Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 70328-70336 [E8-27633]

Download as PDF 70328 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 225 / Thursday, November 20, 2008 / Notices Public Comment Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary determination. Interested parties may Jungbunzlauer Technology submit case briefs to the Department no GMBH & Co KG ...................... 20.88 later than seven days after the date of All–Others ................................... 20.88 the issuance of the last verification report in this proceeding. Rebuttal All–Others Rate briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act be filed within five days from the provides that the estimated ‘‘All Others’’ deadline date for the submission of case rate shall be an amount equal to the briefs. A list of authorities used, a table weighted average of the estimated of contents, and an executive summary weighted–average dumping margins of issues should accompany any briefs established for exporters and producers submitted to the Department. Executive individually investigated, excluding any summaries should be limited to five zero or de minimis margins, and any pages total, including footnotes. Further, margins determined entirely under we request that parties submitting briefs section 776 of the Act. JBLT is the only and rebuttal briefs provide the respondent in this investigation for Department with a copy of the public which the Department calculated a version of such briefs on diskette. In company–specific rate. Therefore, for accordance with section 774 of the Act, purposes of determining the all–others the Department will hold a public rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) hearing, if timely requested, to afford of the Act, we are using the weighted– interested parties an opportunity to average dumping margin calculated for comment on arguments raised in case or JBLT, as referenced above. See, e.g., rebuttal briefs, provided that such a Notice of Final Determination of Sales hearing is requested by an interested at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel party. If a timely request for a hearing Sheet and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 is made in this investigation, we intend FR 30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999); and to hold the hearing two days after the Notice of Preliminary Determination of rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Department of Commerce, 14th Street Postponement of Final Determination: and Constitution Avenue, NW, Coated Free Sheet Paper from Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in Indonesia, 72 FR 30753, 30757 (June 4, a room to be determined. Parties should 2007); (unchanged in final confirm by telephone, the date, time, determination, 72 FR 60636) (October and location of the hearing 48 hours 25, 2007). before the scheduled date. Interested parties who wish to request Disclosure a hearing, or to participate in a hearing We will disclose the calculations if one is requested, must submit a performed in our preliminary analysis written request to the Assistant to parties to this proceeding in Secretary for Import Administration, accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication ITC Notification of this notice. Requests should contain: In accordance with section 733(f) of (1) the party’s name, address, and the Act, we have notified the ITC of the telephone number; (2) the number of Department’s preliminary affirmative participants; and (3) a list of the issues determination. If the Department’s final to be discussed. At the hearing, oral determination is affirmative, the ITC presentations will be limited to issues will determine before the later of 120 raised in the briefs. days after the date of this preliminary Postponement of Final Determination determination or 45 days after our final determination whether imports of citric and Extension of Provisional Measures acid from Canada are materially Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides injuring, or threatening material injury that a final determination may be to, the U.S. industry (see section postponed until not later than 135 days 735(b)(2) of the Act). Because we are after the date of the publication of the postponing the deadline for our final preliminary determination if, in the determination to 135 days from the date event of an affirmative preliminary of the publication of this preliminary determination, a request for such determination (see below), the ITC will postponement is made by exporters, make its final determination no later who account for a significant proportion than 45 days after our final of exports of the subject merchandise, or determination. in the event of a negative preliminary Manufacturer/Exporter rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Weighted– Average Margin (percent) VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:26 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. The Department’s regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four–month period to not more than six months. On October 22, 2008, JBLT requested that in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days. At the same time, JBLT requested that the Department extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four–month period to a six–month period. In accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting this request and are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 12, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8–27621 Filed 11–19–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–937] Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 20, 2008. SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that citric acid and certain citrate salts (‘‘citric acid’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\20NON1.SGM 20NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 225 / Thursday, November 20, 2008 / Notices rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES shown in the ‘‘Preliminary Determination’’ section of this notice. Pursuant to requests from interested parties, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination not later than 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marin Weaver or Andrea Staebler Berton, 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) 482–2336 or 482–4037, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 14, 2008, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received a petition concerning imports of citric acid and certain citrate salts from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC Petition’’) filed in proper form by Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle Americas, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). The Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated this investigation on May 13, 2008. See Citric acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations (‘‘Notice of Initiation’’), 73 FR 27492 (May 13, 2008). In the Notice of Initiation, the Department explained that, in order to demonstrate separate–rate eligibility, entities were required to submit a separate–rate application (‘‘SRA’’) not later than sixty days from the publication of the Notice of Initiation. The deadlines and requirements for submitting certifications and SRAs applied equally to NME–owned firms, wholly foreign–owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase the subject merchandise and export it to the United States. The SRA for this investigation was posted on the Import Administration web site on May 13, 2008; thus, the due date for submitting a SRA was July 13, 2008. See https:// ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlights-and– news.html. On May 13, 2008, the Department requested comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of citric acid and certain citrate salts to be reported in response to the Department’s antidumping questionnaires. See Notice of Initiation. On June 2, 11, and 13, VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:26 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 217001 2008, the Department received comments on the proposed product characteristics criteria and matching hierarchy, respectively, from TTCA Co., Ltd., (a.k.a. Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co., Ltd.) (‘‘TTCA’’), a PRC exporter and mandatory respondent, Petitioners, and Jungbunzlauer Technology GMBH & Co.KG, a Canadian exporter and respondent in the LTFV investigation of citric acid from Canada. On June 11, 2008, the United States International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) published its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of citric acid from the PRC. See Investigation Nos. 701 TA 456 and 731 TA 1151 1152 (Preliminary), Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and China (‘‘ITC Preliminary’’), 73 FR 33115 (June 11, 2008). On June 23, 2008, the Department issued quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) questionnaires to over 100 companies, which Petitioners identified in the PRC Petition as potential producers and/or exporters of citric acid from the PRC.1 On May 23, 2008, and on June 5, 2008, the Department extended the deadline for filing Q&V responses until June 26, 2008. From May 22, 2008 through July 7, 2008,2 the Department received Q&V responses from 17 companies3 that exported merchandise under 1 See Volume I of the ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China’’ (April 14, 2008), at Exhibit I8. 2 The Department accepted the Q&V response submitted by Wuxi Harvest Imp & Exp Trdg (‘‘Wuxi Harvest’’) on July 7, 2008. 3 Three companies: Shandong Yinfeng Chemical Industry Group Co., Ltd., Dis Company, and Hangzhou Apex Import & Export, reported that they did not export the merchandise under investigation to the United States during the POI. The 14 companies who reported shipments of Citric Acid are: A.H.A. International (‘‘A.H.A’’); Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘BBCA Biochemical’’); China Tianyu Chemical Co., Ltd.; International Group Jiangsu Native Produce IMPT & EXP Co., Ltd. (‘‘High Hope’’); Huangshi Xinghua Biochemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xinghua Biochemical’’); Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry’’); Lianyungang Shuren Scientific Creation Import & Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shuren Scientific’’); Penglai Marine Bio-Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘Penglai Marine’’); RZBC Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd; TTCA; Shihezi City Changyun Biochemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Changyun Biochemical’’); Weifang Ensign Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Weifang Ensign’’); Wuxi Harvest Imp. & Exp. Co.; and Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yixing Union’’). Yixing Union was not identified in the petition, thus, the Department did not send it a Q&V questionnaire. However, Yixing Union sent the Department a Q&V response. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 70329 investigation to the United States during the POI. From July 1, 2008 through July 15, 2008,4 the Department received SRAs from 10 exporters of Chinese citric acid: High Hope, Penglai Marine, A.H.A., Weifang Ensign, Shuren Scientific, BBCA Biochemical, RZBC Group Ltd.5, Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry, Xinghua Biochemical, and Changyun Biochemical. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires and received timely responses from the following separate–rate applicants: High Hope, Penglai Marine, Shuren Scientific, BBCA Biochemical, Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry, and Xinghua Biochemical. In addition the Department received an SRA from TTCA on July 15, 2008. The Department granted an extension of time for Yixing Union to file its SRA and on July 21, 2008, it timely filed its SRA. The Department granted an extension for Lianyungang JF International Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘JF International’’) to file an SRA. The Department received JF International’s SRA on October 14, 2008. On July 9, 2008, the Department determined that India, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Columbia are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Citric Acid and Citrate Salts (‘‘Citric Acid’’) from the People’s Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,’’ (July 9, 2008) (‘‘Office of Policy Surrogate Countries Memorandum’’). On August 5, 2008, the Department issued its respondent selection memorandum, selecting TTCA and Yixing Union as mandatory respondents in this investigation. See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of Citric Acid and Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China’’ (‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’) (August 5, 2008); see also ‘‘Selection of Respondents’’ section, below. On August 6, 2008, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to TTCA and Yixing Union. TTCA and Yixing Union submitted timely responses to the questionnaire. On August 19, 2008, Petitioners requested that the Department postpone the preliminary determination by 50 days, i.e., until November 12, 2008, and 4 July 13, 2008, was a Sunday. Thus, SRAs filed July 14, 2008 or filed using the one-day lag rule on July 15, 2008, were timely. 