Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 14906-14910 [2011-6450]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14906
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices
• Suitability of the company’s
products or services to the mission
goals.
• Applicant’s potential for business
in Afghanistan.
• Consistency of the applicant’s goals
and objectives with the stated scope of
the mission.
(Additional factors, such as diversity
of company, size, type and location,
may be considered during the selection
process.)
Referrals from political organizations
and any documents containing
references to partisan political activities
(including political contributions) will
be removed from an applicant’s
submission and will not be considered
during the selection process.
VII. Timeframe for Recruitment and
Applications
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
VIII. Disclaimer, Security, and
Transportation
Business development mission
members participate in the mission and
undertake related travel at their own
risk and are advised to obtain insurance
accordingly. Any question regarding
insurance coverage must be resolved by
the participant. The U.S. Government
does not make any representations or
guarantees as to the safety or security of
participants. Companies should consult
the State Department’s travel warning
for Afghanistan: https://travel.state.gov/
travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_2121.html ITA
will coordinate with the U.S. Embassy
in Kabul to arrange for transportation of
the mission participants to and from the
airport and lodging facilities. The
primary venue for the mission has
security measures in place.
Contact: Ariana Monti Marshall,
Commercial Specialist—Houston,
Market Access and Compliance, Tel:
18:30 Mar 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
Jessica Arnold,
Global Trade Programs, U.S. & Foreign
Commercial Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–5994 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–FP–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–912]
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road
Tires From the People’s Republic of
China: Notice of Extension of Time
Limit for the Final Results of the 2008–
2009 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: March 18, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin
Begnal or Raquel Silva, AD/CVD
Operations, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202)
482–1442 or (202) 482–6475,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Mission recruitment will be
conducted in an open and public
manner, including posting on the U.S.
Department of Commerce trade missions
calendar—https://www.trade.gov/trademissions/—and other Internet Web sites,
publication in domestic trade
publications and association
newsletters, direct outreach to the
Department’s clients and distribution
lists, publication in the Federal
Register, and announcements at
industry meetings, symposia,
conferences, and trade shows.
Recruitment for the mission will
begin immediately and conclude no
later than June 24, 2011, by the close of
business. Applications received after
June 24, 2011, will be considered only
if space and scheduling constraints
permit.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
202–482–3754, E-mail:
afghanmission2011@trade.gov.
Background
On October 26, 2009, the Department
of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) initiated
the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain new
pneumatic off-the-road tires (‘‘OTR
tires’’) from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’) for the period February
20, 2008, through August 31, 2009. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 74 FR 54956 (October 26, 2009).
On October 19, 2010, the Department
published its preliminary results of the
administrative review of the
antidumping order on OTR tires from
the PRC. See Certain New Pneumatic
Off-the-Road Tires From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 64259 (October 19, 2010).
On February 7, 2011, the Department
published notice of a 30-day extension
of time for the final results of the
administrative review of the
antidumping order on OTR tires from
the PRC, resulting in a current due date
of March 18, 2011. See Certain New
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Extension of Time Limit for the Final
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Results of the 2008–2009 Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order,
76 FR 6603 (February 7, 2011).
Extension of Time Limit for 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 in an administrative review
within 120 days after the date on which
the preliminary results are published.
However, if it is not practicable to
complete the review within this time
period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act
allows the Department to extend the
time period to a maximum of 180 days.
We determine that it is not practicable
to complete the final results of this
review within the current deadline
because the Department continues to
require additional time to analyze issues
raised in recent surrogate value
submissions, verification exhibits, and
case briefs and rebuttals. Therefore, we
are extending the time limit for
completion of the final results by an
additional 30 days, in accordance with
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. An
additional extension of 30 days from the
current deadline of March 18, 2011,
would result in a new deadline of April
17, 2011. However, because April 17,
2011, falls on a Sunday, a non-business
day, the final results will now be due no
later than April 18, 2011, the next
business day. See Notice of
Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next
Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative
Determination Deadlines Pursuant to
the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70
FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
This notice is published pursuant to
sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March 14, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011–6446 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–916]
Laminated Woven Sacks From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 13, 2010, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices
Register the preliminary results of the
first administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on laminated
woven sacks (‘‘Sacks’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See
Laminated Woven Sacks From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 55568
(September 13, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary
Results’’). We gave interested parties an
opportunity to comment on the
Preliminary Results. Based upon our
analysis of the comments and
information received, we made changes
to the margin calculations for the final
results. We continue to find that the
mandatory respondent has sold subject
merchandise at less than normal value
during the period of review (‘‘POR’’),
January 31, 2008, through July 31, 2009.
DATES: Effective Date: March 18, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jamie Blair-Walker, 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) 482–2615.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Background
On September 22, 2009, the
Department initiated this review with
respect to two companies upon which
an administrative review was requested.
See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 74 FR 48224, 48228 (September 22,
2009). The review was initiated with
respect to Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zibo Aifudi’’) and Changshu
Xinsheng Bags Producing Company Ltd.
