Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2007 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 11911-11918 [E9-6174]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 53 (Friday, March 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11911-11918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6174]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-846]


Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of the 2007 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is currently 
conducting the 2007 administrative review of the antidumping duty order 
on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (PRC). We 
preliminarily determine that sales have not been made below normal 
value (NV) with respect to those exporters who participated fully and 
are entitled to a separate rate in the administrative review. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties, entries of subject merchandise 
during the period of review (POR) from these exporters.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

Effective Date: March 20, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Terre Keaton Stefanova, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1766 or (202) 482-1280, respectively.

Case History

    On April 17, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC. See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order: Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of 
China, 62 FR 18740 (April 17, 1997) (the Order).
    On April 1, 2008, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
brake rotors from the PRC. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 17317 (April 1, 2008).
    On April 23 and 30, 2008, the Department received timely requests 
for an administrative review of this antidumping duty order in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213 from the following companies: Longkou 
Orient Autoparts Co., Ltd. (Longkou Orient), Qingdao Meita Automotive 
Industry Co., Ltd. (Meita), Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., 
Ltd. (Winhere), Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Factory (LABEC), Laizhou 
City Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd. (Luqi), Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., 
Ltd. (Haimeng), Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd. 
(Hongda), Dixion Brake System

[[Page 11912]]

(Longkou) Ltd. (Dixion), and Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. 
(Wally). On April 30, 2008, the Department also received timely 
requests from the petitioner \1\ for an administrative review of 12 
companies (or producer/exporter combinations).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner is the Coalition for the Preservation of 
American Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermarket Manufacturers.
    \2\ The names of these companies or producer/exporter 
combinations are as follows: (1) Meita; (2) Winhere; (3) Zibo Golden 
Harvest Machinery Limited Company (ZGOLD); (4) Longkou TLC Machinery 
Co., Ltd. (Longkou TLC); (5) Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co. 
(Jinzheng); (6) Qingdao Gren Co. (Gren); (7) Xianghe Zichen Casting 
Company, Ltd. (Xianghe Zichen); (8) Laizhou Luda Sedan Fittings 
Company, Ltd. (Luda); (9) Zibo Botai Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Zibo 
Botai); (10) Laizhou Sanli (Sanli); (11) China National Automotive 
Industry Import & Export Corporation (CAIEC) or National Automotive 
Industry Import & Export Corporation, excluding entries manufactured 
by Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry (Laizhou CAPCO); and (12) Laizhou 
CAPCO, excluding entries manufactured by Laizhou CAPCO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 4, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on brake rotors from the PRC for 19 individually named firms 
covering the period April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 31813 (June 4, 
2008). On June 25, 2008, the Department published a notice of 
revocation of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC 
(see Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Revocation of 
Antidumping Duty Order Pursuant to Second Five-Year (Sunset) Review, 73 
FR 36039 (June 25, 2008)). As a result of the revocation of the order, 
effective August 14, 2007, the period of this review was changed from 
April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008, to April 1, 2007, through August 
13, 2007 (see June 27, 2008, Memorandum to The File entitled ``Change 
in the Period of Review'').
    On July 1, 2008, the Department placed on the record a memorandum 
containing CBP data for U.S. imports of subject merchandise from the 
PRC made during the POR. The Department also stated in that memorandum 
that it intended to select respondents for individual review based on 
the CBP import data. The Department provided parties with an 
opportunity to comment on the CBP import data and respondent selection 
(see July 1, 2008, Memorandum to The File entitled ``Release of POR 
Entry Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection''). On July 11, 
2008, eight respondent companies submitted comments to the Department 
