Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 18503-18510 [E8-7099]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 66 / Friday, April 4, 2008 / Notices
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
PRC exporters 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
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC–wide rate of 112.64 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 publication of the
final results of the next administrative
review.
Schedule for Final Results of Review
The Department will disclose
calculations performed in connection
with the preliminary results of this
review within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested
party may request a hearing within 30
days of publication of this notice in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Any hearing will 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.
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 in accordance with 19 CFR
351.309(c)(2)(ii). 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 in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). The
Department will issue the final results
of this review, which will include the
results of its analysis of issues raised in
the briefs, not later than 120 days after
the date of publication of this notice in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Apr 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during these review
periods. 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 this
notice are published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: March 31, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–7102 Filed 4–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–836]
Glycine from the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from
Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (‘‘GSC’’),
a domestic glycine producer, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on glycine from
the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).
This review covers Nantong Dongchang
Chemical Industry Corporation
(‘‘Nantong Dongchang’’) and Baoding
Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Baoding Mantong’’). The period of
review (‘‘POR’’) is March 1, 2006,
through February 28, 2007. On July 26,
2007, Nantong Dongchang indicated
that it would not reply to the
Department’s antidumping
questionnaire in this administrative
review; therefore, we have preliminarily
determined to apply facts otherwise
available with an adverse inference
(‘‘AFA’’) to Nantong Dongchang. In
addition, we have preliminarily
determined that Baoding Mantong made
sales below normal value (‘‘NV’’). With
respect to the 21 other companies for
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18503
whom petitioners submitted a request
for review and a subsequent timely
withdrawal request, we are rescinding
this review.1 The preliminary results are
listed below in the section titled
‘‘Preliminary Results of Review.’’ If
these preliminary results are adopted in
our final results, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess the ad valorem margins against
the entered value of each entry of the
subject merchandise during the POR.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
We will issue the final results no later
than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Quigley or Toni Dach, 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) 482–4047, or (202)
482–1655, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 29, 1995, the Department
published in the Federal Register an
antidumping duty order on glycine from
the PRC. See Antidumping Duty Order:
Glycine from the People’s Republic of
China, 60 FR 16116 (March 29, 1995).
On March 2, 2007, the Department
published an Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 72
FR 9505 (March 2, 2007). On March 28,
2007, GEO Speciality Chemicals, Inc.
(‘‘GSC’’), requested that the Department
conduct an administrative review of
sales of subject merchandise by 26
companies to the United States during
the POR, in accordance with section
351.213(b) of the Department’s
regulations. Those 26 companies are:
A.H.A. International Company, Ltd.;
Amol Biotech Limited; Baoding
Mantong; Beijing Jian Li Pharmaceutical
Company; Changzhou Dahua Importer
and Exporter (Group); Chem–Base
(Nantong) Laboratories Company; China
Container Line (USA); Dongchang
Chemical Industrial Company; Hua Yip
Company, Inc.; Jizhou City Huayang
Chemical Company, Ltd.; Nantong
Dongchang; Orichem International Ltd.;
Qingdao Samin Chemical Company,
1 Although the Department initiated an
administrative review for 24 companies, Nantong
Dongchang was also identified in the initiation
notice as Dongchang Chemical Industrial Company,
as GSC indicated in its July 27, 2007, letter to the
Department.
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
18504
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 66 / Friday, April 4, 2008 / Notices
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Ltd.; Shanghai Dayue International;
Shanghai Light Industrial; Shanghai
Waseta International; Sinochem
Qingdao Company, Ltd.; Sinosweet
Company, Ltd.; Sumee China Jiangsu
Machinery; Sumec (On Behalf of
Nantong); Taigeng Global Enterprises
Ltd.; Textiles Silk Light Ind. Products;
Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical
Company; Weifang Sunwin Chemicals
Company, Ltd.; Yicheng Logistics
Shanghai Ltd.; and Zheijiang Ruili
Cemented Carbide. On March 30, 2007,
Nantong Dongchang requested an
administrative review of its sales during
the POR, in accordance with section
351.213(b) of the Department’s
regulations. On April 5, 2007, prior to
initiation of the review, GSC withdrew
its review request with respect to two
companies: Hua Yip Company, Inc. and
Taigeng Global Enterprises Ltd, because
GSC was unable to provide addresses
for these two companies.
On April 27, 2007, the Department
initiated the antidumping duty
administrative review with respect to
the 24 remaining companies. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 72 FR 20986 (April 27, 2007).
On June 14, 2007, the Department
selected Baoding Mantong and Nantong
Dongchang as mandatory respondents.
See Memorandum to James C. Doyle,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
through Christopher D. Riker, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
from Catherine C. Bertrand, Senior
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, regarding 2006/
2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Glycine from the People’s
Republic of China: Selection of
Respondents. On November 30, 2007,
the Department extended the deadline
for the publication of the preliminary
results to March 31, 2008. See Glycine
from the People’s Republic of China:
Extension of Time Limits for the
Preliminary Results of the 2006–2007
Administrative Review, 72 FR 67701
(November 30, 2007).
Questionnaires
On June 14, 2007, the Department
issued standard non–market economy
(‘‘NME’’) antidumping duty
questionnaires to Baoding Mantong and
Nantong Dongchang. On July 3, 2007,
and July 23, 2007, the Department
issued extensions of the deadline for
Nantong Dongchang to file its response
to the questionnaire. On July 26, 2007,
Nantong Dongchang notified the
Department that it would not reply to
the Department’s antidumping
questionnaire in this administrative
review. On July 27, 2007, GSC withdrew
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Apr 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
its request for administrative review for
all companies except Nantong
Dongchang and Baoding Mantong.
Baoding Mantong submitted its
section A response on July 5, 2007, and
its response to sections C and D on July
20, 2007. Baoding Mantong submitted
supplemental responses on December 3,
2007, February 28, 2008, and March 7,
2008.
Surrogate Country and Factors
On September 17, 2007, the
Department’s Office of Policy issued a
memorandum listing India, Sri Lanka,
Egypt, Indonesia, and the Philippines as
economically comparable surrogate
countries for this review. On October 5,
2007, we invited interested parties to
comment on the Department’s surrogate
country selection and to submit publicly
available information to value the
factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’), and
attached the memorandum outlining the
appropriate surrogate countries in this
case based solely on economic
comparability. See Letter to All
Interested Parties, from Scot T.
Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9,
Import Administration, regarding 2006–
2007 Administrative Review of
Administrative Review of Glycine from
the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘China’’): Surrogate Country List, at
Attachment One (‘‘Surrogate Country
Letter Attachment’’). On November 20,
2007, Baoding Mantong submitted
comments regarding the selection of
surrogate values. On February 7, 2008,
GSC submitted information for the
Department to consider in valuing the
FOPs. On February 29, 2008, GSC
submitted comments regarding the
surrogate value information placed on
the record. All surrogate value data
submitted by both parties were from
Indian sources.
When the Department is investigating
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’), directs it to base
NV, in most circumstances, on the NME
producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate
market economy country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
Department. In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the
factors of production, the Department
shall utilize, to the extent possible, the
prices or costs of FOPs in one or more
market economy countries that are: (1)
at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country;
and (2) significant producers of
comparable merchandise.
