Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 67124-67131 [E8-26992]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
67124
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 220 / Thursday, November 13, 2008 / Notices
ocean quahog quota shares or
authorization to shuck surfclams or
ocean quahogs at sea. The regulations
governing the Atlantic surfclam and
ocean quahog fishery including the
collections of information are found in
50 CFR part 648, subpart E.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations.
Frequency: On occasion.
Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.
OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker,
(202) 395–3897.
Copies of the above information
collection proposal can be obtained by
calling or writing Diana Hynek,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance
Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of
Commerce, Room 7845, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
dHynek@doc.gov).
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk
Officer, FAX number (202) 395–7285, or
David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov.
Dated: November 6, 2008.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–26873 Filed 11–12–08; 8:45 am]
Dated: November 6, 2008.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–26874 Filed 11–12–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
The Department of Commerce will
submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for clearance the
following proposal for collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35).
Agency: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Title: Aleutian Islands Pollock Fishery
Requirements.
OMB Control Number: 0648–0513.
Form Number(s): None.
Type of Request: Regular submission.
Burden Hours: 134.
Number of Respondents: 6.
Average Hours Per Response: Annual
fishery letter to NMFS re participants,
16 hours; copy of NMFS approval to
participants, 5 minutes; and appeals, 20
hours.
Needs and Uses: The Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2004 requires the
Aleutian Islands pollock fishery to be
allocated to the Aleut Corporation for
economic development of Adak, Alaska.
The statute requires the Aleut
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:13 Nov 12, 2008
Jkt 217001
Corporation’s approval for participants
and limits participation to American
Fisheries Act qualified entities and
vessels less than or equal to 60 ft overall
length with certain endorsements. The
qualified entities/vessels are nominated
by the corporation and subsequently
approved by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) to participate
in the fishery.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations; individuals and
households.
Frequency: Annually and on occasion.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain benefits.
OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker,
(202) 395–3897.
Copies of the above information
collection proposal can be obtained by
calling or writing Diana Hynek,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance
Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of
Commerce, Room 7845, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
dHynek@doc.gov).
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk
Officer, FAX number (202) 395–7285, or
David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–849]
Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate from the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of New
Shipper Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is currently
conducting a new shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on cut–tolength carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL Steel
Plate’’) from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the period
November 1, 2006, through October 31,
2007. This new shipper review covers
one producer/exporter.
We preliminarily determine that the
new shipper has made sale(s) below
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
normal value (‘‘NV’’), and the producer/
exporter combination is entitled to a
separate rate in this new shipper review.
If these preliminary results are adopted
in our final results of this new shipper
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 which the importer
specific assessment rates are above de
minimis. Interested parties are invited to
comment on the preliminary results. We
intend to issue the final results no later
than 90 days from the date of
publication of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Demitrios Kalogeropoulos, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230,
telephone: (202) 482–2623.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The antidumping duty order on CTL
Steel Plate from the PRC was published
on October 21, 2003. See Suspension
Agreement on Certain Cut–to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate From the People’s
Republic of China; Termination of
Suspension Agreement and Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order, 68 FR 60081
(October 21, 2003).
On November 30, 2007, we received
a timely request for a new shipper
review from Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron
& Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Valin Xiangtan’’) in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d)(2).
In its request, Valin Xiangtan certified
that it produced and exported the CTL
Steel Plate on which it based its request
for a new shipper review. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Valin Xiangtan
submitted documentation establishing
the date on which the merchandise was
first shipped for export to the United
States, the volume of that first shipment,
and the date of the first sale to an
unaffiliated customer in the United
States.
On December 27, 2007, the
Department initially determined that
Valin Xiangtan did not meet the
requirements under which the
Department can initiate a new shipper
review. On January 7, 2008, upon
further review of subsequent
information submitted by the requester,
the Department reconsidered its
decision and initiated the new shipper
review on January 17, 2008. See Certain
Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From
the People’s Republic of China;
Initiation of New Shipper Review, 73 FR
3236 (January 17, 2008). On January 14,
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 220 / Thursday, November 13, 2008 / Notices
2008, we issued the antidumping duty
questionnaire to Valin Xiangtan. We
issued supplemental questionnaires to
Valin Xiangtan in April, May, and
September 2008. On April 18, 2008, the
Department extended the POR by one
month to enable the Department to
capture the entries corresponding to the
respondent’s sales to the United States.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Period of Review
The POR covers November 1, 2006,
through October 31, 2007.
Affiliation
On March 25, 2008, Nucor
Corporation (‘‘Nucor’’) submitted
comments regarding Valin Xiangtan’s
eligibility for a new shipper review and
separate rate status. Specifically, Nucor
argued that the Department should
rescind the new shipper review because
Valin Xiangtan is affiliated with
exporters that shipped to the United
States during the original period of
investigation (‘‘POI’’). Because one of
Valin Xiangtan’s corporate parents is
wholly owned by the Hunan–
Supervision and Administration
Commission (‘‘Hunan SASAC’’), Nucor
contends that the Hunan SASAC and
Valin Xiangtan are affiliated by an
excess of five percent ownership. Since
the PRC–wide entity had shipments of
subject merchandise during the POI,
and because the Hunan SASAC, as an
organ of the central–Supervision and
Administration Commission (‘‘central
SASAC’’), is the same as the PRC–wide
entity, Nucor argued that Valin Xiangtan
is affiliated with a producer/exporter
that exported subject merchandise to the
United States during the POI.
Nucor also argued that affiliation
exists between Valin Xiangtan and two
respondents in the original investigation
(i.e., AISCO/Anshan International/
Sincerely Asia Ltd. (collectively
‘‘Anshan Steel’’) and Bao/Baoshan
International Trade Corp/Bao Steel
Metals Trading Corp. (collectively
‘‘Baoshan Steel’’)). Nucor contends
these two companies’ financial
statements demonstrate that they are
directly owned by and under the control
of the central SASAC. Therefore, Nucor
argued, Valin Xiangtan, through the
Hunan SASAC and the central SASAC,
is affiliated with producers/exporters
that exported subject merchandise to the
United States during the POI.
On October 21, 2008, in its pre–
preliminary comments submission,
Valin Xiangtan argued the Department
has reviewed similar allegations in other
proceedings and rejected them.1 Valin
1 Citing previous cases such as Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:13 Nov 12, 2008
Jkt 217001
Xiangtan contended there is no rationale
to justify the Department reversing its
long–standing practice of allowing new
shippers that are state–owned to request
and receive reviews.
For the preliminary results, in
response to Nucor’s claims that Valin
Xiangtan is state–owned and therefore
affiliated with Anshan Steel and
Baoshan Steel, we note first that the
Department has considered and granted
NSR requests in the past where the
requesting firm was state–owned
(‘‘owned by the whole people’’).2 In this
case, we determine that Valin Xiangtan
is not affiliated with Anshan Steel and
Baoshan Steel. In order to find these
companies affiliated, section 771(33)(F)
of the Act requires more than some
degree of commonality of state
ownership interest between them.
Rather, to make a finding of affiliation
between two or more entities, section
771(33)(F) of the Act requires the
Department to find ‘‘common control.’’
Otherwise, all state–owned companies
would automatically be found affiliated.
Further, consistent with long–standing
policy and practice,3 we find that
ownership by a government entity such
as the Hunan SASAC or central SASAC,
in and of itself, is not germane to Valin
Xiangtan’s eligibility for a new shipper
review. In the instant case, as discussed
in the ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section below,
there is no evidence that the Hunan
SASAC or central SASAC exerted
control over Valin Xiangtan’s export
activities. In other words, absent
evidence of such de jure or de facto
control, government ownership alone
does not warrant denying Valin
Xiangtan eligibility for a new shipper
review. Indeed, the Department has in
previous proceedings granted separate
rates to companies that were wholly
owned by government entities when
evidence of actual government control
over export activities was not present.4
Collapsing of Affiliated Producers
On May 23, 2008, Nucor submitted
comments regarding Valin Xiangtan’s
affiliated producers. Nucor urged the
Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts
Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR
29303 (May 22, 2006) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 9.
2 See, e.g., Pure Magnesium From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Administrative Review, 63 FR
3085 (January 21, 1998) (‘‘Pure Magnesium’’).
3 See, e.g., Pure Magnesium and Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews, 66 FR
59569 (November 29, 2001)
4 Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR 29303 at Comment
16.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67125
Department to conduct a full collapsing
analysis on all of the companies with a
relationship to Valin Xiangtan or its
owners in addition to all of the
subsidiaries of each of these entities.
Nucor argued that any steel producer
with a rolling mill would be capable of
producing subject merchandise with
only minor retooling, thus satisfying the
collapsing criteria under 19 CFR
351.401(f)(1).
