Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 14th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 34976-34980 [2010-14959]

Download as PDF 34976 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–549–822 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the 2008–2009 Administrative Review results of this review by 60 days, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Because September 11, 2010, falls on a Saturday, the new deadline for the final results will be September 13, 2010. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson at (202) 482–4929, or David Goldberger at (202) 482–4136, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Dated: June 15, 2010. John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Background On March 15, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand covering the period February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 12188 (March 15, 2010). The final results for this administrative review are currently due no later than July 13, 2010, 120 days from the date of publication of the preliminary results of review. [A–570–831] sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the final results of an administrative review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within that time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the deadline for the final results to a maximum of 180 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. The Department requires additional time to complete this review in order to properly consider the numerous and complex issues raised by interested parties in their case briefs (e.g., cooked form model matching product characteristic and CEP offset). Thus, it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time limit. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:46 Jun 18, 2010 Jkt 220001 [FR Doc. 2010–14958 Filed 6–18–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 14th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 8, 2009, the Department of Commerce (Department) published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) covering the period of review (POR) of November 1, 2007, through October 31, 2008. See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of, and Intent to Rescind, in Part, the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 64677 (December 8, 2009) (Preliminary Results). Following the Preliminary Results, we provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. Our analysis of the comments submitted and information received did not lead to any changes in the Preliminary Results. Therefore, the final results do not differ from the Preliminary Results. As discussed below, the Department is applying total adverse facts available (AFA) to the six mandatory respondents who each failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in this proceeding. These mandatory respondents are Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd. (Anqiu Friend), Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd. (Jining Trans-High), Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Saturn), Shenzhen Fanhui Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen Fanhui), Jinxiang Tianma Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. (Tianma Freezing), and Weifang PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (Weifang Shennong). The Department also finds that eleven companies subject to this review,1 including mandatory respondents Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company (Shanghai Ever Rich), Jining Trans-High, Qingdao Saturn, and Shenzhen Fanhui did not demonstrate their eligibility for separate rate status. See Appendix 2. In addition, the Department grants a separate rate to the four fully-cooperative non-selected respondents which demonstrated their eligibility for separate rate status. For the rates assigned to each of these companies, see the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. Finally, the Department is also rescinding the review with respect to one exporter who timely submitted a ‘‘no shipment’’ certification. See ‘‘Final Partial Rescission of Administrative Review’’ section of this notice. DATES: Effective Date: June 21, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0780. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 8, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the 14th AR of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC. See Preliminary Results. Since the Preliminary Results, the following events have occurred. On January 5, 2010, the Department notified parties that case briefs were due January 11, 2010. On January 14, 2010, the Department extended the deadlines for rebuttal briefs to January 25, 2010. On January 11, 2010, Shenzhen Greening Trading Company Ltd. (Greening) and Jinan Yipin Corporation Ltd. (Jinan Yipin) submitted their respective case briefs. Also on January 11, 2010, Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Xintianfeng) and Weifang Hongqiao International Logistic Co., Ltd. (Weifang Hongqiao) and the following interested parties: Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd., Anqiu Haoshun Trade Co., Ltd., Jinxiang Dongyun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd., Juye Homestead Fruits and Vegetables Co., Ltd., Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd., Qufu Dongbao Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd., Shandong Chenhe International Trading Co., Ltd., 1 A full list of companies subject to this review is provided in Appendix 3. E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Notices Shandong Longtai Fruits and Vegetables Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Fanhui Import and Export Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Sunny Import & Export Co., Ltd. and Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (collectively as ‘‘Interested Parties’’), submitted their case brief.2 On January 25, 2010, the Fresh Garlic Producers Association (FGPA) and its individual members (Christopher Ranch LLC, the Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, Inc.) (collectively, Petitioners) filed their rebuttal brief. On February 25, 2010, the Department held a public hearing. On March 19, 2010, Department officials met with Jinan Yipin’s counsel to discuss issues related to the briefs. See Memorandum for the File from Scott Lindsay, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Meeting with Counsel for Jinan Yipin Corporation Ltd.: Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China (March 19, 2010). On April 8, 2010, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results of this administrative review by 30 days. See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 19364 (April 14, 2010). On May 11, 2010, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results of this administrative review by an additional 30 days. See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 29314 (May 25, 2010). Scope of the Order sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES The products covered by this order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of this order does not include the following: (a) Garlic that has 2 On October 21, 2009, the Department rescinded the administrative review of forty-three companies. See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 54029 (Oct. 21, 2009). The Department’s rescission included the rescission of Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. (Xinboda) which Interested Parties commented upon in a letter to the Department on November 18, 2009. The Interested Parties further commented upon the Department’s rescission of Xinboda in their case brief. For a complete discussion of this issue, see Comment 5 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:46 Jun 18, 2010 Jkt 220001 been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the Order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for nonfresh use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to CBP to that effect. Analysis of Comments Received Issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in Appendix 1 to this notice and addressed in the Memorandum To: Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, From: John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Subject: Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Fourteenth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, dated June 14, 2010 (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this administrative review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the main Department building. In addition, a copy of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on our Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Partial Rescission of Administrative Review In the Preliminary Results, the Department announced its intent to rescind the administrative review with respect to Jining Yongjia Trade Co., Ltd. