Certain Potassium Phosphate 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, 10466-10470 [2010-4870]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10466
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices
withdraw a review request in the instant
review was November 23, 2009,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary may extend the 90-day time
limit if it is reasonable to do so. We
determine it is reasonable to do so in
this case because we have not expended
significant resources conducting this
review with respect to Fasolino/Euro–
American Foods, having only issued to
and received from interested parties
several letters. Therefore, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), and
consistent with our practice, we are also
rescinding this review, in part, with
respect to Fasolino/Euro–American
Foods. This administrative review will
continue with respect to Garofalo and
Granoro. See, e.g., Carbon Steel Butt–
Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand:
Notice of Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 7218
(February 13, 2009).
Assessment
The Department will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. For the companies
for which this review is rescinded,
antidumping duties shall be assessed at
rates equal to the cash deposit of
estimated antidumping duties required
at the time of entry, or withdrawal from
warehouse, for consumption, during the
period July 1, 2008, through June 30,
2009, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(c)(1)(i).
The Department intends to issue
appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after publication
of this notice.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a reminder to
importers of their responsibility under
19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping and/or countervailing
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 and/or
countervailing duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of doubled
antidumping duties.
Notification Regarding APOs
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:11 Mar 05, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1),
751(a)(3)(A) , and 777(i)(1) of the Act,
and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: February 26, 2010.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010–4856 Filed 3–5–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–963]
Certain Potassium Phosphate 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
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) preliminarily
determines that countervailable
subsidies are being provided to
producers and exporters of certain
potassium phosphate salts from the
People’s Republic of China (PRC).1 For
information on the estimated subsidy
rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of
Liquidation’’ section of this notice. See
the ‘‘Disclosure and Public Comment’’
section, below, for procedures on filing
comments regarding this preliminary
determination.
DATES: Effective Date: March 8, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Huston or Gene Calvert, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 6, Import
1 The name of this investigation was changed
from ‘‘Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate
Salts from the People’s Republic of China’’ to
‘‘Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the
People’s Republic of China’’ as a result of the U.S.
International Trade Commission’s (ITC) preliminary
determination of no material injury or threat of
material injury with regard to imports of sodium
tripolyphosphate from the PRC. See the section
‘‘Case History,’’ below; see also Memorandum to the
File, ‘‘Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated November 20,
2009, a public document on file in the Department’s
Central Records Unit (CRU) in Room 1117 of the
main Commerce building. Public versions of all
memoranda cited in this notice are on file in the
CRU.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4261 and (202)
482–3586, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
On October 14, 2009, the Department
initiated a countervailing duty (CVD)
investigation of Certain Sodium and
Potassium Phosphate Salts from the
PRC. See Certain Sodium and
Potassium Phosphate Salts From the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation of
Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 FR
54778 (October 23, 2009) (Initiation
Notice). On November 9, 2009, the
Department selected Hubei Xingfa
Chemicals Group Co., Ltd. (Xingfa), and
Jiangsu Chengxing Phosph–Chemicals
Co., Ltd. (Jiangyin Chengxing) as
mandatory company respondents. See
Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Acting
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, ‘‘Selection of Respondents
for the Countervailing Duty
Investigation of Certain Sodium and
Potassium Phosphate Salts from the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated
November 9, 2009. On November 10,
2009 the Department issued a CVD
questionnaire to the Government of the
People’s Republic of China (GOC),
requesting that the GOC forward the
company sections of the questionnaire
to Xingfa and to Jiangyin Chengxing.
In its initiation, the Department
determined that there was a single class
or kind of merchandise. See
Countervailing Duty Initiation Checklist:
Certain Sodium and Potassium
Phosphate Salts, dated October 19, 2009
(Initiation Checklist). On November 21,
2009, the ITC issued its preliminary
determination and found that there were
four domestic like products: Sodium
Triployphosphate (STPP),
Monopotassium Phosphate (MKP),
Dipotassium Phosphate (DKP) and
Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate (TKPP).
See Investigations Nos. 701–TA–473
and 731–TA–1173 (Preliminary),
Certain Sodium and Potassium
Phosphate Salts from China, 74 FR
61173 (November 23, 2009) (ITC Salts
Preliminary). The ITC determined that
the industry producing MKP is
materially injured or threatened with
material injury, and that industries
producing DKP and TKPP are
threatened with material injury. The ITC
made a negative determination
regarding STPP, finding no reasonable
indication that the industry producing
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices
STPP is materially injured or threatened
with material injury.
As a result of the ITC’s negative
determination for STPP, and comments
received from Xingfa and Jiangyin
Chengxing, the Department rescinded
its selection of Xingfa and Jiangyin
Chengxing as mandatory company
respondents because these companies
produced and exported only, or mostly,
STPP. See Memorandum to John M.
Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Re–
selection of Respondents in the
Countervailing Duty Investigation of
Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from
the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated
December 3, 2009 (Re–selection
Memorandum). The Department also
changed the name of this investigation
to ‘‘Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts
from the People’s Republic of China.’’
