Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 12378-12382 [E8-4529]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12378
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Notices
of production of the subject
merchandise by the sole domestic
producer. The current requirement for a
cash deposit of estimated antidumping
duties on CPF from Thailand will
continue unless and until we publish a
final determination to revoke.
Public Comment
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit argument in this
proceeding are requested to submit with
the argument: (1) a statement of the
issue, and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of the
date of publication of this notice. Any
hearing, if requested, will be held no
later than 25 days after the date of
publication of this notice, or the first
workday thereafter. Case briefs may be
submitted by interested parties not later
than 15 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs, limited to the issues raised in the
case briefs, may be filed not later than
20 days after the date of publication of
this notice. All written comments shall
be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR
351.303. Persons interested in attending
the hearing should contact the
Department for the date and time of the
hearing. The Department will publish
the final results of this changed
circumstances review, including the
results of its analysis of issues raised in
any written comments.
This notice of initiation is in
accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the
Act, 19 CFR 351.216(b) and (d), and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(1).
Dated: February 29, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–4555 Filed 3–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–879]
Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Stolz, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8,
Import Administration, Room 1870,
International Trade Administration,
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:46 Mar 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–4474.
Background
On October 1, 2007, the Department
of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on polyvinyl
alcohol (‘‘PVA’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation: Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 72 FR 55741
(October 1, 2007). On October 30, 2007,
E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. and
Celanese Chemicals, Ltd. (‘‘Petitioners’’)
requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review of Sinopec
Vinylon Works (‘‘SVW’’). The
Department published a notice of
initiation of the antidumping duty
administrative review of PVA from the
PRC for the period October 1, 2006,
through September 30, 2007. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 72 FR 65938 (November 26, 2007).
Rescission of Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review, in whole or in part, if the party
that requested the review withdraws the
request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the notice of initiation of
the requested review. On February 15,
2008, 2007, Petitioners timely withdrew
their request for an administrative
review of SVW within 90 days of the
publication of the notice of initiation of
this review. Therefore, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Department hereby rescinds the
administrative review of PVA from the
PRC for the period October 1, 2006,
through September 30, 2007. The
Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection 15 days after the publication
of this notice of rescission of
administrative review.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 777(i) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19
CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: February 29, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–4549 Filed 3–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–806
Silicon Metal From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
and Preliminary Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) is currently conducting
the 2006/2007 administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on silicon
metal from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’). The period of review
(‘‘POR’’) for this administrative review
is June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007.
Fifteen companies reported that they
had no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR; therefore,
we are preliminarily rescinding our
review of these companies. We
preliminarily determine that three
companies, Hunan Provincial Import &
Export Group Co (PRC) (‘‘Hunan
Provincial’’), Gather Hope Int’l Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Gather Hope’’), and Alloychem Impex
Corp. (‘‘Alloychem’’), have failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of
their ability to cooperate with the
Department’s requests for information
and, as a result, should be assigned a
rate based on adverse facts available
(‘‘AFA’’). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of these
reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the POR for which
the importer–specific assessment rates
are above de minimis.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
We will issue the final results no later
than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot
Fullerton or Michael Quigley, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1386 and (202)
482–4047, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On June 1, 2007, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on silicon
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Notices
metal from the PRC for the POR June 1,
2006, through May 31, 2007. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 72 FR 61859
(June 1, 2007). On July 2, 2007, Globe
Metallurgical Inc. (‘‘Petitioner’’),
requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review of 18
companies (collectively
‘‘Respondents’’). On August 6, 2007, the
Department published a notice of
initiation of an antidumping duty
administrative review on silicon metal
from the PRC, in which it initiated a
review of these Respondents. See Notice
of Initiation of the Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Silicon Metal from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘Initiation Notice’’),
72 FR 43597, (August 6, 2007).
On August 24, 2007, the Department
sent quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’)
questionnaires to the Respondents listed
in the Initiation Notice. The Department
sent a second round of Q&V
questionnaires to companies that did
not respond to the first round on
September 17, 2007. On October 22,
2007, the Department sent three
additional Q&V questionnaires to
companies which had not responded.
In response to the Q&V questionnaires
that the Department sent on August 24,
2007, the following seven companies
replied that they had no shipments of
subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR: Jiangxi
Gangyuan Silicon Industry
(‘‘Gangyuan’’); MPM Silicones, LLC
(‘‘MPM United States’’); GE Silicones
Canada (‘‘MPM Canada’’); Global
Minerals Corp.; Transtrading House
Ltd.; Lorbec Metals Ltd.; and Carbonsi
Mettalurgical Inc. In response to the
Q&V questionnaires that the Department
sent on September 17, 2007, the
following three companies replied that
they had no shipments of subject
merchandise under review to the United
States during the POR: Crown All
Corporation; Ferro–Alliages & Mineraux
Inc.; and Chemical & Alloy Inc. In
response to the Q&V questionnaires that
the Department sent on October 22,
2007, the following two companies
replied that they had no shipments of
subject merchandise under review to the
United States during the POR: IMMECC
Resources Inc. and Bomet (Canada) Inc.