(‘‘Changshu Xinsheng’’). On November
6, 2009, Changshu Xinsheng submitted
to the Department a timely letter
withdrawing its request for review from
the ongoing administrative review. On
December 17, 2009, the Department
rescinded the review with respect to
Changshu Xinsheng.1
On May 25, 2010, the Department
issued a preliminary determination
regarding the country of origin of Sacks
made from fabric woven in third
countries.2 Following this
1 See
Laminated Woven Sacks from the People’s
Republic of China: Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
66954 (December 17, 2009).
2 See ‘‘Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia from
Zhulieta Willbrand through Robert Bolling re:
Preliminary Decision Regarding the Country of
Origin of Laminated Woven Sacks Exported by Zibo
Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.—Laminated
Woven Sacks from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated May 25, 2010 (‘‘Country of Origin Memo’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:30 Mar 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
determination by the Department,
which stated that the PRC is the country
of origin of Sacks produced in the PRC
from imported fabric, the Department
has coordinated with U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to resolve
issues arising from differences between
the Department’s and CBP’s respective
country-of-origin classifications and
from technical restrictions in CBP’s
electronic filing systems. As a result, the
Department has added several case
numbers to the Case Reference file
within the Automated Commercial
Environment to ensure that requisite
entries are and can be properly claimed
as scope merchandise.3 We sent
instructions to CBP on November 23,
2010, providing parties with notice of
these new case reference files.4
We hereby finalize our preliminary
decision presented in the Country of
Origin Memo of Sacks made from fabric
woven in third countries.5 The
Department has determined that the
PRC is the country of origin of Sacks
produced in the PRC from imported
fabric, as discussed in detail in the
‘‘Laminated Woven Sacks from the
People’s Republic of China: Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final
Results of the First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review,’’ which is dated
concurrently with this notice (‘‘Issues
and Decision Memorandum’’).6
On September 20, 2010, Zibo Aifudi
notified the Department of its
withdrawal and refusal to participate in
this ongoing administrative review.7
Additionally, Zibo Aifudi requested that
the Department destroy all business
proprietary submissions placed on the
record by Zibo Aifudi. On September
30, 2010, the Department notified Zibo
Aifudi that it had complied with its
request and asked all interested parties
to do so as well. On October 6, 2010, the
Department received from all interested
parties the confirmation of the
destruction of the business proprietary
submissions placed on the record by
Zibo Aifudi.
At the Preliminary Results, we set the
deadline for interested parties to submit
case briefs and rebuttal briefs to October
13, 2010, and October 18, 2010,
respectively. On October 12, 2010, we
extended the deadlines for case and
3 See ‘‘Memorandum to the File from Catherine
Bertrand re: Case Reference Files,’’ dated November
12, 2010; see also CBP Message No. 0327303 dated
November 23, 2010, regarding the clarification of
the order.
4 See id.
5 See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 55569.
6 See accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1d.
7 See Letter from Zibo Aifudi Regarding
‘‘Withdrawal from Administrative Review,’’ dated
September 20, 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14907
rebuttal briefs submissions by one day
to October 14, 2010, and October 19,
2010, respectively. On October 14, 2010,
Petitioners,8 AMS Associates, Inc.,
operating as Shapiro Packaging
(‘‘AMS’’), and Commercial Bag
Company, doing business as
Commercial Packaging (‘‘Commercial
Packaging’’) filed case briefs. On October
19, 2010, Petitioners and AMS filed
rebuttal briefs. The Department did not
hold a public hearing pursuant to 19
CFR 351.310(d), as all hearing requests
made by interested parties were
withdrawn.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to these
reviews are addressed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum. A list of the
issues which parties raised and to
which we respond in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum is attached to
this notice as an Appendix. The Issues
and Decision Memorandum is a public
document and is on file in the Central
Records Unit, Main Commerce Building,
Room 7046, and is accessible on the
Department’s Web site at https://
www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and
electronic version of the memorandum
are identical in content.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order
is laminated woven sacks. Laminated
woven sacks are bags or sacks consisting
of one or more plies of fabric consisting
of woven polypropylene strip and/or
woven polyethylene strip, regardless of
the width of the strip; with or without
an extrusion coating of polypropylene
and/or polyethylene on one or both
sides of the fabric; laminated by any
method either to an exterior ply of
plastic film such as biaxially-oriented
polypropylene (‘‘BOPP’’) or to an
exterior ply of paper that is suitable for
high quality print graphics; 9 printed
with three colors or more in register;
with or without lining; whether or not
closed on one end; whether or not in
roll form (including sheets, lay-flat
tubing, and sleeves); with or without
handles; with or without special closing
features; not exceeding one kilogram in
weight. Laminated woven sacks are
typically used for retail packaging of
8 Petitioners are the Laminated Woven Sacks
Committee and its individual members, Coating
Excellence International, LLC and Polytex Fibers
Corporation.
9 ‘‘Paper suitable for high quality print graphics,’’
as used herein, means paper having an ISO
brightness of 82 or higher and a Sheffield
Smoothness of 250 or less. Coated free sheet is an
example of a paper suitable for high quality print
graphics.