For the preliminary results, we have
determined not to collapse Valin
Xiangtan with any of its affiliates. We
have determined that based on record
evidence of the four affiliates we
identified as possible candidates for a
collapsing analysis, two do not have any
production capabilities at all, and the
remaining two produce steel wire and
steel rod, respectively.5 Further, we
have determined that neither of the steel
producing affiliates has a rolling mill,6
and it would be cost prohibitive (i.e.,
require substantial retooling) to build a
rolling mill capable of producing subject
merchandise. Thus the collapsing
criteria under 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) are
not satisfied. In determining whether
there is a significant potential for
manipulation, as contemplated by 19
CFR 351.401(f)(2), the Department
considers the totality of the
circumstances of the situation and may
place more reliance on some factors
than others. In the instant case, because
Valin Xiangtan’s affiliates do not
produce subject merchandise and do not
have the capability to produce subject
merchandise without a substantial
retooling, the totality of the
circumstances here shows that there is
not a significant potential for the
manipulation of price or production.
Therefore, for the preliminary results,
we have not collapsed Valin Xiangtan
with its affiliates.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order
include hot–rolled carbon steel
universal mill plates (i.e., flat–rolled
products rolled on four faces or in a
closed box pass, of a width exceeding
150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250
millimeters and of a thickness of not
less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and
without patterns in relief), of
rectangular shape, neither clad, plated
nor coated with metal, whether or not
5 See the Department’s Memorandum to the File
entitled, ‘‘Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the
Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for
Valin Xiangtan,’’ dated concurrent with this notice
(‘‘Valin Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum’’).
6 See Valin Xiangtan’s second supplemental
submission dated October 16, 2008, at 3.
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
67126
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 220 / Thursday, November 13, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
painted, varnished, or coated with
plastics or other nonmetallic substances;
and certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat–
rolled products in straight lengths, of
rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither
clad, plated, nor coated with metal,
whether or not painted, varnished, or
coated with plastics or other
nonmetallic substances, 4.75
millimeters or more in thickness and of
a width which exceeds 150 millimeters
and measures at least twice the
thickness, as currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item
numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060,
7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045,
7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000,
7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000,
7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000,
7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030,
7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000,
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and
7212.50.0000. Included in the order are
flat–rolled products of non–rectangular
cross-section where such cross-section
is achieved subsequent to the rolling
process (i.e., products which have been
‘‘worked after rolling’’) for example,
products which have been beveled or
rounded at the edges. Excluded from the
order is grade X–70 plate. Also excluded
from the order is certain carbon cut–tolength steel plate with a maximum
thickness of 80 mm in steel grades BS
7191, 355 EM, and 355 EMZ, as
amended by Sable Offshore Energy
Project specification XB MOO Y 15
0001, types 1 and 2. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope is
dispositive.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non–market
economy (‘‘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 subject merchandise in an
NME country this single rate unless an
exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through
the absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over export
activities. 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:13 Nov 12, 2008
Jkt 217001
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’’).
However, if the Department determines
that a company is wholly foreign–
owned or located in a market economy,
then a separate–rate analysis is not
necessary to determine whether it is
independent from government control.
A. Separate–Rate Recipient
Valin Xiangtan is a wholly Chinese–
owned company.7 Therefore, the
Department must analyze whether Valin
Xiangtan can demonstrate the absence
of both de jure and de facto government
control over its export activities.
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 at 20589 at Comment
1.
In this case, Nucor, a domestic
interested party, argued that Valin
Xiangtan should not receive a separate
rate because the State–owned entity
(i.e., the central SASAC) exercised de
jure control over Valin Xiangtan during
the POR.8 Among other things, Nucor
alleged that the existence of a SASAC
demonstrates a recentralization of
control over companies in which it
maintains ownership, and that because
of the nature of the central SASAC’s
authority Valin Xiangtan cannot
establish the absence of de jure control.
We solicited additional information
from Valin Xiangtan regarding Nucor’s
allegations as they relate to the
Department’s criteria in determining
whether there is de jure control by the
PRC government over a company’s
export activities.9 In response, Valin
Xiangtan submitted copies of relevant
laws under which it operates including
the Interim Measures for the
Supervision and Administration of
State–owned Assets of the Enterprises
(‘‘Interim Measures’’) and the Company
7 See Valin Xiangtan’s business license in its
Section A response, dated March 5, 2008, at Exhibit
A-4.1.
8 See Nucor’s March 25 and May 23, 2008,
submissions regarding its comments on the section
A and supplemental section A questionnaire
responses of Valin Xiangtan.
9 See, e.g., Valin Xiangtan’s March 25, 2008, and
October 18, 2008, supplemental questionnaire
responses.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Law of the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘Company Law’’). After examining
record evidence, we found no indication
that these laws granted de jure
government control.10 Moreover, review
of Valin Xiangtan’s business license
indicates an absence of restrictive
stipulations.11 Further, under Company
Law, in addition to Valin Xiangtan’s
Articles of Association, indicates that
control rests with the company’s
executive director and not the PRC
government.12
The evidence provided by Valin
Xiangtan supports a preliminary finding
of de jure absence of government control
based on the following: (1) an absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporters’ business
and export licenses; (2) there are
applicable legislative enactments
decentralizing control of the companies;
and (3) there are formal measures by the
government decentralizing control of
companies. See, e.g., Valin Xiangtan’s
section A submissions dated March 5,
2008, and its supplemental
questionnaire responses dated March
25, 2008, and October 18, 2008.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
government control of its export
functions: (1) whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a government 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
Department has determined that an
analysis of de facto control is critical in
determining whether respondents are,
in fact, subject to a degree of
government control which would
preclude the Department from assigning
separate rates.
10 See Valin Xiangtan’s March 25, 2008,
submission.
11 See Valin Xiangtan’s March 5, 2008,
submission at Exhibit 4.1
12 See Valin Xiangtan’s April 25, 2008,
supplemental submission at Exhibit A-23 Article
11.
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 220 / Thursday, November 13, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
In this case Nucor alleged that Valin
Xiangtan should not receive a separate
rate because there is indirect de facto
control over Valin Xiangtan by the PRC
government. See Nucor’s March 25,
2008, submission regarding its
comments on Valin Xiangtan eligibility
for a new shipper review and separate
rate status; and Nucor’s May 27, 2008,
submission regarding Valin Xiangtan’s
supplemental section A Questionnaire
Response. Among other things, Nucor
alleged that the authorities of the central
SASAC as outlined in the Interim
Measures demonstrate control over the
companies in which the central SASAC
invests. We solicited additional
information from Valin Xiangtan
regarding Nucor’s allegations as they
relate to the Department’s criteria in
determining whether there is de facto
control by the PRC government over a
company’s export activities.13 In its
responses, Valin Xiangtan reported that
it sets its own export prices and has the
authority to sign and negotiate its sales
contracts without review or guidance
from any governmental organization
(e.g., the sales contract and
correspondence between it and its U.S.
customer). See Valin Xiangtan’s section
A supplemental submission dated April
28, 2008, at Exhibits A–24 and A–25.
Valin Xiangtan further submitted
evidence indicating autonomy in the
process by which its managers and
directors were elected to their positions
(e.g., Valin Xiangtan’s Articles of
Association) See Valin Xiangtan’s
section A supplemental submission
dated April 28, 2008, at Exhibit A–33.
The mere fact that the Hunan SASAC
has shareholder ownership in
companies that have shareholder
ownership in Valin Xiangtan does not in
itself demonstrate that Valin Xiangtan is
controlled by the PRC central
government.14 Indeed, the Department
has in the past granted separate rates to
companies that were wholly owned by
government entities when evidence of
actual government control was not
present.15 In this case, we have found
no record evidence indicating that the
13 See, e.g., Valin Xiangtan’s section A submission
dated March 5, 2008, and its supplemental
questionnaire responses dated March 25, 2008, and
October 18, 2008.
14 See, e.g., Lightweight Thermal Paper From the
People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 57329
(October 2, 2008) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
15 See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 16.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:13 Nov 12, 2008
Jkt 217001
Hunan SASAC exercised control over
Valin Xiangtan’s export activities or the
disposition of its profits during the
POR.16 Therefore, we have determined
that the roles and duties undertaken by
the Hunan SASAC do not confer de
facto government control over the day–
to-day activities and decisions regarding
Valin Xiangtan’s export activities.
Furthermore, Valin Xiangtan has
supported its claim that it negotiates its
own contracts and does not need
approval from any government authority
before making a sale (i.e., the sales
contract and correspondence between
Valin Xiangtan and its U.S. customer).17
The evidence placed on the record of
this new shipper review by Valin
Xiangtan demonstrate an absence of de
jure and de facto government control
with respect to its exports of the
merchandise under review, in
accordance with the criteria identified
in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
Accordingly, the Department has
preliminarily determined that Valin
Xiangtan is eligible for a separate rate
because it has demonstrated an absence
of government control both in law and
in fact.