In addition to the 12 companies listed
above which provided the Department
with no–shipment responses, the
Department was unable to find correct
addresses for these three companies:
Coldstone Metals Inc. (‘‘Coldstone’’);
Global Minerals (Canada); and SeaView
Trading. The Department’s August 24,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:46 Mar 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
2007, Q&V questionnaire to SeaView
Trading was returned to the
Department, and its August 24, 2007,
Q&V questionnaire to Global Minerals
Canada was ‘‘undeliverable’’ due to an
‘‘incorrect address.’’ The Department’s
August 24, 2007, Q&V questionnaire to
Coldstone was delivered, but its
September 17, 2007, Q&V questionnaire
was ‘‘undeliverable.’’ Federal Express
informed the Department that Coldstone
had moved.
For three other companies, the
Department sent its Q&V questionnaire
twice, received confirmation of their
delivery, but received no response from
the companies. Both Hunan Provincial
and Gather Hope received the Q&V
questionnaires the Department sent on
August 24, 2007, and September 17,
2007. As for Alloychem, the August 24,
2007, Q&V questionnaire was returned
to the Department, but the Department
sent this company the Q&V
questionnaire again on both September
5, 2007, and October 22, 2007, and both
of those mailings were successfully
delivered.
On October 3, 2007, Petitioner
requested that the Department clarify
discrepancies between the testimony of
MPM United States and MPM Canada
(collectively, ‘‘MPM’’) to the Foreign
Trade Zone Board and documentation
on the record of the 2005/2006 New
Shipper Review of Gangyuan. On
October 31, 2007, Petitioner also
requested that the Department issue
additional questions to MPM related to
the possible transshipment of silicon
metal. Similarly, on November 13, 2007,
Petitioner submitted comments on the
Q&V responses submitted by Ferro–
Alliages, Chemical and Alloy Inc., and
Crown All Corporation, and requested
that the Department request additional
information from Ferro–Alliages
regarding the source of the silicon metal
that it exported to the United States and
the ultimate disposition of the silicon
metal that it imported into Canada from
China.
On November 27, 2007, the
Department reviewed the requests made
by Petitioner. The Department noted
that Gangyuan, MPM United States, and
MPM Canada have each filed no–
shipment responses in this review, and
this information has not been
contradicted by CBP data for imports of
subject merchandise during the POR.
See Memorandum to David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, regarding ‘‘2006/2007
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Silicon Metal from the
People’s Republic of China: Responses
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12379
to Quantity and Value Questionnaire,’’
dated November 27, 2007. On February
20, 2008, Petitioner repeated its
November 13, 2007, request that the
Department obtain additional
information from Ferro–Alliages
regarding the source of the silicon metal
that it exported to the United States. In
addition, Petitioner withdrew its request
for review of Bomet (Canada) Inc.,
Carbonsi Metallurgical Inc., Chemical
and Alloy Inc., Crown All Corp., Global
Minerals (Canada), Global Minerals
Corp., IMMECC Resources Inc., Lorbec
Metals Ltd., SeaView Trading, and
Transtrading House Ltd. Petitioner
noted that although its withdrawal
request was beyond the 90 days after the
date of publication of the notice of
initiation, the Department has discretion
to extend this time limit if it decides
that it is reasonable to do so.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the order is
silicon metal containing at least 96.00
but less than 99.99 percent of silicon by
weight, and silicon metal with a higher
aluminum content containing between
89 and 96 percent silicon by weight.
The subject merchandise is currently
classifiable under item numbers
2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) as a chemical
product, but is commonly referred to as
a metal. Semiconductor–grade silicon
(silicon metal containing by weight not
less than 99.99 percent of silicon and
provided for in subheading 2804.61.00
of the HTSUS) is not subject to this
order. This order is not limited to
silicon metal used only as an alloy agent
or in the chemical industry. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2006/
2007 Administrative Review
Several companies indicated they did
not export silicon metal to the United
States during the POR. In order to
corroborate these submissions, we
reviewed PRC silicon metal shipment
data maintained by CBP, and found no
discrepancies with the statements made
by these firms.
Therefore, for the reasons mentioned
above, we are preliminarily rescinding
the administrative review with respect
to these twelve companies: Gangyuan;
MPM United States; MPM Canada;
Global Minerals Corp.; Transtrading
House Ltd.; Lorbec Metals Ltd.;
Carbonsi Mettalurgical Inc.; Crown All
Corporation; Ferro–Alliages & Mineraux
Inc.; Chemical & Alloy Inc.; IMMECC
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
12380
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Notices
Resources Inc.; and Bomet (Canada) Inc.
