Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 16836-16838 [E9-8358]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16836
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Notices
Dated: April 6, 2009.
Christopher Cassel,
Acting Director, IA Subsidies Enforcement
Office.
[FR Doc. E9–8396 Filed 4–10–09; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C–570–938)
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts
From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination
BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
California Association for Research in
Astronomy dba W.M. Keck
Observatory, Notice of Decision on
Applications for Duty–Free Entry of
Scientific Instruments
This is a decision pursuant to Section
6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Materials Importation Act of
1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by
Pub. .106–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part
301). Related records can be viewed
between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in
Room 3705, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave,
NW, Washington, D.C.
Comments: None received. Decision:
Approved. We know of no instruments
of equivalent scientific value to the
foreign instruments described below, for
such purposes as this is intended to be
used, that was being manufactured in
the United States at the time of its order.
Docket Number: 08–061. Applicant:
California Association for Research in
Astronomy dba W.M. Keck Observatory,
Kamuela, HI 96743. Instrument: Laser
Launch Telescope Assembly (LTA).
Manufacturer: Galileo Avionica, Italy.
Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 9219,
March 3, 2009.
Reasons: This laser launch telescope
assembly (LTA) has stringent technical
requirements in regard to optical
qualities, size, weight, and laser power
capabilities than standard telescope
designs that are used for viewing versus
projection of a laser beam. Unique
features of this LTA include: 1)it is able
to handle the laser power of 20 watts of
589 nanometer light and throughput
requirements, 2) it has a temperature
range of -10 degrees C to 10 degrees C,
and 3) it is able to meet those
requirements while the unit is moved
from 0 to 70 degrees zenith angle.
Dated: April 7, 2009.
Christopher Cassel,
Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement
Office, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–8389 Filed 4–10–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:51 Apr 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) has determined that
countervailable subsidies are being
provided to producers and exporters of
citric acid and certain citrate salts
(‘‘citric acid’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). For
information on the estimated
countervailing duty rates, please see the
‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section,
below.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
April 13, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Neubacher, Shelly Atkinson or
Damian Felton, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–5823, (202) 482–0116 or (202) 482–
0133, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Petitioners
The petitioners in this investigation
are Archer Daniels Midland Company,
Cargill, Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle
America, Inc. (collectively,
‘‘Petitioners’’).
Period of Investigation
The period for which we are
measuring subsidies, or period of
investigation, is January 1, 2007,
through December 31, 2007.
Case History
The following events have occurred
since the announcement of the
preliminary determination, which was
published in the Federal Register on
September 19, 2008. See 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)
(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’).
The Department issued several
supplemental questionnaires to the
Government of the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘GOC’’), TTCA Co., Ltd.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(formerly Shandong TTCA Biochemical
Co., Ltd.) (‘‘TTCA’’) and Yixing Union
Biochemical Co. Ltd. (‘‘Yixing Union’’)
and its cross–owned affiliate Yixing
Union Cogeneration Co., Ltd., and
received responses in September and
October 2008.
Public versions of the questionnaires
and responses, as well as the various
memoranda cited below are available at
the Department’s Central Records Unit
(Room 1117 in the HCHB Building)
(hereafter referred to as ‘‘CRU’’).
On September 12, 2008, the
Department determined to investigate
certain subsidies alleged by Petitioners
in their submission of August 8, 2008.
See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach,
Senior Director, Office 1, entitled
‘‘Analysis of Petitioners’ New Subsidy
Allegations’’ (September 12, 2008). On
October 1, 2008, the Department issued
questionnaires to the GOC, TTCA and
Yixing Union regarding these new
subsidy allegations. We received
responses to these questionnaires as
well as to supplemental questionnaires
regarding the newly alleged submissions
in October 2008.
On October 20, 2008, the Department
initiated an investigation of TTCA’s
creditworthiness for the years 2004,
2006 and 2007, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.505(a)(6). See Memorandum to
Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Director,
Office 1, entitled ‘‘Uncreditworthy
Allegation for TTCA’’ (October 20,
2008). On February 25, 2009, we issued
our preliminary determination that
TTCA was uncreditworthy for the years
investigated. See Memorandum to
Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Office
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1,
entitled ‘‘Preliminary Creditworthiness
Determination for TTCA Co., Ltd.’’
(February 25, 2009).
From November 1 through November
20, 2008, we conducted verification of
the questionnaire responses submitted
by the GOC, TTCA and Yixing Union.
On March 4, 2009, we issued our
post–preliminary determination
regarding the new subsidy allegations
and certain other programs discovered
in the course of the investigation. See
Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, entitled ‘‘Post–
Preliminary Findings for the New
Subsidy Allegations’’ (March 4, 2009).