India is among the countries
comparable to the PRC in terms of
overall economic development. In its
February 7, 2008, letter commenting on
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
surrogate country selection, GSC
suggested that India be the primary
surrogate country because it is a
significant producer of glycine (whereas
the other selected countries are not),
and also because of the availability of
surrogate value data from Indian
sources. In addition, based on publicly
available information placed on the
record (i.e., export data as found in the
Surrogate Country Letter Attachment),
India is a significant producer of the
subject merchandise. Furthermore, India
has been the primary surrogate country
in past segments of this case, and both
GSC and Baoding Mantong submitted
surrogate values based solely on Indian
data that are contemporaneous to the
POR.
Given that India meets the criteria
listed in sections 773(c)(4)(A) and (B) of
the Act, interested parties have placed
only Indian surrogate value information
on the record of this review, and our use
of India as the surrogate country in past
reviews of glycine, we have selected
India as the surrogate country for
purposes of these preliminary results.
The sources of the surrogate factor
values are discussed under the ‘‘Normal
Value’’ section below and in
Memorandum to the File through Scot
T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9
from Toni Dach, International Trade
Analyst, Office 9: Administrative
Review of Glycine from the People’s
Republic of China: Surrogate Values for
the Preliminary Results, March 28, 2008
(‘‘Surrogate Values Memo’’). In
accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of
an antidumping administrative review,
interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value the
factors of production within 20 days
after the date of publication of the
preliminary determination.2
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the order is
glycine, which is a free–flowing
crystalline material, like salt or sugar.
2 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the
final results of this administrative review,
interested parties may submit factual information to
rebut, clarify, or correct factual information
submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for
submission of such factual information. However,
the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1)
permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information placed on the
record. The Department generally will not accept
the submission of additional, previously absentfrom-the-record alternative surrogate value
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See
Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 66 / Friday, April 4, 2008 / Notices
Glycine is produced at varying levels of
purity and is used as a sweetener/taste
enhancer, a buffering agent,
reabsorbable amino acid, chemical
intermediate, and a metal complexing
agent. This review covers glycine of all
purity levels. Glycine is currently
classified under subheading
2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience
and Customs purposes, the written
description of the merchandise under
the order is dispositive.
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Separate Rate
A designation of a country as an NME
remains in effect until it is revoked by
the Department. See section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. Accordingly,
there is a rebuttable presumption that
all companies within the PRC are
subject to government control and, thus,
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department’s
standard policy to assign all exporters of
the merchandise subject to review in
NME countries a single 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 exports. To establish
whether a company is sufficiently
independent to be entitled to a separate,
company–specific rate, the Department
analyzes each exporting entity in an
NME country under the test established
in the Final Determination of Sales at
Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588
(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as
amplified by the Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). With
respect to Nantong Dongchang, as noted
above, Nantong Dongchang withdrew
from participation in the administrative
review; therefore Nantong Dongchang
has failed to demonstrate its eligibility
for a separate rate. See ‘‘PRC–Wide Rate
and Facts Otherwise Available’’ Section,
below.
A. 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) any other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. In a prior
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Apr 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
administrative review for this case, the
Department granted a separate rate to
Baoding Mantong. See Glycine from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 47176
(August 12, 2005). However, it is the
Department’s policy to evaluate requests
for a separate rate individually,
regardless of whether the respondent
received a separate rate in the past. See
Manganese Metal From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 63 FR 12440,
12441–12442 (March 13, 1998).
In this review, Baoding Mantong
submitted a complete response to the
separate rates section of the
Department’s NME questionnaire. See
Baoding Mantong section A response,
July 5, 2008. In its response, Baoding
Mantong includes PRC government laws
and regulations with respect to
corporate ownership, its business
license, and narrative information
regarding the company’s operations and
selection of management. The
information provided by Baoding
Mantong supports a finding of a de jure
absence of governmental control over
their export activities based on: (1) an
absence of restrictive stipulations
associated with the exporter’s business
license; and (2) the legal authority on
the record decentralizing control over
the respondents, as demonstrated by the
PRC laws placed on the record of this
review. No party submitted information
to the contrary. Accordingly, we
preliminarily find an absence of de jure
control.
B. Absence of De Facto Control
The absence of de facto governmental
control over exports is based on whether
the respondent: (1) sets its own export
prices independent of the government
and other exporters; (2) retains the
proceeds from its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding
the disposition of profits or financing of
losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; and (4) has autonomy from
the government regarding the selection
of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59
FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589;
see also Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Furfuryl Alcohol from the People’s
Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545
(May 8, 1995).
In its questionnaire responses,
Baoding Mantong submitted evidence
indicating an absence of de facto
governmental control over its export
activities. Specifically, this evidence
indicates that: (1) Baoding Mantong sets
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18505
its own export prices independent of the
government and without the approval of
a government authority; (2) Baoding
Mantong retains the proceeds from its
sales and makes independent decisions
regarding the disposition of profits or
financing of losses; (3) Baoding Mantong
has a general manager with the
authority to negotiate and bind the
company in an agreement; (4) the
general manager is selected by the board
of directors, and the general manager
appoints the deputy managers and the
manager of each department; and (5)
there is no restriction on the company’s
use of export revenues. Therefore, the
Department preliminarily finds that
Baoding Mantong has established prima
facie that it qualifies for a separate rate
under the criteria established by Silicon
Carbide and Sparklers.
Partial Rescission of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1), as a timely withdrawal
request was submitted to the
Department by GSC on July 27, 2007, we
are rescinding this administrative
review with respect to the following 21
companies: A.H.A. International
Company, Ltd.; Amol Biotech Limited;
Beijing Jian Li Pharmaceutical
Company; Changzhou Dahua Importer
and Exporter (Group); Chem–Base
(Nantong) Laboratories Company; China
Container Line (USA); Jizhou City
Huayang Chemical Company, Ltd.;
Orichem International Ltd.; Qingdao
Samin Chemical Company, Ltd.;
Shanghai Dayue International; Shanghai
Light Industrial; Shanghai Waseta
International; Sinochem Qingdao
Company, Ltd.; Sinosweet Company,
Ltd.; Sumee China Jiangsu Machinery;
Sumec (On Behalf of Nantong); Textiles
Silk Light Ind. Products; Tianjin
Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Company;
Weifang Sunwin Chemicals Company,
Ltd.; Yicheng Logistics Shanghai Ltd.;
and Zheijiang Ruili Cemented Carbide.3
PRC Wide Rate and Facts Otherwise
Available
Nantong Dongchang, which was
selected as a mandatory respondent, did
not respond to the Department’s request
for information, and thus has failed to
demonstrate its eligibility for a separate
rate. The PRC–wide rate applies to all
entries of subject merchandise except
for entries from PRC producers/
exporters that have their own calculated
3 Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Company has
a separate rate, and we will liquidate its entries 15
days after publication of this notice. As the
remaining 20 companies do not have a separate
rate, they are considered part of the PRC-wide
entity and any entries will be liquidated at the
conclusion of this review.
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
18506
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 66 / Friday, April 4, 2008 / Notices
rate. See ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section
above. Companies that have not
demonstrated their entitlement to a
separate rate are appropriately
considered to be part of the PRC–wide
entity. Therefore, we determine it is
necessary to review the PRC–wide
entity, because Nantong Dongchang is
subject to the instant proceeding. In
doing so, we note that section 776(a)(1)
of the Act mandates that the Department
use the facts available if necessary
information is not available on the
record of an antidumping proceeding. In
addition, section 776(a)(2) of the Act
provides that if an interested party or
any other person: (A) withholds
information that has been requested by
the administering authority; (B) fails to
provide such information by the
deadlines for the submission of the
information or in the form and manner
requested, subject to subsections (c)(1)
and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding
under this title; or (D) provides such
information but the information cannot
be verified as provided in section 782(i)
of the Act, the Department shall, subject
to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts
otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination under this
title. Where the Department determines
that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department shall
promptly inform the party submitting
the response of the nature of the
deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that party with an
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. Section 782(d) of the Act
additionally states that if the party
submits further information that is
unsatisfactory or untimely, the
administering authority may, subject to
subsection (e), disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that
the Department shall not decline to
consider information that is submitted
by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet
all the applicable requirements
established by the administering
authority if: (1) the information is
submitted by the deadline established
for its submission; (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 in
providing the information and meeting
the requirements established by the
administering authority with respect to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Apr 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
the information; and (5) the information
can be used without undue difficulties.