Each of these twelve companies
reported having made no shipments of
subject merchandise during the POR,
and the Department found no
information to indicate otherwise. With
respect to Petitioner’s February 20,
2008, withdrawal request for certain
companies, as discussed above, we do
not find any reasonable basis exists
upon which to extend the time limit for
withdrawal requests in this review.
The Department also indicated that it
was unable to directly serve three
companies with its Q&V questionnaire.
See Memorandum to the File from
Kristina Horgan, Senior International
Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, regarding ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Silicon Metal
from the People’s Republic of China:
Proof of Non–Delivery to Global
Minerals (Canada) and SeaView
Trading,’’ dated November 9, 2007. See
also Memorandum to the File from
Michael Quigley, International Trade
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
regarding ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Silicon Metal
from the People’s Republic of China:
Record of Mailings to Coldstone Metals
Inc.,’’ dated November 20, 2007.
Therefore, the Department preliminarily
rescinds the review with respect to
these companies, in accordance with
our practice. See, e.g., Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey:
Preliminary results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 26455,
26457 (May 5, 2006).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Facts Available
For the reasons outlined below, we
have applied total AFA to Hunan
Provincial, Gather Hope, and
Alloychem. Section 776(a)(2) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’)
provides that, if an interested party: (A)
withholds information that has been
requested by the Department; (B) fails to
provide such information in a timely
manner or in the form or manner
requested subject to sections 782(c)(1)
and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly
impedes a proceeding under the
antidumping statute; or (D) provides
such information but the information
cannot be verified, the Department
shall, subject to section 782(d) of the
Act, use facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
Section 782(d) of the Act provides that
when the Department finds that a
respondent has not complied with a
request for information, the Department
shall inform the respondent of the
deficiency and allow them an
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:46 Mar 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency.
We find that Hunan Provincial,
Gather Hope, and Alloychem have
failed to provide information requested
by the Department. Accordingly, we
find it appropriate to apply facts
otherwise available consistent with
section 776(a)(2)(A).
In addition, pursuant to section 776(b)
of the Act, if the Department finds that
an interested party ‘‘has failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for
information,’’ the Department may use
information that is adverse to the
interests of the party as facts otherwise
available. Adverse inferences are
appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party
does not obtain a more favorable result
by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of
Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’)
accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’), H.R. Rep.
No. 103–316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 870.
The Department sent the Q&V
questionnaire to Hunan Provincial,
Gather Hope, and Alloychem twice.
Evidence on the record confirms that
the questionnaire was delivered to each
of these parties on both occasions.
Hunan Provincial, Gather Hope, and
Alloychem, however, made no attempt
to respond to the questionnaire. By not
responding to the Department’s Q&V
questionnaire, Hunan Provincial, Gather
Hope, and Alloychem failed to provide
critical information to be used for the
Department’s respondent selection
process. Under these circumstances, the
Department finds that Hunan
Provincial, Gather Hope, and Alloychem
have failed to cooperate to the best of
their ability. Accordingly, the
Department finds it necessary, pursuant
to section 776(b) of the Act, to use AFA
as the basis for these preliminary results
of review for Hunan Provincial, Gather
Hope, and Alloychem.
In addition, because the above–
referenced companies did not submit a
separate rate application or certification,
the Department was unable to determine
whether or not they qualified for a
separate rate. Therefore, they are not
eligible to receive a separate rate and
will be part of the PRC–wide entity,
subject to the PRC–wide rate.
Selection of AFA Rate
In deciding which facts to use as
AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the
Department to rely on information
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final
determination in the less–than-fair–
value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, (3) any
previous review or determination, or (4)
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
any information placed on the record. In
reviews, the Department normally
selects, as AFA, the highest rate on the
record of any segment of the proceeding.
See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat
from the People’s Republic of China:
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR
19504, 19506 (April 21, 2003). The
Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) and
the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit have upheld the Department’s
practice in this regard. See Rhone
Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d
1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Rhone
Poulenc’’); NSK Ltd. v. United States,
346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004)
(upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA
rate, the highest available dumping
margin from a different respondent in
the LTFV investigation), aff’d, 481 F.3d
1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Shanghai
Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v.
United States, 360 F. Supp 2d 1339,
1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01
percent total AFA rate, the highest
available dumping margin from a
different respondent in a previous
administrative review); and Kompass
Food Trading Int’l v. United States, 24
CIT 678, 689 (2000) (upholding a 51.16
percent total AFA rate, the highest
available dumping margin from a
different, fully cooperative respondent).
