Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 50946-50952 [E9-23833]
Download as PDF
50946
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 74, No. 190
Friday, October 2, 2009
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains documents other than rules or
proposed rules that are applicable to the
public. Notices of hearings and investigations,
committee meetings, agency decisions and
rulings, delegations of authority, filing of
petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are
examples of documents appearing in this
section.
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting
of the Arkansas Advisory Committee
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to
the provisions of the rules and
regulations of the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights (Commission), and the
Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), that a planning meeting of the
Arkansas Advisory Committee to the
Commission will convene by conference
call at 2:30 p.m. and adjourn at
approximately 3:30 p.m. on Thursday,
October 29, 2009. The purpose of this
meeting is to plan activities for future
SAC project.
This meeting is available to the public
through the following toll-free call-in
number: (866) 364–7584, conference call
access code number 29889655. Any
interested member of the public may
call this number and listen to the
meeting. Callers can expect to incur
charges for calls they initiate over
wireless lines, and the Commission will
not refund any incurred charges. Callers
will incur no charge for calls they
initiate over land-line connections to
the toll-free telephone number. Persons
with hearing impairments may also
follow the proceedings by first calling
the Federal Relay Service at 1–800–977–
8339 and providing the Service with the
conference call number and contact
name Farella E. Robinson.
To ensure that the Commission
secures an appropriate number of lines
for the public, persons are asked to
register by contacting Corrine Sanders of
the Central Regional Office and TTY/
TDD telephone number, by 4 p.m. on
October 23, 2009.
Members of the public are entitled to
submit written comments. The
comments must be received in the
regional office by November 13, 2009.
The address is U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights, 400 State Avenue, Suite
908, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
Comments may be e-mailed to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:40 Oct 01, 2009
Jkt 220001
frobinson@usccr.gov. Records generated
by this meeting may be inspected and
reproduced at the Central Regional
Office, as they become available, both
before and after the meeting. Persons
interested in the work of this advisory
committee are advised to go to the
Commission’s Web site, https://
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Central
Regional Office at the above e-mail or
street address.
The meeting will be conducted
pursuant to the provisions of the rules
and regulations of the Commission and
FACA.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs
Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. E9–23799 Filed 10–1–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335–01–P
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting
of the Oklahoma Advisory Committee
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to
the provisions of the rules and
regulations of the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights (Commission), and the
Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), that a planning meeting of the
Oklahoma Advisory Committee to the
Commission will convene by conference
call at 1:30 p.m. and adjourn at
approximately 2:30 p.m. on Thursday,
October 15, 2009. The purpose of this
meeting is to plan activities for a future
SAC project.
This meeting is available to the public
through the following toll-free call-in
number: (866) 364–7584, conference call
access code number 30354990. Any
interested member of the public may
call this number and listen to the
meeting. Callers can expect to incur
charges for calls they initiate over
wireless lines, and the Commission will
not refund any incurred charges. Callers
will incur no charge for calls they
initiate over land-line connections to
the toll-free telephone number. Persons
with hearing impairments may also
follow the proceedings by first calling
the Federal Relay Service at 1–800–977–
8339 and providing the Service with the
conference call number and contact
name Farella E. Robinson.
To ensure that the Commission
secures an appropriate number of lines
for the public, persons are asked to
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
register by contacting Corrine Sanders of
the Central Regional Office and TTY/
TDD telephone number, by 4 p.m. on
October 12, 2009.
Members of the public are entitled to
submit written comments. The
comments must be received in the
regional office by November 30, 2009.
The address is U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights, 400 State Avenue, Suite
908, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
Comments may be e-mailed to
frobinson@usccr.gov. Records generated
by this meeting may be inspected and
reproduced at the Central Regional
Office, as they become available, both
before and after the meeting. Persons
interested in the work of this advisory
committee are advised to go to the
Commission’s Web site, https://
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Central
Regional Office at the above e-mail or
street address.
The meeting will be conducted
pursuant to the provisions of the rules
and regulations of the Commission and
FACA.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs
Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. E9–23801 Filed 10–1–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–851]
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: October 2, 2009.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is currently
conducting a new shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
preserved mushrooms from the People’s
Republic of China (PRC) covering the
period February 1, 2008, through
January 31, 2009. We preliminarily
determine that the sale made by Linyi
City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co.,
Ltd. (Kangfa), and its affiliated supplier
Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable
Co., Ltd., Pingyi Branch (Pingyi Branch)
E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM
02OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 190 / Friday, October 2, 2009 / Notices
(collectively ‘‘Kangfa’’), was not made
below normal value (NV). If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to liquidate entries of
merchandise exported by Kangfa during
the POR without regard to antidumping
duties.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred
Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–2924 or (202) 482–
0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Background
On February 19, 1999, the Department
published in the Federal Register an
amended final determination and
antidumping duty order on certain
preserved mushrooms from the PRC.
See Notice of Amendment of Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value and Antidumping Duty Order:
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 8308
(February 19, 1999) (Order). On
February 26, 2009, we received a timely
new shipper review request in
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(c), from
exporter and producer Kangfa. The
Department determined that this request
contained certain deficiencies, and
requested that Kangfa correct the
submission. See March 12, 2009, and
March 20, 2009, letters from Robert
James, Program Manager, to Kangfa. In
accordance with the Department’s
requests, Kangfa corrected the
deficiencies in its submission dated
March 26, 2009. On April 7, 2009, the
Department published a notice in the
Federal Register initiating a new
shipper review for Kangfa. See Certain
Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Initiation
of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 74 FR 15698 (April 7, 2009)
(Initiation Notice).
We issued the standard antidumping
duty questionnaire, along with the
standard importer questionnaire for new
shipper reviews, on April 3, 2009, and
received responses in May and June
2009. We issued supplemental
questionnaires covering sections A, C,
and D of the original questionnaire on
May 22, 2009, June 19, 2009, July 20,
2009, and August 10, 2009, and received
timely responses to those
questionnaires.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:40 Oct 01, 2009
Jkt 220001
Period of Review
The POR covers February 1, 2008,
through January 31, 2009.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are certain preserved mushrooms,
whether imported whole, sliced, diced,
or as stems and pieces. The certain
preserved mushrooms covered under
this order are the species Agaricus
bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis.
‘‘Certain Preserved Mushrooms’’ refers
to mushrooms that have been prepared
or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and
sometimes slicing or cutting. These
mushrooms are then packed and heated
in containers including, but not limited
to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid
medium, including, but not limited to,
water, brine, butter or butter sauce.
Certain preserved mushrooms may be
imported whole, sliced, diced, or as
stems and pieces. Included within the
scope of this order are ‘‘brined’’
mushrooms, which are presalted and
packed in a heavy salt solution to
provisionally preserve them for further
processing.1
Excluded from the scope of this order
are the following: (1) All other species
of mushroom, including straw
mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled
mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or
‘‘quick blanched mushrooms’’ (3) dried
mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and
(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or
‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are
prepared or preserved by means of
vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain
oil or other additives.
