Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 30054-30059 [E8-11620]
Download as PDF
30054
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Notices
inquiry and does not provide an end
date. Accordingly, the Preliminary
Determination should be corrected to
indicate that, pursuant to section 773(d)
of the Act, we will: (1) direct CBP to
suspend liquidation and to require a
cash deposit of estimated duties, at the
PRC–wide rate, on all unliquidated
entries of tissue paper produced by
Quijiang that were entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after September 5,
2006, the date of initiation of the
circumvention inquiry, with the
exception described in the Preliminary
Determination; and (2) remove any
mention of an end date of such
suspension from our cash deposit
instructions.
This correction to the affirmative
preliminary circumvention
determination is published in
accordance with section 781(b) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.225.
Dated: May 13, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–11623 Filed 5–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–570–851)
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 23, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the ‘‘Department’’) is currently
conducting a new shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
preserved mushrooms from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the
period February 1, 2007, through July
31, 2007. We preliminarily determine
that the sale made by Dujiangyan
Xingda Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xingda’’),
was not made below normal value
(‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of this
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the period of
review (‘‘POR’’) for any importer–
specific assessment rates that are above
de minimis.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Zev
Primor at (202) 482–4114; AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
February 19, 1999, the Department
published in the Federal Register an
amended final determination and
antidumping duty order on certain
preserved mushrooms from the PRC.
See Notice of Amendment of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms
From the People’s Republic of China, 64
FR 8308 (February 19, 1999) (‘‘Order’’).
On August 30, 2007, we received a
timely new shipper review request in
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.214(c), from
exporter and producer, Xingda. On
September 27, 2007, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register initiating a new shipper review
for Xingda. See Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People’s Republic
of China: Initiation of New Shipper
Antidumping Duty Review, 72 FR 54899
(September 27, 2007).
On March 19, 2008, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register of the extension of the
preliminary results by 60 days to May
19, 2008. See Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From the People’s Republic
of China: Extension of Preliminary
Results for Eleventh Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review, 73 FR 14771
(March 19, 2008).
We issued the standard antidumping
duty questionnaire, along with the
standard importer questionnaire for new
shipper reviews, on September 27, 2007,
and received responses in October and
November 2007. We issued
supplemental questionnaires covering
sections A, C, and D of the original
questionnaire on January 29, 2008, and
received timely responses to those
questionnaires. We also issued
additional section D supplemental
questionnaires on April 18, and April
21, 2008, respectively, and received
timely responses from Xingda.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Period of Review
The POR covers February 1, 2007,
through July 31, 2007.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are certain preserved mushrooms,
whether imported whole, sliced, diced,
or as stems and pieces. The certain
preserved mushrooms covered under
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
this order are the species Agaricus
bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis.
‘‘Certain Preserved Mushrooms’’ refers
to mushrooms that have been prepared
or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and
sometimes slicing or cutting. These
mushrooms are then packed and heated
in containers including, but not limited
to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid
medium, including, but not limited to,
water, brine, butter or butter sauce.
Certain preserved mushrooms may be
imported whole, sliced, diced, or as
stems and pieces. Included within the
scope of this order are ‘‘brined’’
mushrooms, which are presalted and
packed in a heavy salt solution to
provisionally preserve them for further
processing.1
Excluded from the scope of this order
are the following: (1) All other species
of mushroom, including straw
mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled
mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or
‘‘quick blanched mushrooms’’ (3) dried
mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and
(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or
‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are
prepared or preserved by means of
vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain
oil or other additives.
The merchandise subject to this order
is classifiable under subheadings:
2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131,
2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143,
2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and
0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and Customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.
Bona Fide Analysis
Consistent with the Department’s
practice, we investigated the bona fide
nature of the sale made by Xingda for
this new shipper review. In evaluating
whether or not a single sale in a new
shipper review is commercially
reasonable, and therefore bona fide, the
Department considers, inter alia, such
factors as: (1) the timing of the sale; (2)
the price and quantity; (3) the expenses
arising from the transaction; (4) whether
the goods were resold at a profit; and (5)
1 On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that
‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms
containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are
within the scope of the antidumping duty order.
See Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling of
Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain
Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, this
decision was upheld by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Tak Fat v.
United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM
23MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Notices
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
whether the transaction was made on an
arm’s–length basis. See Tianjin
Tiancheng Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. United
States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 (CIT
2005). Accordingly, the Department
considers a number of factors in its bona
fide analysis, ‘‘all of which may speak
to the commercial realities surrounding
an alleged sale of subject merchandise.’’
See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid
Co., Ltd. v. United States, 374 F. Supp.
2d 1333, 1342 (CIT 2005) (citing Fresh
Garlic From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review and Rescission
of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283
(March 13, 2002) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum).
We preliminarily found that the U.S.
sale made by Xingda during the POR
was made on a bona fide basis.
Specifically, we found that: (1) The
timing of the sale does not indicate that
the sale might not be bona fide; (2) the
price and quantity of the sale were
within the range of the prices and
quantities of other entries of subject
merchandise from the PRC into the
United States during the POR, based
upon the Department’s review of data
obtained from CBP; (3) Xingda and its
customer did not incur any
extraordinary expenses arising from the
transaction; (4) the sale was resold at a
profit; and (5) the sale was made
between unaffiliated parties at arm’s–
length.2
Based on our review of the record
evidence concerning the bona fide
nature of this sale, as well as Xingda’s
eligibility for a separate rate (see
‘‘Separate Rates Determination’’ section,
below) and the Department’s
determination that the seller was not
affiliated with any exporter or producer
that had previously shipped subject
merchandise to the United States, we
preliminarily determine that Xingda has
met the requirements to qualify as a new
shipper during the POR. Therefore, for
purposes of these preliminary results,
we are treating the sale of subject
merchandise to the United States as an
appropriate transaction for this new
shipper review.
