Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 12508-12514 [2010-5715]

Download as PDF sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES 12508 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices for those stakeholders on current and emerging issues in the manufacturing sector. The Council’s membership shall reflect the diversity of American manufacturing by representing a balanced cross-section of the U.S. manufacturing industry in terms of industry sectors, geographic locations, demographics, and company size, particularly seeking the representation of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Additional factors which may be considered in the selection of Council members include candidates’ proven experience in developing and marketing programs in support of manufacturing industries, job creation in the manufacturing sector, or the candidates’ proven abilities to manage manufacturing organizations. Given the duties and objectives of the Council, the Department particularly seeks applicants who are active manufacturing executives (Chief Executive Officer, President, and a comparable level of responsibility) that are leaders within their local manufacturing communities and industries. Each Council member shall serve as the representative of a U.S. entity in the manufacturing sector. For the purposes of eligibility, a U.S. entity shall be defined as a firm incorporated in the United States (or an unincorporated firm with its principal place of business in the United States) that is controlled by U.S. citizens or by another U.S. entity. An entity is not a U.S. entity if 50 percent plus one share of its stock (if a corporation, or a similar ownership interest of an unincorporated entity) is controlled, directly or indirectly, by non-U.S. citizens or non-U.S. entities. Appointments to the Council will be made by the Secretary of Commerce. Council members will serve at the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce. Council members shall serve in a representative capacity, representing the views and interests of their particular industry sector. Council members are not special government employees. Council members will receive no compensation for their participation in Council activities. Members participating in Council meetings and events will be responsible for their travel, living and other personal expenses. Meetings will be held regularly and not less than annually, usually in Washington, DC. Members are required to attend a majority of the Council meetings. The first Council meeting for the new charter term has not yet been set. To be considered for membership, please provide the following: VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:33 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 220001 1. Name and title of the individual requesting consideration. 2. A sponsor letter from the applicant on organization letterhead or, if the applicant is to represent an entity other than his or her employer, a letter from the entity to be represented, containing a brief statement of why the applicant should be considered for membership on the Council. This sponsor letter should also address the applicant’s manufacturing-related experience, including any manufacturing trade policy experience. 3. The applicant’s personal resume. 4. An affirmative statement that the applicant is not required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended. 5. An affirmative statement that the applicant is not a federally registered lobbyist, and that the applicant understands that if appointed, the applicant will not be allowed to continue to serve as a Council member if the applicant becomes a federally registered lobbyist. 6. Information regarding the control of the entity to be represented, including the governing structure and stock holdings as appropriate signifying compliance with the criteria set forth above. 7. The entity’s size and ownership, product or service line and major markets in which the entity operates. 8. Please include all relevant contact information such as mailing address, fax, e-mail, fixed and mobile phone numbers and support staff information where relevant. Dated: March 11, 2010. Michael Masserman, Director, Office of Advisory Committees. [FR Doc. 2010–5716 Filed 3–15–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–962] Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce DATES: Effective Date: March 16, 2010. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) preliminarily determines that certain potassium phosphate salts (‘‘salts’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 United States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), for the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’), January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Preliminary Determination’’ section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik or Katie Marksberry, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6905 or (202) 482– 7906, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Initiation On September 24, 2009, the Department received an antidumping duty petition concerning imports of salts from the PRC filed in proper form by Performance Products LP (‘‘ICL’’) and Prayon, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’).1 The Department initiated this investigation on October 14, 2009.2 On November 17, 2009, the United States International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) issued an affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the PRC of dipotassium phosphate (‘‘DKP’’), monopotassium phosphate (‘‘MKP’’), and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate (‘‘TKP’’). Also on November 17, 2009, the ITC issued a negative preliminary determination with respect to sodium tripolyphosphate (‘‘STPP’’) stating that there is no reasonable indication that an industry producing STPP is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the PRC.3 The ITC’s determination was 1 See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China, dated September 24, 2009 (‘‘Petition’’). 2 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), (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 3 Please note that after the Initiation Notice was published the ITC made a negative determination with respect to Sodium Tripolyphosphate, the only sodium phosphate salt included in the scope of the investigation. The Department subsequently issued a memo stating that the official name of this investigation is now Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China. See Memorandum to the File, from Katie Marksberry, E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2009.4 Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to our regulations, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the Initiation Notice.5 We did not receive any scope comments. Period of Investigation The POI is January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition.6 sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES Respondent Selection In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it intended to select respondents based on quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) questionnaires.7 On October 15, 2009, the Department requested Q&V information from the 60 companies that Petitioners identified as potential exporters or producers of salt from the PRC.8 Additionally, the Department also posted the Q&V questionnaire for this investigation on its Web site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/iahighlights-and-news.html. The Department received timely Q&V responses from eleven exporters/ producers that shipped merchandise under investigation to the United States during the POI. On November 13, 2009, the Department selected SD BNI(LYG) Co. Ltd. (‘‘SD BNI’’), and SiChuan Blue Sword Import & Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘SiChuan Blue Sword’’), as mandatory respondents in this investigation.9 The Department sent its antidumping duty questionnaire to SD BNI and SiChuan Blue Sword on November 16, 2009. On December 7, 2009, SiChuan Blue Sword, filed a letter stating that it would not International Trade Compliance Analyst, regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China, dated November 12, 2009. 4 See Investigation Nos. 701–TA–473 and 731– TA–1173 (Preliminary) Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts From China, 74 FR 61173 (November 23, 2009). 5 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). See also Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 54024. 6 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 7 See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 54027. 8 See Petition at Vol. 2., Exhibit General–12. 