The merchandise subject to this order
is classifiable under subheadings:
2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131,
2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143,
2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and
0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and Customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of this order is dispositive.
Bona Fide Analysis
Consistent with the Department’s
practice, we investigated the bona fide
nature of the sale made by Kangfa for
1 On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that
‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms
containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are
within the scope of the antidumping duty order.
See Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling of
Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain
Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit upheld this decision. See Tak Fat v. United
States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50947
this new shipper review. In evaluating
whether a single sale in a new shipper
review is commercially reasonable, and
therefore bona fide, the Department
considers, inter alia, such factors as: (1)
The timing of the sale; (2) the price and
quantity; (3) the expenses arising from
the transaction; (4) whether the goods
were resold at a profit; and (5) whether
the transaction was made on an arm’slength basis. See Tianjin Tiancheng
Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 366 F.
Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 (CIT 2005).
Accordingly, the Department considers
a number of factors in its bona fide
analysis, ‘‘all of which may speak to the
commercial realities surrounding an
alleged sale of subject merchandise.’’
See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid
Co., Ltd. v. United States, 374 F. Supp.
2d 1333, 1342 (CIT 2005) (citing Fresh
Garlic From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review and Rescission
of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283
(March 13, 2002) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum).
We preliminarily find the U.S. sale
made by Kangfa during the POR was
made on a bona fide basis. Specifically,
we find: (1) The timing of the sale does
not indicate the sale might not be bona
fide; (2) the quantity of the sale was
within the range of the quantities of
other entries of subject merchandise
from the PRC into the United States
during the POR, based upon the
Department’s review of data obtained
from CBP; (3) Kangfa and its customer
did not incur any extraordinary
expenses arising from the transaction;
(4) the sale was resold at a profit; and
(5) the sale was made between
unaffiliated parties at arm’s-length.
However, we also note that the price of
this sale was not within the range of
other entries of subject merchandise
during the POR. Nevertheless, we have
determined that Kangfa’s selling price,
alone, does not raise any concerns with
respect to bona fides. For a complete
review of our bona fides analysis, see
Memorandum from Fred Baker,
International Trade Compliance
Analyst, to The File via Robert James,
Program Manager, Office 7, ‘‘Bona Fide
Sales Analysis of Linyi City Kangfa
Foodstuff Drinkable Co., Ltd. (Kangfa),
and Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff
Drinkable Co., Ltd., Pingyi Branch
(Pingyi Branch) (collectively ‘Kangfa’) in
the Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms
from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated concurrently with this notice.
Based on our review of the record
evidence concerning the bona fide
nature of this sale, as well as Kangfa’s
eligibility for a separate rate (see
E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM
02OCN1
50948
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 190 / Friday, October 2, 2009 / Notices
‘‘Separate Rates Determination’’ section,
below) and the Department’s
determination that Kangfa was not
affiliated with any exporter or producer
that had previously shipped subject
merchandise to the United States, we
preliminarily determine that Kangfa has
met the requirements to qualify as a new
shipper during the POR. Therefore, for
purposes of these preliminary results,
we are treating the sale of subject
merchandise to the United States as an
appropriate transaction for this new
shipper review.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, we have
treated the PRC as a non-market
economy (NME) country. In accordance
with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act,
any determination that a foreign country
is an NME country shall remain in effect
until revoked by the administering
authority. None of the parties to this
proceeding have contested such
treatment. Accordingly, we calculated
NV in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Separate Rates Determination
A designation of a country as an NME
remains in effect until it is revoked by
the Department. See section 771(18)(C)
of the Act. Accordingly, there is a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the PRC are subject to
government control, and thus should be
assessed a single antidumping duty rate.
It is the Department’s policy to assign
all exporters of the merchandise subject
to review in NME countries a single rate
unless an exporter can affirmatively
demonstrate an absence of government
control, both in law (de jure) and in fact
(de facto), with respect to exports. To
establish whether a company is
sufficiently independent to be entitled
to a separate, company-specific rate, the
Department analyzes each exporting
entity in an NME country under the test
established in the Final Determination
of Sales at Less than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People’s Republic of
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991),
(Sparklers) as amplified by the Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR
22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide).
Absence of De Jure Control
Evidence supporting, though not
requiring, a finding of de jure absence
of government control over export
activities includes: (1) An absence of
restrictive stipulations associated with
the individual exporter’s business and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:40 Oct 01, 2009
Jkt 220001
export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) any other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. In this new
shipper review, Kangfa submitted a
complete response to the separate rates
section of the Department’s
questionnaire. The evidence submitted
in the instant review by Kangfa includes
government laws and regulations on
corporate ownership and control (i.e.,
the Company Law and the Foreign
Trade Law of the People’s Republic of
China), individual business licenses,
and narrative information regarding the
company’s operations and selection of
management. The evidence Kangfa
provided supports a preliminary finding
of a de jure absence of government
control over its export activities
because: (1) There are no controls on
exports of subject merchandise, such as
quotas applied to, or licenses required
for, exports of the subject merchandise
to the United States; and (2) the
government of the PRC has passed
legislation decentralizing control of
companies. See Kangfa’s March 24, 2009
submission at Appendix 2, and its April
22 submission at 4.
Absence of De Facto Control
The absence of de facto government
control over exports generally is based
on whether the respondent: (1) Sets its
own export prices independent of the
government and other exporters; (2)
retains the proceeds from its export
sales and makes independent decisions
regarding the disposition of profits or
financing of losses; (3) has the authority
to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; and (4) has autonomy from
the government regarding the selection
of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59
FR at 22586–87; Sparklers, 56 FR at
20589; and Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol From the People’s Republic of
China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8,
1995).
In its April 22, 2009, submission,
Kangfa submitted evidence
demonstrating an absence of de facto
government control over its export
activities. Specifically, this evidence
indicates: (1) The company sets its own
export prices independent of the
government and without the approval of
a government authority; (2) the
company retains the proceeds from its
sales and makes independent decisions
regarding the disposition of profits or
financing of losses; (3) the company has
a general manager and a sales manager
with the authority to negotiate and bind
the company in an agreement; (4) the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
general manager is selected by the board
of directors, and the general manager
appoints the manager of each
department; and (5) there is no
restriction on the company’s use of
export revenues.
Therefore, in the absence of either de
jure or de facto government control over
Kangfa’s export activities, we
preliminarily find that Kangfa has
established prima facie that it qualifies
for a separate rate under the criteria
established by Silicon Carbide and
Sparklers.