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 34977 (Jining Yongjia). In accordance with the instructions in the Initiation Notice, Jining Yongjia timely certified that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. See Preliminary Results, 74 FR at 64679; see also Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 79055 (Dec. 24, 2008) (Initiation Notice). We confirmed Jining Yongjia’s claim by issuing a no-shipment inquiry to CBP and examining electronic CBP data. Our examination of shipment data from CBP for Jining Yongjia indicated that there were no entries of subject merchandise which they exported during the POR. Id. We received no response from CBP regarding our no-shipment inquiry, which corroborates Jining Yongjia’s noshipment certification. No other parties commented on our preliminary intent to rescind. Thus, there is no information or argument on the record of the current review that warrants reconsidering our preliminary decision to rescind. Therefore, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Jining Yongjia. Separate Rates In the Initiation Notice, the Department instructed all named firms that wished to qualify for separate rate status in the instant administrative review to complete, as appropriate, either a separate-rate certification or a separate-rate application, due no later than 30 or 60 calendar days, respectively, after publication of the Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 79056. As noted in the Preliminary Results, Anqiu Friend, Henan Weite Industrial Co. Ltd. (Henan Weite), Qingdao Xintianfeng, Shanghai LJ, Tianma Freezing, Weifang Hongqiao, and Weifang Shennong each timely submitted separate-rate documentation. Based on our analyses of this information, the Department preliminarily found that Henan Weite, Shanghai LJ, Anqiu Friend, Jinxiang Tianma, Qingdao Xintianfeng, Weifang Hongqiao, and Weifang Shennong each has established, prima facie, that it qualified for separate rates under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers. There is no information on the record to warrant reconsideration of these findings. As such, the Department has found that each of these seven companies has demonstrated that it qualifies for separate rates status. The per-unit separate rate to be applied to Henan Weite, Qingdao Xintianfeng, Shanghai LJ, and Weifang Hongqiao is discussed in the ‘‘Selection of Rate Applicable to Fully Cooperative E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1 34978 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Notices Non-Selected Respondents That Qualify for a Separate Rate’’ section, below. The per-unit separate rate to be applied to Anqiu Friend, Tianma Freezing, and Weifang Shennong is discussed in the ‘‘Application of Facts Available’’ section, below.3 As discussed in the Preliminary Results, the Department found that because Shanghai Ever Rich, Jining Trans-High, Qingdao Saturn, and Shenzhen Fanhui, mandatory respondents, and seven other companies subject to the review did not file timely separate rate certifications or applications, they were part of the PRCwide entity. There is no information on the record of this review that warrants reconsideration of these findings. As such, the Department has found that these eleven companies are part of the PRC-wide entity. See Appendix 2. Selection of Rate Applicable to Fully Cooperative Non-Selected Respondents That Qualify for a Separate Rate sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES In the Preliminary Results, the Department assigned the separate rate per-unit margin calculated in 06/07 Administrative Review (i.e., the separate rate calculated in the most recently completed administrative review of fresh garlic from the PRC) to the four cooperative separate rate respondents not selected for individual examination that qualified for a separate rate (i.e. Henan Weite, Qingdao Xintianfeng, Shanghai LJ, and Weifang Hongqiao). See Memorandum from Nicholas Czajkowski, Case Analyst, Office 6, Re: Final Results of the Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Separate Rate Companies and PRC-Wide Entity— Per-Unit Assessment Rates (June 8, 2009) (Per Unit Memorandum) placed on the record of this review concurrent with these preliminary results. 3 In the instant case, Anqiu Friend, Tianma Freezing, and Weifang Shennong each timely submitted certain information related to their separate rate status. However, the Department selected each company as a mandatory respondent. As mandatory respondents, each company failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in the review as a whole either because it did not submit its sales and factors of production information, or because it submitted incomplete and unverifiable sales and factors of production data. However, because the Department did not notify Anqiu Friend, Tianma Freezing, and Weifang Shennong in advance of submission of the separate rate information that a respondent would not qualify for separate rate status if it failed to cooperate to the best of its ability throughout the investigation and/or review, Anqiu Friend, Tianma Freezing, and Weifang Shennong will keep their separate rate status. See e.g., Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 46957 (August 22, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 43. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:46 Jun 18, 2010 Jkt 220001 The Department received a case brief from Qingdao Xintianfeng and Weifang Hongqiao and a rebuttal brief from Petitioners addressing issues related to what per-unit separate rate to apply to four non-selected cooperating respondents. These comments are discussed fully in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. We have not changed the per-unit separate rate to be applied to the four non-selected cooperating respondents. When dealing with the situation where there are no calculated rates in the administrative review to apply to the separate rate companies, the Department has determined that a reasonable method is to assign to non-reviewed companies the most recent rate individually calculated for such non-selected companies, unless we calculated in a more recent segment a rate for any company that was not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on FA, in which case we would assign the more recent rate, or average of such more recent rates, as the case may be. 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). Further, the Department has found this same methodology to be ‘‘reasonable because it is reflective of the commercial behavior demonstrated by exporters of the subject merchandise during a recent period of time.’’ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52273 (September 9, 2008) and the accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 6. Therefore, for these final results, we continue to apply the separate rate per-unit margin calculated in 06/07 Administrative Review to the four non-selected fully cooperative respondents. Application of Adverse Facts Available Subsequent to their submission of separate rate documentation, the Department selected Anqiu Friend, Tianma Freezing, and Weifang Shennong as mandatory respondents. In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that each of these companies failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in the review as a whole. Tianma Freezing did not respond to our questionnaire and Anqiu Friend and Weifang Shennong each provided incomplete and unverifiable sales, cost, and factors of production data. The Department also stated that mandatory respondents must respond to all the information that has been requested by PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the Department and not selectively choose which requests to respond to or which information to submit. See Preliminary Results. In the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that an inference that is adverse to the interests of Anqiu Friend, Tianma Freezing, and Weifang Shennong was warranted. No new information has been placed on the record which warrants reconsideration of this determination. Therefore, for these final results, as AFA the Department is assigning Anqiu Friend, Tianma Freezing, and Weifang Shennong the per kilogram rate of $4.71 calculated in the 06/07 Administrative Review. See Per Unit Memorandum. As noted in the Preliminary Results, Qingdao Saturn, Jining Trans-High, and Shenzhen Fanhui did not timely file separate rate documentation prior to their selection as mandatory respondents. Jining Trans-High and Shenzhen Fanhui did not respond to our questionnaire and Qingdao Saturn provided incomplete and unverifiable sales, cost, and factors of production data. The Department preliminarily found that there was no basis upon which to find that any of these three companies were eligible for separate rate status, and thus they were part of the PRC-wide entity. Accordingly, the PRC-wide entity, which includes these three companies, is under review. We further found that the PRC-wide entity, of which these companies are a part, failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. No information on the record of this review warrants reconsideration of these findings. Therefore, for these final results, the Department has determined that the PRC-wide entity did not participate fully in this proceeding, and that in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted for the PRC-wide entity, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. For these final results, as AFA, the Department is assigning the PRC-wide entity the per kilogram rate of $4.71 calculated in the 06/07 Administrative Review. See Per Unit Memorandum. Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as Adverse Facts Available Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department’s disposal. Secondary information is described in the SAA as ‘‘information derived from the petition E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1 sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Notices that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination covering the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.’’ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, vol. 1 (1994) (SAA) at 870. The SAA states that ‘‘corroborate’’ means to determine that the information used has probative value. Id. The Department has determined that to have probative value, information must be reliable and relevant. See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged in final results). The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation or review. See SAA at 870; see also Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003) (unchanged in final determination); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183 (March 11, 2005). To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be both reliable and relevant. Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. The only sources for calculated margins are administrative determinations. The per-unit AFA rate we are applying for the current review was calculated using the ad valorem rate from the original investigation of garlic from the PRC. See Per Unit Memorandum. Furthermore, no information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:46 Jun 18, 2010 Jkt 220001 Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996). Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are present with respect to the rate being used here. Moreover, the rate selected, i.e. $4.71 per kilogram, is the rate currently applicable to the PRC-wide entity. The Department assumes that if an uncooperative respondent could have obtained a lower rate, it would have cooperated. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190–91 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 24 CIT 841, 848 (2000) (respondents should not benefit from failure to cooperate). As there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriate to use as AFA in the current review, we determine that this rate has relevance. As this AFA rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value, and is thus in accordance with the requirement, under section 776(c) of the Act, that secondary information be corroborated to the extent practicable (i.e., that it has probative value). Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following margins exist for the period November 1, 2007 through October 31, 2008: FRESH GARLIC FROM THE PRC 2007– 2008 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin (dollars per kilogram) Henan Weite Industrial Co., Ltd ..................................... Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods Co., Ltd ............................. Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., Ltd ................ Weifang Hongqiao International Logistic Co., Ltd .. Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd .. Jinxiang Tianma Freezing Storage Co., Ltd ................ Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd ............................. PRC-wide Entity (see Appendix 2) ................................. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 34979 Disclosure We will disclose any memorandums used in our analysis to parties to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Assessment Rates Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For assessment purposes, where possible, the Department normally calculates importer-specific assessment rates for fresh garlic from the PRC. However, as discussed above, we are not calculating any company-specific antidumping duties in these final results. As such, it is not possible to calculate importerspecific assessment rates in this review. Rather, those companies demonstrating eligibility for a separate rate (Henan Weite, Qingdao Xintianfeng, Shanghai LJ, and Weifang Hongqiao) were assigned the most recently calculated per-unit separate rate, while Anqiu Friend, Tianma Freezing, and Weifang Shennong were assigned a separate rate based on total AFA. Other companies subject to review (discussed in detail above and listed in Appendix 2) are found to be part of the PRC-wide entity. Consistent with the 06/07 Administrative Review, we will direct CBP to assess a per-unit (i.e., per kilogram) amount on each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. In the 06/07 Administrative Review, we calculated a per-unit assessment rate for separate rate companies, which is the same separate rate applicable in this review. See Per Unit Memorandum. This same per-unit assessment rate will be applied to subject merchandise exported by Henan Weite, Qingdao Xintianfeng, Shanghai LJ, or Weifang Hongqiao. Also in the 06/07 Administrative Review, we calculated per-unit assessment rates for the companies that were determined to be part of the PRCwide entity. See Per Unit Memorandum. This is the highest per unit rate calculated in any segment of the proceeding and, as such, will be applied in this review to all companies that received a rate based on AFA, including the PRC-wide entity. (See Appendix 2). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. Cash Deposit Requirements Consistent with 06/07 Administrative Review, we will establish and collect a per-kilogram cash deposit amount E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1 34980 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Notices which will be equivalent to the company-specific dumping margins published in these final results of this review. Specifically, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by Henan Weite, Qingdao Xintianfeng, Shanghai LJ, or Weifang Hongqiao, the cash deposit rate will be the per-unit rate determined in the final results of the administrative review; (2) for subject merchandise exported by Anqiu Friend, Tianma Freezing, or Weifang Shennong the cash deposit rates will be the perunit rate determined in the final results of the administrative review; (3) for subject merchandise exported by PRC exporters subject to this administrative review that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate (see Appendix 2), the cash deposit rate will be the perunit PRC-wide rate determined in the final results of administrative review; (4) for subject merchandise exported by all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the per-unit PRCwide rate determined in the final results of administrative review; (5) for previously-investigated or previouslyreviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding (and which were not reviewed in this segment of the proceeding), the cash deposit rate will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (6) the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:46 Jun 18, 2010 Jkt 220001 Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213. Dated: June 14, 2010. Paul Piquado, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. 4. Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd. 5. Jinan Yipin Corporation Ltd. 6. Jining Yongjia Trade Co., Ltd. (rescinded). 7. Jinxiang Dongyun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Jinxiang Eastward Shipping Import and Export Limited Company). 8. Jinxiang Shanyang Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. 9. Jinxiang Tianma Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. 10. Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods Co., Ltd. 11. Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co., Ltd. 12. Qufu Dongbao Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. 13. Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company. 14. Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., Ltd. 15. Shenzhen Fanhui Import & Export Co., Ltd. 16. Shenzhen Greening Trading Co., Ltd. 17. Taiyan Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. 18. Weifang Hongqiao International Logistic Co., Ltd. 19. Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. [FR Doc. 2010–14959 Filed 6–18–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Appendix 1 Issue 1: Whether the Petitioners’ Request for Review of Jinan Yipin was Deficient. Issue 2: Whether the Department Should Rescind its Administrative Review with Respect to Jinan Yipin and Shenzhen Greening. Issue 3: Whether the Requirement That a Party Timely Certify No-Shipments is Unfair and Arbitrary. Issue 4: Application of PRC-Wide Rate to Jinan Yipin and Shenzhen Greening. Issue 5: Rescission of Shenzhen Xinboda. Issue 6: Determination of Separate Rate. Appendix 2 Companies Under Review Subject to the PRC-Wide Rate 1. Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd. 2. Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co., Ltd. 3. Shenzhen Fanhui Import & Export Co., Ltd. 4. Heze Ever-Best International Trade Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Shandong Heze International Trade and Developing Company) 5. Jinan Yipin Corporation Ltd. 6. Jinxiang Dongyun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Jinxiang Eastward Shipping Import and Export Limited Company) 7. Jinxiang Shanyang Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. 8. Qufu Dongbao Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. 9. Shenzhen Greening Trading Co., Ltd. 10. Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company 11. Taiyan Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. Appendix 3 Companies Subject to the Administrative Review 1. Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd. 2. Henan White Industrial Co., Ltd. 3. Heze Ever-Best International Trade Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Shandong Heze International Trade and Developing Company). PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–809] Circular Welded Non–Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 8, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non–alloy steel pipe (‘‘CWP’’) from the Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’), covering the period November 1, 2007, through October 31, 2008. See Circular Welded Non–Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 64670 (December 8, 2009) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). This review covers six producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States: SeAH Steel Corporation (‘‘SeAH’’), Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., Korea Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., Union Steel Co., Ltd., Nexteel Co. Ltd., and A–JU Besteel Co., Ltd. SeAH is the only mandatory respondent. We gave the interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and the results of verification, we have made changes to the margin calculation. The E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 118 (Monday, June 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34976-34980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-14959]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-831]


Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of the 14th Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 8, 2009, the Department of Commerce (Department) 
published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 
from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period of review 
(POR) of November 1, 2007, through October 31, 2008. See Fresh Garlic 
from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of, and Intent 
to Rescind, in Part, the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
64677 (December 8, 2009) (Preliminary Results). Following the 
Preliminary Results, we provided interested parties with an opportunity 
to comment on the Preliminary Results. Our analysis of the comments 
submitted and information received did not lead to any changes in the 
Preliminary Results. Therefore, the final results do not differ from 
the Preliminary Results.
    As discussed below, the Department is applying total adverse facts 
available (AFA) to the six mandatory respondents who each failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability in this proceeding. These 
mandatory respondents are Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd. (Anqiu Friend), 
Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd. (Jining Trans-High), Qingdao Saturn 
International Trade Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Saturn), Shenzhen Fanhui Import 
& Export Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen Fanhui), Jinxiang Tianma Freezing Storage 
Co., Ltd. (Tianma Freezing), and Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 
(Weifang Shennong). The Department also finds that eleven companies 
subject to this review,\1\ including mandatory respondents Shanghai 
Ever Rich Trade Company (Shanghai Ever Rich), Jining Trans-High, 
Qingdao Saturn, and Shenzhen Fanhui did not demonstrate their 
eligibility for separate rate status. See Appendix 2. In addition, the 
Department grants a separate rate to the four fully-cooperative non-
selected respondents which demonstrated their eligibility for separate 
rate status. For the rates assigned to each of these companies, see the 
``Final Results of Review'' section of this notice. Finally, the 
Department is also rescinding the review with respect to one exporter 
who timely submitted a ``no shipment'' certification. See ``Final 
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A full list of companies subject to this review is provided 
in Appendix 3.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: June 21, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0780.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On December 8, 2009, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary results of the 14th AR of the antidumping duty 
order on fresh garlic from the PRC. See Preliminary Results. Since the 
Preliminary Results, the following events have occurred.
    On January 5, 2010, the Department notified parties that case 
briefs were due January 11, 2010. On January 14, 2010, the Department 
extended the deadlines for rebuttal briefs to January 25, 2010. On 
January 11, 2010, Shenzhen Greening Trading Company Ltd. (Greening) and 
Jinan Yipin Corporation Ltd. (Jinan Yipin) submitted their respective 
case briefs. Also on January 11, 2010, Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods Co., 
Ltd. (Qingdao Xintianfeng) and Weifang Hongqiao International Logistic 
Co., Ltd. (Weifang Hongqiao) and the following interested parties: 
Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd., Anqiu Haoshun Trade Co., Ltd., Jinxiang 
Dongyun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd., Juye Homestead Fruits and 
Vegetables Co., Ltd., Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd., Qufu Dongbao 
Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd., Shandong Chenhe International Trading 
Co., Ltd.,

