1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind Review in Part, 19325-19329 [2011-8347]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices
disclosed under the APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the 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.
These new shipper reviews and notice
are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.
Dated: March 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–8323 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–934]
1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Intent To Rescind Review
in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a timely
request from Compass Chemical
International LLC (‘‘Petitioner’’), the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on 1hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic
acid (‘‘HEDP’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The period
of review (‘‘POR’’) is April 23, 2009,
through March 31, 2010. This
administrative review covers two
exporters of the subject merchandise
that are being individually examined as
mandatory respondents.
The Department has preliminarily
determined that one mandatory
respondent, Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical
Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jiangsu Jianghai’’), did
not demonstrate that it is entitled to a
separate rate. Therefore, the Department
has treated Jiangsu Jianghai as part of
the PRC-wide entity. The other
mandatory respondent, Changzhou
Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Wujin Fine’’), reported that it did not
ship subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR. Because record
evidence does not contradict Wujin
Fine’s no-shipment claim, the
Department intends to rescind the
administrative review with respect to
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:53 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
this company. If these preliminary
results are adopted in the final results
of review, the Department will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on
entries of subject merchandise during
the POR for which the importer-specific
assessment rates are above de minimis.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties that submit comments are
requested to submit with each argument
a statement of the issue and a brief
summary of the argument. The
Department intends to issue the final
results of this review no later than 120
days from the date of publication of this
notice.
DATES: Effective Date: April 7, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shawn Higgins, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–0679.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 28, 2009, the Department
published the antidumping duty order
on HEDP from the PRC in the Federal
Register.1 On April 1, 2010, the
Department notified interested parties of
their opportunity to request an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on HEDP from
the PRC.2 On April 30, 2010, Petitioner
requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review of Jiangsu
Jianghai and Wujin Fine.3 On May 28,
2010, the Department published a notice
initiating an antidumping duty
administrative review of the Order
covering Jiangsu Jianghai and Wujin
Fine during the period April 23, 2009,
through March 31, 2010.4
The Initiation Notice notified parties
that they must submit timely separate
rate applications or separate rate
certifications in order to qualify for a
separate rate.5 The Department did not
1 See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic
Acid from India and the People’s Republic of
China: Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 19197
(April 28, 2009) (‘‘Order’’).
2 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 16426
(April 1, 2010).
3 See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of
Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid (HEDP) from The People’s
Republic of China (PRC): Request for
Administrative Review’’ (April 30, 2010).
4 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR
29976 (May 28, 2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
5 Id., 75 FR at 29976–77.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19325
receive any separate rate applications or
separate rate certifications.
On June 7, 2010, the Department
issued antidumping questionnaires to
Jiangsu Jianghai and Wujin Fine.6 In
June and July 2010, Jiangsu Jianghai and
Wujin Fine submitted letters certifying
that they did not ship subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR.7 From July through September
2010, the Department requested and
received import data and entry
documentation from CBP. The
Department placed this information on
the record of this review and solicited
comments from interested parties.8
Petitioner, Jiangsu Jianghai, and Wujin
Fine submitted comments on this
import data and entry documentation in
August and October 2010.9 On October
25, 2010, the Department informed
Jiangsu Jianghai that record CBP data
6 See, e.g., Letter from Robert Bolling, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Jiangsu
Jianghai, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic
Acid from the People’s Republic of China:
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co., Ltd.’’ (June 7,
2010) (‘‘antidumping questionnaire’’).
7 See Letter from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary
of Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India and
the People’s Republic of China; A–570–934; Copy
of Certification of No Shipments by Jiangsu Jianghai
Chemical Group Co., Ltd.’’ (July 13, 2010); Letter
from Wujin Fine to the Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘1Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from
the Republic of India and the People’s Republic of
China; A–570–934; Notification by Changzhou
Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd.’’ (June 28,
2010).
8 See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, to Interested Parties, ‘‘2009–
2010 Administrative Review of 1Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from
the People’s Republic of China; Placing CBP Data
and Entry Documents on the Record’’ (August 13,
2010); Memorandum from Shawn Higgins,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, to Interested Parties, ‘‘2009–
2010 Administrative Review of 1Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from
the People’s Republic of China; Placing CBP Data
and Entry Documents on the Record’’ (September
24, 2010) (‘‘CBP Data and Entry Documents’’).
9 See Letter from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary
of Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethyidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India and
the People’s Republic of China; A–570–934;
Comments on Customs and Border Protection Data
by Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co., Ltd.’’
(August 19, 2010); Letter from Wujin Fine to the
Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethyidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India and
the People’s Republic of China; A–570–934;
Comments on Customs and Border Protection Data
by Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co.,
Ltd.’’ (August 19, 2010); Letter from Jiangsu Jianghai
to the Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘1Hydroxyethyidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from
the Republic of India and the People’s Republic of
China; A–570–934; Comments on Customs and
Border Protection Data by Jiangsu Jianghai
Chemical Group Co., Ltd.’’ (October 4, 2010); Letter
from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘1Hydroxyethidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the
People’s Republic of China’’ (October 4, 2010).