As addressed below for Nantong
Dongchang, we find that the PRC–wide
entity, which includes Nantong
Dongchang, did not respond to our
request for information and that
necessary information either was not
provided, or the information provided
could not be verified and is not
sufficiently complete to enable the
Department to use it for these
preliminary results. Therefore, we find
it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of
the Act, to use facts otherwise available
as the basis for the preliminary results
of this review for the PRC–wide entity.
Nantong Dongchang submitted a
response to the Department’s Quantity
and Value questionnaire. The
Department granted Nantong Dongchang
an extension on July 3, 2007, and
another extension on July 23, 2007 to
submit its section A response. However,
on July 26, 2007, the Department
received a notification from Nantong
Dongchang stating that it would not
submit responses to the Department’s
antidumping questionnaires. See July
26, 2007, letter to the U.S. Department
of Commerce, from Nantong Dongchang.
Because Nantong Dongchang did not
provide its initial questionnaire
response, or continue to participate in
the review, the company denied the
Department an opportunity to analyze
any of its POR–specific sales and
production information, as well as its
eligibility for a separate rate. Because
Nantong Dongchang denied the
Department the opportunity to further
investigate its quantity and value
response and, despite several
extensions, did not submit any
responses to the Department’s section A,
C and D questionnaires, the Department
has preliminarily determined that
Nantong Dongchang significantly
impeded the Department’s proceeding
by withholding information, and failing
to respond to the Department’s request
for information within the Department’s
specified deadlines. Therefore, pursuant
to sections 776(a)(2)(A),(B), and (C) of
the Act, the Department preliminarily
finds that the application of facts
available is appropriate for these
preliminary results.
Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act,
we find that the PRC–wide entity,
which includes Nantong Dongchang,
failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability. As noted above,
Nantong Dongchang indicated to the
Department that it would not participate
in this review, or otherwise did not
provide the requested information,
despite repeated requests that it do so.
This POR–specific information was in
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the sole possession of Nantong
Dongchang, and could not be obtained
otherwise. Thus, because Nantong
Dongchang, and thus the PRC–wide
entity, refused to participate fully in this
proceeding, we find it appropriate to
use an inference that is adverse to the
interests of the PRC–wide entity in
selecting from among the facts
otherwise available. By doing so, we
ensure that the companies that are part
of the PRC–wide entity, including
Nantong Dongchang, will not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than had they cooperated
fully in this review.
Selection of Adverse Facts Available
(‘‘AFA’’) Rate
In deciding which facts to use as
AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.308(c) authorize the
Department to rely on information
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final
determination in the 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 consistently 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 a
LTFV investigation); see also Kompass
Food Trading Int’l v. United States, 24
CIT 678, 680 (2000) (upholding a 51.16
percent total AFA rate, the highest
available dumping margin from a
different, fully cooperative respondent);
and Shanghai Taoen Int’l 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).
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 ‘‘so as to effectuate the statutory
purposes of the adverse facts available
rule to induce respondents to provide
the Department with complete and
accurate information in a timely
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 66 / Friday, April 4, 2008 / Notices
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
manner.’’ See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value: Static Random Access Memory
Semiconductors from Taiwan, 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
Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103–316, vol.
1 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’), at 870; see also Notice
of 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,
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
155.89 percent, the highest rate on the
record of any segment of the proceeding,
to the PRC–wide entity, which includes
Nantong Dongchang, as AFA. See, e.g.,
Glycine from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of the Expedited
Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order, 70 FR 58185 (October 5, 2005)
(‘‘Glycine Sunset Results’’). As
discussed further below, this rate has
been corroborated.
Corroboration of Secondary
Information Used as AFA
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, where the Department selects from
among the facts otherwise available and
relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the
Department shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information
from independent sources reasonably at
the Department’s disposal. Secondary
information is described in the SAA as
‘‘{i}nformation derived from the
petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final
determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review
under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.’’ See SAA at 870.
The SAA states that ‘‘corroborate’’
means to determine that the information
used has probative value. The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Apr 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
Department has determined that to have
probative value, information must be
reliable and relevant. See Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished from Japan,
and Tapered Roller Bearings Four
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and
Components Thereof, from Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November
6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished
and Unfinished, From Japan, and
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and
Components Thereof, From Japan; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and
Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825
(March 13, 1997). The SAA also states
that independent sources used to
corroborate such evidence may include,
for example, published price lists,
official import statistics and customs
data, and information obtained from
interested parties during the particular
investigation or review. SAA, at 870.
See Notice of Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High
and Ultra–High Voltage Ceramic Station
Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627
(June 16, 2003) unchanged in Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: High and Ultra–High
Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators
from Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5,
2003); Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live
Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181,
12183 (March 11, 2005).
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 AFA rate we are
applying for the current review, 155.89
percent, the PRC–wide rate established
in the LTFV investigation, was
determined to have probative value
during the 2005 sunset review of glycine
from the PRC, as the Department found
it to be the only margin that reflects the
actions of the PRC–wide entity absent
the discipline of an order. See Glycine
from the People’s Republic of China;
Final Results of the Expedited Sunset
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order,
70 FR 58185 (October 5, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Glycine from the People’s Republic
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18507
of China; Final Results, to Joseph A.
Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, from Barbara E.
Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, at
Comment 2 (‘‘Glycine Sunset Review’’).
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 continues to be
reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect
of corroboration, the Department will
consider information reasonably at its
disposal to determine whether a margin
continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected
margin is not appropriate as adverse
facts available, the Department will
disregard the margin and determine an
appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut
Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review, 61
FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996).
Similarly, the Department does not
apply a margin that has been
discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v.
United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use
a margin that has been judicially
invalidated). As noted, the AFA rate we
are applying for the current review was
determined to have probative value
during the 2005 sunset review of glycine
from the PRC, as the Department found
it to be the only margin that reflects the
actions of the PRC–wide entry absent
the discipline of an order. See Glycine
Sunset Review. Moreover, as there is no
information on the record of this review
that demonstrates that this rate is not
appropriately used as adverse facts
available, we determine that this rate
has relevance.
As the AFA rate is both reliable and
relevant, we find that it has probative
value. As a result, the Department
preliminarily determines that the AFA
margin is corroborated for the purposes
of this administrative review and may
reasonably be applied to the PRC–wide
entity, which includes Nantong
Dongchang. Because these are the
preliminary results of the review, the
Department will consider all margins on
the record at the time of the final results
of review for the purpose of determining
the most appropriate final margin for
Nantong Dongchang. See Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer
Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the
Russian Federation, 65 FR 1139
(January 7, 2000) unchanged in Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value; Solid Fertilizer Grade
Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian
Federation, 65 FR 42669 (July 11, 2000).
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
18508
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 66 / Friday, April 4, 2008 / Notices
Non–Market Economy Country
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non–market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. See, e.g.,
Honey from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Final
Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
34893 (June 16, 2006), and Honey from
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results and Rescission in Part, of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Reviews, 72 FR 37715 (July 11, 2007).