on the respondent selection process. Also, Dixion and Wally withdrew 
their requests for an administrative review.
    On July 29, 2008, because it was not feasible to examine all 19 
companies for which an administrative review was initiated, the 
Department selected the two largest companies based on CBP import data, 
Haimeng and Winhere, as mandatory respondents in accordance with 
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 
The remaining 17 respondents were not selected for individual review. 
See Memorandum from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias to James P. Maeder, Jr., 
``2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the 
People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents for Individual 
Review,'' dated July 29, 2008 (Respondent Selection Memo); and 
``Separate rates'' section below.
    On August 1, 2008, we issued Haimeng and Winhere the antidumping 
duty questionnaire.
    On August 7, 2008, we requested that the Import Administration's 
Office of Policy (the Office of Policy) issue a surrogate-country 
memorandum for the selection of the appropriate surrogate countries for 
this review.\3\ On the same date, the Office of Policy provided us with 
a list of five countries at a level of economic development comparable 
to that of the PRC.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``Request for 
Surrogate Country Selection,'' dated August 7, 2008.
    \4\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate 
Countries,'' dated August 7, 2008 (Policy Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between August 11 and August 26, 2008, the Department issued 
letters to the respondents not selected for individual review 
requesting (1) a separate-rate certification or application or (2) a 
no-shipment statement if applicable. Also during this time period, the 
Department invited interested parties participating in this 
administrative review to submit comments on surrogate country selection 
and to submit publicly available information as surrogate values (SVs) 
for purposes of calculating NV.\5\ No parties submitted surrogate 
country comments or publicly available SV information in this 
administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the Department's letter entitled, ``2007 Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake 
Rotors from the People's Republic of China,'' requesting parties to 
provide comments on surrogate-country selection and provide 
surrogate factors of production values from the potential surrogate 
countries (i.e., India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia and 
Thailand).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During July, August and September 2008, the Department received 
timely submissions from several companies for which the review was 
initiated: Three companies \6\ certified that they had no shipments of 
subject merchandise during the POR; seven companies withdrew their 
review requests, including Haimeng (i.e., one of the selected mandatory 
respondents); \7\ eight companies \8\ submitted their separate-rate 
certifications in response to the Department's request; and Winhere 
submitted its responses to the antidumping duty questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These three companies are CAIEC, Laizhou CAPCO, and Longkou 
Orient.
    \7\ These seven companies are CAIEC, Dixion, Haimeng, Laizhou 
CAPCO, Longkou Orient, Luqi, and Wally.
    \8\ These eight companies are Gren, Longkou Jinzheng, LABEC, 
Laizhou Hongda, Longkou TLC, Meita, Xianghe Zichen, and Zibo Botai.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 9, 2008, the Department rescinded this review with 
respect to Dixion, Haimeng, Longkou Orient, Luqi, and Wally. See Brake 
Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 53193 
(September 15, 2008).
    On October 10, 2008, we requested entry documentation from CBP for 
certain entries of brake rotors exported by CAIEC and/or Laizhou CAPCO 
during the POR.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``Request for U.S. 
Entry Documents--Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China 
(A-570-846),'' dated October 10, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Winhere on 
November 14, 2008, and received Winhere's supplemental questionnaire 
response on November 28, 2008.
    On December 5, 2008, the Department placed on the record copies of 
CBP documents pertaining to certain entries of brake rotors from the 
PRC exported by CAIEC and/or Laizhou CAPCO to the United States during 
the POR.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``2007 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors 
from the People's Republic of China, Results of Request for 
Assistance from U.S. Customs and Border Protection on U.S. Entry 
Documents,'' dated December 5, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 11, 2008, the Department postponed the preliminary 
results of this review until March 2, 2009. See Brake Rotors From the 
People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 
FR 77004 (December 18, 2008).
    On December 16, 2008, the Department placed on the record a