The Department’s practice when
selecting an adverse rate from among
the possible sources of information is to
ensure that the margin is sufficiently
adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of
the facts available role to induce
respondents to provide the Department
with complete and accurate information
in a timely manner.’’ See Static Random
Access Memory Semiconductors from
Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at
Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932
(February 23, 1998). The Department’s
practice also ensures ‘‘that the party
does not obtain a more favorable result
by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully.’’ See SAA at 870; see
also Final Determination of Sales at
Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from
Brazil, 69 FR 76910, 76912 (December
23, 2004); D&L Supply Co. v. United
States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir.
1997). In choosing the appropriate
balance between providing respondents
with an incentive to respond accurately
and imposing a rate that is reasonably
related to the respondent’s prior
commercial activity, selecting the
highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common
sense inference that the highest prior
margin is the most probative evidence of
current margins, because, if it were not
so, the importer, knowing of the rule,
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
would have produced current
information showing the margin to be
less.’’ Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190.
Consistent with the statute, court
precedent, and its normal practice, the
Department has assigned the rate of
139.49 percent, the highest rate on the
record of any segment of the proceeding,
to the PRC–wide entity, which includes
Hunan Provincial, Gather Hope, and
Alloychem, as AFA. See, e.g., Notice of
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Silicon Metal
from the People’s Republic of China, 68
FR 35383 (June 13, 2003) (‘‘2001/2002
Silicon Metal Final Results’’). As
discussed further below, this rate has
been corroborated.
Corroboration of Facts Available
Section 776(c) of the Act requires that
the Department corroborate, to the
extent practicable, a figure which it
applies as facts available. To be
considered corroborated, information
must be found to be both reliable and
relevant. We are applying as AFA the
highest rate from any segment of this
administrative proceeding, which is the
rate currently applicable to all exporters
subject to the PRC–wide rate. The AFA
rate in the current review (i.e., the PRC–
wide rate of 139.49 percent) represents
the highest rate from the petition in the
LTFV investigation. See Antidumping
Duty Order: Silicon Metal From the
People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 26649
(June 10, 1991).
To be considered corroborated,
information must be found to be both
reliable and relevant. Unlike other types
of information, such as input costs or
selling expenses, there are no
independent sources for calculated
dumping margins. The only sources for
calculated margins are administrative
determinations. The information upon
which the AFA rate we are applying for
the current review was corroborated
most recently in the 2001/2002
administrative review of silicon metal
from the PRC. See Silicon Metal from
the People’s Republic of China: Notice
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR
11369 (March 10, 2003), unchanged in
2001/2002 Silicon Metal Final Results.
Furthermore, no information has been
presented in the current review that
calls into question the reliability of this
information. Thus, the Department finds
that the information is reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect
of corroboration, the Department will
consider information reasonably at its
disposal to determine whether a margin
continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected
margin is not appropriate as AFA, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:46 Mar 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
Department will disregard the margin
and determine an appropriate margin.
For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from
Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812,
6814 (February 22, 1996), the
Department disregarded the highest
margin in that case as adverse best
information available (the predecessor
to facts available) because the margin
was based on another company’s
uncharacteristic business expense
resulting in an unusually high margin.
The information used in calculating this
margin was based on sales and
production data submitted by the
petitioner in the LTFV investigation,
together with the most appropriate
surrogate value information available to
the Department chosen from
submissions by the parties in the LTFV
investigation, as well as information
gathered by the Department itself.
Furthermore, the calculation of this
margin was subject to comment from
interested parties in the 2001/2002
administrative review. As there is no
information on the record of this review
that demonstrates that this rate is not
appropriately used as AFA, we
determine that this rate has relevance.
As the 139.49 percent rate is both
reliable and relevant, we determine that
it has probative value. Accordingly, we
determine that the calculated rate of
139.49 percent, which is the current
PRC–wide rate, is in accordance with
the requirement of section 776(c) of the
Act that secondary information be
corroborated to the extent practicable
(i.e., that it has probative value). We
have assigned this AFA rate to exports
of the subject merchandise by the PRC–
wide entity.
Preliminary Results of Review
12381
a list of issues to be discussed. See 19
CFR 351.310(c).
Issues raised in the hearing will be
limited to those raised in case and
rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from
interested parties may be submitted not
later than 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs,
limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, will be due five days later,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties
who submit case or rebuttal briefs in
this proceeding are requested to submit
with each argument (1) a statement of
the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. Parties are also encouraged to
provide a summary of the arguments not
to exceed five pages and a table of
statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
The Department will issue the final
results of this review, including the
results of its analysis of issues raised in
any such written briefs or at the hearing,
if held, not later than 120 days after the
date of publication of this notice.
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of the final
results of this review. We will instruct
CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review if any assessment rate calculated
in the final results of this review is
above de minimis. The final results of
this review shall be the basis for the
assessment of antidumping duties on
entries of merchandise covered by the
final results of this review and for future
deposits of estimated duties, where
applicable.
