Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2006 Semiannual New Shipper Review, 54430-54436 [E7-18842]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
54430
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 25, 2007 / Notices
Antidumping Duty Proceedings
Period to be Reviewed
C–580–835 ................................................................................................................................................................
Dai Yang Metal Co., Ltd..
Suspension Agreements.
None..
1/1/06 - 12/31/06
1 If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single Vietnam entity of which the
named exporters are a part.
2If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of floor-standing metal-top ironing tables from
the People’s Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporters are a part.
3 If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of polyethylene retail carrier bags from the
People’s Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity
of which the named exporters are a part.
During any administrative review
covering all or part of a period falling
between the first and second or third
and fourth anniversary of the
publication of an antidumping duty
order under section 351.211 or a
determination under section
351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or
suspended investigation (after sunset
review), the Secretary, if requested by a
domestic interested party within 30
days of the date of publication of the
notice of initiation of the review, will
determine, consistant with FAG Italia
v.(roman) United States, 291 F.3d 806
(Fed Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether
antidumping duties have been absorbed
by an exporter or producer subject to the
review if the subject merchandise is
sold in the United States through an
importer that is affiliated with such
exporter or producer. The request must
include the name(s) of the exporter or
producer for which the inquiry is
requested.
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under
administrative protective orders in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
These initiations and this notice are
in accordance with section 751(a) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 USC
1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Dated: September 19, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–18857 Filed 9–24–07; 8:45 am]
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–846]
Brake Rotors From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of the 2006 Semiannual New Shipper
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is
conducting a semiannual new shipper
review of the antidumping duty order
on brake rotors from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) in response
to a request from Longkou Qizheng Auto
Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Qizheng’’). The period
of review (‘‘POR’’) is April 1 through
October 31, 2006. We have preliminarily
determined that Qizheng’s sale is a bona
fide transaction. In addition, we have
preliminarily determined that Qizheng
made its sale during the POR above
normal value. If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results
of this review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess antidumping duties on the
appropriate entry of subject
merchandise during the POR if the
assessment rate is above de minimis.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Moats or Blanche Ziv, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5047 or (202) 482–
4207, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
The Department published in the
Federal Register the antidumping duty
order on brake rotors from the PRC on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Sep 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
April 17, 1997. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order: Brake Rotors
from the People’s Republic of China, 62
FR 18740 (April 17, 1997) (‘‘Order’’). On
October 31, 2006, the Department
received a timely request from Qizheng,
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c),
to conduct a semiannual new shipper
review of the antidumping duty order
on brake rotors from the PRC. This
request was rejected by the Department
on November 6, 2006. Qizheng
resubmitted its request for review on
November 6, 2006. On November 30,
2006, the Department found that the
request for review with respect to
Qizheng met all of the regulatory
requirements set forth in 19 CFR
351.214(b) and initiated a semiannual
new shipper review of the antidumping
duty order on brake rotors from the PRC
for the April 1 through September 30,
2006, period. See Brake Rotors from the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation of
New Shipper Review, 71 FR 69203
(November 30, 2006). On November 30,
2006, the Department issued the initial
questionnaire to Qizheng. On December
1, 2006, the Department issued a
memorandum identifying five countries
as being at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
PRC for the specified period of review:
India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, and
the Philippines. See Attachment I of the
Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen,
Director, Office of Policy, to Wendy
Frankel, Director, China/NME Group,
Office 8, regarding, ‘‘2006 Semi–Annual
Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review of Brake Rotors from the
People’s Republic of China: Request for
a List of Surrogate Countries,’’
(‘‘Surrogate Country Memo’’). On
December 8, 2006, we invited interested
parties to provide information on
surrogate values for the factors of
production used in the production of
brake rotors. On January 19, 2007, the
petitioner submitted publicly available
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 25, 2007 / Notices
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
surrogate value information.1 On March
8, 2007, the Department expanded the
POR for this semiannual new shipper
review through October 31, 2006, to
capture the entry corresponding to
Qizheng’s sale to the United States. See
Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel,
Office Director, through Blanche Ziv,
Program Manager, from Jennifer Moats,
Analyst, regarding, ‘‘Expansion of the
Period of Review,’’ dated March 8, 2007.
Therefore, the POR for the semiannual
new shipper review of Qizheng is April
1 through October 31, 2006. On March
13, 2007, the Department selected India
as the most appropriate surrogate
country for the purposes of this review.
See Memorandum to the file through
Wendy J. Frankel, Office Director, and
Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, from
Jennifer Moats, Analyst, regarding,
‘‘Surrogate Country Selection,’’ dated
March 13, 2007 (‘‘Surrogate Country
Selection Memo’’). On March 21 and
April 26, 2007, the Department issued
supplemental questionnaires to
Qizheng. On May 11, 2007, the
Department published a notice
extending the deadline for the
preliminary results to September 18,
2007. See Brake Rotors from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Extension of the Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,
72 FR 26781 (May 11, 2007).
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are brake rotors made of gray cast iron,
whether finished, semifinished, or
unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8
to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters)
and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63
to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters
(weight and dimension) of the brake
rotors limit their use to the following
types of motor vehicles: automobiles,
all–terrain vehicles, vans and
recreational vehicles under ‘‘one ton
and a half,’’ and light trucks designated
as ‘‘one ton and a half.’’
Finished brake rotors are those that
are ready for sale and installation
without any further operations. Semi–
finished rotors are those on which the
surface is not entirely smooth, and have
undergone some drilling. Unfinished
rotors are those which have undergone
some grinding or turning.
These brake rotors are for motor
vehicles, and do not contain in the
casting a logo of an original equipment
manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) which produces
vehicles sold in the United States. (e.g.,
General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda,
1 The petitioner in this proceeding is the
Coalition for the Preservation of American Brake
Drum and Rotor Aftermarket Manufacturers.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Sep 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in
this order are not certified by OEM
producers of vehicles sold in the United
States. The scope also includes
composite brake rotors that are made of
gray cast iron, which contain a steel
plate, but otherwise meet the above
criteria. Excluded from the scope of this
order are brake rotors made of gray cast
iron, whether finished, semifinished, or
unfinished, with a diameter less than 8
inches or greater than 16 inches (less
than 20.32 centimeters or greater than
40.64 centimeters) and a weight less
than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds
(less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than
20.41 kilograms).2
Brake rotors are currently classifiable
under subheading 8708.39.50.30 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).3 Although
the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
‘‘Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), the
Department conducted verification of
Qizheng’s questionnaire responses at
the company’s facilities in Longkou,
Shandong, PRC, from June 6 through 8,
2007. We used standard verification
procedures, including on–site
inspection of the production facility and
examination of the relevant sale and
financial records. Our verification
results are outlined in the verification
report, the public version of which is on
file in the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’)
located in room B–099 of the Main
Commerce Building. See Memorandum
to the File through Wendy Frankel,
Office Director and Blanche Ziv,
Program Manager from Jennifer Moats,
Senior International Trade Analyst,
regarding, ‘‘Verification of the Sales and
Factors Response of Longkou Qizheng
Auto Part Co., Ltd. in the 2006
Semiannual Antidumping Duty New
2 On January 17, 2007, the Department
determined the brake rotors produced by FederalMogul and certified by the Ford Motor Company to
be excluded from the scope of the order. \
Memorandum from Blanche Ziv, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, through Wendy J.