[[Page 11913]]

memorandum regarding the three companies (i.e., Luda, Sanli and ZGOLD) 
that did not submit a separate-rates application or certification in 
this administrative review. See Memorandum to the File entitled 
``Efforts to Provide Companies'' with the Department's August 26, 2008, 
Separate Rates Questionnaire, Separate Rates Certification 
Questionnaire, and No Shipments Instructions'' (December 16, 2008 
Memorandum to the File).
    On March 2, 2009, the Department further postponed the preliminary 
results of this review until March 16, 2009. See Brake Rotors From the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 9787 
(March 6, 2009).

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 2007, through August 13, 2007.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are brake rotors made of gray 
cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in 
diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight 
from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters 
(weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the 
following types of motor vehicles: Automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, 
vans and recreational vehicles under ``one ton and a half,'' and light 
trucks designated as ``one ton and a half.''
    Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and 
installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are 
those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and have undergone 
some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those which have undergone some 
grinding or turning.
    These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in 
the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) which 
produces vehicles sold in the United States, (e.g., General Motors, 
Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in this 
order are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the United 
States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that are made of 
gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but otherwise meet the 
above criteria. Excluded from the scope of this order are brake rotors 
made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, 
with a diameter less than 8 inches or greater than 16 inches (less than 
20.32 centimeters or greater than 40.64 centimeters) and a weight less 
than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less than 3.63 kilograms or 
greater than 20.41 kilograms).
    Brake rotors are currently classifiable under subheading 
8708.39.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS).\11\ Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this 
order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As of January 1, 2005, the HTSUS classification for brake 
rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.5010 to 8708.39.5030. As of 
January 1, 2007, the HTSUS classification for brake rotors (discs) 
changed from 8708.39.5030 to 8708.30.5030. See Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (2007) (Rev. 2), available at https://
www.usitc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, the 
Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control, and thus, should 
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 
Department's policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise 
subject to review in an NME country a single rate unless an exporter 
can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent of government 
control to be entitled to a separate rate. See, e.g., Honey from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 74764, 74766 (December 
16, 2005) (unchanged in the final results).
    For the administrative review, in order to demonstrate separate-
rate status eligibility, the Department normally requires entities, for 
which a review was requested, and which were assigned a separate-rate 
in a previous segment of this proceeding, to submit a separate-rate 
certification stating that they continue to meet the criteria for 
obtaining a separate rate. For entities that were not assigned a 
separate rate in the previous segment of a proceeding, to demonstrate 
eligibility for such, the Department requires a separate-rate 
application. In this administrative review, eight entities not selected 
for individual review (i.e., separate-rate respondents) submitted 
separate-rate certifications. The mandatory respondent, Winhere, and 
the eight separate-rate respondents \12\ provided company-specific 
information and each stated that it meets the criteria for the 
assignment of a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The non-mandatory respondents which submitted separate-rate 
certifications are as follows: Gren, Jinzheng, LABEC, Laizhou 
Hongda, Longkou TLC, Meita, Xianghe Zichen, and Zibo Botai.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We considered whether the mandatory and eight separate-rate 
respondents were eligible for a separate rate. The Department's 
separate-rate status test to determine whether the exporter is 
independent from government control does not consider, in general, 
macroeconomic/border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 
minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed to 
prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the 
investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: 
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 
61758 (November 19, 1997); and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 
FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes the exporter in light of select criteria, discussed below. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from 
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) 
(Sparklers), and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 
22586, 22587 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this test, 
exporters in NME countries are entitled to separate, company-specific 
margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control over 
exports, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto).

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; or (3) any other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR 20589. Winhere and the eight separate-rate respondents 
each placed on the administrative record documents to demonstrate an 
absence of de jure control (e.g., the 1994 ``Foreign Trade Law of the 
People's Republic of China,'' and the 1999 ``Company Law of the 
People's Republic of China''). As in prior cases, we analyzed the laws 
presented to us and found them to establish sufficiently an absence of 
de jure control. See, e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative

[[Page 11914]]

Review, 72 FR 102, 105 (January 3, 2007), and Hand Trucks and Certain 
Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results 
and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review and Preliminary Results 
of New Shipper Review, 72 FR 937, 944 (January 9, 2007). We have no new 
information in this review which would cause us to reconsider this 
determination with regard to Winhere. Therefore, we believe that 
evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of an absence of 
de jure government control with regard to Winhere.
    The eight separate-rate respondents (Gren, Jinzheng, LABEC, Laizhou 
Hongda, Longkou TLC, Meita, Xianghe Zichen, and Zibo Botai) and Winhere 
each certified that as in the previous period where it was granted a 
separate rate, there is an absence of de jure government control. Each 
separate-rate respondent's certification stated, where applicable, that 
it had no relationship with any level of the PRC government with 
respect to ownership, internal management, and business operations. In 
this segment, we have no new information that would cause us to 
reconsider the previous period's de jure control determination with 
regard to these companies.

B. Absence of De Facto Control

    As stated in previous cases, there is evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586, 22587. Therefore, the Department has 
determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in 
determining whether the respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree 
of government control which would preclude the Department from 
assigning separate rates.
    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or 
subject to the approval of, a government authority; (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 the disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol 
from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).
    In this review, Gren, Jinzheng, LABEC, Laizhou Hongda, Longkou TLC, 
Meita, Xianghe Zichen, Zibo Botai, and Winhere each asserted the 
following: (1) It establishes its own export prices; (2) it negotiates 
contracts without guidance from any government entities or 
organizations; (3) it makes its own personnel decisions; and (4) it 
retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its 
business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain 
loans. Additionally, each of these companies' separate-rates 
certifications or questionnaire responses indicate that its pricing 
during the POR does not involve coordination among exporters.
    Thus, we preliminarily determine that Gren, Jinzheng, LABEC, 
Laizhou Hongda, Longkou TLC, Meita, Xianghe Zichen, Zibo Botai, and 
Winhere have each met the criteria for the application of a separate 
rate based on the documentation each of these respondents has submitted 
on the record of this review.