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
19326
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
and entry documentation indicated that
Jiangsu Jianghai had a shipment of
subject merchandise that entered the
United States during the POR.10 Further,
the Department explained that it is
necessary for Jiangsu Jianghai to provide
the information requested by the
Department in the antidumping
questionnaire because the entry date of
Jiangsu Jianghai’s shipment was within
the POR and there is no record evidence
in this review of circumstances that
compel the Department to employ an
atypical methodology to determine the
universe of sales to be examined during
this review.11
In November and December 2010,
Jiangsu Jianghai submitted timely
responses to Sections A, C, and D of the
antidumping questionnaire.12 The
Department issued a supplementary
Sections A and C questionnaire and a
supplementary Section D questionnaire
to Jiangsu Jianghai on December 9, 2010,
and December 17, 2010, respectively.13
Jiangsu Jianghai neither responded to
these supplementary questionnaires nor
asked for extensions of time to
respond.14
In response to the Department’s
November 12, 2010, letter providing all
interested parties with an opportunity to
submit comments regarding surrogate
10 See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Jiangsu
Jianghai, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic
Acid from the People’s Republic of China:
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co., Ltd.’’ (October
25, 2010) (‘‘Shipment Letter’’) at 2.
11 Id.
12 See Memorandum from Jiangsu Jianghai to the
Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India and
the People’s Republic of China; A–570–934; Section
A Response’’ (November 19, 2010) (‘‘Section A
Response’’); Memorandum from Jiangsu Jianghai to
the Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India
and the People’s Republic of China; A–570–934;
Section C Response’’ (December 1, 2010);
Memorandum from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary
of Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India and
the People’s Republic of China; A–570–934; Section
D Response of Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co.,
Ltd.’’ (December 9, 2010).
13 See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Jiangsu
Jianghai, ‘‘Sections A & C Supplemental
Questionnaire’’ (December 9, 2010) (‘‘Sections A &
C Supplemental’’); Letter from Robert Bolling,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to
Jiangsu Jianghai, ‘‘Section D Supplemental
Questionnaire’’ (December 17, 2010).
14 See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 1Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from
the People’s Republic of China: Telephone
Conversation With Counsel for Jiangsu Jianghai
Chemical Group Co., Ltd.’’ (January 3, 2011)
(‘‘Telephone Conversation Memo’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:53 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
country and surrogate value selection,15
Petitioner filed surrogate country and
surrogate value comments in November
and December 2010.16
On December 1, 2010, the Department
extended the time period for completing
the preliminary results of this
administrative review until March 31,
2011.17
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order
includes all grades of aqueous, acidic
(non-neutralized) concentrations of 1hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic
acid,18 also referred to as
hydroxethlylidenediphosphonic acid,
hydroxyethanediphosphonic acid,
acetodiphosphonic acid, and etidronic
acid. The CAS (Chemical Abstract
Service) registry number for HEDP is
2809–21–4. The merchandise subject to
the order is currently classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheading
2931.00.9043. It may also enter under
HTSUS subheading 2811.19.6090.
While HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes
only, the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
Intent To Partially Rescind the
Administrative Review
As stated above, Jiangsu Jianghai and
Wujin Fine submitted letters certifying
that they did not ship subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR. To test these claims, the
Department ran a CBP data query,
issued no-shipment inquiries to CBP
requesting that it provide any
information that contradicted these noshipment claims, and obtained entry
documentation from CBP. After
examining this information, the
Department has preliminarily
determined that Jiangsu Jianghai had a
shipment of subject merchandise that
entered the United States during the
15 See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to All
Interested Parties, ‘‘Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on 1-Hydroxyethylidene1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People’s Republic
of China: Request for Comments on Selection of
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values’’
(November 12, 2010).
16 See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of
Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid from the People’s Republic of
China’’ (November 30, 2010); Letter from Petitioner
to the Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘1Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from
the People’s Republic of China’’ (December 16,
2010).
17 See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic
Acid From the People’s Republic of China:
Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 74684 (December 1, 2010).
18 C H O P or C(CH )(OH)(PO H ) .
2 8 7 2
3
3 2 2
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
POR.19 However, because the evidence
on the record does not contradict Wujin
Fine’s no-shipment claim, the
Department intends to rescind this
administrative review with respect to
Wujin Fine, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3).
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
‘‘Act’’), any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. None of the
parties to this proceeding have
contested NME treatment.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department maintains a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control.20 In
accordance with this presumption, all
exporters of subject merchandise in an
NME country are assigned a single rate
unless an exporter can affirmatively
demonstrate its entitlement to a
separate, company-specific margin by
showing an absence of government
control, both in law and in fact, with
respect to export activities.21 To
determine whether de jure government
control exists, the Department examines
evidence of: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with an
individual exporter’s business and
export license; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; or (3) any other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.22
Evidence supporting de facto absence of
government control includes: (1)
Whether each exporter sets its own
export prices independently of the
government; (2) whether each exporter
has the authority to negotiate and sign
contracts and other agreements; (3)
whether each exporter has autonomy
from the government in making
decisions regarding the selection of
19 See
Shipment Letter at 2.
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d
1401, 1405–06 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
21 Id., 117 F.3d at 1405.
22 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s Republic of
China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991)
(‘‘Sparklers’’); Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd. v.
United States, 710 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1355–56 (Ct.
Int’l Trade 2010) (‘‘Qingdao Taifa’’) (citing Coal. for
the Pres. of Am. Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermarket
Mfrs. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 229, 242 (Ct.
Int’l Trade 1999) (‘‘Brake Drum’’)).