Frankel, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 8, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, entitled,
‘‘Scope Ruling of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China;
Federal-Mogul Corporation,’’ dated January 17,
2007.
3 As of January 1, 2005, the HTSUS classification
for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.50.10
to 8708.39.50.30. As of January 1, 2007, the HTSUS
classification for brake rotors (discs) changed from
8708.39.50.30 to 8708.30.50.30. See HTSUS (2005),
available at https://www.usitc.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54431
Shipper Review on Brake Rotors from
the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated
August 22, 2007 (‘‘Qizheng Verification
Report’’).
Bona Fide Sale Analysis
For the reasons stated below, we
preliminarily find that Qizheng’s
reported U.S. sale during the POR
appears to be bona fide based on the
totality of the facts on the record. In
evaluating whether or not a single sale
in a new shipper review is
commercially reasonable, and therefore
bona fide, the Department considers,
inter alia, such factors as: (1) The timing
of the sale; (2) the price and quantity; (3)
the expenses arising from the
transaction; (4) whether the goods were
resold at a profit; and (5) whether the
transaction was made on an arm’s–
length basis. See Tianjin Tiancheng
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. United
States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 (CIT
2005), citing Am. Silicon Techs. v.
United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 992, 995
(CIT 2000). Accordingly, the
Department considers a number of
factors in its bona fides analysis, ‘‘all of
which may speak to the commercial
realities surrounding an alleged sale of
subject merchandise.’’ See Hebei New
Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United
States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342 (CIT
2005), citing Fresh Garlic from the PRC:
Final Results of Administrative Review
and Rescission of New Shipper Review,
67 FR 11283 (March 13, 2002), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum: New Shipper Review of
Clipper Manufacturing Ltd.
We preliminarily find that Qizheng’s
reported U.S. sale during the POR
appears to be bona fide based on the
totality of the circumstances on the
record. Specifically, we find that: (1)
The price of Qizheng’s sale was within
the range of the prices of other entries
of subject merchandise from the PRC
into the United States during the POR;
(2) the quantity of Qizheng’s sale was
within the range of quantities of other
entries of subject merchandise from the
PRC into the United States during the
POR; (3) the expenses arising from the
transaction were not unusual; and (4)
Qizheng’s sale was made between
unaffiliated parties at arm’s length. See
Memorandum to Wendy Frankel, Office
Director, through Blanche Ziv, Program
Manager, from Jennifer Moats, Senior
International Trade Analyst, regarding,
‘‘Semiannual Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the
People’s Republic of China: Bona Fide
Analysis of Longkou Qizheng Auto Parts
Co., Ltd.,’’ dated September 10, 2007
(‘‘Bona Fides Memo’’).
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
54432
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 25, 2007 / Notices
As discussed above, we found no
evidence that the sale in question for
Qizheng was not a bona fide sale. See
Bona Fides Memo. Based on our
examination into the bona fide nature of
the sale, the questionnaire responses
submitted by Qizheng, and our
verification thereof, we preliminarily
determine that Qizheng has met the
requirements to qualify as a new
shipper during the POR. We have
determined that Qizheng made its first
sale and shipment of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR, and that it was not affiliated
with any exporter or producer that had
previously shipped subject merchandise
to the United States during the POR.
Therefore, for purposes of these
preliminary results of review, pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), we are treating
Qizheng’s sale of brake rotors to the
United States as an appropriate
transaction for a new shipper review.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Non–Market Economy Country
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as an 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, 1006).
None of the parties in this review have
contested such treatment. Accordingly,
we calculated normal value (‘‘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
(‘‘FOP’’), to the extent possible, in one
or more market economy countries that:
(1) Are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
NME country, and (2) are significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
The Department has determined that
India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt,
and Sri Lanka are countries comparable
to the PRC in terms of economic
development. See Surrogate Country
Selection Memo. Customarily, we select
an appropriate surrogate country from
the Surrogate Country Memo based on
the availability and reliability of the
data from countries that are significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
In this case, based on publicly available
information placed on the record (e.g.,
world production data), we found that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Sep 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
India is a significant producer of brake
rotors. See Surrogate Country Selection
Memo. Accordingly, we selected India
as the primary surrogate country for
purposes of valuing the factors of
production in the calculation of NV
because it meets the Department’s
criteria for surrogate–country selection.
See Surrogate Country Selection Memo.
We relied on public information
whenever possible.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in
a new shipper review, interested parties
may submit publicly available
information to value the FOP within 20
days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results.
Separate Rate
In proceedings involving NME
countries (see section 771(18) of the
Act), the Department begins with a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus,
should be assigned a single
antidumping duty rate unless an
exporter can affirmatively demonstrate
an absence of government control, both
in law (‘‘de jure’’) and in fact (‘‘de
facto’’), with respect to its export
activities. For this new shipper review,
Qizheng submitted information in
support of its claim for a company–
specific rate. Moreover, we examined
Qizheng’s claims for a separate rate at
verification.
Accordingly, we have considered
whether Qizheng is independent from
government control, and therefore
eligible for a separate rate. To establish
whether a firm is sufficiently
independent from government control
over its export activities to be entitled
to a separate rate, the Department
analyzes each entity exporting the
subject merchandise under a test arising
from the Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People’s Republic of
China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (Comment 1)
(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as
amplified by Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR
22585, 22586–7 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon
Carbide’’). In accordance with the
separate–rate criteria, the Department
assigns separate rates in NME cases only
if the respondent can demonstrate the
absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over export
activities. Qizheng provided complete
separate–rate information in its
responses to our original questionnaire,
supplemental questionnaires, and as
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
examined at verification as discussed
below.
Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (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) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589 (Comment 1).
Qizheng placed a number of
documents on the record to demonstrate
absence of de jure control, including the
‘‘Company Law of the People’s Republic
of China’’ (October 27, 2005), the
‘‘Foreign Trade Law of the People’s
Republic of China’’ (May 12, 1994), and
‘‘Administrative Regulations of the
People’s Republic of China Governing
the Registration of Legal Corporations’’
(July 1991). See Exhibits A–4, A–5, and
A–6 of Qizheng’s, Section A
submission, dated January 16, 2007,
(‘‘Section A response’’). Qizheng also
submitted a copy of its business license
in Exhibit A–7 of its Section A response
that was issued by the local office of the
State Administration of Industry and
Commerce (‘‘SAIC’’) in Longkou City,
Shandong Province, China. Qizheng
stated that its business license is to
authorize the enterprise identified on
the license to engage in the activities
listed on the license. The enterprise is
identified on the license by the
enumeration of: (1) Its legal name; (2) its
legal address; (3) the name of its legal
representative; (4) its registered capital;
(5) the nature of the enterprise; and (6)
the scope of the enterprise’s business.
Qizheng also stated that its business
license allows an enterprise to enter into
contracts and conduct business
activities in accordance with its terms
and no other company can use the
business license that it uses. According
to Qizheng, there are no other
limitations or entitlements posed by the
business license. We examined these
statements and found no discrepancies
at verification. See Qizheng Verification
Report at pages 5 - 9.