Bona Fide Sales Analysis
In evaluating whether or not sales are
commercially reasonable, and therefore
bona fide, the Department has
considered, inter alia, such factors as:
(1) the timing of the sale; (2) the price
and quantity of the sale; (3) the
expenses arising from the transaction;
(4) whether the goods were resold at a
profit; and (5) whether the transaction
was made on an arm’s–length basis. See
Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d
1246 (CIT 2005) (‘‘TTPC’’) at 1249–1250,
citing Am. Silicon Techs. v. United
States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 992, 995 (CIT
2000). Therefore, the Department
examines a number of factors, all of
which may speak to the commercial
realities surrounding the sale of subject
merchandise. While some bona fides
issues may share commonalities across
various cases, each case is company–
specific and the analysis may vary with
the facts surrounding each sale. See,
e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of the
New Shipper Review and Final Results
and Partial Rescission of the Third
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 2003).
The weight given to each factor
16 See, e.g., Valin Xiangtan’s section A response
dated March 5, 2008 at pages 14 through 16.
17 See Valin Xiangtan’s section A supplemental
submission dated April 28, 2008 at Exhibits A-24
and A-25.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67127
investigated will depend on the
circumstances surrounding the sale. See
TTPC, 366 F. Supp at 1263.
For the reasons stated below, we
preliminarily find that Valin Xiangtan’s
reported U.S. sales during the POR
appear to be bona fide sales, as required
by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c), based on
the totality of the facts on the record.
Specifically, we find that the unit prices
for Valin Xiangtan’s sales were
comparable to the unit values of other
U.S. imports of CTL Steel Plate from the
PRC during the POR. Further we find
that the quantity of Valin Xiangtan’s
sales is commercially reasonable.18
Furthermore, we found no unusual
circumstances surrounding the sales
(e.g., no unusual freight terms).
Therefore, for the reasons mentioned
above, the Department preliminarily
finds that Valin Xiangtan’s U.S. sale
during the POR is a bona fide
commercial transaction.
Non–Market Economy Country
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as an NME country. In
the investigation of certain lined paper
products from the PRC, the Department
examined the PRC’s market status and
determined that NME status should
continue for the PRC.19 In accordance
with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
any determination that a foreign country
is an NME country shall remain in effect
until revoked by the administering
authority. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish
Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of
China: Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006).
The presumption of the NME status of
the PRC has not been revoked by the
Department and, therefore, remains in
effect for purposes of this new shipper
review. Accordingly, we calculated NV
in accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act, which applies to NME countries.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the
Department to base NV on the NME
producer’s factors of production
18 For further information, see the Department’s
memorandum entitled ‘‘2006-2007 New Shipper
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on CTL
Steel from the People’s Republic of China: Bona
Fide Analysis of Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron § Steel
Company Ltd.,’’ dated concurrent with this notice.
19 See the Department’s memorandum entitled,
‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Lined
Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘China’’) China’s status as a non-market economy
(‘‘NME’’),’’ dated August 30, 2006. This document
is available online at: https:// ia.ita.doc.gov/
download/prc-nmestatus/ prc-lined-paper-memo08302006.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
67128
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 220 / Thursday, November 13, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
(‘‘FOPs’’), valued in a surrogate market
economy (‘‘ME’’) 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 use, to the
extent possible, the prices or costs of the
FOPs in one or more ME countries that
are: (1) at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
NME country; and (2) significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
For a detailed discussion of the
surrogate values (‘‘SVs’’) used in this
proceeding, see the ‘‘Factor Valuations’’
section below and the Department’s
memorandum to the file entitled, ‘‘New
Shipper Review of Certain Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate from the
People’s Republic of China: Factor
Valuations for the Preliminary
Determination,’’ dated concurrently
with this notice (‘‘Factor Valuation
Memorandum’’).
On January 14, 2008, the Department
determined that India, Indonesia,
Thailand, the Philippines, and
Colombia are countries comparable to
the PRC in terms of economic
development.20 On January 16, 2008,
the Department requested comments on
the selection of a surrogate country from
the interested parties in this new
shipper review. Valin Xiangtan
submitted comments on February 6,
2008, providing information regarding
CTL Steel Plate production in
Indonesia, Thailand and India.
Customarily, we select an appropriate
surrogate country from the Policy
Memorandum based on the availability
and reliability of data from the countries
that are significant producers of
comparable merchandise. In this case,
we found that India is at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the PRC; is a significant producer
of comparable merchandise (i.e., CTL
Steel Plate); and has publicly available
and reliable data.21 Accordingly, we
selected India as the primary surrogate
country for purposes of valuing the
FOPs in the calculation of NV because
it meets the Department’s criteria for
surrogate country selection.22 We
obtained and relied upon publicly
20 See the Department’s Office of Policy
memorandum entitled, ‘‘New Shipper Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-To-Length
Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of
China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate
Countries,’’ dated January 14, 2008 (‘‘Policy
Memorandum’’).
21 See the Department’s memorandum entitled,
‘‘New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order of Cut-To-Length Steel Plate from the
People’s Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate
Country,’’ dated February 11, 2008 (‘‘Surrogate
Country Memorandum’’).
22 See Surrogate Country Memorandum.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:13 Nov 12, 2008
Jkt 217001
available information wherever
possible. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in
an antidumping new shipper review,
interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value FOPs
under 19 CFR 351.408(c) within 20 days
after the date of publication of these
preliminary results.23
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of the
subject merchandise by Valin Xiangtan
to the United States were made at prices
below NV, we compared its export
prices to NV, as described in the
‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
sections of this notice, below.
Export Price
We used export price (‘‘EP’’)
methodology in accordance with section
772(a) of the Act because the subject
merchandise was first sold prior to
importation by the exporter outside the
United States directly to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States, and
constructed export price was not
otherwise indicated.
We calculated EP based on the packed
delivery duty paid ex–docks delivered
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or
for exportation to, the United States. We
made deductions, as appropriate, for
any movement expenses (e.g., foreign
inland rail and barge freight from the
plant to the port of exportation,
domestic brokerage, marine insurance,
U.S. Customs duty, U.S. brokerage and
handling charges, other U.S.
transportation expense, international
freight expense, etc.) in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act,24 Where
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage
and handling fees and foreign marine
insurance were provided by PRC service
providers or paid for in renminbi, we
based those charges on surrogate value
rates from India. See ‘‘Factor
23 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2), for
the final results of this review, interested parties
may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or
correct factual information submitted by an
interested party less than ten days before, on, or
after, the applicable deadline for submission of
such factual information. However, the Department
notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2) 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 information previously
absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2). 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.
24F or a detailed description of all adjustments,
see Valin Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Valuations’’ section below for further
discussion of surrogate value rates.
In determining the most appropriate
SVs to use in a given case, the
Department’s stated practice is to use
period–wide price averages, prices
specific to the input in question, prices
that are net of taxes and import duties,
prices that are contemporaneous with
the POR, and publicly available data.25
The data we used for brokerage and
handling expenses fulfill all of the
foregoing criteria except that they are
not specific to the subject merchandise.
There is no information of that type on
the record of this new shipper review.
The Department used two sources to
calculate a surrogate value for domestic
brokerage expenses: (1) data from the
January 9, 2006, public version of the
Section C questionnaire response from
Kejriwal Paper Ltd. (‘‘Kejriwal’’) in the
investigation of certain lined paper
products from India;26 and (2) data from
Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. in the
administrative review of certain
preserved mushrooms from India.27
Because these values were not
concurrent with the POR of this new
shipper review, we adjusted these rates
for inflation using the Wholesale Price
Indices (‘‘WPI’’) for India as published
in the International Monetary Fund’s
International Financial Statistics,
available at https://ifs.apdi.net/imf, and
then calculated a simple average of the
two companies’ brokerage expense
data.28 See Factor Valuation
Memorandum at Attachment 9.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine NV
using an FOP methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME
and the information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home–market
25 See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the
People’s Republic of China; Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1.
26Kejriwal was a respondent in the certain lined
paper products from India investigation for which
the period of investigation was July 1, 2004, to June
30, 2005. See Notice of Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of
Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products From India, 71 FR
19706 (April 17, 2006) (‘‘CLPP’’) (unchanged in
final determination).
27 See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005) (unchanged in
final results).
28 See, e.g., Helical Spring Lock Washers From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
52073, 52076 (September 12, 2007) (unchanged in
final results).
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 220 / Thursday, November 13, 2008 / Notices
prices, third–country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act. The Department bases NV on
the FOPs because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of NMEs renders price comparisons and
the calculation of production costs
invalid under its normal methodologies.
