Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 18524-18532 [2011-7927]

Download as PDF 18524 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices Comment 20: Whether the Benchmark Used for the Provision of Primary Aluminum for LTAR Program Should Include Import Duties Comment 21: Whether the Department Should Use In-Country Benchmarks Under the Provision of Primary Aluminum for LTAR Program Comment 22: Whether the Guang Ya Companies Properly Reported Their Purchases of Primary Aluminum and Whether the Application of AFA is Warranted Comment 23: Whether the Land for LTAR Program Constitutes a Financial Contribution, Provides a Benefit, and is Specific Comment 24: Whether the Department Should Revise the Benchmark Used Under the Land for LTAR Program Comment 25: Whether the Department Erred in Rejecting Factual Information Concerning the Benchmark Used Under the Land for LTAR Program Comment 26: Whether the Guang Ya Companies Received an Additional Subsidy in Connection With the GOC’s Purchase of Land-Use Rights and Buildings Comment 27: Whether PRC Commercial Banks Are GOC Authorities That Provide a Financial Contribution Comment 28: Whether there is a Link Between the Alleged Policy Lending Program and Actual Loans Received by Respondents Comment 29: Whether the Derivation of the Short-Term Benchmark Interest Rate is Arbitrary Comment 30: Whether the Derivation of the Long-Term Benchmark Interest Rate is Arbitrary Comment 31: Whether the Department Committed Ministerial Errors Concerning the Famous Brands Program Comment 32: Whether the Department Should Provide an Entered Value Adjustment to the Zhongya Companies to Account for Price Mark-Ups Made by Their Hong-Kong Affiliate Comment 33: Whether the Department Improperly Declined to Initiate an Investigation of the GOC’s Alleged Currency Undervaluation [FR Doc. 2011–7926 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES [A–570–967] Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: April 4, 2011. SUMMARY: On November 12, 2010, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published its AGENCY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:47 Apr 01, 2011 Jkt 223001 preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the antidumping investigation of aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1 We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary determination. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we have made changes to our margin calculations for the mandatory respondents. The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Lori Apodaca, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4474 or (202) 482– 4551, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History The Department published its Preliminary Determination on November 12, 2010. The Department subsequently issued a ministerial error memorandum, in which it agreed to correct several ministerial errors.2 On January 4, 2011, pursuant to the correction of ministerial errors, the Department published an Amended Preliminary Determination.3 Between December 6, 2010, and December 21, 2010, the Department conducted verifications of Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd. (‘‘Guang Ya’’), Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd. (‘‘Guangcheng’’), Kong Ah International Co., Ltd.(‘‘Kong Ah’’), and Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd. (‘‘Guang Ya HK’’) (collectively the ‘‘Guang Ya Group’’); Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. (‘‘ZNZ’’), Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited (‘‘Shaped Aluminum’’) and Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd. (‘‘Karlton’’) (collectively ‘‘New Zhongya’’); and Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel 1 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Preliminary Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 69403 (November 12, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 2 See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Ministerial Error Memorandum, Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China, Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,’’ dated December 21, 2010, on file in the Department’s Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 7046 of the main Department building. 3 See Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 323 (January 4, 2011) (‘‘Amended Preliminary Determination’’). PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Product Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xinya’’) (all parties, collectively ‘‘the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya’’). The Department released verification reports for each of these companies on January 28, 2011.4 See the ‘‘Verification’’ section below for additional information. On December 12, 2010, Aavid Thermalloy, Inc. (‘‘Aavid’’) submitted a request for a scope hearing. On December 13, 2010, The Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee,5 and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’) and New Zhongya submitted requests for a public hearing. On February 9, 2011, Petitioners submitted a request for a closed session of the hearing. On March 2, 2011, the Department held a public scope hearing for the antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations, and both an open and a closed session of the antidumping duty hearing. New Zhongya and Petitioners submitted surrogate value comments on December 22, 2010. On February 9, 2011, case briefs were filed by the Guang Ya Group, the Government of China (‘‘GOC’’), Petitioners, and New Zhongya. On February 14, 2011, the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Petitioners filed their rebuttal briefs. Period of Investigation The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is July 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which was March 2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), we conducted verification of the information submitted by the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya for use in our final determination.6 We used standard verification procedures, including the examination of relevant accounting and production records, as appropriate, as well as original source documents provided by respondents. 4 See the Department’s verification reports on the record of this investigation, all on file in the CRU. 5 The Aluminum Extrusions fair Trade Committee is comprised of Aerolite Extrusion Company, Alexandria Extrusion Company, Benada Aluminum of Florida, Inc., William L. Bonnell Company, Inc., Frontier Aluminum Corporation, Futura Industries Corporation, Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc., Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, Profile Extrusions Company, Sapa Extrusions, Inc., and Western Extrusions Corporation. 6 See the Department’s verification reports on the record of this investigation in the CRU, with respect to these entities. E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM 04APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices However, as detailed in our verification report and discussed further below, we were unable verify the information submitted by Xinya. Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted in this investigation are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the LessThan-Fair-Value Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China,’’ (‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’) dated concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document on file in the CRU and is accessible on the Web at https:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination • We are amending the language of the scope of the antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) and countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) investigations for clarification purposes as described in detail in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. See Comment 3, A–J in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. • For the final determination, the Department has adjusted the Petition rates using the revised surrogate value for labor as described in detail in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. The revised petition margins range from 32.53 percent to 33.28 percent. See Comment 1, A–F, Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum; see also March 28, 2011 Memorandum to the File, regarding Investigation of Certain Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Petition Rate Recalculation (‘‘Petition Rate Recalculation Memo’’). • For the final determination, we are applying a rate based on adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) to the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya single entity. As AFA we have assigned the highest rate from the petition of 33.18 percent, as recalculated for the final determination.7 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5: Application of Total AFA; see also Memorandum regarding: Application of Total Adverse Facts Available for the 7 See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:47 Apr 01, 2011 Jkt 223001 Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China, dated March 28, 2011 (‘‘Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo’’). • For the final determination, we have assigned the 29 separate rate applicants to whom we are granting a separate rate a dumping margin of 32.79 percent, based on the simple average of the margins alleged in the petition, as recalculated for this final determination. See Comment 1, A–F, Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum; see also Petition Rate Recalculation Memo, detailing recalculation to correct for a ministerial error. Scope of the Investigations The merchandise covered by this investigation is aluminum extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from aluminum alloys having metallic elements corresponding to the alloy series designations published by The Aluminum Association commencing with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or proprietary equivalents or other certifying body equivalents). Specifically, the subject merchandise made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 1 contains not less than 99 percent aluminum by weight. The subject merchandise made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 3 contains manganese as the major alloying element, with manganese accounting for not more than 3.0 percent of total materials by weight. The subject merchandise is made from an aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 6 contains magnesium and silicon as the major alloying elements, with magnesium accounting for at least 0.1 percent but not more than 2.0 percent of total materials by weight, and silicon accounting for at least 0.1 percent but not more than 3.0 percent of total materials by weight. The subject aluminum extrusions are properly identified by a four-digit alloy series without either a decimal point or leading letter. Illustrative examples from among the approximately 160 registered alloys that may characterize the subject merchandise are as follows: 1350, 3003, and 6060. Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported in a wide variety of shapes and forms, including, but not PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18525 limited to, hollow profiles, other solid profiles, pipes, tubes, bars, and rods. Aluminum extrusions that are drawn subsequent to extrusion (‘‘drawn aluminum’’) are also included in the scope. Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported with a variety of finishes (both coatings and surface treatments), and types of fabrication. The types of coatings and treatments applied to subject aluminum extrusions include, but are not limited to, extrusions that are mill finished (i.e., without any coating or further finishing), brushed, buffed, polished, anodized (including bright-dip anodized), liquid painted, or powder coated. Aluminum extrusions may also be fabricated, i.e., prepared for assembly. Such operations would include, but are not limited to, extrusions that are cut-to-length, machined, drilled, punched, notched, bent, stretched, knurled, swedged, mitered, chamfered, threaded, and spun. The subject merchandise includes aluminum extrusions that are finished (coated, painted, etc.), fabricated, or any combination thereof. Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, window frames, door frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or furniture. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of aluminum extrusions are included in the scope. The scope includes the aluminum extrusion components that are attached (e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled merchandise unless imported as part of the finished goods ‘kit’ defined further below. The scope does not include the non-aluminum extrusion components of subassemblies or subject kits. Subject extrusions may be identified with reference to their end use, such as fence posts, electrical conduits, heat sinks, door thresholds, or carpet trim. Such goods are subject merchandise if they otherwise meet the scope definition, regardless of whether they are ready for use at the time of importation. The following aluminum extrusion products are excluded: Aluminum extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designations commencing with the number 2 and containing in excess of 1.5 percent copper by weight; aluminum extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 5 and containing in excess of 1.0 percent magnesium by weight; and aluminum extrusions made from E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM 04APN1 Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES 18526 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 7 and containing in excess of 2.0 percent zinc by weight. The scope also excludes finished merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry, such as finished windows with glass, doors with glass or vinyl, picture frames with glass pane and backing material, and solar panels. The scope also excludes finished goods containing aluminum extrusions that are entered unassembled in a ‘‘finished goods kit.’’ A finished goods kit is understood to mean a packaged combination of parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good and requires no further finishing or fabrication, such as cutting or punching, and is assembled ‘as is’ into a finished product. An imported product will not be considered a ‘finished goods kit’ and therefore excluded from the scope of the investigation merely by including fasteners such as screws, bolts, etc. in the packaging with an aluminum extrusion product. The scope also excludes aluminum alloy sheet or plates produced by other than the extrusion process, such as aluminum products produced by a method of casting. Cast aluminum products are properly identified by four digits with a decimal point between the third and fourth digit. A letter may also precede the four digits. The following Aluminum Association designations are representative of aluminum alloys for casting: 208.0, 295.0, 308.0, 355.0, C355.0, 356.0, A356.0, A357.0, 360.0, 366.0, 380.0, A380.0, 413.0, 443.0, 514.0, 518.1, and 712.0. The scope also excludes pure, unwrought aluminum in any form. The scope also excludes collapsible tubular containers composed of metallic elements corresponding to alloy code 1080A as designated by the Aluminum Association where the tubular container (excluding the nozzle) meets each of the following dimensional characteristics: (1) Length of 37 mm or 62 mm, (2) outer diameter of 11.0 mm or 12.7 mm, and (3) wall thickness not exceeding 0.13 mm. Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’): 7604.21.0000, 7604.29.1000, 7604.29.3010, 7604.29.3050, 7604.29.5030, 7604.29.5060, 7608.20.0030, and 7608.20.0090. The subject merchandise entered as parts of VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:47 Apr 01, 2011 Jkt 223001 other aluminum products may be classifiable under the following additional Chapter 76 subheadings: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99 as well as under other HTS chapters. In addition, fin evaporator coils may be classifiable under HTS numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and 8418.99.80.60. While HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope in this proceeding is dispositive. Scope Comments Concurrent with the Preliminary Determination, on October 27, 2010, the Department issued a decision memorandum addressing ten scope issues in this and the concurrent countervailing duty investigation on aluminum extrusions from the PRC.8 As stated in the Preliminary Determination, scope comments received on or after October 7, 2010, but prior to the Preliminary Determination were not submitted in time for consideration for the Preliminary Determination and that, as a result, we would fully consider any such comments for the final determination. In addition, it came to our attention that our Preliminary Scope Memorandum inadvertently did not address scope comments submitted by Petitioners on May 10, 2010. We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Scope Memorandum. In response, multiple parties submitted scope case briefs on January 20, 2011, and scope rebuttal briefs on January 25, 2011. For the final determination, we have considered Petitioners’ May 10, 2010, scope comments, the scope comments provided by all parties on or after October 7, 2011, but prior to the Preliminary Determination, and the scope case and rebuttal briefs submitted on January 20 and January 25, 2011, respectively, and addressed these issues in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.9 8 See October 27, 2010, Memorandum entitled ‘‘Preliminary Determinations: Comments on the Scope of the Investigations’’ (‘‘Preliminary Scope Memorandum’’); see also Preliminary Determination. 9 Specifically: Floturn, Inc. (‘‘Floturn’’) submitted comments on October 7, 2010; Petitioners on October 13, 2010, October 19, 2010, and October 22, 2010; the Shower Door, Tub and Shower Enclosures Manufacturers’ Alliance (‘‘SDMA’’) on October 7, 2010; Eagle Metals, Inc. and Eagle Metals Distributors, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Eagle Metals’’) on October 12, 2010, October 13, 2010, and October 21, 2010; Aavid Thermalloy (‘‘Aavid’’) on October 13, 2010, and October 21, 2010; Brazeway Inc. (‘‘Brazeway’’) on October 19, 2010, and December 15, 2010; Maine Ornamental, LLC (‘‘Maine Ornamental’’) on October 22, 2010; and Hubble PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 On May 10, 2010, and in its scope case brief of January 11, 2011, Petitioners provided a series of proposed wording changes to clarify the scope language of these investigations. No other party provided comments on these proposed changes. On February 28, 2011, the Department requested that Petitioners clarify whether the Petition intended to cover the non-aluminum components of subject kits and subassemblies and that Petitioners provide language if the intent of the Petition was to not cover the nonaluminum components. On March 9, 2011, Petitioners submitted clarifying language stipulating that it is the intent of the petition to cover only the aluminum extrusion components of entries of subject aluminum extrusion subassemblies or subject kits. We have adopted all of Petitioners’ clarifications for the final determination. For a complete discussion of the parties’ scope-related comments (including the clarifications discussed above) and the Department’s position, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice at Comment 3, A–J. Targeted Dumping Because we are basing the margin of the sole mandatory respondent on total AFA for the final determination, we have not considered Petitioners’ targeted dumping allegation for the final determination. Surrogate Country In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation for the following reasons: (1) It is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the FOPs. See Preliminary Determination. For the final determination, we received no comments on surrogate country selection and, accordingly, made no changes to our findings with respect to the selection of a surrogate country. Affiliation For the reasons set forth in our Preliminary Determination, we continue to find the entities comprising the Guang Ya Group, and the entities Power Systems (‘‘HPS’’) on October 26, 2010. Additionally, Petitioners, Floturn, SDMA, Eagle Metals, Aavid, Brazeway, and Maine Ornamental submitted scope case briefs on January 20, 2011; Petitioners, Floturn, SDMA, and Brazeway submitted scope rebuttal briefs on January 25, 2011. E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM 04APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES comprising New Zhongya, affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the Act, as each entity is owned by a member of the Kuang family. Further, we find that New Zhongya is affiliated with one of its reported customers during the POI pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act.10 Furthermore, we continue to find the Guang Ya Group/ New Zhongya and Xinya affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the Act. In making this determination, we note that the Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya each stated on the record that a Kuang sibling was ‘‘Shareholder’’ of Xinya, and though the Guang Ya Group also made other inconsistent statements regarding ownership of Xinya, neither party has recanted these original statements. Further, because the ownership information provided by Xinya could not be verified, we do not accord any weight to its ownership claims, which constitute unverifiable information. Thus, we continue to find that the record evidence indicates that Xinya is owned by a member of the Kuang family. Because each entity is owned by a member of the Kuang family, we conclude that the owners of Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya are members of a family grouping, pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the Act. Further, we find that the ownership by the family grouping satisfies the requirement of affiliation pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act, because all of the companies within the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya are under the common control of the family grouping. To the extent that section 771(33) of the Act does not conflict with the Department’s application of separate rates and enforcement of the non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) provision or section 773(c) of the Act, the Department will determine that affiliated exporters and/ or producers are a single entity if the facts of the case support such a finding.11 The Court of International 10 See March 28, 2011, Memorandum regarding the Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination Regarding Affiliation and Collapsing of Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd., Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd., Kong Ah International Co., Ltd., and Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd.; Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd., Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Ltd., Karlton Aluminum Co., Ltd.; and Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. (‘‘Final Affiliation/Collapsing Memo’’). 11 See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Sixth New Shipper Review and Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 10410, 10413 (March 5, 2004) (‘‘Mushrooms’’), unchanged in Final Results VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:47 Apr 01, 2011 Jkt 223001 Trade (‘‘CIT’’) has upheld the Department’s practice of determining whether to treat two or more companies as a single entity for antidumping purposes based on a consideration of whether there exists a significant potential for manipulation of prices and/or export decisions.12 The determination to treat the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya as a single entity, is based on a finding that the family grouping holds essentially full ownership of the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya, all of which are producers and/or exporters of merchandise under consideration in this investigation. Therefore, in considering the level of common ownership pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(i), we find nearly 100 percent common ownership of the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya by the family grouping. In this context, the family in question is the ‘‘person’’ jointly owning and controlling the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya. Regarding 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(ii), the extent to which managerial employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm, the record of this proceeding shows that Kuang family members sit on the boards of, and have management positions at, the Guang Ya Group, and New Zhongya, as described above. With respect to the third criterion for finding significant potential for manipulation, 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(iii), the presence of intertwined operations, information on the record indicates significant financial transactions between Xinya and the owner of New Zhongya, which are recorded as part of New Zhongya’s accounting records.13 Accordingly, we find that the relationship between the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya poses a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). Thus, by virtue of the common ownership of the three entities, family members on the boards of at least two of the companies, evidence of financial transactions between two of these entities, and the fact that all entities and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 54361 (September 14, 2005). 12 See Hontex Enterprises v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1230–34 (CIT 2004) (‘‘Hontex II’’). 13 See January 28, 2010, Memorandum regarding the Verification of the Sales and Factors Responses of Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. (‘‘ZNZ’’), Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited (‘‘Shaped Aluminum’’) and Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd. (‘‘Karlton’’) (collectively ‘‘New Zhongya’’) in the Less-Than-Fair Value Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘New Zhongya Verification Report’’), at 10. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18527 produce and/or export merchandise under consideration, we find that there exists the significant potential for manipulation such that the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya and Xinya should be treated as a single entity.14 Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all exporters within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation involving an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate.15 In the Preliminary Determination, we found that the mandatory respondent (i.e., the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya) 16 and 29 separate-rate applicants demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status. Specifically, both Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya provided, and the Department successfully verified, the requisite information to demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto government control over their respective export activities. For the final determination, we continue to find that the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya single entity is eligible for a separate rate. Further, because no parties commented on the separate-rate status of the other separate-rate applicants and no information has come to light that would alter our preliminary findings, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the 29 separate-rate applicants to whom we preliminarily granted separate rate status demonstrates both a de jure and de facto absence of government control, with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise under investigation; thus they are eligible for separate-rate status. See Preliminary Determination. In the Preliminary Determination, we denied separate rate status to one 14 Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 47198 (September 15, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 15 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’), and 19 CFR 351.107(d). 