We have reviewed Article 11 of
Chapter II of the Foreign Trade Law,
which states, ‘‘foreign trade dealers
shall enjoy full autonomy in their
business operation and be responsible
for their own profits and losses in
accordance with the law.’’ As in prior
cases, we have analyzed such PRC laws
and found that they establish an absence
of de jure control. See, e.g., Pure
Magnesium from the People’s Republic
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 25, 2007 / Notices
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review, 63 FR 3085,
3086 (January 21, 1998), and
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review: Certain
Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s
Republic of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696
(June 7, 2001), unchanged in Final
Results of New Shipper Review: Certain
Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s
Republic of China, 66 FR 45006 (August
27, 2001). Therefore, we preliminarily
determine that there is an absence of de
jure control over the export activities of
Qizheng.
Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether a
respondent is subject to de facto
government control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
are set by, or subject to, the approval of
a government authority; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate
and sign contracts, and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of its management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at
22586–87. Therefore, the Department
has determined that an analysis of de
facto control is critical in determining
whether a respondent is, in fact, subject
to a degree of government control that
would preclude the Department from
assigning it a separate rate.
The respondent has asserted the
following: (1) It is a privately owned
sino–foreign joint venture company; (2)
there is no government participation in
its setting of export prices; (3) its general
manager has the authority to sign export
contracts; (4) the board of directors
appointed the general manager, who
selected the other managers, and
Qizheng informs SAIC of the changes to
update its business license; (5) there are
no restrictions on the use of its export
revenue; and (6) the shareholders decide
how profits will be used. See Section A
response at pages A–2 through A–9; see
also Qizheng Verification Report at
pages 5 - 9. We have examined the
documentation provided and find that it
demonstrates that Qizheng’s pricing is
not subject to de facto control.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine
that there is an absence of de facto
control over the export activities of
Qizheng.
Consequently, because evidence on
the record indicates an absence of
government control, both in law and in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Sep 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
fact, over Qizheng’s export activities, we
preliminarily determine that Qizheng
has met the criteria for the application
of a separate rate.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Qizheng’s sale
of brake rotors to the United States was
made at a price below NV, we compared
its U.S. price to NV, as described in the
‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
sections of this notice, pursuant to
section 773 of the Act.
Export Price
For Qizheng, we based U.S. price on
export price (‘‘EP’’) in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act, because the
first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser
was made prior to importation, and
constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) was
not otherwise warranted by the facts on
the record. We calculated EP based on
the packed price from Qizheng to the
first unaffiliated customer in the United
States. We deducted foreign inland
freight, foreign brokerage and handling
expenses, international freight, and
marine insurance from the starting price
(‘‘gross unit price’’), in accordance with
section 772(c) of the Act.
Because foreign inland freight and
foreign brokerage and handling
expenses were provided by PRC service
providers or paid for in renminbi, we
valued these services using Indian
surrogate values (see ‘‘Factor
Valuations’’ section below for further
discussion). For expenses provided by a
market economy provider and paid for
in market economy currency (i.e.,
international freight and marine
insurance), we used the actual price
paid for the input, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1). See also Lasko Metal
Products v.(roman) United States, 43
F3d 1442, 1445–46 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine NV
using an FOP methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME
country and the 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. The
Department will base NV on the FOPs
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.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c)(1)
of the Act, we calculated NV based on
the FOPs reported by Qizheng. FOPs
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54433
include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours
of labor required; (2) quantities of raw
materials employed; (3) amounts of
energy and other utilities consumed;
and (4) representative capital costs,
including depreciation. See section
773(c)(3) of the Act. We used FOPs
reported by Qizheng for materials,
energy, labor, and packing. To calculate
NV, we multiplied the reported unit
factor quantities by publicly available
Indian values.
In selecting the surrogate values, we
considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data, in
accordance with our standard practice.
See, e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,
67 FR 72139 (December 4, 2002), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; and
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from
China Final Results of First New
Shipper Review and First Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s
Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June
11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
When we used publicly available
import data from the Ministry of
Commerce of India (‘‘Indian Import
Statistics’’) for April through October
2006 to value inputs sourced
domestically by PRC suppliers, we
added to the Indian surrogate values a
surrogate freight cost calculated using
the shorter of the reported distance from
the domestic supplier to the factory or
the distance from the nearest port of
export to the factory. See Sigma Corp. v.
United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (‘‘Sigma’’). In instances
where we relied on Indian import data
to value inputs, in accordance with the
Department’s practice, we excluded
imports from NME countries and
countries that we have reason to believe
or suspect may be subsidized (i.e.,
Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand).
We have found in other proceedings
that these countries maintain broadly
available, non–industry-specific
subsidies and therefore, there is reason
to believe or suspect all exports to all
export markets from these countries
may be subsidized. See e.g., Certain
Helical Spring Lock Washers From The
People’s Republic of China; Final
Results of Antidumping Administrative
Review, 61 FR 66255, 66256 (Comment
1) (December 17, 1996). Finally, we
excluded imports that were labeled as
originating from an ‘‘unspecified’’
country from the average value, because
we could not be certain that they were
not from either an NME or a country
with general export subsidies.
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
54434
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 25, 2007 / Notices
For a complete discussion of the
import data that we excluded from our
calculation of surrogate values, see
‘‘Memorandum to the File: 2006
Semiannual New Shipper Review of
Brake Rotors from the PRC: Factor
Valuation for the Preliminary Results,’’
dated concurrently with this notice
(‘‘Factor Valuation Memo’’). This
memorandum is on file in the CRU.
Where we could not obtain publicly
available information contemporaneous
with the POR to value FOPs, we
adjusted the surrogate values using the
Indian Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’)
as published in the International
Financial Statistics of the International
Monetary Fund available at https://
ifs.apdi.net/imf, for those surrogate
values in Indian rupees. See Factor
Valuation Memo at Exhibit 2. We made
currency conversions, where necessary,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, to U.S.
dollars using the daily exchange rate
corresponding to the reported date of
the sale. We relied on the daily
exchanges rates posted on the Import
Administration Web site (https://
ia.ita.doc.gov). See Factor Valuation
Memo.
We valued pig iron, steel scrap,
ferrosilicon, ferromanganese, limestone,
lubricating oil, coke, and firewood with
the weighted average of the import
volume and value from the Indian
Import Statistics. See id. at Attachment
3.
We valued electricity using the 2000
electricity price in India reported by the
International Energy Agency statistics
for Energy Prices & Taxes, Third Quarter
2003. We inflated the value for
electricity using the POR average WPI
for India. See id. at Attachment 5.
We valued packing materials
including plastic bags, plastic wrap,
cartons, tape, plywood, nails, steel
strap, and buckles with the weighted
average of the import volume and value
from the Indian Import Statistics. See id.
at Attachment 4. In addition, with
respect to plastic wrap, we valued this
input using ‘‘partial facts available.’’ For
further information on the valuation of
plastic wrap, see the ‘‘Facts Available’’
section of this notice.
Petitioner submitted financial
information for two Indian producers of
identical and comparable merchandise:
Bosch Chassis Systems India Ltd.