PRC-Wide Entity

    As discussed above, in this administrative review we limited the 
selection of respondents using CBP import data. See Respondent 
Selection Memo. In this case, we sent the separate-rates application 
and certification to the companies which were not selected as mandatory 
respondents. See August 26, 2008, letters to Luda, Sanli and ZGOLD. 
Luda, Sanli and ZGOLD did not apply for a separate rate or provide a 
separate-rate certification, as appropriate, nor did they indicate that 
they did not make shipments of the subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR. See December 16, 2008, Memorandum to the File. 
Therefore, Luda, Sanli, and ZGOLD are considered to be a part of the 
PRC-wide entity. Because the Department determines preliminarily that 
there were exports of merchandise under review from PRC producers/
exporters that did not demonstrate their eligibility for separate-rate 
status, the PRC-wide entity is now under review.

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2007 Administrative Review

    With respect to CAIEC and Laizhou CAPCO, each company informed the 
Department that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR. Specifically, CAIEC stated that it did not 
export brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by 
producers other than Laizhou CAPCO and Laizhou CAPCO stated that it did 
not export brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by 
producers other than Laizhou CAPCO. In order to corroborate their 
submissions, we reviewed PRC brake rotor shipment data maintained by 
CBP.\14\ In reviewing the CBP import data and entry documentation for 
certain brake rotor entries made by CAIEC and/or Laizhou CAPCO, we 
found no evidence contradicting CAIEC's and Laizhou CAPCO's claims of 
no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See December 5, 2008, Memorandum to the File entitled 
``Results of Request for Assistance from U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection on U.S. Entry Documents.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the record of this review, we conclude that CAIEC and 
Laizhou CAPCO did not export subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we 
are preliminarily rescinding this administrative review for CAIEC and 
Laizhou CAPCO.

Non-Market Economy Country

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to 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. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from 
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006). None of the 
parties in this administrative review has contested such treatment. 
Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the 
Act, which applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on 
the NME producer's factors of production (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 FOPs, the Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices 
or costs of the FOPs in one or more market-economy countries that are: 
(1) At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME 
country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. The 
sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal 
Value'' section below. See also the Department's

[[Page 11915]]

memorandum entitled, ``Preliminary Results of the 2007 Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's 
Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,'' dated March 16, 2009 
(Surrogate Value Memorandum).
    The Department determined that India, Indonesia, the Philippines, 
Colombia and Thailand are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of 
economic development. See Policy Memorandum. Customarily, we select an 
appropriate surrogate country from the policy memorandum based on the 
availability and reliability of data from the countries that are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. In this case, we found 
that India is at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC; 
is a significant producer of the subject merchandise (i.e., brake 
rotors); and has publicly available and reliable data. See March 16, 
2009, Memorandum to the File entitled, ``2007 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of 
China: Selection of a Surrogate Country'' (Surrogate Country 
Memorandum).
    Accordingly, we selected India as the primary surrogate country for 
purposes of valuing the FOPs in the calculation of NV because it meets 
the Department's criteria for surrogate country selection. See 
Surrogate Country Memorandum. We obtained and relied upon publicly 
available information wherever possible.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
in antidumping administrative reviews, interested parties may submit 
publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the 
date of publication of these preliminary results.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Winhere to 
the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared Winhere's 
export prices (EPs) to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice below, pursuant to section 773 
of the Act.