5 RZBC Group includes RZBC Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., RZBC Co., Ltd., and RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd. E:\FR\FM\20NON1.SGM 20NON1 70330 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 225 / Thursday, November 20, 2008 / Notices on August 29, 2008, the Department extended the preliminary determination deadline. See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and the People’s Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 50941 (August 29, 2008). On October 6, 2008, Petitioners and TTCA submitted surrogate value data.6 Petitioners submitted surrogate value data for Indonesia, while TTCA and Yixing Union submitted surrogate value data for Thailand. On October 8, 2008, TTCA submitted English translations for some of the information it submitted on October 6, 2008. We have preliminarily chosen Indonesia as our primary surrogate country for this investigation. See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Antidumping Investigation of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country’’ (November 12, 2008). Period of Investigation The POI is October 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which was April 2008.7 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Scope of Investigation The scope of this investigation includes all grades and granulation sizes of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their unblended forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of packaging type. The scope also includes blends of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate; as well as blends with other ingredients, such as sugar, where the unblended form(s) of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate constitute 40 percent or more, by weight, of the blend. The scope of this investigation also includes all forms of crude calcium citrate, including dicalcium citrate monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate tetrahydrate, which are intermediate products in the production of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate. The scope of this investigation does not include calcium citrate that satisfies the standards set forth in the United States Pharmacopeia and has been mixed with a functional excipient, such as dextrose or starch, where the excipient constitutes at least 2%, by 6 On October 7, 2008, we received a surrogate value submission from Yixing Union containing a single company’s financial statements which was also included in TTCA’s October 6, 2008, surrogate value submission. 7 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:26 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 217001 weight, of the product. The scope of this investigation includes the hydrous and anhydrous forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium citrate, otherwise known as citric acid sodium salt, and the monohydrate and monopotassium forms of potassium citrate. Sodium citrate also includes both trisodium citrate and monosodium citrate, which are also known as citric acid trisodium salt and citric acid monosodium salt, respectively. Citric acid and sodium citrate are classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), respectively. Potassium citrate and crude calcium citrate are classifiable under 2918.15.5000 and 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS, respectively. Blends that include citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate are classifiable under 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to the Department’s regulations (see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), in our Notice of Initiation we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the Notice of Initiation. On May 23, 2008, and June 3, 2008, respectively, Chemrom Inc., and L. Perrigo Company, both of which are importers of the merchandise under investigation, timely filed comments concerning the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations of citric acid from Canada and the People’s Republic of China. Petitioners responded to these comments on June 16, 2008. On August 6, 2008, the Department issued a memorandum to the file regarding Petitioners’ proposed amendments to the scope of the investigations. In response, on August 11, 2008, L. Perrigo Company and Petitioners submitted comments to provide clarification of the term ‘‘unrefined’’ calcium citrate. We have analyzed the comments of the interested parties regarding the scope of this investigation. See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigations of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and Countervailing Duty Investigation of PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the PRC: Whether to Amend the Scope of these Investigations to Exclude Monosodium Citrate and to Further Define the Product Referred to as ‘‘Unrefined Calcium Citrate’’ (September 10, 2008) (‘‘Scope Memo’’). Our position on these comments, as set out in the Scope Memo, is incorporated in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ section above. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most circumstances, on the NME producer’s factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) valued in a surrogate market– economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market–economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. For purposes of the instant investigation, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408, the Department has preliminarily selected Indonesia as the primary surrogate country. See Memorandum to the File: Antidumping Investigation of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated November 12, 2008. Selection of Respondents Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate individual weighted–average dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters or producers and where it is not practicable to examine all known exporters or producers of subject merchandise, to investigate either (1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available to the Department at the time of selection, or (2) exporters accounting for the largest volume of the merchandise under investigation that can reasonably be examined. After consideration of the complexities of this investigation and the resources available to it, the Department determined that it was not practicable in this investigation to examine all known exporters of subject E:\FR\FM\20NON1.SGM 20NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 225 / Thursday, November 20, 2008 / Notices merchandise. We determined we had the resources to examine two exporters. We further determined to limit our examination to the two exporters accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Our analysis indicates that TTCA and Yixing Union are the two largest PRC exporters of subject merchandise by volume (measured by weight), and account for a significant percentage of all exports of the subject merchandise from the PRC during the POI. As a result, we selected these companies as the mandatory respondents in this investigation.8 Non–Market Economy Country For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted an LTFV analysis for the PRC as an NME.9 In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority.10 Therefore, we have treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary determination. Separate Rates rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation 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 governmental control over export activities. The Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from 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 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) 8 See Respondent Selection Memo. 9 See Notice of Initiation. 10 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) (‘‘LWTP Final’’). VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:26 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 217001 (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’).11 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 Recipients A.H.A, BBCA Biochemical, Changyun Biochemical, High Hope, Laiwu Taihe Biochemical, Penglai Marine, Shuren Scientific, Weifan Ensign, Xinghua Biochemical, JF International, and RZBC Group (collectively, ‘‘SR Applicants’’) and TTCA and Yixing Union (the mandatory respondents) all stated that they are either joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies, or are wholly Chinese–owned companies. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether these respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over 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. The mandatory respondents and SR Applicants provided evidence demonstrating: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter’s business and export licenses; (2) legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.12 11 See also Policy Bulletin 05.1, which states: ‘‘ [w]hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of ‘‘combination rates’’ because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.’’ See Policy ulletin 05.1 at 6. 12 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR at 20589 (May 6, 1991). PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 70331 b. Absence of De Facto Control Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses.13 The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The mandatory respondents and the SR Applicants provided evidence demonstrating: (1) that the export prices are not set by, and are not subject to, the approval of a governmental agency; (2) they have authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) they have autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) they retain the proceeds of their export sales and make independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the mandatory respondents and the SR Applicants demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with respect to each of the exporters’ exports of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Application of Facts Available for the PRC Wide Entity Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party (A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or (D) provides such information but the 13 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994); 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). E:\FR\FM\20NON1.SGM 20NON1 70332 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 225 / Thursday, November 20, 2008 / Notices rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the PRC– wide entity was non–responsive. Certain companies did not respond to our questionnaire requesting Q&V information. See Respondent Selection Memo. Specifically, we issued the Q&V questionnaire to 129 identified PRC exporters of the subject merchandise.14 Evidence on the record indicates that 65 identified PRC exporters of subject merchandise received our Q&V questionnaire but did not respond to the Department. See Respondent Selection Memo at Attachment III. Based on the above facts, the Department preliminarily determines that there were exports of the subject merchandise under investigation from PRC exporters that did not respond to the Department’s questionnaire. In addition, such exporters did not demonstrate entitlement to separate rates status. Thus, we are treating these PRC exporters as part of the countrywide entity. As a result, use of facts available pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act is warranted for the PRC entity.15 Section 776(b) of the Act provides that if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may employ adverse inferences.16 We find that, because the PRC–wide entity did not respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate. In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on information 14 Of these PRC exporters of subject merchandise 64 Q&V questionnaires were not delivered and thus returned to the Department. See Respondent Selection Memo at 1 and Attachment III. Out of the group of PRC exporters whose Q&V questionnaires were returned to the Department, six of these PRC exporters nonetheless submitted a timely Q&V questionnaire response. Of the PRC exporters who received the Q&V questionnaire we received responses from seven exporters who claimed shipments and three exporters of whom claimed no shipments. One PRC exporter entered a timely Q&V questionnaire response but was not on the list of 129 identified PRC exporters of the subject merchandise. The 14 PRC exporters who reported shipments of Citric Acid to the United States did not account for all imports into the United States from the PRC during the POI. 15 See, e.g., LWTP Final. 