9 See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, Office IX, from Katie Marksberry, Case Analyst, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office IX; regarding Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China, dated November 13, 2009 (‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:33 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 220001 participate as a mandatory respondent in this investigation.10 On December 18, 2009, the Department determined that because it was still early enough in the investigation and because there were no requests for voluntary respondent treatment,11 the Department would select the next largest producer/exporter of certain potassium phosphate salts as a mandatory respondent. Therefore the Department selected Wenda as a mandatory respondent after an analysis of the Q&V responses showed it to be the next largest producer/exporter.12 On December 18, 2009, the Department sent Wenda the antidumping duty questionnaire, and on January 8, 2010, Wenda filed its Section A response. In its Section A response, Wenda corrected its Q&V data which was used as the basis of respondent selection.13 Because the Q&V information changed substantially between Wenda’s original Q&V submission and its Section A response, on February 4, 2010, the Department discontinued Wenda’s status as a mandatory respondent and stated that we would continue to consider its request for separate rate status.14 On February 5, 2010, the Department received comments from Wenda regarding the Department’s decision to discontinue its status as a mandatory respondent. On February 16, 2010, Petitioners filed rebuttal comments in response to Wenda’s February 5, 2010, comments, and on February 18, 2010, Wenda submitted 10 See December 7, 2009, Letter to the Department from SiChuan Blue Sword Import & Export Co., Ltd. 11 We note that Wenda Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wenda’’) filed a request for Voluntary Respondent Treatment on October 15, 2009, and withdrew its request on November 13, 2009. See letter to the Department from Wenda; regarding Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China, Antidumping Duty Investigation; Request for Voluntary Respondent Treatment, dated October 15, 2009 (‘‘Wenda’s Voluntary Request Memo’’); see also letter to the Department from Wenda; regarding Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China, Antidumping Duty Investigation; Withdrawal of Request for Voluntary Respondent Treatment, dated November 13, 2009 (‘‘Wenda’s Voluntary Withdrawal Memo’’). 12 See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, Office IX, from Katie Marksberry, Case Analyst, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office IX; regarding Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Selection of Additional Mandatory Respondent, dated December 18, 2009 (‘‘Additional Respondent Selection Memo’’). 13 See Respondent Selection Memo. 14 See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, Office IX, from Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office IX; Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Discontinuation of Mandatory Respondent Status for Wenda Co. Ltd., dated February 4, 2010. (‘‘Wenda Deselection Memo’’). PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 12509 additional comments in response to the Petitioners’ most recent comments. Additional Case Background We received a Section A response on December 7, 2009, from SD BNI.15 On December 22, 2009, we received an improperly filed Section C response from SD BNI. The deadline for the Section D response was also December 22, 2009, but no response was filed. We sent a letter to SD BNI on December 28, 2009, stating that its Section C response was not properly filed and its Section D response was not filed at all by the deadline, and we provided another week, until January 4, 2010, for SD BNI to re-file its Section C response and to file its Section D response.16 On January 6, 2010, the Department received an improperly filed letter from SD BNI asking for more information as to the reason its Section C response was not properly filed and asking for an extension to submit its Section C and D responses. In its January 6, 2010, response SD BNI also asked whether the Department would accept current, postPOI production information to respond to the Department’s NME questionnaires.17 On January 7, 2010, the Department granted SD BNI a third opportunity to submit its Section C response and detailed how to properly file documents—per the Department’s regulations. The Department also informed SD BNI that it must report the POI production and could not base Section D on its own post-POI production. The deadline to submit these responses was January 19, 2010.18 On January 20, 2010, the Department received a Section D response from SD BNI, which did not fully respond to all of the Department’s concerns.19 SD BNI failed to submit a Section C response by this due date. 15 See Letter from SD BNI to the Department; regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from China (A–570–962): Section A Questionnaire Response, dated December 7, 2009. 16 See Letter to SD BNI (LYG) Co., Ltd. from the Department; regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China, dated December 28, 2009. 17 See Memorandum to the File; from Katie Marksberry, International Trade Compliance Analyst; regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: SD BNI (LYG) Co., Ltd. Letter, dated January 11, 2010 (placing SD BNI’s improperly filed January 6, 2010, letter on the official record of the investigation.) 18 See Letter to SD BNI (LYG) Co., Ltd. from the Department; regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China, dated January 7, 2010. 19 See Letter from SD BNI to the Department; regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from China (A–570–962): Section D Questionnaire Response, dated January 20, 2010. E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1 12510 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices Separate Rate Applications Scope of Investigation On November 30, 2009, we received a timely filed joint separate rate application from Chengdu Long Tai Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and SnowApple Group Limted. On December 22, 2009, we received timely filed separate rate applications from Wenda, Yunnan Newswift Company Ltd., and Tianjin Chengyi International Trading Co., Ltd. See the ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section below for further discussion on the eligibility for a separate rate. On February 3, 2010, the Department issued Wenda a supplemental questionnaire requesting additional information. Additionally, on February 18, 2010, the Department issued Chengdu Long Tai Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Snow-Apple Group Limited a supplemental questionnaire requiring that each company submit an individual application. Additionally, on February 18, 2010, the Department issued Newswift Company Ltd. a supplemental questionnaire requesting additional information. Wenda, Yunnan Newswift Company Ltd., and SnowApple Group Limited submitted timely responses to these questionnaires. Chengdu Long Tai did not submit an individual separate rate application. The phosphate salts covered by this investigation include anhydrous Monopotassium Phosphate (MKP), anhydrous Dipotassium Phosphate (DKP) and Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate (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% phosphorus and 47.3% potassium. It is generally greater than or equal to 43.0% P2O5 content. TKPP is classified under heading 2835.39.1000, 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% phosphorus, 28.7% potassium and 52% 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% phosphorus, 44.8% potassium and 40% 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 product covered by this investigation includes 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. 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. Product Characteristics and Questionnaires In the Initiation Notice, the Department asked all parties in this investigation for comments on the appropriate product characteristics for defining individual products. We did not receive comments from interested parties on product characteristics. Surrogate Country Comments On January 7, 2010, the Department determined that India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru, are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.20 On January 8, 2010, the Department requested comments on surrogate country selection from the interested parties in this investigation. On January 29, 2010, Petitioners submitted surrogate country comments. No other interested parties commented on the selection of a surrogate country. sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES 20 See January 8, 2010, Letter to All Interested Parties, regarding Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Surrogate Country List, attaching January 7, 2010, Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, AD/ CVD Operations, from Kelly Parkhill, Acting Director, Office for Policy, regarding Request for List of Surrogate Countries for an Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’). VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:33 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 220001 Non-Market Economy Country For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses for the PRC as a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’).21 The Department considers the PRC to be a NME country.22 In accordance with 21 See Initiation Notice, 74 FR 29665 (June 23, 2009). 22 See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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. No party has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this investigation. Therefore, we continue to treat the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary determination and calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to all NME countries. Wenda’s Status in This Investigation As stated above in the ‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section, on February 4, 2010, the Department discontinued Wenda’s status as a mandatory respondent in this investigation. On February 5, 2010, the Department received comments from Wenda requesting that we reconsider the decision to deselect Wenda as a mandatory respondent, or to allow Wenda to participate as a voluntary respondent. Wenda argued the Department has the resources to investigate two respondents and that it had already cooperated with the Department in submitting its questionnaire responses. Additionally, Wenda argued that the Department is risking having no calculated margins by deselecting Wenda, that the Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) has recently determined that we are not selecting an adequate number of respondents, and that allowing Wenda to participate as a voluntary respondent would not impede the Department’s investigation. On February 16, 2010, the Department received comments from Petitioners rebutting Wenda’s February 5, 2010 comments. They stated that we should not reconsider our decision to deselect Wenda because Wenda was not deselected