We received case briefs from the GOC
and Yixing Union on March 12, 2009,
and from Petitioners and TTCA on
March 13, 2009. The same parties
submitted rebuttal briefs on March 18
and 19, 2009, respectively.
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Notices
Scope of the 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 percent,
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.
Injury Test
Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies
Agreement Country’’ within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’),
section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to
this investigation. Accordingly, the
International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)
must determine whether imports of the
subject merchandise from the PRC
materially injure, or threaten material
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:51 Apr 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
injury to a U.S. industry. On June 11,
2008, the ITC published its preliminary
determination that there is a reasonable
indication that an industry in the
United States is materially injured or
threatened with material injury by
reason of imports from China of citric
acid. See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate
Salts From Canada and China;
Determinations, 73 FR 33115 (June 11,
2008).
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
investigation are addressed in the
Memorandum from John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, entitled ‘‘Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final
Determination in the Countervailing
Duty Investigation of Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from the People’s
Republic of China’’ (April 6, 2009)
(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Decision
Memorandum), which is hereby
adopted by this notice. Attached to this
notice as an Appendix is a list of the
issues that parties have raised and to
which we have responded in the
Decision Memorandum. Parties can find
this public memorandum in the
Department’s CRU. In addition, a
complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the Internet at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
frn/. The paper copy and electronic
version of the Decision Memorandum
are identical in content.
Use of Adverse Facts Available
For purposes of this final
determination, we have continued to
rely on facts available and have again
used adverse inferences in accordance
with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act
to determine the countervailable
subsidy rates for Anhui BBCA
Biochemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Anhui BBCA’’),
which is one of the three companies
selected to respond to our
questionnaires. A full discussion of our
decision to apply adverse facts available
is presented in the Decision
Memorandum in the section ‘‘Use of
Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse
Facts Available.’’
In a departure from the Preliminary
Determination, the Department now
finds that the use of ‘‘facts otherwise
available’’ is warranted with regard to
policy lending because TTCA provided
information that could not be verified.
See Decision Memorandum, at
Comment 19. Moreover, TTCA failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16837
ability in this investigation.
Accordingly, we find that an adverse
inference is warranted, pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act, to ensure that
TTCA does not obtain a more favorable
result than had it fully complied with
our request for information. See
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 19.
For reasons explained in the
‘‘Analysis of Programs’’ section I.A
(Programs Determined to Be
Countervailable: Energy and Water
Savings Grant) in the Decision
Memorandum, we find the use of ‘‘facts
otherwise available’’ is warranted,
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and (D)
of the Act, with regard to the specificity
determination for the Energy and Water
Savings Grant program because the GOC
would not provide requested
information and did not provide
verifiable program usage data. Because
the GOC refused to provide information
that would allow for a de facto
specificity analysis using accurate and
verifiable data and failed to act to the
best of its ability, we have employed an
adverse inference in selecting from
among the facts otherwise available.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 776(b)
of the Act, we find that this program is
de facto specific within the meaning of
section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section
705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have
calculated an individual rate for the
companies under investigation, Anhui
BBCA, TTCA and Yixing Union. Section
705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for
companies not investigated, we will
determine an all–others rate equal to the
weighted average countervailable
subsidy rates established for exporters
and producers individually
investigated, excluding any zero and de
minimis countervailable subsidy rates,
and any rates determined entirely under
section 776 of the Act. As Anhui
BBCA’s rate was calculated under
section 776 of the Act, it is not included
in the all–others rate.
Notwithstanding the language of
section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we
have not calculated the all–others rate
by weight averaging the rates of TTCA
and Yixing Union because doing so
risks disclosure of proprietary
information. Therefore, we have
calculated a simple average of the two
responding firms’ rates. Finally, because
TTCA’s rate includes export subsidies,
the all–others rate also includes export
subsidies.
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
16838
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Notices
Exporter/Manufacturer
Net Subsidy Rate
TTCA Co., Ltd. (a.k.a.
Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co., Ltd.) ...
Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd.;
and Yixing Union Cogeneration Co., Ltd. ..
Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd. .....
All–Others .....................
12.68
3.60
118.95
8.14
In accordance with section 703(d) of
the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and
Border Protection to discontinue the
suspension of liquidation for
countervailing duty purposes for subject
merchandise entered on or after January
17, 2009, but to continue the suspension
of liquidation of entries made from
September 19, 2008, through January 16,
2009.