Surrogate Country
When the Department investigates
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV,
in most circumstances, on the NME
producer’s factors of production (FOPs),
valued in a surrogate market-economy
country or countries considered to be
appropriate by the Department. In
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the
Act, in valuing the FOPs, the
Department shall utilize, to the extent
possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in
one or more market-economy countries
that are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
NME country and are significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
The sources of the surrogate values we
have used in this new shipper review
are discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’
section, below. On May 13, 2009, the
Department determined that India, the
Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia,
Thailand and Peru are countries
comparable to the PRC in terms of
economic development, and requested
comments from interested parties on
selecting the appropriate surrogate
country for this review. See Letter to All
Interested Parties, RE: New Shipper
Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms
from the People’s Republic of China:
Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable
Co., Ltd., dated May 18, 2009, at
Attachment 1. No party submitted
surrogate country selection comments.
The Department has examined the
export levels 2 of subject merchandise
from the above-mentioned countries and
found that India and Indonesia are
significant producers of comparable
merchandise. See Memorandum from
Fred Baker, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, to Richard Weible,
Office Director, ‘‘Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review of Certain
Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s
Republic of China: Selection of a
2 The Department was unable to find world
production data for subject merchandise and relied
on export data as a substitute for overall
production.
E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM
02OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 190 / Friday, October 2, 2009 / Notices
Surrogate Country,’’ dated concurrently
with this notice (Surrogate Country
Memorandum) at 4. During the POR
India had exports in both of the HTS
subheadings identified for subject
merchandise, while Indonesia had
exports under only one of the HTS
subheadings. Accordingly, we find that
the Indian export data are more
comprehensive and representative of
subject merchandise than Indonesian
export data. Id. at 5.
In selecting the appropriate surrogate
country, the Department examines the
availability and reliability of data from
the countries deemed to be
economically comparable and
significant producers of subject
merchandise. For a description of our
practice, see Department Policy Bulletin
No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy
Surrogate Country Selection Process
(March 1, 2004). India has been the
primary surrogate country in numerous
past segments for this proceeding. In
those past segments, the Department
found India’s import statistics to be an
available and reliable source for
surrogate values. See Surrogate Country
Memorandum at 4. Therefore, because
India: (1) Is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise; (2) is at a
similar level of economic development
as the PRC; (3) has publicly available
and reliable data, which the Department
has previously relied upon for
numerous segments of this proceeding;
and, (4) has more comprehensive and
more representative data regarding the
subject merchandise than the data
provided for Indonesia, the Department
has selected India as the surrogate
country, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of
the Act. See Surrogate Country
Memorandum at 5.
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Kangfa’s sale of
subject merchandise to the United
States was made at a price below NV,
we compared its U.S. price to NV, as
described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice,
below.
U.S. Price
In its section A response Kangfa
stated that it intended to use the invoice
date as the date of sale, stating that this
was the date that best represented when
the terms of sale are fixed. See Kangfa’s
April 22, 2009 section A submission at
14. Later, in its submission of June 3,
2009, Kangfa attempted to show that the
terms of sale sometimes change after the
contract date. Kangfa’s evidence
consisted of a contract and invoice for
a shipment of non-subject fruit it had
made to the German market during the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:40 Oct 01, 2009
Jkt 220001
POR which showed that the quantity
invoiced to the customer differed from
the quantity indicated on the contract.
See Kangfa’s June 3, 2009, submission at
1 and Exhibit 1. However, we note that
the quantity and price of its U.S. sale
did not change from the contact date to
the invoice date, and the change in
quantity of non-subject fruit, which
respondent relied upon to justify the use
of invoice date, was within the tolerance
level specified on the contract.
Therefore, we do not consider this to be
a change to the material terms of sale
relevant for purposes of determining
date of sale. Thus, we used the contract
date as the date of sale because there
were no changes to either the price or
quantity of Kangfa’s U.S. sale after this
date, and there is no record evidence
that the material terms of sale changed
following the contract date for any of
Kangfa’s other sales during the POR.
The contract date is therefore the date
that best represents when Kangfa
established the material terms of sale.
See 19 CFR 351.401(i).
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, we based U.S. price on the
export price (EP) of the sale to the
United States by Kangfa because the
first sale to an unaffiliated party was
made before the date of importation and
the use of constructed export price was
not otherwise warranted. We calculated
EP based on the free-on-board (FOB)
price to the first unaffiliated purchaser
in the United States. For this EP sale, we
deducted foreign inland freight and
foreign brokerage and handling from the
starting price (or gross unit price), in
accordance with section 772(c) of the
Act. For Kangfa’s U.S. sale, each of these
services was provided by an NME
vendor. Thus, we based the deduction
of these movement charges on surrogate
values.
We valued truck freight expenses
using a 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. We used data from this Web site
for six months of the POR for which the
Web site contained data. See
Memorandum from Fred Baker,
International Trade Compliance
Analyst, through Robert James, Program
Manager, to the File, ‘‘New Shipper
Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms
from the People’s Republic of China:
Surrogate Values for the Preliminary
Results’’ (Surrogate Values
Memorandum) at Exhibit 6.
We valued brokerage and handling
using a simple average of the brokerage
and handling costs reported in public
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50949
submissions filed in three antidumping
duty cases. Specifically, we averaged
the public brokerage and handling
expenses reported by Navneet
Publications (India) Ltd. in the 2007–
2008 administrative review of certain
lined paper products from India, Essar
Steel Limited in the 2006–2007
antidumping duty administrative review
of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products
from India, and Himalaya International
Ltd. in the 2005–2006 administrative
review of certain preserved mushrooms
from India. The Department adjusted
the average brokerage and handling rate
for inflation. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum at Exhibit 8.
Normal Value
1. Methodology
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act
provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using an FOP
methodology if the merchandise is
exported from an NME and the
information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market
prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act. The Department bases NV on
FOPs because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of NMEs renders price comparisons and
the calculation of production costs
invalid under the Department’s normal
methodologies. See Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or
Unfinished, From the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind
in Part, 70 FR 39744 (July 11, 2005),
unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results of 2003–2004
Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517
(January 17, 2006).
We calculated NV by adding together
the value of the FOPs, general expenses,
profit, and packing costs. The FOPs for
subject merchandise include: (1)
Quantities of raw materials employed;
(2) hours of labor required; (3) amounts
of energy and other utilities consumed;
(4) representative capital and selling
costs; and (5) packing materials. We
used the FOPs that Kangfa reported for
materials, energy, labor, and packing,
and valued those FOPs by multiplying
the amount of the factor consumed in
producing subject merchandise by the
average unit surrogate value of the
factor.
In addition, we added freight costs to
the surrogate costs that we calculated
for material inputs. We calculated
E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM
02OCN1
50950
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 190 / Friday, October 2, 2009 / Notices
freight costs by multiplying surrogate
freight rates by the shorter of the
reported distance from the domestic
supplier to the factory that produced the
subject merchandise or the distance
from the nearest seaport to the factory
that produced the subject merchandise,
as appropriate. Where there were
multiple domestic suppliers of a
material input, we calculated a
weighted-average distance after limiting
each supplier’s distance to no more than
the distance from the nearest seaport to
Kangfa. This adjustment is in
accordance with the decision by the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117
F.3d 1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We offset Kangfa’s material costs for
revenue generated from the sale of
copper wire scrap and tin scrap. See
Surrogate Values Memorandum at
Exhibit 8.