based on the Department’s resources, but rather based on Wenda’s conduct during the investigation. Furthermore, Petitioners raised further questions about Wenda’s Section A reported Q&V, and stated that Wenda withdrew its request to be a voluntary respondent. Petitioners argued that both of these are reason to deny Wenda’s request for reconsideration. The Department continues to find that the determination made in the February 4, 2010, memorandum discontinuing Wenda’s status as a mandatory respondent was appropriate. The Department did not deselect Wenda based on resource constraints, but rather because Wenda’s Section A Q&V (June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007) (‘‘CFS Paper’’). E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices information was significantly different from the information provided by Wenda in its Q&V questionnaire response. The Department determined that it would be inappropriate to continue to individually investigate Wenda as a mandatory respondent because the corrected Q&V information indicates that Wenda is actually one of the smallest companies by volume.23 In other words, the Department selected Wenda as a mandatory respondent on the basis of information later shown to be significantly incorrect. The Department’s procedures and timetables rely on the record data provided by interested parties, and when this data is shown to be false, other, larger, potential respondents are effectively prohibited from participation because of statutory deadlines. Thus, it would be inappropriate to review Wenda now that it is clear that the information upon which the Department based its decision to select Wenda as a mandatory respondent was incorrect. Additionally, the Department notes that Wenda does not have a request for voluntary treatment on the record of the investigation because its original request was withdrawn.24 Furthermore, voluntary respondents are required to complete responses to the Department’s NME questionnaire on the due dates for the original mandatory respondents, but Wenda did not do this. Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate.25 It is the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.26 In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the application process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate rate 23 See Wenda Deselection Memo at 2. Wenda’s Voluntary Request Memo; see also Wenda’s Voluntary Withdrawal Memo. 25 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24, 2008) (‘‘PET Film LTFV Final’’). 26 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’); see also 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’’), and § 351.107(d) of the Department’s regulations. sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES 24 See VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:33 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 220001 status in NME investigations.27 The process requires exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate status application. The Department’s practice is discussed further in Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), (‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’), available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/ bull05-1.pdf.28 Yunnan Newswift, Tianjin Chengyi, Snow-Apple, and Wenda (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘Separate Rate Companies’’), have provided companyspecific information to demonstrate that they operate independently of de jure and de facto government control or are wholly foreign owned, and therefore satisfy the standards for the assignment of a separate rate. For each of the Separate Rate Companies we are granting the separate rate only to the name of the company that appears on the English translated copy of the business license in each company’s SRA.29 We have considered whether each PRC company that submitted a complete application or complete Section A Response as a mandatory respondent, is eligible for a separate rate. The Department’s separate rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping.30 The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, 27 See Initiation Notice, 74 FR 29665. Policy Bulletin 05.1 states: {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of ‘‘combination rates’’ because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.’’ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6. 29 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 47191 (September 15, 2009); and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17. 30 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998). 28 The PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 12511 and output decision-making process at the individual firm level.31 To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the merchandise under investigation under a test arising from the Sparklers, as further developed in Silicon Carbide.32 In accordance with the separate rate criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities. 1. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter’s business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.33 The evidence provided by the Separate Rate Companies supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter’s business and export licenses; (2) the applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., Yunnan Newswift’s December 22, 2009, SRA at 6–8; and Tianjin Chengyi’s SRA at 6–9. 2. Absence of De Facto Control Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to 31 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair: Value Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). 32 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’); see also 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’’). 33 See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1 12512 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses.34 The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. We determine that, for the Separate Rate Companies, the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing the following: (1) Each exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See, e.g., Yunnan Newswift’s December 22, 2009, SRA at 9–15; and Tianjin Chengyi’s SRA at 9– 14. 3. Wholly Foreign-Owned sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES In their separate-rate applications, two separate rate companies, Wenda and Snow-Apple, reported that they were wholly owned by individuals or companies located in a market economy country during the POI.35 Therefore, because they reported being wholly foreign-owned during the POI, and we have no evidence indicating that they were under the control of the PRC, a separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether these companies are independent from government control.36 Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a separate rate to these companies. 34 See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). 35 See Wenda’s December 22, 2009, SRA at 7; see also Snow-Apple’s February 24, 2010, SRA at 6. 36 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104–71105 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned, and thus, qualified for a separate rate). VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:33 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 220001 The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the Separate Rate Companies, demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with respect to each of the exporter’s exports of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. As a result, we have granted the Separate Rate Companies a margin based on the Petition margins. Application of Adverse Facts Available, the PRC-Wide Entity and PRC-Wide Rate The Department has data that indicate there were more exporters of salts from the PRC than those indicated in the response to our request for Q&V information during the POI. See Respondent Selection Memorandum. We issued our request for Q&V information to sixty potential Chinese exporters of the merchandise under investigation, in addition to posting the Q&V questionnaire on the Department’s Web site. While information on the record of this investigation indicates that there are other exporters/producers of salts in the PRC, we received only eleven filed Q&V responses. Although all exporters were given an opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all exporters provided a response to the Department’s Q&V letter. Furthermore, Sichuan Blue Sword, which responded to the Department’s Q&V questionnaire and reported shipments during the POI, and was chosen by the Department as a mandatory respondent, did not respond to the Department’s full antidumping duty questionnaire. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that there were exporters/ producers of the merchandise under investigation during the POI from the PRC that did not respond to the Department’s request for information. We have treated these PRC exporters/ producers, including Sichuan Blue Sword, as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not qualify for a separate rate.37 Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party (A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such 37 See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Preliminary Partial Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 77121, 77128 (December 29, 2005), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006). PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the PRCwide entity was non-responsive. Certain companies did not respond to our questionnaire requesting Q&V information or the Department’s request for more information. As a result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts available (‘‘FA’’) is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate.38 Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information.39 We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate. When employing an adverse inference, section 776 of the Act indicates that the Department may rely upon information derived from the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated. It is the Department’s practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest margin alleged in the 38 See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003). 