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
14908
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices
consumer goods such as pet foods and
bird seed.
Effective July 1, 2007, laminated
woven sacks are classifiable under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings
6305.33.0050 and 6305.33.0080.
Laminated woven sacks were previously
classifiable under HTSUS subheading
6305.33.0020. If entered with plastic
coating on both sides of the fabric
consisting of woven polypropylene strip
and/or woven polyethylene strip,
laminated woven sacks may be
classifiable under HTSUS subheadings
3923.21.0080, 3923.21.0095, and
3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on
one end or in roll form (including
sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves),
laminated woven sacks may be
classifiable under other HTSUS
subheadings including 3917.39.0050,
3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and
5903.90.2500. If the polypropylene
strips and/or polyethylene strips making
up the fabric measure more than 5
millimeters in width, laminated woven
sacks may be classifiable under other
HTSUS subheadings including
4601.99.0500, 4601.99.9000, and
4602.90.0000. Although HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
In the Preliminary Results, we found
that the one mandatory respondent (i.e.,
Zibo Aifudi) demonstrated its eligibility
for separate-rate status. However, we no
longer find Zibo Aifudi eligible for
separate rate status as it has
significantly impeded the Department’s
ability to conduct this proceeding and,
by withdrawing from the review,
prevented the verification of the
information it had earlier provided.
Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’) provides that,
if an interested party or any other
person: (A) Withholds information that
has been requested by the administering
authority; (B) fails to provide such
information by the deadlines for the
submission of the information or in the
form and manner requested, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding under this title; or (D)
provides such information but the
information cannot be verified as
provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the
Department shall, subject to section
782(d) of the Act, use the facts
otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination under this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:30 Mar 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
title. Where the Department determines
that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department shall
promptly inform the party submitting
the response of the nature of the
deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that party with an
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. Section 782(d) of the Act
further states that, if the party submits
further information that is
unsatisfactory or untimely, the
administering authority may, subject to
subsection (e), disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that
the Department shall not decline to
consider information that is submitted
by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet
all the applicable requirements
established by the administering
authority if (1) the information is
submitted by the deadline established
for its submission, (2) the information
can be verified, (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as
a reliable basis for reaching the
applicable determination, (4) the
interested party has demonstrated that it
acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information and meeting
the requirements established by the
administering authority with respect to
the information, and (5) the information
can be used without undue difficulties.
Zibo Aifudi
Zibo Aifudi responded to the
Department’s original questionnaire and
several supplemental questionnaires,
and the Department calculated a
company-specific margin for Zibo
Aifudi in the Preliminary Results. After
the issuance of the Preliminary Results,
the Department received a letter from
Zibo Aifudi withdrawing from this
administrative review and requesting
that all business proprietary information
be destroyed.10 The Department
therefore finds that, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D) of the Act,
Zibo Aifudi has significantly impeded
the Department’s ability to conduct this
administrative review and, by
withdrawing from the review and
requesting the removal of information
from the record, prevented the
verification of the information it had
earlier provided. Therefore, the
application of facts available is
warranted with respect to Zibo Aifudi.
10 See Letter from Zibo Aifudi Regarding
‘‘Withdrawal from Administrative Review,’’ dated
September 20, 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Application of an Adverse Inference
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that, in selecting from among the facts
available, the Department may use an
inference that is adverse to the interests
of the respondent if it determines that
a party has failed to cooperate to the
best of its ability. Adverse inferences are
appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party
does not obtain a more favorable result
by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully.’’ 11 In determining
whether a respondent has failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability, the
Department need not make a
determination regarding the willfulness
of a respondent’s conduct.12
Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of
bad faith on the part of the respondent
is not required before the Department
may make an adverse inference.’’13
In determining whether a party failed
to cooperate to the best of its ability, the
Department considers whether a party
could comply with the request for
information, and whether a party paid
insufficient attention to its statutory
duties.14 Furthermore, the Department
also considers the accuracy and
completeness of submitted information,
and whether the respondent has
hindered the calculation of accurate
dumping margins.15
In Nippon Steel the Federal Circuit
explained that,
if a respondent ‘‘fails to provide requested
information by the deadlines for submission,’’
Commerce shall fill in the gaps with ‘‘facts
otherwise available.’’ The focus of {section
776(a) of the Act} is respondent’s failure to
provide information. The reason for the
failure is of no moment. As a separate matter,
{section 776(b) of the Act} permits
Commerce to ‘‘use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of a respondent in
selecting from among the facts otherwise
available,’’ only if Commerce makes the
separate determination that the respondent
‘‘has failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply.’’ The focus of
{section 776(b) of the Act} is respondent’s
failure to cooperate to the best of its ability,
not its failure to provide requested
information.
See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1381. The
Federal Circuit also held that ‘‘the
11 See Statement of Administrative Action
(‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d
Session at 870 (1994).
12 See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337
F.3d 1373, 1382–1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (‘‘Nippon
Steel’’).
