Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China, 22327-22332 [E8-9099]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 81 (Friday, April 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22327-22332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9099]



[[Page 22327]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-570-922


Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Raw 
Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') preliminary 
determines that raw flexible magnets (``magnets'') from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC'') are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as provided in 
section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The 
estimated dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the 
``Preliminary Determination Margins'' section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Blackledge or Shawn Higgins; 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518 or (202) 482-0679, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    On September 21, 2007, the Department received a petition 
concerning imports of magnets from the PRC and Taiwan filed in proper 
form by Magnum Magnetics Corporation (``Petitioner''). On October 4, 
2007, in response to a supplemental questionnaire issued by the 
Department on September 27, 2008, Petitioner submitted a revised 
version of the petition's margin calculations. See ``Petitioner's 
Response to Questionnaire Received on September 27, 2007 in 
Investigation No. A-570-922,'' (``Pre-initiation Supplemental 
Response'') (October 4, 2007). The Department initiated antidumping 
duty investigations of magnets from the PRC and Taiwan on October 11, 
2007. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Raw 
Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan, 72 FR 
59071 (October 18, 2007) (``Initiation Notice''). On November 5, 2007, 
the International Trade Commission (``ITC'') preliminarily determined 
that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United 
States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by 
reason of imports of magnets from the PRC and Taiwan. See Raw Flexible 
Magnets from China and Taiwan, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-452 and 731-
TA-1129 and 1130 (Preliminary), 72 FR 63629 (November 9, 2007).
    On November 1, 2007, the Department selected Polyflex Magnets Ltd. 
(``Polyflex'') and Qualita Magnetics Ltd. (``Qualita''), as the 
mandatory respondents in this investigation based upon U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (``CBP'') entry data. See Memorandum from Abdelali 
Elouaradia, Office Director, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, ``Respondent Selection Memorandum,'' dated November 1, 2007.
    On November 1, 2007, the Department issued shipment questionnaires 
and sections A, C, and D of its antidumping duty questionnaire to the 
mandatory respondents. On November 9, 2007, Polyflex and Qualita 
submitted timely responses to the shipment questionnaires. Polyflex 
confirmed that it exported subject merchandise to the United States 
during the period of investigation (``POI''). Qualita reported that it 
did not export such merchandise to the United States during the POI. In 
November and December 2007, the Department issued shipment 
questionnaires to additional companies identified as large exporters by 
CBP entry data. The Department was able to determine through public 
means that four companies, Logimag Limited (``Logimag''), Marketa 
International, Ltd. (``Marketa''), Ningbo Magnetics Factory Ltd. 
(``Ningbo''), and Sinomag Technology Co., Ltd. (``Sinomag''), exported 
magnets. Ningbo and Sinomag reported that they did not export subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI. Logimag and Marketa 
did not respond to the Department's original shipment letter or our 
second inquiries.
    Polyflex submitted timely responses to sections A, C, and D of the 
Department's antidumping duty questionnaire during December 2007 and 
January 2008. The Department received comments from Petitioner and 
issued supplemental questionnaires to Polyflex in December 2007 and 
January 2008. On January 10, 2008, Polyflex submitted a timely response 
to the section A supplemental questionnaire. However, Polyflex did not 
respond to the sections C and D supplemental questionnaires.
    In January 2008, the Department released to interested parties a 
memorandum from the Department's Office of Policy that listed potential 
surrogate countries and invited interested parties to comment on 
surrogate country and factor value selection. See Memorandum from 
Carole Showers, Acting Director, Office of Policy, to Mark Manning, 
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, ``Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of 
China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,'' dated January 
14, 2008 (``Office of Policy Surrogate Country Memorandum''). No party 
responded to the Department's invitation to comment on surrogate 
country selection. However, on February 4, 2008, Petitioner submitted 
comments on surrogate values. All of the surrogate value data submitted 
by Petitioner are from India.
    On January 16, 2008, Petitioner requested a 50-day extension of the 
preliminary determination in this investigation. On January 31, 2008, 
the Department published the postponement of the preliminary 
determination. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determination 
of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Raw Flexible Magnets from the 
People's Republic of China, 73 FR 5794 (January 31, 2008). On February 
13, 2008, the Department published a correction to the above-referenced 
notice. See Notice of Correction of Postponement of Preliminary 
Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Raw Flexible Magnets 
from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 8291 (February 13, 2008). On 
February 12, 2008, Polyflex withdrew from participating in the 
investigation. See Letter from Garvey Schubert Barer to the Department 
of Commerce, regarding ``Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Withdrawal,'' dated February 12, 2008 
(``Polyflex Withdrawal Letter'').
    On December 14, 2007, the Department received a timely separate 
rate application from Guangzhou Newlife Magnet Co., Ltd. (``Newlife''). 
The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Newlife and 
received timely responses in February and March 2008.
    On April 11, 2008, Petitioner submitted comments on magnetic photo 
pockets and the application of adverse facts available (``AFA'') in 
calculating dumping margins. See ``Raw Flexible Magnets from the 
People's Republic of China: Comments on Scope and Adverse Facts 
Available,'' (April 11, 2008).