Export Price

    Because Winhere sold subject merchandise to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation into the United 
States and use of a constructed-export-price methodology was not 
otherwise indicated, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of 
the Act.
    We calculated EP based on the reported method of delivery to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, 
we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for 
foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling charges in 
the PRC pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.\15\ Because 
foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling fees were 
provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based 
those charges on surrogate rates from India. See ``Factor Valuation'' 
section below for further discussion of surrogate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``2007 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors 
from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary 
Results Margin Calculation for Yantai Winhere Auto-Part 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,'' dated March 16, 2009 (Winhere Calculation 
Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining the most appropriate SVs to use in a given case, the 
Department's stated practice is to use review period-wide price 
averages, prices specific to the input in question, prices that are net 
of taxes and import duties, prices that are contemporaneous with the 
POR, and publicly available data. See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from 
the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. The data we 
used for brokerage and handling expenses fulfill all of the foregoing 
criteria except that they are not specific to the subject merchandise. 
There is no information of that type on the record of this review. The 
Department used three sources to calculate an SV for domestic brokerage 
expenses: (1) Data from Kejriwal Paper Ltd. (Kejriwal) for the period 
of investigation July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005 (see Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper 
Products From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006) (unchanged in final 
determination)); (2) data from Essar Steel Limited (Essar) for the 
period of investigation July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005 (see 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018, 2021 
(January 12, 2006) (unchanged in final results)); and (3) data from 
Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. for the POR February 1, 2004, through 
January 31, 2005 (see Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 
30, 2005) (unchanged in final results)). Because these values were not 
concurrent with the POR of this administrative review, we adjusted 
these rates for inflation using the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for 
India as published in the International Monetary Fund's International 
Financial Statistics, available at https://ifs.apdi.net/imf, and then 
calculated a simple average of the three companies' brokerage expense 
data.
    The Department valued inland truck freight expenses using a 
deflated 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. Because this value is not contemporaneous 
with the POR, we deflated the rate using WPI data. See Surrogate Value 
Memorandum.
    Winhere reported that its U.S. customers purchased ball bearing cup 
and lug nuts from PRC producers that were delivered to Winhere in 
specific quantities free-of-charge, and that the components were then 
incorporated into certain brake rotor models shipped to U.S. customers 
during the POR. Section 773(c)(3) of the Act states that ``factors of 
production utilized in producing merchandise include, but are not 
limited to the quantities of raw materials employed.''See, e.g., Brake 
Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of 
Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304, 66305 
(November 14, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum 
at Comment 9; see also Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54361 (September 14, 
2005), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 13. 
Therefore, to reflect the U.S. customers' expenditures for these items, 
we added the Indian SV for each component (i.e., the ball bearing cups 
and lug nuts) used to the U.S. price of the applicable brake rotor 
models. For further information, see Winhere Calculation Memo.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, 
the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the 
merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit 
the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices, 
or

[[Page 11916]]

constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department will 
base NV on FOP because the presence of government controls on various 
aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of 
production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. Therefore, we 
calculated NV based on FOP in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and 
(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
    For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the PRC FOPs in 
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. The FOPs include: (1) 
Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) 
amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative 
capital costs. We used the FOPs reported by Winhere for materials, 
energy, labor, and packing. See section 773(c)(3) of the Act.
    In examining SVs, we selected, where possible, the publicly 
available value, which was an average non-export value, representative 
of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the 
POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 
People's Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004) 
(Chlorinated Isocyanurates) (unchanged in final determination). For a 
detailed explanation of the methodology used to calculate SVs, see 
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    Regarding the components supplied free of charge to Winhere noted 
above, section 773(c)(3) of the Act states that the ``factors of 
production include but are not limited to the quantities of raw 
materials employed.'' Therefore, consistent with the corresponding 
adjustment to U.S. price discussed above, we valued the ball bearing 
cups and lug nuts usage amounts reported by Winhere for specific brake 
rotor models by using an Indian SV for each input. See Winhere 
Calculation Memo and Surrogate Value Memorandum.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on the FOPs reported by Winhere for the POR. We relied on the 
factor-specific data submitted by Winhere for the above-mentioned 
inputs in its questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses, 
where applicable, for purposes of selecting SVs.
    To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor 
consumption rates by publicly available Indian SVs. In selecting the 
SVs, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the 
data. See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 71509 (December 11, 2006), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 9. As appropriate, we adjusted input 
prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. 
Specifically, we added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost 
using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier 
to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, 
where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision 
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). 
See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 
1997). Where necessary, we adjusted the SVs for inflation/deflation 
using the WPI as published in the International Monetary Fund's 
International Financial Statistics, available at https://ifs.apdi.net/
imf.
    We valued the raw materials (including ball bearing cups and lug 
nuts), packing materials, coke input and firewood input using April 
2007 through July 2007,\16\ weighted-average unit import values derived 
from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India (MSFTI), as 
published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and 
Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of 
India and compiled by the World Trade Atlas (WTA), available at https://
www.gtis.com/wta.htm. The Indian WTA import data is reported in rupees 
and is contemporaneous with the POR.\17\ Indian SVs denominated in 
Indian rupees were converted to U.S. dollars using the applicable daily 
exchange rate for India for the POR. See https://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/
exchange/. Where appropriate, we converted the units of 
measure to kilograms. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Because the POR ends on the 13th day of August 2007, we 
obtained the monthly totals for April 2007 through July 2007 for all 
WTA data (including the packing materials and energy inputs as 
discussed below).
    \17\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, with regard to the WTA Indian import-based SVs, we 
have disregarded prices from NME countries \18\ and those we have 
reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized, because we have found 
in other proceedings that these exporting countries maintain broadly 
available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, there 
is reason to believe or suspect that all exports to all markets from 
such countries may be subsidized.\19\ We are also guided by the 
statute's legislative history that explains that it is not necessary to 
conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not 
subsidized. See H.R. Rep. No. 576 100th Cong., 2. Sess. 590-91 (1988). 
Rather, the Department was instructed by Congress to base its decision 
on information that is available to it at the time it is making its 
determination. Therefore, we excluded export prices from Indonesia, 
South Korea, Thailand, and India when calculating the Indian import-
based SVs. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. Finally, we excluded imports 
that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' country from 
the average value, because we could not be certain that they were not 
from either an NME or a country with general export subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The NME countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, 
Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, PRC, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, 
Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.
    \19\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
the 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, 
and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 
10, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and 
Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; 
and China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 293 
F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1339 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal 
Circuit, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Department valued surrogate freight cost by 
using a deflated per-unit average rate calculated from data on the 
following Web site: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. See 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
52282, 52286 (September 9, 2008) (unchanged in Polyethylene Retail 
Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 (February 11, 2009); 
and Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 8.
    To value electricity, the Department used July 2006 electricity 
price rates from Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of 
Electricity Supply in India, published by the Central Electricity 
Authority of the Government of India. Because this data was not