We also increased the calculated costs
of the FOPs for surrogate general
expenses and profit. See Surrogate
Values Memorandum at Exhibit 9.
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
2. Selection of Surrogate Values
In selecting surrogate values, we
followed, to the extent practicable, the
Department’s practice of choosing
public values which are non-export
averages, representative of a range of
prices in effect during the POR, or over
a period as close as possible in time to
the POR, product-specific, and taxexclusive. See, e.g., Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative
Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of
Final Determination: Certain Frozen
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR
42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged
in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR
71005 (December 8, 2004). We also
considered the quality of the source of
surrogate information in selecting
surrogate values. See Manganese Metal
From the People’s Republic of China;
Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998).
Where we could obtain only surrogate
values that were not contemporaneous
with the POR, we inflated (or deflated)
the surrogate values using, where
appropriate, the Indian wholesale price
index (WPI) as published in
International Financial Statistics by the
International Monetary Fund. See
Surrogate Values Memorandum at
Exhibit 1.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:40 Oct 01, 2009
Jkt 220001
In calculating surrogate values from
import statistics, in accordance with the
Department’s practice, we disregarded
statistics for imports from NME
countries and countries deemed to
maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific subsidies which may
benefit all exporters to all export
markets (e.g., Indonesia, South Korea,
and Thailand). See, e.g., Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Automotive
Replacement Glass Windshields From
The People’s Republic of China, 67 FR
6482 (February 12, 2002) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1. See also
Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination,
and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People’s Republic of
China, 68 FR 66800, 66808 (November
28, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People’s Republic of
China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004).
Additionally, we excluded from our
calculations imports that were labeled
as originating from an unspecified
country because we could not determine
whether they were from an NME
country.
We valued production material inputs
(mushroom spawn, wheat straw, and
manure) using the financial statements
of Agro Dutch, an Indian producer of
mushrooms and vegetables, as follows.
To value the input of mushroom spawn,
we used data from Agro Dutch’s FY
2004–2005 (April 2004–March 2005)
financial statement because Agro
Dutch’s mushroom spawn value is
specific to the species Agaricus
bisporous, which is the species used to
produce subject merchandise. To value
the input of wheat straw, we used the
wheat straw value from Agro Dutch’s FY
2006–2007 (April 2006–March 2007)
financial statement because this value is
specific to the input. To value the input
of manure, we used the manure value
from Agro Dutch’s FY 2004–2005
financial statement because this value is
specific to the input. See Surrogate
Values Memorandum at Exhibit 2. We
adjusted these values for inflation. See
Surrogate Values Memorandum at
Exhibit 1.
We valued processing and canning
material inputs (super calcium
phosphate, calcium carbonate, salt,
citric acid, tin plate, copper wire, and
sealing glue) using weighted-average
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Indian import values derived from the
World Trade Atlas online (WTA), for the
period February 2008 through January
2009. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Exhibits 2 and 3. In
addition, we valued packing material
inputs (cartons, labels, hard paper
board, and glue) with weighted-average
Indian import values derived from the
WTA for the period February 2008
through January 2009. Id. at Exhibit 5.
The Indian import statistics obtained
from the WTA were published by the
Indian Directorate General of
Commercial Intelligence and Statistics,
Ministry of Commerce of India, and are
contemporaneous with the POR. As the
Indian surrogate values were
denominated in rupees, in accordance
with section 773A(a) of the Act, we
converted them to U.S. dollars using the
official exchange rate for India recorded
on the date of sale of subject
merchandise in this case. See https://
www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/
index.html.
To value land rent, the Department
used data from the 2001 Punjab State
Development Report, administered by
the Planning Commission of the
Government of India. Since the value of
land rent was not contemporaneous
with the POR, the Department adjusted
the value for inflation. See Surrogate
Values Memorandum at Exhibit 2.
We valued electricity using price data
for small, medium, and large industries,
as published by the Central Electricity
Authority of the Government of India in
its publication titled Electricity Tariff &
Duty and Average Rates of Electricity
Supply in India, dated July 2006. These
electricity rates represent actual
country-wide publicly-available
information on tax-exclusive electricity
rates charged to industries in India. As
the rates listed in this source became
effective on a variety of different dates,
we are not adjusting the average value
for inflation. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum at Exhibit 4.
To value water, the Department used
the revised Maharastra Industrial
Development Corporation water rates,
which are available at https://
www.midcindia.com/water-supply. The
Department found this source to be the
best available information since it
includes a wide range of industrial
water rates. Since the water rates were
not contemporaneous with the POR, the
Department adjusted the value for
inflation. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Exhibit 4.
We valued coal using weightedaverage Indian import values derived
from the WTA for the period February
2008 through January 2009. See
E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM
02OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 190 / Friday, October 2, 2009 / Notices
Surrogate Values Memorandum at
Exhibit 4.
We valued truck freight expenses for
inputs using the same surrogate data we
used for valuing domestic inland freight
for Kangfa’s U.S. sale (i.e., we used data
from the Web site https://
www.infobanc.com/logistics/
logtruck.htm, which contains inland
freight truck rates between many large
Indian cities). See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Exhibit 6.
The Department’s regulations require
the use of a regression-based wage rate.
See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). Therefore, to
value labor, the Department used the
regression-based wage rate for the PRC
published on the Import Administration
Web site. See the IA Web site: https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/05wages041608.html, and see Corrected 2007
Calculation of Expected Non-Market
Economy Wages, 73 FR 27795 (May 14,
2008).
To value the surrogate financial ratios
for factory overhead (OH), selling,
general & administrative (SG&A)
expenses, and profit, the Department
used the 2006–2007 financial statements
of Agro Dutch and Flex Foods Limited
(Flex Foods). Agro Dutch is a producer
of mushrooms, and Flex Foods is a
producer of mushrooms and other
vegetable products. Agro Dutch’s and
Flex Foods’ financial ratios for OH and
SG&A are comparable to Kangfa’s
financial ratios because Agro Dutch’s
and Flex Foods’ production experience
is comparable to Kangfa’s production
experience by virtue of each company’s
production of subject merchandise.
Moreover, an average of the financial
statements of Agro Dutch and Flex
Foods represents a broader spectrum of
the Indian mushroom industry than
does the financial statement of a single
mushroom producer. See Surrogate
Values Memorandum at Exhibit 9.
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank. These exchange rates can
be accessed at the Web site of Import
Administration at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
exchange/.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the
following dumping margin exists during
the period February 1, 2008, through
January 31, 2009:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:40 Oct 01, 2009
Jkt 220001
Manufacturer/exporter
Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff
Drinkable Co., Ltd. (Kangfa)
Margin
(percent)
0.00
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b), the Department will disclose
to parties to this proceeding the
calculations performed in reaching the
preliminary results within five days of
publication of these preliminary results.