20 See
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices
management; and (4) whether each
exporter can retain the proceeds from its
export sales and make independent
decisions regarding disposition of
profits or financing of losses.23
On November 19, 2010, Jiangsu
Jianghai submitted its response to
Section A of the antidumping
questionnaire.24 Jiangsu Jianghai’s
submission was incomplete and
contained information insufficient to
overcome the presumption that Jiangsu
Jianghai’s export activities are
controlled, in law and in fact, by the
PRC government. On December 9, 2010,
the Department issued Jiangsu Jianghai
a supplementary questionnaire that
requested Jiangsu Jianghai to correct
these deficiencies and provide
additional information necessary to
determine whether it qualified for a
separate rate.25 On January 3, 2011, the
Department received confirmation that
Jiangsu Jianghai would not provide the
Department with the information
requested in the December 9, 2010
supplementary questionnaire.26
Therefore, by submitting incomplete
and unverifiable responses to questions
regarding government control of its
export activities and not responding to
the Department’s supplementary
questionnaire, Jiangsu Jianghai has
prevented the Department from further
investigating the facts related to the
question of government control and
failed to demonstrate an absence of de
jure and de facto government control
under the criteria identified in Sparklers
and Silicon Carbide.
Moreover, by submitting incomplete
and unverifiable responses to the
antidumping questionnaire and not
responding to either the Department’s
December 9, 2010, supplementary
Sections A and C questionnaire or its
December 17, 2010, supplementary
Section D questionnaire, Jiangsu
Jianghai did not meet its requirement to
fully participate in this administrative
review by responding to all information
that has been requested by the
Department.27 The Department does not
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
23 See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586–
87 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide,’’); Qingdao
Taifa, 710 F. Supp. 2d at 1356 (citing Brake Drum,
44 F. Supp. 2d at 243).
24 See Section A Response.
25 See Sections A & C Supplemental at Enclosure
1–3.
26 See Telephone Conversation Memo.
27 See antidumping questionnaire at G–1 (‘‘[A]s a
respondent, your company must wholly and fully
participate in this administrative review. * * * a
respondent must respond to all information that has
been requested by the Department’’); Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:53 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
permit respondents to selectively
choose which requests to respond to or
which information to submit.28 Jiangsu
Jianghai cannot qualify for separate rate
status by participating in only limited
aspects of this review while
simultaneously failing to provide
complete and verifiable data with
respect to other required elements.29
Therefore, the Department has
preliminarily determined that Jiangsu
Jianghai does not qualify for a separate
rate because it has failed to demonstrate
an absence of de jure and de facto
government control under the criteria
identified in Sparklers and Silicon
Carbide and did not fully participate in
this administrative review. Accordingly,
the Department is treating Jiangsu
Jianghai as part of the PRC-wide entity.
Moreover, because Jiangsu Jianghai’s
responses to the antidumping
questionnaire cannot be verified and
Jiangsu Jianghai did not remedy the
deficiencies noted in the Department’s
supplementary questionnaires, the
Department has, in accordance with
sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act,
preliminarily determined to disregard
all of Jiangsu Jianghai’s responses to the
antidumping questionnaire.
Use of Facts Available and Adverse
Facts Available (‘‘AFA’’)
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that
the Department shall apply ‘‘facts
otherwise available’’ if: (1) Necessary
information is not on the record, or (2)
an interested party or any other person
(A) withholds information that has been
requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines
established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding, or (D) provides information
that cannot be verified as provided by
section 782(i) of the Act.
Further, Section 776(b) of the Act
provides that the Department may use
an adverse inference in applying the
facts otherwise available when a party
has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Such an adverse
inference may include reliance on
information derived from the petition,
the final determination, a previous
administrative review, or other
information placed on the record.
74 FR 41374 (August 17, 2009) (‘‘Furniture’’) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 32.
28 See antidumping questionnaire at G–1.
29 See Furniture, and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 32; see also
antidumping questionnaire at G–1.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19327
Application of Total AFA to the PRCWide Entity
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that if one of the
companies for which this review was
initiated ‘‘does not qualify for a separate
rate, all other exporters of {HEDP from
the PRC} that have not qualified for a
separate rate are deemed to be covered
by this review as part of the single PRC
entity. * * * ’’ As noted above, Jiangsu
Jianghai, one of the companies for
which this review was initiated, has not
qualified for a separate rate. Therefore,
the PRC-wide entity is now under
review.
As explained above, Jiangsu Jianghai,
as part of the PRC-wide entity,
submitted incomplete and unverifiable
responses to the antidumping
questionnaire and did not respond to
either the Department’s December 9,
2010, supplementary Sections A and C
questionnaire or its December 17, 2010
supplementary Section D questionnaire.
For these reasons, the Department has
preliminarily determined that the PRCwide entity (1) withheld information
that was requested, (2) failed to provide
information within the deadlines
established and in the form and manner
requested by the Department, (3)
significantly impeded this proceeding,
and (4) provided information that
cannot be verified. Therefore, in
accordance with subsections
776(a)(2)(A) through (D) of the Act, the
Department has preliminarily based the
dumping margin of the PRC-wide entity
on the facts otherwise available.
Further, because the PRC-wide entity
failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with the
Department’s requests for information,
the Department has preliminarily
determined, pursuant to section 776(b)
of the Act, to use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide
entity in selecting from among the facts
otherwise available.