(‘‘Bosch’’) and Rico Auto Industries
Limited (‘‘Rico’’) for the year ending
March 31, 2006. See Petitioner’s
submission dated January 19, 2007. We
preliminarily determine that both
Bosch’s and Rico’s financial statements
are the best available information with
which to calculate financial ratios
because they appear to be complete, are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Sep 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
publicly available, and are
contemporaneous with the POR. See
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Final Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May
22, 2006), and the accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment
1 (where the Department stated that it
is the Department’s policy to use data
from market economy surrogate
companies based on the ‘‘specificity,
contemporaneity, and quality of the
data.’’) From these financial statements
we were able to determine factory
overhead as a percentage of the total raw
materials, labor, and energy (‘‘MLE’’)
costs; selling, general and
administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’) as a
percentage of MLE plus overhead (i.e.,
cost of manufacture); and the profit rate
as a percentage of the cost of
manufacture plus SG&A. See Factors
Valuation Memo for a full discussion of
the calculation of these ratios. Where
appropriate, we did not include in the
surrogate overhead and SG&A
calculations the excise duty amount
listed in the financial reports.
The Department valued truck freight
using Indian freight rates published by
Indian Freight Exchange available at
https://www.infreight.com. See Factor
Valuation Memo at Exhibit 8. This
source provided daily rates from six
major points of origins to six
destinations in India for the period
April through October 2005. We
averaged the monthly rates for each rate
observation to obtain the surrogate
value. Because these values were not
contemporaneous with the POR of this
new shipper review, we adjusted the
surrogate value for inflation using the
WPI for India.
In calculating the freight rate for truck
shipments, we used the shorter of the
reported distance from the domestic
supplier to the factory or the distance
from the nearest seaport to the factory,
in accordance with the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit’s decision in
Sigma, 117 F.3d at 1408. To derive the
freight cost for each material input, the
Department multiplied the surrogate
freight value per kilogram by the Sigma
freight. The Department added the
freight expense to the cost of the
material input to determine gross
material costs. Where there were
multiple suppliers of an input, we
calculated a weighted–average distance.
See Id. at 9.
The data we used for brokerage and
handling expenses are not specific to
the subject merchandise; however, there
is no information on brokerage and
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
handling expenses specific to brake
rotors on the record of this review.
Therefore, the Department used two
sources to calculate a surrogate value for
domestic brokerage expenses: (1) Data
from the January 9, 2006, Section C
questionnaire response public version
from Kejriwal Paper Ltd.4 (‘‘Kejriwal’’);
and (2) data from Agro Dutch Industries
Ltd. for the period of review February 1,
2004, through January 31, 2005 (see
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
India: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
37757 (June 30, 2005) (unchanged from
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from
India: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 10597 (March 4, 2005)).
See Factor Valuation Memo at page 6
and Exhibit 7. Because these values
were not contemporaneous with the
POR of this new shipper review, we
adjusted these rates for inflation using
the WPI for India as published in the
International Monetary Fund’s
International Financial Statistics, and
then calculated a simple average of the
two companies’ brokerage expense data.
See id. at page 6 and Exhibit 7.
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 our website.
The source of the wage rate data is the
Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2004,
published by the International Labour
Office (‘‘ILO’’) (Geneva: 2004), Chapter
5B: Wages in Manufacturing. See the
Expected Wages of Selected NME
Countries (revised January 2007)
available at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages.
Because the regression–based wage rate
does not separate the labor rates into
different skill levels or types of labor,
we applied the same wage rate to all
skill levels and types of labor reported
by each respondent.
Application of Facts Available
Section 776(a)(1) of the Act provides
that if ‘‘necessary information is not
available on the record,’’ the
Department shall, subject to subsection
4 Kejriwal was a respondent in the certain lined
paper products from India investigation for which
the period of investigation was July 1, 2004, to June
30, 2005. See Notice of Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of
Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products From India, 71 FR
19706 (April 17, 2006) (unchanged in Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, and Negative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from
India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006).
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 25, 2007 / Notices
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
782(d) of the Act, ‘‘use the facts
otherwise available’’ in reaching the
applicable determination. Further,
section 782(e) of the Act states that the
Department shall not decline to
consider information deemed
‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1)
The information is submitted by the
established deadline; (2) the information
can be verified; (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as
a reliable basis for reaching the
applicable determination; (4) the
interested party has demonstrated that it
acted to the best of its ability; and (5)
the information can be used without
undue difficulties. For these
preliminary results, in accordance with
sections 776(a)(1) and 782(e) of the Act,
we have determined that the use of
partial facts available is appropriate for
applying a surrogate value to Qizheng’s
reported plastic wrap usage for the
reasons discussed below.
Plastic Wrap
In its original Section D questionnaire
response dated January 16, 2007
(‘‘Section D response’’), Qizheng
reported the total volume of ‘‘plastic
wrap’’ used by the company as one FOP.
At verification, the Department found
that Qizheng used two types of plastic
wrap (i.e., thin plastic wrap and thick
plastic wrap) to pack the brake rotors
that it shipped to the United States, and
that both types of plastic wrap were
included in the single variable reported
by Qizheng. See Qizheng Verification
Report at page 23. Company officials
stated, and the Department verified, that
both types of plastic wrap are accounted
for in the one FOP that it reported. The
Department normally would use a
different surrogate value for thick
plastic wrap versus thin plastic wrap.
However, because both types of plastic
wrap are combined in a single reported
FOP, it is not possible at this point to
determine the volume of thin versus
thick plastic wrap used by the
respondent. As a result, it will be
necessary to use ‘‘facts available’’ in
applying the surrogate value for plastic
wrap.
We determine that non–adverse
partial facts available should be applied
in this case for the following reasons:
the respondent reported the total
volume of plastic wrap (thick and thin);
there is no indication that the
respondent misrepresented the type of
wrap reported; rather, it simply reported
its total use of ‘‘plastic wrap≥; the
Department is satisfied with the
accuracy of Quizheng’s FOP data with
respect to all other FOPs; the difference
in the application of the surrogate value
for thin plastic wrap versus thick plastic
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Sep 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
54435
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Individuals who wish to request a
hearing must submit a written request
within 30 days of the publication of this
notice in the Federal Register to the
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing
should contain: (1) The party’s name,
address, and telephone number; (2) the
number of participants; and (3) to the
extent practicable, an identification of
the arguments to be raised at the
hearing. If a hearing is held, an
interested party must limit its
presentation only to arguments raised in
its briefs. Parties should confirm by
Preliminary Results of Review
telephone the time, date, and place of
the hearing 48 hours before the
We preliminarily determine that the
scheduled time.
following antidumping duty margin
The Department will issue the final
exists:
results of this new shipper review,
which will include the results of its
Exporter
Margin
analysis of issues raised in the briefs,
Longkou Qizheng Auto
within 90 days from the publication
Parts Co., Ltd. ...........
0.0% date of the preliminary results, unless
the time limit is extended.