39 See Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’), H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1 12513 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation.40 As AFA, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity a rate of 95.40 percent, which is the highest margin alleged in the Petition.41 The Department preliminarily determines that this information is the most appropriate from the available sources to effectuate the purposes of AFA. cooperate with the Department and significantly impeded this investigation by not submitting a properly filed Section C response after the Department provided three opportunities for SD BNI to do so. Therefore, because SD BNI was selected as a mandatory respondent and failed to submit the information required, SD BNI will not receive a separate rate and will remain part of the PRC-wide entity. Application of Adverse Facts Available for SD BNI As detailed above in the ‘‘Additional Case Background’’ Section, despite numerous attempts by the Department to provide additional instruction and three additional opportunites for SD BNI to file a Section C response, there is not a Section C response on the record of the investigation. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, we are applying facts otherwise available to SD BNI because the Department finds that the information necessary to calculate an accurate and otherwise reliable margin is not available on the record with respect to SD BNI. Additionally, the Department finds that SD BNI failed to provide the information requested by the Department in a timely manner and in the form required, and significantly impeded the Department’s ability to calculate an accurate margin for SD BNI. The Department is unable to calculate a margin without a Section C response, requiring the application of facts otherwise available to SD BNI for the purpose of this preliminary determination. In addition, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, the Department is applying an adverse inference in selecting the facts available rate as it has determined that SD BNI did not act to the best of its ability to Corroboration Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. We have interpreted ‘‘corroborate’’ to mean that we will examine the reliability and relevance of the information submitted.42 Because there are no margins calculated for the mandatory respondents, to corroborate the 95.40 percent margin used as AFA for the China-wide entity, to the extent appropriate information was available, we are affirming our pre-initiation analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition.43 During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined evidence supporting the calculations in the petition and the supplemental information provided by Petitioner prior to initiation to determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the petition. During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined the information used as the basis of export price and normal value (‘‘NV’’) in the petition, and the calculations used to derive the alleged margins. Also during our pre-initiation analysis, we examined information from various independent sources provided either in the petition or, based on our requests, in supplements to the petition, which corroborated key elements of the export price and NV calculations.44 We received no comments as to the relevance or probative value of this information. Therefore, the Department finds that the rates derived from the petition and used for purposes of initiation have probative value for the purpose of being selected as the AFA rate assigned to the PRC-wide entity. Margin for the Separate Rate Companies The Department received timely and complete separate rate applications from the Separate Rate Companies. The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the Separate Rate Companies demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with respect to each of the exporter’s exports of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. As a result, for the purposes of this preliminary determination, we have granted the Separate Rate Companies an antidumping duty margin based on an average of the rates submitted in the Petition.45 This rate is 64.55 percent. Combination Rates In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 54024. This practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/. Preliminary Determination The preliminary weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Weightedaverage margin Supplier Snow-Apple Group Limited ........................................................ Tianjin Chengyi International Trading (Tianjin) Co., Limited ...... Tianjin Chengyi International Trading (Tianjin) Co., Limited ...... Wenda Co., Ltd. ......................................................................... Yunnan Newswift Company Ltd ................................................. Yunnan Newswift Company Ltd. ................................................ Yunnan Newswift Company Ltd. ................................................ PRC-Wide ** ............................................................................... sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES Exporter Chengdu Long Tai Biotechnology Co., Ltd ................................ Zhenjiang Dantu Guangming Auxiliary Material Factory ........... Sichuan Shifang Hongsheng Chemicals Co., Ltd ...................... Thermphos (China) Food Additive Co., Ltd ............................... Guangxi Yizhou Yisheng Fine Chemicals Co., Ltd .................... Mainzhu Hanwang Mineral Salt Chemical Co., Ltd ................... Sichuan Shengfeng Phosphate Chemical Co., Ltd .................... ..................................................................................................... 69.58 69.58 69.58 69.58 69.58 69.58 69.58 95.40 ** In this case, the PRC-wide rate includes Sichuan Blue Sword Import and Export Co., Ltd. and SD BNI(LYG) Co. Ltd. 40 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:33 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 220001 41 The Department notes that in determining the AFA margin, the Department did not take into account the margins listed in the petition for STPP. 42 See, e.g. Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 4, 2000). PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 43 See Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’). 44 See id. 45 The Department notes that in calculating the average margin, the Department did not take into account the margins listed in the petition for STPP. E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1 12514 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of merchandise subject to this investigation, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. For the exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the preliminary determination for all shipments of merchandise under consideration entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date: (1) The rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in this preliminary determination; (2) for all PRC exporters of merchandise subject to this investigation that have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate; (3) for all nonPRC exporters of merchandise subject to this investigation that have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of phosphate salts, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the merchandise under investigation within 45 days of our final determination. for Import Administration no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the deadline for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, and if requested, we will hold a public hearing, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing shortly after the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party’s name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party’s case brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in that party’s rebuttal brief. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 10, 2010. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2010–5715 Filed 3–15–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Public Comment Case briefs or other written comments on the preliminary determination may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:33 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–351–825] Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel bar from Brazil. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Villares Metals S.A. (VMSA). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009. The Department has preliminarily determined that VMSA made U.S. sales at prices less than normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review. We intend to issue the final results of review no later than 120 days from the publication date of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Cartsos or Minoo Hatten, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–1757 or (202) 482– 1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 21, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel bar from Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995). On February 4, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative Review’’ of the order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 6013 (February 4, 2009). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on March 2, 2009, VMSA requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales and E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12508-12514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5715]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-962]


Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

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


DATES: Effective Date: March 16, 2010.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') preliminarily 
determines that certain potassium phosphate salts (``salts'') from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as 
provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``Act''), for the period of investigation (``POI''), January 1, 2009, 
through June 30, 2009. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown 
in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section of this notice. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik or Katie Marksberry, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6905 or (202) 482-7906, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Initiation

    On September 24, 2009, the Department received an antidumping duty 
petition concerning imports of salts from the PRC filed in proper form 
by Performance Products LP (``ICL'') and Prayon, Inc. (collectively, 
``Petitioners'').\1\ The Department initiated this investigation on 
October 14, 2009.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Sodium and Potassium 
Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China, dated September 
24, 2009 (``Petition'').
    \2\ 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), (``Initiation 
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 17, 2009, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') issued an affirmative preliminary determination 
that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United 
States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the 
PRC of dipotassium phosphate (``DKP''), monopotassium phosphate 
(``MKP''), and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate (``TKP''). Also on November 
17, 2009, the ITC issued a negative preliminary determination with 
respect to sodium tripolyphosphate (``STPP'') stating that there is no 
reasonable indication that an industry producing STPP is materially 
injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from 
the PRC.\3\ The ITC's determination was

[[Page 12509]]

published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2009.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Please note that after the Initiation Notice was published 
the ITC made a negative determination with respect to Sodium 
Tripolyphosphate, the only sodium phosphate salt included in the 
scope of the investigation. The Department subsequently issued a 
memo stating that the official name of this investigation is now 
Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of 
China. See Memorandum to the File, from Katie Marksberry, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, regarding Certain Potassium 
Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China, dated November 
12, 2009.
    \4\ See Investigation Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173 
(Preliminary) Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts From 
China, 74 FR 61173 (November 23, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to our regulations, we set aside a 
period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage 
and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days 
of publication of the Initiation Notice.\5\ We did not receive any 
scope comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). See also Initiation Notice, 74 FR 
at 54024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The POI is January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009. This period 
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the petition.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it intended to 
select respondents based on quantity and value (``Q&V'') 
questionnaires.\7\ On October 15, 2009, the Department requested Q&V 
information from the 60 companies that Petitioners identified as 
potential exporters or producers of salt from the PRC.\8\ Additionally, 
the Department also posted the Q&V questionnaire for this investigation 
on its Web site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html. 
The Department received timely Q&V responses from eleven exporters/
producers that shipped merchandise under investigation to the United 
States during the POI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 54027.
    \8\ See Petition at Vol. 2., Exhibit General-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 13, 2009, the Department selected SD BNI(LYG) Co. Ltd. 
(``SD BNI''), and SiChuan Blue Sword Import & Export Co., Ltd. 
(``SiChuan Blue Sword''), as mandatory respondents in this 
investigation.\9\ The Department sent its antidumping duty 
questionnaire to SD BNI and SiChuan Blue Sword on November 16, 2009. On 
December 7, 2009, SiChuan Blue Sword, filed a letter stating that it 
would not participate as a mandatory respondent in this 
investigation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, Office IX, from 
Katie Marksberry, Case Analyst, through Catherine Bertrand, Program 
Manager, Office IX; regarding Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of 
China, dated November 13, 2009 (``Respondent Selection Memo'').
    \10\ See December 7, 2009, Letter to the Department from SiChuan 
Blue Sword Import & Export Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 18, 2009, the Department determined that because it was 
still early enough in the investigation and because there were no 
requests for voluntary respondent treatment,\11\ the Department would 
select the next largest producer/exporter of certain potassium 
phosphate salts as a mandatory respondent. Therefore the Department 
selected Wenda as a mandatory respondent after an analysis of the Q&V 
responses showed it to be the next largest producer/exporter.\12\ On 
December 18, 2009, the Department sent Wenda the antidumping duty 
questionnaire, and on January 8, 2010, Wenda filed its Section A 
response. In its Section A response, Wenda corrected its Q&V data which 
was used as the basis of respondent selection.\13\ Because the Q&V 
information changed substantially between Wenda's original Q&V 
submission and its Section A response, on February 4, 2010, the 
Department discontinued Wenda's status as a mandatory respondent and 
stated that we would continue to consider its request for separate rate 
status.\14\ On February 5, 2010, the Department received comments from 
Wenda regarding the Department's decision to discontinue its status as 
a mandatory respondent. On February 16, 2010, Petitioners filed 
rebuttal comments in response to Wenda's February 5, 2010, comments, 
and on February 18, 2010, Wenda submitted additional comments in 
response to the Petitioners' most recent comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We note that Wenda Co., Ltd. (``Wenda'') filed a request 
for Voluntary Respondent Treatment on October 15, 2009, and withdrew 
its request on November 13, 2009. See letter to the Department from 
Wenda; regarding Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from the 
People's Republic of China, Antidumping Duty Investigation; Request 
for Voluntary Respondent Treatment, dated October 15, 2009 
(``Wenda's Voluntary Request Memo''); see also letter to the 
Department from Wenda; regarding Sodium and Potassium Phosphate 
Salts from the People's Republic of China, Antidumping Duty 
Investigation; Withdrawal of Request for Voluntary Respondent 
Treatment, dated November 13, 2009 (``Wenda's Voluntary Withdrawal 
Memo'').
    \12\ See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, Office IX, from 
Katie Marksberry, Case Analyst, through Catherine Bertrand, Program 
Manager, Office IX; regarding Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of 
China: Selection of Additional Mandatory Respondent, dated December 
18, 2009 (``Additional Respondent Selection Memo'').
    \13\ See Respondent Selection Memo.
    \14\ See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, Office IX, from 
Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office IX; Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's 
Republic of China: Discontinuation of Mandatory Respondent Status 
for Wenda Co. Ltd., dated February 4, 2010. (``Wenda Deselection 
Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Case Background