Selection of the AFA Rate
Section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.308(c)(1) provide that the
Department’s adverse inference ‘‘may
include reliance on information derived
from (1) the petition, (2) a final
determination in the investigation, (3)
any previous review or determination,
or (4) any other information placed on
the record.’’ In selecting a rate for use as
AFA, the Department selects a rate that
is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate
the purpose of the facts available rule to
induce respondents to provide the
Department with complete and accurate
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
19328
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices
information in a timely manner.’’ 30
Furthermore, it is the Department’s
practice to ensure ‘‘that the party does
not obtain a more favorable result by
failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully’’ 31 and to select ‘‘the
highest rate on the record of the
proceeding’’ 32 that can be corroborated,
to the extent practicable.33 Therefore, as
AFA, the Department has preliminarily
assigned the PRC-wide entity a dumping
margin of 72.42 percent, which was the
margin calculated in the petition, as
adjusted by the Department for
initiation, and is the highest dumping
margin on the record of this proceeding.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Corroboration of Secondary
Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review, it shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
that are reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751
of the Act concerning the subject
merchandise.34 ‘‘Corroborate’’ means
that the Department will satisfy itself
that the secondary information to be
used has probative value.35 To
corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information to be
used.36 Independent sources used to
corroborate such information may
include, for example, published price
lists, official import statistics and
customs data, and information obtained
from interested parties during the
particular investigation or review.37
To corroborate the 72.42 percent
petition rate, the Department first
revisited its pre-initiation analysis of the
information in the petition. During the
initiation of the antidumping
investigation of HEDP from the PRC, the
Department examined evidence
supporting the calculations in the
petition and the supplemental
information provided by Petitioner to
determine the probative value of the
margins alleged in the petition.38 During
the Department’s pre-initiation analysis,
it examined the information used as the
basis of export price (‘‘EP’’) and normal
value (‘‘NV’’) in the petition, and the
calculations used to derive the alleged
margins.39 Also during its pre-initiation
analysis, the Department examined
information from various independent
sources provided either in the petition
or in supplements to the petition, which
corroborated key elements of the EP and
NV calculations.40
To further corroborate the 72.42
percent petition rate, the Department
examined the information on the record
of this administrative review. Because
the Department has, in accordance with
section 782(d) of the Act, disregarded all
of Jiangsu Jianghai’s responses to the
antidumping questionnaire, the
Department preliminarily determined
that the only information on the record
of this administrative review that can be
used for purposes of corroboration are
the entry documents provided by CBP.41
30 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).
31 See Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870
(1994) (‘‘SAA’’); 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).
32 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
39940, 39942 (July 11, 2008).
33 See Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. v. United
States, 638 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (Ct. Int’l Trade
2009).
34 See SAA at 870.
35 Id.
36 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered
Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in 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; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825
(March 13, 1997).
37 See Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High
Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan,
68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003), unchanged in
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic
Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 62560
(November 5, 2003); Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From
Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183–84 (March 11, 2005).
38 See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic
Acid from the Republic of India and the People’s
Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 73 FR 20023, 20025–26 (April 14,
2008) (‘‘Investigation Initiation’’); 1Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 10545,
10547 (March 11, 2009) (‘‘Final Determination’’).
39 See Investigation Initiation, 73 FR at 20025–26;
Final Determination, 74 FR at 10547.
40 See Final Determination, 74 FR at 10547.
41 See CBP Data and Entry Documents at
Attachment 1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:53 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
These entry documents—particularly
the commercial invoice for Jiangsu
Jianghai’s single entry of subject
merchandise during the POR—establish
that Jiangsu Jianghai’s U.S. price
approximates the U.S. price in the
petition.42 Therefore, the Department
has preliminarily determined that the
U.S. price in the petition reflects
commercial reality.
For these reasons, the Department has
preliminarily determined that the 72.42
percent petition rate has probative value
and, therefore, is corroborated to the
extent practicable, in accordance with
section 776(c) of the Act. Moreover,
because the information on the record of
this administrative review that can be
used for purposes of corroboration
approximate the information used as a
basis for the petition rate, the
Department is satisfied that the 72.42
percent petition rate reflects commercial
reality.
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department has preliminarily
determined that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist for the
period April 23, 2009, through March
31, 2010:
Exporter
PRC-Wide Entity 43 .......
Antidumping duty
percent margin
72.42
Comments
Interested parties may submit written
comments no later than 30 days after the
date of publication of these preliminary
results of review.44 Rebuttal comments
must be limited to the issues raised in
the written comments and may be filed
no later than 35 days after the date of
publication.45 Parties submitting written
comments or rebuttal comments are
requested to provide the Department
with an additional copy of those
comments on CD–ROM. Any interested
party may request a hearing within 30
days of publication of these preliminary
results.46 Any hearing, if requested,
ordinarily will be held two days after
the scheduled date for submission of
rebuttal briefs.47 Parties should confirm
by telephone the date, time, and
42 See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘1Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from
the People’s Republic of China: Corroboration
Memorandum for Preliminary Results of
Administrative Review’’ (March 31, 2011).
43 Jiangsu Jianghai is part of the PRC-wide entity.
44 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
45 See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
46 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
47 See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices
location of the hearing two days before
the scheduled date.
The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review,
which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in the briefs,
within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.213(h)(1), unless the time
limit is extended.
Secretary presuming that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and, subsequently, the
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
The Department is issuing and
publishing these preliminary results of
administrative review in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject
merchandise in accordance with the
final results of this review. The
Department intends to instruct CBP to
liquidate entries containing subject
merchandise exported by the PRC-wide
entity at the PRC-wide rate the
Department determines in the final
results of this review. The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after publication of the final results of
this review.