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.,
Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Rescission
in Part, 71 FR 65073, 65074 (November
7, 2006) unchanged in Carbazole Violet
Pigment 23 from the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
26589 (May 10, 2007). None of the
parties to this proceeding have
contested such treatment. Accordingly,
we calculated NV in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies
to NME countries.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether Baoding
Mantong’s sales of the subject
merchandise to the United States were
made at a price below NV, we compared
its United States prices to a normal
value, as described in the ‘‘United States
Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ section of
this notice.
U.S. Price
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
A. Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, we calculated the export price
(‘‘EP’’) for certain sales to the United
States for Baoding Mantong because the
first sale to an unaffiliated party was
made before the date of importation and
the use of constructed EP (‘‘CEP’’) was
not otherwise warranted. We calculated
EP based on the FOB price to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States.4 In accordance with section
772(c)(2) of the Act, as appropriate, we
deducted from the starting price to
unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland
4 We note that certain of Baoding Mantong’s sales
appeared to have entered the United States as ‘‘type
1’’ entries not subject to antidumping duties. See
Letter from Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, to Baoding Mantong,
dated February 29, 2008. We have referred this
matter to CBP for possible enforcement action.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Apr 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
freight. This service was either provided
by an NME vendor or paid for using an
NME currency. Thus, we based the
deduction of these movement charges
on surrogate values. See Surrogate
Values Memo for details regarding the
surrogate values for movement
expenses.
Normal Value (‘‘NV’’)
1. Methodology
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine the
NV using a factors–of-production
methodology if the merchandise is
exported from an NME 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 bases NV on
the FOPs because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of NMEs renders price comparisons and
the calculation of production costs
invalid under the Department’s normal
methodologies.
2. Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c)(1)
of the Act, we calculated NV based on
factors of production reported by
respondent for the POR. To calculate
NV, we multiplied the reported per unit
factor–consumption rates by publicly
available Indian surrogate values. In
selecting the surrogate values, we
considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. As
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to Indian import surrogate values a
surrogate freight cost using the shorter
of the reported distance from the
domestic supplier to the factory of
production or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory of
production where appropriate. This
adjustment is in accordance with the
Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v.
United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–
1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we did not
use Indian import data, we calculated
freight based on the reported distance
from the supplier to the factory.
With regard to surrogate values from
import statistics, we disregard prices
that we have reason to believe or
suspect may be subsidized, such as the
prices of inputs from Indonesia, South
Korea and Thailand. We have found in
other proceedings that these countries
maintain broadly available, non–
industry-specific export subsidies and,
therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all
exports to all markets from these
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
countries may be subsidized. See Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People’s Republic of
China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
memorandum at Comment 7 (‘‘CTVs
from the PRC’’). The legislative history
provides guidance that in making its
determination as to whether input
values may be subsidized, the
Department is not required to conduct a
formal investigation. Instead, the
Department is to base its decision on
information that is available to it at the
time it makes its determination. See
H.R. Rep. 100–576 (1988) at 590.
Therefore, based on the information
currently available, we have not used
prices from these countries in
calculating the surrogate values based
on Indian import data. We have also
disregarded Indian import data from
countries that the Department has
previously determined to be NME
countries, as well as imports from
unspecified countries. See CTVs from
the PRC.
It is the Department’s practice to
calculate price index adjustors to inflate
or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate
values that are not contemporaneous
with the POR using the wholesale price
index for the subject country. See, e.g.,
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of the Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review, 71 FR 38617, 38619
(July 7, 2006), unchanged in final,
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review, 71 FR 66910
(November 17, 2006). Therefore, where
publicly available information
contemporaneous with the POR with
which to calculate surrogate values
could not be obtained, surrogate values
were adjusted using the Wholesale Price
Index (‘‘WPI’’) for India, as published in
the International Financial Statistics
(‘‘IFS’’) of the International Monetary
Fund (‘‘IMF’’). Surrogate values
denominated in foreign currencies were
converted into U.S. dollars (‘‘USD’’)
using the applicable average exchange
rate based on exchange rate data from
the Department’s website. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the
final determination in an administrative
review, interested parties may submit
publicly available information to value
the factors of production within 20 days
after the date of publication of the
preliminary results. See Surrogate
Values Memo.
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 66 / Friday, April 4, 2008 / Notices
The Department used Indian Import
Statistics to value the raw material and
packing material inputs that Baoding
Mantong used to produce the
merchandise under review during the
POR, except where listed below. For a
detailed description of all surrogate
values used for Baoding Mantong, see
Surrogate Values Memo.
Raw Material:
To value liquid chlorine, the
Department used the values reported for
the purchase, manufacture, and sale of
liquid chlorine from the publicly
available 2006–2007 financial reports of
Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Limited
(‘‘Kanoria’’) and Tata Chemicals Limited
(‘‘Tata’’), two chemical companies in
India that use and produce liquid
chlorine, submitted by Baoding
Mantong on November 20, 2007. See
Surrogate Values Memo.
By–Product:
Petitioner and Baoding Mantong both
placed data from Chemical Weekly on
the record to value hydrochloric acid.
Consistent with past practice and these
submissions, the Department has
applied a surrogate value for
hydrochloric acid using the values
submitted by the parties from Chemical
Weekly. See Surrogate Values Memo.
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Energy:
Baoding Mantong reported the
consumption of water, electricity, and
coal as energy inputs consumed in the
production of glycine. To value water,
we calculated the average water rates
from various regions as reported by the
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, https://midcindia.org, dated
June 1, 2003, and inflated the value for
water to be contemporaneous to the
POR. See Surrogate Values Memo. To
value electricity, we used the latest rates
provided by the OECD’s International
Energy Agency’s publication: Key World
Energy Statistics from 2003. Because the
electricity prices are based on annual
year 2000 prices; we inflated the value
for electricity to be contemporaneous to
the POR average WPI rate. See Surrogate
Values Memo.
Financial Ratios:
To value the surrogate financial ratios
for factory overhead, selling, general &
administrative expenses, and profit, the
Department relied on publicly available
information contained in the financial
statements for the following two
companies: Jubilant Organosis Limited
of India (‘‘Jubilant’’), for fiscal year
2006–2007, submitted by Baoding
Mantong on November 20, 2007; and
Diamines and Chemical Limited
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Apr 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
(‘‘Diamines’’), for fiscal year 2006–2007,
submitted by GSC on February 7, 2008.
The annual report covers the period
April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007, and
includes data for the 2005–2006 fiscal
year as well, covering the entire POR.
We have determined that the financial
statements for both Jubilant and
Diamines are appropriate for use in
these preliminary results because both
Jubilant and Diamines are producers of
comparable merchandise and their
financial data are contemporaneous
with the POR. See Surrogate Values
Memo.
Wage Rate:
Because of the variability of wage
rates in countries with similar levels of
per capita gross national product, 19
CFR 351.408(c)(3) requires the use of a
regression–based wage rate. Therefore,
to value the labor input, we used the
PRC’s regression–based wage rate
published by Import Administration on
its website, https://www.trade.gov/ia/.
We note that this wage rate is calculated
in accordance with the Department’s
revised methodology. See Expected Non
Market Economy Wages: Request for
Comments on 2006 Calculation, 72 FR
949 (January 9, 2007) and Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non Market Economy Wages,
Duty Drawback, and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 6176 (October 19,
2006). See also Surrogate Values Memo.