The Department’s questionnaire
requires that the respondent provide
information regarding the weighted–
average FOPs across all of the
company’s plants that produce the
subject merchandise, not just the FOPs
from a single plant. This methodology
ensures that the Department’s
calculations are as accurate as
possible.29
For purposes of calculating NV, we
valued the PRC FOPs in accordance
with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. The
FOPs include: (1) hours of labor
required; (2) quantities of raw materials
employed; (3) amounts of energy and
other utilities consumed; and (4)
representative capital costs. We used the
FOPs reported by Valin Xiangtan for
materials, energy, and labor. See section
773(c)(3) of the Act.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available
information to find appropriate SVs to
value FOPs, but when a producer
sources an input from a market
economy and pays for it in market–
economy currency, the Department will
normally value the factor using the
actual price paid for the input. See 19
CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal
Products, Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d
1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In
examining SVs, we selected, where
possible, the publicly available value,
which was an average non–export value,
representative of a range of prices
within the POR or most
contemporaneous with the POR,
product–specific, and tax–exclusive.
See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination: Chlorinated
Isocyanurates From the People’s
Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300
(December 16, 2004) (unchanged in final
determination). For a detailed
explanation of the methodology used to
calculate SVs, see Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
Valin Xiangtan reported that during
the production process of CTL Steel
Plate, it generated certain by–products
29 See,
e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances:
Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the
People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October
28, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 19.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:13 Nov 12, 2008
Jkt 217001
that were recycled and resold during the
POR.30 However, Valin Xiangtan failed
to provide the requested documentation
for each sale of its by–products and each
transaction of recycled by–product.31
Nor did Valin Xiangtan provide an
explanation as to why it did not provide
the requested documentation.32 In the
original and supplemental
questionnaires, we instructed Valin
Xiangtan to provide evidence for the full
amount of by–products that were sold or
returned to production. Valin Xiangtan
provided incomplete documentation
that amounted to a non–response to this
request. For example, Valin Xiangtan
provided one by–product sales invoice
for each type of by–product sold, which
did not reconcile to its reported by–
product sales.33 Further, Valin Xiangtan
provided inadequately translated screen
prints from its internal accounting
system for some recycled by–
products.34 These screen prints were
also not reconciled to Valin Xiangtan’s
reported recycled product. The amount
of products reused or sold during the
POR is an integral part of the factor
calculation for by–products.35 See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Urea
Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from
Belarus, 68 FR 9055 (February 27, 2003),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3 (‘‘The
Department allows such credits, but
only for the amount of the by–product/
recovery actually sold or reused.’’);
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin
From the People’s Republic of China, 68
FR 27530 (May 20, 2003), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; and
Saccharin from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 7515
(February 13, 2006), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2. Because Valin Xiangtan has
not provided the Department with the
requested information in order to
determine whether Valin Xiangtan is
entitled to its claimed offsets, for the
30 See Valin Xiantan’s March 14, 2008, section D
submission at 17 and Exhibit D-6
31 See Valin Xiantan’s section D submission at 17
and Exhibit D-6; and its supplemental section D
response at 6 through 7 and Exhibits D-15, D-16,
and D-19 through D-25, dated March 14 and May
28, 2008, respectively.
32 See id.
33 See Valin Xiantan’s supplemental section D
response at 6 through 7 and Exhibit D-20 dated May
28, 2008.
34 See Valin Xiantan’s supplemental section D
response at 6 through 7 and Exhibits D-23 and D24 dated May 28, 2008.
35 See id.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67129
preliminary results, we have determined
to not grant any of Valin Xiangtan’s
claimed offsets. For further details, see
Valin Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on the
FOPs reported by Valin Xiangtan for the
POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied
the reported per–unit factor–
consumption rates by publicly available
Indian SVs. In selecting the SVs, we
considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data.36 As
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight
cost using the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to
the factory or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory, where
appropriate. This adjustment is in
accordance with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117
F.3d 1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In those instances where we could not
obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous with the POI with
which to value FOPs, we adjusted the
SVs using, where appropriate, the
Indian WPI, as published in the
International Financial Statistics of the
International Monetary Fund. For a
detailed description of all SVs used for
respondent, see the Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
Except where discussed below, we
valued raw material inputs using
November 2006 through October 2007,
weighted–average unit import values
derived from the Monthly Statistics of
the Foreign Trade of India, as published
by the Directorate General of
Commercial Intelligence and Statistics
of the Ministry of Commerce and
Industry, Government of India and
compiled by the World Trade Atlas
(‘‘WTA’’), available at
http:www.gtis.com/wta.htm. The Indian
WTA import data is reported in rupees
and is contemporaneous with the
POR.37 Indian SVs denominated in
Indian rupees were converted to U.S.
dollars using the applicable daily
exchange rate for India for the POR. See
https://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/
index.html.
36 See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from
the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
71509 (December 11, 2006), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9.
37 See Factor Valuation Memorandum at
Attachments 1 and 3.
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
67130
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 220 / Thursday, November 13, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Valin Xiangtan reported that certain
of its reported raw material inputs were
sourced from an ME country and paid
for in ME currencies. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent
sources inputs from an ME supplier in
meaningful quantities (i.e., not
insignificant quantities), we use the
actual price paid by respondent for
those inputs, except when prices may
have been distorted by findings of
dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.38
Valin Xiangtan’s reported information
demonstrates that it has both significant
and insignificant quantities of certain
raw materials purchased from ME
suppliers. Where we found ME
purchases to be of significant quantities,
in accordance with our statement of
policy as outlined in Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy
Inputs,39 we used the actual purchases
of these inputs to value the inputs.
Accordingly, we valued Valin
Xiangtan’s inputs using the ME prices
paid for in ME currencies for the inputs
where the total volume of the input
purchased from all ME sources during
the POR exceeds or is equal to 33
percent of the total volume of the input
purchased from all sources during the
period.40 Where the quantity of the
reported input purchased from ME
suppliers was below 33 percent of the
total volume of the input purchased
from all sources during the POI, and
were otherwise valid, we weight
averaged the ME input’s purchase price
with the appropriate surrogate value for
the input according to their respective
shares of the reported total volume of
purchases.41 Where appropriate, we
added freight to the ME prices of inputs.
For a detailed description of the actual
values used for the ME inputs reported,
see Valin Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum.
Where we could not obtain publicly
available information contemporaneous
with the POR with which to value
factors, we adjusted the SVs for inflation
using the WPI for India. See Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
Furthermore, with regard to the WTA
Indian import–based SVs, we have
disregarded prices from NME
38 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19,
1997).
39 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy
Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments,
71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006)
(‘‘Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy
Inputs’’).
40 See Valin Xiangtan’s May 28, 2008,
supplemental D submission at Exhibit D-8.
41 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs, 71 FR at 61718.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:13 Nov 12, 2008
Jkt 217001
countries42 and those we have reason to
believe or suspect may be subsidized,
because we have found in other
proceedings that the exporting countries
maintain broadly available, non–
industry-specific export subsidies and,
therefore, there is reason to believe or
suspect all exports to all markets from
such countries may be subsidized.43 We
are also guided by the statute’s
legislative history that explains that it is
not necessary to conduct a formal
investigation to ensure that such prices
are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. No.
576 100th Cong., 2. Sess. 590–91 (1988).
Rather, the Department was instructed
by Congress to base its decision on
information that is available to it at the
time it is making its determination.
Therefore, we excludes export prices
from Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand,
and India when calculating the Indian
import–based SVs. See Factor Valuation
Memorandum. Finally, we excluded
imports that were labeled as originating
from an ‘‘unspecified’’ country from the
average value, because we could not be
certain that they were not from either an
NME or a country with general export
subsidies.
We used Indian transport information
to value the inland truck, rail, and
waterway freight cost of the raw
materials. The Department determined
the best available information for
valuing truck freight to be from the
following website: https://
www.infobanc.com/logistics/
logtruck.htm. The logistics section of
this source contains inland truck freight
rates from four major points of origin to
25 destinations in India. The
Department obtained inland truck
freight rates updated through September
2008 from each point of origin to each
destination and averaged the data
accordingly. Since this value is not
contemporaneous with the POI, we
deflated the rate using the WPI. See
Factor Valuation Memorandum. The
Department determined the best
42 The NME countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, PRC,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.
43 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998-1999
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of
Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in
Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the
People’s Republic of China; Final Results of 19992000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of
Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in
Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1; andChina National Machinery Imp. &
Exp. Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334,
1339 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal Circuit,
104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
available information for valuing rail
freight to be from https://
www.indianrailways.gov.in. To value
waterway freight, we used an Indian
domestic ship rate from Indian
Waterways Authority. For data that
were not contemporaneous with the
POR, we adjusted the rates for inflation
using WPI, where applicable.
We valued electricity using price data
for small, medium, and large industries,
as published by the Central Electricity
Authority of the Government of India in
its publication titled Electricity Tariff &
Duty and Average Rates of Electricity
Supply in India, dated July 2006. These
electricity rates represent actual
country–wide, publicly available
information on tax–exclusive electricity
rates charged to industries in India.