Period of Investigation

    The POI is January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007. This period 
comprises the two most recently completed fiscal

[[Page 22328]]

quarters prior to the month in which the petition was filed (i.e., 
September 2007). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain flexible 
magnet sheeting, strips, and profile shapes. Subject flexible magnet 
sheeting, strips, and profile shapes are bonded magnets composed (not 
necessarily exclusively) of (i) any one or combination of various 
flexible binders (such as polymers or co-polymers, or rubber) and (ii) 
a magnetic element, which may consist of a ferrite permanent magnet 
material (commonly, strontium or barium ferrite, or a combination of 
the two), a metal alloy (such as NdFeB or Alnico), any combination of 
the foregoing with each other or any other material, or any other 
material capable of being permanently magnetized. Subject flexible 
magnet sheeting, strips, and profile shapes are capable of being 
permanently magnetized, but may be imported in either magnetized or 
unmagnetized (including demagnetized) condition. Subject merchandise 
may be of any color and may or may not be laminated or bonded with 
paper, plastic or other material, which paper, plastic or other 
material may be of any composition and/or color. Subject merchandise 
may be uncoated or may be coated with an adhesive or any other coating 
or combination of coatings. Subject merchandise is within the scope of 
this investigation whether it is in rolls, coils, sheets, or pieces, 
and regardless of physical dimensions or packaging, including specialty 
packaging such as digital printer cartridges.
    Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation is 
retail printed flexible magnet sheeting, defined as flexible magnet 
sheeting (including individual magnets) that is laminated with paper, 
plastic or other material, if such paper, plastic or other material 
bears printed text and/or images, including but not limited to business 
cards, calendars, poetry, sports event schedules, business promotions, 
decorative motifs, and the like. This exclusion does not apply to such 
printed flexible magnet sheeting if the printing concerned consists of 
only: a trade mark or trade name; country of origin; border, stripes, 
or lines; any printing that is removed in the course of cutting and/or 
printing magnets for retail sale or other disposition from the flexible 
magnet sheeting; manufacturing or use instructions (e.g., ``print this 
side up,'' ``this side up,'' ``laminate here''); printing on adhesive 
backing (that is, material to be removed in order to expose adhesive 
for use, such as application of laminate) or on any other covering that 
is removed from the flexible magnet sheeting prior or subsequent to 
final printing and before use; non-permanent printing (that is, 
printing in a medium that facilitates easy removal, permitting the 
flexible magnet sheeting to be re-printed); printing on the back 
(magnetic) side; or any combination of the above.
    All products meeting the physical description of the subject 
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this 
scope. The products subject to the investigation are currently 
classifiable principally under subheadings 8505.19.10 and 8505.19.20 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). The 
HTSUS subheadings are provided only for convenience and customs 
purposes, however, and the written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preamble to the Department's regulations 
(see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 
19, 1997) (Preamble)), in our Initiation Notice, we set aside a period 
of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, and 
encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of 
publication of the Initiation Notice.
    On November 7, 2007, SH Industries, a U.S. importer of subject 
merchandise, argued that magnetic photo pockets, which are flexible 
magnets with clear plastic material fused to the magnet to form a 
pocket into which photographs and other items may be inserted for 
display, should be excluded from the scope of the antidumping and 
countervailing duty investigations on raw flexible magnets from the 
People's Republic of China and Taiwan. On November 13, 2007, the 
petitioner filed a response to the request by SH Industries, arguing 
that magnetic photo pockets are properly within the scope of the 
investigations. On April 11, 2008, the petitioner submitted additional 
arguments concerning this issue. Because we received this letter only 
four business days before the statutory deadline for this preliminary 
determination, we did not have an opportunity to consider it prior to 
issuance of this preliminary determination.
    We invite interested parties to submit comments on the petitioner's 
April 11, 2008, submission and to present evidence concerning the 
meaning of the terms ``sheeting, strips, and profiles'' as those terms 
are used within the industry. Additionally, because the scope language 
also states that ``subject merchandise may be of any color and may or 
may not be laminated or bonded with paper, plastic or other material, 
which paper, plastic or other material may be of any composition and/or 
color,'' we encourage interested parties to comment on whether the 
plastic photo pocket fused to the flexible magnet satisfies this 
description.
    Finally, interested parties may submit information that would be 
relevant in an analysis conducted pursuant to section 351.225(k)(2) of 
our regulations. The Department deadline for such comments will be 14 
days after the publication of this notice. Rebuttal comments must be 
filed within five days thereafter. Comments should be addressed to 
Import Administration's Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1870, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230.