Movement Expenses:
To value truck freight, we calculated
a weighted–average freight cost based
on publicly available data from
www.infreight.com, an Indian inland
freight logistics resource website. See
Surrogate Values Memo. For a
comprehensive list of the sources and
data used to determine the surrogate
vales for the FOPs, by–products, and the
surrogate financial ratios for factory
overhead, selling, general and
administrative expenses, and profit, see
Surrogate Values Memo.
Preliminary Results of the Review
The Department has determined that
the following preliminary dumping
margins exist for the period March 1,
2006, through February 28, 2007:
GLYCINE FROM THE PRC
Manufacturer/Exporter
Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. ...........................
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Weighted–
Average
Margin
(Percent)
31.82
18509
GLYCINE FROM THE PRC—Continued
Manufacturer/Exporter
PRC–Wide Rate (which includes
Nantong Dongchang Chemical
Industry Corporation) ..............
Weighted–
Average
Margin
(Percent)
155.89
The Department will disclose
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within
five days of the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b). Interested parties may
submit case briefs and/or written
comments no later than 30 days after the
date of publication of these preliminary
results of review. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and
rebuttals to written comments, limited
to issues raised in such briefs or
comments, may be filed no later than
five days after the time limit for filing
the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Requests should contain the
following information: (1) the party’s
name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3)
a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral
presentations will be limited to issues
raised in the briefs. If we receive a
request for a hearing, we intend to hold
the hearing seven days after the
deadline for submission of the rebuttal
briefs at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
The Department intends to issue the
final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of
its analysis of issues raised in any such
comments, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results,
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions
to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of
review. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of review,
the Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate
importer–specific (or customer) ad
valorem duty assessment rates based on
the ratio of the total amount of the
dumping margins calculated for the
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
18510
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 66 / Friday, April 4, 2008 / Notices
examined sales to the total entered
value of those same sales. We will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered
by this review if any importer–specific
assessment rate calculated in the final
results of this review is above de
minimis.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, the following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of the
administrative review 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 exported by
Baoding Mantong, the cash deposit rate
will be that established in the final
results of review; (2) for previously
reviewed or investigated companies not
listed above that have separate rates, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the
company specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) 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 PRC wide rate of 155.89 percent; (4)
for all non PRC exporters of subject
merchandise, the cash deposit rate will
be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporter that supplied that exporter.
These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the
next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this
notice are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, 19 CFR
351.213, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: March 28, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–7099 Filed 4–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Apr 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–552–802
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) has determined that a
request for a new shipper review
(‘‘NSR’’) of the antidumping duty order
on frozen warmwater shrimp (‘‘shrimp’’)
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
(‘‘Vietnam’’), received on February 27,
2008, meets the statutory and regulatory
requirements for initiation. The period
of review (‘‘POR’’) for this NSR is
February 1, 2007 January 31, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Manning or Howard Smith, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;
telephone: 202–482–5253 and 202–482–
5193, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
The notice announcing the
antidumping duty order on shrimp from
Vietnam was published in the Federal
Register on February 1, 2005. See Notice
of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR
5152 (February 1, 2005).1 On February
27, 2008, pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 CFR
351.214(c), the Department received a
NSR request from BIM Seafood Joint
Stock Company (‘‘BIM Seafood’’). BIM
Seafood certified that it produces and
exports the subject merchandise upon
which the request was based.
On February 29, 2008, the Department
issued BIM Seafood a letter requesting
that it resubmit the public version of its
February 27, 2008, request. See the
Department’s February 29, 2008, letter
to BIM Seafood. On March 4, 2008, BIM
Seafood submitted a proper public
1 Therefore, a request for a NSR based on the
annual anniversary month, February, was due to the
Department by February 29, 2008. See 19 CFR
351.214(d)(1).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
version, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.304(c)(1).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i),
BIM Seafood certified that it did not
export shrimp to the United States
during the period of investigation
(‘‘POI’’). In addition, pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), BIM Seafood
certified that, since the initiation of the
investigation, it has never been affiliated
with any Vietnamese exporter or
producer who exported shrimp to the
United States during the POI, including
those not individually examined during
the investigation. As required by 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), BIM Seafood also
certified that its export activities were
not controlled by the central
government of Vietnam.
In addition to the certifications
described above, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iv), BIM Seafood
submitted documentation establishing
the following: (1) the date on which BIM
Seafood first shipped shrimp for export
to the United States and the date on
which the shrimp were first entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption; (2) the volume of its first
shipment; and (3) the date of its first
sale to an unaffiliated customer in the
United States.
The Department conducted United
States Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) database queries in an attempt
to confirm that BIM Seafood’s
shipments of subject merchandise had
entered the United States for
consumption and that liquidation of
such entries had been properly
suspended for antidumping duties. The
Department also examined whether the
CBP data confirmed that such entries
were made during the NSR POR. The
information we examined was
consistent with that provided by BIM
Seafood.
Initiation of New Shipper Reviews
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the
Department finds that BIM Seafood
meets the threshold requirements for
initiation of a NSR for the shipment of
shrimp from Vietnam it produced and
exported. See ‘‘Memorandum to File
from Javier Barrientos, Senior Case
Analyst, Certain Warmwater Shrimp
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Initiation of AD New Shipper Review
for BIM Seafood Joint Stock Company,’’
(March 26, 2008).
The Department intends to issue the
preliminary results of this NSR no later
than 180 days from the date of
initiation, and final results no later than
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 66 (Friday, April 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18503-18510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-7099]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-836]
Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc.
(``GSC''), a domestic glycine producer, the Department of Commerce
(``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''). This review covers Nantong Dongchang Chemical Industry
Corporation (``Nantong Dongchang'') and Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry
Co., Ltd. (``Baoding Mantong''). The period of review (``POR'') is
March 1, 2006, through February 28, 2007. On July 26, 2007, Nantong
Dongchang indicated that it would not reply to the Department's
antidumping questionnaire in this administrative review; therefore, we
have preliminarily determined to apply facts otherwise available with
an adverse inference (``AFA'') to Nantong Dongchang. In addition, we
have preliminarily determined that Baoding Mantong made sales below
normal value (``NV''). With respect to the 21 other companies for whom
petitioners submitted a request for review and a subsequent timely
withdrawal request, we are rescinding this review.\1\ The preliminary
results are listed below in the section titled ``Preliminary Results of
Review.'' If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'')
to assess the ad valorem margins against the entered value of each
entry of the subject merchandise during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although the Department initiated an administrative review
for 24 companies, Nantong Dongchang was also identified in the
initiation notice as Dongchang Chemical Industrial Company, as GSC
indicated in its July 27, 2007, letter to the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Quigley or Toni Dach, 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-
4047, or (202) 482-1655, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 29, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register
an antidumping duty order on glycine from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty
Order: Glycine from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 16116 (March
29, 1995). On March 2, 2007, the Department published an Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 9505 (March 2,
2007). On March 28, 2007, GEO Speciality Chemicals, Inc. (``GSC''),
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of sales
of subject merchandise by 26 companies to the United States during the
POR, in accordance with section 351.213(b) of the Department's
regulations. Those 26 companies are: A.H.A. International Company,
Ltd.; Amol Biotech Limited; Baoding Mantong; Beijing Jian Li
Pharmaceutical Company; Changzhou Dahua Importer and Exporter (Group);
Chem-Base (Nantong) Laboratories Company; China Container Line (USA);
Dongchang Chemical Industrial Company; Hua Yip Company, Inc.; Jizhou
City Huayang Chemical Company, Ltd.; Nantong Dongchang; Orichem
International Ltd.; Qingdao Samin Chemical Company,
[[Page 18504]]
Ltd.; Shanghai Dayue International; Shanghai Light Industrial; Shanghai
Waseta International; Sinochem Qingdao Company, Ltd.; Sinosweet
Company, Ltd.; Sumee China Jiangsu Machinery; Sumec (On Behalf of
Nantong); Taigeng Global Enterprises Ltd.; Textiles Silk Light Ind.