Since the rates are not contemporaneous
with the POR, we inflated the values
using the WPI. See Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
The Department valued water using
data from the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation
(www.midcindia.org) because it
includes a wide range of industrial
water tariffs. This source provides 386
industrial water rates within the
Maharashtra province from June 2003:
193 for the ‘‘inside industrial areas’’
usage category and 193 for the ‘‘outside
industrial areas’’ usage category.
Because the value was not
contemporaneous with the POR, we
adjusted the rate for inflation. See
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
For direct and indirect labor,
consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3),
we used the PRC regression–based wage
rate as reported on Import
Administration’s home page, Import
Library, Expected Wages of Selected
NME Countries, revised in May 2008,
available at https://www.trade.gov/ia/.
Because this regression–based wage rate
does not separate the labor rates into
different skill levels or types of labor,
we have applied the same wage rate to
all skill levels and types of labor
reported by the respondent. For further
details on the labor calculation, see
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
Interested parties submitted financial
statements for the year ending March
31, 2007, of three Indian producers of
identical merchandise: Essar Steel
Limited (‘‘Essar’’), Steel Authority of
India Limited (‘‘SAIL’’), and TATA Steel
Limited (‘‘TATA’’).44 Because neither
SAIL’s nor TATA’s financial statements
were complete, the Department has
determined to disregard each statement
44 See Valin Xiangtan’s and IPSCO’s surrogate
value submissions dated March 14, 2008.
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 220 / Thursday, November 13, 2008 / Notices
in calculating surrogate financial ratios,
for the preliminary results.45
For the preliminary results, we have
determined to use Essar’s year ending
March 31, 2007, financial statements to
calculate surrogate financial ratios
because they appear to be complete, are
publicly available, and are
contemporaneous with the POR.
Therefore, for factory overhead, selling,
general, and administrative expenses,
and profit, consistent with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(4), we used the public
information from Essar’s year ending
March 31, 2007, financial statements.
For a full discussion of the calculation
of these ratios, see Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
Finally, Valin Xiantan did not provide
a full description of certain of its FOPs
to the Department nor has it provided
recommendations for valuing certain
FOPs. For the preliminary results, the
Department is using SVs either
recommended by the parties or found in
its own research to value FOPs in its
margin calculation. For further details
regarding each FOP, see Factor
Valuation Memorandum and Valin
Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum.
For the final results, the Department
is providing Valin Xiangtan an
opportunity to provide a full description
as requested by the Department in the
original questionnaire issued on January
14, 2008, and recommendations for
valuing these FOPs. A full description
of certain FOPs, including all support
documentation is hereby due to the
Department no later than 14 days after
its receipt of our supplemental
questionnaire, which we intend to issue
shortly to Valin Xiangtan.
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. See https://
www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/
index.html.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Preliminary Results of Reviews
We preliminarily find the weighted–
average dumping margin for Valin
Xiangtan for the period November 1,
2006, through October 31, 2007, to be
133.38 percent.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. The Department
intends to issue appropriate
45 See IPSCO’s surrogate value submission dated
March 14, 2008.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:57 Nov 12, 2008
Jkt 217001
appraisement instructions for the
company subject to this new shipper
review directly to CBP 15 days after
publication of the final results of this
new shipper 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 new
shipper review if any importer–specific
assessment rate calculated in the final
results of this new shipper review is
above de minimis.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Upon completion of this new shipper
review, we will require cash deposits at
the rate established in the final results
as further described below. Bonding
will no longer be permitted to fulfill
security requirements for shipments of
CTL Steel Plate from the PRC produced
and exported by Valin Xiantan that are
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results of
the new shipper review. The following
cash deposit requirements will be
effective upon publication of the final
results of this new shipper review for
shipments of subject merchandise from
Valin Xiangtan 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)
Subject merchandise produced and
exported by Valin Xiangtan, the cash
deposit rate will be that established in
the final results of this review; (2)
subject merchandise exported by Valin
Xiangtan but not produced by Valin
Xiangtan, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the PRC–wide rate of
128.59 percent; (3) for subject
merchandise produced by Valin
Xiangtan, and exported by any party but
themselves, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate applicable to the exporter.
These 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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67131
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This new shipper review and notice
are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.
Dated: November 6, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–26992 Filed 11–12–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–588–837
Large Newspaper Printing Presses and
Components Thereof, Whether
Assembled or Unassembled, from
Japan: Final Results of
Reconsideration of Sunset Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On November 6, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published a notice of
preliminary results of the
reconsideration of the sunset review of
the antidumping duty order on large
newspaper printing presses and
components thereof, whether assembled
or unassembled (LNPP), from Japan (71
FR 64927), following the requirements
of section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act). We
provided interested parties an
opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. We received case
and rebuttal briefs from domestic and
foreign interested parties, and we held
a public hearing. As a result of this
review, the Department finds that
revocation of the order on LNPP from
Japan after the original sunset review
period of 1996–2001 would have likely
led to the continuation or recurrence of
dumping at the levels indicated in the
‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this
notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Goldberger or Kate Johnson, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230;
telephone: 202–482–4136 or 202–482–
4929, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the scope of
the order are large newspaper printing
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 220 (Thursday, November 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67124-67131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-26992]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-849]
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is currently
conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on cut-
to-length carbon steel plate (``CTL Steel Plate'') from the People's
Republic of China (``PRC'') covering the period November 1, 2006,
through October 31, 2007. This new shipper review covers one producer/
exporter.
We preliminarily determine that the new shipper has made sale(s)
below normal value (``NV''), and the producer/exporter combination is
entitled to a separate rate in this new shipper review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this new
shipper 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 which the
importer specific assessment rates are above de minimis. Interested
parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. We intend to
issue the final results no later than 90 days from the date of
publication of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Demitrios Kalogeropoulos, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
2623.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The antidumping duty order on CTL Steel Plate from the PRC was
published on October 21, 2003. See Suspension Agreement on Certain Cut-
to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China;
Termination of Suspension Agreement and Notice of Antidumping Duty
Order, 68 FR 60081 (October 21, 2003).
On November 30, 2007, we received a timely request for a new
shipper review from Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.
(``Valin Xiangtan'') in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d)(2). In its
request, Valin Xiangtan certified that it produced and exported the CTL
Steel Plate on which it based its request for a new shipper review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Valin Xiangtan submitted
documentation establishing the date on which the merchandise was first
shipped for export to the United States, the volume of that first
shipment, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in
the United States.
On December 27, 2007, the Department initially determined that
Valin Xiangtan did not meet the requirements under which the Department
can initiate a new shipper review. On January 7, 2008, upon further
review of subsequent information submitted by the requester, the
Department reconsidered its decision and initiated the new shipper
review on January 17, 2008. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate From the People's Republic of China; Initiation of New Shipper
Review, 73 FR 3236 (January 17, 2008). On January 14,
[[Page 67125]]
2008, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to Valin Xiangtan.
We issued supplemental questionnaires to Valin Xiangtan in April, May,
and September 2008. On April 18, 2008, the Department extended the POR
by one month to enable the Department to capture the entries
corresponding to the respondent's sales to the United States.
Period of Review
The POR covers November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007.
Affiliation
On March 25, 2008, Nucor Corporation (``Nucor'') submitted comments
regarding Valin Xiangtan's eligibility for a new shipper review and
separate rate status. Specifically, Nucor argued that the Department
should rescind the new shipper review because Valin Xiangtan is
affiliated with exporters that shipped to the United States during the
original period of investigation (``POI''). Because one of Valin
Xiangtan's corporate parents is wholly owned by the Hunan-Supervision
and Administration Commission (``Hunan SASAC''), Nucor contends that
the Hunan SASAC and Valin Xiangtan are affiliated by an excess of five
percent ownership. Since the PRC-wide entity had shipments of subject
merchandise during the POI, and because the Hunan SASAC, as an organ of
the central-Supervision and Administration Commission (``central
SASAC''), is the same as the PRC-wide entity, Nucor argued that Valin
Xiangtan is affiliated with a producer/exporter that exported subject
merchandise to the United States during the POI.
Nucor also argued that affiliation exists between Valin Xiangtan
and two respondents in the original investigation (i.e., AISCO/Anshan
International/Sincerely Asia Ltd. (collectively ``Anshan Steel'') and
Bao/Baoshan International Trade Corp/Bao Steel Metals Trading Corp.
(collectively ``Baoshan Steel'')). Nucor contends these two companies'
financial statements demonstrate that they are directly owned by and
under the control of the central SASAC. Therefore, Nucor argued, Valin
Xiangtan, through the Hunan SASAC and the central SASAC, is affiliated
with producers/exporters that exported subject merchandise to the
United States during the POI.