We preliminarily determine that the
following margin exists during the
period June 1, 2006, through May 31,
2007:
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
Silicon Metal from the PRC
of the subject merchandise entered, or
PRC–Wide Entity1 ............................ 139.49 withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
1 PRC-Wide Entity includes Hunan Provindate, as provided for by section
cial, Gather Hope and Alloychem.
751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) for Hunan
Any interested party may request a
Provincial, Gather Hope, and
hearing within 30 days of publication of Alloychem, the cash deposit rate will be
this notice. Interested parties who wish
established in the final results of this
to request a hearing or to participate if
review; (2) for previously investigated or
one is requested, must submit a written
reviewed PRC and non–PRC exporters
request to the Assistant Secretary for
not listed above that have separate rates,
Import Administration within 30 days
the cash deposit rate will continue to be
of the date of publication of this notice.
the exporter–specific rate published for
Requests should contain: (1) the party’s
the most recent period; (3) for all PRC
name, address, and telephone number;
exporters of subject merchandise which
(2) the number of participants; and (3)
have not been found to be entitled to a
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
12382
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 46 / Friday, March 7, 2008 / Notices
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC–wide rate of 139.49 percent;
and (4) for all non–PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporters that supplied that non–
PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice
are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213.
Dated: February 29, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–4529 Filed 3–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–810]
Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice
of Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is conducting an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on
stainless steel bar from India. The
period of review is February 1, 2006,
through January 31, 2007. This review
covers imports of stainless steel bar
from two producers/exporters. We
preliminarily find that sales of the
subject merchandise have been made
below normal value. Also, we are
rescinding this administrative review
with respect to a third producer/
exporter. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to assess antidumping duties
on appropriate entries. Interested parties
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:46 Mar 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. We will issue the
final results no later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Devta Ohri or Scott Holland, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–3853 and (202)
482–1279, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 21, 1995, the Department
of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’)
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel bar (‘‘SSB’’) from India. See
Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless
Steel Bar from Brazil, India and Japan,
60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995). On
February 2, 2007, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register providing an opportunity for
interested parties to request an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on SSB from
India for the period of review (‘‘POR’’)
February 1, 2006, through January 31,
2007. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 72
FR 5007 (February 2, 2007).
On February 27, 2007, we received a
timely request for review from Venus
Wire Industries Private Limited
(‘‘Venus’’). On February 28, 2007, we
received a timely request for review
from D.H. Exports Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘DHE’’),
Chandan Steel Ltd. (‘‘Chandan’’), Facor
Steels, Ltd. (‘‘Facor’’), Mukand Ltd.
(‘‘Mukand’’), and Sunflag Iron & Steel
Co. Ltd. (‘‘Sunflag’’). On March 7, 2007,
we received a letter from Mukand and
Facor withdrawing their requests for
review. On March 20, 2007, we received
a letter from Venus withdrawing its
request for review.
On March 28, 2007, in accordance
with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), we
initiated an administrative review on
Chandan, DHE, and Sunflag. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 72 FR 14516 (March 28, 2007)
(‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
On March 28, 2007, the Department
issued antidumping duty questionnaires
to the respondents. The respondents
submitted their initial responses to the
antidumping questionnaire in May,
June, August, and September 2007. The
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
petitioners 1 submitted comments on the
questionnaire responses in May, June,
July, September, October, and
November 2007; and February 2008. We
issued supplemental questionnaires to
the respondents to clarify or correct
information contained in the initial
questionnaire responses.
On May 25, 2007, we received a letter
from Chandan withdrawing its request
for administrative review.
On June 19, 2007, the petitioners
alleged that DHE made sales below the
cost of production (‘‘COP’’). The
petitioners submitted information to
supplement their June 19, 2007, belowcost allegation on June 21, 2007. We
found that the petitioners’ allegation
provided a reasonable basis to believe or
suspect that sales by DHE in the home
market had been made at prices below
the COP, and initiated a sales-belowcost investigation on July 24, 2007. See
Memorandum from Chris Zimpo, Office
of Accounting, to Susan Kuhbach,
Senior Office Director, Office 1, AD/
CVD Operations, ‘‘Petitioners’
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of
Production for D.H. Exports Pvt. Ltd.,’’
dated July 24, 2007 (‘‘DHE Sales-BelowCost Memorandum’’). On July 24, 2007,
we requested that DHE respond to the
Section D COP section of the
Department’s original questionnaire.
DHE filed its response to Section D on
September 3, 2007.
