Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review, 47270-47274 [2010-19286]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
47270
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Notices
validity issues in a shorter time frame.
The USPTO is considering a number of
short and long-range initiatives that can
be implemented in three phases to
reduce pendency and improve
efficiency in reexamination
proceedings. In phase I, the USPTO will
implement streamlined procedures and
optional programs in which patent
owners and third party requesters may
elect to participate in order to gain the
benefit of shorter pendency. For
example, the USPTO recently
implemented the streamlined procedure
for appeal brief review in ex parte
reexamination proceedings. See
Streamlined Procedure for Appeal Brief
Review in Ex Parte Reexamination
Proceedings, 75 FR 29321 (May 25,
2010). In the instant notice, the USPTO
is implementing a pilot program in
which patent owners may waive the
right to file a patent owner’s statement
in response to a request from the
USPTO. The USPTO will also publish
notices to implement additional
optional procedures and seek public
comments on other procedural changes
in the near future. In phases II and III,
the USPTO will consider the data
gathered from phase I and the feedback
from the patent owners and other
stakeholders, and implement process
changes through internal procedural
changes, rule making that includes
opportunities for the public to
comment, and/or administrative
proposals for statutory changes to
enhance reexamination proceedings.
The USPTO welcomes feedback on
improving its processes. Suggestions
may be directed to the Office of Patent
Legal Administration at (571) 272–7701
for the general examination process, or
(571) 272–7703 for the reexamination or
reissue process.
II. Overview of the Pilot Program: As
part of phase I to reduce pendency and
improve efficiency in ex parte
reexamination proceedings, the USPTO
will implement a pilot program in
which the USPTO will contact the
patent owner and request the optional
waiver of the right to file a patent
owner’s statement after the proceeding
has been granted a filing date and before
the examiner begins his or her review.
This will enable the USPTO in suitable
cases to issue the first Office action on
the merits (including an NIRC) together
with or soon after the order for
reexamination, and thereby reduce the
pendency of the proceeding by about
three to five months.
Under the current procedure, a patent
owner may file a statement under 35
U.S.C. 304 within two months from the
issuance of an ex parte reexamination
order in a reexamination proceeding,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Aug 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
and a third party requester may file a
reply (under 35 U.S.C. 304) to the patent
owner’s statement within two months
from the date of service of the patent
owner’s statement. Last year,
approximately ten percent of patent
owners filed a patent owner’s statement
under 35 U.S.C. 304 after the USPTO
had ordered an ex parte reexamination
of a patent. When ex parte
reexamination is ordered, the examiner
generally starts to prepare the first
Office action on the merits after the
receipt of the patent owner’s statement
and the third party requester’s reply, or
after the expiration of the time period
for filing the statement and reply. As of
March 31, 2010, the average time to
order an ex parte reexamination from
the filing of an ex parte reexamination
request was about two months and the
average time to issue a first Office action
on the merits from the filing of an ex
parte reexamination request was
between seven to eight months.
If the patent owner waives the right to
file a patent owner’s statement in
response to a request from the USPTO,
the examiner will be able to act on the
first Office action on the merits
immediately after determining that
reexamination will be ordered, and in a
suitable case issue the reexamination
order and the first Office action on the
merits (including an NIRC) at the same
time. This will eliminate the delay of
waiting for a patent owner’s statement
and the third-party requester’s reply and
will permit the examiner to utilize his
or her time more efficiently by drafting
the order and the first Office action on
the merits (including an NIRC) together.
Moreover, by performing the threshold
analysis of determining and preparing
an action on the merits concurrently
when a request raises a substantial new
question of patentability (SNQ), the
overall efficiency of the USPTO in
performing the reexamination process
should be increased. The Central
Reexamination Unit (CRU) has
experience in performing the threshold
SNQ analysis and concurrently
preparing an Office action on the merits,
and the reexamination order and Office
action are typically mailed together in
inter partes reexamination proceedings.
See 37 CFR 1.935.
III. Waiver Procedure under the Pilot
Program: Under the pilot program for
waiving the patent owner’s statement
announced in this notice, the CRU will
contact, via telephone, the patent owner
to request the optional waiver of the
patent owner’s statement after the
proceeding has been granted a filing
date and before the examiner begins his
or her review. The telephone
communication will be limited to the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
CRU requesting the waiver of the patent
owner’s statement and agreement (or
non-agreement) to the waiver by the
patent owner. Discussion of the merits
of the proceedings, e.g., the patentability
of claims in patents, will not be
permitted. The CRU will make the
agreement or non-agreement of record in
the reexamination file in an interview
summary and a copy will be mailed to
the patent owner and any third party
requester. The patent owner is not
required to complete a written statement
of the telephone communication under
37 CFR 1.560(b) or otherwise, and such
a statement should not be filed as it will
slow the process. If the patent owner
agrees to the waiver of the right to file
a patent owner’s statement, the
examiner will typically issue the
reexamination order and the first Office
action on the merits on the same day as
the order, or within a few days
thereafter.