Non-Market Economy Treatment

    The Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy 
(``NME'') country. In accordance with section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act, 
any determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in 
effect until revoked by the administering authority. See Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof (TRBs), Finished and Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 
(February 14, 2003), unchanged in TRBs, Finished and Unfinished, from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 70488 
(December 18, 2003). Therefore, in this preliminary determination, we 
have treated the PRC as an NME country and applied our current NME 
methodology.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation involving an NME 
country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence 
of government control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), 
with respect to exports.
    The Department's separate-rate test is not concerned, in general, 
with macroeconomic/border-type controls,

[[Page 22329]]

e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly 
if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256 
(December 31, 1998). Rather, the test focuses on controls over the 
investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 
Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and TRBs, Finished and 
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 
17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), 
as further developed in 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''), and Section 351.107(d) 
of the Department's regulations. In accordance with the separate-rates 
criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if 
respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities.
    In this case, Polyflex has withdrawn from participating in the 
investigation. Since Polyflex's withdrawal has prevented the Department 
from asking additional supplemental questions on its separate rate 
status, and prevents the Department from verifying its responses, the 
Department has no basis upon which to grant Polyflex a separate rate. 
Although Polyflex remains a mandatory respondent, the Department 
considers Polyflex part of the PRC-wide entity because it failed to 
demonstrate that it qualifies for a separate rate.
    Newlife submitted a timely separate rates application. In its 
application, Newlife stated that it is a wholly Chinese-owned company. 
Therefore, the Department must analyze whether this company can 
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental 
control over export activities. In its application, it provided 
company-specific information to demonstrate that it operates 
independently of de jure and de facto government control, and therefore 
is entitled to a separate rate.

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) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR 20588 at Comment 1.
    The evidence provided by Newlife supports a preliminary finding of 
de jure absence of governmental control based on the following: (1) an 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with Newlife's business 
and export licenses, and (2) the existence of legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies. See ``Supplemental Separate Rate 
Questionnaire Response of Guangzhou Newlife Magnet Electricity Co., 
Ltd.'' (February 22, 2008). Therefore, the Department has preliminarily 
found a de jure absence of government control over Newlife's export 
activities.