See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Certain
Potassium Phosphate Salts from the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated
November 20, 2009. In the Re–selection
Memorandum, based on U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) data for
potassium phosphate salts, the
Department then selected Lianyungang
Mupro Import Export Co., Ltd. (Mupro),
Mianyang Aostar Phosphate Chemical
Industry Co., Ltd. (Aostar), and Shifang
Anda Chemicals Co., Ltd. (Anda), the
largest (by volume) publicly identifiable
Chinese producers/exporters of subject
merchandise during the period of
investigation (POI), as the new
mandatory company respondents in this
investigation. See Re–selection
Memorandum. The Department
informed the GOC of its decision on
December 3, 2009, and issued CVD
questionnaires to Mupro, Aostar, and
Anda (hereinafter, mandatory company
respondents) on December 4, 2009,
confirming receipt thereof through
FedEx. See Memorandum to the File,
‘‘Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts
from the People’s Republic of China–
Respondent Questionnaire Proof of
Delivery,’’ dated December 15, 2009.
Neither the GOC, nor the three
mandatory company respondents,
submitted any responses to the
Department’s questionnaires.
At the request of ICL Performance
Products LP and Prayon, Inc.
(Petitioners), on November 25, 2009, we
postponed the preliminary
determination in this investigation until
February 21, 2010, in accordance with
section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act). See Certain
Potassium Phosphate Salts From the
People’s Republic of China:
Postponement of Preliminary
Determination in the Countervailing
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:12 Mar 05, 2010
Jkt 220001
Duty Investigation, 74 FR 63722
(December 4, 2009). On February 12,
2010, the Department exercised its
discretion to toll Import Administration
deadlines for the duration of the closure
of the Federal Government from
February 5 through February 12, 2010.
Thus, all deadlines in this segment of
the proceeding have been extended by
seven days. See Memorandum to the
Record from Ronald Lorentzen, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of
Administrative Deadlines As a Result of
the Government Closure During the
Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12,
2010.’’ Based on this memorandum, the
revised deadline for the preliminary
determination of this investigation is
now February 28, 2010. However, since
this date falls on a weekend, the date of
signature for this preliminary
determination is March 1, 2010.
On February 18, 2010, Petitioners
requested that the final determination of
this CVD investigation be aligned with
the final determination in the
companion antidumping duty (AD)
investigation, in accordance with
section 705(a)(1) of the Act.
10467
54024 (October 21, 2009). The CVD
investigation and the AD investigation
have the same scope with regard to the
merchandise covered. As noted above,
on February 18, 2010, the Petitioners
submitted a letter requesting alignment
of the final CVD determination with the
final determination in the companion
AD investigation of Certain Potassium
Phosphate Salts from the People’s
Republic of China, in accordance with
section 705(a)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.210(b)(4). Therefore, in accordance
with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the
due date for the final CVD
determination with the due date for the
final AD determination, which is
currently scheduled to be issued no
later than May 24, 2010.
Scope of the Investigation
The phosphate salts covered by this
investigation include anhydrous MKP,
anhydrous DKP and TKPP, whether
anhydrous or in solution (collectively
‘‘phosphate salts’’).
TKPP, also known as normal
potassium pyrophosphate, diphosphoric
acid or tetrapotassium salt, is a
potassium salt with the formula K4P2O7.
Injury Test
The CAS registry number for TKPP is
Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies
Agreement Country’’ within the meaning 7320–34–5. TKPP is typically 18.7%
phosphorus and 47.3% potassium. It is
of section 701(b) of the Act, the ITC is
generally greater than or equal to 43.0%
required to determine whether imports
of the subject merchandise from the PRC P2O5 content. TKPP is classified under
heading 2835.39.1000, Harmonized
materially injure, or threaten material
Tariff Schedule of the United States
injury to, a United States industry. On
(HTSUS).
November 9, 2009 the ITC transmitted
MKP, also known as potassium
its preliminary determination to the
Department. On November 23, 2009, the dihydrogen phosphate, KDP, or
monobasic potassium phosphate, is a
ITC published its preliminary
potassium salt with the formula
determination that there is a reasonable
KH2PO4. The CAS registry number for
indication that an industry in the
MKP is 7778–77–0. MKP is typically
United States producing MKP is
22.7% phosphorus, 28.7% potassium
materially injured or threatened with
and 52% P2O5. MKP is classified under
material injury, and industries in the
heading 2835.24.0000, HTSUS.
United States producing DKP and TKPP
DKP, also known as dipotassium salt,
are threatened with material injury by
dipotassium hydrogen orthophosphate
reason of allegedly subsidized imports
or potassium phosphate, dibasic, has a
from the PRC of subject merchandise.
chemical formula of K2HPO4. The CAS
See ITC Salts Preliminary. As noted
registry number for DKP is 7758–11–4.
above, the ITC found that there is no
DKP is typically 17.8% phosphorus,
reasonable indication that an industry
producing STPP is materially injured by 44.8% potassium and 40% P2O5
content. DKP is classified under heading
reason of imports alleged to be
2835.24.0000, HTSUS.
subsidized by the PRC. See ITC Salts
The products covered by this
Preliminary.
investigation include the foregoing
Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty phosphate salts in all grades, whether
Determination with Final Antidumping food grade or technical grade. The
Duty Determination
products covered by this investigation
In addition to this CVD investigation,
include anhydrous MKP and DKP
there is a companion AD investigation.
without regard to the physical form,
See Certain Sodium and Potassium
whether crushed, granule, powder or
Phosphate Salts From the People’s
fines. Also covered are all forms of
Republic of China: Initiation of
TKPP, whether crushed, granule,
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR
powder, fines or solution.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
10468
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices
For purposes of the investigation, the
narrative description is dispositive, not
the tariff heading, American Chemical
Society, CAS registry number or CAS
name, or the specific percentage
chemical composition identified above.