We will issue a countervailing duty
order and reinstate the suspension of
liquidation under section 706(a) of the
Act if the ITC issues a final affirmative
injury determination, and will require a
cash deposit of estimated countervailing
duties for such entries of merchandise
in the amounts indicated above. If the
ITC determines that material injury, or
threat of material injury, does not exist,
this proceeding will be terminated and
all estimated duties deposited or
securities posted as a result of the
suspension of liquidation will be
refunded or canceled.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of
the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
determination. In addition, we are
making available to the ITC all non–
privileged and non–proprietary
information related to this investigation.
We will allow the ITC access to all
privileged and business proprietary
information in our files, provided the
ITC confirms that it will not disclose
such information, either publicly or
under an APO, without the written
consent of the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary
Information
In the event that the ITC issues a final
negative injury determination, this
notice will serve as the only reminder
to parties subject to an administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:51 Apr 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.
This determination is published
pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: April 6, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
APPENDIX
List of Comments and Issues in the
Decision Memorandum
General Issues
Comment 1 Application of CVD Law to
a Country the Department treats as an
NME in a Parallel AD Investigation
Comment 2 Double Counting/
Overlapping Remedies
Comment 3 Requirement to Provide
Evidence of Lower Prices
Comment 4 Proposed Cutoff Date for
Identifying Subsidies
Program Specific Issues
Comment 5 Policy Lending Whether
Policy Lending Program Exists
Comment 6 Policy Lending Whether CIB
is a Government Authority
Comment 7 Benchmark - Whether the
Department is Required to Use a
Chinese Benchmark
Comment 8 Benchmark - Whether
Department Should Make an Inflation
Adjustment to Its Regression–based
Benchmark Rate
Comment 9 Benchmark - Whether the
Department has a Basis for Treating
‘‘Medium–term’’ as Having Terms of
Two Years or Less
Comment 10 Benchmark - Whether to
Remove Certain Countries from the IMF
Data
Comment 11 Benchmark - Whether
Negative Inflation-adjusted Interest
Rates Should be Excluded from the
Regressions
Comment 12 Benchmark - Whether the
Regression is Statistically Invalid
Comment 13 Benchmark - Whether the
Difference Between Long- and Shortterm Interest Rates Cannot be Based on
BB–grade
Comment 14 Benchmark - Whether the
Adjustment for Long-term Rates should
be Additive or Multiplicative
Comment 15 Benchmark - Whether the
Discount Rate Computation is Flawed
Comment 16 FIE Tax Programs Whether FIE Tax Programs are Specific
Comment 17 FIE Tax ProgramsWhether They Have Been Terminated
TTCA Specific Issues
Comment 18 Whether the Application
of Total AFA is Warranted
Comment 19 Whether the Application
of Partial AFA is Warranted
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Comment 20 Provision of Plant and
Equipment for LTAR Whether the
Department is Required to Issue a
Finding
Comment 21 Provision of Plant and
Equipment for LTAR Proposed
Methodology for Measuring the Benefit
Comment 22 Provision of Land for
LTAR Whether Land is a Good or a
Service
Comment 23 Provision of Land for
LTAR Whether the Use of an External
Benchmark is Appropriate
Comment 24 Provision of Land for
LTAR Whether Benchmark is New
Factual Information
Comment 25 Whether the Appropriate
Benchmark Interest Rate for Floating
Loan
Comment 26 Whether To Correct a
Clerical Error in TTCA’s Subsidy
Calculation
Yixing Union Specific Issues
Comment 27 Attribution of Yixing
Union and Cogeneration Based on
Cross–Ownership
Comment 28 Whether to Apply AFA for
Land in the YEDZ for LTAR Program
Comment 29 How to Treat the Transfer
of Allocated to Granted Land-use Rights
from HPP to Cogeneration
Comment 30 Whether the Department’s
Finding Regarding Land–use Rights in
Yixing City Violates Due Process
Comment 31 Whether the Department’s
Finding Regarding the Torch Program
Violates Due Process
[FR Doc. E9–8358 Filed 4–10–09; 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:
Final Affirmative Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
Effective Date: April 13, 2009.
We invited interested parties
to comment on our preliminary
determination of sales at LTFV. The
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) has determined that citric
acid and certain citrate salts (‘‘citric
acid’’) from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’) is being, or is likely to
be, sold in the United States at LTFV as
provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The
estimated margins of sales at less than
DATES:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 69 (Monday, April 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16836-16838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8358]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C-570-938)
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People's Republic
of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') has determined
that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and
exporters of citric acid and certain citrate salts (``citric acid'')
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). For information on the
estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the ``Suspension of
Liquidation'' section, below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Neubacher, Shelly Atkinson or
Damian Felton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-5823, (202) 482-0116 or (202) 482-0133, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Petitioners
The petitioners in this investigation are Archer Daniels Midland
Company, Cargill, Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle America, Inc.