[[Page 34977]]

Shandong Longtai Fruits and Vegetables Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Fanhui 
Import and Export Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Sunny Import & Export Co., Ltd. 
and Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (collectively as ``Interested 
Parties''), submitted their case brief.\2\ On January 25, 2010, the 
Fresh Garlic Producers Association (FGPA) and its individual members 
(Christopher Ranch LLC, the Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey 
and Company, Inc.) (collectively, Petitioners) filed their rebuttal 
brief. On February 25, 2010, the Department held a public hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On October 21, 2009, the Department rescinded the 
administrative review of forty-three companies. See Fresh Garlic 
from the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 54029 (Oct. 21, 2009). 
The Department's rescission included the rescission of Shenzhen 
Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. (Xinboda) which Interested Parties 
commented upon in a letter to the Department on November 18, 2009. 
The Interested Parties further commented upon the Department's 
rescission of Xinboda in their case brief. For a complete discussion 
of this issue, see Comment 5 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 19, 2010, Department officials met with Jinan Yipin's 
counsel to discuss issues related to the briefs. See Memorandum for the 
File from Scott Lindsay, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, 
Meeting with Counsel for Jinan Yipin Corporation Ltd.: Fresh Garlic 
from the People's Republic of China (March 19, 2010).
    On April 8, 2010, the Department extended the time limit for 
completion of the final results of this administrative review by 30 
days. See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Extension 
of Time Limits for Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 19364 (April 14, 2010). On May 11, 2010, the Department 
extended the time limit for completion of the final results of this 
administrative review by an additional 30 days. See Fresh Garlic from 
the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for Final 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 29314 (May 
25, 2010).

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are all grades of garlic, whole 
or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, 
chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other 
neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of 
other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades 
are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of 
this order does not include the following: (a) Garlic that has been 
mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, 
destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially 
prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and 
otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used 
principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is 
currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 
0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 
2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS).
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is 
dispositive. In order to be excluded from the Order, garlic entered 
under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically 
harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh 
use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then 
harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by 
declarations to CBP to that effect.

Analysis of Comments Received

    Issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this 
proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in Appendix 1 to 
this notice and addressed in the Memorandum To: Ronald K. Lorentzen, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, From: John M. 
Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Operations, Subject: Fresh Garlic from the People's 
Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results 
of the Fourteenth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, dated June 
14, 2010 (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by 
this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues 
raised in this administrative review and the corresponding 
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the main Department building. 
In addition, a copy of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be 
accessed directly on our Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The 
paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
are identical in content.

Final Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department announced its intent to 
rescind the administrative review with respect to Jining Yongjia Trade 
Co., Ltd. (Jining Yongjia). In accordance with the instructions in the 
Initiation Notice, Jining Yongjia timely certified that it had no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
See Preliminary Results, 74 FR at 64679; see also Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests 
for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 79055 (Dec. 24, 2008) (Initiation 
Notice). We confirmed Jining Yongjia's claim by issuing a no-shipment 
inquiry to CBP and examining electronic CBP data. Our examination of 
shipment data from CBP for Jining Yongjia indicated that there were no 
entries of subject merchandise which they exported during the POR. Id. 
We received no response from CBP regarding our no-shipment inquiry, 
which corroborates Jining Yongjia's no-shipment certification. No other 
parties commented on our preliminary intent to rescind. Thus, there is 
no information or argument on the record of the current review that 
warrants reconsidering our preliminary decision to rescind. Therefore, 
we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Jining 
Yongjia.