[[Page 11917]]

contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the average value for 
inflation using WPI. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 5.
    For direct labor, indirect labor and packing labor, consistent with 
19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rates 
reflective of the observed relationship between wages and national 
income in market-economy countries as reported on Import 
Administration's Web site. See ``Expected Wages of Selected NME 
Countries'' (revised January 2007) (available at https://www.trade.gov/
ia/). For further details on the labor calculation, see Surrogate Value 
Memorandum at Attachment 7. Because the regression-based wage rates do 
not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of 
labor, we applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of 
labor reported by Winhere.
    Winhere reported that during the manufacturing process, its subject 
merchandise was transported from its casting facility to its finishing 
workshop. Using Winhere's reported distance and the reported cast 
weight of its rotors, we valued the other PRC distance (i.e., domestic 
inland freight cost of transporting unfinished castings from the 
casting facility to Winhere's finishing workshop facility) with the 
surrogate truck rate discussed above. This additional freight value was 
added to the cost of manufacture (COM). See Winhere Calculation 
Memorandum.
    For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses 
(SG&A), and profit values, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), we 
used the public information from the 2007 annual report of Bosch 
Chassis Systems India Ltd. (Bosch) and 2007-2008 annual report of Rico 
Auto Industries Limited (Rico).\20\ From this information, we were able 
to determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw 
materials, labor, and energy (ML&E) costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E 
plus overhead (i.e., COM); and the profit rate as a percentage of the 
COM plus SG&A. Where appropriate, we did not include in the surrogate 
overhead and SG&A calculations the excise duty amount listed in the 
financial reports. For a full discussion of the calculation of these 
ratios, see Surrogate Value Memorandum and its accompanying calculation 
worksheets at Attachment 6.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 
See https://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period April 1, 2007, through August 
13, 2007:

                        Brake Rotors From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Individually reviewed exporter 2007       Weighted-average percent
           administrative review                  margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing      0.04 (de minimis).
 Co., Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Separate-rate applicant exporters 2007      Weighted-average percent
           administrative review            margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Co., Ltd.....  0.04 (de minimis).
Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co.,  0.04 (de minimis).
 Ltd.
Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co., Ltd.......  0.04 (de minimis).
Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd............  0.04 (de minimis).
Qingdao Gren (Group) Co...................  0.04 (de minimis).
Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd  0.04 (de minimis).
Xianghe Zichen Casting Company, Ltd.......  0.04 (de minimis).
Zibo Botai Manufacturing Co., Ltd.........  0.04 (de minimis).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               PRC-Wide Rate                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-wide rate (including Laizhou Luda       43.32
 Sedan Fittings Company, Ltd., Laizhou
 Sanli and Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery
 Limited Company).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rate for Non-Selected Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews 
and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review, 72 FR 
42386, 42389 (August 22, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 2 (2005-2006 Brake Rotors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the 
establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not 
selected for examination where the Department limited its examination 
in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. 
Generally we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which 
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an 
investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents 
we did not examine in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of 
the Act instructs that we are not to calculate an all-others rate using 
any zero or de minimis margins or any margins based entirely on facts 
available. Accordingly, the Department's practice in this regard, in 
reviews involving limited selection based on exporters accounting for 
the largest volumes of trade, has been to average the rates for the 
selected companies excluding zero and de minimis rates and rates based 
entirely on facts available. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also 
provides that, where all margins are zero, de minimis, or based 
entirely on facts available, we may use ``any reasonable method'' for 
assigning the rate to non-selected respondents, including ``averaging 
the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined for the 
exporters and producers individually investigated.''
    The Department has available in administrative reviews information 
that would not be available in an investigation, namely rates from 
prior administrative and new shipper reviews. Accordingly, since the 
final results of the last review, the Department has determined that in 
cases where we have found dumping margins in previous segments of a 
proceeding, a reasonable method for determining the rate for non-
selected companies is to use the most recent rate calculated for the 
non-selected company in question, unless we calculated in a more recent 
review a rate for any

[[Page 11918]]

company that was not zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts 
available. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52273, 52275 (September 
9, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; 
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and 
the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Rescission of Review in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 
11, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
16; see also Certain Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review and 
Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of 
the Fourth Administrative Review, 73 FR 52015 (Sept. 8, 2008) (changed 
in final results as final calculated rate for mandatory respondent was 
above de minimis).
    While we intend to continue to apply the policy articulated in the 
above-cited cases in future reviews, where appropriate, we do not 
believe that any change in this late stage of the brake rotors 
proceeding is warranted.\21\ For purposes of consistency and equity to 
the parties, the Department does not believe that it is appropriate to 
reexamine the issue in this final segment of the brake rotors 
proceeding, in light of more recent decisions in other administrative 
reviews. Thus, we are assigning the non-selected separate rate 
companies the de minimis rate calculated for the sole mandatory 
respondent. With respect to the PRC-wide entity (including Luda, Sanli 
and ZGOLD), we have assigned the entity's current rate and only rate 
ever determined for the entity in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Because the brake rotors order was revoked effective August 
14, 2007, this is the last administrative review that the Department 
will conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). 
Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue, 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are requested to 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Additionally, parties are 
requested to provide their case brief and rebuttal briefs in electronic 
format (e.g., Microsoft Word, pdf, etc.). Interested parties who wish 
to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit 
a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration 
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests 
should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; 
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 
discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be 
limited to those raised in case and rebuttal briefs. The Department 
will issue the final results of this review, including the results of 
its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the 
hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication 
of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for 
Winhere, we calculated an importer (or customer)-specific assessment 
rate for the merchandise subject to this review. Because we do not have 
entered values on the record for Winhere's sales, we calculated a per-
unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping duties due for all 
U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by 
the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de 
minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem 
ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where an importer (or 
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we will 
instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to 
antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
    For the companies receiving a separate-rate that were not selected 
for individual review (i.e., Gren, Jinzheng, LABEC, Laizhou Hongda, 
Longkou TLC, Meita, Xianghe Zichen, and Zibo Botai), we will calculate 
an assessment rate based on the weighted-average margins calculated for 
the companies selected for individual review pursuant to section 
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. As Winhere is the only mandatory respondent in 
this review and its margin is de minimis, we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties with 
respect to the eight separate-rate respondents. See 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2).
    With respect to the PRC-wide entity (including Luda, Sanli and 
ZGOLD), we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries at the 
PRC-wide rate of 43.32 percent.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC was revoked 
effective August 14, 2007 (see Brake Rotors From the People's Republic 
of China: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order Pursuant to Second Five-
Year (Sunset) Review, 73 FR 36039 (June 25, 2008)). As a result, we 
instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation of entries of 
the subject merchandise. Therefore, the collection of cash deposits of 
antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise is no longer 
required.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221.

    Dated: March 16, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. E9-6174 Filed 3-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P