    We received a Section A response on December 7, 2009, from SD 
BNI.\15\ On December 22, 2009, we received an improperly filed Section 
C response from SD BNI. The deadline for the Section D response was 
also December 22, 2009, but no response was filed. We sent a letter to 
SD BNI on December 28, 2009, stating that its Section C response was 
not properly filed and its Section D response was not filed at all by 
the deadline, and we provided another week, until January 4, 2010, for 
SD BNI to re-file its Section C response and to file its Section D 
response.\16\ On January 6, 2010, the Department received an improperly 
filed letter from SD BNI asking for more information as to the reason 
its Section C response was not properly filed and asking for an 
extension to submit its Section C and D responses. In its January 6, 
2010, response SD BNI also asked whether the Department would accept 
current, post-POI production information to respond to the Department's 
NME questionnaires.\17\ On January 7, 2010, the Department granted SD 
BNI a third opportunity to submit its Section C response and detailed 
how to properly file documents--per the Department's regulations. The 
Department also informed SD BNI that it must report the POI production 
and could not base Section D on its own post-POI production. The 
deadline to submit these responses was January 19, 2010.\18\ On January 
20, 2010, the Department received a Section D response from SD BNI, 
which did not fully respond to all of the Department's concerns.\19\ SD 
BNI failed to submit a Section C response by this due date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Letter from SD BNI to the Department; regarding Certain 
Potassium Phosphate Salts from China (A-570-962): Section A 
Questionnaire Response, dated December 7, 2009.
    \16\ See Letter to SD BNI (LYG) Co., Ltd. from the Department; 
regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's 
Republic of China, dated December 28, 2009.
    \17\ See Memorandum to the File; from Katie Marksberry, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst; regarding Certain Potassium 
Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China: SD BNI (LYG) 
Co., Ltd. Letter, dated January 11, 2010 (placing SD BNI's 
improperly filed January 6, 2010, letter on the official record of 
the investigation.)
    \18\ See Letter to SD BNI (LYG) Co., Ltd. from the Department; 
regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's 
Republic of China, dated January 7, 2010.
    \19\ See Letter from SD BNI to the Department; regarding Certain 
Potassium Phosphate Salts from China (A-570-962): Section D 
Questionnaire Response, dated January 20, 2010.

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

[[Page 12510]]

Separate Rate Applications

    On November 30, 2009, we received a timely filed joint separate 
rate application from Chengdu Long Tai Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and 
Snow-Apple Group Limted. On December 22, 2009, we received timely filed 
separate rate applications from Wenda, Yunnan Newswift Company Ltd., 
and Tianjin Chengyi International Trading Co., Ltd. See the ``Separate 
Rates'' section below for further discussion on the eligibility for a 
separate rate. On February 3, 2010, the Department issued Wenda a 
supplemental questionnaire requesting additional information. 
Additionally, on February 18, 2010, the Department issued Chengdu Long 
Tai Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Snow-Apple Group Limited a supplemental 
questionnaire requiring that each company submit an individual 
application. Additionally, on February 18, 2010, the Department issued 
Newswift Company Ltd. a supplemental questionnaire requesting 
additional information. Wenda, Yunnan Newswift Company Ltd., and Snow-
Apple Group Limited submitted timely responses to these questionnaires. 
Chengdu Long Tai did not submit an individual separate rate 
application.

Product Characteristics and Questionnaires

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department asked all parties in this 
investigation for comments on the appropriate product characteristics 
for defining individual products. We did not receive comments from 
interested parties on product characteristics.

Surrogate Country Comments

    On January 7, 2010, the Department determined that India, the 
Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru, are countries 
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See January 8, 2010, Letter to All Interested Parties, 
regarding Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Potassium 
Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate 
Country List, attaching January 7, 2010, Memorandum to Catherine 
Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, from Kelly 
Parkhill, Acting Director, Office for Policy, regarding Request for 
List of Surrogate Countries for an Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of 
China (``Surrogate Country List'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 8, 2010, the Department requested comments on surrogate 
country selection from the interested parties in this investigation. On 
January 29, 2010, Petitioners submitted surrogate country comments. No 
other interested parties commented on the selection of a surrogate 
country.

Scope of Investigation

    The phosphate salts covered by this investigation include anhydrous 
Monopotassium Phosphate (MKP), anhydrous Dipotassium Phosphate (DKP) 
and Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate (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% phosphorus and 47.3% 
potassium. It is generally greater than or equal to 43.0% 
P2O5 content. TKPP is classified under heading 
2835.39.1000, 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% phosphorus, 28.7% potassium and 52% 
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% phosphorus, 44.8% potassium and 40% 
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 product covered by this investigation includes 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.
    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.

Non-Market Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses for 
the PRC as a non-market economy (``NME'').\21\ The Department considers 
the PRC to be a NME country.\22\ 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. No party has challenged the designation of the 
PRC as an NME country in this investigation. Therefore, we continue to 
treat the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary 
determination and calculated normal value in accordance with section 
773(c) of the Act, which applies to all NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Initiation Notice, 74 FR 29665 (June 23, 2009).
    \22\ See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet 
Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 (June 
4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of 
China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007) (``CFS Paper'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wenda's Status in This Investigation

    As stated above in the ``Respondent Selection'' section, on 
February 4, 2010, the Department discontinued Wenda's status as a 
mandatory respondent in this investigation. On February 5, 2010, the 
Department received comments from Wenda requesting that we reconsider 
the decision to deselect Wenda as a mandatory respondent, or to allow 
Wenda to participate as a voluntary respondent. Wenda argued the 
Department has the resources to investigate two respondents and that it 
had already cooperated with the Department in submitting its 
questionnaire responses. Additionally, Wenda argued that the Department 
is risking having no calculated margins by deselecting Wenda, that the 
Court of International Trade (``CIT'') has recently determined that we 
are not selecting an adequate number of respondents, and that allowing 
Wenda to participate as a voluntary respondent would not impede the 
Department's investigation.
    On February 16, 2010, the Department received comments from 
Petitioners rebutting Wenda's February 5, 2010 comments. They stated 
that we should not reconsider our decision to deselect Wenda because 
Wenda was not deselected based on the Department's resources, but 
rather based on Wenda's conduct during the investigation. Furthermore, 
Petitioners raised further questions about Wenda's Section A reported 
Q&V, and stated that Wenda withdrew its request to be a voluntary 
respondent. Petitioners argued that both of these are reason to deny 
Wenda's request for reconsideration.
    The Department continues to find that the determination made in the 
February 4, 2010, memorandum discontinuing Wenda's status as a 
mandatory respondent was appropriate. The Department did not deselect 
Wenda based on resource constraints, but rather because Wenda's Section 
A Q&V