Scope Comments
As explained in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations, we set aside a
period of time in the Initiation Notice
for parties to raise issues regarding
product coverage, and encouraged all
parties to submit comments within 21
calendar days of publication of that
notice. See Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR
27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997); and
Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 54779. No
such comments were filed on the record
of either this investigation or the
companion antidumping duty
investigation.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Period of Investigation
The period covered by this
investigation (i.e., the POI) is calendar
year 2008 (January 1, 2008 through
December 31, 2008).
Application of Facts Otherwise
Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act
provide that the Department shall apply
‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia,
necessary information is not on the
record or an interested party or any
other person: (A) withholds information
that has been requested; (B) fails to
provide information within the
deadlines established, or in a form and
manner requested by the Department,
subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly
impedes a proceeding or; (D) provides
information that cannot be verified as
provided by section 782(i) of the Act. In
the instant case, the GOC did not
respond to the Department’s November
10, 2009 CVD investigation
questionnaire and the three mandatory
company respondents, Mupro, Aostar,
and Anda, did not respond to the
Department’s December 04, 2009 CVD
investigation questionnaire. As a result,
the GOC and the three mandatory
company respondents did not provide
the requested information that is
necessary for the Department to
determine whether the mandatory
company respondents benefitted from
countervailable subsidies and to
calculate a CVD rate for this preliminary
determination. Therefore, in reaching
this preliminary determination,
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C) of the
Act, the Department has based the CVD
rates for Mupro, Aostar, and Anda on
facts otherwise available.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:12 Mar 05, 2010
Jkt 220001
Application of an Adverse Inference
Section 776(b) of the Act further
provides that the Department may use
an adverse inference in applying the
facts otherwise available when a party
has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Because the
GOC and the mandatory company
respondents chose not to respond to the
Department’s CVD investigation
questionnaire, the Department
preliminarily determines that the GOC,
Mupro, Aostar, and Anda did not
cooperate to the best of their ability in
this investigation and that, in selecting
from among the facts available, an
adverse inference is warranted (i.e.,
adverse facts available (AFA)), pursuant
to section 776(b) of the Act.
Selection of the Adverse Facts
Available Rate
In deciding which facts to use as
AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.308(c) authorize the
Department to rely on information
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final
determination in the investigation, (3)
any previous review or determination,
or (4) any other information placed on
the record. In this case, no appropriate
information was placed on the record of
this investigation from which to select
appropriate AFA rates for any of the
subject programs, and, because this is an
investigation, we have no previous
segments of this proceeding from which
to draw potential AFA rates. Therefore,
we are applying the policy developed in
prior CVD investigations of the PRC.
See, e.g., Sodium Nitrite From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination, 73 FR 38981 (July 8,
2008) (Sodium Nitrite from the PRC) to
the 16 programs under investigation.
Specifically, with regard to income
tax reduction or exemption programs,
information from the petition indicates
that during the POI, the standard
income tax for corporations in China
was 30 percent; there was an additional
local income tax rate of three percent.
See the September 24, 2009 Letter to the
Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties on Certain
Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts
from the People’s Republic of China,’’
Volume 4, Exhibit CVD–1. To determine
the program rate for the five alleged
income tax programs under which
companies received either a reduction
of the income tax rate, or an exemption
from income tax, we have applied an
adverse inference that Mupro, Aostar,
and Anda each paid no income taxes
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
during the POI. Therefore, the highest
possible countervailable subsidy rate for
the five national, provincial, and local
income tax programs subject to this
investigation combine to total 33
percent. Thus, we are applying a
countervailable rate of 33 percent on an
overall basis for the 5 income tax
programs (i.e., the five income tax
programs combined provided a
countervailable benefit of 33 percent).
This 33 percent AFA rate does not apply
to other types of tax programs.
For programs other than those
involving income tax exemptions and
reductions, we applied the highest non–
de minimis rate calculated for the same
or similar program in another PRC CVD
investigation. Absent an above–de
minimis subsidy rate calculated for the
same or similar program, we applied the
highest calculated subsidy rate for any
program otherwise listed that could
conceivably be used by the mandatory
company respondents. See, e.g., Certain
Kitchen Shelving and Racks from the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination, 74 FR 37012, 37013 (July
27, 2009); see also Sodium Nitrite from
the PRC.
For a discussion of the application of
the individual AFA rates for programs
preliminarily determined to be
countervailable, see Memorandum to
the File, ‘‘Application of Adverse Facts
Available Rates for Preliminary
Determination,’’ dated concurrently with
this notice (PRC Salts Calculation
Memorandum). Attachment II of this
memorandum contains relevant sections
of China CFS Final; Laminated Woven
Sacks From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination and Final
Affirmative Determination, in Part, of
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 35639
(June 24, 2008) and accompanying
‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum;’’
and Circular Welded Carbon Quality
Steel Line Pipe from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination, 73
FR 70961 (November 24, 2008) and
accompanying ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum,’’ which contain the
public information concerning subsidy
programs, including the subsidy rates,
upon which we are relying as AFA.
Corroboration of Secondary
Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review, it shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
10469
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices
that are reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is defined as
‘‘information derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751
concerning the subject merchandise.’’
See SAA at 870. The SAA provides that
to ‘‘corroborate’’ secondary information,
the Department will satisfy itself that
the secondary information to be used
has probative value. See SAA at 870.
The Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information to be used.
The SAA emphasizes, however, that the
Department need not prove that the
selected facts available are the best
alternative information. See SAA at
869–870.
With regard to the reliability aspect of
corroboration, unlike other types of
information, such as publicly available
data on the national inflation rate of a
given country or national average
interest rates, there typically are no
independent sources for data on
company–specific benefits resulting
from countervailable subsidy programs.
With respect to the relevance aspect of
corroboration, the Department will
consider information reasonably at its
disposal in considering the relevance of
information used to calculate a
countervailable subsidy benefit. The
Department will not use information
where circumstances indicate that the
information is not appropriate as
adverse facts available. See, e.g., Fresh
Cut Flowers From Mexico; Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996).
In the instant case, no evidence has
been presented or obtained that
contradicts the relevance of the
information relied upon in a prior China
CVD investigation. Therefore, in the
instant case, the Department
preliminarily finds that the information
used has been corroborated to the extent
practicable.
Programs Preliminarily Determined to
be Countervailable
As discussed above, as adverse facts
available, we are making the adverse
inference that Mupro, Aostar, and Anda
each received countervailable subsidies
under the 16 subsidy programs that the
Department included in its initiation.
For a description of these 16 programs,
see the Initiation Checklist. For the
identification of the source of each
program’s AFA rate for this
countervailing duty investigation, see
PRC Salts Calculation Memorandum at
Attachment II.
Listed below are the AFA rates
applicable to each program.
%
Subsidy Rate
Income Tax Rate Exemption/Reduction Programs.
1. Two Free, Three Half Tax Exemption for Foreign Invested Enterprises (FIEs).
2. Income Tax Subsidies for FIEs based on Geographic Location.
3. Income Tax Exemption Programs for Export Oriented FIEs.
4. Local Income Tax Exemptions or Reduction Programs for ‘‘Productive’’ FIEs.
5. Reduced Income Tax Rate for High- and New–Technology Enterprises ...........................................................
GOC Tax Credit Programs.
6. Preferential Tax Policies for Research and Development by FIEs ....................................................................
7. Income Tax Credit on Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment ...........................................................
GOC Grant Programs.
8. Subsidies to Loss–Making State–Owned Enterprises (SOEs) by the GOCat the National Level .....................
9. Grants Pursuant to the State Key Technology Renovation Project Fund ..........................................................
10. Grants Pursuant to the ‘‘Famous Brands’’ Program .........................................................................................
Provincial Grant Program.
11. Subsidies to Loss–Making SOEs by the GOC at the Provincial Level ............................................................
Indirect Tax Exemption/Reduction Programs.
12. Reduction in or Exemption from the Fixed Assets Investment Orientation Tax ...............................................
13. Value Added Tax (VAT) Refund for FIEs Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment ..............................
VAT and Tariff Exemption on Imported Equipment.
14. VAT and Tariff Exemptions on Imported Equipment ........................................................................................
Preferential Export Lending.
15. Discounted Loans for Export Oriented Industries (Honorable Industries) ........................................................
Export Restraints.
16. Export Restraints on Yellow Phosphorus ..........................................................................................................
Summarizing these rates yields a total
CVD subsidy rate of 109.11% ad
valorem.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section
703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have
assigned a subsidy rate to each of the
three producers/exporters of the subject
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
17:12 Mar 05, 2010
Jkt 220001
subsidy rates established for all
exporters and producers individually
investigated are determined entirely in
PO 00000
Frm 00015
13.36%
13.36%
13.36%
13.36%
1.51%
1.51%
1.51%
1.76%
13.36%
Countervailable Subsidy Rate
Lianyungang Mupro Import Export Co Ltd. .............................................................................................................
Mianyang Aostar Phosphate Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. .......................................................................................
Shifang Anda Chemicals Co. Ltd. ...........................................................................................................................
All–Others ................................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
1.51%
1.51%
merchandise that were selected as
mandatory company respondents in this
CVD investigation. We preliminarily
determine the total countervailable
subsidy to be:
Producer/Exporter
With respect to the all–others rate,
section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act
provides that if the countervailable
33.00%
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
109.11
109.11
109.11
109.11
percent
percent
percent
percent
ad
ad
ad
ad
valorem
valorem
valorem
valorem
accordance with section 776 of the Act,
the Department may use any reasonable
method to establish an all–others rate
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
10470
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices
for exporters and producers not
individually investigated. In this case,
the rate calculated for the three
investigated companies is based entirely
on facts available under section 776 of
the Act. There is no other information
on the record upon which to determine
an all–others rate. As a result, we have
used the AFA rate assigned for Mupro,
Aostar, and Anda as the all–others rate.
This method is consistent with the
Department’s past practice. See, e.g.,
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Hot–Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Argentina, 66 FR 37007, 37008 (July 16,
2001); see also Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination:
Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand
From India, 68 FR 68356 (December 8,
2003); see also Sodium Nitrite from the
PRC.
In accordance with sections
703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are
directing U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to suspend liquidation of all
entries of the subject merchandise from
the PRC, which are entered or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of the
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register, and to require a cash deposit
or the posting of a bond for such entries
of the merchandise in the amounts
indicated above. This suspension will
remain in effect until further notice.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 703(f) 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 relating 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 administrative
protective order, without the written
consent of the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration.
In accordance with section
705(b)(2)(B) of the Act, if our final
determination is affirmative, the ITC
will make its final determination within
45 days after the Department makes its
final determination.