Products; Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Company; Weifang Sunwin
Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Yicheng Logistics Shanghai Ltd.; and Zheijiang
Ruili Cemented Carbide. On March 30, 2007, Nantong Dongchang requested
an administrative review of its sales during the POR, in accordance
with section 351.213(b) of the Department's regulations. On April 5,
2007, prior to initiation of the review, GSC withdrew its review
request with respect to two companies: Hua Yip Company, Inc. and
Taigeng Global Enterprises Ltd, because GSC was unable to provide
addresses for these two companies.
On April 27, 2007, the Department initiated the antidumping duty
administrative review with respect to the 24 remaining companies. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 72 FR 20986 (April 27, 2007). On June 14, 2007, the Department
selected Baoding Mantong and Nantong Dongchang as mandatory
respondents. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Catherine C. Bertrand, Senior
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding
2006/2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Glycine from the
People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents. On November 30,
2007, the Department extended the deadline for the publication of the
preliminary results to March 31, 2008. See Glycine from the People's
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results
of the 2006-2007 Administrative Review, 72 FR 67701 (November 30,
2007).
Questionnaires
On June 14, 2007, the Department issued standard non-market economy
(``NME'') antidumping duty questionnaires to Baoding Mantong and
Nantong Dongchang. On July 3, 2007, and July 23, 2007, the Department
issued extensions of the deadline for Nantong Dongchang to file its
response to the questionnaire. On July 26, 2007, Nantong Dongchang
notified the Department that it would not reply to the Department's
antidumping questionnaire in this administrative review. On July 27,
2007, GSC withdrew its request for administrative review for all
companies except Nantong Dongchang and Baoding Mantong.
Baoding Mantong submitted its section A response on July 5, 2007,
and its response to sections C and D on July 20, 2007. Baoding Mantong
submitted supplemental responses on December 3, 2007, February 28,
2008, and March 7, 2008.
Surrogate Country and Factors
On September 17, 2007, the Department's Office of Policy issued a
memorandum listing India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, and the
Philippines as economically comparable surrogate countries for this
review. On October 5, 2007, we invited interested parties to comment on
the Department's surrogate country selection and to submit publicly
available information to value the factors of production (``FOPs''),
and attached the memorandum outlining the appropriate surrogate
countries in this case based solely on economic comparability. See
Letter to All Interested Parties, from Scot T. Fullerton, Program
Manager, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding 2006-2007
Administrative Review of Administrative Review of Glycine from the
People's Republic of China (``China''): Surrogate Country List, at
Attachment One (``Surrogate Country Letter Attachment''). On November
20, 2007, Baoding Mantong submitted comments regarding the selection of
surrogate values. On February 7, 2008, GSC submitted information for
the Department to consider in valuing the FOPs. On February 29, 2008,
GSC submitted comments regarding the surrogate value information placed
on the record. All surrogate value data submitted by both parties were
from Indian sources.
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''),
directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's
FOPs, valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with
section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the
Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs
of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are: (1) at a
level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country;
and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise.
India is among the countries comparable to the PRC in terms of
overall economic development. In its February 7, 2008, letter
commenting on surrogate country selection, GSC suggested that India be
the primary surrogate country because it is a significant producer of
glycine (whereas the other selected countries are not), and also
because of the availability of surrogate value data from Indian
sources. In addition, based on publicly available information placed on
the record (i.e., export data as found in the Surrogate Country Letter
Attachment), India is a significant producer of the subject
merchandise. Furthermore, India has been the primary surrogate country
in past segments of this case, and both GSC and Baoding Mantong
submitted surrogate values based solely on Indian data that are
contemporaneous to the POR.
Given that India meets the criteria listed in sections 773(c)(4)(A)
and (B) of the Act, interested parties have placed only Indian
surrogate value information on the record of this review, and our use
of India as the surrogate country in past reviews of glycine, we have
selected India as the surrogate country for purposes of these
preliminary results. The sources of the surrogate factor values are
discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section below and in Memorandum to
the File through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9 from Toni
Dach, International Trade Analyst, Office 9: Administrative Review of
Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the
Preliminary Results, March 28, 2008 (``Surrogate Values Memo''). In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of an
antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit
publicly available information to value the factors of production
within 20 days after the date of publication of the preliminary
determination.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information placed on the record. The
Department generally will not accept the submission of additional,
previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the order is glycine, which is a free-
flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar.
[[Page 18505]]
Glycine is produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a
sweetener/taste enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid,
chemical intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. This review covers
glycine of all purity levels. Glycine is currently classified under
subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the
merchandise under the order is dispositive.
Separate Rate
A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.
Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the PRC are subject to government control and, thus, should be
assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's
standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to
review in NME countries a single 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 exports. To establish
whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a
separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting
entity in an NME country under the test established in the Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''),
as amplified by the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR
22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). With respect to Nantong
Dongchang, as noted above, Nantong Dongchang withdrew from
participation in the administrative review; therefore Nantong Dongchang
has failed to demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate. See
``PRC-Wide Rate and Facts Otherwise Available'' Section, below.
A. 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) any other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. In a prior administrative review for this
case, the Department granted a separate rate to Baoding Mantong. See
Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 47176 (August 12, 2005).
However, it is the Department's policy to evaluate requests for a
separate rate individually, regardless of whether the respondent
received a separate rate in the past. See Manganese Metal From the
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12440, 12441-12442 (March
13, 1998).
In this review, Baoding Mantong submitted a complete response to
the separate rates section of the Department's NME questionnaire. See
Baoding Mantong section A response, July 5, 2008. In its response,
Baoding Mantong includes PRC government laws and regulations with
respect to corporate ownership, its business license, and narrative
information regarding the company's operations and selection of
management. The information provided by Baoding Mantong supports a
finding of a de jure absence of governmental control over their export
activities based on: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations
associated with the exporter's business license; and (2) the legal
authority on the record decentralizing control over the respondents, as
demonstrated by the PRC laws placed on the record of this review. No
party submitted information to the contrary. Accordingly, we
preliminarily find an absence of de jure control.
B. Absence of De Facto Control
The absence of de facto governmental control over exports is based
on whether the respondent: (1) sets its own export prices independent
of the government and other exporters; (2) retains the proceeds from
its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) has the authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) has autonomy
from the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon
Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; see also Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol
from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).
In its questionnaire responses, Baoding Mantong submitted evidence
indicating an absence of de facto governmental control over its export
activities. Specifically, this evidence indicates that: (1) Baoding
Mantong sets its own export prices independent of the government and
without the approval of a government authority; (2) Baoding Mantong
retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions
regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3)
Baoding Mantong has a general manager with the authority to negotiate
and bind the company in an agreement; (4) the general manager is
selected by the board of directors, and the general manager appoints
the deputy managers and the manager of each department; and (5) there
is no restriction on the company's use of export revenues. Therefore,
the Department preliminarily finds that Baoding Mantong has established
prima facie that it qualifies for a separate rate under the criteria
established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.