[[Page 12511]]

information was significantly different from the information provided 
by Wenda in its Q&V questionnaire response. The Department determined 
that it would be inappropriate to continue to individually investigate 
Wenda as a mandatory respondent because the corrected Q&V information 
indicates that Wenda is actually one of the smallest companies by 
volume.\23\ In other words, the Department selected Wenda as a 
mandatory respondent on the basis of information later shown to be 
significantly incorrect. The Department's procedures and timetables 
rely on the record data provided by interested parties, and when this 
data is shown to be false, other, larger, potential respondents are 
effectively prohibited from participation because of statutory 
deadlines. Thus, it would be inappropriate to review Wenda now that it 
is clear that the information upon which the Department based its 
decision to select Wenda as a mandatory respondent was incorrect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Wenda Deselection Memo at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Department notes that Wenda does not have a 
request for voluntary treatment on the record of the investigation 
because its original request was withdrawn.\24\ Furthermore, voluntary 
respondents are required to complete responses to the Department's NME 
questionnaire on the due dates for the original mandatory respondents, 
but Wenda did not do this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Wenda's Voluntary Request Memo; see also Wenda's 
Voluntary Withdrawal Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, there is a rebuttable 
presumption that all companies within the country are subject to 
government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping 
duty rate.\25\ It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of 
merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate 
unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent 
so as to be entitled to a separate rate.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24, 2008) (``PET Film 
LTFV Final'').
    \26\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991) (``Sparklers''); see also 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''), 
and Sec.  351.107(d) of the Department's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the 
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate rate status in NME investigations.\27\ The process requires 
exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate status application. 
The Department's practice is discussed further in Policy Bulletin 05.1: 
Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, 
(April 5, 2005), (``Policy Bulletin 05.1''), available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Initiation Notice, 74 FR 29665.
    \28\ The Policy Bulletin 05.1 states: {w{time} hile continuing 
the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all 
separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME 
investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the 
exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one 
rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which 
supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of 
investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents 
receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the 
pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the 
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the 
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to 
specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The 
cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to 
merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a 
firm that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation.'' See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Yunnan Newswift, Tianjin Chengyi, Snow-Apple, and Wenda 
(hereinafter referred to as ``Separate Rate Companies''), have provided 
company-specific information to demonstrate that they operate 
independently of de jure and de facto government control or are wholly 
foreign owned, and therefore satisfy the standards for the assignment 
of a separate rate. For each of the Separate Rate Companies we are 
granting the separate rate only to the name of the company that appears 
on the English translated copy of the business license in each 
company's SRA.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 47191 (September 15, 
2009); and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have considered whether each PRC company that submitted a 
complete application or complete Section A Response as a mandatory 
respondent, is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate 
rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/border-type 
controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, 
particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping.\30\ The 
test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and 
output decision-making process at the individual firm level.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic 
of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998).
    \31\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair: Value Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine, 
62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
merchandise under investigation under a test arising from the 
Sparklers, as further developed in Silicon Carbide.\32\ In accordance 
with the separate rate criteria, the Department assigns separate rates 
in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de 
jure and de facto governmental control over export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991) (``Sparklers''); see also 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence provided by the Separate Rate Companies supports a 
preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on 
the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated 
with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) the 
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., Yunnan Newswift's 
December 22, 2009, SRA at 6-8; and Tianjin Chengyi's SRA at 6-9.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to

[[Page 12512]]

negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the 
respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions 
regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent 
retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent 
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses.\34\ 
The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is 
critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a 
degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from 
assigning separate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl 
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 
8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We determine that, for the Separate Rate Companies, the evidence on 
the record supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of 
governmental control based on record statements and supporting 
documentation showing the following: (1) Each exporter sets its own 
export prices independent of the government and without the approval of 
a government authority; (2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its 
sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits 
or financing of losses; (3) each exporter has the authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) each 
exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of 
management. See, e.g., Yunnan Newswift's December 22, 2009, SRA at 9-
15; and Tianjin Chengyi's SRA at 9-14.

3. Wholly Foreign-Owned

    In their separate-rate applications, two separate rate companies, 
Wenda and Snow-Apple, reported that they were wholly owned by 
individuals or companies located in a market economy country during the 
POI.\35\ Therefore, because they reported being wholly foreign-owned 
during the POI, and we have no evidence indicating that they were under 
the control of the PRC, a separate rate analysis is not necessary to 
determine whether these companies are independent from government 
control.\36\ Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a separate rate 
to these companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Wenda's December 22, 2009, SRA at 7; see also Snow-
Apple's February 24, 2010, SRA at 6.
    \36\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of 
China, 64 FR 71104-71105 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent 
was wholly foreign-owned, and thus, qualified for a separate rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the 
Separate Rate Companies, demonstrates an absence of de jure and de 
facto government control with respect to each of the exporter's exports 
of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria 
identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. As a result, we have 
granted the Separate Rate Companies a margin based on the Petition 
margins.

Application of Adverse Facts Available, the PRC-Wide Entity and PRC-
Wide Rate

    The Department has data that indicate there were more exporters of 
salts from the PRC than those indicated in the response to our request 
for Q&V information during the POI. See Respondent Selection 
Memorandum. We issued our request for Q&V information to sixty 
potential Chinese exporters of the merchandise under investigation, in 
addition to posting the Q&V questionnaire on the Department's Web site. 
While information on the record of this investigation indicates that 
there are other exporters/producers of salts in the PRC, we received 
only eleven filed Q&V responses. Although all exporters were given an 
opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all exporters provided a 
response to the Department's Q&V letter.
    Furthermore, Sichuan Blue Sword, which responded to the 
Department's Q&V questionnaire and reported shipments during the POI, 
and was chosen by the Department as a mandatory respondent, did not 
respond to the Department's full antidumping duty questionnaire. 
Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that there were 
exporters/producers of the merchandise under investigation during the 
POI from the PRC that did not respond to the Department's request for 
information. We have treated these PRC exporters/producers, including 
Sichuan Blue Sword, as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not 
qualify for a separate rate.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Preliminary 
Partial Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 
and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 77121, 
77128 (December 29, 2005), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination 
of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from 
the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the 
PRC-wide entity was non-responsive. Certain companies did not respond 
to our questionnaire requesting Q&V information or the Department's 
request for more information. As a result, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts available 
(``FA'') is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain 
Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 
4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse 
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information.\39\ We 
find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests 
for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. 
Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from 
among the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870 
(1994) (``SAA''); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality 
Steel Products from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 
(February 4, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When employing an adverse inference, section 776 of the Act 
indicates that the Department may rely upon information derived from 
the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a 
previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the 
record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that 
is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not 
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
fully cooperated. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, 
the higher of the (a) highest margin alleged in the