16 Because there is no record information to indicate that Xinya, which is part of this collapsed entity, is an exporter to the United States, Xinya is not eligible for consideration of a separate rate. E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM 04APN1 18528 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices separate rate applicant, Shanghai Canghai Aluminum Tube Packing Co. (‘‘Shanghai Canghai’’), but stated that we would provide it with an additional opportunity to correct deficiencies submitted in its original separate rate application (‘‘SRA’’) and September 8, 2010, Supplemental Questionnaire Response (‘‘SQR’’) to the Department’s supplemental questionnaire.17 On November 27, 2010, the Department sent another letter to Shanghai Canghai rejecting its September 8, 2010, SQR because of procedural deficiencies and because it contained insufficient documentation to analyze Shanghai Canghai’s eligibility for a separate rate, including incomplete narrative responses to the questions asked and no translations. In this letter, however, we also provided Shanghai Canghai an opportunity to re-submit its response to correct these deficiencies.18 On or about December 9, 2010, the Department received Shanghai Canghai’s response to the Department’s November 27, 2010, letter. However, the December 9, 2010, SQR was not filed in conformance with the Department’s regulations regarding filing, service, or certification of documents (see 19 CFR 351.303). Further, Shanghai Canghai’s December 9, 2010, SQR again provided no narrative responses to any of the Department’s questions from the separate-rate application. As a result, on March 17, 2011, the Department sent a letter to Shanghai Canghai rejecting its December 9, 2010, response. Because Shanghai Canghai has failed to respond adequately to the Department’s request for separate rate information despite being given several opportunities to do so, the Department has not considered Shanghai Canghai’s submission for the final determination nor retained it for the record. Thus, for this final determination, we are not granting Shanghai Canghai a separate rate, and it is part of the PRC-wide entity. Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Margin for the Separate Rate Companies Since we assigned the individually examined respondent a dumping margin based on total AFA, we do not have any mandatory respondents in this investigation whose dumping margin is 17 See Preliminary Determination, the Department’s June 25, 2010, letter to Shanghai Canghai granting the company’s request to extend the deadline for its SRA submission to July 2, 2010, and the Department’s August 18, 2010, letter to Shanghai Canghai regarding Antidumping Duty Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Supplemental Questionnaire—Separate Rate Application. 18 See the Department’s November 27, 2010, letter to Shanghai Canghai regarding re-filing its Separate Rate Supplemental Questionnaire. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:47 Apr 01, 2011 Jkt 223001 not based on AFA. Thus, we have assigned the 29 separate rate applicants to whom we are granting a separate rate a dumping margin based on the simple average of the margins alleged in the petition, as recalculated for the final determination. Use of Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested party: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party ‘‘promptly after receiving a request from {the Department} for information, notifies {the Department} that such party is unable to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, together with a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in which such party is able to submit the information,’’ the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed ‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (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; and (5) PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the information can be used without undue difficulties. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department ‘‘finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the {Department}, the {Department}, in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.’’ 19 For this final determination, in accordance with sections 773(c)(3)(A) and (B) of the Act and sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D) and 776(b) of the Act, we have determined that the use of AFA is warranted for the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya, and the PRC-wide entity as discussed below. Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya The Department has determined that the information to construct an accurate and otherwise reliable margin is not available on the record with respect to the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/ Xinya. The Department reached this determination because the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya withheld information that had been requested, failed to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, significantly impeded this proceeding, and provided information that could not be verified, pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(A), (B), (C) and (D) of the of Act.20 Specifically, Guang Ya Group’s narrative questionnaire responses did not comport with the data sections of those same responses; moreover, the factors of production data submitted by Guang Ya Group post-verification did not reflect the data verified by the Department at Guang Ya Group’s facilities. New Zhongya mis-reported a portion of its U.S. sales indicating that they were constructed export price sales to the first unaffiliated party in the United States when in fact they were the transfer price sales to its U.S. affiliated party. Finally, Xinya provided no documentation at verification to demonstrate its claimed ownership. For additional detail, see Guang Ya Group/ New Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo. As a result, the Department has determined to apply the facts otherwise available. Further, because the Department finds that the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/ 19 See also Statement of Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994). 20 See Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo. E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM 04APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices Xinya failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined to use an adverse inference when applying facts available for the final determination in this investigation.21 The PRC-Wide Entity Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within an NME country are subject to government control, and because only the companies listed under the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section, below, have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC because these other companies did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate.22 The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from the companies eligible for separate rate status. In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that there were producers/exporters of the subject merchandise during the POI from the PRC that did not respond to the Department’s request for information. Further, we treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRCwide entity because they did not demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate. Additionally, as a result of the PRC-wide entity’s failure to respond to our requests for information we further determined that, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the PRCwide entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See id. Accordingly, we also determined that in selecting from among the facts available an adverse inference was warranted because of the PRC-wide entity’s failure to cooperate to the best of its ability. As AFA, we preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity a recalculated rate of 33.18 percent, the highest calculated rate from the petition, as recalculated for the Amended Preliminary Determination.23 See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying 21 See Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo. 22 See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People’s Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000). 23 See Amended Preliminary Determination; see also the December 10, 2010, Memorandum to the File, regarding the Investigation of Certain Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Petition Rate recalculation; (‘‘Amended Prelim Petition Rate Recalculation Memo’’); and the December 10, 2010, Memorandum to the File, regarding the Amended Preliminary Determination Analysis Memorandum (‘‘Amended Preliminary Determination Analysis Memo’’). VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:47 Apr 01, 2011 Jkt 223001 18529 the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for information, significantly impeded the proceeding, and withheld information requested by the Department, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, we determine, as in the Preliminary Determination, that in selecting from among the facts available an adverse inference is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate, recalculated for the final determination, because of the PRCwide entity’s failure to cooperate to the best of its ability.24 investigation, as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity the highest petition rate (as recalculated for the final determination) on the record of this proceeding that can be corroborated, 33.28 percent, as recalculated for the final determination.29 For the final determination in this investigation, the Department has selected this rate as the most appropriate from the available sources to effectuate the purposes of AFA. Accordingly, the Department has assigned both the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya and the PRC-wide entity an AFA rate of 33.28 percent. Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for 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.’’ 25 It is also the Department’s practice to select a rate that ensures ‘‘that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.’’ 26 Generally, the Department finds selecting the highest rate in any segment of the proceeding as AFA to be appropriate.27 It is the Department’s practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation.28 In the instant Corroboration 24 See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo. 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). 26 See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005); See also SAA at 870. 27 See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 (December 28, 2005) unchanged in final, Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. 28 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000), and accompanying 25 See PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. We have interpreted ‘‘corroborate’’ to mean that we will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information submitted.30 As total AFA, the Department preliminarily selected the highest adjusted petition rate of 33.28 percent.31 In the Amended Preliminary Determination, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we corroborated our AFA margin by comparing it to the control number (‘‘CONNUM’’) margins we found for the cooperating mandatory respondents. We found that the margin of 33.18 percent had probative value because it was in the range of CONNUM model margins we found for the mandatory respondents, the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya, during the period of Issues and Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Facts Available.’’ 29 See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo; see also Comment 1C, Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 30 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 4, 2000); see, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996). 31 See Amended Preliminary Determination; see also Amended Prelim Petition Rate Recalculation Memo; and the December 21, 2010, Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Wendy Frankel, Director, Office 8, entitled ‘‘Ministerial Error Memorandum, Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China, Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value’’ (‘‘Ministerial Error Memo’’), at Issue 4. E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM 04APN1 18530 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices investigation.32 Accordingly, we found that the rate of 33.28 percent, which is only one tenth of a one percent difference from the rate applied in the Amended Preliminary Determination is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.33 Because there are no cooperating mandatory respondents to corroborate the 33.28 percent margin used as AFA for the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/ Xinya and the PRC-wide entity, to the extent appropriate information was available, we revisited our pre-initiation analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition. See Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China, dated April 20, 2010 (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’). We examined evidence supporting the calculations in the petition and the supplemental information provided by Petitioners prior to initiation to determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the petition. During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined the information used as the basis of export price and normal value (‘‘NV’’) in the petition, and the calculations used to derive the alleged margins. Also during our preinitiation analysis, we examined information from various independent sources provided either in the petition or, based on our requests, in supplements to the petition (e.g., Global Trade Atlas, and Petitioners’ experience with selling and producing the merchandise under consideration), which corroborated key elements of the export price and NV calculations. See Initiation Checklist at 6–10. We received no comments as to the relevance or probative value of this information. In our examination of the petition data to corroborate the 33.28 percent AFA rate for the final determination, the Department found nothing impinging the reliability or relevance of the petition rate, as adjusted. We did receive comments on the Department’s wage rate calculation, which was utilized to derive the petition margin. We have evaluated those comments and recalculated the labor wage rate used in calculating the Petition margin.34 Therefore, the Department finds that the margin of 33.28 percent has probative value for the purpose of being selected as the AFA rate assigned to the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya and the PRC-wide entity. Combination Rates In the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that it would assign combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation.35 This practice is described in the Separate Rate Policy Bulletin.36 Final Determination Margins The weighted-average dumping margin percentages are as follows: Weightedaverage margin Exporter * Producer Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd.; Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Kong Ah International Company Limited; Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Limited. Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd.; Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Kong Ah International Company Limited; Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Limited; Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd.; Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited; Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd.; Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. (A.K.A. New Asia Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd.). Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd.; Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Kong Ah International Company Limited; Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Limited; Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd.; Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited; Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd.; Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. (A.K.A. New Asia Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd.). Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd .......................................................... Changshu Changsheng Aluminium Products Co., Ltd .............. Zhaoqing China Square Industry Limited .................................. Cosco (J.M.) Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Jiangmen Qunxing Hardware Diecasting Co., Ltd. Top-Wok Metal Co., Ltd ............................................................. Foshan Jinlan Aluminium Co. Ltd .............................................. Foshan Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium Co., Ltd ............................. Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium Co., Ltd .................................. Guangdong Weiye Aluminium Factory Co., Ltd ........................ Guangdong Xingfa Aluminium Co., Ltd ..................................... Pingguo Aluminium Company Limited ....................................... Kanal Precision Aluminium Product Co., Ltd ............................ Taishan Golden Gain Aluminium Products Limited ................... Jiangyin Xinhong Doors and Windows Co., Ltd ........................ Guangdong Jianmei Aluminum Profile Company Limited; Foshan JMA Aluminium Company Limited. Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd .............. Shandong Nanshan Aluminum Co., Ltd .................................... Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd.; Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited; Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd. Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd ........................................................... Changshu Changsheng Aluminium Products Co., Ltd ............... China Square Industrial Limited ................................................. Cosco (J.M.) Aluminium Co., Ltd ................................................ Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES First Union Property Limited ....................................................... Foshan Jinlan Non-ferrous Metal Product Co. Ltd ..................... Foshan Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium Co., Ltd .............................. Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium Co., Ltd ................................... Guangdong Weiye Aluminium Factory Co., Ltd ......................... Guangdong Xingfa Aluminium Co., Ltd ...................................... Hanwood Enterprises Limited ..................................................... Honsense Development Company ............................................. Innovative Aluminium (Hong Kong) Limited ............................... Jiangyin Trust International Inc ................................................... JMA (HK) Company Limited ....................................................... Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd ...................................... Longkou Donghai Trade Co., Ltd ............................................... 32 See Amended Preliminary Determination Analysis Memo. 33 Id. 34 See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo; see also Comment 1C, Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:47 Apr 01, 2011 Jkt 223001 35 See Preliminary Determination; see also Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 22109 (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 36 See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 33.28 33.28 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries’’ dated April 5, 2005, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/. E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM 04APN1 18531 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices Weightedaverage margin Exporter * Producer Ningbo Yili Import and Export Co., Ltd ....................................... North China Aluminum Co., Ltd .................................................. PanAsia Aluminium (China) Limited ........................................... Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd ................................................ Popular Plastics Co., Ltd ............................................................ Press Metal International Ltd ...................................................... Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium Industry Engineering Co. Ltd ..... Zhejiang Anji Xinxiang Aluminum Co., Ltd ................................ North China Aluminum Co., Ltd ................................................. PanAsia Aluminium (China) Limited .......................................... Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd ............................................... Hoi Tat Plastic Mould & Metal Factory ...................................... Press Metal International Ltd ..................................................... Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum Factory Company Limited; Guang Ya Aluminum Industries Co., Ltd. Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd ........................................ Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat Transmission Technology Co., Ltd USA Worldwide Door Components (Pinghu) Co., Ltd .............. 32.79 32.79 32.79 Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd ............ Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminium Factory Ltd ................... .................................................................................................... 32.79 32.79 33.28 Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd ......................................... Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat Transmission Technology Co., Ltd USA Worldwide Door Components (Pinghu) Co., Ltd; Worldwide Door Components (Pinghu) Co. Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd ............. Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminium Factory Ltd .................... PRC-wide Entity .......................................................................... 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 * Because Xinya did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, for the final determination, Xinya is not being considered for a separate rate. Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in this final determination; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Additionally, as the Department has determined in its concurrent CVD investigation that the merchandise under investigation exported by the Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya benefitted from export subsidies, we will instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:47 Apr 01, 2011 Jkt 223001 amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price for the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya, as indicated above, reduced by the simple average of the amounts determined to constitute export subsidies for the Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya (0.26 percent).37 For the separate-rate companies, none of which were selected as respondents in the CVD investigation, we will instruct CBP to reduce the dumping margin by the amount of export subsidies included in the All Others rate from the CVD final determination (42.16 percent), published concurrently with this notice.38 ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will, within 45 days, determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an 37 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with this notice; see also Memorandum: Countervailing Duty Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Derivation of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Net Subsidy Rate Applied in Final Determination (March 28, 2011). 38 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 28, 2011. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I—List of Issues I. General Issues Comment 1: Labor Wage Rate A. Whether the Department Should Calculate the Surrogate Value for Labor Using Multiple Surrogate Countries or a Single Country, India B. If the Department Continues to Rely on a Basket of Countries, Whether that Data Should Be Limited to 2006 Data Onward and Should Exclude Ecuador C. Whether the Department’s Wage Rate Calculation as to the Ukraine is in Error D. Whether To Use 2009 GNI Data Because it is Contemporaneous With the POI E. Whether To Revise the Department’s ‘‘Bookend’’ Countries Using Absolute Differences in GNI Data E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM 04APN1 18532 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices F. Whether To Use the 2008 Wage Data for the Philippines Rather Than the 2003 Data Comment 2: Double Remedies Comment 3: Scope of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations A. Petitioners’ Proposed Changes to the Scope B. Clarifying Language for Covered Kits and Subassemblies C. Certain Special High Purity/High Accuracy OPC Tubes D. Shower Doors E. Finish Types F. Wall Thicknesses of Various Sizes G. Heat Sinks H. Baluster Kits I. Grading Rings J. Aluminum Tubes and Fin Evaporator Coils Comment 4: Affiliation and Collapsing Comment 5: Application of Total AFA Comment 6: Whether To Recalculate Billet Consumption Using Partial AFA or Neutral Facts Available Comment 7: Whether To Apply Partial AFA To New Zhongya’s Constructed Export Price Sales II. Other Issues Because the issues identified below have been rendered moot by the Department’s Application of Total AFA to the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya Single Entity, we have not responded to these comments for the final determination. A. General Issues Æ Targeted Dumping Æ Financial Ratios Æ Surrogate Value for Aluminum Ingots Æ Surrogate Value for Coating Powders Æ Surrogate Value for Paints Æ Surrogate Values for New Factors of Production: Aluminum Billets, Sodium Carbonate, Hydrochloric Acid, and Paints Æ Surrogate Values for Movement Expenses: Foreign Inland Freight, Barge Freight, Foreign Brokerage and Handling, Ocean Freight, U.S. Brokerage and Handling, and U.S. Inland Freight B. The Guang Ya Group Issues Æ Whether To Apply Partial AFA to Channel One Sales Æ Whether To Recalculate Credit Expenses Using Partial AFA Æ Whether To Include Bad Debt in Indirect Selling Expenses Æ Treatment of Sample Sales Æ Whether To Deduct Discounts from U.S. Price Æ Whether To Use AFA to Value Alkali Etching Æ Surrogate Value for Steel Shelves C. New Zhongya Issues Æ Whether To Use New Zhongya’s Market Economy Price For Aluminum Ingots Æ Whether To Recalculate Surrogate Value for Sodium Hydroxide and Ammonium Bifluoride Æ Whether To Use AFA To Value Aluminum Sealant, Chromaking Agent, Long Life Additive for Alkaline Etching, Deslagging Agent and Refining Agent Æ Wood Packing Materials Æ Whether To Value Movement Expenses Using Surrogate Values Æ Whether To Deduct the Difference Between Freight Costs and Freight Revenue Æ Whether To Treat Scrap Aluminum Ingot as a Direct Material Rather Than a Scrap Offset Æ How To Account for the Full Weight of All Packaging Materials Æ Whether To Value Wood Packing Materials Using AFA [FR Doc. 2011–7927 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XA345 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Assessment Process Webinars for South Atlantic Black Sea Bass (Centropristis striata) and Golden Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps). National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of two SEDAR 25 South Atlantic assessment webinars for black sea bass and golden tilefish. AGENCY: The SEDAR 25 assessments of the South Atlantic black sea bass and golden tilefish will consist of a series of workshops and webinars: This notice is for two webinars associated with the Data and Assessment portions of the SEDAR process. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. SUMMARY: The SEDAR 25 ‘post-data, preassessment’ webinars will be held between May 25, 2011 and June 8, 2011. Please see list below for exact dates and times. The established times may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the assessment process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from, or completed prior to the time established by this notice. DATES: Webinar Date Day 1 .................................... 2 .................................... May 25, 2011 .................................................. June 8, 2011 ................................................... Wednesday ..................................................... Wednesday ..................................................... The meetings will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Kari Fenske at SEDAR (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to request an invitation providing webinar access information.) ADDRESSES: Kari Fenske, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) 571–4366; email: kari.fenske@safmc.net. Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:47 Apr 01, 2011 Jkt 223001 have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a threestep process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars and workshops (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Time (Eastern) 1pm–4 pm. 9 am–12 pm. assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting Panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGOs; International experts; and staff of E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM 04APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18524-18532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7927]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-967]


Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

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

DATES: Effective Date: April 4, 2011.

SUMMARY: On November 12, 2010, the Department of Commerce 
(``Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at 
less than fair value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of 
aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\ 
We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary 
determination. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we 
have made changes to our margin calculations for the mandatory 
respondents. The final dumping margins for this investigation are 
listed in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, and Preliminary Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 
69403 (November 12, 2010) (``Preliminary Determination'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Lori Apodaca, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4474 or (202) 482-4551, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History

    The Department published its Preliminary Determination on November 
12, 2010. The Department subsequently issued a ministerial error 
memorandum, in which it agreed to correct several ministerial 
errors.\2\ On January 4, 2011, pursuant to the correction of 
ministerial errors, the Department published an Amended Preliminary 
Determination.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memorandum entitled ``Ministerial Error Memorandum, 
Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China, Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,'' dated December 21, 
2010, on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU''), 
Room 7046 of the main Department building.
    \3\ See Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, 76 FR 323 (January 4, 2011) (``Amended Preliminary 
Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between December 6, 2010, and December 21, 2010, the Department 
conducted verifications of Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd. 
(``Guang Ya''), Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd. (``Guangcheng''), 
Kong Ah International Co., Ltd.(``Kong Ah''), and Guang Ya Aluminium 
Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd. (``Guang Ya HK'') (collectively the ``Guang 
Ya Group''); Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. (``ZNZ''), Zhongya 
Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited (``Shaped Aluminum'') and Karlton 
Aluminum Company Ltd. (``Karlton'') (collectively ``New Zhongya''); and 
Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. (``Xinya'') (all 
parties, collectively ``the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya''). The 
Department released verification reports for each of these companies on 
January 28, 2011.\4\ See the ``Verification'' section below for 
additional information. On December 12, 2010, Aavid Thermalloy, Inc. 
(``Aavid'') submitted a request for a scope hearing. On December 13, 
2010, The Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee,\5\ and the United 
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 
Industrial and Service Workers International Union (collectively, 
``Petitioners'') and New Zhongya submitted requests for a public 
hearing. On February 9, 2011, Petitioners submitted a request for a 
closed session of the hearing. On March 2, 2011, the Department held a 
public scope hearing for the antidumping duty and countervailing duty 
investigations, and both an open and a closed session of the 
antidumping duty hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the Department's verification reports on the record of 
this investigation, all on file in the CRU.
    \5\ The Aluminum Extrusions fair Trade Committee is comprised of 
Aerolite Extrusion Company, Alexandria Extrusion Company, Benada 
Aluminum of Florida, Inc., William L. Bonnell Company, Inc., 
Frontier Aluminum Corporation, Futura Industries Corporation, Hydro 
Aluminum North America, Inc., Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, Profile 
Extrusions Company, Sapa Extrusions, Inc., and Western Extrusions 
Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Zhongya and Petitioners submitted surrogate value comments on 
December 22, 2010. On February 9, 2011, case briefs were filed by the 
Guang Ya Group, the Government of China (``GOC''), Petitioners, and New 
Zhongya. On February 14, 2011, the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and 
Petitioners filed their rebuttal briefs.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2009, through 
December 31, 2009. This period corresponds to the two most recent 
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which 
was March 2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``Act''), we conducted verification of the information submitted by 
the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya for use in our final 
determination.\6\ We used standard verification procedures, including 
the examination of relevant accounting and production records, as 
appropriate, as well as original source documents provided by 
respondents.

[[Page 18525]]

However, as detailed in our verification report and discussed further 
below, we were unable verify the information submitted by Xinya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the Department's verification reports on the record of 
this investigation in the CRU, with respect to these entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted in this 
investigation are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for 
the Final Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of 
Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China,'' (``Issues 
and Decision Memorandum'') dated concurrently with this notice, which 
is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties 
have raised and to which we have responded in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and 
Decision Memorandum is a public document on file in the CRU and is 
accessible on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 
electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

     We are amending the language of the scope of the 
antidumping duty (``AD'') and countervailing duty (``CVD'') 
investigations for clarification purposes as described in detail in the 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. See Comment 3, A-J in the 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
     For the final determination, the Department has adjusted 
the Petition rates using the revised surrogate value for labor as 
described in detail in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 
The revised petition margins range from 32.53 percent to 33.28 percent. 
See Comment 1, A-F, Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum; see also March 28, 2011 Memorandum to the File, 
regarding Investigation of Certain Aluminum Extrusions from the 
People's Republic of China: Petition Rate Recalculation (``Petition 
Rate Recalculation Memo'').
     For the final determination, we are applying a rate based 
on adverse facts available (``AFA'') to the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/
Xinya single entity. As AFA we have assigned the highest rate from the 
petition of 33.18 percent, as recalculated for the final 
determination.\7\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5: 
Application of Total AFA; see also Memorandum regarding: Application of 
Total Adverse Facts Available for the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya 
in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the 
People's Republic of China, dated March 28, 2011 (``Guang Ya Group/New 
Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     For the final determination, we have assigned the 29 
separate rate applicants to whom we are granting a separate rate a 
dumping margin of 32.79 percent, based on the simple average of the 
margins alleged in the petition, as recalculated for this final 
determination. See Comment 1, A-F, Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum; see also Petition Rate Recalculation 
Memo, detailing recalculation to correct for a ministerial error.

Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is aluminum 
extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion 
process, made from aluminum alloys having metallic elements 
corresponding to the alloy series designations published by The 
Aluminum Association commencing with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or 
proprietary equivalents or other certifying body equivalents). 
Specifically, the subject merchandise made from aluminum alloy with an 
Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 1 
contains not less than 99 percent aluminum by weight. The subject 
merchandise made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association 
series designation commencing with the number 3 contains manganese as 
the major alloying element, with manganese accounting for not more than 
3.0 percent of total materials by weight. The subject merchandise is 
made from an aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series 
designation commencing with the number 6 contains magnesium and silicon 
as the major alloying elements, with magnesium accounting for at least 
0.1 percent but not more than 2.0 percent of total materials by weight, 
and silicon accounting for at least 0.1 percent but not more than 3.0 
percent of total materials by weight. The subject aluminum extrusions 
are properly identified by a four-digit alloy series without either a 
decimal point or leading letter. Illustrative examples from among the 
approximately 160 registered alloys that may characterize the subject 
merchandise are as follows: 1350, 3003, and 6060.
    Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported in a wide variety of 
shapes and forms, including, but not limited to, hollow profiles, other 
solid profiles, pipes, tubes, bars, and rods. Aluminum extrusions that 
are drawn subsequent to extrusion (``drawn aluminum'') are also 
included in the scope.
    Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported with a variety of 
finishes (both coatings and surface treatments), and types of 
fabrication. The types of coatings and treatments applied to subject 
aluminum extrusions include, but are not limited to, extrusions that 
are mill finished (i.e., without any coating or further finishing), 
brushed, buffed, polished, anodized (including bright-dip anodized), 
liquid painted, or powder coated. Aluminum extrusions may also be 
fabricated, i.e., prepared for assembly. Such operations would include, 
but are not limited to, extrusions that are cut-to-length, machined, 
drilled, punched, notched, bent, stretched, knurled, swedged, mitered, 
chamfered, threaded, and spun. The subject merchandise includes 
aluminum extrusions that are finished (coated, painted, etc.), 
fabricated, or any combination thereof.
    Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of 
importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled 
after importation, including, but not limited to, window frames, door 
frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or furniture. Such parts that 
otherwise meet the definition of aluminum extrusions are included in 
the scope. The scope includes the aluminum extrusion components that 
are attached (e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies, 
i.e., partially assembled merchandise unless imported as part of the 
finished goods `kit' defined further below. The scope does not include 
the non-aluminum extrusion components of subassemblies or subject kits.
    Subject extrusions may be identified with reference to their end 
use, such as fence posts, electrical conduits, heat sinks, door 
thresholds, or carpet trim. Such goods are subject merchandise if they 
otherwise meet the scope definition, regardless of whether they are 
ready for use at the time of importation.
    The following aluminum extrusion products are excluded: Aluminum 
extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series 
designations commencing with the number 2 and containing in excess of 
1.5 percent copper by weight; aluminum extrusions made from aluminum 
alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with 
the number 5 and containing in excess of 1.0 percent magnesium by 
weight; and aluminum extrusions made from

[[Page 18526]]

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation 
commencing with the number 7 and containing in excess of 2.0 percent 
zinc by weight.
    The scope also excludes finished merchandise containing aluminum 
extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and 
completed at the time of entry, such as finished windows with glass, 
doors with glass or vinyl, picture frames with glass pane and backing 
material, and solar panels. The scope also excludes finished goods 
containing aluminum extrusions that are entered unassembled in a 
``finished goods kit.'' A finished goods kit is understood to mean a 
packaged combination of parts that contains, at the time of 
importation, all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final 
finished good and requires no further finishing or fabrication, such as 
cutting or punching, and is assembled `as is' into a finished product. 
An imported product will not be considered a `finished goods kit' and 
therefore excluded from the scope of the investigation merely by 
including fasteners such as screws, bolts, etc. in the packaging with 
an aluminum extrusion product.
    The scope also excludes aluminum alloy sheet or plates produced by 
other than the extrusion process, such as aluminum products produced by 
a method of casting. Cast aluminum products are properly identified by 
four digits with a decimal point between the third and fourth digit. A 
letter may also precede the four digits. The following Aluminum 
Association designations are representative of aluminum alloys for 
casting: 208.0, 295.0, 308.0, 355.0, C355.0, 356.0, A356.0, A357.0, 
360.0, 366.0, 380.0, A380.0, 413.0, 443.0, 514.0, 518.1, and 712.0. The 
scope also excludes pure, unwrought aluminum in any form.
    The scope also excludes collapsible tubular containers composed of 
metallic elements corresponding to alloy code 1080A as designated by 
the Aluminum Association where the tubular container (excluding the 
nozzle) meets each of the following dimensional characteristics: (1) 
Length of 37 mm or 62 mm, (2) outer diameter of 11.0 mm or 12.7 mm, and 
(3) wall thickness not exceeding 0.13 mm.
    Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the 
following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTS''): 7604.21.0000, 7604.29.1000, 7604.29.3010, 
7604.29.3050, 7604.29.5030, 7604.29.5060, 7608.20.0030, and 
7608.20.0090. The subject merchandise entered as parts of other 
aluminum products may be classifiable under the following additional 
Chapter 76 subheadings: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99 
as well as under other HTS chapters. In addition, fin evaporator coils 
may be classifiable under HTS numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and 8418.99.80.60. 
While HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope in this proceeding is 
dispositive.