13 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).
14 See Pacific Giant, Inc. v. United States, 223 F.
Supp. 2d 1336, 1342 (August 6, 2002).
15 See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and
Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR
53808, 53819–53820 (October 16, 1997).
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices
statutory mandate that a respondent act
to the ‘best of its ability’ requires the
respondent to do the maximum it is able
to do.’’ 16
An adverse inference may include
reliance on information derived from
the petition, the final determination in
the investigation, any previous review,
or any other information placed on the
record. See section 776(b) of the Act. It
is the Department’s practice to assign
the highest rate from any segment of a
proceeding as total adverse facts
available (‘‘AFA’’) when a respondent
fails to cooperate to the best of its
ability.17
Zibo Aifudi/PRC-Wide Entity
As discussed above, Zibo Aifudi
withdrew from participation in this
segment of the proceeding and
requested that all of its business
proprietary submissions be destroyed.
Because of this, the Department does
not have any record evidence upon
which to determine whether Zibo
Aifudi is eligible for a separate rate for
this review period. Thus, pursuant to
Department practice, as Zibo Aifudi has
not demonstrated its entitlement to a
separate rate, we consider it to be part
of the PRC-entity and subject to the
PRC-wide rate.18 Furthermore, because
Zibo Aifudi is part of the PRC-wide
entity and the only mandatory
respondent in this administrative
review, it is necessary that we review
the PRC-wide entity. In doing so, we
note that section 776(a)(1) of the Act
mandates that the Department use the
facts available if necessary information
is not available on the record of an
antidumping proceeding. In addition,
we find that an element of the PRC-wide
entity (Zibo Aifudi) did not respond to
our requests for information, the
necessary information was not
provided, and the information that was
provided was unable to be verified.
Therefore, we find it necessary, under
16 See
Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382.
e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Taiwan; Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR
5789, 5790 (February 7, 2002) (‘‘Consistent with
Department practice in cases where a respondent
fails to cooperate to the best of its ability, and in
keeping with section 776(b)(3) of the Act, as adverse
facts available, we have applied a margin based on
the highest margin from any prior segment of the
proceeding.’’).
18 See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR
8273, 8279 (February 13, 2008) unchanged in
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper
Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 2008) (‘‘WBF
2008’’).
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
17 See,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:30 Mar 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to continue
to use facts otherwise available as the
basis for the final results of this review
for the PRC-wide entity.
Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act,
we find that the PRC-wide entity failed
to cooperate by not acting to the best of
its ability to comply with requests for
information. As noted above, an element
of the PRC-wide entity (Zibo Aifudi)
informed the Department that it would
not participate further in this review.
Thus, because the PRC-wide entity
refused to participate fully in this
proceeding, we find it appropriate to
use an inference that is adverse to the
interests of the PRC-wide entity in
selecting from among the facts
otherwise available. By doing so, we
ensure that the companies that are part
of the PRC-wide entity will not obtain
a more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than had they cooperated
fully in this review.
As stated above, the PRC-wide entity
(including Zibo Aifudi) withdrew from
this administrative review. Because of
this, we find it necessary, under
sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act,
to use AFA as the basis for these final
results of review for the PRC-wide
entity. In accordance with the
Department’s practice, as AFA, we have
assigned to the PRC-wide entity the rate
of 91.73 percent, which is the highest
rate assigned in any segment of this
proceeding. See Laminated Woven
Sacks from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances, 73 FR 35646, 35648
(June 24, 2008) (‘‘LTFV Final
Determination’’).19 In selecting a rate as
AFA, the Department selects a rate that
is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate
the purpose of the facts available rule to
induce respondents to provide the
Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner.’’ 20
Corroboration of AFA Rate for PRCWide Entity, Including Zibo Aifudi
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review, it shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
19 See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People’s
Republic of China: Rescission of Second New
Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial
Rescission of First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 64 FR 61581, 61584
(November 12, 1999).
20 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access
Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909,
8932 (February 23, 1998).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14909
that are reasonably at its disposal. As
described in the SAA, it is the
Department’s practice to use secondary
information from the petition, the final
determination, or any previous review
under section 751 of the Act concerning
the subject merchandise. See SAA at
870. Further, the Department will satisfy
itself that the secondary information has
probative value and, to the extent
practicable, will examine the reliability
and relevance of the information to be
used.
In this case, the AFA rate we are
assigning to the PRC-wide entity,
including Zibo Aifudi, is the highest
rate from any segment of this
proceeding, and is the petition rate in
the less-than-fair-value investigation.
See LTFV Final Determination, 73 FR at
35648. This rate was corroborated in the
LTFV Final Determination, finding that
the petition margin of 91.73 percent had
probative value because it was within
the range of CONNUM margins for Zibo
Aifudi. See id. Furthermore, no
information has been presented by
interested parties challenging the
reliability of the 91.73 percent AFA rate.