The Office intends to make available
to the public statistics on the number of
patent owners that agree to waive the
statement and the impact on pendency
due to waiving the statement right. This
data is expected to form a portion of the
data used in the decision making
processes in phases II and III.
Dated: July 16, 2010.
David J. Kappos,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2010–19337 Filed 8–4–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–570–855)
Certain Non–Frozen Apple Juice
Concentrate from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of
Preliminary Results of the New Shipper
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) is conducting a new
shipper review (‘‘NSR’’) of the
antidumping duty order, covering the
period of review (‘‘POR’’) of June 1,
2009, through January 20, 2010. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on
entries of subject merchandise during
the POR for which the importer–specific
assessment rates are above de minimis.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Notices
EFFECTIVE DATE:
August 5, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexis Polovina, 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)
482–3927.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
General Background
On June 5, 2000, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on certain non–
frozen apple juice concentrate from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See
Notice of Amended Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Non–
Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate From
the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR
35606 (June 5, 2000) (‘‘Order’’). On
December 15, 2009, pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (‘‘Act’’), and 19 CFR
351.214(c), the Department received a
NSR request from Lingbao Xinyuan
Fruit Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘LXFI’’). LXFI
certified that it is a producer and
exporter of the subject merchandise
upon which the request was based. On
February 4, 2010, the Department
initiated the requested antidumping
duty NSR. See Certain Non–Frozen
Apple Juice Concentrate from the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,
75 FR 5763 (February 4, 2010).
On February 16, 2010, the Department
issued original questionnaires to LXFI.
Between March 9, 2010, and July 9,
2010, LXFI submitted responses to the
original sections A, C, and D
questionnaires and supplemental
sections A, C, and D questionnaires.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Surrogate Country and Surrogate
Values
On March 2, 2010, the Department
sent interested parties a letter requesting
comments on surrogate country
selection and information pertaining to
valuing factors of production (‘‘FOP’’).
On April 22, 2010, LXFI submitted
comments on the surrogate country. On
June 23, 2010, LXFI submitted surrogate
value data. No other party submitted
surrogate country or surrogate value
data.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is
certain non–frozen apple juice
concentrate. Apple juice concentrate is
defined as all non–frozen concentrated
apple juice with a brix scale of 40 or
greater, whether or not containing
added sugar or other sweetening matter,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Aug 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
and whether or not fortified with
vitamins or minerals. Excluded from the
scope of this order are: frozen
concentrated apple juice; non–frozen
concentrated apple juice that has been
fermented; and non–frozen concentrated
apple juice to which spirits have been
added.
The merchandise subject to this order
is classified in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheadings
2106.90.52.00, and 2009.70.00.20 before
January 1, 2002, and 2009.79.00.20 after
January 1, 2002. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
47271
Final Determination of Sales at Less
than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588
(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as amplified
by the Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon
Carbide from the People’s Republic of
China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994)
(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’).
Non–Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non–market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. See, e.g.,
Pure Magnesium from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 76336 (December 16,
2008); and Frontseating Service Valves
From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Final Negative
Determination of Critical
Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 13,
2009). In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect
until revoked by the administering
authority. None of the parties to this
proceeding have contested such
treatment. Accordingly, we calculated
NV in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
A. 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. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
In this review, LXFI submitted a
complete response to the separate rates
section of the Department’s NME
questionnaire. The evidence submitted
by LXFI includes government laws and
regulations on corporate ownership,
business licenses, and narrative
information regarding the company’s
operations and selection of
management. The evidence provided by
LXFI supports a finding of a de jure
absence of government control over its
export activities. Thus, we believe that
the evidence on the record supports a
preliminary finding of an absence of de
jure government control based on: (1) an
absence of restrictive stipulations
associated with the exporter’s business
license; (2) the legal authority on the
record decentralizing control over the
respondent; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.
Separate Rate Determinations
A designation as a NME remains in
effect until it is revoked by the
Department. See section 771(18)(C) of
the Act. Accordingly, there is a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the PRC are subject to
government control and, thus, should be
assessed a single antidumping duty rate.