On October 21, 2008, in its pre-preliminary comments submission,
Valin Xiangtan argued the Department has reviewed similar allegations
in other proceedings and rejected them.\1\ Valin Xiangtan contended
there is no rationale to justify the Department reversing its long-
standing practice of allowing new shippers that are state-owned to
request and receive reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Citing previous cases such as Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination
of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from
the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006)
(``Diamond Sawblades'') and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the preliminary results, in response to Nucor's claims that
Valin Xiangtan is state-owned and therefore affiliated with Anshan
Steel and Baoshan Steel, we note first that the Department has
considered and granted NSR requests in the past where the requesting
firm was state-owned (``owned by the whole people'').\2\ In this case,
we determine that Valin Xiangtan is not affiliated with Anshan Steel
and Baoshan Steel. In order to find these companies affiliated, section
771(33)(F) of the Act requires more than some degree of commonality of
state ownership interest between them. Rather, to make a finding of
affiliation between two or more entities, section 771(33)(F) of the Act
requires the Department to find ``common control.'' Otherwise, all
state-owned companies would automatically be found affiliated. Further,
consistent with long-standing policy and practice,\3\ we find that
ownership by a government entity such as the Hunan SASAC or central
SASAC, in and of itself, is not germane to Valin Xiangtan's eligibility
for a new shipper review. In the instant case, as discussed in the
``Separate Rates'' section below, there is no evidence that the Hunan
SASAC or central SASAC exerted control over Valin Xiangtan's export
activities. In other words, absent evidence of such de jure or de facto
control, government ownership alone does not warrant denying Valin
Xiangtan eligibility for a new shipper review. Indeed, the Department
has in previous proceedings granted separate rates to companies that
were wholly owned by government entities when evidence of actual
government control over export activities was not present.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Administrative
Review, 63 FR 3085 (January 21, 1998) (``Pure Magnesium'').
\3\ See, e.g., Pure Magnesium and Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews, 66 FR 59569
(November 29, 2001)
\4\ Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR 29303 at Comment 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collapsing of Affiliated Producers
On May 23, 2008, Nucor submitted comments regarding Valin
Xiangtan's affiliated producers. Nucor urged the Department to conduct
a full collapsing analysis on all of the companies with a relationship
to Valin Xiangtan or its owners in addition to all of the subsidiaries
of each of these entities. Nucor argued that any steel producer with a
rolling mill would be capable of producing subject merchandise with
only minor retooling, thus satisfying the collapsing criteria under 19
CFR 351.401(f)(1).
For the preliminary results, we have determined not to collapse
Valin Xiangtan with any of its affiliates. We have determined that
based on record evidence of the four affiliates we identified as
possible candidates for a collapsing analysis, two do not have any
production capabilities at all, and the remaining two produce steel
wire and steel rod, respectively.\5\ Further, we have determined that
neither of the steel producing affiliates has a rolling mill,\6\ and it
would be cost prohibitive (i.e., require substantial retooling) to
build a rolling mill capable of producing subject merchandise. Thus the
collapsing criteria under 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) are not satisfied. In
determining whether there is a significant potential for manipulation,
as contemplated by 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2), the Department considers the
totality of the circumstances of the situation and may place more
reliance on some factors than others. In the instant case, because
Valin Xiangtan's affiliates do not produce subject merchandise and do
not have the capability to produce subject merchandise without a
substantial retooling, the totality of the circumstances here shows
that there is not a significant potential for the manipulation of price
or production. Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have not
collapsed Valin Xiangtan with its affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See the Department's Memorandum to the File entitled, ``Cut-
To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China:
Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for
Valin Xiangtan,'' dated concurrent with this notice (``Valin
Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis Memorandum'').
\6\ See Valin Xiangtan's second supplemental submission dated
October 16, 2008, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order include hot-rolled carbon steel
universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces
or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not
exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4
millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of
rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether
or not
[[Page 67126]]
painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic
substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in
straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad,
plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or
coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters
or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and
measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item
numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045,
7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,
7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000,
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included in the order are
flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-
section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products
which have been ``worked after rolling'') for example, products which
have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from the order is
grade X-70 plate. Also excluded from the order is certain carbon cut-
to-length steel plate with a maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel grades
BS 7191, 355 EM, and 355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy
Project specification XB MOO Y 15 0001, types 1 and 2. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non-market economy (``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 subject merchandise in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and
de facto government control over export activities. 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''). However, if the Department determines that a company is
wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent
from government control.
A. Separate-Rate Recipient
Valin Xiangtan is a wholly Chinese-owned company.\7\ Therefore, the
Department must analyze whether Valin Xiangtan can demonstrate the
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over its export
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Valin Xiangtan's business license in its Section A
response, dated March 5, 2008, at Exhibit A-4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 at 20589 at Comment 1.
In this case, Nucor, a domestic interested party, argued that Valin
Xiangtan should not receive a separate rate because the State-owned
entity (i.e., the central SASAC) exercised de jure control over Valin
Xiangtan during the POR.\8\ Among other things, Nucor alleged that the
existence of a SASAC demonstrates a recentralization of control over
companies in which it maintains ownership, and that because of the
nature of the central SASAC's authority Valin Xiangtan cannot establish
the absence of de jure control. We solicited additional information
from Valin Xiangtan regarding Nucor's allegations as they relate to the
Department's criteria in determining whether there is de jure control
by the PRC government over a company's export activities.\9\ In
response, Valin Xiangtan submitted copies of relevant laws under which
it operates including the Interim Measures for the Supervision and
Administration of State-owned Assets of the Enterprises (``Interim
Measures'') and the Company Law of the People's Republic of China
(``Company Law''). After examining record evidence, we found no
indication that these laws granted de jure government control.\10\
Moreover, review of Valin Xiangtan's business license indicates an
absence of restrictive stipulations.\11\ Further, under Company Law, in
addition to Valin Xiangtan's Articles of Association, indicates that
control rests with the company's executive director and not the PRC
government.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Nucor's March 25 and May 23, 2008, submissions regarding
its comments on the section A and supplemental section A
questionnaire responses of Valin Xiangtan.
\9\ See, e.g., Valin Xiangtan's March 25, 2008, and October 18,
2008, supplemental questionnaire responses.
\10\ See Valin Xiangtan's March 25, 2008, submission.
\11\ See Valin Xiangtan's March 5, 2008, submission at Exhibit
4.1
\12\ See Valin Xiangtan's April 25, 2008, supplemental
submission at Exhibit A-23 Article 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by Valin Xiangtan supports a preliminary
finding of de jure absence of government control based on the
following: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with
the individual exporters' business and export licenses; (2) there are
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., Valin Xiangtan's
section A submissions dated March 5, 2008, and its supplemental
questionnaire responses dated March 25, 2008, and October 18, 2008.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government 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 Department has determined that an analysis of
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in
fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude
the Department from assigning separate rates.
[[Page 67127]]
In this case Nucor alleged that Valin Xiangtan should not receive a
separate rate because there is indirect de facto control over Valin
Xiangtan by the PRC government. See Nucor's March 25, 2008, submission
regarding its comments on Valin Xiangtan eligibility for a new shipper
review and separate rate status; and Nucor's May 27, 2008, submission
regarding Valin Xiangtan's supplemental section A Questionnaire
Response. Among other things, Nucor alleged that the authorities of the
central SASAC as outlined in the Interim Measures demonstrate control
over the companies in which the central SASAC invests. We solicited
additional information from Valin Xiangtan regarding Nucor's
allegations as they relate to the Department's criteria in determining
whether there is de facto control by the PRC government over a
company's export activities.\13\ In its responses, Valin Xiangtan
reported that it sets its own export prices and has the authority to
sign and negotiate its sales contracts without review or guidance from
any governmental organization (e.g., the sales contract and
correspondence between it and its U.S. customer). See Valin Xiangtan's
section A supplemental submission dated April 28, 2008, at Exhibits A-
24 and A-25. Valin Xiangtan further submitted evidence indicating
autonomy in the process by which its managers and directors were
elected to their positions (e.g., Valin Xiangtan's Articles of
Association) See Valin Xiangtan's section A supplemental submission
dated April 28, 2008, at Exhibit A-33. The mere fact that the Hunan
SASAC has shareholder ownership in companies that have shareholder
ownership in Valin Xiangtan does not in itself demonstrate that Valin
Xiangtan is controlled by the PRC central government.\14\ Indeed, the
Department has in the past granted separate rates to companies that
were wholly owned by government entities when evidence of actual
government control was not present.\15\ In this case, we have found no
record evidence indicating that the Hunan SASAC exercised control over
Valin Xiangtan's export activities or the disposition of its profits
during the POR.\16\ Therefore, we have determined that the roles and
duties undertaken by the Hunan SASAC do not confer de facto government
control over the day-to-day activities and decisions regarding Valin
Xiangtan's export activities. Furthermore, Valin Xiangtan has supported
its claim that it negotiates its own contracts and does not need
approval from any government authority before making a sale (i.e., the
sales contract and correspondence between Valin Xiangtan and its U.S.
customer).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, e.g., Valin Xiangtan's section A submission dated
March 5, 2008, and its supplemental questionnaire responses dated
March 25, 2008, and October 18, 2008.