NME Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non–market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. See Brake
Rotors From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial
2 See
Calculation Memorandum from Zev Primor,
Sr. International Trade Compliance Analyst, to The
File via Mark Manning, Program Manager, Office 4,
‘‘Bona Fide Sales Analysis for Dujiangyan Xingda
Foodstuff Co., Ltd.,’’ dated concurrently with this
notice.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Rescission of the 2004/2005
Administrative Review and Notice of
Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper
Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14,
2006). In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect
until revoked by the administering
authority. 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.
Separate Rates Determination
A designation of a country as an NME
remains in effect until it is revoked by
the Department. See section 771(18)(C)
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’’).
Absence of De Jure Control
Evidence supporting, though not
requiring, a finding of de jure absence
of government control over export
activities includes: (1) an absence of
restrictive stipulations associated with
the 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 the instant review, Xingda
submitted a complete response to the
separate rates section of the
Department’s questionnaire. The
evidence submitted in the instant
review by Xingda includes government
laws and regulations on corporate
ownership and control, business
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30055
licenses, and narrative information
regarding the company’s operations and
selection of management. The evidence
provided by Xingda supports a
preliminary finding of a de jure absence
of government control over its export
activities because: (1) there are no
controls on exports of subject
merchandise, such as quotas applied to,
or licenses required for, exports of the
subject merchandise to the United
States; and (2) legislative enactments
exist decentralizing control of
companies. See Xingda’s Section A
Response at Exhibits 2–7 (October 26,
2007).
Absence of De Facto Control
The absence of de facto government
control over exports generally 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 22586–87; Sparklers, 56 FR at
20589; 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, Xingda
submitted evidence demonstrating an
absence of de facto government control
over its export activities. Specifically,
this evidence indicates that: (1) the
company sets its own export prices
independent of the government and
without the approval of a government
authority; (2) the company retains the
proceeds from its sales and makes
independent decisions regarding the
disposition of profits or financing of
losses; (3) the company has a general
manager with the authority to negotiate
and bind the company in an agreement;
(4) the general manager is selected by
the shareholders’ meeting, and the
general manager appoints the manager
of each department; and (5) there is no
restriction on the company’s use of
export revenues. Therefore, we have
preliminarily found that Xingda
established prima facie that it qualifies
for a separate rate under the criteria
established by Silicon Carbide and
Sparklers.
Surrogate Country
When the Department investigates
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV,
in most circumstances, on the NME
producer’s factors of production
E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM
23MYN1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
30056
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Notices
(‘‘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
FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to
the extent possible, the prices or costs
of FOPs in one or more market–
economy countries that are at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the NME country and are
significant producers of comparable
merchandise. The sources of the
surrogate values we have used in this
new shipper review are discussed under
the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section, below. On
January 29, 2008, the Department
determined that India, Indonesia, the
Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand are
countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of economic development, and
requested comments from interested
parties on selecting the appropriate
surrogate country for this review. See
Letter to All Interested Parties, RE: New
Shipper Review of Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People’s Republic
of China: Dujiangyan Xingda Foodstuffs
Co., Ltd., dated March 19, 2008. No
party submitted surrogate country
selection comments.
On April 21, 2008, the Department
examined the export levels 3 of subject
merchandise from the above–mentioned
countries and found that India and
Indonesia are significant producers of
comparable merchandise. See
Memorandum from Zev Primor, Sr.
International Trade Compliance
Analyst, to Abdelali Elouaradia,
Director, ‘‘Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review of Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People’s Republic
of China: Selection of a Surrogate
Country,’’ dated April 21, 2008,
(‘‘Surrogate Country Memorandum’’) at
4. However, since India has exports in
both of the HTS subheadings identified
for subject merchandise, while
Indonesia has exports under only one of
the HTS subheadings, we found that the
Indian export data are more
comprehensive and representative of
subject merchandise than Indonesian
export data. Id. at 5. In selecting the
appropriate surrogate country, the
Department examines the availability
and reliability of data from the countries
deemed to be economically comparable
and significant producers of subject
merchandise. For a description of our
practice, see Department Policy Bulletin
No. 04.1: Non–Market Economy
Surrogate Country Selection Process
3 The Department was unable to find world
production data for subject merchandise and relied
on export data as a substitute for overall
production.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
(March 1, 2004). India has been the
primary surrogate country in numerous
past segments for this proceeding. In
those past segments, the Department
found India’s import statistics to be an
available and reliable source for
surrogate values. Id. at 4. Therefore,
since India: (1) is a significant producer
of comparable merchandise, whose
production of subject merchandise is
more comprehensive than Indonesia’s
production; (2) is at a similar level of
economic development as the PRC; and
(3) has publicly available and reliable
data, which the Department has relied
upon for numerous segments of this
proceeding, the Department selected
India as the surrogate country, pursuant
to section 773(c)(4) of the Act. See
Surrogate Country Memorandum at 5.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Xingda’s sale
of subject merchandise to the United
States was made at a price below NV,
we compared its U.S. price to NV, as
described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice,
below.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, we based U.S. price on the
export price (‘‘EP’’) of the sale to the
United States by Xingda because the
first sale to an unaffiliated party was
made before the date of importation and
the use of constructed export price was
not otherwise warranted. We calculated
EP based on the free–on-board price to
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States. For this EP sale, we
deducted foreign inland freight and
foreign brokerage and handling from the
starting price (or gross unit price), in
accordance with section 772(c) of the
Act. For Xingda’s U.S. sale, each of
these services 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. We valued foreign inland freight
with the surrogate value for truck
freight, which we obtained from
www.infreight.com. This source
provides daily rates per truck load from
six major points of origin to five
different destinations in India. See
Memorandum from Zev Primor, Sr.