Interested parties may submit written
comments (case briefs) within 30 days
of publication of the preliminary results
and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs)
within five days after the time limit for
filing case briefs. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 351.309(d)(1).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2),
rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues
raised in the case briefs. Parties who
submit arguments are requested to
submit with the case or rebuttal briefs:
(1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief
summary of the argument; and (3) a
table of authorities. Further, the
Department requests that parties
submitting written comments provide
the Department with a diskette
containing the public version of those
comments.
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Interested parties who wish to request a
hearing or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration within 30 days
of publication of this notice. Requests
should contain: (1) The party’s name,
address, and telephone number; (2) the
number of participants; and (3) a list of
issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing
will be limited to those raised in the
briefs.
Unless the deadline is extended
pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of
the Act, the Department will issue the
final results of this new shipper review,
including the results of our analysis of
the issues raised by the parties in their
comments, within 90 days of
publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuing the final results of the
review, the Department shall determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. The
Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the
date of publication of the final results of
review. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we will calculate
importer-specific ad valorem duty
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50951
assessment rates based on the ratio of
the total amount of the dumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the
total entered value of those same sales.
We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries covered by this review if any
importer-specific assessment rate
calculated in the final results of this
review is above de minimis. However,
the final results of this review shall be
the basis for the assessment of
antidumping duties on entries of
merchandise covered by the final results
of this review and for future deposits of
estimated duties, where applicable.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, will be
effective upon publication of the final
results of this new shipper review for all
shipments of subject merchandise
exported by Kangfa entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C)
of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise
manufactured and exported by Kangfa,
the cash-deposit rate will be that
established in the final results of this
review; (2) for subject merchandise
exported by Kangfa but not
manufactured by Kangfa, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the PRCwide rate (i.e., 198.63 percent); and (3)
for subject merchandise manufactured
by Kangfa but exported by any other
party, the cash deposit rate will be the
rate applicable to the exporter. If the
cash deposit rate calculated for Kangfa
in the final results is zero or de minimis,
a cash deposit will be not be required
for entries of subject merchandise both
produced and exported by Kangfa.
These cash deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This new shipper review and notice
are in accordance with sections
751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.214(i).
E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM
02OCN1
50952
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 190 / Friday, October 2, 2009 / Notices
Dated: September 28, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. E9–23833 Filed 10–1–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–831]
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Fresh Garlic from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and
Final Rescission, In Part, of New
Shipper Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Department) is conducting the new
shipper reviews (NSRs) of the
antidumping duty order on fresh garlic
from the People’s Republic of China
(PRC) covering the periods of review
(PORs) of November 1, 2007 through
April 30, 2008 and November 1, 2007
through June 9, 2008.1 As discussed
below, we determine that sales have
been made in the United States at prices
below normal value (NV) with respect to
two exporters who participated fully
and have demonstrated their eligibility
for separate rates in the NSR: Chengwu
County Yuanxiang Industry &
Commerce, Ltd. (Yuanxiang) and
Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd. (Hejia). In the
preliminary results of this review, we
found Yuanxiang’s and Hejia’s POR
sales were made on a bona fide basis.
See Fresh Garlic From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 20452
(May 4, 2009) (Preliminary Results). We
are continuing to find Yuanxiang’s and
Hejia’s sales to be bona fide for the final
results of this review. In addition, we
are rescinding the NSRs for four
companies: Weifang Chenglong Import
& Export Co., Ltd. (Chenglong), Jinxiang
Tianheng Trade Co., Ltd. (Tianheng),
Jinxiang Zhengyang Import & Export
Co., Ltd. (Zhengyang), and Juye
Homestead Fruits and Vegetables Co.,
Ltd. (Juye). We intend to instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
assess antidumping duties on entries of
subject merchandise during the POR for
which importer–specific assessment
rates are above de minimis.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 2, 2009.
1 We extended the end of the period of review
(POR) from April 30, 2007 to June 9, 2008, to
capture entries for three respondents. See the
‘‘Expansion of the POR’’ section in the Preliminary
Results.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:40 Oct 01, 2009
Jkt 220001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni
Page, Scott Lindsay, or Summer Avery,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1398, (202) 482–
0780, or (202) 482–4052, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 4, 2009, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of the NSRs of the
antidumping duty order on fresh garlic
from the PRC. See Preliminary Results.
Since the Preliminary Results, the
following events have occurred.
Hejia filed surrogate value (SV)
information for its single–clove garlic on
May 19, 2009. On May 22, 2009, we
extended the deadline for all interested
parties to submit publicly available
information to value factors of
production until June 9, 2009.
Chenglong and Tianheng filed SV
information on June 9, 2009. On June
19, 2009, Fresh Garlic Producers
Association (FGPA) and its individual
members (Christopher Ranch L.L.C., the
Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and
Vessey and Company, Inc.) (collectively,
Petitioners), filed factual information
intended to rebut SV information filed
by Chenglong and Tianheng.
On May 27, 2009, the Department
issued a supplemental questionnaire to
Shandong Zhengyang with a due date of
June 10, 2009. On June 4, 2009, counsel
for Zhengyang notified the Department
that it was withdrawing its
representation of the company and
advised the Department to contact
Zhengyang directly. On June 12, 2009,
the Department sent a letter to
Zhengyang stating that we had not
received its supplemental questionnaire
response and that we had canceled
verification. Zhengyang did not respond
to the Department’s letter.
On May 27, 2009, the Department sent
a supplemental questionnaire to Hejia.
The Department received Hejia’s timely
response on June 2, 2009. On June 2,
2009, the Department was notified by
Juye that it was withdrawing from the
NSR.
On June 4, 2009, we extended the
time limit for the completion of the final
results of these reviews. See Fresh
Garlic From the People’s Republic of
China: Extension of Time Limit for the
Final Results of New Shipper Reviews,
74 FR 26839 (June 4, 2009).
The Department conducted
verification of the NSR respondents
Chenglong, Hejia, and Yuanxiang from
June 22, 2009 through June 30, 2009. On
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
July 30 and 31, 2009, the Department
issued its verification reports.
On July 30, 2009, the Department
preliminarily found Tianheng’s sale to
be not bona fide. See Memorandum
From Barbara E. Tillman, Office
Director, Office 6, Re: Bona Fide Nature
of the Sale in the Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic
from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’): Amended Intent to
Preliminarily Rescind Jinxiang
Tianheng Trade Co.’s New Shipper
Review, July 30, 2009 (Amended
Memorandum). We continue to find
Tianheng’s sale to be not bona fide for
these final results.
In response to requests filed by
Petitioners and the NSR respondents,
the Department extended the due date
for case briefs until August 17, 2009.