16 See, e.g., LWTP Final. See also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep No. 103-316 (‘‘SAA’’) at 870. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:26 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 217001 derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.’’17 It is further the Department’s practice to select a rate that ensures ‘‘that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.’’18 It is the Department’s practice to select, as AFA, the higher of a) the highest margin alleged in the petition, or b) the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation.19 As AFA, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC–wide entity a rate of 156.87 percent, the highest rate from the petition, as revised by the Department.20 The Department preliminarily determines that this information is the most appropriate from the available sources to effectuate the purposes of AFA. The Department’s reliance on the initiation rate to determine an AFA rate is subject to the requirement to corroborate secondary information. Corroboration Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the SAA as ‘‘information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.’’21 The SAA provides that to ‘‘corroborate’’ means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to 17 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 18 See SAA at 870. See also, Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005). 19 See, e.g., Final Determination od Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 6479, 6481 (February 4, 2008). 20 See Notice of Initiation. 21 See SAA at 870. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 be used has probative value.22 The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation.23 To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.24 The AFA rate that the Department used is from the petition, as revised by the Department, and is thus secondary information subject to the corroboration requirement.25 Petitioners’ methodology for calculating the export price (‘‘EP’’) and normal value (‘‘NV’’) in the petition is discussed in the initiation notice.26 To corroborate the AFA margin we have selected, we compared that margin to the control number specific margins we found for the mandatory respondents that cooperated. We found that the margin of 156.87 percent has probative value because it is in the range of control number–specific margins we found for the mandatory respondents. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 156.87 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. Consequently, we are applying a single antidumping rate the PRC–wide rate to exporters that failed to respond to the Department’s the Q&V questionnaire, or did not apply for a separate rate, as applicable. The PRC– wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries from mandatory respondents TTCA and Yixing Union, and the remaining the separate–rate recipients. These companies and their corresponding antidumping duty cash deposit rates are listed below in the ‘‘Preliminary Determination’’ section of this notice. Margin for the Separate–Rate Applicants We have established a simple–average margin for all separate–rate recipients 22 See id. id. 24 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997). 25 See Notice of Initiation. 26 See Notice of Initiation. 23 See E:\FR\FM\20NON1.SGM 20NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 225 / Thursday, November 20, 2008 / Notices that were not selected as mandatory respondents, based on the rates we calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA. That rate is 134.75 percent and these parties are identified by name in the ‘‘Preliminary Determination’’ section of this notice. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of citric acid to the United States by the mandatory respondents were made at LTFV, we compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for TTCA’s and Yixing Union’s U.S. sales because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation and because constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) was not otherwise indicated. Neither mandatory respondent reported CEP sales. We calculated EP based on the packed FOB, CFR, or CIF 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 freight from the plant to the port of exportation, brokerage and handling, marine insurance, and ocean freight) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. For a detailed description of all adjustments, see Memorandum to the File entitled ‘‘Investigation of Citric Acid and Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for TTCA Co., Ltd., (a.k.a. Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co., Ltd.)’’ (November 12, 2008) and Memorandum to the File entitled ‘‘Investigation of Citric Acid and Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd. ‘‘ (November 12, 2008). VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:26 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 217001 Normal Value We compared NV to weighted– average EPs in accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act. Further, section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home–market prices, third–country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOPs reported by mandatory respondents for the POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per–unit factor–consumption rates by publicly available Indonesian surrogate values. For a detailed discussion of the surrogate values used in this investigation, see Surrogate Value Memorandum. In selecting the surrogate values, consistent with our practice, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.27 As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indonesian import surrogate values 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 Federal Circuit decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407– 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may submit within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination publicly available information to value the factors of production (‘‘FOP’’).28 27 See e.g., Lightweight Thermal Paper From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 27504, (May 13, 2008) (‘‘LWTP Prelim’’) unchanged at LWTP Final. 28 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information. However, PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 70333 For this preliminary determination for direct material inputs, packing material inputs, some by–products, and a utility input, we used Indonesian import values from the World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’) online, which were published by Statistics Indonesia. The WTA Indonesian import statistics used to calculate surrogate values for the mandatory respondents’ material inputs are reported in U.S. dollars and are contemporaneous with the POI. Where we could not use WTA Indonesian import statistics, we used Indian import statistics from the WTA. In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department’s practice is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non–export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product–specific, and tax–exclusive.29 Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POI with which to value FOPs, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indonesian or Indian Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as published in the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund (‘‘IMF’’). Furthermore, with regard to the Indonesian and Indian import–based surrogate values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, India, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized.30 We have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non–industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. The Department generally will not accept the submission of additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 29 See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). 30 See, e.g., LWTP Prelim unchanged at LWTP Final. E:\FR\FM\20NON1.SGM 20NON1 70334 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 225 / Thursday, November 20, 2008 / Notices countries may be subsidized.31 We are also guided by the legislative history not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized.32 Rather, Congress directed the Department to base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries in calculating the Indonesian and Indian import–based surrogate values. In addition, we excluded Indonesian and Indian import data from NME countries from our surrogate value calculations. We calculated freight costs for truck freight or inland boat freight, as appropriate, using an Indian per–unit average rate calculated from data on the following Web site: https:// www.infobanc.com/logistics/ logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities. Since this value is not contemporaneous with the POI, we deflated the rate using WPI. Since the only inland boat value on the record is almost 12 years old, we used the Indian truck freight from 2008 to value inland boat freight consistent with Certain Cut– to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 14. For 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://ia.ita.doc.gov/ wages/. 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 respondents. If the NME wage rates are updated by the Department prior to issuance of the final determination, we will use the updated wage rate in the final determination. We valued electricity using rates from Energy Information Administration’s International Electricity Prices and Fuel Costs ‘‘Electricity Price for Industry’’ table. The listed Indonesian rate for electricity is for 2005, so we applied the appropriate WPI inflator to make the rate contemporaneous with the POI. We valued water using the average water rate charged by the United Nations Human Development Report 2006: Disconnected: Poverty, Water Supply, and Development in Jakarta Indonesia (‘‘UN Report’’). The water rate is based on the 2005 average water tariff for the tariff group made up of ‘‘large hotels, highrise buildings, banks, and factories’’ in Indonesia. Since the information was not contemporaneous with the POI, we applied the appropriate WPI inflator. We valued steam using a January 2006 Indonesian price for natural gas published by the American Chemistry Council following the methodology in Goldlink Industries Co., Ltd., Trust Chem Co., Ltd., Tianjin Hanchem International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (CIT 2006). Because the information was not contemporaneous with the POI, we applied the appropriate WPI inflator. To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, we used audited financial statements for the year ending December 2007 of PT Budi Acid Jaya TBK, a producer of comparable merchandise from Indonesia. The Department may consider other publicly available financial statements for the final determination, as appropriate. TTCA claimed five by–product offsets consisting of high protein feed stuff, low protein feedstuff, granular mud, electricity, and steam. TTCA claimed it produced and sold all five types of by– products. However, TTCA did not support the reported production quantities for low protein feedstuff as requested in the Department’s EXPORTER rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd. ........................................................... Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd. ........................................................... Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd. ........................................................... A.H.A. International Co., Ltd. ..................................................................... A.H.A. International Co., Ltd. ..................................................................... High Hope International Group Jiangsu Native Produce IMP & EXP Co., Ltd. ......................................................................................................... id. Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conference Report to Accompanying H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). 32 See VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:26 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 217001 Currency Conversion As appropriate, 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. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information submitted by TTCA and Yixing Union upon which we will rely in making our final determination. Additionally, we may also verify the information on the record submitted by selected separate– rate applicants. Combination Rates In the Notice of Initiation, the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation.34 This practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1.35 Preliminary Determination The weighted–average dumping margins are as follows: PRODUCER TTCA Co., Ltd., (a.k.a. Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co., Ltd.) ............ 31 See September 29, 2008, supplemental questionnaire. Therefore, we have not granted a by–product offset for TTCA’s low protein feed stuff. Additionally, granular mud and electricity were not generated directly from the production of citric acid, but rather are generated from processing a by–product of citric acid.33 With regards to granular mud and electricity, TTCA has not, as requested in the questionnaire issued on August 6, 2008, explained any further processing of these by–products or co– products or identified the factors and quantities used in the further processing. Therefore, we have not granted a by–product offset for TTCA’s granular mud and electricity. We are preliminarily granting a by–product offset for TTCA’s high protein feedstuff and steam. TTCA Co., Ltd., (a.k.a. Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co., Ltd.) Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd. Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd. China BBCA Maanshan Biochemical Corp. Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd. Nantong Feiyu Fine Chemical Co., Ltd. 150.09 Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd. 134.75 33 See TTCA’s October 22, 2008, submission at 17 and October 28, 2008 questionnaire response at 4-5. 34 See Notice of Initiation. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 MARGIN Sfmt 4703 35 See E:\FR\FM\20NON1.SGM Footnote 36, supra. 20NON1 119.41 134.75 134.75 134.75 134.75 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 225 / Thursday, November 20, 2008 / Notices EXPORTER PRODUCER Huangshi Xinghua Biochemical Co., Ltd. .................................................. Lianyungang JF International Trade Co., Ltd ............................................ Huangshi Xinghua Biochemical Co., Ltd. TTCA Co., Ltd., (a.k.a. Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co., Ltd.) Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd. Lianyungang Great Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. Penglai Marine Bio–Tech Co. Ltd. RZBC Co., Ltd. RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd. Lianyungang Great Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. Shihezi City Changyun Biochemical Co., Ltd. Weifang Ensign Industry Co., Ltd. ................................................................................ Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd. ........................................................... Lianyungang Shuren Scientific Creation Import & Export Co., Ltd. .......... Penglai Marine Bio–Tech Co. Ltd. ............................................................ RZBC Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd./ RZBC Co., Ltd./ RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd. ... RZBC Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd./ RZBC Co., Ltd./ RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd. ... RZBC Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd./ RZBC Co., Ltd./ RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd. ... Shihezi City Changyun Biochemical Co., Ltd. ........................................... Weifang Ensign Industry Co., Ltd. ............................................................. PRC–Entity ................................................................................................ rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Disclosure We will disclose to parties the calculations performed in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of merchandise subject to this investigation, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Department has determined in its Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination 73 FR 54367 (September 19, 2008) (‘‘CVD Citric Acid Prelim’’), that the product under investigation, exported and produced by TTCA, benefitted from an export subsidy. Normally, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the weighted– average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated above, minus the amount determined to constitute an export subsidy. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 (November 17, 2007). Therefore, for merchandise under consideration exported and produced by TTCA entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date of this preliminary determination, we will instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry equal to the weighted–average margin indicated above, adjusted for the export subsidy rate determined in CVD Citric Acid Prelim (i.e., Other Policy Bank VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:26 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 217001 Loan countervailable subsidy of 0.48 percent ad valorem). Furthermore, for all separate–rate recipients that were not selected as mandatory respondents, we will instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry equal to the average of the margins calculated for the mandatory respondents, adjusted for their respective export subsidy rates, if applicable, from CVD Citric Acid Prelim. For the remaining exporters, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the preliminary determination for all shipments of merchandise under consideration entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after publication date: (1) The rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in this preliminary determination, adjusted as noted above where appropriate; (2) for all PRC exporters of merchandise subject to this investigation that have not received their own rate, the cash–deposit rate will be the PRC–wide rate; (3) for all non–PRC exporters of merchandise subject to this investigation that have not received their own rate, the cash– deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that supplied that non– PRC exporter. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted–average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 70335 MARGIN 134.75 134.75 134.75 134.75 134.75 134.75 134.75 134.75 134.75 134.75 156.87 material injury, by reason of imports of citric acid, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final determination. Postponement of Final Determination Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department’s regulations requires that exporters requesting postponement of the final determination must also request an extension of the provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of the Act from a four-month period until not more than six months. We received a request to postpone the final determination from TTCA on November 3, 2008 and from Yixing Union on November 10, 2008. In addition, TTCA consented to the extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to not longer than six months. Because this preliminary determination is affirmative, the request for postponement was made by an exporter who accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise,36 and there is no compelling reason to deny the respondent’s request, we have extended the deadline for issuance of the final determination until the 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register and have extended provisional measures to not longer than six months. 36 See Memorandum to the File: Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of Citric Acid and Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China (August 8, 2008). E:\FR\FM\20NON1.SGM 20NON1 70336 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 225 / Thursday, November 20, 2008 / Notices Public Comment DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309. A table of contents, list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.37 Requests should contain the party’s name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230. See 19 CFR 351.310. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Dated: November 12, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8–27633 Filed 11–19–08; 8:45 am] rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 37 See 19 CFR 351.310(c). VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:26 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 217001 Extension of Deadline for Seats for the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice and request for applications. AGENCY: SUMMARY: NOAA is extending the deadline for applications for the following seats on the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council (Council): Commercial Fishing alternate, Business alternate. Applicants are chosen based upon: Their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying, community and professional affiliations, views regarding the protection and management of marine resources, and the length of residence in the communities located near the Sanctuary. Applicants who are chosen as members should expect to serve in a volunteer capacity for 2-year terms, pursuant to the Council’s Charter. DATES: Applications are due by December 8th, 2008. ADDRESSES: Application kits may be obtained at https:// www.channelislands.noaa.gov/sac/ news.html. Completed applications should be sent to Danielle.lipski@noaa.gov or 113 Harbor Way, Suite 150, Santa Barbara, CA 93109. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Murray, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, 113 Harbor Way, Suite 150, Santa Barbara, CA 93109–2315, 805–966–7107, extension 464, michael.murray@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council was originally established in December 1998 and has a broad representation consisting of 21 members, including ten government agency representatives and eleven members from the general public. The Council functions in an advisory capacity to the Sanctuary Superintendent. The Council works in concert with the Sanctuary Superintendent by keeping him or her informed about issues of concern throughout the Sanctuary, offering recommendations on specific issues, and aiding the Superintendent in achieving the goals of the National PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Marine Sanctuary Program. Specifically, the Council’s objectives are to provide advice on: (1) Protecting natural and cultural resources and identifying and evaluating emergent or critical issues involving Sanctuary use or resources; (2) Identifying and realizing the Sanctuary’s research objectives; (3) Identifying and realizing educational opportunities to increase the public knowledge and stewardship of the Sanctuary environment; and (4) Assisting to develop an informed constituency to increase awareness and understanding of the purpose and value of the Sanctuary and the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Authority: 16 U.S.C. Section 1431, et seq. (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) Dated: November 10, 2008. Daniel J. Basta, Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E8–27259 Filed 11–19–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–M COORDINATING COUNCIL ON JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION [OJP (OJJDP) Docket No. 1492] Meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. ACTION: Notice of meeting. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Council) is announcing its December, 2008 meeting. DATES: Friday, December 5, 2008, 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place in the third floor main conference room at the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th St., NW., Washington, DC 20531. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Visit the Web site for the Coordinating Council at https:// www.juvenilecouncil.gov or contact Robin Delany-Shabazz, Designated Federal Official, by telephone at 202– 307–9963 [Note: this is not a toll-free telephone number], or by e-mail at Robin.Delany-Shabazz@usdoj.gov. The meeting is open to the public. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coordinating Council on Juvenile E:\FR\FM\20NON1.SGM 20NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 225 (Thursday, November 20, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70328-70336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-27633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-937]

Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Postponement of Final Determination

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 20, 2008.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that citric acid and certain
citrate salts (``citric acid'') from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'') are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value (``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of
sales at LTFV are

[[Page 70329]]

shown in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section of this notice.
Pursuant to requests from interested parties, we are postponing the
final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-
month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will make our
final determination not later than 135 days after publication of the
preliminary determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marin Weaver or Andrea Staebler
Berton, 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) 482-2336 or 482-4037, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 14, 2008, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
received a petition concerning imports of citric acid and certain
citrate salts from the People's Republic of China (``PRC Petition'')
filed in proper form by Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill,
Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle Americas, Inc. (collectively,
``Petitioners''). The Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
initiated this investigation on May 13, 2008. See Citric acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and the People's Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations (``Notice of
Initiation''), 73 FR 27492 (May 13, 2008). In the Notice of Initiation,
the Department explained that, in order to demonstrate separate-rate
eligibility, entities were required to submit a separate-rate
application (``SRA'') not later than sixty days from the publication of
the Notice of Initiation. The deadlines and requirements for submitting
certifications and SRAs applied equally to NME-owned firms, wholly
foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase the subject
merchandise and export it to the United States. The SRA for this
investigation was posted on the Import Administration web site on May
13, 2008; thus, the due date for submitting a SRA was July 13, 2008.
See https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html.
On May 13, 2008, the Department requested comments from interested
parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of citric
acid and certain citrate salts to be reported in response to the
Department's antidumping questionnaires. See Notice of Initiation. On
June 2, 11, and 13, 2008, the Department received comments on the
proposed product characteristics criteria and matching hierarchy,
respectively, from TTCA Co., Ltd., (a.k.a. Shandong TTCA Biochemistry
Co., Ltd.) (``TTCA''), a PRC exporter and mandatory respondent,
Petitioners, and Jungbunzlauer Technology GMBH & Co.KG, a Canadian
exporter and respondent in the LTFV investigation of citric acid from
Canada.
On June 11, 2008, the United States International Trade Commission
(``ITC'') published its affirmative preliminary determination that
there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States
is materially injured by reason of imports of citric acid from the PRC.
See Investigation Nos. 701 TA 456 and 731 TA 1151 1152 (Preliminary),
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and China (``ITC
Preliminary''), 73 FR 33115 (June 11, 2008).
On June 23, 2008, the Department issued quantity and value
(``Q&V'') questionnaires to over 100 companies, which Petitioners
identified in the PRC Petition as potential producers and/or exporters
of citric acid from the PRC.\1\ On May 23, 2008, and on June 5, 2008,
the Department extended the deadline for filing Q&V responses until
June 26, 2008. From May 22, 2008 through July 7, 2008,\2\ the
Department received Q&V responses from 17 companies\3\ that exported
merchandise under investigation to the United States during the POI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See Volume I of the ``Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China'' (April 14,
2008), at Exhibit I-8.
\2\ The Department accepted the Q&V response submitted by Wuxi
Harvest Imp & Exp Trdg (``Wuxi Harvest'') on July 7, 2008.
\3\ Three companies: Shandong Yinfeng Chemical Industry Group
Co., Ltd., Dis Company, and Hangzhou Apex Import & Export, reported
that they did not export the merchandise under investigation to the
United States during the POI. The 14 companies who reported
shipments of Citric Acid are: A.H.A. International (``A.H.A'');
Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd. (``BBCA Biochemical''); China
Tianyu Chemical Co., Ltd.; International Group Jiangsu Native
Produce IMPT & EXP Co., Ltd. (``High Hope''); Huangshi Xinghua
Biochemical Co., Ltd. (``Xinghua Biochemical''); Laiwu Taihe
Biochemistry Co., Ltd. (``Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry''); Lianyungang
Shuren Scientific Creation Import & Export Co., Ltd. (``Shuren
Scientific''); Penglai Marine Bio-Technology Co., Ltd. (``Penglai
Marine''); RZBC Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd; TTCA; Shihezi City Changyun
Biochemical Co., Ltd. (``Changyun Biochemical''); Weifang Ensign
Industry Co., Ltd. (``Weifang Ensign''); Wuxi Harvest Imp. & Exp.
Co.; and Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd. (``Yixing Union'').
Yixing Union was not identified in the petition, thus, the
Department did not send it a Q&V questionnaire. However, Yixing
Union sent the Department a Q&V response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From July 1, 2008 through July 15, 2008,\4\ the Department received
SRAs from 10 exporters of Chinese citric acid: High Hope, Penglai
Marine, A.H.A., Weifang Ensign, Shuren Scientific, BBCA Biochemical,
RZBC Group Ltd.\5\, Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry, Xinghua Biochemical, and
Changyun Biochemical. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires
and received timely responses from the following separate-rate
applicants: High Hope, Penglai Marine, Shuren Scientific, BBCA
Biochemical, Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry, and Xinghua Biochemical. In
addition the Department received an SRA from TTCA on July 15, 2008. The
Department granted an extension of time for Yixing Union to file its
SRA and on July 21, 2008, it timely filed its SRA. The Department
granted an extension for Lianyungang JF International Trade Co., Ltd.
(``JF International'') to file an SRA. The Department received JF
International's SRA on October 14, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ July 13, 2008, was a Sunday. Thus, SRAs filed July 14, 2008
or filed using the one-day lag rule on July 15, 2008, were timely.
\5\ RZBC Group includes RZBC Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., RZBC Co.,
Ltd., and RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On July 9, 2008, the Department determined that India, Thailand,
Indonesia, the Philippines, and Columbia are countries comparable to
the PRC in terms of economic development. See Memorandum entitled
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Citric Acid and Citrate Salts
(``Citric Acid'') from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request
for a List of Surrogate Countries,'' (July 9, 2008) (``Office of Policy
Surrogate Countries Memorandum'').
On August 5, 2008, the Department issued its respondent selection
memorandum, selecting TTCA and Yixing Union as mandatory respondents in
this investigation. See Memorandum entitled ``Selection of Respondents
for the Antidumping Investigation of Citric Acid and Citrate Salts from
the People's Republic of China'' (``Respondent Selection Memo'')
(August 5, 2008); see also ``Selection of Respondents'' section, below.
On August 6, 2008, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire
to TTCA and Yixing Union. TTCA and Yixing Union submitted timely
responses to the questionnaire.
On August 19, 2008, Petitioners requested that the Department
postpone the preliminary determination by 50 days, i.e., until November
12, 2008, and