Dated: March 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided for by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters not listed above
that have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (2) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate established in the
final results of this review; 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
exporters that supplied that non-PRC
exporter. These deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:53 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
[FR Doc. 2011–8347 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XA358
New England Fishery Management
Council (NEFMC); Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.
AGENCY:
The New England Fishery
Management Council (Council) will
hold a 3-day meeting on Tuesday
through Thursday, April 26–28, 2011, to
consider actions affecting New England
fisheries in the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ).
DATES: The meeting will be held on
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 through
Thursday, April 28, 2011. The meeting
will begin at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, April
26th and at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday,
April 27th and Thursday, April 28th.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Mystic Hilton Hotel, 20 Coogan
Boulevard, Mystic, CT 06355;
telephone: (860) 572–0731; fax: (860)
572–0238.
Council address: New England
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950;
telephone: (978) 465–0492.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
J. Howard, Executive Director, New
England Fishery Management Council;
telephone: (978) 465–0492.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Following introductions and any
announcements, the Council will
receive brief reports from its Chairman
and Executive Director, the NOAA
Fisheries Regional Administrator
(Northeast Region), Northeast Fisheries
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19329
Science Center and Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council liaisons,
NOAA General Counsel, representatives
of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission, as
well as staff from the Vessel Monitoring
Systems Operations and Law
Enforcement offices. There also will be
a review of any experimental fishery
permit applications that have been
made available for review since the
January Council meeting. The Council
will then receive a presentation and
discuss one of its 2011 priorities, a
proposed NEFMC-sponsored catch
shares workshop. The discussion will
include consideration and possible
approval of a workshop goal and
objectives. Prior to a break, Mr. Eric
Schwaab, Assistant Administrator for
NOAA Fisheries, will address the
Council about the agency’s management
review of fisheries in the Northeast. The
focus will be on the relationships among
the NEFMC, the Northeast Regional
Office, and the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center and factors that affect
the effectiveness of the three entities to
carry out their responsibilities under
fisheries law. Following a break, an
open public period is scheduled for any
interested party who wishes to provide
brief comments on issues relevant to
Council business but not otherwise
listed on the meeting agenda. A
representative of the Department of the
Interior will summarize that agency’s
offshore wind initiative, including the
Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island
Task Force efforts to date. The day will
conclude on Tuesday with a report from
the Council’s Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC). Items for review and
discussion, along with SSC
recommendations, include the
following: (1) A review of the
Massachusetts Fisheries Institute report
Economic and Scientific Conditions in
the Mass. Multispecies Groundfishery;
(2) recommendations for a FSV Bigelow
survey calibration method that would be
used to determine skate Allowable
Biological Catch (ABC) and the status of
the skate complex resource; (3) guidance
to the Whiting Plan Development Team
on options and methods for determining
ABCs for silver, red and offshore hake;
and (4) a report on conclusions from a
peer review panel that evaluated the
NEFMC Habitat Plan Development
Team’s swept area seabed impact (SASI)
model.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
The second session will begin with a
report from the Council’s Research
Steering Committee about several final
cooperative research project reports,
including the University of Rhode
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19325-19329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8347]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-934]
1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind Review in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a timely request from Compass Chemical
International LLC (``Petitioner''), the Department of Commerce
(``Department'') is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid
(``HEDP'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of
review (``POR'') is April 23, 2009, through March 31, 2010. This
administrative review covers two exporters of the subject merchandise
that are being individually examined as mandatory respondents.
The Department has preliminarily determined that one mandatory
respondent, Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co., Ltd. (``Jiangsu
Jianghai''), did not demonstrate that it is entitled to a separate
rate. Therefore, the Department has treated Jiangsu Jianghai as part of
the PRC-wide entity. The other mandatory respondent, Changzhou Wujin
Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. (``Wujin Fine''), reported that it did
not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
Because record evidence does not contradict Wujin Fine's no-shipment
claim, the Department intends to rescind the administrative review with
respect to this company. If these preliminary results are adopted in
the final results of review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries
of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific
assessment rates are above de minimis.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with each
argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this review no
later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: April 7, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Higgins, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0679.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 28, 2009, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on HEDP from the PRC in the Federal Register.\1\ On April 1,
2010, the Department notified interested parties of their opportunity
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
HEDP from the PRC.\2\ On April 30, 2010, Petitioner requested that the
Department conduct an administrative review of Jiangsu Jianghai and
Wujin Fine.\3\ On May 28, 2010, the Department published a notice
initiating an antidumping duty administrative review of the Order
covering Jiangsu Jianghai and Wujin Fine during the period April 23,
2009, through March 31, 2010.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from India
and the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR
19197 (April 28, 2009) (``Order'').
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 75 FR 16426 (April 1, 2010).
\3\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce,
``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid (HEDP) from The
People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for Administrative
Review'' (April 30, 2010).