[[Page 12513]]

petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the 
investigation.\40\ As AFA, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-
wide entity a rate of 95.40 percent, which is the highest margin 
alleged in the Petition.\41\ The Department preliminarily determines 
that this information is the most appropriate from the available 
sources to effectuate the purposes of AFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's 
Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    \41\ The Department notes that in determining the AFA margin, 
the Department did not take into account the margins listed in the 
petition for STPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Adverse Facts Available for SD BNI

    As detailed above in the ``Additional Case Background'' Section, 
despite numerous attempts by the Department to provide additional 
instruction and three additional opportunites for SD BNI to file a 
Section C response, there is not a Section C response on the record of 
the investigation. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), 
and (C) of the Act, we are applying facts otherwise available to SD BNI 
because the Department finds that the information necessary to 
calculate an accurate and otherwise reliable margin is not available on 
the record with respect to SD BNI. Additionally, the Department finds 
that SD BNI failed to provide the information requested by the 
Department in a timely manner and in the form required, and 
significantly impeded the Department's ability to calculate an accurate 
margin for SD BNI. The Department is unable to calculate a margin 
without a Section C response, requiring the application of facts 
otherwise available to SD BNI for the purpose of this preliminary 
determination.
    In addition, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, the 
Department is applying an adverse inference in selecting the facts 
available rate as it has determined that SD BNI did not act to the best 
of its ability to cooperate with the Department and significantly 
impeded this investigation by not submitting a properly filed Section C 
response after the Department provided three opportunities for SD BNI 
to do so. Therefore, because SD BNI was selected as a mandatory 
respondent and failed to submit the information required, SD BNI will 
not receive a separate rate and will remain part of the PRC-wide 
entity.

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it 
must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from 
independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. We have 
interpreted ``corroborate'' to mean that we will examine the 
reliability and relevance of the information submitted.\42\ Because 
there are no margins calculated for the mandatory respondents, to 
corroborate the 95.40 percent margin used as AFA for the China-wide 
entity, to the extent appropriate information was available, we are 
affirming our pre-initiation analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of 
the information in the petition.\43\ During our pre-initiation 
analysis, we examined evidence supporting the calculations in the 
petition and the supplemental information provided by Petitioner prior 
to initiation to determine the probative value of the margins alleged 
in the petition. During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined the 
information used as the basis of export price and normal value (``NV'') 
in the petition, and the calculations used to derive the alleged 
margins. Also during our pre-initiation analysis, we examined 
information from various independent sources provided either in the 
petition or, based on our requests, in supplements to the petition, 
which corroborated key elements of the export price and NV 
calculations.\44\ We received no comments as to the relevance or 
probative value of this information. Therefore, the Department finds 
that the rates derived from the petition and used for purposes of 
initiation have probative value for the purpose of being selected as 
the AFA rate assigned to the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See, e.g. Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality 
Steel Products From Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 4, 2000).
    \43\ See Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain 
Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts (``Initiation Checklist'').
    \44\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin for the Separate Rate Companies

    The Department received timely and complete separate rate 
applications from the Separate Rate Companies. The evidence placed on 
the record of this investigation by the Separate Rate Companies 
demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with 
respect to each of the exporter's exports of the merchandise under 
investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers 
and Silicon Carbide. As a result, for the purposes of this preliminary 
determination, we have granted the Separate Rate Companies an anti-
dumping duty margin based on an average of the rates submitted in the 
Petition.\45\ This rate is 64.55 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The Department notes that in calculating the average 
margin, the Department did not take into account the margins listed 
in the petition for STPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible 
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR 
at 54024. This practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available 
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/.

Preliminary Determination

    The preliminary weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
             Exporter                     Supplier        average margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snow-Apple Group Limited..........  Chengdu Long Tai               69.58
                                     Biotechnology Co.,
                                     Ltd.
Tianjin Chengyi International       Zhenjiang Dantu                69.58
 Trading (Tianjin) Co., Limited.     Guangming Auxiliary
                                     Material Factory.
Tianjin Chengyi International       Sichuan Shifang                69.58
 Trading (Tianjin) Co., Limited.     Hongsheng Chemicals
                                     Co., Ltd.
Wenda Co., Ltd....................  Thermphos (China)              69.58
                                     Food Additive Co.,
                                     Ltd.
Yunnan Newswift Company Ltd.......  Guangxi Yizhou                 69.58
                                     Yisheng Fine
                                     Chemicals Co., Ltd.
Yunnan Newswift Company Ltd.......  Mainzhu Hanwang                69.58
                                     Mineral Salt
                                     Chemical Co., Ltd.
Yunnan Newswift Company Ltd.......  Sichuan Shengfeng              69.58
                                     Phosphate Chemical
                                     Co., Ltd.
PRC-Wide **.......................  ....................           95.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
** In this case, the PRC-wide rate includes Sichuan Blue Sword Import
  and Export Co., Ltd. and SD BNI(LYG) Co. Ltd.


[[Page 12514]]

Disclosure

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

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of merchandise subject to this 
investigation, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on 
or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. For the exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart 
above, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the preliminary determination for all shipments of 
merchandise under consideration entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after publication date: (1) The rate for the 
exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above will be the 
rate we have determined in this preliminary determination; (2) for all 
PRC exporters of merchandise subject to this investigation that have 
not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide 
rate; (3) for all non-PRC exporters of merchandise subject to this 
investigation that have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer 
combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. We 
will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond 
equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. 
price, as indicated above. The suspension of liquidation will remain in 
effect until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

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

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments on the preliminary 
determination may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration no later than 30 days after the date of publication of 
this preliminary determination. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal 
briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised in the 
case briefs, must be filed within five days after the deadline for the 
submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). A list of authorities 
used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs 
submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five 
pages total, including footnotes.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, and if requested, we 
will hold a public hearing, to afford interested parties an opportunity 
to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing shortly after the 
deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 
at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by 
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before 
the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, 
and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the 
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an 
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case 
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in 
that party's rebuttal brief. This determination is issued and published 
in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 10, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-5715 Filed 3-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P