Partial Rescission of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), as a timely withdrawal
request was submitted to the Department by GSC on July 27, 2007, we are
rescinding this administrative review with respect to the following 21
companies: A.H.A. International Company, Ltd.; Amol Biotech Limited;
Beijing Jian Li Pharmaceutical Company; Changzhou Dahua Importer and
Exporter (Group); Chem-Base (Nantong) Laboratories Company; China
Container Line (USA); Jizhou City Huayang Chemical Company, Ltd.;
Orichem International Ltd.; Qingdao Samin Chemical Company, Ltd.;
Shanghai Dayue International; Shanghai Light Industrial; Shanghai
Waseta International; Sinochem Qingdao Company, Ltd.; Sinosweet
Company, Ltd.; Sumee China Jiangsu Machinery; Sumec (On Behalf of
Nantong); Textiles Silk Light Ind. Products; Tianjin Tiancheng
Pharmaceutical Company; Weifang Sunwin Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Yicheng
Logistics Shanghai Ltd.; and Zheijiang Ruili Cemented Carbide.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Company has a separate
rate, and we will liquidate its entries 15 days after publication of
this notice. As the remaining 20 companies do not have a separate
rate, they are considered part of the PRC-wide entity and any
entries will be liquidated at the conclusion of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC Wide Rate and Facts Otherwise Available
Nantong Dongchang, which was selected as a mandatory respondent,
did not respond to the Department's request for information, and thus
has failed to demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate. The PRC-
wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for
entries from PRC producers/exporters that have their own calculated
[[Page 18506]]
rate. See ``Separate Rates'' section above. Companies that have not
demonstrated their entitlement to a separate rate are appropriately
considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, we determine
it is necessary to review the PRC-wide entity, because Nantong
Dongchang is subject to the instant proceeding. In doing so, we note
that section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use the
facts available if necessary information is not available on the record
of an antidumping proceeding. In addition, section 776(a)(2) of the Act
provides that if an interested party or any other person: (A) withholds
information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B)
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission
of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly
impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information
but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of
the Act, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act,
use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable
determination under this title. Where the Department determines that a
response to a request for information does not comply with the request,
section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department shall promptly
inform the party submitting the response of the nature of the
deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that party
with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. Section 782(d)
of the Act additionally states that if the party submits further
information that is unsatisfactory or untimely, the administering
authority may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all or part of the
original and subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of the Act provides
that the Department shall not decline to consider information that is
submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination
but does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the
administering authority if: (1) the information is submitted by the
deadline established for its submission; (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 in providing the information and meeting the requirements
established by the administering authority with respect to the
information; and (5) the information can be used without undue
difficulties.
As addressed below for Nantong Dongchang, we find that the PRC-wide
entity, which includes Nantong Dongchang, did not respond to our
request for information and that necessary information either was not
provided, or the information provided could not be verified and is not
sufficiently complete to enable the Department to use it for these
preliminary results. Therefore, we find it necessary, under section
776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available as the basis for
the preliminary results of this review for the PRC-wide entity.
Nantong Dongchang submitted a response to the Department's Quantity
and Value questionnaire. The Department granted Nantong Dongchang an
extension on July 3, 2007, and another extension on July 23, 2007 to
submit its section A response. However, on July 26, 2007, the
Department received a notification from Nantong Dongchang stating that
it would not submit responses to the Department's antidumping
questionnaires. See July 26, 2007, letter to the U.S. Department of
Commerce, from Nantong Dongchang. Because Nantong Dongchang did not
provide its initial questionnaire response, or continue to participate
in the review, the company denied the Department an opportunity to
analyze any of its POR-specific sales and production information, as
well as its eligibility for a separate rate. Because Nantong Dongchang
denied the Department the opportunity to further investigate its
quantity and value response and, despite several extensions, did not
submit any responses to the Department's section A, C and D
questionnaires, the Department has preliminarily determined that
Nantong Dongchang significantly impeded the Department's proceeding by
withholding information, and failing to respond to the Department's
request for information within the Department's specified deadlines.
Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),(B), and (C) of the Act,
the Department preliminarily finds that the application of facts
available is appropriate for these preliminary results.
Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the PRC-wide
entity, which includes Nantong Dongchang, failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability. As noted above, Nantong Dongchang
indicated to the Department that it would not participate in this
review, or otherwise did not provide the requested information, despite
repeated requests that it do so. This POR-specific information was in
the sole possession of Nantong Dongchang, and could not be obtained
otherwise. Thus, because Nantong Dongchang, and thus the PRC-wide
entity, refused to participate fully in this proceeding, we find it
appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the
PRC-wide entity in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.
By doing so, we ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide
entity, including Nantong Dongchang, will not obtain a more favorable
result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this
review.
Selection of Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'') Rate
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c) authorize the Department to rely on information
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the
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 consistently 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 a LTFV investigation); see also Kompass Food Trading
Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 680 (2000) (upholding a 51.16
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a
different, fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen Int'l
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).
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 ``so as to effectuate the statutory purposes of
the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely
[[Page 18507]]
manner.'' See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 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 Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Doc. 103-316, vol. 1 (1994) (``SAA''), at 870; see also Notice of
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, 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 155.89 percent, the highest rate on the record of
any segment of the proceeding, to the PRC-wide entity, which includes
Nantong Dongchang, as AFA. See, e.g., Glycine from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order, 70 FR 58185 (October 5, 2005) (``Glycine Sunset
Results''). As discussed further below, this rate has been
corroborated.
Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as AFA
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department
selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on
``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is
described in the SAA as ``{i{time} nformation derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under
section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The
SAA states that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information
used has probative value. The Department has determined that to have
probative value, information must be reliable and relevant. See Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan,
and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan,
and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 13,
1997). The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate
such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official
import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from
interested parties during the particular investigation or review. SAA,
at 870. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators
from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003) unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High
Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 62560
(November 5, 2003); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183 (March 11,
2005).
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 AFA rate we are applying for the
current review, 155.89 percent, the PRC-wide rate established in the
LTFV investigation, was determined to have probative value during the
2005 sunset review of glycine from the PRC, as the Department found it
to be the only margin that reflects the actions of the PRC-wide entity
absent the discipline of an order. See Glycine from the People's
Republic of China; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order, 70 FR 58185 (October 5, 2005) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine from the People's Republic of China;
Final Results, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, at Comment 2 (``Glycine Sunset
Review''). 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 continues
to be reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as
adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and
determine an appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from
Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812,
6814 (February 22, 1996). Similarly, the Department does not apply a
margin that has been discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United
States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not
use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). As noted, the AFA
rate we are applying for the current review was determined to have
probative value during the 2005 sunset review of glycine from the PRC,
as the Department found it to be the only margin that reflects the
actions of the PRC-wide entry absent the discipline of an order. See
Glycine Sunset Review. Moreover, as there is no information on the
record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not
appropriately used as adverse facts available, we determine that this
rate has relevance.
As the AFA rate is both reliable and relevant, we find that it has
probative value. As a result, the Department preliminarily determines
that the AFA margin is corroborated for the purposes of this
administrative review and may reasonably be applied to the PRC-wide
entity, which includes Nantong Dongchang. Because these are the
preliminary results of the review, the Department will consider all
margins on the record at the time of the final results of review for
the purpose of determining the most appropriate final margin for
Nantong Dongchang. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the
Russian Federation, 65 FR 1139 (January 7, 2000) unchanged in Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Solid Fertilizer
Grade Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 42669 (July
11, 2000).