It is the Department’s standard policy to
assign all exporters of the merchandise
subject to review in NME countries a
single rate unless an exporter can
affirmatively demonstrate an absence of
government control, both in law (de
jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect
to exports. To establish whether a
company is sufficiently independent to
be entitled to a separate, company–
specific rate, the Department analyzes
each exporting entity in an NME
country under the test established in the
B. Absence of De Facto Control
The absence of de facto government
control over exports is based on whether
the respondent: (1) sets its own export
prices independent of the government
and other exporters; (2) retains the
proceeds from its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding
the disposition of profits or financing of
losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; and (4) has autonomy from
the government regarding the selection
of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59
FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589;
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).
In this review, LXFI submitted
evidence indicating an absence of de
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
47272
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
facto government control over their
export activities. Specifically, this
evidence indicates that: (1) the company
sets its own export prices independent
of the government and without the
approval of a government authority; (2)
the company retains the proceeds from
its sales and makes independent
decisions regarding the disposition of
profits or financing of losses; (3) the
company has a general manager, branch
manager or division manager with the
authority to negotiate and bind the
company in an agreement; (4) the
general manager is selected by the board
of directors or company employees, and
the general manager appoints the
deputy managers and the manager of
each department. Therefore, the
Department preliminarily finds that
LXFI has established that it qualifies for
a separate rate under the criteria
established by Silicon Carbide and
Sparklers.
New Shipper Review Bona Fide
Analysis
Consistent with the Department’s
practice, we investigated the bona fide
nature of the sale made by LXFI for this
NSR. In evaluating whether a single sale
in a NSR is commercially reasonable,
and therefore bona fide, the Department
considers, inter alia, such factors as: (1)
timing of the sale; (2) price and
quantity; (3) the expenses arising from
the transaction; (4) whether the goods
were sold at a profit; and (5) whether
the transaction was made on an arms–
length basis. See Tianjin Tiancheng
Pharmaceutical Co. v. the United States,
366 F. Supp. 2d R46, 1250 (CIT 2005).
Accordingly, the Department considers
a number of factors in its bona fide
analysis, ‘‘all of which may be specific
to the commercial realities surrounding
an alleged sale of subject merchandise.’’
See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid
Co. v. the United States, 374 F. Supp.
2d 1333, 1342 (CIT 2005). In examining
LXFI’s sale in relation to these factors,
the Department observed no evidence
that would indicate that this sale was
not bona fide. Therefore, we
preliminarily find that the new shipper
sale by LXFI was made on a bona fide
basis. See Memorandum to the File
through Alex Villanueva, Program
Manager, Office 9 from Alexis Polovina,
Case Analyst, Office 9: Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review of Certain
Non–Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate
from the People’s Republic of China:
Bona Fide Nature of the Sale Under
Review for Lingbao Xinyuan Fruit
Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘LXFI’’), dated July
30, 2010.
Based on our investigation into the
bona fide nature of the sale, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Aug 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
questionnaire responses submitted by
LXFI and the company’s eligibility for a
separate rate (see Separate Rates
Determination section above), we
preliminarily determine that LXFI has
met the requirements to qualify as a new
shipper during this POR. Therefore, for
the purposes of these preliminary
results of review, we are treating LXFI’s
sale of subject merchandise to the
United States as an appropriate
transaction for this NSR.
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base
normal value (‘‘NV’’), in most
circumstances, on the NME producer’s
FOPs, valued in a surrogate market
economy country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
Department. In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the
FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to
the extent possible, the prices or costs
of FOPs in one or more market economy
countries that are: (1) at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the NME country; and (2)
significant producers of comparable
merchandise.
The Department determined that
India, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand,
Ukraine, and Peru are countries
comparable to the PRC in terms of
economic development.1 Once it has
identified economically comparable
countries, the Department’s practice is
to select an appropriate surrogate
country from the list based on the
availability and reliability of data from
the countries. See Department Policy
Bulletin No. 04.1: Non–Market Economy
Surrogate Country Selection Process
(March 1, 2004).
Absent world apple juice concentrate
production data, the Department
considered whether any country listed
in the Surrogate Country List was a net–
exporter (i.e., exports more apple juice
concentrate than it imports) to identify
producers of apple juice concentrate.
We found that none of the countries
listed in the Surrogate Country List were
net–exporters of apple juice concentrate.
Therefore, the Department considered
other countries not listed in the
Surrogate Country List and determined
that Poland was a net–exporter of apple
juice concentrate.