[[Page 70330]]

on August 29, 2008, the Department extended the preliminary
determination deadline. See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
Canada and the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary
Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 50941 (August
29, 2008).
On October 6, 2008, Petitioners and TTCA submitted surrogate value
data.\6\ Petitioners submitted surrogate value data for Indonesia,
while TTCA and Yixing Union submitted surrogate value data for
Thailand. On October 8, 2008, TTCA submitted English translations for
some of the information it submitted on October 6, 2008. We have
preliminarily chosen Indonesia as our primary surrogate country for
this investigation. See Memorandum entitled ``Antidumping Investigation
of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of
China: Selection of a Surrogate Country'' (November 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ On October 7, 2008, we received a surrogate value submission
from Yixing Union containing a single company's financial statements
which was also included in TTCA's October 6, 2008, surrogate value
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

The POI is October 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. This period
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month
of the filing of the petition, which was April 2008.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Investigation

The scope of this investigation includes all grades and granulation
sizes of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their
unblended forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of
packaging type. The scope also includes blends of citric acid, sodium
citrate, and potassium citrate; as well as blends with other
ingredients, such as sugar, where the unblended form(s) of citric acid,
sodium citrate, and potassium citrate constitute 40 percent or more, by
weight, of the blend. The scope of this investigation also includes all
forms of crude calcium citrate, including dicalcium citrate
monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate tetrahydrate, which are
intermediate products in the production of citric acid, sodium citrate,
and potassium citrate. The scope of this investigation does not include
calcium citrate that satisfies the standards set forth in the United
States Pharmacopeia and has been mixed with a functional excipient,
such as dextrose or starch, where the excipient constitutes at least
2%, by weight, of the product. The scope of this investigation includes
the hydrous and anhydrous forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and
anhydrous forms of sodium citrate, otherwise known as citric acid
sodium salt, and the monohydrate and monopotassium forms of potassium
citrate. Sodium citrate also includes both trisodium citrate and
monosodium citrate, which are also known as citric acid trisodium salt
and citric acid monosodium salt, respectively. Citric acid and sodium
citrate are classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), respectively.
Potassium citrate and crude calcium citrate are classifiable under
2918.15.5000 and 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS, respectively. Blends that
include citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate are
classifiable under 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Scope Comments

In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations
(see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR
27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), in our Notice of Initiation we set aside
a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage, and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20
calendar days of publication of the Notice of Initiation. On May 23,
2008, and June 3, 2008, respectively, Chemrom Inc., and L. Perrigo
Company, both of which are importers of the merchandise under
investigation, timely filed comments concerning the scope of the
antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations of citric acid
from Canada and the People's Republic of China. Petitioners responded
to these comments on June 16, 2008.
On August 6, 2008, the Department issued a memorandum to the file
regarding Petitioners' proposed amendments to the scope of the
investigations. In response, on August 11, 2008, L. Perrigo Company and
Petitioners submitted comments to provide clarification of the term
``unrefined'' calcium citrate. We have analyzed the comments of the
interested parties regarding the scope of this investigation. See
Memorandum entitled ``Antidumping Duty Investigations of Citric Acid
and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and the People's Republic of
China (PRC), and Countervailing Duty Investigation of Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from the PRC: Whether to Amend the Scope of these
Investigations to Exclude Monosodium Citrate and to Further Define the
Product Referred to as ``Unrefined Calcium Citrate'' (September 10,
2008) (``Scope Memo''). Our position on these comments, as set out in
the Scope Memo, is incorporated in the ``Scope of the Investigation''
section above.

Surrogate Country

When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOP'')
valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4)
of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of
production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are
significant producers of comparable merchandise.
For purposes of the instant investigation, in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408, the Department has
preliminarily selected Indonesia as the primary surrogate country. See
Memorandum to the File: Antidumping Investigation of Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Selection of
a Surrogate Country, dated November 12, 2008.

Selection of Respondents

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate
individual weighted-average dumping margins for each known exporter and
producer of the subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act
gives the Department discretion, when faced with a large number of
exporters or producers and where it is not practicable to examine all
known exporters or producers of subject merchandise, to investigate
either (1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that
is statistically valid based on the information available to the
Department at the time of selection, or (2) exporters accounting for
the largest volume of the merchandise under investigation that can
reasonably be examined. After consideration of the complexities of this
investigation and the resources available to it, the Department
determined that it was not practicable in this investigation to examine
all known exporters of subject

[[Page 70331]]

merchandise. We determined we had the resources to examine two
exporters. We further determined to limit our examination to the two
exporters accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Our analysis indicates
that TTCA and Yixing Union are the two largest PRC exporters of subject
merchandise by volume (measured by weight), and account for a
significant percentage of all exports of the subject merchandise from
the PRC during the POI. As a result, we selected these companies as the
mandatory respondents in this investigation.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See Respondent Selection Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market Economy Country

For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted an LTFV analysis
for the PRC as an NME.\9\ In every case conducted by the Department
involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority.\10\ Therefore, we have treated
the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ See Notice of Initiation.
\10\ 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) (``LWTP Final'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation 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 governmental control over export activities. The
Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under
a test arising from 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 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'').\11\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ See also Policy Bulletin 05.1, which states: `` [w]hile
continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to
exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in
its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period
of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory
respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as
well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-
average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of
investigation.'' See Policy ulletin 05.1 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Separate-Rate Recipients

A.H.A, BBCA Biochemical, Changyun Biochemical, High Hope, Laiwu
Taihe Biochemical, Penglai Marine, Shuren Scientific, Weifan Ensign,
Xinghua Biochemical, JF International, and RZBC Group (collectively,
``SR Applicants'') and TTCA and Yixing Union (the mandatory
respondents) all stated that they are either joint ventures between
Chinese and foreign companies, or are wholly Chinese-owned companies.
Therefore, the Department must analyze whether these respondents can
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental
control over 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.
The mandatory respondents and SR Applicants provided evidence
demonstrating: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2)
legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3)
other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of
companies.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR at 20589 (May
6, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Absence of De Facto Control

Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses.\13\ The Department has determined that an analysis
of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are,
in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would
preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994); 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 mandatory respondents and the SR Applicants provided evidence
demonstrating: (1) that the export prices are not set by, and are not
subject to, the approval of a governmental agency; (2) they have
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3)
they have autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding
the selection of management; and (4) they retain the proceeds of their
export sales and make independent decisions regarding disposition of
profits or financing of losses.
Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation
by the mandatory respondents and the SR Applicants demonstrates an
absence of de jure and de facto government control with respect to each
of the exporters' exports of the merchandise under investigation, in
accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon
Carbide.