Scope Comments

    Concurrent with the Preliminary Determination, on October 27, 2010, 
the Department issued a decision memorandum addressing ten scope issues 
in this and the concurrent countervailing duty investigation on 
aluminum extrusions from the PRC.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See October 27, 2010, Memorandum entitled ``Preliminary 
Determinations: Comments on the Scope of the Investigations'' 
(``Preliminary Scope Memorandum''); see also Preliminary 
Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the Preliminary Determination, scope comments received 
on or after October 7, 2010, but prior to the Preliminary Determination 
were not submitted in time for consideration for the Preliminary 
Determination and that, as a result, we would fully consider any such 
comments for the final determination. In addition, it came to our 
attention that our Preliminary Scope Memorandum inadvertently did not 
address scope comments submitted by Petitioners on May 10, 2010. We 
provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
Preliminary Scope Memorandum. In response, multiple parties submitted 
scope case briefs on January 20, 2011, and scope rebuttal briefs on 
January 25, 2011.
    For the final determination, we have considered Petitioners' May 
10, 2010, scope comments, the scope comments provided by all parties on 
or after October 7, 2011, but prior to the Preliminary Determination, 
and the scope case and rebuttal briefs submitted on January 20 and 
January 25, 2011, respectively, and addressed these issues in the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Specifically: Floturn, Inc. (``Floturn'') submitted comments 
on October 7, 2010; Petitioners on October 13, 2010, October 19, 
2010, and October 22, 2010; the Shower Door, Tub and Shower 
Enclosures Manufacturers' Alliance (``SDMA'') on October 7, 2010; 
Eagle Metals, Inc. and Eagle Metals Distributors, Inc. 
(collectively, ``Eagle Metals'') on October 12, 2010, October 13, 
2010, and October 21, 2010; Aavid Thermalloy (``Aavid'') on October 
13, 2010, and October 21, 2010; Brazeway Inc. (``Brazeway'') on 
October 19, 2010, and December 15, 2010; Maine Ornamental, LLC 
(``Maine Ornamental'') on October 22, 2010; and Hubble Power Systems 
(``HPS'') on October 26, 2010. Additionally, Petitioners, Floturn, 
SDMA, Eagle Metals, Aavid, Brazeway, and Maine Ornamental submitted 
scope case briefs on January 20, 2011; Petitioners, Floturn, SDMA, 
and Brazeway submitted scope rebuttal briefs on January 25, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 10, 2010, and in its scope case brief of January 11, 2011, 
Petitioners provided a series of proposed wording changes to clarify 
the scope language of these investigations. No other party provided 
comments on these proposed changes. On February 28, 2011, the 
Department requested that Petitioners clarify whether the Petition 
intended to cover the non-aluminum components of subject kits and 
subassemblies and that Petitioners provide language if the intent of 
the Petition was to not cover the non-aluminum components. On March 9, 
2011, Petitioners submitted clarifying language stipulating that it is 
the intent of the petition to cover only the aluminum extrusion 
components of entries of subject aluminum extrusion subassemblies or 
subject kits.
    We have adopted all of Petitioners' clarifications for the final 
determination. For a complete discussion of the parties' scope-related 
comments (including the clarifications discussed above) and the 
Department's position, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
accompanying this notice at Comment 3, A-J.

Targeted Dumping

    Because we are basing the margin of the sole mandatory respondent 
on total AFA for the final determination, we have not considered 
Petitioners' targeted dumping allegation for the final determination.

Surrogate Country

    In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected 
India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation 
for the following reasons: (1) It is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the PRC, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the 
Act; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use to value 
the FOPs. See Preliminary Determination. For the final determination, 
we received no comments on surrogate country selection and, 
accordingly, made no changes to our findings with respect to the 
selection of a surrogate country.

Affiliation

    For the reasons set forth in our Preliminary Determination, we 
continue to find the entities comprising the Guang Ya Group, and the 
entities

[[Page 18527]]

comprising New Zhongya, affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of 
the Act, as each entity is owned by a member of the Kuang family. 
Further, we find that New Zhongya is affiliated with one of its 
reported customers during the POI pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the 
Act.\10\ Furthermore, we continue to find the Guang Ya Group/New 
Zhongya and Xinya affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See March 28, 2011, Memorandum regarding the Investigation 
of Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination Regarding Affiliation and Collapsing of Guang Ya 
Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd., Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., 
Ltd., Kong Ah International Co., Ltd., and Guang Ya Aluminium 
Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd.; Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., 
Ltd., Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Ltd., Karlton Aluminum 
Co., Ltd.; and Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. 
(``Final Affiliation/Collapsing Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making this determination, we note that the Guang Ya Group and 
New Zhongya each stated on the record that a Kuang sibling was 
``Shareholder'' of Xinya, and though the Guang Ya Group also made other 
inconsistent statements regarding ownership of Xinya, neither party has 
recanted these original statements. Further, because the ownership 
information provided by Xinya could not be verified, we do not accord 
any weight to its ownership claims, which constitute unverifiable 
information. Thus, we continue to find that the record evidence 
indicates that Xinya is owned by a member of the Kuang family. Because 
each entity is owned by a member of the Kuang family, we conclude that 
the owners of Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya are members of a 
family grouping, pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the Act. Further, we 
find that the ownership by the family grouping satisfies the 
requirement of affiliation pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act, 
because all of the companies within the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, 
and Xinya are under the common control of the family grouping.
    To the extent that section 771(33) of the Act does not conflict 
with the Department's application of separate rates and enforcement of 
the non-market economy (``NME'') provision or section 773(c) of the 
Act, the Department will determine that affiliated exporters and/or 
producers are a single entity if the facts of the case support such a 
finding.\11\ The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') has upheld the 
Department's practice of determining whether to treat two or more 
companies as a single entity for antidumping purposes based on a 
consideration of whether there exists a significant potential for 
manipulation of prices and/or export decisions.\12\ The determination 
to treat the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya as a single entity, 
is based on a finding that the family grouping holds essentially full 
ownership of the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya, all of which 
are producers and/or exporters of merchandise under consideration in 
this investigation. Therefore, in considering the level of common 
ownership pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(i), we find nearly 100 
percent common ownership of the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya 
by the family grouping. In this context, the family in question is the 
``person'' jointly owning and controlling the Guang Ya Group, New 
Zhongya, and Xinya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Sixth New Shipper Review and 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fourth Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 10410, 10413 (March 5, 2004) 
(``Mushrooms''), unchanged in Final Results and Final Rescission, in 
Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 54361 
(September 14, 2005).
    \12\ See Hontex Enterprises v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 
1225, 1230-34 (CIT 2004) (``Hontex II'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(ii), the extent to which managerial 
employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of 
an affiliated firm, the record of this proceeding shows that Kuang 
family members sit on the boards of, and have management positions at, 
the Guang Ya Group, and New Zhongya, as described above. With respect 
to the third criterion for finding significant potential for 
manipulation, 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(iii), the presence of intertwined 
operations, information on the record indicates significant financial 
transactions between Xinya and the owner of New Zhongya, which are 
recorded as part of New Zhongya's accounting records.\13\ Accordingly, 
we find that the relationship between the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, 
and Xinya poses a significant potential for the manipulation of price 
or production pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See January 28, 2010, Memorandum regarding the Verification 
of the Sales and Factors Responses of Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum 
Co., Ltd. (``ZNZ''), Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited 
(``Shaped Aluminum'') and Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd. 
(``Karlton'') (collectively ``New Zhongya'') in the Less-Than-Fair 
Value Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the People's 
Republic of China (``New Zhongya Verification Report''), at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, by virtue of the common ownership of the three entities, 
family members on the boards of at least two of the companies, evidence 
of financial transactions between two of these entities, and the fact 
that all entities produce and/or export merchandise under 
consideration, we find that there exists the significant potential for 
manipulation such that the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya and Xinya should 
be treated as a single entity.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 47198 (September 15, 
2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all exporters within the country are 
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign 
all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation involving an 
NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it 
is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''), 
and 19 CFR 351.107(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Determination, we found that the mandatory 
respondent (i.e., the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya) \16\ and 29 separate-
rate applicants demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate 
status. Specifically, both Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya provided, and 
the Department successfully verified, the requisite information to 
demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto government control 
over their respective export activities. For the final determination, 
we continue to find that the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya single entity 
is eligible for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Because there is no record information to indicate that 
Xinya, which is part of this collapsed entity, is an exporter to the 
United States, Xinya is not eligible for consideration of a separate 
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, because no parties commented on the separate-rate status 
of the other separate-rate applicants and no information has come to 
light that would alter our preliminary findings, we continue to find 
that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the 29 
separate-rate applicants to whom we preliminarily granted separate rate 
status demonstrates both a de jure and de facto absence of government 
control, with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise 
under investigation; thus they are eligible for separate-rate status. 
See Preliminary Determination.
    In the Preliminary Determination, we denied separate rate status to 
one