B. Absence of De Facto Control

    The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control 
is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to 
a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department 
from assigning separate rates. Typically, the Department considers four 
factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to de facto 
governmental control of its export functions: (1) whether the export 
prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a governmental 
agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign 
contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy 
from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of 
management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its 
export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of 
profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; 
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).
    The evidence provided by Newlife supports a preliminary finding of 
de facto absence of governmental control based on the following: (1) 
Newlife sets export prices independent of the government and without 
the approval of a government authority; (2) Newlife has the authority 
to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) Newlife has 
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management; and 
(4) Newlife retains proceeds from sales and makes independent decisions 
regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses. Therefore, 
the Department has preliminarily found a de facto absence of government 
control over Newlife's export activities.
    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Newlife 
preliminarily demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto 
government control with respect to Newlife's exports of the merchandise 
under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
    In determining what rate to assign companies receiving separate 
rates, the Department's normal practice is to weight-average the 
individually calculated margins from the mandatory respondents. See 
section 735(c)(5)(A). If, however, the estimated weighted average 
margins for all individually investigated respondents are de minimis or 
based entirely on AFA, the Department may use any reasonable method. 
See section 735(c)(5)(B). In this investigation, the only other margin 
is the PRC-wide entity margin which is based on AFA. See ``Adverse 
Facts Available'' section below. Because the rate for all individually 
investigated respondents is based on AFA and the only other information 
on the record concerning dumping rates is contained in the petition, we 
have relied on information from the petition to determine a rate to be 
applied to the respondent that has demonstrated entitlement to a 
separate rate. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Glycine from Japan, 72 FR 67271 (November 28, 2007) 
(citing Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products 
From Argentina, Japan and Thailand, 65 FR 5520, 5527-28 (February 4, 
2000) and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil from Canada, 64 FR 15457 (March 
31, 1999)). See also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China, 73 
FR 6479 (February 4, 2008). Therefore, in this case, we have assigned 
to Newlife the

[[Page 22330]]

simple average of the margins alleged in the petition, i.e., 105.00 
percent. See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File, 
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Raw Flexible Magnets from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC): Calculation of Margin Applied to 
Separate Rate Applicant,'' dated April 18, 2008 (``Separate Rate 
Calculation Memorandum'').

Adverse Facts Available

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party: (A) withholds 
information requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such 
information by the deadline, or in the form or manner requested, (C) 
significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that 
cannot be verified, as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of 
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Pursuant to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider 
submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) 
The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the 
information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete 
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable 
determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted 
to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without 
undue difficulties.
    On February 12, 2008, counsel for Polyflex informed the Department 
that it would not continue participation in the instant investigation. 
See Polyflex Withdrawal Letter. Because Polyflex ceased participation 
in the instant investigation prior to submitting responses to the 
Department's sections C and D supplemental questionnaires, the 
Department was unable to obtain information necessary to complete the 
investigation. Furthermore, by ending its participation, Polyflex 
denied the Department the ability to ask additional section A 
supplemental questions, and conduct its verification of Polyflex's 
responses. Verification is integral to the Department's analysis 
because it allows the Department to validate that it is relying upon 
accurate information and calculating dumping margins as accurately as 
possible. By withdrawing from the investigation, and thereby not 
allowing verification, Polyflex prevented the Department from 
corroborating its reported information, including separate rates 
information, and significantly impeded the proceeding. Moreover, by not 
allowing verification, Polyflex failed to demonstrate that it operates 
free of government control and that it is entitled to a separate rate. 
Therefore, we find that Polyflex is part of the PRC-wide entity. 
Moreover, because the PRC-wide entity, including Polyflex, failed to 
respond to our questionnaires, we find that the use of facts available, 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D), is appropriate in 
determining the applicable dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity.
    The Department attempted to identify additional mandatory 
respondents by issuing shipment letters to Marketa and Logimag on 
November 15, 2007, and November 29, 2007, respectively. The Department 
issued a second shipment questionnaire to Marketa on November 28, 2007, 
and to Logimag on December 12, 2007. These companies did not respond to 
the Department's requests for information. We have treated the non-
responsive PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity 
because they did not qualify for a separate rate. Since the PRC-wide 
entity withheld information requested by the Department, we find that 
the use of facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide 
rate, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. See Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse 
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-
Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the Russian 
Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000); Certain Welded Carbon 
Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-20 (October 16, 1997); 
Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States, 343 F. Supp. 2d 1242 
(CIT 2004) (approving use of AFA when respondent refused to participate 
in verification); see also Statement of Administrative Action, 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 
103-316, 870 (1994) (``SAA''). Polyflex's withdrawal from 
participation, non-cooperation in submitting requested information, and 
the fact that its withdrawal prevents the Department from conducting 
verification, constitute a failure to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with requests for information in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. Concerning the PRC exporters 
that refused to respond to the Department's shipment letters, because 
these exporters failed to respond to the Department's request for 
information, the Department concludes that these companies have failed 
to cooperate to the best of their abilities. Since Polyflex and the 
other PRC exporters did not receive separate rates, the Department 
considers all of these companies as part of the PRC-wide entity. 
Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that the PRC-wide entity 
has not cooperated to the best of its ability. In selecting from among 
the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act.
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use, as AFA, 
information derived from the petition, the final determination from the 
LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the 
Department selects one that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate 
the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to 
provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a 
timely 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). It is the Department's 
practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest margin 
alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate for any 
respondent in the investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less