Application of Facts Available for the PRC Wide Entity

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department,
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping
statute, or (D) provides such information but the

[[Page 70332]]

information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching
the applicable determination.
Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the
PRC-wide entity was non-responsive. Certain companies did not respond
to our questionnaire requesting Q&V information. See Respondent
Selection Memo. Specifically, we issued the Q&V questionnaire to 129
identified PRC exporters of the subject merchandise.\14\ Evidence on
the record indicates that 65 identified PRC exporters of subject
merchandise received our Q&V questionnaire but did not respond to the
Department. See Respondent Selection Memo at Attachment III. Based on
the above facts, the Department preliminarily determines that there
were exports of the subject merchandise under investigation from PRC
exporters that did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. In
addition, such exporters did not demonstrate entitlement to separate
rates status. Thus, we are treating these PRC exporters as part of the
countrywide entity. As a result, use of facts available pursuant to
section 776(a)(2) of the Act is warranted for the PRC entity.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Of these PRC exporters of subject merchandise 64 Q&V
questionnaires were not delivered and thus returned to the
Department. See Respondent Selection Memo at 1 and Attachment III.
Out of the group of PRC exporters whose Q&V questionnaires were
returned to the Department, six of these PRC exporters nonetheless
submitted a timely Q&V questionnaire response. Of the PRC exporters
who received the Q&V questionnaire we received responses from seven
exporters who claimed shipments and three exporters of whom claimed
no shipments. One PRC exporter entered a timely Q&V questionnaire
response but was not on the list of 129 identified PRC exporters of
the subject merchandise. The 14 PRC exporters who reported shipments
of Citric Acid to the United States did not account for all imports
into the United States from the PRC during the POI.
\15\ See, e.g., LWTP Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 776(b) of the Act provides that if an interested party
fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information, the Department may employ adverse
inferences.\16\ We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not
respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds
that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference
is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ See, e.g., LWTP Final. See also Statement of Administrative
Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep No. 103-316 (``SAA'') at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner.''\17\ It is further the Department's
practice to select a rate that ensures ``that the party does not obtain
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully.''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan,
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
\18\ See SAA at 870. See also, Brake Rotors From the People's
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the
Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New
Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of a)
the highest margin alleged in the petition, or b) the highest
calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation.\19\ As AFA, we
have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity a rate of 156.87
percent, the highest rate from the petition, as revised by the
Department.\20\ The Department preliminarily determines that this
information is the most appropriate from the available sources to
effectuate the purposes of AFA. The Department's reliance on the
initiation rate to determine an AFA rate is subject to the requirement
to corroborate secondary information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ See, e.g., Final Determination od Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China,
73 FR 6479, 6481 (February 4, 2008).
\20\ See Notice of Initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the
SAA as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.''\21\ The SAA provides that to ``corroborate''
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative value.\22\ The SAA also states
that independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example,
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation.\23\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance
of the information used.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ See SAA at 870.
\22\ See id.
\23\ See id.
\24\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part: Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
and Components Thereof, From Japan, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The AFA rate that the Department used is from the petition, as
revised by the Department, and is thus secondary information subject to
the corroboration requirement.\25\ Petitioners' methodology for
calculating the export price (``EP'') and normal value (``NV'') in the
petition is discussed in the initiation notice.\26\ To corroborate the
AFA margin we have selected, we compared that margin to the control
number specific margins we found for the mandatory respondents that
cooperated. We found that the margin of 156.87 percent has probative
value because it is in the range of control number-specific margins we
found for the mandatory respondents. Accordingly, we find that the rate
of 156.87 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c)
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ See Notice of Initiation.
\26\ See Notice of Initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consequently, we are applying a single antidumping rate the PRC-
wide rate to exporters that failed to respond to the Department's the
Q&V questionnaire, or did not apply for a separate rate, as applicable.
The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under
investigation except for entries from mandatory respondents TTCA and
Yixing Union, and the remaining the separate-rate recipients. These
companies and their corresponding antidumping duty cash deposit rates
are listed below in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section of this
notice.

Margin for the Separate-Rate Applicants

We have established a simple-average margin for all separate-rate
recipients

[[Page 70333]]

that were not selected as mandatory respondents, based on the rates we
calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are
zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA. That rate is 134.75 percent
and these parties are identified by name in the ``Preliminary
Determination'' section of this notice.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of citric acid to the United States by
the mandatory respondents were made at LTFV, we compared export price
(``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections of this notice.

Export Price

In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold)
before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of
the Act. In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for
TTCA's and Yixing Union's U.S. sales because the subject merchandise
was sold directly to the unaffiliated customers in the United States
prior to importation and because constructed export price (``CEP'') was
not otherwise indicated. Neither mandatory respondent reported CEP
sales.
We calculated EP based on the packed FOB, CFR, or CIF 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 freight from the plant to the port of exportation,
brokerage and handling, marine insurance, and ocean freight) in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. For a detailed
description of all adjustments, see Memorandum to the File entitled
``Investigation of Citric Acid and Citrate Salts from the People's
Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin
Calculation for TTCA Co., Ltd., (a.k.a. Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co.,
Ltd.)'' (November 12, 2008) and Memorandum to the File entitled
``Investigation of Citric Acid and Citrate Salts from the People's
Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin
Calculation for Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd. `` (November 12,
2008).

Normal Value

We compared NV to weighted-average EPs in accordance with section
777A(d)(1) of the Act. Further, section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine the NV using an FOP methodology if
the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not
permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country
prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The
Department bases NV on the FOPs because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of these economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its
normal methodologies.

Factor Valuations

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by mandatory respondents for the POI. To
calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption
rates by publicly available Indonesian surrogate values. For a detailed
discussion of the surrogate values used in this investigation, see
Surrogate Value Memorandum. In selecting the surrogate values,
consistent with our practice, we considered the quality, specificity,
and contemporaneity of the data.\27\ As appropriate, we adjusted input
prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices.
Specifically, we added to Indonesian import surrogate values 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 Federal Circuit decision in Sigma Corp. v. United
States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ See e.g., Lightweight Thermal Paper From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 27504,
(May 13, 2008) (``LWTP Prelim'') unchanged at LWTP Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final
determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may
submit within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary
determination publicly available information to value the factors of
production (``FOP'').\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record.
The Department generally will not accept the submission of
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For this preliminary determination for direct material inputs,
packing material inputs, some by-products, and a utility input, we used
Indonesian import values from the World Trade Atlas (``WTA'') online,
which were published by Statistics Indonesia. The WTA Indonesian import
statistics used to calculate surrogate values for the mandatory
respondents' material inputs are reported in U.S. dollars and are
contemporaneous with the POI. Where we could not use WTA Indonesian
import statistics, we used Indian import statistics from the WTA. In
selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in accordance
with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to
select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-
export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-
specific, and tax-exclusive.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where we could not obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous with the POI with which to value FOPs, we adjusted the
surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indonesian or Indian
Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in the International
Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund (``IMF'').
Furthermore, with regard to the Indonesian and Indian import-based
surrogate values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason
to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or
suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, India, South Korea, and
Thailand may have been subsidized.\30\ We have found in other
proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-
industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to
infer that all exports to all markets from these