[[Page 18528]]

separate rate applicant, Shanghai Canghai Aluminum Tube Packing Co. 
(``Shanghai Canghai''), but stated that we would provide it with an 
additional opportunity to correct deficiencies submitted in its 
original separate rate application (``SRA'') and September 8, 2010, 
Supplemental Questionnaire Response (``SQR'') to the Department's 
supplemental questionnaire.\17\ On November 27, 2010, the Department 
sent another letter to Shanghai Canghai rejecting its September 8, 
2010, SQR because of procedural deficiencies and because it contained 
insufficient documentation to analyze Shanghai Canghai's eligibility 
for a separate rate, including incomplete narrative responses to the 
questions asked and no translations. In this letter, however, we also 
provided Shanghai Canghai an opportunity to re-submit its response to 
correct these deficiencies.\18\ On or about December 9, 2010, the 
Department received Shanghai Canghai's response to the Department's 
November 27, 2010, letter. However, the December 9, 2010, SQR was not 
filed in conformance with the Department's regulations regarding 
filing, service, or certification of documents (see 19 CFR 351.303). 
Further, Shanghai Canghai's December 9, 2010, SQR again provided no 
narrative responses to any of the Department's questions from the 
separate-rate application. As a result, on March 17, 2011, the 
Department sent a letter to Shanghai Canghai rejecting its December 9, 
2010, response. Because Shanghai Canghai has failed to respond 
adequately to the Department's request for separate rate information 
despite being given several opportunities to do so, the Department has 
not considered Shanghai Canghai's submission for the final 
determination nor retained it for the record. Thus, for this final 
determination, we are not granting Shanghai Canghai a separate rate, 
and it is part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Preliminary Determination, the Department's June 25, 
2010, letter to Shanghai Canghai granting the company's request to 
extend the deadline for its SRA submission to July 2, 2010, and the 
Department's August 18, 2010, letter to Shanghai Canghai regarding 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the 
People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questionnaire--Separate 
Rate Application.
    \18\ See the Department's November 27, 2010, letter to Shanghai 
Canghai regarding re-filing its Separate Rate Supplemental 
Questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin for the Separate Rate Companies

    Since we assigned the individually examined respondent a dumping 
margin based on total AFA, we do not have any mandatory respondents in 
this investigation whose dumping margin is not based on AFA. Thus, we 
have assigned the 29 separate rate applicants to whom we are granting a 
separate rate a dumping margin based on the simple average of the 
margins alleged in the petition, as recalculated for the final 
determination.

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested 
party: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or 
in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to sections 
782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding 
under the antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching 
the applicable determination.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time}  for 
information, notifies {the Department{time}  that such party is unable 
to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, 
together with a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in 
which such party is able to submit the information,'' the Department 
may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on 
that party.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent 
responses, as appropriate.
    Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established 
deadline; (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; and (5) the information can 
be used without undue difficulties.
    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the 
Department ``finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information from the {Department{time} , the {Department{time} , in 
reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See also Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Rep. No. 
103-316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this final determination, in accordance with sections 
773(c)(3)(A) and (B) of the Act and sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 
and (D) and 776(b) of the Act, we have determined that the use of AFA 
is warranted for the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya, and the PRC-wide 
entity as discussed below.

Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya

    The Department has determined that the information to construct an 
accurate and otherwise reliable margin is not available on the record 
with respect to the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya. The Department 
reached this determination because the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya 
withheld information that had been requested, failed to provide such 
information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, 
significantly impeded this proceeding, and provided information that 
could not be verified, pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(A), (B), 
(C) and (D) of the of Act.\20\ Specifically, Guang Ya Group's narrative 
questionnaire responses did not comport with the data sections of those 
same responses; moreover, the factors of production data submitted by 
Guang Ya Group post-verification did not reflect the data verified by 
the Department at Guang Ya Group's facilities. New Zhongya mis-reported 
a portion of its U.S. sales indicating that they were constructed 
export price sales to the first unaffiliated party in the United States 
when in fact they were the transfer price sales to its U.S. affiliated 
party. Finally, Xinya provided no documentation at verification to 
demonstrate its claimed ownership. For additional detail, see Guang Ya 
Group/New Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo. As a result, the Department has 
determined to apply the facts otherwise available. Further, because the 
Department finds that the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/

[[Page 18529]]

Xinya failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined to use an 
adverse inference when applying facts available for the final 
determination in this investigation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo.
    \21\ See Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PRC-Wide Entity

    Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within an 
NME country are subject to government control, and because only the 
companies listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section, 
below, have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single 
antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters of 
subject merchandise from the PRC because these other companies did not 
demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate.\22\ The PRC-wide rate 
applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from 
the companies eligible for separate rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of 
China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that there 
were producers/exporters of the subject merchandise during the POI from 
the PRC that did not respond to the Department's request for 
information. Further, we treated these PRC producers/exporters as part 
of the PRC-wide entity because they did not demonstrate their 
eligibility for a separate rate. Additionally, as a result of the PRC-
wide entity's failure to respond to our requests for information we 
further determined that, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, 
the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of 
its ability to comply with requests for information. See id. 
Accordingly, we also determined that in selecting from among the facts 
available an adverse inference was warranted because of the PRC-wide 
entity's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability. As AFA, we 
preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity a recalculated rate of 
33.18 percent, the highest calculated rate from the petition, as 
recalculated for the Amended Preliminary Determination.\23\ See 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 
103-316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (``SAA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Amended Preliminary Determination; see also the 
December 10, 2010, Memorandum to the File, regarding the 
Investigation of Certain Aluminum Extrusions from the People's 
Republic of China: Petition Rate recalculation; (``Amended Prelim 
Petition Rate Recalculation Memo''); and the December 10, 2010, 
Memorandum to the File, regarding the Amended Preliminary 
Determination Analysis Memorandum (``Amended Preliminary 
Determination Analysis Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for 
information, significantly impeded the proceeding, and withheld 
information requested by the Department, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, we determine, as in the 
Preliminary Determination, that in selecting from among the facts 
available an adverse inference is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide 
rate, recalculated for the final determination, because of the PRC-wide 
entity's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on 
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in 
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any 
information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for 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.'' \25\ It is also the Department's 
practice to select a rate that ensures ``that the party does not obtain 
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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).
    \26\ See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; 
Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 
(November 18, 2005); See also SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the Department finds selecting the highest rate in any 
segment of the proceeding as AFA to be appropriate.\27\ It is the 
Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest 
margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of 
any respondent in the investigation.\28\ In the instant investigation, 
as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity the highest petition 
rate (as recalculated for the final determination) on the record of 
this proceeding that can be corroborated, 33.28 percent, as re-
calculated for the final determination.\29\ For the final determination 
in this investigation, the Department has selected this rate as the 
most appropriate from the available sources to effectuate the purposes 
of AFA. Accordingly, the Department has assigned both the Guang Ya 
Group/New Zhongya/Xinya and the PRC-wide entity an AFA rate of 33.28 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic 
of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 (December 
28, 2005) unchanged in final, Certain Cased Pencils from the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
    \28\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's 
Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Facts Available.''
    \29\ See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo; see also Comment 1C, 
Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it 
must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from 
independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. We have 
interpreted ``corroborate'' to mean that we will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
submitted.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 
Products From Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 4, 2000); see, 
e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As total AFA, the Department preliminarily selected the highest 
adjusted petition rate of 33.28 percent.\31\ In the Amended Preliminary 
Determination, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we 
corroborated our AFA margin by comparing it to the control number 
(``CONNUM'') margins we found for the cooperating mandatory 
respondents. We found that the margin of 33.18 percent had probative 
value because it was in the range of CONNUM model margins we found for 
the mandatory respondents, the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya, during 
the period of

[[Page 18530]]

investigation.\32\ Accordingly, we found that the rate of 33.28 
percent, which is only one tenth of a one percent difference from the 
rate applied in the Amended Preliminary Determination is corroborated 
within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Amended Preliminary Determination; see also Amended 
Prelim Petition Rate Recalculation Memo; and the December 21, 2010, 
Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, from Wendy Frankel, Director, Office 8, entitled 
``Ministerial Error Memorandum, Aluminum Extrusions from the 
People's Republic of China, Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value'' (``Ministerial Error Memo''), at Issue 4.
    \32\ See Amended Preliminary Determination Analysis Memo.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because there are no cooperating mandatory respondents to 
corroborate the 33.28 percent margin used as AFA for the Guang Ya 
Group/New Zhongya/Xinya and the PRC-wide entity, to the extent 
appropriate information was available, we revisited our pre-initiation 
analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the 
petition. See Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China, dated April 
20, 2010 (``Initiation Checklist''). We examined evidence supporting 
the calculations in the petition and the supplemental information 
provided by Petitioners prior to initiation to determine the probative 
value of the margins alleged in the petition. During our pre-initiation 
analysis, we examined the information used as the basis of export price 
and normal value (``NV'') in the petition, and the calculations used to 
derive the alleged margins. Also during our pre-initiation analysis, we 
examined information from various independent sources provided either 
in the petition or, based on our requests, in supplements to the 
petition (e.g., Global Trade Atlas, and Petitioners' experience with 
selling and producing the merchandise under consideration), which 
corroborated key elements of the export price and NV calculations. See 
Initiation Checklist at 6-10. We received no comments as to the 
relevance or probative value of this information. In our examination of 
the petition data to corroborate the 33.28 percent AFA rate for the 
final determination, the Department found nothing impinging the 
reliability or relevance of the petition rate, as adjusted.
    We did receive comments on the Department's wage rate calculation, 
which was utilized to derive the petition margin. We have evaluated 
those comments and recalculated the labor wage rate used in calculating 
the Petition margin.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo; see also Comment 1C, 
Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Department finds that the margin of 33.28 percent 
has probative value for the purpose of being selected as the AFA rate 
assigned to the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya and the PRC-wide 
entity.