Separate Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department instructed all named firms 
that wished to qualify for separate rate status in the instant 
administrative review to complete, as appropriate, either a separate-
rate certification or a separate-rate application, due no later than 30 
or 60 calendar days, respectively, after publication of the Initiation 
Notice. See Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 79056. As noted in the 
Preliminary Results, Anqiu Friend, Henan Weite Industrial Co. Ltd. 
(Henan Weite), Qingdao Xintianfeng, Shanghai LJ, Tianma Freezing, 
Weifang Hongqiao, and Weifang Shennong each timely submitted separate-
rate documentation. Based on our analyses of this information, the 
Department preliminarily found that Henan Weite, Shanghai LJ, Anqiu 
Friend, Jinxiang Tianma, Qingdao Xintianfeng, Weifang Hongqiao, and 
Weifang Shennong each has established, prima facie, that it qualified 
for separate rates under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide 
and Sparklers. There is no information on the record to warrant 
reconsideration of these findings. As such, the Department has found 
that each of these seven companies has demonstrated that it qualifies 
for separate rates status.
    The per-unit separate rate to be applied to Henan Weite, Qingdao 
Xintianfeng, Shanghai LJ, and Weifang Hongqiao is discussed in the 
``Selection of Rate Applicable to Fully Cooperative

[[Page 34978]]

Non-Selected Respondents That Qualify for a Separate Rate'' section, 
below. The per-unit separate rate to be applied to Anqiu Friend, Tianma 
Freezing, and Weifang Shennong is discussed in the ``Application of 
Facts Available'' section, below.\3\ As discussed in the Preliminary 
Results, the Department found that because Shanghai Ever Rich, Jining 
Trans-High, Qingdao Saturn, and Shenzhen Fanhui, mandatory respondents, 
and seven other companies subject to the review did not file timely 
separate rate certifications or applications, they were part of the 
PRC-wide entity. There is no information on the record of this review 
that warrants reconsideration of these findings. As such, the 
Department has found that these eleven companies are part of the PRC-
wide entity. See Appendix 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the instant case, Anqiu Friend, Tianma Freezing, and 
Weifang Shennong each timely submitted certain information related 
to their separate rate status. However, the Department selected each 
company as a mandatory respondent. As mandatory respondents, each 
company failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in the review 
as a whole either because it did not submit its sales and factors of 
production information, or because it submitted incomplete and 
unverifiable sales and factors of production data. However, because 
the Department did not notify Anqiu Friend, Tianma Freezing, and 
Weifang Shennong in advance of submission of the separate rate 
information that a respondent would not qualify for separate rate 
status if it failed to cooperate to the best of its ability 
throughout the investigation and/or review, Anqiu Friend, Tianma 
Freezing, and Weifang Shennong will keep their separate rate status. 
See e.g., Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Reviews: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China, 72 FR 46957 (August 22, 2007) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of Rate Applicable to Fully Cooperative Non-Selected 
Respondents That Qualify for a Separate Rate

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department assigned the separate 
rate per-unit margin calculated in 06/07 Administrative Review (i.e., 
the separate rate calculated in the most recently completed 
administrative review of fresh garlic from the PRC) to the four 
cooperative separate rate respondents not selected for individual 
examination that qualified for a separate rate (i.e. Henan Weite, 
Qingdao Xintianfeng, Shanghai LJ, and Weifang Hongqiao). See Memorandum 
from Nicholas Czajkowski, Case Analyst, Office 6, Re: Final Results of 
the Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of 
China: Separate Rate Companies and PRC-Wide Entity--Per-Unit Assessment 
Rates (June 8, 2009) (Per Unit Memorandum) placed on the record of this 
review concurrent with these preliminary results.
    The Department received a case brief from Qingdao Xintianfeng and 
Weifang Hongqiao and a rebuttal brief from Petitioners addressing 
issues related to what per-unit separate rate to apply to four non-
selected cooperating respondents. These comments are discussed fully in 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum. We have not changed the per-unit 
separate rate to be applied to the four non-selected cooperating 
respondents. When dealing with the situation where there are no 
calculated rates in the administrative review to apply to the separate 
rate companies, the Department has determined that a reasonable method 
is to assign to non-reviewed companies the most recent rate 
individually calculated for such non-selected companies, unless we 
calculated in a more recent segment a rate for any company that was not 
zero, de minimis, or based entirely on FA, in which case we would 
assign the more recent rate, or average of such more recent rates, as 
the case may be. 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). Further, the Department has found this same methodology to be 
``reasonable because it is reflective of the commercial behavior 
demonstrated by exporters of the subject merchandise during a recent 
period of time.'' See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52273 
(September 9, 2008) and the accompanying Issues and Decisions 
Memorandum at Comment 6. Therefore, for these final results, we 
continue to apply the separate rate per-unit margin calculated in 06/07 
Administrative Review to the four non-selected fully cooperative 
respondents.