[[Page 18508]]
Non-Market Economy Country
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. See,
e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and
Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
71 FR 34893 (June 16, 2006), and Honey from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results and Rescission in Part, of Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 37715 (July 11, 2007). 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., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Rescission in Part, 71 FR 65073, 65074
(November 7, 2006) unchanged in Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 26589 (May 10, 2007). None of the parties
to this proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we
calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which
applies to NME countries.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether Baoding Mantong's sales of the subject
merchandise to the United States were made at a price below NV, we
compared its United States prices to a normal value, as described in
the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' section of this
notice.
U.S. Price
A. Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated the
export price (``EP'') for certain sales to the United States for
Baoding Mantong because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was
made before the date of importation and the use of constructed EP
(``CEP'') was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on the
FOB price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States.\4\ In
accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, as appropriate, we
deducted from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign
inland freight. This service was either provided by an NME vendor or
paid for using an NME currency. Thus, we based the deduction of these
movement charges on surrogate values. See Surrogate Values Memo for
details regarding the surrogate values for movement expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We note that certain of Baoding Mantong's sales appeared to
have entered the United States as ``type 1'' entries not subject to
antidumping duties. See Letter from Scot T. Fullerton, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, to Baoding Mantong, dated
February 29, 2008. We have referred this matter to CBP for possible
enforcement action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value (``NV'')
1. Methodology
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME 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
bases NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on
various aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation
of production costs invalid under the Department's normal
methodologies.
2. Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on factors of production reported by respondent for the POR. To
calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per unit factor-consumption
rates by publicly available Indian surrogate values. In selecting the
surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices
by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically,
we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost
using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier
to the factory of production or the distance from the nearest seaport
to the factory of production where appropriate. This adjustment is in
accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Where we did not use Indian import data, we calculated freight
based on the reported distance from the supplier to the factory.
With regard to surrogate values from import statistics, we
disregard prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be
subsidized, such as the prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea
and Thailand. We have found in other proceedings that these countries
maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and,
therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets
from these countries may be subsidized. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16,
2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision memorandum at Comment 7
(``CTVs from the PRC''). The legislative history provides guidance that
in making its determination as to whether input values may be
subsidized, the Department is not required to conduct a formal
investigation. Instead, the Department is to base its decision on
information that is available to it at the time it makes its
determination. See H.R. Rep. 100-576 (1988) at 590. Therefore, based on
the information currently available, we have not used prices from these
countries in calculating the surrogate values based on Indian import
data. We have also disregarded Indian import data from countries that
the Department has previously determined to be NME countries, as well
as imports from unspecified countries. See CTVs from the PRC.
It is the Department's practice to calculate price index adjustors
to inflate or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate values that are not
contemporaneous with the POR using the wholesale price index for the
subject country. See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review, 71 FR 38617, 38619 (July 7, 2006), unchanged in
final, Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 71 FR 66910
(November 17, 2006). Therefore, where publicly available information
contemporaneous with the POR with which to calculate surrogate values
could not be obtained, surrogate values were adjusted using the
Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') for India, as published in the
International Financial Statistics (``IFS'') of the International
Monetary Fund (``IMF''). Surrogate values denominated in foreign
currencies were converted into U.S. dollars (``USD'') using the
applicable average exchange rate based on exchange rate data from the
Department's website. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for
the final determination in an administrative review, interested parties
may submit publicly available information to value the factors of
production within 20 days after the date of publication of the
preliminary results. See Surrogate Values Memo.
[[Page 18509]]
The Department used Indian Import Statistics to value the raw
material and packing material inputs that Baoding Mantong used to
produce the merchandise under review during the POR, except where
listed below. For a detailed description of all surrogate values used
for Baoding Mantong, see Surrogate Values Memo.
Raw Material:
To value liquid chlorine, the Department used the values reported
for the purchase, manufacture, and sale of liquid chlorine from the
publicly available 2006-2007 financial reports of Kanoria Chemicals &
Industries Limited (``Kanoria'') and Tata Chemicals Limited (``Tata''),
two chemical companies in India that use and produce liquid chlorine,
submitted by Baoding Mantong on November 20, 2007. See Surrogate Values
Memo.
By-Product:
Petitioner and Baoding Mantong both placed data from Chemical
Weekly on the record to value hydrochloric acid. Consistent with past
practice and these submissions, the Department has applied a surrogate
value for hydrochloric acid using the values submitted by the parties
from Chemical Weekly. See Surrogate Values Memo.
Energy:
Baoding Mantong reported the consumption of water, electricity, and
coal as energy inputs consumed in the production of glycine. To value
water, we calculated the average water rates from various regions as
reported by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, https://
midcindia.org, dated June 1, 2003, and inflated the value for water to
be contemporaneous to the POR. See Surrogate Values Memo. To value
electricity, we used the latest rates provided by the OECD's
International Energy Agency's publication: Key World Energy Statistics
from 2003. Because the electricity prices are based on annual year 2000
prices; we inflated the value for electricity to be contemporaneous to
the POR average WPI rate. See Surrogate Values Memo.
Financial Ratios:
To value the surrogate financial ratios for factory overhead,
selling, general & administrative expenses, and profit, the Department
relied on publicly available information contained in the financial
statements for the following two companies: Jubilant Organosis Limited
of India (``Jubilant''), for fiscal year 2006-2007, submitted by
Baoding Mantong on November 20, 2007; and Diamines and Chemical Limited
(``Diamines''), for fiscal year 2006-2007, submitted by GSC on February
7, 2008. The annual report covers the period April 1, 2006, to March
31, 2007, and includes data for the 2005-2006 fiscal year as well,
covering the entire POR. We have determined that the financial
statements for both Jubilant and Diamines are appropriate for use in
these preliminary results because both Jubilant and Diamines are
producers of comparable merchandise and their financial data are
contemporaneous with the POR. See Surrogate Values Memo.
Wage Rate:
Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar
levels of per capita gross national product, 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3)
requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value
the labor input, we used the PRC's regression-based wage rate published
by Import Administration on its website, https://www.trade.gov/ia/. We
note that this wage rate is calculated in accordance with the
Department's revised methodology. See Expected Non Market Economy
Wages: Request for Comments on 2006 Calculation, 72 FR 949 (January 9,
2007) and Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected
Non Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback, and Request for Comments, 71
FR 6176 (October 19, 2006). See also Surrogate Values Memo.
Movement Expenses:
To value truck freight, we calculated a weighted-average freight
cost based on publicly available data from www.infreight.com, an Indian
inland freight logistics resource website. See Surrogate Values Memo.
For a comprehensive list of the sources and data used to determine the
surrogate vales for the FOPs, by-products, and the surrogate financial
ratios for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative
expenses, and profit, see Surrogate Values Memo.
Preliminary Results of the Review
The Department has determined that the following preliminary
dumping margins exist for the period March 1, 2006, through February
28, 2007:
Glycine from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Manufacturer/Exporter Average Margin
(Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd................ 31.82
PRC-Wide Rate (which includes Nantong Dongchang 155.89
Chemical Industry Corporation)........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary
results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and
rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs
or comments, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit
for filing the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Requests should contain the following information: (1) the party's
name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants;
and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will
be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If we receive a request for
a hearing, we intend to hold the hearing seven days after the deadline
for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230. The Department intends to issue the final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication
of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of the final results of review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, the
Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will
calculate importer-specific (or customer) ad valorem duty assessment
rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins
calculated for the
[[Page 18510]]
examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate
calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of the final results of the administrative review 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 exported by Baoding Mantong, the cash deposit rate
will be that established in the final results of review; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that
have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the
company specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) 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 PRC
wide rate of 155.89 percent; (4) for all non PRC exporters of subject
merchandise, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.213, and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: March 28, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-7099 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S