Disclosure and Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b), the Department will disclose
to the parties the information on which
it relied to determine the subsidy rates
for this preliminary determination
within five days of its announcement.
No party has submitted a notice of
appearance on behalf of the GOC or the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:12 Mar 05, 2010
Jkt 220001
mandatory company respondents, and
questionnaire responses were not
submitted in this investigation by either
the GOC or the three mandatory
company respondents. Thus, the
Department does not intend to conduct
verification proceedings in this
countervailing duty investigation. For
these reasons, the due date for
interested parties to submit case briefs
will be 50 days from the date of
publication of the preliminary
determination. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i).
As part of the case brief, parties are
encouraged to provide a summary of the
arguments not to exceed five pages, and
a table of statutes, regulations, and cases
cited pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited
to issues raised in the case briefs, must
be filed within five days after the case
briefs are filed in accordance with 19
CFR 351.309(d).
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.310(c), we will hold a public
hearing, if requested, to afford interested
parties an opportunity to comment on
this preliminary determination.
Individuals who wish to request a
hearing must submit a written request,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c), within
30 days of the publication of this notice
in the Federal Register, to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration,
Department of Commerce, Room 1870,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue,
N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.310(c), parties will be
notified of the schedule for the hearing
and parties should confirm by telephone
the time, date, and place of the hearing
48 hours before the scheduled time.
Requests for a public hearing should
contain: (1) party’s name, address, and
telephone number; (2) the number of
participants and; (3) to the extent
practicable, an identification of the
arguments to be raised at the hearing.
This determination is issued and
published pursuant to sections 703(f)
and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: March 1, 2010.
Carole A. Showers,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–4870 Filed 3–5–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XT75
New England Fishery Management
Council; Public Hearings
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Monkfish Fishery Management
Plan Amendment 5; reschedule of
public hearings.
SUMMARY: The New England Fishery
Management Council (Council) has
rescheduled two public hearings to
solicit comments on proposals to be
included in the Draft Amendment 5 to
the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan
(FMP).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before 5 p.m. e.s.t.,
March 9, 2010. The public hearings will
be held on March 8, 2010 and March 9,
2010. For specific dates and times, see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
ADDRESSES: The Council will take
comments at public meetings in
Riverhead, NY and Lakewood, NJ. For
specific locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. Written comments should
be sent to Patricia Kurkul, Regional
Administrator, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Comments may also be sent via fax to
(978) 281–9135 or submitted via e-mail
to monkamendment5@noaa.gov with
‘‘Monkfish Amendment 5 Public
Hearing Comments’’ in the subject line.
Requests for copies of the public hearing
document and other information should
be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive
Director, New England Fishery
Management Council, 50 Water Street,
Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950;
telephone: (978) 465–0492.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
J. Howard, Executive Director, New
England Fishery Management Council;
telephone: (978) 465–0492.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New
England Fishery Management Council’s
Monkfish Committee is holding public
hearings for Amendment 5 to the
Monkfish Fishery Management Plan
(FMP). The primary purpose of this
amendment is to address the new
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act that the Council
adopt Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and
Accountability Measures (AMs) and
manage the fishery at long-term
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 44 (Monday, March 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10466-10470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4870]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-570-963]
Certain Potassium Phosphate 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
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily
determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to
producers and exporters of certain potassium phosphate salts from the
People's Republic of China (PRC).\1\ For information on the estimated
subsidy rates, see the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this
notice. See the ``Disclosure and Public Comment'' section, below, for
procedures on filing comments regarding this preliminary determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The name of this investigation was changed from ``Certain
Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of
China'' to ``Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's
Republic of China'' as a result of the U.S. International Trade
Commission's (ITC) preliminary determination of no material injury
or threat of material injury with regard to imports of sodium
tripolyphosphate from the PRC. See the section ``Case History,''
below; see also Memorandum to the File, ``Certain Potassium
Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China,'' dated
November 20, 2009, a public document on file in the Department's
Central Records Unit (CRU) in Room 1117 of the main Commerce
building. Public versions of all memoranda cited in this notice are
on file in the CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: March 8, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Huston or Gene Calvert, 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-
4261 and (202) 482-3586, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
On October 14, 2009, the Department initiated a countervailing duty
(CVD) investigation of Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts
from the PRC. See Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts From the
People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigation, 74 FR 54778 (October 23, 2009) (Initiation Notice). On
November 9, 2009, the Department selected Hubei Xingfa Chemicals Group
Co., Ltd. (Xingfa), and Jiangsu Chengxing Phosph-Chemicals Co., Ltd.
(Jiangyin Chengxing) as mandatory company respondents. See Memorandum
to Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, ``Selection of Respondents for the
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Sodium and Potassium
Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China,'' dated November
9, 2009. On November 10, 2009 the Department issued a CVD questionnaire
to the Government of the People's Republic of China (GOC), requesting
that the GOC forward the company sections of the questionnaire to
Xingfa and to Jiangyin Chengxing.