On June 22, 2007, the petitioners
alleged that Sunflag made sales below
the COP. We found that the petitioners’
allegation provided a reasonable basis to
believe or suspect that sales by Sunflag
in the home market had been made at
prices below the COP and initiated a
sales-below-cost investigation on June
25, 2007. See Memorandum from Devta
Ohri, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, to Susan Kuhbach, Senior
Office Director, Office 1, AD/CVD
Operations, ‘‘Petitioners’ Allegation of
Sales Below the Cost of Production for
Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.,’’ dated
July 25, 2007 (‘‘Sunflag Sales-BelowCost Memorandum’’). On July 25, 2007,
we requested that Sunflag respond to
the Section D COP section of the
Department’s original questionnaire.
Sunflag filed its response to Section D
on August 29, 2007.
On October 18, 2007, the Department
found that, due to the complexity of the
issues in this case, including affiliation
and COP, and outstanding supplemental
responses, it was not practicable to
complete this review within the time
period prescribed. Accordingly, we
1 Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna
Slater Stainless, Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a
Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc.
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 46 (Friday, March 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12378-12382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4529]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-570-806
Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is currently
conducting the 2006/2007 administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on silicon metal from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').
The period of review (``POR'') for this administrative review is June
1, 2006, through May 31, 2007. Fifteen companies reported that they had
no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR; therefore, we are
preliminarily rescinding our review of these companies. We
preliminarily determine that three companies, Hunan Provincial Import &
Export Group Co (PRC) (``Hunan Provincial''), Gather Hope Int'l Co.,
Ltd. (``Gather Hope''), and Alloychem Impex Corp. (``Alloychem''), have
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to
cooperate with the Department's requests for information and, as a
result, should be assigned a rate based on adverse facts available
(``AFA''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of these reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment
rates are above de minimis.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton or Michael Quigley, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1386 and (202) 482-4047, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 1, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
silicon
[[Page 12379]]
metal from the PRC for the POR June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR
61859 (June 1, 2007). On July 2, 2007, Globe Metallurgical Inc.
(``Petitioner''), requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review of 18 companies (collectively ``Respondents'').
On August 6, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of
an antidumping duty administrative review on silicon metal from the
PRC, in which it initiated a review of these Respondents. See Notice of
Initiation of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China (``Initiation
Notice''), 72 FR 43597, (August 6, 2007).
On August 24, 2007, the Department sent quantity and value
(``Q&V'') questionnaires to the Respondents listed in the Initiation
Notice. The Department sent a second round of Q&V questionnaires to
companies that did not respond to the first round on September 17,
2007. On October 22, 2007, the Department sent three additional Q&V
questionnaires to companies which had not responded.
In response to the Q&V questionnaires that the Department sent on
August 24, 2007, the following seven companies replied that they had no
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR:
Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon Industry (``Gangyuan''); MPM Silicones, LLC
(``MPM United States''); GE Silicones Canada (``MPM Canada''); Global
Minerals Corp.; Transtrading House Ltd.; Lorbec Metals Ltd.; and
Carbonsi Mettalurgical Inc. In response to the Q&V questionnaires that
the Department sent on September 17, 2007, the following three
companies replied that they had no shipments of subject merchandise
under review to the United States during the POR: Crown All
Corporation; Ferro-Alliages & Mineraux Inc.; and Chemical & Alloy Inc.
In response to the Q&V questionnaires that the Department sent on
October 22, 2007, the following two companies replied that they had no
shipments of subject merchandise under review to the United States
during the POR: IMMECC Resources Inc. and Bomet (Canada) Inc.
In addition to the 12 companies listed above which provided the
Department with no-shipment responses, the Department was unable to
find correct addresses for these three companies: Coldstone Metals Inc.
(``Coldstone''); Global Minerals (Canada); and SeaView Trading. The
Department's August 24, 2007, Q&V questionnaire to SeaView Trading was
returned to the Department, and its August 24, 2007, Q&V questionnaire
to Global Minerals Canada was ``undeliverable'' due to an ``incorrect
address.'' The Department's August 24, 2007, Q&V questionnaire to
Coldstone was delivered, but its September 17, 2007, Q&V questionnaire
was ``undeliverable.'' Federal Express informed the Department that
Coldstone had moved.
For three other companies, the Department sent its Q&V
questionnaire twice, received confirmation of their delivery, but
received no response from the companies. Both Hunan Provincial and
Gather Hope received the Q&V questionnaires the Department sent on
August 24, 2007, and September 17, 2007. As for Alloychem, the August
24, 2007, Q&V questionnaire was returned to the Department, but the
Department sent this company the Q&V questionnaire again on both
September 5, 2007, and October 22, 2007, and both of those mailings
were successfully delivered.