International Trade Compliance
Analyst, through Mark Manning,
Program Manager, to the File, ‘‘12th
New Shipper Review of Certain
Preserved Mushroom from the People’s
Republic of China: Surrogate Values for
the Preliminary Results’’ (‘‘Surrogate
Values Memorandum’’) at Exhibit 6. We
valued foreign brokerage and handling
with the publicly summarized brokerage
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and handling expense reported in the
U.S. sales listing of Indian mushroom
producer, Agro Dutch Industries, Ltd.
(‘‘Agro Dutch’’), in the 2004–2005
administrative review of Certain
Preserved Mushrooms from India. Id. at
Exhibit 7.
Normal Value
1. Methodology
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act
provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using an FOP
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
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. See Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or
Unfinished, From the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind
in Part, 70 FR 39744 (July 11, 2005),
unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results of 2003–2004
Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517
(January 17, 2006).
We calculated NV by adding together
the value of the FOPs, general expenses,
profit, and packing costs. The FOPs for
subject merchandise include: (1)
quantities of raw materials employed;
(2) hours of labor required; (3) amounts
of energy and other utilities consumed;
(4) representative capital and selling
costs; and (5) packing materials. We
used the FOPs reported by Xingda for
materials, energy, labor, and packing,
and valued those FOPs by multiplying
the amount of the factor consumed in
producing subject merchandise by the
average unit surrogate value of the
factor.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), when a producer sources
an input from a market–economy
country and pays for it in a market–
economy currency, the Department will
normally value the FOP using the actual
price paid for the input. See 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal
Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442,
1445–1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming
the Department’s use of market–based
prices to value certain FOPs). The
Department has instituted a rebuttable
E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM
23MYN1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Notices
presumption that market economy input
prices are the best available information
for valuing an input when the total
volume of the input purchased from all
market economy sources during the
period of investigation or review is 33
percent or greater of the total volume of
the input purchased from all sources
during the period. In these cases, unless
case–specific facts provide adequate
grounds to rebut the Department’s
presumption, the Department will use
the weighted–average market economy
purchase price to value the input.
Alternatively, when the volume of an
NME firm’s purchases of an input from
market economy suppliers during the
period is below 33 percent of its total
volume of purchases of the input during
the period, but where these purchases
are otherwise valid and there is no
reason to disregard the prices, the
Department will weight–average the
weighted–average market economy
purchase price with an appropriate
surrogate value according to their
respective shares of the total volume of
purchases, unless case–specific facts
provide adequate grounds to rebut the
presumption. When an NME firm has
made market economy input purchases
that may have been dumped or
subsidized, are not bona fide, or are
otherwise not acceptable for use in a
dumping calculation, the Department
will exclude them from the total
quantity of all market economy
purchases to ensure a fair determination
of whether valid market economy
purchases meet the 33 percent
threshold. See Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non–Market Economy Wages,
Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 61716 (October 19,
2006). In this case, Xingda reported that
it did not purchase any inputs from
market economy sources.
In addition, we added freight costs to
the surrogate costs that we calculated
for material inputs. We calculated
freight costs by multiplying surrogate
freight rates by the shorter of the
reported distance from the domestic
supplier to the factory that produced the
subject merchandise or the distance
from the nearest seaport to the factory
that produced the subject merchandise,
as appropriate. Where there were
multiple domestic suppliers of a
material input, we calculated a
weighted–average distance after limiting
each supplier’s distance to no more than
the distance from the nearest seaport to
Xingda. This adjustment is in
accordance with the decision by the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
F.3d 1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We increased the calculated costs of the
FOPs for surrogate general expenses and
profit. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum.
2. Selection of Surrogate Values
In selecting surrogate values, we
followed, to the extent practicable, the
Department’s practice of choosing
public values which are non–export
averages, representative of a range of
prices in effect during the POR, or over
a period as close as possible in time to
the POR, product–specific, and tax–
exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative
Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of
Final Determination: Certain Frozen
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR
42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged
in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR
71005 (December 8, 2004). We also
considered the quality of the source of
surrogate information in selecting
surrogate values. See Manganese Metal
From the People’s Republic of China;
Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998).
Where we could only obtain surrogate
values that were not contemporaneous
with the POR, we inflated (or deflated)
the surrogate values using, where
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price
Index as published in International
Financial Statistics by the International
Monetary Fund. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Exhibit 1.
In calculating surrogate values from
import statistics, in accordance with the
Department’s practice, we disregarded
statistics for imports from NME
countries and countries deemed to
maintain broadly available, non–
industry-specific subsidies which may
benefit all exporters to all export
markets (e.g., Indonesia, South Korea,
and Thailand). See, e.g., Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Automotive
Replacement Glass Windshields From
The People’s Republic of China, 67 FR
6482 (February 12, 2002) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1. See also
Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination,
and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People’s Republic of
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30057
China, 68 FR 66800, 66808 (November
28, 2003), unchanged in 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).
Additionally, we excluded from our
calculations imports that were labeled
as originating from an unspecified
country because we could not determine
whether they were from an NME
country.
We valued production material inputs
(mushroom spawn, rice straw, and
manure) using the fiscal year (‘‘FY’’)
2006–2007 (April 2006 through March
2007) financial statements of Agro
Dutch or Flex Foods Ltd. (‘‘Flex
Foods’’), Indian producers of
mushrooms and vegetables, as follows.
To value the input of mushroom spawn,
we used data from the FY 2006–2007
financial statement of Agro Dutch
because Agro Dutch’s mushroom spawn
value is specific to the species Agaricus
bisporous, which is the species used to
produce subject merchandise. To value
the input of rice straw, we used the rice
straw value from the FY 2006–2007
financial statement of Flex Foods
because this value is specific to the
input. Similarly, to value the input of
manure, we used the manure value from
the FY 2006–2007 financial statement of
Flex Foods because this value is specific
to the input. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Exhibit 2.