Combination Rates

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that it 
would assign combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a 
separate rate in this investigation.\35\ This practice is described in 
the Separate Rate Policy Bulletin.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Preliminary Determination; see also Aluminum Extrusions 
from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation, 75 FR 22109 (``Initiation Notice'').
    \36\ See Memorandum entitled ``Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries'' dated April 5, 2005, 
available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination Margins

    The weighted-average dumping margin percentages are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
           Exporter *                    Producer             average
                                                              margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guang Ya Aluminium Industries    Guang Ya Aluminium                33.28
 Co., Ltd.; Foshan Guangcheng     Industries Co., Ltd.;
 Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Kong Ah     Foshan Guangcheng
 International Company Limited;   Aluminium Co., Ltd.;
 Guang Ya Aluminium Industries    Kong Ah International
 (Hong Kong) Limited.             Company Limited; Guang
                                  Ya Aluminium
                                  Industries (Hong Kong)
                                  Limited; Zhaoqing New
                                  Zhongya Aluminum Co.,
                                  Ltd.; Zhongya Shaped
                                  Aluminium (HK) Holding
                                  Limited; Karlton
                                  Aluminum Company Ltd.;
                                  Xinya Aluminum &
                                  Stainless Steel
                                  Product Co., Ltd.
                                  (A.K.A. New Asia
                                  Aluminum & Stainless
                                  Steel Product Co.,
                                  Ltd.).
Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum    Guang Ya Aluminium                33.28
 Co., Ltd.; Zhongya Shaped        Industries Co., Ltd.;
 Aluminium (HK) Holding           Foshan Guangcheng
 Limited; Karlton Aluminum        Aluminium Co., Ltd.;
 Company Ltd.                     Kong Ah International
                                  Company Limited; Guang
                                  Ya Aluminium
                                  Industries (Hong Kong)
                                  Limited; Zhaoqing New
                                  Zhongya Aluminum Co.,
                                  Ltd.; Zhongya Shaped
                                  Aluminium (HK) Holding
                                  Limited; Karlton
                                  Aluminum Company Ltd.;
                                  Xinya Aluminum &
                                  Stainless Steel
                                  Product Co., Ltd.
                                  (A.K.A. New Asia
                                  Aluminum & Stainless
                                  Steel Product Co.,
                                  Ltd.).
Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd.......  Alnan Aluminium Co.,              32.79
                                  Ltd.
Changshu Changsheng Aluminium    Changshu Changsheng               32.79
 Products Co., Ltd.               Aluminium Products
                                  Co., Ltd.
China Square Industrial Limited  Zhaoqing China Square             32.79
                                  Industry Limited.
Cosco (J.M.) Aluminium Co., Ltd  Cosco (J.M.) Aluminium            32.79
                                  Co., Ltd.; Jiangmen
                                  Qunxing Hardware
                                  Diecasting Co., Ltd.
First Union Property Limited...  Top-Wok Metal Co., Ltd.           32.79
Foshan Jinlan Non-ferrous Metal  Foshan Jinlan Aluminium           32.79
 Product Co. Ltd.                 Co. Ltd.
Foshan Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium  Foshan Sanshui Fenglu             32.79
 Co., Ltd.                        Aluminium Co., Ltd.
Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium      Guangdong Hao Mei                 32.79
 Co., Ltd.                        Aluminium Co., Ltd.
Guangdong Weiye Aluminium        Guangdong Weiye                   32.79
 Factory Co., Ltd.                Aluminium Factory Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Guangdong Xingfa Aluminium Co.,  Guangdong Xingfa                  32.79
 Ltd.                             Aluminium Co., Ltd.
Hanwood Enterprises Limited....  Pingguo Aluminium                 32.79
                                  Company Limited.
Honsense Development Company...  Kanal Precision                   32.79
                                  Aluminium Product Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Innovative Aluminium (Hong       Taishan Golden Gain               32.79
 Kong) Limited.                   Aluminium Products
                                  Limited.
Jiangyin Trust International     Jiangyin Xinhong Doors            32.79
 Inc.                             and Windows Co., Ltd.
JMA (HK) Company Limited.......  Guangdong Jianmei                 32.79
                                  Aluminum Profile
                                  Company Limited;
                                  Foshan JMA Aluminium
                                  Company Limited.
Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn   Tai Shan City Kam Kiu             32.79
 Bhd.                             Aluminium Extrusion
                                  Co., Ltd.
Longkou Donghai Trade Co., Ltd.  Shandong Nanshan                  32.79
                                  Aluminum Co., Ltd.

[[Page 18531]]

 
Ningbo Yili Import and Export    Zhejiang Anji Xinxiang            32.79
 Co., Ltd.                        Aluminum Co., Ltd.
North China Aluminum Co., Ltd..  North China Aluminum              32.79
                                  Co., Ltd.
PanAsia Aluminium (China)        PanAsia Aluminium                 32.79
 Limited.                         (China) Limited.
Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd.  Pingguo Asia Aluminum             32.79
                                  Co., Ltd.
Popular Plastics Co., Ltd......  Hoi Tat Plastic Mould &           32.79
                                  Metal Factory.
Press Metal International Ltd..  Press Metal                       32.79
                                  International Ltd.
Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium        Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum            32.79
 Industry Engineering Co. Ltd.    Factory Company
                                  Limited; Guang Ya
                                  Aluminum Industries
                                  Co., Ltd.
Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co.,  Tai-Ao Aluminium                  32.79
 Ltd.                             (Taishan) Co., Ltd.
Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat     Tianjin Ruixin Electric           32.79
 Transmission Technology Co.,     Heat Transmission
 Ltd.                             Technology Co., Ltd.
USA Worldwide Door Components    USA Worldwide Door                32.79
 (Pinghu) Co., Ltd; Worldwide     Components (Pinghu)
 Door Components (Pinghu) Co.     Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Yongkang Listar         Zhejiang Yongkang                 32.79
 Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd.     Listar Aluminium
                                  Industry Co., Ltd.
Zhongshan Gold Mountain          Zhongshan Gold Mountain           32.79
 Aluminium Factory Ltd.           Aluminium Factory Ltd.
PRC-wide Entity................  .......................           33.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Because Xinya did not export subject merchandise to the United States
  during the POI, for the final determination, Xinya is not being
  considered for a separate rate.

Disclosure

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

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue to 
suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise entered or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. 
We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond 
equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. 
price, as follows: (1) The rate for the exporter/producer combinations 
listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in this 
final determination; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 
the PRC-wide rate; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer 
combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
    Additionally, as the Department has determined in its concurrent 
CVD investigation that the merchandise under investigation exported by 
the Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya benefitted from export subsidies, we 
will instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or posting of 
a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the 
U.S. price for the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya, as indicated 
above, reduced by the simple average of the amounts determined to 
constitute export subsidies for the Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya 
(0.26 percent).\37\ For the separate-rate companies, none of which were 
selected as respondents in the CVD investigation, we will instruct CBP 
to reduce the dumping margin by the amount of export subsidies included 
in the All Others rate from the CVD final determination (42.16 
percent), published concurrently with this notice.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with 
this notice; see also Memorandum: Countervailing Duty Investigation 
of Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: 
Derivation of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Net Subsidy Rate Applied 
in Final Determination (March 28, 2011).
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of 
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance 
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will, within 45 days, 
determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is 
materially injured or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the 
subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or 
threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be 
terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If 
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will 
issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn 
from warehouse for consumption on or after the effective date of the 
suspension of liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or 
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 28, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I--List of Issues

I. General Issues

Comment 1: Labor Wage Rate
    A. Whether the Department Should Calculate the Surrogate Value 
for Labor Using Multiple Surrogate Countries or a Single Country, 
India
    B. If the Department Continues to Rely on a Basket of Countries, 
Whether that Data Should Be Limited to 2006 Data Onward and Should 
Exclude Ecuador
    C. Whether the Department's Wage Rate Calculation as to the 
Ukraine is in Error
    D. Whether To Use 2009 GNI Data Because it is Contemporaneous 
With the POI
    E. Whether To Revise the Department's ``Bookend'' Countries 
Using Absolute Differences in GNI Data

[[Page 18532]]

    F. Whether To Use the 2008 Wage Data for the Philippines Rather 
Than the 2003 Data
Comment 2: Double Remedies
Comment 3: Scope of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.