In this proceeding, we received
comments regarding surrogate country
selection only from LXFI, which
supports the selection of Poland. The
record also contains surrogate value
information from Poland for most
inputs, including juice apples, the main
input for producing apple juice
concentrate. In addition, we have
surrogate financial ratios from a Polish
juice company. Of the countries that are
significant producers of identical
merchandise, the record contains
reliable surrogate value information
from Poland. Therefore, for these
preliminary results, we have selected
Poland as the surrogate country.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in
an antidumping new shipper review,
interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value FOPs
within 20 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results.
U.S. Price
For LXFI’s sale to the United States,
we used the export price (‘‘EP’’)
methodology, pursuant to section 772(a)
of the Act, because the first sale to an
unaffiliated purchaser was made prior
to importation, and CEP was not
otherwise warranted by the facts on the
record. We calculated EP based on the
price to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States.
In accordance with section 772(c) of
the Act, as appropriate, we deducted
from the starting price to unaffiliated
purchasers foreign inland freight and
containerization. We have reviewed
each of these services and expenses
reported by LXFI and find that they
were provided by an NME vendor or
paid for using PRC currency. Thus, we
based the deduction of these movement
charges on surrogate values. See
Memorandum to the File through Alex
Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9
from Alexis Polovina, Case Analyst,
Office 9: Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review of Certain Non–Frozen
Apple Juice Concentrate from the
People’s Republic of China: Surrogate
Values for the Preliminary Results,
dated July 30, 2010 (‘‘Surrogate Value
Memo’’) for details regarding the
surrogate values for movement
expenses.
Normal Value
1. Methodology
1 See
Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting
Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva,
Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9:
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for the
New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice
Concentrate (‘‘Apple Juice’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), dated February 16, 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act
provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using a FOP
methodology if the merchandise is
exported from an NME country and the
information does not permit the
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
calculation of NV using home–market
prices, third–country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act. The Department bases NV on
the FOPs because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of NMEs renders price comparisons and
the calculation of production costs
invalid under the Department’s normal
methodologies.
generally available to all exporters and
producers in these countries at the time
of the POR, the Department finds that it
is reasonable to infer that all exporters
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and
Thailand may have benefitted from
these subsidies.
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on
FOPs reported by LXFI during the POR.
To calculate NV, we multiplied the
2. Factor Valuations
reported per–unit factor–consumption
In past cases, it has been the
rates by publicly available Polish
Department’s practice to value various
surrogate values. In selecting the
FOPs using import statistics of the
surrogate values, we considered the
primary selected surrogate country from quality, specificity, and
World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’), as
contemporaneity of the data. As
published by Global Trade Information
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
Services (‘‘GTIS’’). See Certain Preserved including freight costs to make them
Mushrooms from the People’s Republic
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
of China: Preliminary Results of
to Polish import surrogate values a
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, surrogate freight cost using the shorter
74 FR 50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009).
of the reported distance from the
However, in October 2009, the
domestic supplier to the factory of
Department learned that the data
production or the distance from the
reported in the Global Trade Atlas
nearest seaport to the factory of
(‘‘GTA’’) software, published by GTIS, is production where appropriate. This
reported to the nearest digit and thus
adjustment is in accordance with the
there is not a loss of data by rounding,
Court of Appeals for the Federal
as there is with the data reported by the Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v.
WTA software. Consequently, the
United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407–
Department will now obtain import
1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We selected
statistics from GTA for valuing various
Poland as the surrogate country for the
FOPs.
reasons explained above in the
Furthermore, in accordance with the
‘‘Surrogate Country’’ section. However,
OTCA 1988 legislative history, the
where we were unable to find Polish
Department continues to apply its long–
data to value particular FOPs, we valued
standing practice of disregarding
these inputs using public information
surrogate values if it has a reason to
on the record from India. We valued
believe or suspect the source data may
inland freight, electricity, coal, water,
be subsidized.2 In this regard, the
and containerization using Indian
Department has previously found that it
surrogate values.
is appropriate to disregard such prices
Polish surrogate values were valued
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and
in USD and no conversion was needed.
Thailand because we have determined
Indian surrogate values denominated in
that these countries maintain broadly
Rupees were converted to USD using
available, non–industry specific export
the applicable average exchange rate
3 Based on the existence of
subsidies.
based on exchange rate data from the
these subsidy programs that were
Department’s website. For further
details regarding the surrogate values
2 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
used for these preliminary results, see
1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep.
No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (‘‘OTCA
the Surrogate Value Memo.
1988’’) at 590.