We valued processing and canning
material inputs (phosphate, calcium
carbonate, rapeseed, mill cake, urea,
gypsum powder, salt, citric acid, tin
plate, copper wire, and sealing glue)
using weighted–average Indian import
values derived from the World Trade
Atlas online (‘‘WTA’’), for the period
February 2007 through July 2007. See
Surrogate Values Memorandum at
Exhibits 2 and 3. In addition, we valued
packing material inputs (cartons, labels,
tape, kraft paper and glue) with
weighted–average Indian import values
derived from the WTA for the period
February 2007 through July 2007. Id. at
Exhibit 5. The Indian import statistics
obtained from the WTA were published
by the Indian Directorate General of
Commercial Intelligence and Statistics,
Ministry of Commerce of India and are
contemporaneous with the POR. As the
Indian surrogate values were
denominated in rupees, in accordance
with section 773A(a) of the Act, they
were converted to U.S. dollars using the
official exchange rate for India recorded
on the date of sale of subject
merchandise in this case. See https://
E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM
23MYN1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
30058
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Notices
www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/
index.html.
To value land rent, the Department
used data from the 2001 Punjab State
Development Report, administered by
the Planning Commission of the
Government of India. Since the value of
land rent was not contemporaneous
with the POR, the Department adjusted
the value for inflation. See Surrogate
Values Memorandum at Exhibit 2.
To value electricity, the Department
used the 2000 electricity price in India
reported in Energy Prices & Taxes,
Second Quarter 2003, published by the
International Energy Agency. See
Surrogate Values Memorandum at
Exhibit 4, containing information
obtained from data.iea.org. Since the
electricity rates were not
contemporaneous with the POR, the
Department adjusted the value for
inflation. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Exhibit 4.
To value natural gas, the Department
used information from the Natural Gas
Authority of India, from February 2005.
Because the information was not
contemporaneous with the POR, we
adjusted the average cost of natural gas
for inflation. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Exhibit 4.
To value water, the Department used
data from the Maharastra Industrial
Development Corporation
(www.midcindia.org) for June 2003,
which we found to be the best available
information since it includes a wide
range of industrial water rates. Since the
water rates were not contemporaneous
with the POR, the Department adjusted
the value for inflation. See Surrogate
Values Memorandum at Exhibit 4.
To value inland freight expenses
incurred for transporting raw materials
and finished subject merchandise, we
used data from www.infreight.com. This
source provides daily rates per truck
load from six major points of origin to
five different destinations in India, for
the period February through July 2005.
Since these freight rates are not
contemporaneous with the POR, the
Department adjusted the value for
inflation. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Exhibit 6. 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3) requires the use of a
regression–based wage rate. Therefore,
to value labor, the Department used the
regression–based wage rate for the PRC
published on the Import Administration
website. See the IA website:
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/
05wages–041608.html, and see
Corrected 2007 Calculation of Expected
Non–Market Economy Wages, 73 FR
27795 (May 14, 2008).
To value brokerage and handling, the
Department used the publicly
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
summarized average brokerage and
handling expenses reported in the U.S.
sales listings of Agro Dutch’s May 24,
2005, submission in the sixth
antidumping duty review of certain
preserved mushrooms from India. See
Surrogate Values Memorandum at
Exhibit 7.
To value the surrogate financial ratios
for factory overhead (‘‘OH’’), selling,
general & administrative (‘‘SG&A’’)
expenses, and profit, the Department
used the 2006–2007 financial statements
of Agro Dutch and Flex Foods.4 The
Department notes that Agro Dutch is a
producer of mushrooms, and Flex Foods
is a producer of mushrooms and
vegetable products. Therefore, Agro
Dutch’s and Flex Foods’ financial ratios
for OH and SG&A are comparable to
Xingda’s financial ratios because Agro
Dutch’s and Flex Foods’ production
experience is comparable to Xingda’s
production experience by virtue of each
company’s production of subject
merchandise. Additionally, the financial
statements of these two companies are
contemporaneous for two months of the
POR. Moreover, an average of the
financial statements of Agro Dutch and
Flex Foods represents a broader
spectrum of the Indian mushroom
industry, than the financial statement of
a single mushroom producer. See
Surrogate Values Memorandum at
Exhibit 8.
Department has preliminarily
determined that a combination rate is
appropriate in this case, as Xingda is
both the producer and exporter of the
subject merchandise. Therefore, the
Department will include in its cash
deposit instructions to CBP appropriate
language to enforce the final results of
this review on the basis of a
combination rate involving Xingda as
both the producer and exporter of the
subject merchandise.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the
following margin exists during the
period February 1, 2007, through July
31, 2007:
Exporter/Manufacturer
Dujiangyan Xingda
Foodstuff Co., Ltd. ....
Weighted–Average
Margin (Percentage)
0.00
Public Comment
The Department will disclose to
parties to this proceeding the
calculations performed in reaching the
preliminary results within five days of
publication of these preliminary results.
Interested parties may submit written
comments (case briefs) within 30 days
of publication of the preliminary results
and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs)
within five days after the time limit for
filing case briefs. Rebuttal briefs must be
Currency Conversion
limited to issues raised in the case
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars, in accordance with section briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and
19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
arguments are requested to submit with
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal the argument: (1) a statement of the
Reserve Bank. These exchange rates can issue; (2) a brief summary of the
argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
be accessed at the website of Import
Further, the Department requests that
Administration at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
parties submitting written comments
exchange/.
provide the Department with a diskette
Combination Rate
containing the public version of those
comments.