[[Page 22331]]

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel 
Products From the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 
2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at ``Facts 
Available''. In this case, as adverse facts available, the Department 
has selected the highest margin alleged in the petition, 185.28 
percent.

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it 
must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from 
independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. We have 
interpreted ``corroborate'' to mean that we will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
submitted. See Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 
Products From Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 4, 2000); see, e.g., 
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).
    To corroborate the 105.00 and 185.28 percent margins used as facts 
available for Newlife and as adverse facts available for the PRC-wide 
entity, respectively, to the extent appropriate information was 
available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in 
the petition during our pre-initiation analysis. See ``Import 
Administration AD Investigation Initiation Checklist: Raw Flexible 
Magnets from the People's Republic of China,'' (``Initiation 
Checklist'') (October 11, 2007). We examined evidence supporting the 
calculations in the petition and the Pre-initiation Supplemental 
Response to determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the 
petition. During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined the 
information used as the basis of export price and NV in the petition, 
and the calculations used to derive the alleged margins. Also during 
our pre-initiation analysis, we examined information from various 
independent sources provided either in the petition or, based on our 
requests, in supplements to the petition, which corroborated key 
elements of the export price and NV calculations. See id. We received 
no comments as to the relevance or probative value of this information. 
Therefore, the Department finds that the rates derived from the 
petition for purposes of initiation are reliable for the purpose of 
being selected as the facts available and adverse facts available rates 
assigned to Newlife and the PRC-wide entity, respectively.

Preliminary Determination Margins

    The Department has determined that the following preliminary 
dumping margins exist for the POI:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guangzhou Newlife Magnet Co., Ltd.\1\.......................      105.00
PRC-wide Entity (including Polyflex)........................      185.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Newlife both manufactures and exports subject merchandise.

Disclosure

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose 
to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching 
the preliminary results within five days after the date of publication 
of these preliminary results.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of raw flexible magnets from the PRC, as described in the 
``Scope of Investigation'' section, entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash 
deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping 
margin amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The 
rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above 
will be the rate we have determined in this preliminary determination; 
(2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not 
received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide 
rate; and (3) 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 exporter/producer combination that supplied 
that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions 
will remain in effect until further notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. 
Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final 
determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States 
is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports of magnets, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 
importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final 
determination.

Submission of New Factual Information

    19 CFR 351.301(b)(1) states that new factual information must be 
submitted no later than seven days before the date on which 
verification is to commence.\2\ The Department will not verify 
Polyflex's responses because it has withdrawn from participating in 
this investigation, as discussed above in the Adverse Facts Available 
section of this notice. Therefore, the deadline for submission of 
factual information in 19 CFR 351.301(b)(1) is not applicable. Instead, 
the deadline for submission of factual information in this 
investigation will be seven days after the date of publication of this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
determination of this investigation, 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 recently placed on the record. 
The Department generally cannot 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 
30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments 
(rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 
arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of 
the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of 
authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting 
written comments provide the Department with a disk containing the 
public version of those comments.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 21 days of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties 
that wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is

[[Page 22332]]

requested must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and 
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of 
issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the 
hearing will be limited to those raised in the briefs.
    Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of 
the Act, the Department will make its final determination within 75 
days after the date of this preliminary determination, pursuant to 
section 735(a)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 18, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-9099 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S