994, with
the amended version promulgated on August 28, 2004, states that a
company is legal entity, that shareholders shall assume liability
towards the company to the extent of their shareholdings and that the
company shall be liable for its debts to the extent of all its assets.
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan also provided copies of the
Foreign Trade Law of the PRC, promulgated on May 12, 1994, which
identifies the rights and responsibilities of organizations engaged in
foreign trade, grants autonomy to foreign-trade operators in management
decisions and establishes the foreign trade operator's accountability
for profits and losses. The Department, therefore, preliminarily
determines that there is an absence of de jure control over the export
activities of Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan.
De Facto Control
The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating
whether a respondent is subject to de facto government control over its
exports: (1) Whether each exporter sets its own export prices
independently of the government and without the approval of a
government authority; (2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds
from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) whether each
exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the
government regarding the selection of management. See, e.g., Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol
From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan have both asserted the
following:
(1) Each establishes its own export prices; (2) each negotiates
contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or
organizations; (3) each makes its own personnel decisions; and
(4) each retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits
according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its
assets and to obtain loans. Moreover, the Department verified that
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan are free of de facto government
control. Based upon information on the record, there is a sufficient
basis to preliminarily determine that Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi
Gangyuan have demonstrated an absence of de facto governmental control
over their export functions. Therefore, because Shanghai Jinneng and
Jiangxi Gangyuan operate free of de jure and de facto government
control, the Department has preliminarily determined that Shanghai
Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan have satisfied the criteria for separate
rates based on the documentation each has submitted on the record.
Normal-Value Comparisons
To determine whether Shanghai Jinneng's and Jiangxi Gangyuan's
sales of the subject merchandise to the United States were made at
prices below NV, their United States prices were compared to NV, as
described in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections
of this notice.
United States Price
For Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan, the Department based
U.S. price on export price (``EP'') in accordance with section 772(a)
of the Act, because the first sales to unaffiliated purchasers were
made prior to importation, and constructed export price (``CEP'') was
not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP
based on packed prices from the exporter to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States. Where applicable, foreign inland
freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and ocean freight
were deducted from the starting price (gross unit price) in accordance
with section 772(c) of the Act.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using a factors of production (``FOP'') methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME country and the available
information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market
prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408. The Department will base NV on the
factors of production because the presence of government controls on
various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the
calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies.
See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished,
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70
FR 29744, 39754 (July 11, 2005) (unchanged in final results). See
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2003-2004
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review.
For purposes of calculating NV, we selected surrogate values for
the PRC factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of
the Act. Factors of production include, but are not limited to, hours
of labor required, quantities of raw materials employed, amounts of
energy and other utilities consumed, and representative capital costs,
including depreciation. See section 773(c)(3) of the Act. In choosing
surrogate values, we selected, where possible, a publicly available
value which was an average country-wide, non-export value,
representative of a range of prices within the POR or most
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See,
e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated
Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300
(December 16, 2004) (``Chlorinated Isocyanurates''), unchanged in
Notice of
[[Page 28471]]
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated
Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 24502 (May 10,
2005). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. See Manganese Metal from
the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12442 (March 13, 1998).
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department
calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by Shanghai Jinneng and
Jiangxi Gangyuan for the POR. To calculate NV, the reported per-unit
factor quantities was multiplied by publicly available surrogate
values. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight
costs to reflect delivered prices. For a detailed explanation of all
surrogate values used for respondents, see Factor Valuation Memo.
Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using
June 2005-May 2006 weighted-average Indian import values derived from
the World Trade Atlas online (``WTA'') (see Factor Valuation Memo). The
Indian import statistics we obtained from the WTA were published by the
Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry
of Commerce of India and are contemporaneous with the POR. As the
Indian surrogate values were denominated in rupees, they were converted
to U.S. dollars using the exchange rate for India on the date of the
applicable sale. The daily exchange rate was the exchange rate data
from the Department's website, which are taken from publicly available
data from the Federal Reserve and Dow Jones. See https://
www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/. Where we could not obtain
publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR with which
to value factors, we adjusted the publicly available information for
inflation using Indian wholesale price indices (``WPIs'') as published
in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics
(``IFS''). See Factor Valuation Memo.
In instances where we relied on Indian import data to value inputs,
in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from
both NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly available,
non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all
export markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand) from our
surrogate value calculations. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass
Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February
12, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
See, also, Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color
Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800,
66808 (November 28, 2003), unchanged in the Department's final
determination at 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Additionally, imports
that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' country were
excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be
certain that they were not from either an NME or a country with
generally available export subsidies.
Surrogate Valuations
To value the input of quartzite, data from the 2005 edition of the
Indian Minerals Yearbook published by the Indian Bureau of Mines that
accounted for the period April 2004 through March 2005. This data
precedes the POR and was adjusted for inflation. See Factor Valuation
Memo, Attachment 3.