In new shipper reviews, the
Any interested party may request a
Department may, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.107(b), establish a combination cash hearing within 30 days of publication of
deposit rate for each combination of the this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Interested parties who wish to request a
exporter and its supplying producer(s).
hearing or to participate if one is
See Fresh Garlic from the People’s
requested, must submit a written
Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration within 30 days
67 FR 72139 at 72140 (December 4,
of publication of this notice. Requests
2002), Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: should contain: (1) the party’s name,
address, and telephone number; (2) the
Certain In–Shell Raw Pistachios from
Iran, 68 FR 353 at 354 (January 3, 2003), number of participants; and (3) a list of
issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR
and Certain Forged Stainless Steel
351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing
Flanges from India: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, will be limited to those raised in the
briefs.
68 FR 351 (January 3, 2002). The
Unless the deadline is extended
pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of
4 Both Agro Dutch and Flex Foods have a fiscal
the Act, the Department will issue the
year of April to March.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM
23MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Notices
final results of this new shipper review,
including the results of our analysis of
the issues raised by the parties in their
comments, within 90 days of
publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuing the final results of the
review, the Department shall 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. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we will calculate
importer–specific ad valorem duty
assessment rates based on the ratio of
the total amount of the dumping
margins calculated for the examined
sales to the total entered value of those
same sales. We will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review if any importer–specific
assessment rate calculated in the final
results of this review is above de
minimis. However, the final results of
this review shall be the basis for the
assessment of antidumping duties on
entries of merchandise covered by the
final results of these reviews and for
future deposits of estimated duties,
where applicable.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, will be
effective upon publication of the final
results of this new shipper review for all
shipments of subject merchandise
exported by Xingda entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C)
of the Act: (1) for subject merchandise
manufactured and exported by Xingda,
the cash–deposit rate will be that
established in the final results of this
review; (2) for subject merchandise
exported by Xingda but not
manufactured by Xingda, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
PRC–wide rate (i.e., 198.63 percent);
and (3) for subject merchandise
manufactured by Xingda but exported
by any party, the cash deposit rate will
be the rate applicable to the exporter. If
the cash deposit rate calculated for
Xingda in the final results is zero or de
minimis, a zero cash deposit will be
required for entries of subject
merchandise both produced and
exported by Xingda. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
30059
Notification to Importers
Scope of the Order
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This new shipper review and notice
are in accordance with sections
751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.214(h)(i).
Dated: May 19, 2008.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–11620 Filed 5–22–08; 8:45 am]
The products covered by this
antidumping order are certain welded
carbon steel pipes and tubes from
Thailand. The subject merchandise has
an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or
more, but not exceeding 16 inches.
These products, which are commonly
referred to in the industry as ‘‘standard
pipe’’ or ‘‘structural tubing’’ are
hereinafter designated as ‘‘pipes and
tubes.’’ The merchandise is classifiable
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS) item
numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025,
7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040,
7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085 and
7306.30.5090. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for the
convenience and purposes of customs
and border protection (CBP), our written
description of the scope is dispositive.
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
Rescission of Administrative Review
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–549–502)
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes
and Tubes from Thailand: Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 31, 2008, Saha Thai
Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. (Saha
Thai), a Thai manufacturer/exporter,
requested that the U.S. Department of
Commerce (the Department) conduct an
administrative review of its sales during
the POR. On April 25, 2008, the
Department published a notice of
initiation of an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on circular
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes
from Thailand. The review covers one
manufacturer/exporter, Saha Thai. The
period of review (POR) is March 1, 2007
through February 29, 2008. Saha Thai
withdrew its request on April 23, 2008.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 23, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Myrna Lobo,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import
Administration, International Trade,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–5255 or (202) 482–2371,
respectively.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review under this section, in whole or
in part, if a party that requested a review
withdraws the request within 90 days of
the date of publication of the notice of
initiation of the requested review. Saha
Thai’s request was the sole basis for
initiating this administrative review.
Saha Thai withdrew its request in a
timely fashion. Therefore, in response to
Saha Thai’s withdrawal of its request for
an administrative review pursuant to 19
CFR 351.213(d)(1) of the Department’s
regulations, the Department hereby
rescinds the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on circular
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes
from Thailand. The Department intends
to issue assessment instructions to CBP
15 days after the date of publication of
this rescission of administrative review.
This notice serves as a reminder to
parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective
disorder is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and terms
of APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is published in
accordance with the sections 751(a)(1)
and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM
23MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 101 (Friday, May 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30054-30059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11620]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-570-851)
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 23, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') is currently
conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on
certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'') covering the period February 1, 2007, through July 31, 2007.
We preliminarily determine that the sale made by Dujiangyan Xingda
Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (``Xingda''), was not made below normal value
(``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results
of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the period of review (``POR'') for any importer-
specific assessment rates that are above de minimis.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor at (202) 482-4114; AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 19, 1999, the Department
published in the Federal Register an amended final determination and
antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. See
Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the
People's Republic of China, 64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999) (``Order'').
On August 30, 2007, we received a timely new shipper review request in
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), and 19 CFR 351.214(c), from exporter and
producer, Xingda. On September 27, 2007, the Department published a
notice in the Federal Register initiating a new shipper review for
Xingda. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of
China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 72 FR 54899
(September 27, 2007).
On March 19, 2008, the Department published a notice in the Federal
Register of the extension of the preliminary results by 60 days to May
19, 2008. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of
China: Extension of Preliminary Results for Eleventh Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review, 73 FR 14771 (March 19, 2008).
We issued the standard antidumping duty questionnaire, along with
the standard importer questionnaire for new shipper reviews, on
September 27, 2007, and received responses in October and November
2007. We issued supplemental questionnaires covering sections A, C, and
D of the original questionnaire on January 29, 2008, and received
timely responses to those questionnaires. We also issued additional
section D supplemental questionnaires on April 18, and April 21, 2008,
respectively, and received timely responses from Xingda.