\4\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 29976 (May 28, 2010) (``Initiation
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Initiation Notice notified parties that they must submit timely
separate rate applications or separate rate certifications in order to
qualify for a separate rate.\5\ The Department did not receive any
separate rate applications or separate rate certifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id., 75 FR at 29976-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 7, 2010, the Department issued antidumping questionnaires
to Jiangsu Jianghai and Wujin Fine.\6\ In June and July 2010, Jiangsu
Jianghai and Wujin Fine submitted letters certifying that they did not
ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.\7\ From
July through September 2010, the Department requested and received
import data and entry documentation from CBP. The Department placed
this information on the record of this review and solicited comments
from interested parties.\8\ Petitioner, Jiangsu Jianghai, and Wujin
Fine submitted comments on this import data and entry documentation in
August and October 2010.\9\ On October 25, 2010, the Department
informed Jiangsu Jianghai that record CBP data
[[Page 19326]]
and entry documentation indicated that Jiangsu Jianghai had a shipment
of subject merchandise that entered the United States during the
POR.\10\ Further, the Department explained that it is necessary for
Jiangsu Jianghai to provide the information requested by the Department
in the antidumping questionnaire because the entry date of Jiangsu
Jianghai's shipment was within the POR and there is no record evidence
in this review of circumstances that compel the Department to employ an
atypical methodology to determine the universe of sales to be examined
during this review.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, to Jiangsu Jianghai, ``1-
Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic
of China: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Jiangsu Jianghai
Chemical Group Co., Ltd.'' (June 7, 2010) (``antidumping
questionnaire'').
\7\ See Letter from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary of
Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the
Republic of India and the People's Republic of China; A-570-934;
Copy of Certification of No Shipments by Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical
Group Co., Ltd.'' (July 13, 2010); Letter from Wujin Fine to the
Secretary of Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid
from the Republic of India and the People's Republic of China; A-
570-934; Notification by Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co.,
Ltd.'' (June 28, 2010).
\8\ See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Interested
Parties, ``2009-2010 Administrative Review of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1,
1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China; Placing CBP
Data and Entry Documents on the Record'' (August 13, 2010);
Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Interested Parties, ``2009-
2010 Administrative Review of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic
Acid from the People's Republic of China; Placing CBP Data and Entry
Documents on the Record'' (September 24, 2010) (``CBP Data and Entry
Documents'').
\9\ See Letter from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary of
Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethyidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the
Republic of India and the People's Republic of China; A-570-934;
Comments on Customs and Border Protection Data by Jiangsu Jianghai
Chemical Group Co., Ltd.'' (August 19, 2010); Letter from Wujin Fine
to the Secretary of Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethyidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic
Acid from the Republic of India and the People's Republic of China;
A-570-934; Comments on Customs and Border Protection Data by
Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd.'' (August 19, 2010);
Letter from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary of Commerce, ``1-
Hydroxyethyidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India
and the People's Republic of China; A-570-934; Comments on Customs
and Border Protection Data by Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co.,
Ltd.'' (October 4, 2010); Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of
Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the
People's Republic of China'' (October 4, 2010).
\10\ See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, to Jiangsu Jianghai, ``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1,
1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co.,
Ltd.'' (October 25, 2010) (``Shipment Letter'') at 2.
\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November and December 2010, Jiangsu Jianghai submitted timely
responses to Sections A, C, and D of the antidumping questionnaire.\12\
The Department issued a supplementary Sections A and C questionnaire
and a supplementary Section D questionnaire to Jiangsu Jianghai on
December 9, 2010, and December 17, 2010, respectively.\13\ Jiangsu
Jianghai neither responded to these supplementary questionnaires nor
asked for extensions of time to respond.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Memorandum from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary of
Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the
Republic of India and the People's Republic of China; A-570-934;
Section A Response'' (November 19, 2010) (``Section A Response'');
Memorandum from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary of Commerce, ``1-
Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India
and the People's Republic of China; A-570-934; Section C Response''
(December 1, 2010); Memorandum from Jiangsu Jianghai to the
Secretary of Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid
from the Republic of India and the People's Republic of China; A-
570-934; Section D Response of Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co.,
Ltd.'' (December 9, 2010).
\13\ See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, to Jiangsu Jianghai, ``Sections A & C
Supplemental Questionnaire'' (December 9, 2010) (``Sections A & C
Supplemental''); Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, to Jiangsu Jianghai, ``Section D Supplemental
Questionnaire'' (December 17, 2010).
\14\ See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File,
``Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 1-
Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic
of China: Telephone Conversation With Counsel for Jiangsu Jianghai
Chemical Group Co., Ltd.'' (January 3, 2011) (``Telephone
Conversation Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the Department's November 12, 2010, letter providing
all interested parties with an opportunity to submit comments regarding
surrogate country and surrogate value selection,\15\ Petitioner filed
surrogate country and surrogate value comments in November and December
2010.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, to All Interested Parties, ``Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-
Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Request for
Comments on Selection of Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values''
(November 12, 2010).