The Department received timely filed
case briefs from Petitioners, Hejia,
Yuanxiang, Chenglong, and Tianheng.
On August 21, 2009, the Department
advised Hejia and Tianheng that each
company’s brief contained new factual
information and instructed both Hejia
and Tianheng to re–file their case briefs.
Hejia and Tianheng complied with the
Department’s request and re–filed their
case briefs on August 28, 2009 and
September 9, 2009, respectively. In
response to requests filed by Petitioners
and the NSR respondents, the
Department extended the deadline for
rebuttal briefs to August 24, 2009, for
arguments regarding everything except
Hejia–related issues, and to August 28,
2009, for Hejia–specific matters. The
Department received timely filed
rebuttal briefs from all interested parties
on August 24 and 28, 2009.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this Order
are all grades of garlic, whole or
separated into constituent cloves,
whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled,
frozen, provisionally preserved, or
packed in water or other neutral
substance, but not prepared or
preserved by the addition of other
ingredients or heat processing. The
differences between grades are based on
color, size, sheathing, and level of
decay. The scope of this order does not
include the following: (a) garlic that has
been mechanically harvested and that is
primarily, but not exclusively, destined
for non–fresh use; or (b) garlic that has
been specially prepared and cultivated
prior to planting and then harvested and
otherwise prepared for use as seed. The
subject merchandise is used principally
as a food product and for seasoning. The
subject garlic is currently classifiable
under subheadings 0703.20.0010,
0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090,
E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM
02OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 190 (Friday, October 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50946-50952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23833]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-851]
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: October 2, 2009.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is currently
conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on
certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (PRC)
covering the period February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009. We
preliminarily determine that the sale made by Linyi City Kangfa
Foodstuff Drinkable Co., Ltd. (Kangfa), and its affiliated supplier
Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co., Ltd., Pingyi Branch (Pingyi
Branch)
[[Page 50947]]
(collectively ``Kangfa''), was not made below normal value (NV). If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate
entries of merchandise exported by Kangfa during the POR without regard
to antidumping duties.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2924 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the Federal
Register an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on
certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. See Notice of Amendment of
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping
Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of
China, 64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999) (Order). On February 26, 2009, we
received a timely new shipper review request in accordance with section
751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19
CFR 351.214(c), from exporter and producer Kangfa. The Department
determined that this request contained certain deficiencies, and
requested that Kangfa correct the submission. See March 12, 2009, and
March 20, 2009, letters from Robert James, Program Manager, to Kangfa.
In accordance with the Department's requests, Kangfa corrected the
deficiencies in its submission dated March 26, 2009. On April 7, 2009,
the Department published a notice in the Federal Register initiating a
new shipper review for Kangfa. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review, 74 FR 15698 (April 7, 2009) (Initiation Notice).
We issued the standard antidumping duty questionnaire, along with
the standard importer questionnaire for new shipper reviews, on April
3, 2009, and received responses in May and June 2009. We issued
supplemental questionnaires covering sections A, C, and D of the
original questionnaire on May 22, 2009, June 19, 2009, July 20, 2009,
and August 10, 2009, and received timely responses to those
questionnaires.
Period of Review
The POR covers February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms,
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The
certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species
Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ``Certain Preserved
Mushrooms'' refers to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by
cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms
are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to,
cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not
limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Certain preserved
mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces.
Included within the scope of this order are ``brined'' mushrooms, which
are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally
preserve them for further processing.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms containing
less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the
antidumping duty order. See Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling
of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain Marinated,
Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,''
dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld this decision. See Tak Fat v.
United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All
other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and
chilled mushrooms, including ``refrigerated'' or ``quick blanched
mushrooms'' (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5)
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms, which are
prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may
contain oil or other additives.
The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under
subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143,
2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Bona Fide Analysis
Consistent with the Department's practice, we investigated the bona
fide nature of the sale made by Kangfa for this new shipper review. In
evaluating whether a single sale in a new shipper review is
commercially reasonable, and therefore bona fide, the Department
considers, inter alia, such factors as: (1) The timing of the sale; (2)
the price and quantity; (3) the expenses arising from the transaction;
(4) whether the goods were resold at a profit; and (5) whether the
transaction was made on an arm's-length basis. See Tianjin Tiancheng
Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 (CIT
2005). Accordingly, the Department considers a number of factors in its
bona fide analysis, ``all of which may speak to the commercial
realities surrounding an alleged sale of subject merchandise.'' See
Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United States, 374 F. Supp.
2d 1333, 1342 (CIT 2005) (citing Fresh Garlic From the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review
and Rescission of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283 (March 13, 2002) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum).
We preliminarily find the U.S. sale made by Kangfa during the POR
was made on a bona fide basis. Specifically, we find: (1) The timing of
the sale does not indicate the sale might not be bona fide; (2) the
quantity of the sale was within the range of the quantities of other
entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States
during the POR, based upon the Department's review of data obtained
from CBP; (3) Kangfa and its customer did not incur any extraordinary
expenses arising from the transaction; (4) the sale was resold at a
profit; and (5) the sale was made between unaffiliated parties at
arm's-length. However, we also note that the price of this sale was not
within the range of other entries of subject merchandise during the
POR. Nevertheless, we have determined that Kangfa's selling price,
alone, does not raise any concerns with respect to bona fides. For a
complete review of our bona fides analysis, see Memorandum from Fred
Baker, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to The File via Robert
James, Program Manager, Office 7, ``Bona Fide Sales Analysis of Linyi
City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co., Ltd. (Kangfa), and Linyi City
Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co., Ltd., Pingyi Branch (Pingyi Branch)
(collectively `Kangfa') in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,''
dated concurrently with this notice.
Based on our review of the record evidence concerning the bona fide
nature of this sale, as well as Kangfa's eligibility for a separate
rate (see
[[Page 50948]]
``Separate Rates Determination'' section, below) and the Department's
determination that Kangfa was not affiliated with any exporter or
producer that had previously shipped subject merchandise to the United
States, we preliminarily determine that Kangfa has met the requirements
to qualify as a new shipper during the POR. Therefore, for purposes of
these preliminary results, we are treating the sale of subject
merchandise to the United States as an appropriate transaction for this
new shipper review.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, we
have treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority. None of the parties to this
proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
Separate Rates Determination
A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act.
Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the PRC are subject to government control, and thus should be
assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy
to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME
countries a single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively
demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law (de jure) and
in fact (de facto), with respect to exports. To establish whether a
company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate,
company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity in
an NME country under the test established in the Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), (Sparklers) as amplified by the
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon
Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994)
(Silicon Carbide).