As a consequence of the CAFC’s
3 See e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the
ruling in Dorbest II, the Department is
Countervailing Duty Order on Carbazole Violet
no longer relying on the regression–
Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 (March 19,
2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision
based wage rate described in 19 CFR
Memorandum at pages 4-5; Expedited Sunset
351.408(c)(3). The Department is
Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain
continuing to evaluate options for
Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from
determining labor values in light of the
Indonesia, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at recent CAFC decision. For these
page 4; See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
preliminary results, we have calculated
Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results
an hourly wage rate to use in valuing
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74
LXFI’s reported labor input by averaging
FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1,
earnings and/or wages in countries that
pages 17, 19-20; See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
are economically comparable to the PRC
Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Final Results of
and that are significant producers of
Countervailing Duty Determination, 66 FR 50410
comparable merchandise. See the
(October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
Surrogate Value Memo at 5–9 and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Aug 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47273
attachment 7, for further information on
the calculation of the wage rate.
The Department relied on data from
the following countries to arrive at its
wage rate in these preliminary results:
Albania, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador,
Fiji, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras,
India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Nicaragua,
Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Sri Lanka,
Thailand, and Ukraine. The Department
calculated a simple average of the wage
rates from these 18 countries. This
resulted in a wage rate derived from
comparable economies that are also
significant producers of the comparable
merchandise, consistent with the
CAFC’s ruling in Dorbest II and the
statutory requirements of section 773(c)
of the Act.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we
preliminarily find that the following
margins exist for the period June 1,
2009, through January 20, 2010:
CERTAIN NON–FROZEN APPLE JUICE
FROM THE PRC
Manufacturer/Exporter
LXFI ..............................
Weighted–Average
Margin (Percent)
0.00
Disclosure
The Department will disclose to
parties of this proceeding the
calculations performed in reaching the
preliminary results within five days of
the date of publication of this notice in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Comments
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of
this administrative review, interested
parties may submit publicly available
information to value FOPs within 20
days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results. Interested
parties must provide the Department
with supporting documentation for the
publicly available information to value
each FOP. Additionally, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
results of this NSR, interested parties
may submit factual information to rebut,
clarify, or correct factual information
submitted by an interested party less
than ten days before, on, or after, the
applicable deadline for submission of
such factual information. However, the
Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information
only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
47274
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
corrects information recently placed on
the record.4
Interested parties may submit case
briefs and/or written comments no later
than 30 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results
of this NSR. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written
comments, limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments, may be filed
no later than 5 days after the deadline
for submitting the case briefs. See 19
CFR 351.309(d). The Department
requests that interested parties provide
an executive summary of each argument
contained within the case briefs and
rebuttal briefs.
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Requests should contain the
following information: (1) The party’s
name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3)
a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral
presentations will be limited to issues
raised in the briefs. If we receive a
request for a hearing, we plan to hold
the hearing seven days after the
deadline for submission of the rebuttal
briefs at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
The Department intends to issue the
final results of this NSR, which will
include the results of its analysis raised
in any such comments, within 90 days
of publication of these preliminary
results, pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the final results,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries on a weighted–
average basis. The Department intends
to issue assessment instructions to CBP
15 days after the date of publication of
the final results of review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of review, the Department
shall determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we will calculate
importer–specific (or customer) per–
unit duty assessment rates. We will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered
by this review if any importer–specific
assessment rate calculated in the final
results of this NSR is above de minimis.
Cash–Deposit Requirements
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The following cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, will be
effective upon publication of the final
results of this NSR for all shipments of
subject merchandise from LXFI entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject
merchandise produced and exported by
LXFI, the cash deposit rate will be the
rate that is established in the final
results of this NSR; (2) for subject
merchandise exported by LXFI but not
manufactured by LXFI, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the PRC–wide
rate (i.e., 51.74 percent); and (3) for
subject merchandise manufactured by
LXFI, but exported by any other party,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the exporter. If the cash
deposit rate calculated in the final
results is zero or de minimis, no cash
deposit will be required for those entries
of subject merchandise both produced
and exported by LXFI. These cash
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this POR.
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.
We are issuing and publishing this
determination in accordance with
sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the
Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: July 30, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
17:52 Aug 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
Caribbean Fishery Management
Council; Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.
AGENCY:
The Caribbean Fishery
Management Council’s Advisory Panel
(AP) will hold a meeting to discuss the
topics contained in the agenda below.
DATES: The AP meeting will be held on
August 25th, 2010, from 10 a.m. to 4
p.m.