For details on the calculation of the
Assessment Rate
antidumping duty weighted–average
margin for Qizheng, see Memorandum
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
to The File through Blanche Ziv,
Department will determine, and CBP
Program Manager, from Jennifer Moats,
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
Senior International Trade Analyst,
appropriate entries. The Department
regarding the ‘‘Analysis for the
intends to issue assessment instructions
Preliminary Results of the 2006
directly to CBP 15 days after the date of
Semiannual New Shipper Review of the publication of the final results of this
Antidumping Duty Order on Brake
new shipper review. For assessment
Rotors from the People’s Republic of
purposes, we will calculate an
China: Longkou Qizheng Auto Parts Co., importer–specific assessment rate for
Ltd.,’’ dated concurrently with this
brake rotors from the PRC on a per–unit
notice. A public version of this
basis. Specifically, we will divide the
memorandum is on file in the CRU.
total dumping margin (calculated as the
difference between normal value and
Schedule for the Final Results of
the export price) for the importer by the
Review
total quantity of subject merchandise
Unless otherwise notified by the
sold to that importer during the POR to
Department, interested parties may
calculate a per–unit assessment amount.
submit case briefs within 30 days of the We will direct CBP to assess
date of publication of this notice in
antidumping duties based on the
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
resulting per–unit (i.e., per–piece) rate
As part of the case brief, parties are
by the weight in kilograms of the entry
encouraged to provide a summary of the of the subject merchandise during the
arguments not to exceed five pages and
POR, if any importer–specific
a table of statutes, regulations, and cases assessment rate calculated in the final
cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must be
results of review is above de minimis.
limited to issues raised in the case
Cash Deposit
briefs, must be filed within five days
after the case brief is filed. See 19 CFR
The following cash–deposit
351.309(d).
requirements will be effective upon
Any interested party may request a
publication of these final results for
hearing within 30 days of publication of shipments of the subject merchandise
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
351.310(c). Any hearing would normally for consumption on or after the
be held 37 days after the publication of
publication date of the final results, as
this notice, or the first workday
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the
thereafter, at the U.S. Department of
Act: (1) For subject merchandise
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution produced and exported by Qizheng, the
wrap has an insignificant impact on the
FOP calculations.
It is the Department’s practice to
calculate the dumping margin based on
the surrogate value that most accurately
represents the materials used. See
section 773(c)(2) of the Act. Thus, as
partial facts available, the Department
has calculated a simple average of the
two available surrogate values from the
Indian Import Statistics for thick and
thin plastic wrap, and has applied the
resulting average to Qizheng’s reported
combined usage of thin and thick plastic
wrap used to pack the subject
merchandise sold to the United States
during the POR. See Factor Valuation
Memo at 4 and Exhibit 4.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
54436
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 25, 2007 / Notices
cash deposit rate will be zero percent;
(2) for subject merchandise exported by
Qizheng but not produced by Qizheng,
the cash deposit rate will be the PRC–
wide rate; (3) the cash deposit rate for
PRC exporters who received a separate
rate in a prior segment of the proceeding
will continue to be the rate assigned in
that segment of the proceeding; (4) for
all other 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 43.32 percent; and (5) for
all non–PRC exporters of subject
merchandise, the cash–deposit rate will
be the rate applicable to the PRC
supplier of that exporter. These deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to the importer of
its responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entry during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of the antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
This new shipper review and this
notice are published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: September 18, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–18842 Filed 9–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–863]
Notice of Extension of the Final
Results of Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review: Honey From the
People’s Republic of China
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin
C. Begnal or Michael Quigley; AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Sep 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1442 and (202)
482–4047, respectively.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Background
Environmental Technologies Trade
Advisory Committee (ETTAC)
On July 3, 2007, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published
the preliminary results of the new
shipper review of the antidumping duty
order on honey from the People’s
Republic of China for the period
December 1, 2005, through June 30,
2006. See Honey from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 72 FR 36422 (July 3, 2007)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). The final
results of this new shipper review are
currently due by September 24, 2007.
International Trade Administration
International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice of open meeting.
Dates: September 28, 2007.
Time: 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Place: Department of Commerce, 14th
and Constitution, NW., Washington, DC
20230, Room 4830.
Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the
Department to issue the preliminary
results of a new shipper review within
180 days after the date on which the
new shipper review was initiated and
final results of a review within 90 days
after the date on which the preliminary
results were issued. The Department
may, however, extend the deadline for
completion of the final results of a new
shipper review to 150 days if it
determines that the case is
extraordinarily complicated (19 CFR
351.214 (i)(2)).
The Department has determined that
the review is extraordinarily
complicated, as the Department must
consider numerous arguments presented
in the respondent’s August 2, 2007, case
brief and the petitioners’ August 8,
2007, rebuttal brief, including issues
related to factors of production,
completeness, and the application of
adverse facts available. Based on the
timing of the case, the final results of
this new shipper review cannot be
completed within the statutory time
limit of 90 days. Accordingly, the
Department is extending the time limit
for the completion of the final results by
30 days from the original September 24,
2007, deadline, to October 24, 2007, in
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2).
This notice is published pursuant to
sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
SUMMARY: The Environmental
Technologies Trade Advisory
Committee (ETTAC) will hold a plenary
meeting on September 28, 2007, at the
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, in Room 4830.
The ETTAC will discuss updated
negotiations in the World Trade
Organization’s environmental goods and
services trade liberalization, among
other administrative committee priority
items. The meeting is open to the public
and time will be permitted for public
comment.
Written comments concerning ETTAC
affairs are welcome anytime before or
after the meeting. Minutes will be
available within 30 days of this meeting.
The ETTAC is mandated by Public
Law 103–392. It was created to advise
the U.S. government on environmental
trade policies and programs, and to help
it to focus its resources on increasing
the exports of the U.S. environmental
industry. ETTAC operates as an
advisory committee to the Secretary of
Commerce and the Trade Promotion
Coordinating Committee (TPCC).
ETTAC was originally chartered in May
of 1994. It was most recently rechartered
until September 2008.
For further information phone Ellen
Bohon, Office of Energy and
Environmental Technologies Industries
(OEEI), International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce at (202) 482–0359. This
meeting is physically accessible to
people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to
OEEI at (202) 482–5225.
Dated: September 18, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–18875 Filed 9–24–07; 8:45 am]
Dated: September 18, 2007.
Jerome S. Morse,
Acting Director, Office of Energy and
Environmental Industries.
[FR Doc. E7–18852 Filed 9–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
Extension of Time Limits for Final
Results
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54430-54436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-18842]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-846]
Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of the 2006 Semiannual New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is
conducting a semiannual new shipper review of the antidumping duty
order on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') in
response to a request from Longkou Qizheng Auto Parts Co., Ltd.
(``Qizheng''). The period of review (``POR'') is April 1 through
October 31, 2006. We have preliminarily determined that Qizheng's sale
is a bona fide transaction. In addition, we have preliminarily
determined that Qizheng made its sale during the POR above normal
value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on the appropriate entry of
subject merchandise during the POR if the assessment rate is above de
minimis. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats or Blanche Ziv, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5047 or (202) 482-4207, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping
duty order on brake rotors from the PRC on April 17, 1997. See Notice
of Antidumping Duty Order: Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of
China, 62 FR 18740 (April 17, 1997) (``Order''). On October 31, 2006,
the Department received a timely request from Qizheng, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.214(c), to conduct a semiannual new shipper review of
the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC. This request
was rejected by the Department on November 6, 2006. Qizheng resubmitted
its request for review on November 6, 2006. On November 30, 2006, the
Department found that the request for review with respect to Qizheng
met all of the regulatory requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b)
and initiated a semiannual new shipper review of the antidumping duty
order on brake rotors from the PRC for the April 1 through September
30, 2006, period. See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China:
Initiation of New Shipper Review, 71 FR 69203 (November 30, 2006). On
November 30, 2006, the Department issued the initial questionnaire to
Qizheng. On December 1, 2006, the Department issued a memorandum
identifying five countries as being at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the PRC for the specified period of review:
India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, and the Philippines. See Attachment
I of the Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to
Wendy Frankel, Director, China/NME Group, Office 8, regarding, ``2006
Semi-Annual Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from
the People's Republic of China: Request for a List of Surrogate
Countries,'' (``Surrogate Country Memo''). On December 8, 2006, we
invited interested parties to provide information on surrogate values
for the factors of production used in the production of brake rotors.