To value charcoal, we used Indian import data that accounted for
the POR from the Monthly Statistics for HTS number 4402. This data
coincides with the POR and was not adjusted for inflation. See Factor
Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
To value carbon electrodes, we used Indian import data that
accounted for the POR from the Monthly Statistics for HTS number
8545.11.00. This data coincides with the POR and was not adjusted for
inflation. See Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
To value petroleum coke, we used Indian import data that accounted
for the POR from the Monthly Statistics for HTS numbers 2713.11.00
(petroleum coke not calcined). This data coincides with the POR and was
not adjusted for inflation. See Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
To value coal, we used Indian import data that accounted for the
POR from the Monthly Statistics for HTS number 2719.10.20, for steam
coal. This data coincides with the POR and was not adjusted for
inflation. See Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
To value fuel wood, we used Indian import data that accounted for
the POR from the Monthly Statistics for HTS numbers 4401.10. This data
coincides with the POR and was not adjusted for inflation. See Factor
aluation Memo, Attachment 5.
To value rice straw, we used Indian import data that accounted for
the POR from the Monthly Statistics for HTS numbers 1213.00.00. The
data coincides with the POR and was not adjusted for inflation. See
Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
To value silica fume, we used Indian import data that accounted for
the POR from the Monthly Statistics for HTS numbers 2811.22.00. This
data coincides with the POR and was not adjusted for inflation. See
Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
To value the bags used as packing materials for subject merchandise
and silica fume, we used Indian import data that accounted for the POR
from the Monthly Statistics for HTS number 6305.33.00. This data
coincides with the POR and was not adjusted for inflation. See Factor
Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
Section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the
use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value the labor
input, the Department used the regression-based wage rate for the PRC
published by Import Administration on its website. See https://
www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/.
We valued electricity using rates from Key World Energy Statistics
2003, published by the International Energy Agency (``IEA''). We
adjusted the rate to make it contemporaneous with the POR. See Factor
Valuation Memo, Attachment 7.
To value truck freight expenses for both raw materials and subject
merchandise, we used an average rate per kilometer per metric ton
calculated from data obtained from the web site of an Indian transport
company, InFreight Technologies India Ltd. This data coincides with the
POR and was not adjusted for inflation. See Factor Valuation Memo,
Attachment 8.
To value rail freight expenses for the shipment of petroleum coke,
we used the rail freight tariff in effect for August 2004 as published
by Indian Railways, and inflated it for the POR. See Factor Valuation
Memo, Attachment 9.
To value SG&A, factory overhead and profit, the Department used the
2005-2006 financial statements from Indsil Eletrosmelts Limited and
Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited. See Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment
10.
We also note that Jiangxi Gangyuan erred in reporting the total
product used in the calculation of the factors of production.
Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we are amending
the reported total production
[[Page 28472]]
figure. For a more detailed explanation, see Jiangxi Gangyuan
Verification Report; see also Memorandum to the File from Scot T.
Fullerton, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, through
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
regarding, Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China - Analysis
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review Jiangxi
Gangyuan Industry Silicon Co., Ltd. Calculation Memorandum (May 11,
2007).
Finally, we also note that Shanghai Jinneng erred in reporting its
silica fume bags, and labor consumption. Therefore, for purposes of
these preliminary results, we are amending the calculated consumption
of both the silica fume bags and labor calculation. For a more detailed
explanation, see Datong Jinneng Verification Report; see also
Memorandum to the File from Michael Quigley, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding, Silicon Metal From the People's
Republic of China - Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of
New Shipper Review Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd.
Calculation Memorandum (May 11, 2007).
Currency Conversions
We made currency conversions using exchange rates obtained from the
website of Import Administration at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/
index.html.
Preliminary Results of Reviews
We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan during the period June 1, 2005,
through May 31, 2006:
Silicon Metal from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Company Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd....... 80.74
Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon Industry Co., Ltd.......... 124.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of
this notice.
Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than
30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are
requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and
(2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. Interested parties who wish to request a
hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30
days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should
contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the
number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See
19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to
those raised in the briefs.
The Department will issue the final results of these reviews,
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days
after the date of publication of this notice.
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), 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 publication of the final results of these
new shipper reviews. For assessment purposes, where possible, we
calculated importer-specific assessment rates for silicon metal from
the PRC via \ 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 these new
shipper reviews if any assessment rate calculated in the final results
of this review is above de minimis. The final results of these new
shipper reviews shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping
duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of these
reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of these reviews 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 the manufacturers/exporters
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de
minimis, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for subject merchandise
exported by Shanghai Jinneng or Jiangxi Gangyuan, but not manufactured
by Datong Jinneng or Jiangxi Gangyuan, respectively, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate (i.e., 139.49 percent); and
(3) for subject merchandise produced by Jiangxi Gangyuan or Datong
Jinneng but not exported by Jiangxi Gangyuan or Shanghai Jinneng,
respectively, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the
exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, should remain
in effect until further notice.
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.
These new shipper reviews and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213 and 351.214.
Dated: May 11, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-9703 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