Period of Review
The POR covers February 1, 2007, through July 31, 2007.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms,
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The
certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species
Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ``Certain Preserved
Mushrooms'' refers to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by
cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms
are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to,
cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not
limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Certain preserved
mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces.
Included within the scope of this order are ``brined'' mushrooms, which
are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally
preserve them for further processing.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms containing
less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the
antidumping duty order. See Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling
of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain Marinated,
Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,''
dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, this decision was upheld
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See
Tak Fat v. United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All
other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and
chilled mushrooms, including ``refrigerated'' or ``quick blanched
mushrooms'' (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5)
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms, which are
prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may
contain oil or other additives.
The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under
subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143,
2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Bona Fide Analysis
Consistent with the Department's practice, we investigated the bona
fide nature of the sale made by Xingda for this new shipper review. In
evaluating whether or not a single sale in a new shipper review is
commercially reasonable, and therefore bona fide, the Department
considers, inter alia, such factors as: (1) the timing of the sale; (2)
the price and quantity; (3) the expenses arising from the transaction;
(4) whether the goods were resold at a profit; and (5)
[[Page 30055]]
whether the transaction was made on an arm's-length basis. See Tianjin
Tiancheng Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250
(CIT 2005). Accordingly, the Department considers a number of factors
in its bona fide analysis, ``all of which may speak to the commercial
realities surrounding an alleged sale of subject merchandise.'' See
Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United States, 374 F. Supp.
2d 1333, 1342 (CIT 2005) (citing Fresh Garlic From the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review
and Rescission of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283 (March 13, 2002) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum).
We preliminarily found that the U.S. sale made by Xingda during the
POR was made on a bona fide basis. Specifically, we found that: (1) The
timing of the sale does not indicate that the sale might not be bona
fide; (2) the price and quantity of the sale were within the range of
the prices and quantities of other entries of subject merchandise from
the PRC into the United States during the POR, based upon the
Department's review of data obtained from CBP; (3) Xingda and its
customer did not incur any extraordinary expenses arising from the
transaction; (4) the sale was resold at a profit; and (5) the sale was
made between unaffiliated parties at arm's-length.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Calculation Memorandum from Zev Primor, Sr.
International Trade Compliance Analyst, to The File via Mark
Manning, Program Manager, Office 4, ``Bona Fide Sales Analysis for
Dujiangyan Xingda Foodstuff Co., Ltd.,'' dated concurrently with
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of the record evidence concerning the bona fide
nature of this sale, as well as Xingda's eligibility for a separate
rate (see ``Separate Rates Determination'' section, below) and the
Department's determination that the seller was not affiliated with any
exporter or producer that had previously shipped subject merchandise to
the United States, we preliminarily determine that Xingda has met the
requirements to qualify as a new shipper during the POR. Therefore, for
purposes of these preliminary results, we are treating the sale of
subject merchandise to the United States as an appropriate transaction
for this new shipper review.
NME Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. See
Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of
Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14,
2006). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in
effect until revoked by the administering authority. 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.
Separate Rates Determination
A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) 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'').
Absence of De Jure Control
Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure
absence of government control over export activities includes: (1) an
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the 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 the instant review, Xingda submitted a complete response to the
separate rates section of the Department's questionnaire. The evidence
submitted in the instant review by Xingda includes government laws and
regulations on corporate ownership and control, business licenses, and
narrative information regarding the company's operations and selection
of management. The evidence provided by Xingda supports a preliminary
finding of a de jure absence of government control over its export
activities because: (1) there are no controls on exports of subject
merchandise, such as quotas applied to, or licenses required for,
exports of the subject merchandise to the United States; and (2)
legislative enactments exist decentralizing control of companies. See
Xingda's Section A Response at Exhibits 2-7 (October 26, 2007).
Absence of De Facto Control
The absence of de facto government control over exports generally
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 22586-87; Sparklers, 56 FR at
20589; 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, Xingda submitted evidence
demonstrating an absence of de facto government control over its export
activities. Specifically, this evidence indicates that: (1) the company
sets its own export prices independent of the government and without
the approval of a government authority; (2) the company retains the
proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) the company has a
general manager with the authority to negotiate and bind the company in
an agreement; (4) the general manager is selected by the shareholders'
meeting, and the general manager appoints the manager of each
department; and (5) there is no restriction on the company's use of
export revenues. Therefore, we have preliminarily found that Xingda
established prima facie that it qualifies for a separate rate under the
criteria established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.
Surrogate Country
When the Department investigates imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production
[[Page 30056]]
(``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 FOPs, the Department shall
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or
more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the NME country and are significant
producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate
values we have used in this new shipper review are discussed under the
``Normal Value'' section, below. On January 29, 2008, the Department
determined that India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia, and
Thailand are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic
development, and requested comments from interested parties on
selecting the appropriate surrogate country for this review. See Letter
to All Interested Parties, RE: New Shipper Review of Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Dujiangyan Xingda
Foodstuffs Co., Ltd., dated March 19, 2008. No party submitted
surrogate country selection comments.
On April 21, 2008, the Department examined the export levels \3\ of
subject merchandise from the above-mentioned countries and found that
India and Indonesia are significant producers of comparable
merchandise. See Memorandum from Zev Primor, Sr. International Trade
Compliance Analyst, to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, ``Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country,'' dated
April 21, 2008, (``Surrogate Country Memorandum'') at 4. However, since
India has exports in both of the HTS subheadings identified for subject
merchandise, while Indonesia has exports under only one of the HTS
subheadings, we found that the Indian export data are more
comprehensive and representative of subject merchandise than Indonesian
export data. Id. at 5. In selecting the appropriate surrogate country,
the Department examines the availability and reliability of data from
the countries deemed to be economically comparable and significant
producers of subject merchandise. For a description of our practice,
see Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate
Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004). India has been the primary
surrogate country in numerous past segments for this proceeding. In
those past segments, the Department found India's import statistics to
be an available and reliable source for surrogate values. Id. at 4.