SUMMARY:
The meeting will be held at
the Holiday Inn Windward Passage
Hotel, 3400 Veterans Drive, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Caribbean Fishery Management Council,
268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108,
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918–1920;
telephone: (787) 766–5926.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Caribbean Fishery Management
Council’s Advisory Panel will hold a
meeting to discuss the topics contained
in the following agenda:
-Call to Order
-Adoption of Tentative Agenda
-Discussion of ACL’s Proposed
Management Alternatives
-Other Business
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in this agenda may come
before this group for discussion, in
accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those
issues may not be the subject of formal
action during this meeting. Actions will
be restricted to those issues specifically
identified in this notice and any issues
arising after publication of this notice
that require emergency action under
Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, provided the public has been
notified of the Council’s intent to take
final action to address the emergency.
ADDRESSES:
[FR Doc. 2010–19286 Filed 8–4–10; 8:45 am]
Special Accommodations
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. For more
information or request for sign language
interpretation and/other auxiliary aids,
please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolon,
Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery
Management Council, 268 Munoz
Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, 00918–1920; telephone:
4 See Glycine from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part
72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
RIN: 0648–XX97
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 150 (Thursday, August 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47270-47274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19286]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-570-855)
Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the New Shipper
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting a
new shipper review (``NSR'') of the antidumping duty order, covering
the period of review (``POR'') of June 1, 2009, through January 20,
2010. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'')
to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during
the POR for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de
minimis.
[[Page 47271]]
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexis Polovina, 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) 482-3927.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
General Background
On June 5, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on certain non-frozen apple juice
concentrate from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See Notice
of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate From
the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 35606 (June 5, 2000) (``Order'').
On December 15, 2009, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (``Act''), and 19 CFR 351.214(c), the
Department received a NSR request from Lingbao Xinyuan Fruit Industry
Co., Ltd. (``LXFI''). LXFI certified that it is a producer and exporter
of the subject merchandise upon which the request was based. On
February 4, 2010, the Department initiated the requested antidumping
duty NSR. See Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the
People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 75 FR 5763 (February 4, 2010).
On February 16, 2010, the Department issued original questionnaires
to LXFI. Between March 9, 2010, and July 9, 2010, LXFI submitted
responses to the original sections A, C, and D questionnaires and
supplemental sections A, C, and D questionnaires.
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values
On March 2, 2010, the Department sent interested parties a letter
requesting comments on surrogate country selection and information
pertaining to valuing factors of production (``FOP''). On April 22,
2010, LXFI submitted comments on the surrogate country. On June 23,
2010, LXFI submitted surrogate value data. No other party submitted
surrogate country or surrogate value data.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is certain non-frozen apple juice
concentrate. Apple juice concentrate is defined as all non-frozen
concentrated apple juice with a brix scale of 40 or greater, whether or
not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, and whether or
not fortified with vitamins or minerals. Excluded from the scope of
this order are: frozen concentrated apple juice; non-frozen
concentrated apple juice that has been fermented; and non-frozen
concentrated apple juice to which spirits have been added.
The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at
subheadings 2106.90.52.00, and 2009.70.00.20 before January 1, 2002,
and 2009.79.00.20 after January 1, 2002. Although the HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. See,
e.g., Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 76336 (December 16,
2008); and Frontseating Service Valves From the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final
Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March
13, 2009). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in
effect until revoked by the administering authority. None of the
parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly,
we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which
applies to NME countries.
Separate Rate Determinations
A designation as a NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the
Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there is a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are subject to
government control and, thus, should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department's standard policy to assign all
exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a
single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence
of government control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto),
with respect to exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently
independent to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the
Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the
test established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May
6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by the Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon
Carbide'').
A. 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. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
In this review, LXFI submitted a complete response to the separate
rates section of the Department's NME questionnaire. The evidence
submitted by LXFI includes government laws and regulations on corporate
ownership, business licenses, and narrative information regarding the
company's operations and selection of management. The evidence provided
by LXFI supports a finding of a de jure absence of government control
over its export activities. Thus, we believe that the evidence on the
record supports a preliminary finding of an absence of de jure
government control based on: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations
associated with the exporter's business license; (2) the legal
authority on the record decentralizing control over the respondent; and
(3) other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of
companies.
B. Absence of De Facto Control
The absence of de facto government control over exports is based on
whether the respondent: (1) sets its own export prices independent of
the government and other exporters; (2) retains the proceeds from its
export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition
of profits or financing of losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) has autonomy from the
government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide,
59 FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; 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).
In this review, LXFI submitted evidence indicating an absence of de
[[Page 47272]]
facto government control over their export activities. Specifically,
this evidence indicates that: (1) the company sets its own export
prices independent of the government and without the approval of a
government authority; (2) the company retains the proceeds from its
sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of
profits or financing of losses; (3) the company has a general manager,
branch manager or division manager with the authority to negotiate and
bind the company in an agreement; (4) the general manager is selected
by the board of directors or company employees, and the general manager
appoints the deputy managers and the manager of each department.
Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that LXFI has established
that it qualifies for a separate rate under the criteria established by
Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.
New Shipper Review Bona Fide Analysis
Consistent with the Department's practice, we investigated the bona
fide nature of the sale made by LXFI for this NSR. In evaluating
whether a single sale in a NSR is commercially reasonable, and
therefore bona fide, the Department considers, inter alia, such factors
as: (1) timing of the sale; (2) price and quantity; (3) the expenses
arising from the transaction; (4) whether the goods were sold at a
profit; and (5) whether the transaction was made on an arms-length
basis. See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co. v. the United States,
366 F. Supp. 2d R46, 1250 (CIT 2005). Accordingly, the Department
considers a number of factors in its bona fide analysis, ``all of which
may be specific to the commercial realities surrounding an alleged sale
of subject merchandise.'' See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co. v. the
United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342 (CIT 2005). In examining
LXFI's sale in relation to these factors, the Department observed no
evidence that would indicate that this sale was not bona fide.
Therefore, we preliminarily find that the new shipper sale by LXFI was
made on a bona fide basis. See Memorandum to the File through Alex
Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 from Alexis Polovina, Case
Analyst, Office 9: Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Non-
Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic of China:
Bona Fide Nature of the Sale Under Review for Lingbao Xinyuan Fruit
Industry Co., Ltd. (``LXFI''), dated July 30, 2010.
Based on our investigation into the bona fide nature of the sale,
the questionnaire responses submitted by LXFI and the company's
eligibility for a separate rate (see Separate Rates Determination
section above), we preliminarily determine that LXFI has met the
requirements to qualify as a new shipper during this POR. Therefore,
for the purposes of these preliminary results of review, we are
treating LXFI's sale of subject merchandise to the United States as an
appropriate transaction for this NSR.
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value (``NV''),
in most circumstances, on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a
surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of
the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the
extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market
economy countries that are: (1) at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of
comparable merchandise.
The Department determined that India, Philippines, Indonesia,
Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of economic development.\1\ Once it has identified economically
comparable countries, the Department's practice is to select an
appropriate surrogate country from the list based on the availability
and reliability of data from the countries. See Department Policy
Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection
Process (March 1, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting Director, Office
of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, China/NME Group,
Office 9: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for the New
Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Non-Frozen
Apple Juice Concentrate (``Apple Juice'') from the People's Republic
of China (``PRC''), dated February 16, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absent world apple juice concentrate production data, the
Department considered whether any country listed in the Surrogate
Country List was a net-exporter (i.e., exports more apple juice
concentrate than it imports) to identify producers of apple juice
concentrate. We found that none of the countries listed in the
Surrogate Country List were net-exporters of apple juice concentrate.
Therefore, the Department considered other countries not listed in the
Surrogate Country List and determined that Poland was a net-exporter of
apple juice concentrate.
In this proceeding, we received comments regarding surrogate
country selection only from LXFI, which supports the selection of
Poland. The record also contains surrogate value information from
Poland for most inputs, including juice apples, the main input for
producing apple juice concentrate. In addition, we have surrogate
financial ratios from a Polish juice company. Of the countries that are
significant producers of identical merchandise, the record contains
reliable surrogate value information from Poland. Therefore, for these
preliminary results, we have selected Poland as the surrogate country.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
in an antidumping new shipper review, interested parties may submit
publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the
date of publication of these preliminary results.
U.S. Price
For LXFI's sale to the United States, we used the export price
(``EP'') methodology, pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act, because
the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to
importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the
record. We calculated EP based on the price to unaffiliated purchasers
in the United States.
In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, we
deducted from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign
inland freight and containerization. We have reviewed each of these
services and expenses reported by LXFI and find that they were provided
by an NME vendor or paid for using PRC currency. Thus, we based the
deduction of these movement charges on surrogate values. See Memorandum
to the File through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 from
Alexis Polovina, Case Analyst, Office 9: Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review of Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's
Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results, dated
July 30, 2010 (``Surrogate Value Memo'') for details regarding the
surrogate values for movement expenses.
Normal Value
1. Methodology
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using a FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported
from an NME country and the information does not permit the
[[Page 47273]]
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases
NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on various
aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.