\14\ See, e.g., Lightweight Thermal Paper From the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 73 FR 57329 (October 2, 2008) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
\15\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.
\16\ See, e.g., Valin Xiangtan's section A response dated March
5, 2008 at pages 14 through 16.
\17\ See Valin Xiangtan's section A supplemental submission
dated April 28, 2008 at Exhibits A-24 and A-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence placed on the record of this new shipper review by
Valin Xiangtan demonstrate an absence of de jure and de facto
government control with respect to its exports of the merchandise under
review, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and
Silicon Carbide. Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily
determined that Valin Xiangtan is eligible for a separate rate because
it has demonstrated an absence of government control both in law and in
fact.
Bona Fide Sales Analysis
In evaluating whether or not sales are commercially reasonable, and
therefore bona fide, the Department has considered, inter alia, such
factors as: (1) the timing of the sale; (2) the price and quantity of
the sale; (3) the expenses arising from the transaction; (4) whether
the goods were resold at a profit; and (5) whether the transaction was
made on an arm's-length basis. See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical
Co., Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (CIT 2005) (``TTPC'')
at 1249-1250, citing Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States, 110 F. Supp.
2d 992, 995 (CIT 2000). Therefore, the Department examines a number of
factors, all of which may speak to the commercial realities surrounding
the sale of subject merchandise. While some bona fides issues may share
commonalities across various cases, each case is company-specific and
the analysis may vary with the facts surrounding each sale. See, e.g.,
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final
Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 2003). The weight given to
each factor investigated will depend on the circumstances surrounding
the sale. See TTPC, 366 F. Supp at 1263.
For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Valin
Xiangtan's reported U.S. sales during the POR appear to be bona fide
sales, as required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c), based on the
totality of the facts on the record. Specifically, we find that the
unit prices for Valin Xiangtan's sales were comparable to the unit
values of other U.S. imports of CTL Steel Plate from the PRC during the
POR. Further we find that the quantity of Valin Xiangtan's sales is
commercially reasonable.\18\ Furthermore, we found no unusual
circumstances surrounding the sales (e.g., no unusual freight terms).
Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the Department
preliminarily finds that Valin Xiangtan's U.S. sale during the POR is a
bona fide commercial transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For further information, see the Department's memorandum
entitled ``2006-2007 New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on CTL Steel from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide
Analysis of Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron Sec. Steel Company Ltd.,''
dated concurrent with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Country
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as an NME country. In the investigation of certain
lined paper products from the PRC, the Department examined the PRC's
market status and determined that NME status should continue for the
PRC.\19\ In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (``the Act''), any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006). The
presumption of the NME status of the PRC has not been revoked by the
Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of this new
shipper review. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``Antidumping
Duty Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's
Republic of China (``China'') China's status as a non-market economy
(``NME''),'' dated August 30, 2006. This document is available
online at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nmestatus/prc-lined-
paper-memo-08302006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on
the NME producer's factors of production
[[Page 67128]]
(``FOPs''), valued in a surrogate market economy (``ME'') 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 use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs in
one or more ME countries that are: (1) at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant
producers of comparable merchandise. For a detailed discussion of the
surrogate values (``SVs'') used in this proceeding, see the ``Factor
Valuations'' section below and the Department's memorandum to the file
entitled, ``New Shipper Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate from the People's Republic of China: Factor Valuations for the
Preliminary Determination,'' dated concurrently with this notice
(``Factor Valuation Memorandum'').
On January 14, 2008, the Department determined that India,
Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Colombia are countries
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.\20\ On January
16, 2008, the Department requested comments on the selection of a
surrogate country from the interested parties in this new shipper
review. Valin Xiangtan submitted comments on February 6, 2008,
providing information regarding CTL Steel Plate production in
Indonesia, Thailand and India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See the Department's Office of Policy memorandum entitled,
``New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-
To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China
(PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,'' dated January
14, 2008 (``Policy Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country from the
Policy Memorandum based on the availability and reliability of data
from the countries that are significant producers of comparable
merchandise. In this case, we found that India is at a level of
economic development comparable to that of the PRC; is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise (i.e., CTL Steel Plate); and has
publicly available and reliable data.\21\ Accordingly, we selected
India as the primary surrogate country for purposes of valuing the FOPs
in the calculation of NV because it meets the Department's criteria for
surrogate country selection.\22\ We obtained and relied upon publicly
available information wherever possible. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping new shipper
review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to
value FOPs under 19 CFR 351.408(c) within 20 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``New Shipper
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order of Cut-To-Length Steel Plate
from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate
Country,'' dated February 11, 2008 (``Surrogate Country
Memorandum'').
\22\ See Surrogate Country Memorandum.
\23\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2), for the final
results of this review, interested parties may submit factual
information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information
submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or
after, the applicable deadline for submission of such factual
information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)
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 information
previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Valin
Xiangtan to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared
its export prices to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below.
Export Price
We used export price (``EP'') methodology in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act because the subject merchandise was first
sold prior to importation by the exporter outside the United States
directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and
constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
We calculated EP based on the packed delivery duty paid ex-docks
delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to,
the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement
expenses (e.g., foreign inland rail and barge freight from the plant to
the port of exportation, domestic brokerage, marine insurance, U.S.
Customs duty, U.S. brokerage and handling charges, other U.S.
transportation expense, international freight expense, etc.) in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act,\24\ Where foreign
inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling fees and foreign marine
insurance were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in
renminbi, we based those charges on surrogate value rates from India.
See ``Factor Valuations'' section below for further discussion of
surrogate value rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\F or a detailed description of all adjustments, see Valin
Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining the most appropriate SVs to use in a given case, the
Department's stated practice is to use period-wide price averages,
prices specific to the input in question, prices that are net of taxes
and import duties, prices that are contemporaneous with the POR, and
publicly available data.\25\ The data we used for brokerage and
handling expenses fulfill all of the foregoing criteria except that
they are not specific to the subject merchandise. There is no
information of that type on the record of this new shipper review. The
Department used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for domestic
brokerage expenses: (1) data from the January 9, 2006, public version
of the Section C questionnaire response from Kejriwal Paper Ltd.
(``Kejriwal'') in the investigation of certain lined paper products
from India;\26\ and (2) data from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. in the
administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India.\27\
Because these values were not concurrent with the POR of this new
shipper review, we adjusted these rates for inflation using the
Wholesale Price Indices (``WPI'') for India as published in the
International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics,
available at https://ifs.apdi.net/imf, and then calculated a simple
average of the two companies' brokerage expense data.\28\ See Factor
Valuation Memorandum at Attachment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic
of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
\26\Kejriwal was a respondent in the certain lined paper
products from India investigation for which the period of
investigation was July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005. See Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper
Products From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006) (``CLPP'')
(unchanged in final determination).
\27\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30,
2005) (unchanged in final results).
\28\ See, e.g., Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 52073, 52076 (September 12, 2007)
(unchanged in final results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported
from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV
using home-market
[[Page 67129]]
prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOPs because the presence of
government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders price
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its
normal methodologies. The Department's questionnaire requires that the
respondent provide information regarding the weighted-average FOPs
across all of the company's plants that produce the subject
merchandise, not just the FOPs from a single plant. This methodology
ensures that the Department's calculations are as accurate as
possible.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe
Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October
28, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the PRC FOPs in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. The FOPs include: (1)
hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3)
amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative
capital costs. We used the FOPs reported by Valin Xiangtan for
materials, energy, and labor. See section 773(c)(3) of the Act.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available information to find appropriate SVs to
value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market economy
and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department will
normally value the factor using the actual price paid for the input.
See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal Products, Inc. v. United
States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In examining SVs, we
selected, where possible, the publicly available value, which was an
average non-export value, representative of a range of prices within
the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and
tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination:
Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR
75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004) (unchanged in final determination).
For a detailed explanation of the methodology used to calculate SVs,
see Factor Valuation Memorandum.
Valin Xiangtan reported that during the production process of CTL
Steel Plate, it generated certain by-products that were recycled and
resold during the POR.\30\ However, Valin Xiangtan failed to provide
the requested documentation for each sale of its by-products and each
transaction of recycled by-product.\31\ Nor did Valin Xiangtan provide
an explanation as to why it did not provide the requested
documentation.\32\ In the original and supplemental questionnaires, we
instructed Valin Xiangtan to provide evidence for the full amount of
by-products that were sold or returned to production. Valin Xiangtan
provided incomplete documentation that amounted to a non-response to
this request. For example, Valin Xiangtan provided one by-product sales
invoice for each type of by-product sold, which did not reconcile to
its reported by-product sales.\33\ Further, Valin Xiangtan provided
inadequately translated screen prints from its internal accounting
system for some recycled by-products.\34\ These screen prints were also
not reconciled to Valin Xiangtan's reported recycled product. The
amount of products reused or sold during the POR is an integral part of
the factor calculation for by-products.\35\ See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Urea Ammonium Nitrate
Solutions from Belarus, 68 FR 9055 (February 27, 2003), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3 (``The
Department allows such credits, but only for the amount of the by-
product/recovery actually sold or reused.''); Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the
People's Republic of China, 68 FR 27530 (May 20, 2003), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; and Saccharin
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 7515
(February 13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2. Because Valin Xiangtan has not provided the Department with
the requested information in order to determine whether Valin Xiangtan
is entitled to its claimed offsets, for the preliminary results, we
have determined to not grant any of Valin Xiangtan's claimed offsets.