Absence of De Jure Control
Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure
absence of government control over export activities includes: (1) An
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures
by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers,
56 FR at 20589. In this new shipper review, Kangfa submitted a complete
response to the separate rates section of the Department's
questionnaire. The evidence submitted in the instant review by Kangfa
includes government laws and regulations on corporate ownership and
control (i.e., the Company Law and the Foreign Trade Law of the
People's Republic of China), individual business licenses, and
narrative information regarding the company's operations and selection
of management. The evidence Kangfa provided supports a preliminary
finding of a de jure absence of government control over its export
activities because: (1) There are no controls on exports of subject
merchandise, such as quotas applied to, or licenses required for,
exports of the subject merchandise to the United States; and (2) the
government of the PRC has passed legislation decentralizing control of
companies. See Kangfa's March 24, 2009 submission at Appendix 2, and
its April 22 submission at 4.
Absence of De Facto Control
The absence of de facto government control over exports generally
is based on whether the respondent: (1) Sets its own export prices
independent of the government and other exporters; (2) retains the
proceeds from its export sales and makes independent decisions
regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) has
the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and
(4) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of
management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; Sparklers, 56 FR at
20589; and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544,
22545 (May 8, 1995).
In its April 22, 2009, submission, Kangfa submitted evidence
demonstrating an absence of de facto government control over its export
activities. Specifically, this evidence indicates: (1) The company sets
its own export prices independent of the government and without the
approval of a government authority; (2) the company retains the
proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) the company has a
general manager and a sales manager with the authority to negotiate and
bind the company in an agreement; (4) the general manager is selected
by the board of directors, and the general manager appoints the manager
of each department; and (5) there is no restriction on the company's
use of export revenues.
Therefore, in the absence of either de jure or de facto government
control over Kangfa's export activities, we preliminarily find that
Kangfa has established prima facie that it qualifies for a separate
rate under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.
Surrogate Country
When the Department investigates imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (FOPs),
valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4)
of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the
extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market-
economy countries that are at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of
comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have
used in this new shipper review are discussed under the ``Normal
Value'' section, below. On May 13, 2009, the Department determined that
India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand and Peru are
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development, and
requested comments from interested parties on selecting the appropriate
surrogate country for this review. See Letter to All Interested
Parties, RE: New Shipper Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People's Republic of China: Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co.,
Ltd., dated May 18, 2009, at Attachment 1. No party submitted surrogate
country selection comments.
The Department has examined the export levels \2\ of subject
merchandise from the above-mentioned countries and found that India and
Indonesia are significant producers of comparable merchandise. See
Memorandum from Fred Baker, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to
Richard Weible, Office Director, ``Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review
of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China:
Selection of a
[[Page 50949]]
Surrogate Country,'' dated concurrently with this notice (Surrogate
Country Memorandum) at 4. During the POR India had exports in both of
the HTS subheadings identified for subject merchandise, while Indonesia
had exports under only one of the HTS subheadings. Accordingly, we find
that the Indian export data are more comprehensive and representative
of subject merchandise than Indonesian export data. Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Department was unable to find world production data for
subject merchandise and relied on export data as a substitute for
overall production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In selecting the appropriate surrogate country, the Department
examines the availability and reliability of data from the countries
deemed to be economically comparable and significant producers of
subject merchandise. For a description of our practice, see Department
Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country
Selection Process (March 1, 2004). India has been the primary surrogate
country in numerous past segments for this proceeding. In those past
segments, the Department found India's import statistics to be an
available and reliable source for surrogate values. See Surrogate
Country Memorandum at 4. Therefore, because India: (1) Is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise; (2) is at a similar level of
economic development as the PRC; (3) has publicly available and
reliable data, which the Department has previously relied upon for
numerous segments of this proceeding; and, (4) has more comprehensive
and more representative data regarding the subject merchandise than the
data provided for Indonesia, the Department has selected India as the
surrogate country, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act. See
Surrogate Country Memorandum at 5.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Kangfa's sale of subject merchandise to the
United States was made at a price below NV, we compared its U.S. price
to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections
of this notice, below.
U.S. Price
In its section A response Kangfa stated that it intended to use the
invoice date as the date of sale, stating that this was the date that
best represented when the terms of sale are fixed. See Kangfa's April
22, 2009 section A submission at 14. Later, in its submission of June
3, 2009, Kangfa attempted to show that the terms of sale sometimes
change after the contract date. Kangfa's evidence consisted of a
contract and invoice for a shipment of non-subject fruit it had made to
the German market during the POR which showed that the quantity
invoiced to the customer differed from the quantity indicated on the
contract. See Kangfa's June 3, 2009, submission at 1 and Exhibit 1.
However, we note that the quantity and price of its U.S. sale did not
change from the contact date to the invoice date, and the change in
quantity of non-subject fruit, which respondent relied upon to justify
the use of invoice date, was within the tolerance level specified on
the contract. Therefore, we do not consider this to be a change to the
material terms of sale relevant for purposes of determining date of
sale. Thus, we used the contract date as the date of sale because there
were no changes to either the price or quantity of Kangfa's U.S. sale
after this date, and there is no record evidence that the material
terms of sale changed following the contract date for any of Kangfa's
other sales during the POR. The contract date is therefore the date
that best represents when Kangfa established the material terms of
sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i).
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based U.S. price
on the export price (EP) of the sale to the United States by Kangfa
because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the
date of importation and the use of constructed export price was not
otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on the free-on-board (FOB)
price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. For
this EP sale, we deducted foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage
and handling from the starting price (or gross unit price), in
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. For Kangfa's U.S. sale, each
of these services was provided by an NME vendor. Thus, we based the
deduction of these movement charges on surrogate values.
We valued truck freight expenses using a 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. We used data from this Web site for six months of the POR for
which the Web site contained data. See Memorandum from Fred Baker,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Robert James, Program
Manager, to the File, ``New Shipper Review of Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the
Preliminary Results'' (Surrogate Values Memorandum) at Exhibit 6.
We valued brokerage and handling using a simple average of the
brokerage and handling costs reported in public submissions filed in
three antidumping duty cases. Specifically, we averaged the public
brokerage and handling expenses reported by Navneet Publications
(India) Ltd. in the 2007-2008 administrative review of certain lined
paper products from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 2006-2007
antidumping duty administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat
products from India, and Himalaya International Ltd. in the 2005-2006
administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. The
Department adjusted the average brokerage and handling rate for
inflation. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 8.
Normal Value
1. Methodology
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is
exported from an NME and the information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases
NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various
aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.
See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished,
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70
FR 39744 (July 11, 2005), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of 2003-2004 Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517 (January 17, 2006).
We calculated NV by adding together the value of the FOPs, general
expenses, profit, and packing costs. The FOPs for subject merchandise
include: (1) Quantities of raw materials employed; (2) hours of labor
required; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; (4)
representative capital and selling costs; and (5) packing materials. We
used the FOPs that Kangfa reported for materials, energy, labor, and
packing, and valued those FOPs by multiplying the amount of the factor
consumed in producing subject merchandise by the average unit surrogate
value of the factor.