(collectively, ``Petitioners'').
Period of Investigation
The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of
investigation, is January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007.
Case History
The following events have occurred since the announcement of the
preliminary determination, which was published in the Federal Register
on September 19, 2008. See 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) (``Preliminary Determination'').
The Department issued several supplemental questionnaires to the
Government of the People's Republic of China (``GOC''), TTCA Co., Ltd.
(formerly Shandong TTCA Biochemical Co., Ltd.) (``TTCA'') and Yixing
Union Biochemical Co. Ltd. (``Yixing Union'') and its cross-owned
affiliate Yixing Union Cogeneration Co., Ltd., and received responses
in September and October 2008.
Public versions of the questionnaires and responses, as well as the
various memoranda cited below are available at the Department's Central
Records Unit (Room 1117 in the HCHB Building) (hereafter referred to as
``CRU'').
On September 12, 2008, the Department determined to investigate
certain subsidies alleged by Petitioners in their submission of August
8, 2008. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Senior Director, Office 1,
entitled ``Analysis of Petitioners' New Subsidy Allegations''
(September 12, 2008). On October 1, 2008, the Department issued
questionnaires to the GOC, TTCA and Yixing Union regarding these new
subsidy allegations. We received responses to these questionnaires as
well as to supplemental questionnaires regarding the newly alleged
submissions in October 2008.
On October 20, 2008, the Department initiated an investigation of
TTCA's creditworthiness for the years 2004, 2006 and 2007, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.505(a)(6). See Memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior
Director, Office 1, entitled ``Uncreditworthy Allegation for TTCA''
(October 20, 2008). On February 25, 2009, we issued our preliminary
determination that TTCA was uncreditworthy for the years investigated.
See Memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Office Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, entitled ``Preliminary Creditworthiness
Determination for TTCA Co., Ltd.'' (February 25, 2009).
From November 1 through November 20, 2008, we conducted
verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOC, TTCA
and Yixing Union.
On March 4, 2009, we issued our post-preliminary determination
regarding the new subsidy allegations and certain other programs
discovered in the course of the investigation. See Memorandum to Ronald
K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
entitled ``Post-Preliminary Findings for the New Subsidy Allegations''
(March 4, 2009).
We received case briefs from the GOC and Yixing Union on March 12,
2009, and from Petitioners and TTCA on March 13, 2009. The same parties
submitted rebuttal briefs on March 18 and 19, 2009, respectively.
[[Page 16837]]
Scope of the 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
percent, 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.
Injury Test
Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``Act''), section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation.
Accordingly, the International Trade Commission (``ITC'') must
determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC
materially injure, or threaten material injury to a U.S. industry. On
June 11, 2008, the ITC published its preliminary determination that
there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States
is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of
imports from China of citric acid. See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate
Salts From Canada and China; Determinations, 73 FR 33115 (June 11,
2008).
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this investigation are addressed in the Memorandum from John M.
Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled ``Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing
Duty Investigation of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the
People's Republic of China'' (April 6, 2009) (hereafter referred to as
the ``Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice.
Attached to this notice as an Appendix is a list of the issues that
parties have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision
Memorandum. Parties can find this public memorandum in the Department's
CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be
accessed directly on the Internet at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The
paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
Use of Adverse Facts Available
For purposes of this final determination, we have continued to rely
on facts available and have again used adverse inferences in accordance
with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act to determine the
countervailable subsidy rates for Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd.
(``Anhui BBCA''), which is one of the three companies selected to
respond to our questionnaires. A full discussion of our decision to
apply adverse facts available is presented in the Decision Memorandum
in the section ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Facts
Available.''
In a departure from the Preliminary Determination, the Department
now finds that the use of ``facts otherwise available'' is warranted
with regard to policy lending because TTCA provided information that
could not be verified. See Decision Memorandum, at Comment 19.
Moreover, TTCA failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability in this investigation. Accordingly, we find that an adverse
inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, to
ensure that TTCA does not obtain a more favorable result than had it
fully complied with our request for information. See Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 19.