Application of Adverse Facts Available

    Subsequent to their submission of separate rate documentation, the 
Department selected Anqiu Friend, Tianma Freezing, and Weifang Shennong 
as mandatory respondents. In the Preliminary Results, the Department 
found that each of these companies failed to cooperate to the best of 
its ability in the review as a whole. Tianma Freezing did not respond 
to our questionnaire and Anqiu Friend and Weifang Shennong each 
provided incomplete and unverifiable sales, cost, and factors of 
production data. The Department also stated that mandatory respondents 
must respond to all the information that has been requested by the 
Department and not selectively choose which requests to respond to or 
which information to submit. See Preliminary Results.
    In the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of Anqiu Friend, Tianma 
Freezing, and Weifang Shennong was warranted. No new information has 
been placed on the record which warrants reconsideration of this 
determination. Therefore, for these final results, as AFA the 
Department is assigning Anqiu Friend, Tianma Freezing, and Weifang 
Shennong the per kilogram rate of $4.71 calculated in the 06/07 
Administrative Review. See Per Unit Memorandum.
    As noted in the Preliminary Results, Qingdao Saturn, Jining Trans-
High, and Shenzhen Fanhui did not timely file separate rate 
documentation prior to their selection as mandatory respondents. Jining 
Trans-High and Shenzhen Fanhui did not respond to our questionnaire and 
Qingdao Saturn provided incomplete and unverifiable sales, cost, and 
factors of production data. The Department preliminarily found that 
there was no basis upon which to find that any of these three companies 
were eligible for separate rate status, and thus they were part of the 
PRC-wide entity. Accordingly, the PRC-wide entity, which includes these 
three companies, is under review. We further found that the PRC-wide 
entity, of which these companies are a part, failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability.
    No information on the record of this review warrants 
reconsideration of these findings. Therefore, for these final results, 
the Department has determined that the PRC-wide entity did not 
participate fully in this proceeding, and that in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted for 
the PRC-wide entity, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. For these 
final results, as AFA, the Department is assigning the PRC-wide entity 
the per kilogram rate of $4.71 calculated in the 06/07 Administrative 
Review. See Per Unit Memorandum.

Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department 
selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on 
``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is 
described in the SAA as ``information derived from the petition

[[Page 34979]]

that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination 
covering the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 
751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See Statement of 
Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 
H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1 (1994) (SAA) at 870. The SAA states that 
``corroborate'' means to determine that the information used has 
probative value. Id. The Department has determined that to have 
probative value, information must be reliable and relevant. See, e.g., 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside 
Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) 
(unchanged in final results). The SAA also states that independent 
sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, 
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation or review. See SAA at 870; see also Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High 
Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627, 35629 
(June 16, 2003) (unchanged in final determination); and Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 
70 FR 12181, 12183 (March 11, 2005).
    To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be both 
reliable and relevant. Unlike other types of information, such as input 
costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for 
calculated dumping margins. The only sources for calculated margins are 
administrative determinations. The per-unit AFA rate we are applying 
for the current review was calculated using the ad valorem rate from 
the original investigation of garlic from the PRC. See Per Unit 
Memorandum. Furthermore, no information has been presented in the 
current review that calls into question the reliability of this 
information. Thus, the Department finds that the information is 
reliable.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an 
appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 
(February 22, 1996). Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin 
that has been discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 
F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin 
that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual 
circumstances are present with respect to the rate being used here. 
Moreover, the rate selected, i.e. $4.71 per kilogram, is the rate 
currently applicable to the PRC-wide entity. The Department assumes 
that if an uncooperative respondent could have obtained a lower rate, 
it would have cooperated. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 
F. 2d 1185, 1190-91 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, 
Inc. v. United States, 24 CIT 841, 848 (2000) (respondents should not 
benefit from failure to cooperate). As there is no information on the 
record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not 
appropriate to use as AFA in the current review, we determine that this 
rate has relevance.
    As this AFA rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that 
it has probative value, and is thus in accordance with the requirement, 
under section 776(c) of the Act, that secondary information be 
corroborated to the extent practicable (i.e., that it has probative 
value).

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following margins 
exist for the period November 1, 2007 through October 31, 2008:

        Fresh Garlic From the PRC 2007-2008 Administrative Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                          average margin
                  Manufacturer/exporter                    (dollars per
                                                             kilogram)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henan Weite Industrial Co., Ltd.........................            1.03
Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods Co., Ltd......................            1.03
Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., Ltd..............            1.03
Weifang Hongqiao International Logistic Co., Ltd........            1.03
Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd..............................            4.71
Jinxiang Tianma Freezing Storage Co., Ltd...............            4.71
Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd.....................            4.71
PRC-wide Entity (see Appendix 2)........................            4.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose any memorandums used in our analysis to parties to 
these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and 
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For 
assessment purposes, where possible, the Department normally calculates 
importer-specific assessment rates for fresh garlic from the PRC. 
However, as discussed above, we are not calculating any company-
specific antidumping duties in these final results. As such, it is not 
possible to calculate importer-specific assessment rates in this 
review. Rather, those companies demonstrating eligibility for a 
separate rate (Henan Weite, Qingdao Xintianfeng, Shanghai LJ, and 
Weifang Hongqiao) were assigned the most recently calculated per-unit 
separate rate, while Anqiu Friend, Tianma Freezing, and Weifang 
Shennong were assigned a separate rate based on total AFA. Other 
companies subject to review (discussed in detail above and listed in 
Appendix 2) are found to be part of the PRC-wide entity.
    Consistent with the 06/07 Administrative Review, we will direct CBP 
to assess a per-unit (i.e., per kilogram) amount on each entry of the 
subject merchandise during the POR. In the 06/07 Administrative Review, 
we calculated a per-unit assessment rate for separate rate companies, 
which is the same separate rate applicable in this review. See Per Unit 
Memorandum. This same per-unit assessment rate will be applied to 
subject merchandise exported by Henan Weite, Qingdao Xintianfeng, 
Shanghai LJ, or Weifang Hongqiao.
    Also in the 06/07 Administrative Review, we calculated per-unit 
assessment rates for the companies that were determined to be part of 
the PRC-wide entity. See Per Unit Memorandum. This is the highest per 
unit rate calculated in any segment of the proceeding and, as such, 
will be applied in this review to all companies that received a rate 
based on AFA, including the PRC-wide entity. (See Appendix 2). The 
Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this 
review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Consistent with 06/07 Administrative Review, we will establish and 
collect a per-kilogram cash deposit amount

[[Page 34980]]

which will be equivalent to the company-specific dumping margins 
published in these final results of this review. Specifically, the 
following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication 
of the final results of this review for all shipments of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by Henan 
Weite, Qingdao Xintianfeng, Shanghai LJ, or Weifang Hongqiao, the cash 
deposit rate will be the per-unit rate determined in the final results 
of the administrative review; (2) for subject merchandise exported by 
Anqiu Friend, Tianma Freezing, or Weifang Shennong the cash deposit 
rates will be the per-unit rate determined in the final results of the 
administrative review; (3) for subject merchandise exported by PRC 
exporters subject to this administrative review that have not been 
found to be entitled to a separate rate (see Appendix 2), the cash 
deposit rate will be the per-unit PRC-wide rate determined in the final 
results of administrative review; (4) for subject merchandise exported 
by all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been 
found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be 
the per-unit PRC-wide rate determined in the final results of 
administrative review; (5) for previously-investigated or previously-
reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a 
prior segment of the proceeding (and which were not reviewed in this 
segment of the proceeding), the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (6) the cash 
deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have 
not received their own rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC 
exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: June 14, 2010.
Paul Piquado,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix 1

    Issue 1: Whether the Petitioners' Request for Review of Jinan 
Yipin was Deficient.
    Issue 2: Whether the Department Should Rescind its 
Administrative Review with Respect to Jinan Yipin and Shenzhen 
Greening.
    Issue 3: Whether the Requirement That a Party Timely Certify No-
Shipments is Unfair and Arbitrary.
    Issue 4: Application of PRC-Wide Rate to Jinan Yipin and 
Shenzhen Greening.
    Issue 5: Rescission of Shenzhen Xinboda.
    Issue 6: Determination of Separate Rate.

Appendix 2

Companies Under Review Subject to the PRC-Wide Rate

    1. Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd.
    2. Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co., Ltd.
    3. Shenzhen Fanhui Import & Export Co., Ltd.
    4. Heze Ever-Best International Trade Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Shandong 
Heze International Trade and Developing Company)
    5. Jinan Yipin Corporation Ltd.
    6. Jinxiang Dongyun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Jinxiang 
Eastward Shipping Import and Export Limited Company)
    7. Jinxiang Shanyang Freezing Storage Co., Ltd.
    8. Qufu Dongbao Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd.
    9. Shenzhen Greening Trading Co., Ltd.
    10. Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company
    11. Taiyan Ziyang Food Co., Ltd.

Appendix 3

Companies Subject to the Administrative Review

    1. Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd.
    2. Henan White Industrial Co., Ltd.
    3. Heze Ever-Best International Trade Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Shandong 
Heze International Trade and Developing Company).
    4. Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd.
    5. Jinan Yipin Corporation Ltd.
    6. Jining Yongjia Trade Co., Ltd. (rescinded).
    7. Jinxiang Dongyun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Jinxiang 
Eastward Shipping Import and Export Limited Company).
    8. Jinxiang Shanyang Freezing Storage Co., Ltd.
    9. Jinxiang Tianma Freezing Storage Co., Ltd.
    10. Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods Co., Ltd.
    11. Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co., Ltd.
    12. Qufu Dongbao Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd.
    13. Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company.
    14. Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., Ltd.
    15. Shenzhen Fanhui Import & Export Co., Ltd.
    16. Shenzhen Greening Trading Co., Ltd.
    17. Taiyan Ziyang Food Co., Ltd.
    18. Weifang Hongqiao International Logistic Co., Ltd.
    19. Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd.

[FR Doc. 2010-14959 Filed 6-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P