On January 19, 2007, the petitioner submitted publicly available
[[Page 54431]]
surrogate value information.\1\ On March 8, 2007, the Department
expanded the POR for this semiannual new shipper review through October
31, 2006, to capture the entry corresponding to Qizheng's sale to the
United States. See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, Office Director,
through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, from Jennifer Moats, Analyst,
regarding, ``Expansion of the Period of Review,'' dated March 8, 2007.
Therefore, the POR for the semiannual new shipper review of Qizheng is
April 1 through October 31, 2006. On March 13, 2007, the Department
selected India as the most appropriate surrogate country for the
purposes of this review. See Memorandum to the file through Wendy J.
Frankel, Office Director, and Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, from
Jennifer Moats, Analyst, regarding, ``Surrogate Country Selection,''
dated March 13, 2007 (``Surrogate Country Selection Memo''). On March
21 and April 26, 2007, the Department issued supplemental
questionnaires to Qizheng. On May 11, 2007, the Department published a
notice extending the deadline for the preliminary results to September
18, 2007. See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Notice
of Extension of the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 72 FR 26781 (May 11, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioner in this proceeding is the Coalition for the
Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermarket
Manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are brake rotors made of gray
cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in
diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight
from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters
(weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the
following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles,
vans and recreational vehicles under ``one ton and a half,'' and light
trucks designated as ``one ton and a half.''
Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and
installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are
those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and have undergone
some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those which have undergone some
grinding or turning.
These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in
the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (``OEM'')
which produces vehicles sold in the United States. (e.g., General
Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in
this order are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the
United States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that are
made of gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but otherwise meet
the above criteria. Excluded from the scope of this order are brake
rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or
unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 inches or greater than 16
inches (less than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 40.64 centimeters)
and a weight less than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less than
3.63 kilograms or greater than 20.41 kilograms).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On January 17, 2007, the Department determined the brake
rotors produced by Federal-Mogul and certified by the Ford Motor
Company to be excluded from the scope of the order. [bbshill]
Memorandum from Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 8, through Wendy J. Frankel, Office Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, entitled, ``Scope Ruling of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of
China; Federal-Mogul Corporation,'' dated January 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brake rotors are currently classifiable under subheading
8708.39.50.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'').\3\ Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope
of this order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As of January 1, 2005, the HTSUS classification for brake
rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.50.10 to 8708.39.50.30. As of
January 1, 2007, the HTSUS classification for brake rotors (discs)
changed from 8708.39.50.30 to 8708.30.50.30. See HTSUS (2005),
available at https://www.usitc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the ``Act''), and 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), the Department
conducted verification of Qizheng's questionnaire responses at the
company's facilities in Longkou, Shandong, PRC, from June 6 through 8,
2007. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site
inspection of the production facility and examination of the relevant
sale and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in
the verification report, the public version of which is on file in the
Central Records Unit (``CRU'') located in room B-099 of the Main
Commerce Building. See Memorandum to the File through Wendy Frankel,
Office Director and Blanche Ziv, Program Manager from Jennifer Moats,
Senior International Trade Analyst, regarding, ``Verification of the
Sales and Factors Response of Longkou Qizheng Auto Part Co., Ltd. in
the 2006 Semiannual Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review on Brake Rotors
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated August 22, 2007 (``Qizheng
Verification Report'').
Bona Fide Sale Analysis
For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Qizheng's
reported U.S. sale during the POR appears to be bona fide based on the
totality of the facts on the record. In evaluating whether or not a
single sale in a new shipper review is commercially reasonable, and
therefore bona fide, the Department considers, inter alia, such factors
as: (1) The timing of the sale; (2) the price and quantity; (3) the
expenses arising from the transaction; (4) whether the goods were
resold at a profit; and (5) whether the transaction was made on an
arm's-length basis. See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v.
United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 (CIT 2005), citing Am.
Silicon Techs. v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 992, 995 (CIT 2000).
Accordingly, the Department considers a number of factors in its bona
fides analysis, ``all of which may speak to the commercial realities
surrounding an alleged sale of subject merchandise.'' See Hebei New
Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333,
1342 (CIT 2005), citing Fresh Garlic from the PRC: Final Results of
Administrative Review and Rescission of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283
(March 13, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum: New
Shipper Review of Clipper Manufacturing Ltd.
We preliminarily find that Qizheng's reported U.S. sale during the
POR appears to be bona fide based on the totality of the circumstances
on the record. Specifically, we find that: (1) The price of Qizheng's
sale was within the range of the prices of other entries of subject
merchandise from the PRC into the United States during the POR; (2) the
quantity of Qizheng's sale was within the range of quantities of other
entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States
during the POR; (3) the expenses arising from the transaction were not
unusual; and (4) Qizheng's sale was made between unaffiliated parties
at arm's length. See Memorandum to Wendy Frankel, Office Director,
through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, from Jennifer Moats, Senior
International Trade Analyst, regarding, ``Semiannual Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from
the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of Longkou Qizheng
Auto Parts Co., Ltd.,'' dated September 10, 2007 (``Bona Fides Memo'').
[[Page 54432]]
As discussed above, we found no evidence that the sale in question
for Qizheng was not a bona fide sale. See Bona Fides Memo. Based on our
examination into the bona fide nature of the sale, the questionnaire
responses submitted by Qizheng, and our verification thereof, we
preliminarily determine that Qizheng has met the requirements to
qualify as a new shipper during the POR. We have determined that
Qizheng made its first sale and shipment of subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR, and that it was not affiliated with any
exporter or producer that had previously shipped subject merchandise to
the United States during the POR. Therefore, for purposes of these
preliminary results of review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), we are
treating Qizheng's sale of brake rotors to the United States as an
appropriate transaction for a new shipper review.
Non-Market Economy Country
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as an 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, 1006).
None of the parties in this review have contested such treatment.
Accordingly, we calculated normal value (``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 (``FOP''), to the extent possible,
in one or more market economy countries that: (1) Are at a level of
economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department has
determined that India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt, and Sri Lanka
are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.
See Surrogate Country Selection Memo. Customarily, we select an
appropriate surrogate country from the Surrogate Country Memo based on
the availability and reliability of the data from countries that are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. In this case, based on
publicly available information placed on the record (e.g., world
production data), we found that India is a significant producer of
brake rotors. See Surrogate Country Selection Memo. Accordingly, we
selected India as the primary surrogate country for purposes of valuing
the factors of production in the calculation of NV because it meets the
Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. See Surrogate
Country Selection Memo. We relied on public information whenever
possible.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
in a new shipper review, interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value the FOP within 20 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results.
Separate Rate
In proceedings involving NME countries (see section 771(18) of the
Act), the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are subject to government control and,
thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless an
exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government
control, both in law (``de jure'') and in fact (``de facto''), with
respect to its export activities. For this new shipper review, Qizheng
submitted information in support of its claim for a company-specific
rate. Moreover, we examined Qizheng's claims for a separate rate at
verification.