For further details, see Valin Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Valin Xiantan's March 14, 2008, section D submission at
17 and Exhibit D-6
\31\ See Valin Xiantan's section D submission at 17 and Exhibit
D-6; and its supplemental section D response at 6 through 7 and
Exhibits D-15, D-16, and D-19 through D-25, dated March 14 and May
28, 2008, respectively.
\32\ See id.
\33\ See Valin Xiantan's supplemental section D response at 6
through 7 and Exhibit D-20 dated May 28, 2008.
\34\ See Valin Xiantan's supplemental section D response at 6
through 7 and Exhibits D-23 and D-24 dated May 28, 2008.
\35\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on the FOPs reported by Valin Xiangtan for the POR. To calculate
NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by
publicly available Indian SVs. In selecting the SVs, we considered the
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.\36\ As
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to
make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import SVs
a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance
from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment is
in accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408
(Fed. Cir. 1997). In those instances where we could not obtain publicly
available information contemporaneous with the POI with which to value
FOPs, we adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian WPI, as
published in the International Financial Statistics of the
International Monetary Fund. For a detailed description of all SVs used
for respondent, see the Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 (December 11, 2006), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using
November 2006 through October 2007, weighted-average unit import values
derived from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, as
published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and
Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of
India and compiled by the World Trade Atlas (``WTA''), available at
http:www.gtis.com/wta.htm. The Indian WTA import data is reported in
rupees and is contemporaneous with the POR.\37\ Indian SVs denominated
in Indian rupees were converted to U.S. dollars using the applicable
daily exchange rate for India for the POR. See https://
www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum at Attachments 1 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 67130]]
Valin Xiangtan reported that certain of its reported raw material
inputs were sourced from an ME country and paid for in ME currencies.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent sources inputs from
an ME supplier in meaningful quantities (i.e., not insignificant
quantities), we use the actual price paid by respondent for those
inputs, except when prices may have been distorted by findings of
dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.\38\ Valin Xiangtan's reported
information demonstrates that it has both significant and insignificant
quantities of certain raw materials purchased from ME suppliers. Where
we found ME purchases to be of significant quantities, in accordance
with our statement of policy as outlined in Antidumping Methodologies:
Market Economy Inputs,\39\ we used the actual purchases of these inputs
to value the inputs. Accordingly, we valued Valin Xiangtan's inputs
using the ME prices paid for in ME currencies for the inputs where the
total volume of the input purchased from all ME sources during the POR
exceeds or is equal to 33 percent of the total volume of the input
purchased from all sources during the period.\40\ Where the quantity of
the reported input purchased from ME suppliers was below 33 percent of
the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the
POI, and were otherwise valid, we weight averaged the ME input's
purchase price with the appropriate surrogate value for the input
according to their respective shares of the reported total volume of
purchases.\41\ Where appropriate, we added freight to the ME prices of
inputs. For a detailed description of the actual values used for the ME
inputs reported, see Valin Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997).
\39\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs'').
\40\ See Valin Xiangtan's May 28, 2008, supplemental D
submission at Exhibit D-8.
\41\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 71 FR
at 61718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where we could not obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted
the SVs for inflation using the WPI for India. See Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
Furthermore, with regard to the WTA Indian import-based SVs, we
have disregarded prices from NME countries\42\ and those we have reason
to believe or suspect may be subsidized, because we have found in other
proceedings that the exporting countries maintain broadly available,
non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, there is reason
to believe or suspect all exports to all markets from such countries
may be subsidized.\43\ We are also guided by the statute's legislative
history that explains that it is not necessary to conduct a formal
investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R.
Rep. No. 576 100th Cong., 2. Sess. 590-91 (1988). Rather, the
Department was instructed by Congress to base its decision on
information that is available to it at the time it is making its
determination. Therefore, we excludes export prices from Indonesia,
South Korea, Thailand, and India when calculating the Indian import-
based SVs. See Factor Valuation Memorandum. Finally, we excluded
imports that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified''
country from the average value, because we could not be certain that
they were not from either an NME or a country with general export
subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The NME countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, PRC, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.
\43\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of
the 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review,
and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January
10, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of
1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and
Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15,
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1;
andChina National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 293
F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1339 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal
Circuit, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We used Indian transport information to value the inland truck,
rail, and waterway freight cost of the raw materials. The Department
determined the best available information for valuing truck freight to
be from the following website: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/
logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this source contains inland
truck freight rates from four major points of origin to 25 destinations
in India. The Department obtained inland truck freight rates updated
through September 2008 from each point of origin to each destination
and averaged the data accordingly. Since this value is not
contemporaneous with the POI, we deflated the rate using the WPI. See
Factor Valuation Memorandum. The Department determined the best
available information for valuing rail freight to be from https://
www.indianrailways.gov.in. To value waterway freight, we used an Indian
domestic ship rate from Indian Waterways Authority. For data that were
not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the rates for inflation
using WPI, where applicable.
We valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and large
industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the
Government of India in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty
and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated July 2006.
These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to
industries in India. Since the rates are not contemporaneous with the
POR, we inflated the values using the WPI. See Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) because it
includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides
386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June
2003: 193 for the ``inside industrial areas'' usage category and 193
for the ``outside industrial areas'' usage category. Because the value
was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the rate for
inflation. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
For direct and indirect labor, consistent with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported
on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of
Selected NME Countries, revised in May 2008, available at https://
www.trade.gov/ia/. Because this regression-based wage rate does not
separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor,
we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of
labor reported by the respondent. For further details on the labor
calculation, see Factor Valuation Memorandum.
Interested parties submitted financial statements for the year
ending March 31, 2007, of three Indian producers of identical
merchandise: Essar Steel Limited (``Essar''), Steel Authority of India
Limited (``SAIL''), and TATA Steel Limited (``TATA'').\44\ Because
neither SAIL's nor TATA's financial statements were complete, the
Department has determined to disregard each statement
[[Page 67131]]
in calculating surrogate financial ratios, for the preliminary
results.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Valin Xiangtan's and IPSCO's surrogate value
submissions dated March 14, 2008.
\45\ See IPSCO's surrogate value submission dated March 14,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the preliminary results, we have determined to use Essar's year
ending March 31, 2007, financial statements to calculate surrogate
financial ratios because they appear to be complete, are publicly
available, and are contemporaneous with the POR. Therefore, for factory
overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit,
consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), we used the public information
from Essar's year ending March 31, 2007, financial statements. For a
full discussion of the calculation of these ratios, see Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
Finally, Valin Xiantan did not provide a full description of
certain of its FOPs to the Department nor has it provided
recommendations for valuing certain FOPs. For the preliminary results,
the Department is using SVs either recommended by the parties or found
in its own research to value FOPs in its margin calculation. For
further details regarding each FOP, see Factor Valuation Memorandum and
Valin Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
For the final results, the Department is providing Valin Xiangtan
an opportunity to provide a full description as requested by the
Department in the original questionnaire issued on January 14, 2008,
and recommendations for valuing these FOPs. A full description of
certain FOPs, including all support documentation is hereby due to the
Department no later than 14 days after its receipt of our supplemental
questionnaire, which we intend to issue shortly to Valin Xiangtan.
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.
See https://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.
Preliminary Results of Reviews
We preliminarily find the weighted-average dumping margin for Valin
Xiangtan for the period November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007, to
be 133.38 percent.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue
appropriate appraisement instructions for the company subject to this
new shipper review directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the
final results of this new shipper 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 new shipper review if any
importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of
this new shipper review is above de minimis.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Upon completion of this new shipper review, we will require cash
deposits at the rate established in the final results as further
described below. Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill
security requirements for shipments of CTL Steel Plate from the PRC
produced and exported by Valin Xiantan that are entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of the new shipper review. The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of
this new shipper review for shipments of subject merchandise from Valin
Xiangtan 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) Subject merchandise produced and exported by Valin Xiangtan,
the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of
this review; (2) subject merchandise exported by Valin Xiangtan but not
produced by Valin Xiangtan, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the PRC-wide rate of 128.59 percent; (3) for subject merchandise
produced by Valin Xiangtan, and exported by any party but themselves,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter.
These 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)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.
Dated: November 6, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-26992 Filed 11-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