Therefore, since India: (1) is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise, whose production of subject merchandise is more
comprehensive than Indonesia's production; (2) is at a similar level of
economic development as the PRC; and (3) has publicly available and
reliable data, which the Department has relied upon for numerous
segments of this proceeding, the Department selected India as the
surrogate country, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act. See
Surrogate Country Memorandum at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Department was unable to find world production data for
subject merchandise and relied on export data as a substitute for
overall production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Xingda's sale of subject merchandise to the
United States was made at a price below NV, we compared its U.S. price
to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections
of this notice, below.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based U.S. price
on the export price (``EP'') of the sale to the United States by Xingda
because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the
date of importation and the use of constructed export price was not
otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on the free-on-board price
to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. For this EP
sale, we deducted foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and
handling from the starting price (or gross unit price), in accordance
with section 772(c) of the Act. For Xingda's U.S. sale, each of these
services 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. We valued foreign inland freight with the surrogate
value for truck freight, which we obtained from www.infreight.com. This
source provides daily rates per truck load from six major points of
origin to five different destinations in India. See Memorandum from Zev
Primor, Sr. International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Mark
Manning, Program Manager, to the File, ``12th New Shipper Review of
Certain Preserved Mushroom from the People's Republic of China:
Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results'' (``Surrogate Values
Memorandum'') at Exhibit 6. We valued foreign brokerage and handling
with the publicly summarized brokerage and handling expense reported in
the U.S. sales listing of Indian mushroom producer, Agro Dutch
Industries, Ltd. (``Agro Dutch''), in the 2004-2005 administrative
review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India. Id. at Exhibit 7.
Normal Value
1. Methodology
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using an FOP 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 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.
See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished,
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70
FR 39744 (July 11, 2005), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of 2003-2004 Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517 (January 17, 2006).
We calculated NV by adding together the value of the FOPs, general
expenses, profit, and packing costs. The FOPs for subject merchandise
include: (1) quantities of raw materials employed; (2) hours of labor
required; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; (4)
representative capital and selling costs; and (5) packing materials. We
used the FOPs reported by Xingda for materials, energy, labor, and
packing, and valued those FOPs by multiplying the amount of the factor
consumed in producing subject merchandise by the average unit surrogate
value of the factor.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a producer sources an
input from a market-economy country and pays for it in a market-economy
currency, the Department will normally value the FOP using the actual
price paid for the input. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko
Metal Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. Cir.
1994) (affirming the Department's use of market-based prices to value
certain FOPs). The Department has instituted a rebuttable
[[Page 30057]]
presumption that market economy input prices are the best available
information for valuing an input when the total volume of the input
purchased from all market economy sources during the period of
investigation or review is 33 percent or greater of the total volume of
the input purchased from all sources during the period. In these cases,
unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the
Department's presumption, the Department will use the weighted-average
market economy purchase price to value the input. Alternatively, when
the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input from market economy
suppliers during the period is below 33 percent of its total volume of
purchases of the input during the period, but where these purchases are
otherwise valid and there is no reason to disregard the prices, the
Department will weight-average the weighted-average market economy
purchase price with an appropriate surrogate value according to their
respective shares of the total volume of purchases, unless case-
specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the presumption. When
an NME firm has made market economy input purchases that may have been
dumped or subsidized, are not bona fide, or are otherwise not
acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, the Department will
exclude them from the total quantity of all market economy purchases to
ensure a fair determination of whether valid market economy purchases
meet the 33 percent threshold. See Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and
Request for Comments, 71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006). In this case,
Xingda reported that it did not purchase any inputs from market economy
sources.
In addition, we added freight costs to the surrogate costs that we
calculated for material inputs. We calculated freight costs by
multiplying surrogate freight rates by the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to the factory that produced the
subject merchandise or the distance from the nearest seaport to the
factory that produced the subject merchandise, as appropriate. Where
there were multiple domestic suppliers of a material input, we
calculated a weighted-average distance after limiting each supplier's
distance to no more than the distance from the nearest seaport to
Xingda. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision by the Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117
F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We increased the calculated
costs of the FOPs for surrogate general expenses and profit. See
Surrogate Values Memorandum.
2. Selection of Surrogate Values
In selecting surrogate values, we followed, to the extent
practicable, the Department's practice of choosing public values which
are non-export averages, representative of a range of prices in effect
during the POR, or over a period as close as possible in time to the
POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of
Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). We also considered the
quality of the source of surrogate information in selecting surrogate
values. See Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998). Where we could only obtain
surrogate values that were not contemporaneous with the POR, we
inflated (or deflated) the surrogate values using, where appropriate,
the Indian Wholesale Price Index as published in International
Financial Statistics by the International Monetary Fund. See Surrogate
Values Memorandum at Exhibit 1.
In calculating surrogate values from import statistics, in
accordance with the Department's practice, we disregarded statistics
for imports from NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly
available, non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all
exporters to all export markets (e.g., Indonesia, South Korea, and
Thailand). See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. See also
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800, 66808
(November 28, 2003), unchanged in 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). Additionally,
we excluded from our calculations imports that were labeled as
originating from an unspecified country because we could not determine
whether they were from an NME country.
We valued production material inputs (mushroom spawn, rice straw,
and manure) using the fiscal year (``FY'') 2006-2007 (April 2006
through March 2007) financial statements of Agro Dutch or Flex Foods
Ltd. (``Flex Foods''), Indian producers of mushrooms and vegetables, as
follows. To value the input of mushroom spawn, we used data from the FY
2006-2007 financial statement of Agro Dutch because Agro Dutch's
mushroom spawn value is specific to the species Agaricus bisporous,
which is the species used to produce subject merchandise. To value the
input of rice straw, we used the rice straw value from the FY 2006-2007
financial statement of Flex Foods because this value is specific to the
input. Similarly, to value the input of manure, we used the manure
value from the FY 2006-2007 financial statement of Flex Foods because
this value is specific to the input. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at
Exhibit 2.