We note that this is the highest rate from
any segment of the proceeding and the
rate is less than four years old. Thus, the
Department finds that the information
continues to be 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.21
Similarly, the Department does not
apply a margin that has been
discredited.22 None of these unusual
circumstances are present with respect
to the rate being used here.23 Moreover,
21 See WBF 2008, 73 FR at 49166; see also Fresh
Cut Flowers From Mexico; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR
6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the
Department disregarded the highest margin in that
case as adverse best information available {the
predecessor to facts available} because the margin
was based on another company’s uncharacteristic
business expense resulting in an unusually high
margin).
22 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).
23 See e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of the 14th Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 34976, 34979 (June
21, 2010); Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary
Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission and Final
Partial Rescission of the Second Administrative
Review, 73 FR 12127, 12131–12132 (March 6, 2008)
unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
Continued
18MRN1
14910
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices
the rate selected is the rate currently
applicable to the PRC-wide entity and
was corroborated in the LTFV Final
Determination, using Zibo Aifudi’s
CONNUM margins. See LTFV Final
Determination, 73 FR at 35648. The
Department assumes that if an
uncooperative respondent could have
obtained a lower rate, it would have
cooperated.24 Consequently, as there is
no information on the record of this
review that demonstrates that this rate
is not appropriate for use as AFA, we
determine that this rate continues to
have relevance.
Based on our analysis as described
above, we find that the margin of 91.73
percent is reliable and has relevance. As
the 91.73 percent rate is both reliable
and relevant, we determine that it has
probative value. Accordingly, we
determine that the calculated rate of
91.73 percent, which is the current PRCwide rate, is in accordance with the
requirement of section 776(c) of the Act
that secondary information be
corroborated to the extent practicable
(i.e., that it have probative value).
Consequently, we have assigned this
AFA rate to exports of the subject
merchandise from the PRC-wide entity,
including Zibo Aifudi.
Final Results of Review
The weighted-average dumping
margins for the POR are as follows:
Exporter
Weighted
Average
Percent Margin
PRC–Wide Rate 25 ...........
91.73
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Assessment
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject
merchandise in accordance with the
final results of this review. For
assessment purposes, we calculated
importer (or customer)-specific
assessment rates for merchandise
subject to this review. Where
appropriate, we calculated an ad
valorem rate for each importer (or
customer) by dividing the total dumping
margins for reviewed sales to that party
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final
Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
52273 (September 9, 2008).
24 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).
25 The PRC–Wide entity, including Zibo Aifudi
Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:30 Mar 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
by the total entered values associated
with those transactions. For dutyassessment rates calculated on this
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the
resulting ad valorem rate against the
entered customs values for the subject
merchandise. Where appropriate, we
calculated a per-unit rate for each
importer (or customer) by dividing the
total dumping margins for reviewed
sales to that party by the total sales
quantity associated with those
transactions. For duty-assessment rates
calculated on this basis, we will direct
CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate
against the entered quantity of the
subject merchandise. Where an importer
(or customer)-specific assessment rate is
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent),
the Department will instruct CBP to
assess that importer (or customer’s)
entries of subject merchandise without
regard to antidumping duties, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these
final results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise 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) The cash
deposit rate for each of the reviewed
companies that received a separate rate
in this review will be the rate listed in
the final results of review (except that
if the rate for a particular company is de
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no
cash deposit will be required for that
company); (2) for previously
investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company-specific rate published for
the most recent POR; (3) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review, a
prior review, or the original less than
fair value investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) the cash
deposit rate for all other manufacturers
or exporters will be the PRC-wide rate
of 91.73 percent. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
to file a certificate regarding the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
entries during this POR. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Department’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties has occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘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.
We are issuing and publishing this
administrative review and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March 14, 2011.
Kim Glas,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I—Issues and Decision
Memorandum
Comment 1: Preliminary Decision
Regarding Country of Origin
1a. Procedures in Determining
Country of Origin
1b. Department’s Decision of Country
of Origin of Sacks
1c. Authority to Issue Clarification
Instruction to CBP
1d. Finalizing the Country-of-Origin
Memorandum
Comment 2: Liquidation Instructions
[FR Doc. 2011–6450 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–929]
Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes
From the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
SGL Carbon LLC and Superior Graphite
Co. (‘‘Petitioners’’), Petitioners in the
original investigation, the Department of
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14906-14910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6450]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-916]
Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 13, 2010, the Department of Commerce
(``Department'') published in the Federal
[[Page 14907]]
Register the preliminary results of the first administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on laminated woven sacks (``Sacks'') from
the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See Laminated Woven Sacks
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 55568 (September 13, 2010)
(``Preliminary Results''). We gave interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the Preliminary Results. Based upon our analysis of the
comments and information received, we made changes to the margin
calculations for the final results. We continue to find that the
mandatory respondent has sold subject merchandise at less than normal
value during the period of review (``POR''), January 31, 2008, through
July 31, 2009.