Accordingly, we have considered whether Qizheng is independent from
government control, and therefore eligible for a separate rate. To
establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government
control over its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate,
the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise
under a test arising from the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56
FR 20588, 20589 (Comment 1) (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified
by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585,
22586-7 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). In accordance with the
separate-rate criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME
cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de
jure and de facto government control over export activities. Qizheng
provided complete separate-rate information in its responses to our
original questionnaire, supplemental questionnaires, and as examined at
verification as discussed below.
Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (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) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589 (Comment 1).
Qizheng placed a number of documents on the record to demonstrate
absence of de jure control, including the ``Company Law of the People's
Republic of China'' (October 27, 2005), the ``Foreign Trade Law of the
People's Republic of China'' (May 12, 1994), and ``Administrative
Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the
Registration of Legal Corporations'' (July 1991). See Exhibits A-4, A-
5, and A-6 of Qizheng's, Section A submission, dated January 16, 2007,
(``Section A response''). Qizheng also submitted a copy of its business
license in Exhibit A-7 of its Section A response that was issued by the
local office of the State Administration of Industry and Commerce
(``SAIC'') in Longkou City, Shandong Province, China. Qizheng stated
that its business license is to authorize the enterprise identified on
the license to engage in the activities listed on the license. The
enterprise is identified on the license by the enumeration of: (1) Its
legal name; (2) its legal address; (3) the name of its legal
representative; (4) its registered capital; (5) the nature of the
enterprise; and (6) the scope of the enterprise's business. Qizheng
also stated that its business license allows an enterprise to enter
into contracts and conduct business activities in accordance with its
terms and no other company can use the business license that it uses.
According to Qizheng, there are no other limitations or entitlements
posed by the business license. We examined these statements and found
no discrepancies at verification. See Qizheng Verification Report at
pages 5 - 9.
We have reviewed Article 11 of Chapter II of the Foreign Trade Law,
which states, ``foreign trade dealers shall enjoy full autonomy in
their business operation and be responsible for their own profits and
losses in accordance with the law.'' As in prior cases, we have
analyzed such PRC laws and found that they establish an absence of de
jure control. See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic
[[Page 54433]]
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 63 FR
3085, 3086 (January 21, 1998), and Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's
Republic of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001), unchanged in
Final Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 45006 (August 27, 2001).
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de
jure control over the export activities of Qizheng.
Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether a respondent is subject to de facto government control of its
export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or subject
to, the approval of a government authority; (2) whether the respondent
has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements;
(3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making
decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) whether
the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87. Therefore, the
Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is
critical in determining whether a respondent is, in fact, subject to a
degree of government control that would preclude the Department from
assigning it a separate rate.
The respondent has asserted the following: (1) It is a privately
owned sino-foreign joint venture company; (2) there is no government
participation in its setting of export prices; (3) its general manager
has the authority to sign export contracts; (4) the board of directors
appointed the general manager, who selected the other managers, and
Qizheng informs SAIC of the changes to update its business license; (5)
there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and (6) the
shareholders decide how profits will be used. See Section A response at
pages A-2 through A-9; see also Qizheng Verification Report at pages 5
- 9. We have examined the documentation provided and find that it
demonstrates that Qizheng's pricing is not subject to de facto control.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de
facto control over the export activities of Qizheng.
Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence
of government control, both in law and in fact, over Qizheng's export
activities, we preliminarily determine that Qizheng has met the
criteria for the application of a separate rate.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Qizheng's sale of brake rotors to the United
States was made at a price below NV, we compared its U.S. price to NV,
as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of
this notice, pursuant to section 773 of the Act.
Export Price
For Qizheng, we based U.S. price on export price (``EP'') in
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an
unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed
export price (``CEP'') was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the
record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from Qizheng to the
first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We deducted foreign
inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, international
freight, and marine insurance from the starting price (``gross unit
price''), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
Because foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling
expenses were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in
renminbi, we valued these services using Indian surrogate values (see
``Factor Valuations'' section below for further discussion). For
expenses provided by a market economy provider and paid for in market
economy currency (i.e., international freight and marine insurance), we
used the actual price paid for the input, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1). See also Lasko Metal Products v.(roman) United States,
43 F3d 1442, 1445-46 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported
from an NME country and the 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. The Department will base NV on
the FOPs 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.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on the FOPs reported by Qizheng. FOPs include, but are not
limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw
materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed;
and (4) representative capital costs, including depreciation. See
section 773(c)(3) of the Act. We used FOPs reported by Qizheng for
materials, energy, labor, and packing. To calculate NV, we multiplied
the reported unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian
values.
In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our
standard practice. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR
72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; and Certain Preserved Mushrooms from China
Final Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's
Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
When we used publicly available import data from the Ministry of
Commerce of India (``Indian Import Statistics'') for April through
October 2006 to value inputs sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we
added to the Indian surrogate values a surrogate freight cost
calculated using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic
supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest port of export
to the factory. See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (``Sigma''). In instances where we relied on Indian
import data to value inputs, in accordance with the Department's
practice, we excluded imports from NME countries and countries that we
have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized (i.e., Indonesia,
South Korea, and Thailand). We have found in other proceedings that
these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific
subsidies and therefore, there is reason to believe or suspect all
exports to all export markets from these countries may be subsidized.
See e.g., Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From The People's
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review,
61 FR 66255, 66256 (Comment 1) (December 17, 1996). Finally, we
excluded imports that were labeled as originating from an
``unspecified'' country from the average value, because we could not be
certain that they were not from either an NME or a country with general
export subsidies.
[[Page 54434]]
For a complete discussion of the import data that we excluded from
our calculation of surrogate values, see ``Memorandum to the File: 2006
Semiannual New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the PRC: Factor
Valuation for the Preliminary Results,'' dated concurrently with this
notice (``Factor Valuation Memo''). This memorandum is on file in the
CRU.
Where we could not obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous with the POR to value FOPs, we adjusted the surrogate
values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in
the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary
Fund available at https://ifs.apdi.net/imf, for those surrogate values
in Indian rupees. See Factor Valuation Memo at Exhibit 2. We made
currency conversions, where necessary, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, to
U.S. dollars using the daily exchange rate corresponding to the
reported date of the sale. We relied on the daily exchanges rates
posted on the Import Administration Web site (https://ia.ita.doc.gov).
See Factor Valuation Memo.
We valued pig iron, steel scrap, ferrosilicon, ferromanganese,
limestone, lubricating oil, coke, and firewood with the weighted
average of the import volume and value from the Indian Import
Statistics. See id. at Attachment 3.
We valued electricity using the 2000 electricity price in India
reported by the International Energy Agency statistics for Energy
Prices & Taxes, Third Quarter 2003. We inflated the value for
electricity using the POR average WPI for India. See id. at Attachment
5.
We valued packing materials including plastic bags, plastic wrap,
cartons, tape, plywood, nails, steel strap, and buckles with the
weighted average of the import volume and value from the Indian Import
Statistics. See id. at Attachment 4. In addition, with respect to
plastic wrap, we valued this input using ``partial facts available.''
For further information on the valuation of plastic wrap, see the
``Facts Available'' section of this notice.