In its initiation, the Department determined that there was a
single class or kind of merchandise. See Countervailing Duty Initiation
Checklist: Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts, dated October
19, 2009 (Initiation Checklist). On November 21, 2009, the ITC issued
its preliminary determination and found that there were four domestic
like products: Sodium Triployphosphate (STPP), Monopotassium Phosphate
(MKP), Dipotassium Phosphate (DKP) and Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate
(TKPP). See Investigations Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173
(Preliminary), Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from China,
74 FR 61173 (November 23, 2009) (ITC Salts Preliminary). The ITC
determined that the industry producing MKP is materially injured or
threatened with material injury, and that industries producing DKP and
TKPP are threatened with material injury. The ITC made a negative
determination regarding STPP, finding no reasonable indication that the
industry producing
[[Page 10467]]
STPP is materially injured or threatened with material injury.
As a result of the ITC's negative determination for STPP, and
comments received from Xingfa and Jiangyin Chengxing, the Department
rescinded its selection of Xingfa and Jiangyin Chengxing as mandatory
company respondents because these companies produced and exported only,
or mostly, STPP. See Memorandum to John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
``Re-selection of Respondents in the Countervailing Duty Investigation
of Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of
China,'' dated December 3, 2009 (Re-selection Memorandum). The
Department also changed the name of this investigation to ``Certain
Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China.'' See
Memorandum to the File, ``Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the
People's Republic of China,'' dated November 20, 2009. In the Re-
selection Memorandum, based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
data for potassium phosphate salts, the Department then selected
Lianyungang Mupro Import Export Co., Ltd. (Mupro), Mianyang Aostar
Phosphate Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (Aostar), and Shifang Anda
Chemicals Co., Ltd. (Anda), the largest (by volume) publicly
identifiable Chinese producers/exporters of subject merchandise during
the period of investigation (POI), as the new mandatory company
respondents in this investigation. See Re-selection Memorandum. The
Department informed the GOC of its decision on December 3, 2009, and
issued CVD questionnaires to Mupro, Aostar, and Anda (hereinafter,
mandatory company respondents) on December 4, 2009, confirming receipt
thereof through FedEx. See Memorandum to the File, ``Certain Potassium
Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China-Respondent
Questionnaire Proof of Delivery,'' dated December 15, 2009. Neither the
GOC, nor the three mandatory company respondents, submitted any
responses to the Department's questionnaires.
At the request of ICL Performance Products LP and Prayon, Inc.
(Petitioners), on November 25, 2009, we postponed the preliminary
determination in this investigation until February 21, 2010, in
accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts From the
People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination
in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 FR 63722 (December 4,
2009). On February 12, 2010, the Department exercised its discretion to
toll Import Administration deadlines for the duration of the closure of
the Federal Government from February 5 through February 12, 2010. Thus,
all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by
seven days. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of
Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During
the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated February 12, 2010.'' Based on this
memorandum, the revised deadline for the preliminary determination of
this investigation is now February 28, 2010. However, since this date
falls on a weekend, the date of signature for this preliminary
determination is March 1, 2010.
On February 18, 2010, Petitioners requested that the final
determination of this CVD investigation be aligned with the final
determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation, in
accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act.
Injury Test
Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the ITC is required to determine
whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially
injure, or threaten material injury to, a United States industry. On
November 9, 2009 the ITC transmitted its preliminary determination to
the Department. On November 23, 2009, the ITC published its preliminary
determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in
the United States producing MKP is materially injured or threatened
with material injury, and industries in the United States producing DKP
and TKPP are threatened with material injury by reason of allegedly
subsidized imports from the PRC of subject merchandise. See ITC Salts
Preliminary. As noted above, the ITC found that there is no reasonable
indication that an industry producing STPP is materially injured by
reason of imports alleged to be subsidized by the PRC. See ITC Salts
Preliminary.
Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final
Antidumping Duty Determination
In addition to this CVD investigation, there is a companion AD
investigation. See Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts From
the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 74 FR 54024 (October 21, 2009). The CVD investigation
and the AD investigation have the same scope with regard to the
merchandise covered. As noted above, on February 18, 2010, the
Petitioners submitted a letter requesting alignment of the final CVD
determination with the final determination in the companion AD
investigation of Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's
Republic of China, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, and
19 CFR 351.210(b)(4). Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the due date for
the final CVD determination with the due date for the final AD
determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than
May 24, 2010.
Scope of the Investigation
The phosphate salts covered by this investigation include anhydrous
MKP, anhydrous DKP and TKPP, whether anhydrous or in solution
(collectively ``phosphate salts'').
TKPP, also known as normal potassium pyrophosphate, diphosphoric
acid or tetrapotassium salt, is a potassium salt with the formula
K4P2O7. The CAS registry number for
TKPP is 7320-34-5. TKPP is typically 18.7[percnt] phosphorus and
47.3[percnt] potassium. It is generally greater than or equal to
43.0[percnt] P2O5 content. TKPP is classified
under heading 2835.39.1000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS).
MKP, also known as potassium dihydrogen phosphate, KDP, or
monobasic potassium phosphate, is a potassium salt with the formula
KH2PO4. The CAS registry number for MKP is 7778-
77-0. MKP is typically 22.7[percnt] phosphorus, 28.7[percnt] potassium
and 52[percnt] P2O5. MKP is classified under
heading 2835.24.0000, HTSUS.
DKP, also known as dipotassium salt, dipotassium hydrogen
orthophosphate or potassium phosphate, dibasic, has a chemical formula
of K2HPO4. The CAS registry number for DKP is
7758-11-4. DKP is typically 17.8[percnt] phosphorus, 44.8[percnt]
potassium and 40[percnt] P2O5 content. DKP is
classified under heading 2835.24.0000, HTSUS.