DATES: Effective Date: March 18, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamie Blair-Walker, 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) 482-2615.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 22, 2009, the Department initiated this review with
respect to two companies upon which an administrative review was
requested. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 48224,
48228 (September 22, 2009). The review was initiated with respect to
Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd. (``Zibo Aifudi'') and Changshu
Xinsheng Bags Producing Company Ltd. (``Changshu Xinsheng''). On
November 6, 2009, Changshu Xinsheng submitted to the Department a
timely letter withdrawing its request for review from the ongoing
administrative review. On December 17, 2009, the Department rescinded
the review with respect to Changshu Xinsheng.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of
China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
74 FR 66954 (December 17, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 25, 2010, the Department issued a preliminary determination
regarding the country of origin of Sacks made from fabric woven in
third countries.\2\ Following this determination by the Department,
which stated that the PRC is the country of origin of Sacks produced in
the PRC from imported fabric, the Department has coordinated with U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to resolve issues arising from
differences between the Department's and CBP's respective country-of-
origin classifications and from technical restrictions in CBP's
electronic filing systems. As a result, the Department has added
several case numbers to the Case Reference file within the Automated
Commercial Environment to ensure that requisite entries are and can be
properly claimed as scope merchandise.\3\ We sent instructions to CBP
on November 23, 2010, providing parties with notice of these new case
reference files.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ``Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia from Zhulieta
Willbrand through Robert Bolling re: Preliminary Decision Regarding
the Country of Origin of Laminated Woven Sacks Exported by Zibo
Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.--Laminated Woven Sacks from the
People's Republic of China,'' dated May 25, 2010 (``Country of
Origin Memo'').
\3\ See ``Memorandum to the File from Catherine Bertrand re:
Case Reference Files,'' dated November 12, 2010; see also CBP
Message No. 0327303 dated November 23, 2010, regarding the
clarification of the order.
\4\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We hereby finalize our preliminary decision presented in the
Country of Origin Memo of Sacks made from fabric woven in third
countries.\5\ The Department has determined that the PRC is the country
of origin of Sacks produced in the PRC from imported fabric, as
discussed in detail in the ``Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's
Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results
of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,'' which is dated
concurrently with this notice (``Issues and Decision Memorandum'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 55569.
\6\ See accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment
1d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 20, 2010, Zibo Aifudi notified the Department of its
withdrawal and refusal to participate in this ongoing administrative
review.\7\ Additionally, Zibo Aifudi requested that the Department
destroy all business proprietary submissions placed on the record by
Zibo Aifudi. On September 30, 2010, the Department notified Zibo Aifudi
that it had complied with its request and asked all interested parties
to do so as well. On October 6, 2010, the Department received from all
interested parties the confirmation of the destruction of the business
proprietary submissions placed on the record by Zibo Aifudi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Letter from Zibo Aifudi Regarding ``Withdrawal from
Administrative Review,'' dated September 20, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the Preliminary Results, we set the deadline for interested
parties to submit case briefs and rebuttal briefs to October 13, 2010,
and October 18, 2010, respectively. On October 12, 2010, we extended
the deadlines for case and rebuttal briefs submissions by one day to
October 14, 2010, and October 19, 2010, respectively. On October 14,
2010, Petitioners,\8\ AMS Associates, Inc., operating as Shapiro
Packaging (``AMS''), and Commercial Bag Company, doing business as
Commercial Packaging (``Commercial Packaging'') filed case briefs. On
October 19, 2010, Petitioners and AMS filed rebuttal briefs. The
Department did not hold a public hearing pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d),
as all hearing requests made by interested parties were withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Petitioners are the Laminated Woven Sacks Committee and its
individual members, Coating Excellence International, LLC and
Polytex Fibers Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A
list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an
Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and
is on file in the Central Records Unit, Main Commerce Building, Room
7046, and is accessible on the Department's Web site at https://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic version of the
memorandum are identical in content.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order is laminated woven sacks.
Laminated woven sacks are bags or sacks consisting of one or more plies
of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven
polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with or
without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene on
one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either to an
exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxially-oriented polypropylene
(``BOPP'') or to an exterior ply of paper that is suitable for high
quality print graphics; \9\ printed with three colors or more in
register; with or without lining; whether or not closed on one end;
whether or not in roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and
sleeves); with or without handles; with or without special closing
features; not exceeding one kilogram in weight. Laminated woven sacks
are typically used for retail packaging of
[[Page 14908]]
consumer goods such as pet foods and bird seed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Paper suitable for high quality print graphics,'' as used
herein, means paper having an ISO brightness of 82 or higher and a
Sheffield Smoothness of 250 or less. Coated free sheet is an example
of a paper suitable for high quality print graphics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective July 1, 2007, laminated woven sacks are classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
subheadings 6305.33.0050 and 6305.33.0080. Laminated woven sacks were
previously classifiable under HTSUS subheading 6305.33.0020. If entered
with plastic coating on both sides of the fabric consisting of woven
polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, laminated woven
sacks may be classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 3923.21.0080,
3923.21.0095, and 3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on one end or in
roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves), laminated
woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including
3917.39.0050, 3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and 5903.90.2500. If the
polypropylene strips and/or polyethylene strips making up the fabric
measure more than 5 millimeters in width, laminated woven sacks may be
classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 4601.99.0500,
4601.99.9000, and 4602.90.0000. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
In the Preliminary Results, we found that the one mandatory
respondent (i.e., Zibo Aifudi) demonstrated its eligibility for
separate-rate status. However, we no longer find Zibo Aifudi eligible
for separate rate status as it has significantly impeded the
Department's ability to conduct this proceeding and, by withdrawing
from the review, prevented the verification of the information it had
earlier provided.
Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act'')
provides that, if an interested party or any other person: (A)
Withholds information that has been requested by the administering
authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for
the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested,
subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides
such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in
section 782(i) of the Act, the Department shall, subject to section
782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination under this title. Where the Department
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply
with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the
Department shall promptly inform the party submitting the response of
the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable,
provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. Section 782(d) of the Act further states that, if the party
submits further information that is unsatisfactory or untimely, the
administering authority may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all
or part of the original and subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of the
Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements
established by the administering authority if (1) the information is
submitted by the deadline established for its submission, (2) the
information can be verified, (3) the information is not so incomplete
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable
determination, (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted
to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the
requirements established by the administering authority with respect to
the information, and (5) the information can be used without undue
difficulties.
Zibo Aifudi
Zibo Aifudi responded to the Department's original questionnaire
and several supplemental questionnaires, and the Department calculated
a company-specific margin for Zibo Aifudi in the Preliminary Results.
After the issuance of the Preliminary Results, the Department received
a letter from Zibo Aifudi withdrawing from this administrative review
and requesting that all business proprietary information be
destroyed.\10\ The Department therefore finds that, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D) of the Act, Zibo Aifudi has
significantly impeded the Department's ability to conduct this
administrative review and, by withdrawing from the review and
requesting the removal of information from the record, prevented the
verification of the information it had earlier provided. Therefore, the
application of facts available is warranted with respect to Zibo
Aifudi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Letter from Zibo Aifudi Regarding ``Withdrawal from
Administrative Review,'' dated September 20, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application of an Adverse Inference
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among
the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of the respondent if it determines that a
party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Adverse
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' \11\ In determining whether a respondent has failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department need not make a
determination regarding the willfulness of a respondent's conduct.\12\
Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of the
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse
inference.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'')
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d
Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994).
\12\ See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373,
1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon Steel'').
\13\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27340 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the best of
its ability, the Department considers whether a party could comply with
the request for information, and whether a party paid insufficient
attention to its statutory duties.\14\ Furthermore, the Department also
considers the accuracy and completeness of submitted information, and
whether the respondent has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping
margins.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Pacific Giant, Inc. v. United States, 223 F. Supp. 2d
1336, 1342 (August 6, 2002).
\15\ See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From
Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
62 FR 53808, 53819-53820 (October 16, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Nippon Steel the Federal Circuit explained that,
if a respondent ``fails to provide requested information by the
deadlines for submission,'' Commerce shall fill in the gaps with
``facts otherwise available.'' The focus of {section 776(a) of the
Act{time} is respondent's failure to provide information. The
reason for the failure is of no moment. As a separate matter,
{section 776(b) of the Act{time} permits Commerce to ``use an
inference that is adverse to the interests of a respondent in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available,'' only if
Commerce makes the separate determination that the respondent ``has
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to
comply.'' The focus of {section 776(b) of the Act{time} is
respondent's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability, not
its failure to provide requested information.
See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1381. The Federal Circuit also held that
``the
[[Page 14909]]
statutory mandate that a respondent act to the `best of its ability'
requires the respondent to do the maximum it is able to do.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived
from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any
previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See
section 776(b) of the Act. It is the Department's practice to assign
the highest rate from any segment of a proceeding as total adverse
facts available (``AFA'') when a respondent fails to cooperate to the
best of its ability.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan;
Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789, 5790 (February 7, 2002)
(``Consistent with Department practice in cases where a respondent
fails to cooperate to the best of its ability, and in keeping with
section 776(b)(3) of the Act, as adverse facts available, we have
applied a margin based on the highest margin from any prior segment
of the proceeding.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zibo Aifudi/PRC-Wide Entity
As discussed above, Zibo Aifudi withdrew from participation in this
segment of the proceeding and requested that all of its business
proprietary submissions be destroyed. Because of this, the Department
does not have any record evidence upon which to determine whether Zibo
Aifudi is eligible for a separate rate for this review period. Thus,
pursuant to Department practice, as Zibo Aifudi has not demonstrated
its entitlement to a separate rate, we consider it to be part of the
PRC-entity and subject to the PRC-wide rate.\18\ Furthermore, because
Zibo Aifudi is part of the PRC-wide entity and the only mandatory
respondent in this administrative review, it is necessary that we
review the PRC-wide entity. In doing so, we note that section 776(a)(1)
of the Act mandates that the Department use the facts available if
necessary information is not available on the record of an antidumping
proceeding. In addition, we find that an element of the PRC-wide entity
(Zibo Aifudi) did not respond to our requests for information, the
necessary information was not provided, and the information that was
provided was unable to be verified. Therefore, we find it necessary,
under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to continue to use facts otherwise
available as the basis for the final results of this review for the
PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and Partial
Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 8273, 8279 (February 13,
2008) unchanged in Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 2008) (``WBF
2008'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the PRC-wide
entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with requests for information. As noted above, an element of the
PRC-wide entity (Zibo Aifudi) informed the Department that it would not
participate further in this review. Thus, because the PRC-wide entity
refused to participate fully in this proceeding, we find it appropriate
to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide
entity in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing
so, we ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity
will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than
had they cooperated fully in this review.