On October 3, 2007, Petitioner requested that the Department
clarify discrepancies between the testimony of MPM United States and
MPM Canada (collectively, ``MPM'') to the Foreign Trade Zone Board and
documentation on the record of the 2005/2006 New Shipper Review of
Gangyuan. On October 31, 2007, Petitioner also requested that the
Department issue additional questions to MPM related to the possible
transshipment of silicon metal. Similarly, on November 13, 2007,
Petitioner submitted comments on the Q&V responses submitted by Ferro-
Alliages, Chemical and Alloy Inc., and Crown All Corporation, and
requested that the Department request additional information from
Ferro-Alliages regarding the source of the silicon metal that it
exported to the United States and the ultimate disposition of the
silicon metal that it imported into Canada from China.
On November 27, 2007, the Department reviewed the requests made by
Petitioner. The Department noted that Gangyuan, MPM United States, and
MPM Canada have each filed no-shipment responses in this review, and
this information has not been contradicted by CBP data for imports of
subject merchandise during the POR. See Memorandum to David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding ``2006/
2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Silicon Metal from the
People's Republic of China: Responses to Quantity and Value
Questionnaire,'' dated November 27, 2007. On February 20, 2008,
Petitioner repeated its November 13, 2007, request that the Department
obtain additional information from Ferro-Alliages regarding the source
of the silicon metal that it exported to the United States. In
addition, Petitioner withdrew its request for review of Bomet (Canada)
Inc., Carbonsi Metallurgical Inc., Chemical and Alloy Inc., Crown All
Corp., Global Minerals (Canada), Global Minerals Corp., IMMECC
Resources Inc., Lorbec Metals Ltd., SeaView Trading, and Transtrading
House Ltd. Petitioner noted that although its withdrawal request was
beyond the 90 days after the date of publication of the notice of
initiation, the Department has discretion to extend this time limit if
it decides that it is reasonable to do so.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the order is silicon metal containing at
least 96.00 but less than 99.99 percent of silicon by weight, and
silicon metal with a higher aluminum content containing between 89 and
96 percent silicon by weight. The subject merchandise is currently
classifiable under item numbers 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') as a
chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a metal.
Semiconductor-grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not
less than 99.99 percent of silicon and provided for in subheading
2804.61.00 of the HTSUS) is not subject to this order. This order is
not limited to silicon metal used only as an alloy agent or in the
chemical industry. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2006/2007 Administrative Review
Several companies indicated they did not export silicon metal to
the United States during the POR. In order to corroborate these
submissions, we reviewed PRC silicon metal shipment data maintained by
CBP, and found no discrepancies with the statements made by these
firms.
Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, we are preliminarily
rescinding the administrative review with respect to these twelve
companies: Gangyuan; MPM United States; MPM Canada; Global Minerals
Corp.; Transtrading House Ltd.; Lorbec Metals Ltd.; Carbonsi
Mettalurgical Inc.; Crown All Corporation; Ferro-Alliages & Mineraux
Inc.; Chemical & Alloy Inc.; IMMECC
[[Page 12380]]
Resources Inc.; and Bomet (Canada) Inc. Each of these twelve companies
reported having made no shipments of subject merchandise during the
POR, and the Department found no information to indicate otherwise.
With respect to Petitioner's February 20, 2008, withdrawal request for
certain companies, as discussed above, we do not find any reasonable
basis exists upon which to extend the time limit for withdrawal
requests in this review.
The Department also indicated that it was unable to directly serve
three companies with its Q&V questionnaire. See Memorandum to the File
from Kristina Horgan, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, regarding ``Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China: Proof of
Non-Delivery to Global Minerals (Canada) and SeaView Trading,'' dated
November 9, 2007. See also Memorandum to the File from Michael Quigley,
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding
``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Silicon Metal from the
People's Republic of China: Record of Mailings to Coldstone Metals
Inc.,'' dated November 20, 2007. Therefore, the Department
preliminarily rescinds the review with respect to these companies, in
accordance with our practice. See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey: Preliminary results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 26455,
26457 (May 5, 2006).
Facts Available
For the reasons outlined below, we have applied total AFA to Hunan
Provincial, Gather Hope, and Alloychem. Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (``Act'') provides that, if an interested
party: (A) withholds information that has been requested by the
Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or
in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e)
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the
antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to
section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching
the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that
when the Department finds that a respondent has not complied with a
request for information, the Department shall inform the respondent of
the deficiency and allow them an opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency.
We find that Hunan Provincial, Gather Hope, and Alloychem have
failed to provide information requested by the Department. Accordingly,
we find it appropriate to apply facts otherwise available consistent
with section 776(a)(2)(A).
In addition, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, if the
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to
the interests of the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316,
Vol. 1 (1994) at 870.