We valued processing and canning material inputs (phosphate,
calcium carbonate, rapeseed, mill cake, urea, gypsum powder, salt,
citric acid, tin plate, copper wire, and sealing glue) using weighted-
average Indian import values derived from the World Trade Atlas online
(``WTA''), for the period February 2007 through July 2007. See
Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibits 2 and 3. In addition, we valued
packing material inputs (cartons, labels, tape, kraft paper and glue)
with weighted-average Indian import values derived from the WTA for the
period February 2007 through July 2007. Id. at Exhibit 5. The Indian
import statistics obtained from the WTA were published by the Indian
Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry
of Commerce of India and are contemporaneous with the POR. As the
Indian surrogate values were denominated in rupees, in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act, they were converted to U.S. dollars using
the official exchange rate for India recorded on the date of sale of
subject merchandise in this case. See https://
[[Page 30058]]
www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.
To value land rent, the Department used data from the 2001 Punjab
State Development Report, administered by the Planning Commission of
the Government of India. Since the value of land rent was not
contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted the value for
inflation. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 2.
To value electricity, the Department used the 2000 electricity
price in India reported in Energy Prices & Taxes, Second Quarter 2003,
published by the International Energy Agency. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Exhibit 4, containing information obtained from
data.iea.org. Since the electricity rates were not contemporaneous with
the POR, the Department adjusted the value for inflation. See Surrogate
Values Memorandum at Exhibit 4.
To value natural gas, the Department used information from the
Natural Gas Authority of India, from February 2005. Because the
information was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the
average cost of natural gas for inflation. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Exhibit 4.
To value water, the Department used data from the Maharastra
Industrial Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) for June 2003,
which we found to be the best available information since it includes a
wide range of industrial water rates. Since the water rates were not
contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted the value for
inflation. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 4.
To value inland freight expenses incurred for transporting raw
materials and finished subject merchandise, we used data from
www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates per truck load from
six major points of origin to five different destinations in India, for
the period February through July 2005. Since these freight rates are
not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted the value for
inflation. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 6. 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3) requires the use of a regression-based wage rate.
Therefore, to value labor, the Department used the regression-based
wage rate for the PRC published on the Import Administration website.
See the IA website:
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/05wages-041608.html, and see
Corrected 2007 Calculation of Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 73 FR
27795 (May 14, 2008).
To value brokerage and handling, the Department used the publicly
summarized average brokerage and handling expenses reported in the U.S.
sales listings of Agro Dutch's May 24, 2005, submission in the sixth
antidumping duty review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. See
Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 7.
To value the surrogate financial ratios for factory overhead
(``OH''), selling, general & administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, and
profit, the Department used the 2006-2007 financial statements of Agro
Dutch and Flex Foods.\4\ The Department notes that Agro Dutch is a
producer of mushrooms, and Flex Foods is a producer of mushrooms and
vegetable products. Therefore, Agro Dutch's and Flex Foods' financial
ratios for OH and SG&A are comparable to Xingda's financial ratios
because Agro Dutch's and Flex Foods' production experience is
comparable to Xingda's production experience by virtue of each
company's production of subject merchandise. Additionally, the
financial statements of these two companies are contemporaneous for two
months of the POR. Moreover, an average of the financial statements of
Agro Dutch and Flex Foods represents a broader spectrum of the Indian
mushroom industry, than the financial statement of a single mushroom
producer. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Both Agro Dutch and Flex Foods have a fiscal year of April
to March.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
These exchange rates can be accessed at the website of Import
Administration at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.
Combination Rate
In new shipper reviews, the Department may, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.107(b), establish a combination cash deposit rate for each
combination of the exporter and its supplying producer(s). See Fresh
Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 at 72140 (December 4,
2002), Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review:
Certain In-Shell Raw Pistachios from Iran, 68 FR 353 at 354 (January 3,
2003), and Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 68 FR 351 (January 3,
2002). The Department has preliminarily determined that a combination
rate is appropriate in this case, as Xingda is both the producer and
exporter of the subject merchandise. Therefore, the Department will
include in its cash deposit instructions to CBP appropriate language to
enforce the final results of this review on the basis of a combination
rate involving Xingda as both the producer and exporter of the subject
merchandise.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists during
the period February 1, 2007, through July 31, 2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Exporter/Manufacturer Margin
(Percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dujiangyan Xingda Foodstuff Co., Ltd................ 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comment
The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the
calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five
days of publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties
may submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of publication
of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs)
within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Rebuttal
briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii) 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 diskette containing the
public version of those comments.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties
who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested,
must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration within 30 days of 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
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department will issue the
[[Page 30059]]
final results of this new shipper review, including the results of our
analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within
90 days of publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuing the final results of the review, the Department shall
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.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific
ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount
of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total
entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if
any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results
of this review is above de minimis. However, the final results of this
review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on
entries of merchandise covered by the final results of these reviews
and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements, when imposed, will be
effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper
review for all shipments of subject merchandise exported by Xingda
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)
for subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Xingda, the cash-
deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this
review; (2) for subject merchandise exported by Xingda but not
manufactured by Xingda, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the
PRC-wide rate (i.e., 198.63 percent); and (3) for subject merchandise
manufactured by Xingda but exported by any party, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate applicable to the exporter. If the cash deposit rate
calculated for Xingda in the final results is zero or de minimis, a
zero cash deposit will be required for entries of subject merchandise
both produced and exported by Xingda. These cash deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections
751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(h)(i).
Dated: May 19, 2008.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-11620 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S