In addition, we added freight costs to the surrogate costs that we
calculated for material inputs. We calculated
[[Page 50950]]
freight costs by multiplying surrogate freight rates by the shorter of
the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory that
produced the subject merchandise or the distance from the nearest
seaport to the factory that produced the subject merchandise, as
appropriate. Where there were multiple domestic suppliers of a material
input, we calculated a weighted-average distance after limiting each
supplier's distance to no more than the distance from the nearest
seaport to Kangfa. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision
by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v.
United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We offset Kangfa's material costs for revenue generated from the
sale of copper wire scrap and tin scrap. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Exhibit 8.
We also increased the calculated costs of the FOPs for surrogate
general expenses and profit. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit
9.
2. Selection of Surrogate Values
In selecting surrogate values, we followed, to the extent
practicable, the Department's practice of choosing public values which
are non-export averages, representative of a range of prices in effect
during the POR, or over a period as close as possible in time to the
POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of
Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). We also considered the
quality of the source of surrogate information in selecting surrogate
values. See Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998). Where we could obtain only
surrogate values that were not contemporaneous with the POR, we
inflated (or deflated) the surrogate values using, where appropriate,
the Indian wholesale price index (WPI) as published in International
Financial Statistics by the International Monetary Fund. See Surrogate
Values Memorandum at Exhibit 1.
In calculating surrogate values from import statistics, in
accordance with the Department's practice, we disregarded statistics
for imports from NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly
available, non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all
exporters to all export markets (e.g., Indonesia, South Korea, and
Thailand). See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. See also
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800, 66808
(November 28, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of
Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the
People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Additionally,
we excluded from our calculations imports that were labeled as
originating from an unspecified country because we could not determine
whether they were from an NME country.
We valued production material inputs (mushroom spawn, wheat straw,
and manure) using the financial statements of Agro Dutch, an Indian
producer of mushrooms and vegetables, as follows. To value the input of
mushroom spawn, we used data from Agro Dutch's FY 2004-2005 (April
2004-March 2005) financial statement because Agro Dutch's mushroom
spawn value is specific to the species Agaricus bisporous, which is the
species used to produce subject merchandise. To value the input of
wheat straw, we used the wheat straw value from Agro Dutch's FY 2006-
2007 (April 2006-March 2007) financial statement because this value is
specific to the input. To value the input of manure, we used the manure
value from Agro Dutch's FY 2004-2005 financial statement because this
value is specific to the input. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at
Exhibit 2. We adjusted these values for inflation. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Exhibit 1.
We valued processing and canning material inputs (super calcium
phosphate, calcium carbonate, salt, citric acid, tin plate, copper
wire, and sealing glue) using weighted-average Indian import values
derived from the World Trade Atlas online (WTA), for the period
February 2008 through January 2009. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at
Exhibits 2 and 3. In addition, we valued packing material inputs
(cartons, labels, hard paper board, and glue) with weighted-average
Indian import values derived from the WTA for the period February 2008
through January 2009. Id. at Exhibit 5. The Indian import statistics
obtained from the WTA were published by the Indian Directorate General
of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of
India, and are contemporaneous with the POR. As the Indian surrogate
values were denominated in rupees, in accordance with section 773A(a)
of the Act, we converted them to U.S. dollars using the official
exchange rate for India recorded on the date of sale of subject
merchandise in this case. See https://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.
To value land rent, the Department used data from the 2001 Punjab
State Development Report, administered by the Planning Commission of
the Government of India. Since the value of land rent was not
contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted the value for
inflation. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 2.
We valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and large
industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the
Government of India in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty
and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated July 2006.
These electricity rates represent actual country-wide publicly-
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to
industries in India. As the rates listed in this source became
effective on a variety of different dates, we are not adjusting the
average value for inflation. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit
4.
To value water, the Department used the revised Maharastra
Industrial Development Corporation water rates, which are available at
https://www.midcindia.com/water-supply. The Department found this source
to be the best available information since it includes a wide range of
industrial water rates. Since the water rates were not contemporaneous
with the POR, the Department adjusted the value for inflation. See
Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 4.
We valued coal using weighted-average Indian import values derived
from the WTA for the period February 2008 through January 2009. See
[[Page 50951]]
Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 4.
We valued truck freight expenses for inputs using the same
surrogate data we used for valuing domestic inland freight for Kangfa's
U.S. sale (i.e., we used data from the Web site https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm, which contains inland freight
truck rates between many large Indian cities). See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Exhibit 6.
The Department's regulations require the use of a regression-based
wage rate. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). Therefore, to value labor, the
Department used the regression-based wage rate for the PRC published on
the Import Administration Web site. See the IA Web site: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/05wages-041608.html, and see Corrected
2007 Calculation of Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 73 FR 27795 (May
14, 2008).
To value the surrogate financial ratios for factory overhead (OH),
selling, general & administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit, the
Department used the 2006-2007 financial statements of Agro Dutch and
Flex Foods Limited (Flex Foods). Agro Dutch is a producer of mushrooms,
and Flex Foods is a producer of mushrooms and other vegetable products.
Agro Dutch's and Flex Foods' financial ratios for OH and SG&A are
comparable to Kangfa's financial ratios because Agro Dutch's and Flex
Foods' production experience is comparable to Kangfa's production
experience by virtue of each company's production of subject
merchandise. Moreover, an average of the financial statements of Agro
Dutch and Flex Foods represents a broader spectrum of the Indian
mushroom industry than does the financial statement of a single
mushroom producer. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 9.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
These exchange rates can be accessed at the Web site of Import
Administration at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists
during the period February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co., Ltd. (Kangfa)... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose
to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching
the preliminary results within five days of publication of these
preliminary results. Interested parties may submit written comments
(case briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results
and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within five days after the time
limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and
351.309(d)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit
arguments are requested to submit with the case or rebuttal briefs: (1)
A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3)
a table of authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties
submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette
containing the public version of those comments.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties
who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested,
must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration within 30 days of publication of this notice. Requests
should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be
discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be
limited to those raised in the briefs.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department will issue the final
results of this new shipper review, including the results of our
analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within
90 days of publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuing the final results of the review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP
15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific
ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount
of the dumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total
entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if
any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results
of this review is above de minimis. However, the final results of this
review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on
entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and
for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements, when imposed, will be
effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper
review for all shipments of subject merchandise exported by Kangfa
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)
For subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Kangfa, the cash-
deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this
review; (2) for subject merchandise exported by Kangfa but not
manufactured by Kangfa, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the
PRC-wide rate (i.e., 198.63 percent); and (3) for subject merchandise
manufactured by Kangfa but exported by any other party, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter. If the cash
deposit rate calculated for Kangfa in the final results is zero or de
minimis, a cash deposit will be not be required for entries of subject
merchandise both produced and exported by Kangfa. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections
751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i).
[[Page 50952]]
Dated: September 28, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. E9-23833 Filed 10-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P