The Department sent the Q&V questionnaire to Hunan Provincial,
Gather Hope, and Alloychem twice. Evidence on the record confirms that
the questionnaire was delivered to each of these parties on both
occasions. Hunan Provincial, Gather Hope, and Alloychem, however, made
no attempt to respond to the questionnaire. By not responding to the
Department's Q&V questionnaire, Hunan Provincial, Gather Hope, and
Alloychem failed to provide critical information to be used for the
Department's respondent selection process. Under these circumstances,
the Department finds that Hunan Provincial, Gather Hope, and Alloychem
have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. Accordingly, the
Department finds it necessary, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act,
to use AFA as the basis for these preliminary results of review for
Hunan Provincial, Gather Hope, and Alloychem.
In addition, because the above-referenced companies did not submit
a separate rate application or certification, the Department was unable
to determine whether or not they qualified for a separate rate.
Therefore, they are not eligible to receive a separate rate and will be
part of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate.
Selection of AFA Rate
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in
the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation, (3) any previous
review or determination, or (4) any information placed on the record.
In reviews, the Department normally selects, as AFA, the highest rate
on the record of any segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., Freshwater
Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504, 19506
(April 21, 2003). The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') and the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have upheld the Department's
practice in this regard. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899
F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Rhone Poulenc''); NSK Ltd. v.
United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a
different respondent in the LTFV investigation), aff'd, 481 F.3d 1355
(Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co.,
Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding
a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin
from a different respondent in a previous administrative review); and
Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 689 (2000)
(upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest available
dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative respondent).
The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts
available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
The Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does not obtain
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870; see also Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater
Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910, 76912 (December 23, 2004); D&L Supply
Co. v. United States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In
choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents with an
incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably
related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the
highest prior margin ``reflects a common sense inference that the
highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins,
because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule,
[[Page 12381]]
would have produced current information showing the margin to be
less.'' Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190. Consistent with the statute,
court precedent, and its normal practice, the Department has assigned
the rate of 139.49 percent, the highest rate on the record of any
segment of the proceeding, to the PRC-wide entity, which includes Hunan
Provincial, Gather Hope, and Alloychem, as AFA. See, e.g., Notice of
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Silicon Metal
from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 35383 (June 13, 2003)
(``2001/2002 Silicon Metal Final Results''). As discussed further
below, this rate has been corroborated.
Corroboration of Facts Available
Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate,
to the extent practicable, a figure which it applies as facts
available. To be considered corroborated, information must be found to
be both reliable and relevant. We are applying as AFA the highest rate
from any segment of this administrative proceeding, which is the rate
currently applicable to all exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. The
AFA rate in the current review (i.e., the PRC-wide rate of 139.49
percent) represents the highest rate from the petition in the LTFV
investigation. See Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal From the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 26649 (June 10, 1991).
To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be both
reliable and relevant. Unlike other types of information, such as input
costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for
calculated dumping margins. The only sources for calculated margins are
administrative determinations. The information upon which the AFA rate
we are applying for the current review was corroborated most recently
in the 2001/2002 administrative review of silicon metal from the PRC.
See Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR
11369 (March 10, 2003), unchanged in 2001/2002 Silicon Metal Final
Results. Furthermore, no information has been presented in the current
review that calls into question the reliability of this information.
Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico;
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to
facts available) because the margin was based on another company's
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high
margin. The information used in calculating this margin was based on
sales and production data submitted by the petitioner in the LTFV
investigation, together with the most appropriate surrogate value
information available to the Department chosen from submissions by the
parties in the LTFV investigation, as well as information gathered by
the Department itself. Furthermore, the calculation of this margin was
subject to comment from interested parties in the 2001/2002
administrative review. As there is no information on the record of this
review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriately used as
AFA, we determine that this rate has relevance.
As the 139.49 percent rate is both reliable and relevant, we
determine that it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that
the calculated rate of 139.49 percent, which is the current PRC-wide
rate, is in accordance with the requirement of section 776(c) of the
Act that secondary information be corroborated to the extent
practicable (i.e., that it has probative value). We have assigned this
AFA rate to exports of the subject merchandise by the PRC-wide entity.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists during
the period June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Metal from the PRC
----------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Entity\1\............................................. 139.49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PRC-Wide Entity includes Hunan Provincial, Gather Hope and
Alloychem.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. Interested parties who wish to request a
hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30
days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should
contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the
number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See
19 CFR 351.310(c).
Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in
case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be
submitted not later than 30 days of the date of publication of this
notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to
issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in
this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a
statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties
are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed
five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
The Department will issue the final results of this review,
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days
after the date of publication of this notice.
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The
Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final
results of this review. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above
de minimis. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by
the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated
duties, where applicable.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) for Hunan
Provincial, Gather Hope, and Alloychem, the cash deposit rate will be
established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously
investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above
that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for
all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to
be entitled to a
[[Page 12382]]
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of
139.49 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied
that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Dated: February 29, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-4529 Filed 3-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