Petitioner submitted financial information for two Indian producers
of identical and comparable merchandise: Bosch Chassis Systems India
Ltd. (``Bosch'') and Rico Auto Industries Limited (``Rico'') for the
year ending March 31, 2006. See Petitioner's submission dated January
19, 2007. We preliminarily determine that both Bosch's and Rico's
financial statements are the best available information with which to
calculate financial ratios because they appear to be complete, are
publicly available, and are contemporaneous with the POR. See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May
22, 2006), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1 (where the Department stated that it is the Department's
policy to use data from market economy surrogate companies based on the
``specificity, contemporaneity, and quality of the data.'') From these
financial statements we were able to determine factory overhead as a
percentage of the total raw materials, labor, and energy (``MLE'')
costs; selling, general and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') as a
percentage of MLE plus overhead (i.e., cost of manufacture); and the
profit rate as a percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A. See
Factors Valuation Memo for a full discussion of the calculation of
these ratios. Where appropriate, we did not include in the surrogate
overhead and SG&A calculations the excise duty amount listed in the
financial reports.
The Department valued truck freight using Indian freight rates
published by Indian Freight Exchange available at https://
www.infreight.com. See Factor Valuation Memo at Exhibit 8. This source
provided daily rates from six major points of origins to six
destinations in India for the period April through October 2005. We
averaged the monthly rates for each rate observation to obtain the
surrogate value. Because these values were not contemporaneous with the
POR of this new shipper review, we adjusted the surrogate value for
inflation using the WPI for India.
In calculating the freight rate for truck shipments, we used the
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the
factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, in
accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision
in Sigma, 117 F.3d at 1408. To derive the freight cost for each
material input, the Department multiplied the surrogate freight value
per kilogram by the Sigma freight. The Department added the freight
expense to the cost of the material input to determine gross material
costs. Where there were multiple suppliers of an input, we calculated a
weighted-average distance. See Id. at 9.
The data we used for brokerage and handling expenses are not
specific to the subject merchandise; however, there is no information
on brokerage and handling expenses specific to brake rotors on the
record of this review. Therefore, the Department used two sources to
calculate a surrogate value for domestic brokerage expenses: (1) Data
from the January 9, 2006, Section C questionnaire response public
version from Kejriwal Paper Ltd.\4\ (``Kejriwal''); and (2) data from
Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. for the period of review February 1, 2004,
through January 31, 2005 (see Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 37757
(June 30, 2005) (unchanged from Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
10597 (March 4, 2005)). See Factor Valuation Memo at page 6 and Exhibit
7. Because these values were not contemporaneous with the POR of this
new shipper review, we adjusted these rates for inflation using the WPI
for India as published in the International Monetary Fund's
International Financial Statistics, and then calculated a simple
average of the two companies' brokerage expense data. See id. at page 6
and Exhibit 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Kejriwal was a respondent in the certain lined paper
products from India investigation for which the period of
investigation was July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005. See Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper
Products From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006) (unchanged in
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and
Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined
Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 our website. The source of the
wage rate data is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2004, published by
the International Labour Office (``ILO'') (Geneva: 2004), Chapter 5B:
Wages in Manufacturing. See the Expected Wages of Selected NME
Countries (revised January 2007) available at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
wages. Because the regression-based wage rate does not separate the
labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we applied
the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by
each respondent.
Application of Facts Available
Section 776(a)(1) of the Act provides that if ``necessary
information is not available on the record,'' the Department shall,
subject to subsection
[[Page 54435]]
782(d) of the Act, ``use the facts otherwise available'' in reaching
the applicable determination. Further, section 782(e) of the Act states
that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed
``deficient'' under section 782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted
by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3)
the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties. For these
preliminary results, in accordance with sections 776(a)(1) and 782(e)
of the Act, we have determined that the use of partial facts available
is appropriate for applying a surrogate value to Qizheng's reported
plastic wrap usage for the reasons discussed below.
Plastic Wrap
In its original Section D questionnaire response dated January 16,
2007 (``Section D response''), Qizheng reported the total volume of
``plastic wrap'' used by the company as one FOP. At verification, the
Department found that Qizheng used two types of plastic wrap (i.e.,
thin plastic wrap and thick plastic wrap) to pack the brake rotors that
it shipped to the United States, and that both types of plastic wrap
were included in the single variable reported by Qizheng. See Qizheng
Verification Report at page 23. Company officials stated, and the
Department verified, that both types of plastic wrap are accounted for
in the one FOP that it reported. The Department normally would use a
different surrogate value for thick plastic wrap versus thin plastic
wrap. However, because both types of plastic wrap are combined in a
single reported FOP, it is not possible at this point to determine the
volume of thin versus thick plastic wrap used by the respondent. As a
result, it will be necessary to use ``facts available'' in applying the
surrogate value for plastic wrap.
We determine that non-adverse partial facts available should be
applied in this case for the following reasons: the respondent reported
the total volume of plastic wrap (thick and thin); there is no
indication that the respondent misrepresented the type of wrap
reported; rather, it simply reported its total use of ``plastic
wrap; the Department is satisfied with the accuracy of
Quizheng's FOP data with respect to all other FOPs; the difference in
the application of the surrogate value for thin plastic wrap versus
thick plastic wrap has an insignificant impact on the FOP calculations.
It is the Department's practice to calculate the dumping margin
based on the surrogate value that most accurately represents the
materials used. See section 773(c)(2) of the Act. Thus, as partial
facts available, the Department has calculated a simple average of the
two available surrogate values from the Indian Import Statistics for
thick and thin plastic wrap, and has applied the resulting average to
Qizheng's reported combined usage of thin and thick plastic wrap used
to pack the subject merchandise sold to the United States during the
POR. See Factor Valuation Memo at 4 and Exhibit 4.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty
margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longkou Qizheng Auto Parts Co., Ltd................. 0.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-
average margin for Qizheng, see Memorandum to The File through Blanche
Ziv, Program Manager, from Jennifer Moats, Senior International Trade
Analyst, regarding the ``Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the
2006 Semiannual New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Longkou Qizheng Auto
Parts Co., Ltd.,'' dated concurrently with this notice. A public
version of this memorandum is on file in the CRU.
Schedule for the Final Results of Review
Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). As part of the case
brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not
to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases
cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the
case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is
filed. See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this
notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written
request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal
Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should
contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the
number of participants; and (3) to the extent practicable, an
identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. If a
hearing is held, an interested party must limit its presentation only
to arguments raised in its briefs. Parties should confirm by telephone
the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled
time.
The Department will issue the final results of this new shipper
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in the briefs, within 90 days from the publication date of the
preliminary results, unless the time limit is extended.
Assessment Rate
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 assessment instructions directly to CBP 15
days after the date of publication of the final results of this new
shipper review. For assessment purposes, we will calculate an importer-
specific assessment rate for brake rotors from the PRC on a per-unit
basis. Specifically, we will divide the total dumping margin
(calculated as the difference between normal value and the export
price) for the importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise
sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment
amount. We will direct CBP to assess antidumping duties based on the
resulting per-unit (i.e., per-piece) rate by the weight in kilograms of
the entry of the subject merchandise during the POR, if any importer-
specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of review is
above de minimis.
Cash Deposit
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results for shipments of the subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise produced and
exported by Qizheng, the
[[Page 54436]]
cash deposit rate will be zero percent; (2) for subject merchandise
exported by Qizheng but not produced by Qizheng, the cash deposit rate
will be the PRC-wide rate; (3) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters
who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will
continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (4)
for all other 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 43.32 percent; and (5) for all non-PRC exporters
of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to the importer
of its responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entry during this review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This new shipper review and this notice are published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 18, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-18842 Filed 9-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