The products covered by this investigation include the foregoing
phosphate salts in all grades, whether food grade or technical grade.
The products covered by this investigation include anhydrous MKP and
DKP without regard to the physical form, whether crushed, granule,
powder or fines. Also covered are all forms of TKPP, whether crushed,
granule, powder, fines or solution.
[[Page 10468]]
For purposes of the investigation, the narrative description is
dispositive, not the tariff heading, American Chemical Society, CAS
registry number or CAS name, or the specific percentage chemical
composition identified above.
Scope Comments
As explained in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we
set aside a period of time in the Initiation Notice for parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to
submit comments within 21 calendar days of publication of that notice.
See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296,
27323 (May 19, 1997); and Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 54779. No such
comments were filed on the record of either this investigation or the
companion antidumping duty investigation.
Period of Investigation
The period covered by this investigation (i.e., the POI) is
calendar year 2008 (January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008).
Application of Facts Otherwise Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other
person: (A) withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to
provide information within the deadlines established, or in a form and
manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding
or; (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided by
section 782(i) of the Act. In the instant case, the GOC did not respond
to the Department's November 10, 2009 CVD investigation questionnaire
and the three mandatory company respondents, Mupro, Aostar, and Anda,
did not respond to the Department's December 04, 2009 CVD investigation
questionnaire. As a result, the GOC and the three mandatory company
respondents did not provide the requested information that is necessary
for the Department to determine whether the mandatory company
respondents benefitted from countervailable subsidies and to calculate
a CVD rate for this preliminary determination. Therefore, in reaching
this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C) of the
Act, the Department has based the CVD rates for Mupro, Aostar, and Anda
on facts otherwise available.
Application of an Adverse Inference
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Because the GOC and
the mandatory company respondents chose not to respond to the
Department's CVD investigation questionnaire, the Department
preliminarily determines that the GOC, Mupro, Aostar, and Anda did not
cooperate to the best of their ability in this investigation and that,
in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is
warranted (i.e., adverse facts available (AFA)), pursuant to section
776(b) of the Act.
Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c) authorize the Department to rely on information
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the
investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
other information placed on the record. In this case, no appropriate
information was placed on the record of this investigation from which
to select appropriate AFA rates for any of the subject programs, and,
because this is an investigation, we have no previous segments of this
proceeding from which to draw potential AFA rates. Therefore, we are
applying the policy developed in prior CVD investigations of the PRC.
See, e.g., Sodium Nitrite From the People's Republic of China: Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 38981 (July 8,
2008) (Sodium Nitrite from the PRC) to the 16 programs under
investigation.
Specifically, with regard to income tax reduction or exemption
programs, information from the petition indicates that during the POI,
the standard income tax for corporations in China was 30 percent; there
was an additional local income tax rate of three percent. See the
September 24, 2009 Letter to the Secretary of Commerce, ``Petition for
the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain
Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of
China,'' Volume 4, Exhibit CVD-1. To determine the program rate for the
five alleged income tax programs under which companies received either
a reduction of the income tax rate, or an exemption from income tax, we
have applied an adverse inference that Mupro, Aostar, and Anda each
paid no income taxes during the POI. Therefore, the highest possible
countervailable subsidy rate for the five national, provincial, and
local income tax programs subject to this investigation combine to
total 33 percent. Thus, we are applying a countervailable rate of 33
percent on an overall basis for the 5 income tax programs (i.e., the
five income tax programs combined provided a countervailable benefit of
33 percent). This 33 percent AFA rate does not apply to other types of
tax programs.
For programs other than those involving income tax exemptions and
reductions, we applied the highest non-de minimis rate calculated for
the same or similar program in another PRC CVD investigation. Absent an
above-de minimis subsidy rate calculated for the same or similar
program, we applied the highest calculated subsidy rate for any program
otherwise listed that could conceivably be used by the mandatory
company respondents. See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Shelving and Racks from
the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination, 74 FR 37012, 37013 (July 27, 2009); see also Sodium
Nitrite from the PRC.
For a discussion of the application of the individual AFA rates for
programs preliminarily determined to be countervailable, see Memorandum
to the File, ``Application of Adverse Facts Available Rates for
Preliminary Determination,'' dated concurrently with this notice (PRC
Salts Calculation Memorandum). Attachment II of this memorandum
contains relevant sections of China CFS Final; Laminated Woven Sacks
From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination, in Part, of
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 35639 (June 24, 2008) and accompanying
``Issues and Decision Memorandum;'' and Circular Welded Carbon Quality
Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 70961 (November 24, 2008) and
accompanying ``Issues and Decision Memorandum,'' which contain the
public information concerning subsidy programs, including the subsidy
rates, upon which we are relying as AFA.
Corroboration of Secondary Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
[[Page 10469]]
that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined
as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA provides that to
``corroborate'' secondary information, the Department will satisfy
itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value.
See SAA at 870. The Department will, to the extent practicable, examine
the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA
emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the
selected facts available are the best alternative information. See SAA
at 869-870.
With regard to the reliability aspect of corroboration, unlike
other types of information, such as publicly available data on the
national inflation rate of a given country or national average interest
rates, there typically are no independent sources for data on company-
specific benefits resulting from countervailable subsidy programs. With
respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will
consider information reasonably at its disposal in considering the
relevance of information used to calculate a countervailable subsidy
benefit. The Department will not use information where circumstances
indicate that the information is not appropriate as adverse facts
available. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996).