For reasons explained in the ``Analysis of Programs'' section I.A
(Programs Determined to Be Countervailable: Energy and Water Savings
Grant) in the Decision Memorandum, we find the use of ``facts otherwise
available'' is warranted, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and (D) of
the Act, with regard to the specificity determination for the Energy
and Water Savings Grant program because the GOC would not provide
requested information and did not provide verifiable program usage
data. Because the GOC refused to provide information that would allow
for a de facto specificity analysis using accurate and verifiable data
and failed to act to the best of its ability, we have employed an
adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise
available. Accordingly, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find
that this program is de facto specific within the meaning of section
771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have
calculated an individual rate for the companies under investigation,
Anhui BBCA, TTCA and Yixing Union. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act
states that for companies not investigated, we will determine an all-
others rate equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates
established for exporters and producers individually investigated,
excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and
any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. As Anhui
BBCA's rate was calculated under section 776 of the Act, it is not
included in the all-others rate.
Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act,
we have not calculated the all-others rate by weight averaging the
rates of TTCA and Yixing Union because doing so risks disclosure of
proprietary information. Therefore, we have calculated a simple average
of the two responding firms' rates. Finally, because TTCA's rate
includes export subsidies, the all-others rate also includes export
subsidies.
[[Page 16838]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter/Manufacturer Net Subsidy Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTCA Co., Ltd. (a.k.a. Shandong TTCA Biochemistry 12.68
Co., Ltd.).........................................
Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd.; and Yixing Union 3.60
Cogeneration Co., Ltd..............................
Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd..................... 118.95
All-Others.......................................... 8.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to discontinue the suspension of
liquidation for countervailing duty purposes for subject merchandise
entered on or after January 17, 2009, but to continue the suspension of
liquidation of entries made from September 19, 2008, through January
16, 2009.
We will issue a countervailing duty order and reinstate the
suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act if the ITC
issues a final affirmative injury determination, and will require a
cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of
merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that
material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this
proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or
securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be
refunded or canceled.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or
under an APO, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury
determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties
subject to an administrative protective order (``APO'') of their
responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is
subject to sanction.
This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: April 6, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
APPENDIX
List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum
General Issues
Comment 1 Application of CVD Law to a Country the Department treats as
an NME in a Parallel AD Investigation
Comment 2 Double Counting/Overlapping Remedies
Comment 3 Requirement to Provide Evidence of Lower Prices
Comment 4 Proposed Cutoff Date for Identifying Subsidies
Program Specific Issues
Comment 5 Policy Lending Whether Policy Lending Program Exists
Comment 6 Policy Lending Whether CIB is a Government Authority
Comment 7 Benchmark - Whether the Department is Required to Use a
Chinese Benchmark
Comment 8 Benchmark - Whether Department Should Make an Inflation
Adjustment to Its Regression-based Benchmark Rate
Comment 9 Benchmark - Whether the Department has a Basis for Treating
``Medium-term'' as Having Terms of Two Years or Less
Comment 10 Benchmark - Whether to Remove Certain Countries from the IMF
Data
Comment 11 Benchmark - Whether Negative Inflation-adjusted Interest
Rates Should be Excluded from the Regressions
Comment 12 Benchmark - Whether the Regression is Statistically Invalid
Comment 13 Benchmark - Whether the Difference Between Long- and Short-
term Interest Rates Cannot be Based on BB-grade
Comment 14 Benchmark - Whether the Adjustment for Long-term Rates
should be Additive or Multiplicative
Comment 15 Benchmark - Whether the Discount Rate Computation is Flawed
Comment 16 FIE Tax Programs - Whether FIE Tax Programs are Specific
Comment 17 FIE Tax Programs- Whether They Have Been Terminated
TTCA Specific Issues
Comment 18 Whether the Application of Total AFA is Warranted
Comment 19 Whether the Application of Partial AFA is Warranted
Comment 20 Provision of Plant and Equipment for LTAR Whether the
Department is Required to Issue a Finding
Comment 21 Provision of Plant and Equipment for LTAR Proposed
Methodology for Measuring the Benefit
Comment 22 Provision of Land for LTAR Whether Land is a Good or a
Service
Comment 23 Provision of Land for LTAR Whether the Use of an External
Benchmark is Appropriate
Comment 24 Provision of Land for LTAR Whether Benchmark is New Factual
Information
Comment 25 Whether the Appropriate Benchmark Interest Rate for Floating
Loan
Comment 26 Whether To Correct a Clerical Error in TTCA's Subsidy
Calculation
Yixing Union Specific Issues
Comment 27 Attribution of Yixing Union and Cogeneration Based on Cross-
Ownership
Comment 28 Whether to Apply AFA for Land in the YEDZ for LTAR Program
Comment 29 How to Treat the Transfer of Allocated to Granted Land-use
Rights from HPP to Cogeneration
Comment 30 Whether the Department's Finding Regarding Land-use Rights
in Yixing City Violates Due Process
Comment 31 Whether the Department's Finding Regarding the Torch Program
Violates Due Process
[FR Doc. E9-8358 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S