\16\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce,
``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's
Republic of China'' (November 30, 2010); Letter from Petitioner to
the Secretary of Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic
Acid from the People's Republic of China'' (December 16, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 1, 2010, the Department extended the time period for
completing the preliminary results of this administrative review until
March 31, 2011.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the
People's Republic of China: Extension of the Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
75 FR 74684 (December 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order includes all grades of
aqueous, acidic (non-neutralized) concentrations of 1-
hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid,\18\ also referred to as
hydroxethlylidenediphosphonic acid, hydroxyethanediphosphonic acid,
acetodiphosphonic acid, and etidronic acid. The CAS (Chemical Abstract
Service) registry number for HEDP is 2809-21-4. The merchandise subject
to the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (``HTSUS'') at subheading 2931.00.9043. It may
also enter under HTSUS subheading 2811.19.6090. While HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and customs purposes only, the written
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ C2H8O7P2 or
C(CH3)(OH)(PO3H2)2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intent To Partially Rescind the Administrative Review
As stated above, Jiangsu Jianghai and Wujin Fine submitted letters
certifying that they did not ship subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR. To test these claims, the Department ran a CBP
data query, issued no-shipment inquiries to CBP requesting that it
provide any information that contradicted these no-shipment claims, and
obtained entry documentation from CBP. After examining this
information, the Department has preliminarily determined that Jiangsu
Jianghai had a shipment of subject merchandise that entered the United
States during the POR.\19\ However, because the evidence on the record
does not contradict Wujin Fine's no-shipment claim, the Department
intends to rescind this administrative review with respect to Wujin
Fine, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Shipment Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the ``Act''), any determination that a foreign country is an
NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering
authority. None of the parties to this proceeding have contested NME
treatment.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department maintains a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control.\20\ In accordance with this presumption,
all exporters of subject merchandise in an NME country are assigned a
single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate its
entitlement to a separate, company-specific margin by showing an
absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to
export activities.\21\ To determine whether de jure government control
exists, the Department examines evidence of: (1) An absence of
restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's
business and export license; (2) any legislative enactments
decentralizing control of companies; or (3) any other formal measures
by the government decentralizing control of companies.\22\ Evidence
supporting de facto absence of government control includes: (1) Whether
each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the
government; (2) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether each exporter has
autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the
selection of
[[Page 19327]]
management; and (4) whether each exporter can retain the proceeds from
its export sales and make independent decisions regarding disposition
of profits or financing of losses.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405-06
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
\21\ Id., 117 F.3d at 1405.
\22\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589
(May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''); Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd. v.
United States, 710 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1355-56 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010)
(``Qingdao Taifa'') (citing Coal. for the Pres. of Am. Brake Drum
and Rotor Aftermarket Mfrs. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 229,
242 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999) (``Brake Drum'')).
\23\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China, 59
FR 22585, 22586-87 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide,''); Qingdao
Taifa, 710 F. Supp. 2d at 1356 (citing Brake Drum, 44 F. Supp. 2d at
243).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 19, 2010, Jiangsu Jianghai submitted its response to
Section A of the antidumping questionnaire.\24\ Jiangsu Jianghai's
submission was incomplete and contained information insufficient to
overcome the presumption that Jiangsu Jianghai's export activities are
controlled, in law and in fact, by the PRC government. On December 9,
2010, the Department issued Jiangsu Jianghai a supplementary
questionnaire that requested Jiangsu Jianghai to correct these
deficiencies and provide additional information necessary to determine
whether it qualified for a separate rate.\25\ On January 3, 2011, the
Department received confirmation that Jiangsu Jianghai would not
provide the Department with the information requested in the December
9, 2010 supplementary questionnaire.\26\ Therefore, by submitting
incomplete and unverifiable responses to questions regarding government
control of its export activities and not responding to the Department's
supplementary questionnaire, Jiangsu Jianghai has prevented the
Department from further investigating the facts related to the question
of government control and failed to demonstrate an absence of de jure
and de facto government control under the criteria identified in
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Section A Response.
\25\ See Sections A & C Supplemental at Enclosure 1-3.
\26\ See Telephone Conversation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, by submitting incomplete and unverifiable responses to
the antidumping questionnaire and not responding to either the
Department's December 9, 2010, supplementary Sections A and C
questionnaire or its December 17, 2010, supplementary Section D
questionnaire, Jiangsu Jianghai did not meet its requirement to fully
participate in this administrative review by responding to all
information that has been requested by the Department.\27\ The
Department does not permit respondents to selectively choose which
requests to respond to or which information to submit.\28\ Jiangsu
Jianghai cannot qualify for separate rate status by participating in
only limited aspects of this review while simultaneously failing to
provide complete and verifiable data with respect to other required
elements.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See antidumping questionnaire at G-1 (``[A]s a respondent,
your company must wholly and fully participate in this
administrative review. * * * a respondent must respond to all
information that has been requested by the Department''); Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews,
74 FR 41374 (August 17, 2009) (``Furniture'') and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 32.
\28\ See antidumping questionnaire at G-1.
\29\ See Furniture, and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 32; see also antidumping questionnaire at G-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that Jiangsu
Jianghai does not qualify for a separate rate because it has failed to
demonstrate an absence of de jure and de facto government control under
the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide and did not
fully participate in this administrative review. Accordingly, the
Department is treating Jiangsu Jianghai as part of the PRC-wide entity.
Moreover, because Jiangsu Jianghai's responses to the antidumping
questionnaire cannot be verified and Jiangsu Jianghai did not remedy
the deficiencies noted in the Department's supplementary
questionnaires, the Department has, in accordance with sections 782(d)
and (e) of the Act, preliminarily determined to disregard all of
Jiangsu Jianghai's responses to the antidumping questionnaire.
Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'')
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply
``facts otherwise available'' if: (1) Necessary information is not on
the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A)
withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D)
provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section
782(i) of the Act.
Further, Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse
inference may include reliance on information derived from the
petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or
other information placed on the record.
Application of Total AFA to the PRC-Wide Entity
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that if one of the
companies for which this review was initiated ``does not qualify for a
separate rate, all other exporters of {HEDP from the PRC{time} that
have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this
review as part of the single PRC entity. * * * '' As noted above,
Jiangsu Jianghai, one of the companies for which this review was
initiated, has not qualified for a separate rate. Therefore, the PRC-
wide entity is now under review.