In the instant case, no evidence has been presented or obtained that
contradicts the relevance of the information relied upon in a prior
China CVD investigation. Therefore, in the instant case, the Department
preliminarily finds that the information used has been corroborated to
the extent practicable.
Programs Preliminarily Determined to be Countervailable
As discussed above, as adverse facts available, we are making the
adverse inference that Mupro, Aostar, and Anda each received
countervailable subsidies under the 16 subsidy programs that the
Department included in its initiation. For a description of these 16
programs, see the Initiation Checklist. For the identification of the
source of each program's AFA rate for this countervailing duty
investigation, see PRC Salts Calculation Memorandum at Attachment II.
Listed below are the AFA rates applicable to each program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income Tax Rate Exemption/Reduction
Programs................................
1. Two Free, Three Half Tax Exemption for
Foreign Invested Enterprises (FIEs).....
2. Income Tax Subsidies for FIEs based on
Geographic Location.....................
3. Income Tax Exemption Programs for
Export Oriented FIEs....................
4. Local Income Tax Exemptions or
Reduction Programs for ``Productive''
FIEs....................................
5. Reduced Income Tax Rate for High- and 33.00[percnt]
New-Technology Enterprises..............
GOC Tax Credit Programs..................
6. Preferential Tax Policies for Research 1.51[percnt]
and Development by FIEs.................
7. Income Tax Credit on Purchases of 1.51[percnt]
Domestically Produced Equipment.........
GOC Grant Programs.......................
8. Subsidies to Loss-Making State-Owned 13.36[percnt]
Enterprises (SOEs) by the GOCat the
National Level..........................
9. Grants Pursuant to the State Key 13.36[percnt]
Technology Renovation Project Fund......
10. Grants Pursuant to the ``Famous 13.36[percnt]
Brands'' Program........................
Provincial Grant Program.................
11. Subsidies to Loss-Making SOEs by the 13.36[percnt]
GOC at the Provincial Level.............
Indirect Tax Exemption/Reduction Programs
12. Reduction in or Exemption from the 1.51[percnt]
Fixed Assets Investment Orientation Tax.
13. Value Added Tax (VAT) Refund for FIEs 1.51[percnt]
Purchasing Domestically Produced
Equipment...............................
VAT and Tariff Exemption on Imported
Equipment...............................
14. VAT and Tariff Exemptions on Imported 1.51[percnt]
Equipment...............................
Preferential Export Lending..............
15. Discounted Loans for Export Oriented 1.76[percnt]
Industries (Honorable Industries).......
Export Restraints........................
16. Export Restraints on Yellow 13.36[percnt]
Phosphorus..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summarizing these rates yields a total CVD subsidy rate of
109.11[percnt] ad valorem.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have
assigned a subsidy rate to each of the three producers/exporters of the
subject merchandise that were selected as mandatory company respondents
in this CVD investigation. We preliminarily determine the total
countervailable subsidy to be:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer/Exporter Countervailable Subsidy Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lianyungang Mupro Import Export Co Ltd... 109.11 percent ad valorem
Mianyang Aostar Phosphate Chemical 109.11 percent ad valorem
Industry Co. Ltd........................
Shifang Anda Chemicals Co. Ltd........... 109.11 percent ad valorem
All-Others............................... 109.11 percent ad valorem
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the all-others rate, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of
the Act provides that if the countervailable subsidy rates established
for all exporters and producers individually investigated are
determined entirely in accordance with section 776 of the Act, the
Department may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others
rate
[[Page 10470]]
for exporters and producers not individually investigated. In this
case, the rate calculated for the three investigated companies is based
entirely on facts available under section 776 of the Act. There is no
other information on the record upon which to determine an all-others
rate. As a result, we have used the AFA rate assigned for Mupro,
Aostar, and Anda as the all-others rate. This method is consistent with
the Department's past practice. See, e.g., Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From Argentina, 66 FR 37007, 37008 (July 16, 2001); see also
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Prestressed
Concrete Steel Wire Strand From India, 68 FR 68356 (December 8, 2003);
see also Sodium Nitrite from the PRC.
In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of
all entries of the subject merchandise from the PRC, which are entered
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require
a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for such entries of the
merchandise in the amounts indicated above. This suspension will remain
in effect until further notice.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 703(f) 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 relating 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 administrative protective order, without the written consent
of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
In accordance with section 705(b)(2)(B) of the Act, if our final
determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination
within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.
Disclosure and Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose
to the parties the information on which it relied to determine the
subsidy rates for this preliminary determination within five days of
its announcement. No party has submitted a notice of appearance on
behalf of the GOC or the mandatory company respondents, and
questionnaire responses were not submitted in this investigation by
either the GOC or the three mandatory company respondents. Thus, the
Department does not intend to conduct verification proceedings in this
countervailing duty investigation. For these reasons, the due date for
interested parties to submit case briefs will be 50 days from the date
of publication of the preliminary determination. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(i). As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages, and a
table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(c)(2). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised
in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case
briefs are filed in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c), we will hold a public
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to
comment on this preliminary determination. Individuals who wish to
request a hearing must submit a written request, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c), within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
Federal Register, to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue,
N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), parties will
be notified of the schedule for the hearing and parties should confirm
by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before
the scheduled time. Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1)
party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of
participants and; (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of
the arguments to be raised at the hearing.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections
703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: March 1, 2010.
Carole A. Showers,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-4870 Filed 3-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