[[Page 70334]]

countries may be subsidized.\31\ We are also guided by the legislative
history not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such
prices are not subsidized.\32\ Rather, Congress directed the Department
to base its decision on information that is available to it at the time
it makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from
these countries in calculating the Indonesian and Indian import-based
surrogate values. In addition, we excluded Indonesian and Indian import
data from NME countries from our surrogate value calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ See, e.g., LWTP Prelim unchanged at LWTP Final.
\31\ See id.
\32\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988,
Conference Report to Accompanying H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590
(1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We calculated freight costs for truck freight or inland boat
freight, as appropriate, using an Indian per-unit average rate
calculated from data on the following Web site: https://
www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this
Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian
cities. Since this value is not contemporaneous with the POI, we
deflated the rate using WPI. Since the only inland boat value on the
record is almost 12 years old, we used the Indian truck freight from
2008 to value inland boat freight consistent with Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
12651 (March 15, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 14.
For 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://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/.
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 respondents. If the NME wage rates are updated by the Department
prior to issuance of the final determination, we will use the updated
wage rate in the final determination.
We valued electricity using rates from Energy Information
Administration's International Electricity Prices and Fuel Costs
``Electricity Price for Industry'' table. The listed Indonesian rate
for electricity is for 2005, so we applied the appropriate WPI inflator
to make the rate contemporaneous with the POI. We valued water using
the average water rate charged by the United Nations Human Development
Report 2006: Disconnected: Poverty, Water Supply, and Development in
Jakarta Indonesia (``UN Report''). The water rate is based on the 2005
average water tariff for the tariff group made up of ``large hotels,
highrise buildings, banks, and factories'' in Indonesia. Since the
information was not contemporaneous with the POI, we applied the
appropriate WPI inflator.
We valued steam using a January 2006 Indonesian price for natural
gas published by the American Chemistry Council following the
methodology in Goldlink Industries Co., Ltd., Trust Chem Co., Ltd.,
Tianjin Hanchem International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 431
F. Supp. 2d 1323 (CIT 2006). Because the information was not
contemporaneous with the POI, we applied the appropriate WPI inflator.
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
expenses, and profit, we used audited financial statements for the year
ending December 2007 of PT Budi Acid Jaya TBK, a producer of comparable
merchandise from Indonesia. The Department may consider other publicly
available financial statements for the final determination, as
appropriate.
TTCA claimed five by-product offsets consisting of high protein
feed stuff, low protein feedstuff, granular mud, electricity, and
steam. TTCA claimed it produced and sold all five types of by-products.
However, TTCA did not support the reported production quantities for
low protein feedstuff as requested in the Department's September 29,
2008, supplemental questionnaire. Therefore, we have not granted a by-
product offset for TTCA's low protein feed stuff. Additionally,
granular mud and electricity were not generated directly from the
production of citric acid, but rather are generated from processing a
by-product of citric acid.\33\ With regards to granular mud and
electricity, TTCA has not, as requested in the questionnaire issued on
August 6, 2008, explained any further processing of these by-products
or co-products or identified the factors and quantities used in the
further processing. Therefore, we have not granted a by-product offset
for TTCA's granular mud and electricity. We are preliminarily granting
a by-product offset for TTCA's high protein feedstuff and steam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ See TTCA's October 22, 2008, submission at 17 and October
28, 2008 questionnaire response at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currency Conversion

As appropriate, 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.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify
the information submitted by TTCA and Yixing Union upon which we will
rely in making our final determination. Additionally, we may also
verify the information on the record submitted by selected separate-
rate applicants.

Combination Rates

In the Notice of Initiation, the Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation.\34\ This practice is described in
Policy Bulletin 05.1.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ See Notice of Initiation.
\35\ See Footnote 36, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Determination

The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPORTER PRODUCER MARGIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTCA Co., Ltd., (a.k.a. Shandong TTCA TTCA Co., Ltd., (a.k.a. Shandong TTCA 150.09
Biochemistry Co., Ltd.)...................... Biochemistry Co., Ltd.)
Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd............. Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd. 119.41
Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd............... Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd. 134.75
Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd............... China BBCA Maanshan Biochemical Corp. 134.75
A.H.A. International Co., Ltd................. Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd. 134.75
A.H.A. International Co., Ltd................. Nantong Feiyu Fine Chemical Co., Ltd. 134.75
High Hope International Group Jiangsu Native Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd. 134.75
Produce IMP & EXP Co., Ltd...................

[[Page 70335]]

Huangshi Xinghua Biochemical Co., Ltd......... Huangshi Xinghua Biochemical Co., Ltd. 134.75
Lianyungang JF International Trade Co., Ltd... TTCA Co., Ltd., (a.k.a. Shandong TTCA 134.75
Biochemistry Co., Ltd.)
Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd............. Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd. 134.75
Lianyungang Shuren Scientific Creation Import Lianyungang Great Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. 134.75
& Export Co., Ltd............................
Penglai Marine Bio-Tech Co. Ltd............... Penglai Marine Bio-Tech Co. Ltd. 134.75
RZBC Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd./ RZBC Co., Ltd./ RZBC Co., Ltd. 134.75
RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd.......................
RZBC Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd./ RZBC Co., Ltd./ RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd. 134.75
RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd.......................
RZBC Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd./ RZBC Co., Ltd./ Lianyungang Great Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. 134.75
RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd.......................
Shihezi City Changyun Biochemical Co., Ltd.... Shihezi City Changyun Biochemical Co., Ltd. 134.75
Weifang Ensign Industry Co., Ltd.............. Weifang Ensign Industry Co., Ltd. 134.75
PRC-Entity.................................... ............................................. 156.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

We will disclose to parties the calculations performed in this
proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP
to suspend liquidation of all entries of merchandise subject to this
investigation, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on
or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. The Department has determined in its Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final
Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty
Determination 73 FR 54367 (September 19, 2008) (``CVD Citric Acid
Prelim''), that the product under investigation, exported and produced
by TTCA, benefitted from an export subsidy. Normally, where the product
under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty
investigation, we instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit
or posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the
NV exceeds the EP, as indicated above, minus the amount determined to
constitute an export subsidy. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From
India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 (November 17, 2007). Therefore, for
merchandise under consideration exported and produced by TTCA entered
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication
date of this preliminary determination, we will instruct CBP to require
an antidumping cash deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry
equal to the weighted-average margin indicated above, adjusted for the
export subsidy rate determined in CVD Citric Acid Prelim (i.e., Other
Policy Bank Loan countervailable subsidy of 0.48 percent ad valorem).
Furthermore, for all separate-rate recipients that were not selected as
mandatory respondents, we will instruct CBP to require an antidumping
cash deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry equal to the
average of the margins calculated for the mandatory respondents,
adjusted for their respective export subsidy rates, if applicable, from
CVD Citric Acid Prelim.
For the remaining exporters, the following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon publication of the preliminary
determination for all shipments of merchandise under consideration
entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after
publication date: (1) The rate for the exporter/producer combinations
listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in this
preliminary determination, adjusted as noted above where appropriate;
(2) for all PRC exporters of merchandise subject to this investigation
that have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be
the PRC-wide rate; (3) for all non-PRC exporters of merchandise subject
to this investigation that have not received their own rate, the cash-
deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer
combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. We will instruct CBP
to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the
weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as
indicated above. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect
until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

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

Postponement of Final Determination

Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that a final determination
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of
exports of the subject merchandise. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the
Department's regulations requires that exporters requesting
postponement of the final determination must also request an extension
of the provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of the Act
from a four-month period until not more than six months. We received a
request to postpone the final determination from TTCA on November 3,
2008 and from Yixing Union on November 10, 2008. In addition, TTCA
consented to the extension of provisional measures from a four-month
period to not longer than six months. Because this preliminary
determination is affirmative, the request for postponement was made by
an exporter who accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the
subject merchandise,\36\ and there is no compelling reason to deny the
respondent's request, we have extended the deadline for issuance of the
final determination until the 135 days after the date of publication of
this preliminary determination in the Federal Register and have
extended provisional measures to not longer than six months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ See Memorandum to the File: Selection of Respondents for
the Antidumping Investigation of Citric Acid and Citrate Salts from
the People's Republic of China (August 8, 2008).

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

[[Page 70336]]

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days
after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this
proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs
may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for
case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309. A table of contents, list of
authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany
any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited
to five pages total, including footnotes.
In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Interested
parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within
30 days after the date of publication of this notice.\37\ Requests
should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the
number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a
request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and
date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230. See 19 CFR
351.310. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and
location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after
the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to
section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: November 12, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-27633 Filed 11-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.