As explained above, Jiangsu Jianghai, as part of the PRC-wide
entity, submitted incomplete and unverifiable responses to the
antidumping questionnaire and did not respond to either the
Department's December 9, 2010, supplementary Sections A and C
questionnaire or its December 17, 2010 supplementary Section D
questionnaire. For these reasons, the Department has preliminarily
determined that the PRC-wide entity (1) withheld information that was
requested, (2) failed to provide information within the deadlines
established and in the form and manner requested by the Department, (3)
significantly impeded this proceeding, and (4) provided information
that cannot be verified. Therefore, in accordance with subsections
776(a)(2)(A) through (D) of the Act, the Department has preliminarily
based the dumping margin of the PRC-wide entity on the facts otherwise
available. Further, because the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's
requests for information, the Department has preliminarily determined,
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, to use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in selecting from among
the facts otherwise available.
Selection of the AFA Rate
Section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the
Department's adverse inference ``may include reliance on information
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the
investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
other information placed on the record.'' In selecting a rate for use
as AFA, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as
to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate
[[Page 19328]]
information in a timely manner.'' \30\ Furthermore, it is the
Department's practice to ensure ``that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully'' \31\ and to select ``the highest rate on the record of the
proceeding'' \32\ that can be corroborated, to the extent
practicable.\33\ Therefore, as AFA, the Department has preliminarily
assigned the PRC-wide entity a dumping margin of 72.42 percent, which
was the margin calculated in the petition, as adjusted by the
Department for initiation, and is the highest dumping margin on the
record of this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 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).
\31\ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d
Session at 870 (1994) (``SAA''); 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).
\32\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 39940, 39942 (July 11, 2008).
\33\ See Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 638
F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of Secondary Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 of the Act
concerning the subject merchandise.\34\ ``Corroborate'' means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value.\35\ To corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information to be used.\36\ Independent sources used
to corroborate such information may include, for example, published
price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation or review.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See SAA at 870.
\35\ Id.
\36\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in 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; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March
13, 1997).
\37\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003), unchanged
in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from
Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 2003); Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR
12181, 12183-84 (March 11, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To corroborate the 72.42 percent petition rate, the Department
first revisited its pre-initiation analysis of the information in the
petition. During the initiation of the antidumping investigation of
HEDP from the PRC, the Department examined evidence supporting the
calculations in the petition and the supplemental information provided
by Petitioner to determine the probative value of the margins alleged
in the petition.\38\ During the Department's pre-initiation analysis,
it examined the information used as the basis of export price (``EP'')
and normal value (``NV'') in the petition, and the calculations used to
derive the alleged margins.\39\ Also during its pre-initiation
analysis, the Department examined information from various independent
sources provided either in the petition or in supplements to the
petition, which corroborated key elements of the EP and NV
calculations.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the
Republic of India and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 20023, 20025-26 (April 14,
2008) (``Investigation Initiation''); 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-
Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 10545, 10547
(March 11, 2009) (``Final Determination'').
\39\ See Investigation Initiation, 73 FR at 20025-26; Final
Determination, 74 FR at 10547.
\40\ See Final Determination, 74 FR at 10547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To further corroborate the 72.42 percent petition rate, the
Department examined the information on the record of this
administrative review. Because the Department has, in accordance with
section 782(d) of the Act, disregarded all of Jiangsu Jianghai's
responses to the antidumping questionnaire, the Department
preliminarily determined that the only information on the record of
this administrative review that can be used for purposes of
corroboration are the entry documents provided by CBP.\41\ These entry
documents--particularly the commercial invoice for Jiangsu Jianghai's
single entry of subject merchandise during the POR--establish that
Jiangsu Jianghai's U.S. price approximates the U.S. price in the
petition.\42\ Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined
that the U.S. price in the petition reflects commercial reality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See CBP Data and Entry Documents at Attachment 1.
\42\ See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File, ``1-
Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic
of China: Corroboration Memorandum for Preliminary Results of
Administrative Review'' (March 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the Department has preliminarily determined that
the 72.42 percent petition rate has probative value and, therefore, is
corroborated to the extent practicable, in accordance with section
776(c) of the Act. Moreover, because the information on the record of
this administrative review that can be used for purposes of
corroboration approximate the information used as a basis for the
petition rate, the Department is satisfied that the 72.42 percent
petition rate reflects commercial reality.
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department has preliminarily determined that the following
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 23, 2009,
through March 31, 2010:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antidumping duty
Exporter percent margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Entity \43\................................ 72.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of
review.\44\ Rebuttal comments must be limited to the issues raised in
the written comments and may be filed no later than 35 days after the
date of publication.\45\ Parties submitting written comments or
rebuttal comments are requested to provide the Department with an
additional copy of those comments on CD-ROM. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary
results.\46\ Any hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two
days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs.\47\
Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and
[[Page 19329]]
location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Jiangsu Jianghai is part of the PRC-wide entity.
\44\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
\45\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
\46\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\47\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in the briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary
results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1), unless the time limit
is extended.
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212, the Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject
merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The
Department intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing
subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide
rate the Department determines in the final results of this review. The
Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this
review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously
investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above
that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (2) for
all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to
be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-
wide rate established in the final results of this review; 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 exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary presuming that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and, subsequently, the
assessment of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results
of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: March 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-8347 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