As stated above, the PRC-wide entity (including Zibo Aifudi)
withdrew from this administrative review. Because of this, we find it
necessary, under sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, to use AFA
as the basis for these final results of review for the PRC-wide entity.
In accordance with the Department's practice, as AFA, we have assigned
to the PRC-wide entity the rate of 91.73 percent, which is the highest
rate assigned in any segment of this proceeding. See Laminated Woven
Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 35646, 35648 (June 24, 2008) (``LTFV
Final Determination'').\19\ In selecting a rate as AFA, the Department
selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the
purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide
the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely
manner.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of
China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and
Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 1999).
\20\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan,
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of AFA Rate for PRC-Wide Entity, Including Zibo Aifudi
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. As described in the SAA, it is the
Department's practice to use secondary information from the petition,
the final determination, or any previous review under section 751 of
the Act concerning the subject merchandise. See SAA at 870. Further,
the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information has
probative value and, to the extent practicable, will examine the
reliability and relevance of the information to be used.
In this case, the AFA rate we are assigning to the PRC-wide entity,
including Zibo Aifudi, is the highest rate from any segment of this
proceeding, and is the petition rate in the less-than-fair-value
investigation. See LTFV Final Determination, 73 FR at 35648. This rate
was corroborated in the LTFV Final Determination, finding that the
petition margin of 91.73 percent had probative value because it was
within the range of CONNUM margins for Zibo Aifudi. See id.
Furthermore, no information has been presented by interested parties
challenging the reliability of the 91.73 percent AFA rate. We note that
this is the highest rate from any segment of the proceeding and the
rate is less than four years old. Thus, the Department finds that the
information continues to be 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.\21\ Similarly, the Department does not apply a
margin that has been discredited.\22\ None of these unusual
circumstances are present with respect to the rate being used here.\23\
Moreover,
[[Page 14910]]
the rate selected is the rate currently applicable to the PRC-wide
entity and was corroborated in the LTFV Final Determination, using Zibo
Aifudi's CONNUM margins. See LTFV Final Determination, 73 FR at 35648.
The Department assumes that if an uncooperative respondent could have
obtained a lower rate, it would have cooperated.\24\ Consequently, as
there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates
that this rate is not appropriate for use as AFA, we determine that
this rate continues to have relevance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See WBF 2008, 73 FR at 49166; see also Fresh Cut Flowers
From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department
disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best
information available {the predecessor to facts available{time}
because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin).
\22\ 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).
\23\ See e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 14th Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 34976, 34979 (June 21, 2010); Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Preliminary Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission and Final
Partial Rescission of the Second Administrative Review, 73 FR 12127,
12131-12132 (March 6, 2008) unchanged in 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).
\24\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our analysis as described above, we find that the margin
of 91.73 percent is reliable and has relevance. As the 91.73 percent
rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative
value. Accordingly, we determine that the calculated rate of 91.73
percent, which is the current PRC-wide rate, is in accordance with the
requirement of section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information be
corroborated to the extent practicable (i.e., that it have probative
value). Consequently, we have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the
subject merchandise from the PRC-wide entity, including Zibo Aifudi.
Final Results of Review
The weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The PRC-Wide entity, including Zibo Aifudi Plastic
Packaging Co., Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average
Exporter Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate \25\................................... 91.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b),
the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with
the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we
calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review. Where appropriate, we calculated an
ad valorem rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total
dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total entered
values associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates
calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad
valorem rate against the entered customs values for the subject
merchandise. Where appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each
importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for
reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated
with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against
the entered quantity of the subject merchandise. Where an importer (or
customer)-specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50
percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer (or
customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to
antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). The
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these final results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise 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) The cash deposit
rate for each of the reviewed companies that received a separate rate
in this review will be the rate listed in the final results of review
(except that if the rate for a particular company is de minimis, i.e.,
less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that
company); (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent POR; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair
value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most recent period for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all
other manufacturers or exporters will be the PRC-wide rate of 91.73
percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``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.
We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March 14, 2011.
Kim Glas,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I--Issues and Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Preliminary Decision Regarding Country of Origin
1a. Procedures in Determining Country of Origin
1b. Department's Decision of Country of Origin of Sacks
1c. Authority to Issue Clarification Instruction to CBP
1d. Finalizing the Country-of-Origin Memorandum
Comment 2: Liquidation Instructions
[FR Doc. 2011-6450 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