2. Factor Valuations
In past cases, it has been the Department's practice to value
various FOPs using import statistics of the primary selected surrogate
country from World Trade Atlas (``WTA''), as published by Global Trade
Information Services (``GTIS''). See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review, 74 FR 50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009). However, in
October 2009, the Department learned that the data reported in the
Global Trade Atlas (``GTA'') software, published by GTIS, is reported
to the nearest digit and thus there is not a loss of data by rounding,
as there is with the data reported by the WTA software. Consequently,
the Department will now obtain import statistics from GTA for valuing
various FOPs.
Furthermore, in accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative history,
the Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of
disregarding surrogate values if it has a reason to believe or suspect
the source data may be subsidized.\2\ In this regard, the Department
has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand because we have
determined that these countries maintain broadly available, non-
industry specific export subsidies.\3\ Based on the existence of these
subsidy programs that were generally available to all exporters and
producers in these countries at the time of the POR, the Department
finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters from India,
Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have benefitted from these
subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess.
(1988) (``OTCA 1988'') at 590.
\3\ See e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty
Order on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 (March
19, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages
4-5; Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia, 70
FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at page 4; See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1, pages 17,
19-20; See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Thailand: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Determination, 66 FR
50410 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by LXFI during the POR. To calculate NV, we
multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly
available Polish surrogate values. In selecting the surrogate values,
we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the
data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight
costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Polish
import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of
the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory of
production or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory of
production where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v.
United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We selected
Poland as the surrogate country for the reasons explained above in the
``Surrogate Country'' section. However, where we were unable to find
Polish data to value particular FOPs, we valued these inputs using
public information on the record from India. We valued inland freight,
electricity, coal, water, and containerization using Indian surrogate
values.
Polish surrogate values were valued in USD and no conversion was
needed. Indian surrogate values denominated in Rupees were converted to
USD using the applicable average exchange rate based on exchange rate
data from the Department's website. For further details regarding the
surrogate values used for these preliminary results, see the Surrogate
Value Memo.
As a consequence of the CAFC's ruling in Dorbest II, the Department
is no longer relying on the regression-based wage rate described in 19
CFR 351.408(c)(3). The Department is continuing to evaluate options for
determining labor values in light of the recent CAFC decision. For
these preliminary results, we have calculated an hourly wage rate to
use in valuing LXFI's reported labor input by averaging earnings and/or
wages in countries that are economically comparable to the PRC and that
are significant producers of comparable merchandise. See the Surrogate
Value Memo at 5-9 and attachment 7, for further information on the
calculation of the wage rate.
The Department relied on data from the following countries to
arrive at its wage rate in these preliminary results: Albania, Ecuador,
Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, India,
Indonesia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Sri Lanka,
Thailand, and Ukraine. The Department calculated a simple average of
the wage rates from these 18 countries. This resulted in a wage rate
derived from comparable economies that are also significant producers
of the comparable merchandise, consistent with the CAFC's ruling in
Dorbest II and the statutory requirements of section 773(c) of the Act.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily find that the following
margins exist for the period June 1, 2009, through January 20, 2010:
Certain Non-Frozen Apple juice from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LXFI................................................ 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
The Department will disclose to parties of this proceeding the
calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
Comments
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties must
provide the Department with supporting documentation for the publicly
available information to value each FOP. Additionally, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this NSR,
interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or
correct factual information submitted by an interested party less than
ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission
of such factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or
[[Page 47274]]
corrects information recently placed on the record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final
Rescission, in Part 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments
no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these
preliminary results of this NSR. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 5 days after the
deadline for submitting the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The
Department requests that interested parties provide an executive
summary of each argument contained within the case briefs and rebuttal
briefs.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's
name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants;
and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will
be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If we receive a request for
a hearing, we plan to hold the hearing seven days after the deadline
for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this NSR,
which will include the results of its analysis raised in any such
comments, within 90 days of publication of these preliminary results,
pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the final results, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries on a weighted-average
basis. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP
15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review.
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific (or customer) per-
unit duty assessment rates. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any
importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of
this NSR is above de minimis.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements, when imposed, will be
effective upon publication of the final results of this NSR for all
shipments of subject merchandise from LXFI entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject
merchandise produced and exported by LXFI, the cash deposit rate will
be the rate that is established in the final results of this NSR; (2)
for subject merchandise exported by LXFI but not manufactured by LXFI,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate (i.e.,
51.74 percent); and (3) for subject merchandise manufactured by LXFI,
but exported by any other party, the cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the exporter. If the cash deposit rate calculated in the
final results is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be required
for those entries of subject merchandise both produced and exported by
LXFI. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this POR. 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.
We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with
sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: July 30, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-19286 Filed 8-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
