Frontseating Service Valves from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2008-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 26686-26694 [2011-11253]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
26686
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
Background
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
On November 18, 2010, the
Department simultaneously initiated
antidumping and countervailing duty
investigations of wood flooring from the
PRC. See Multilayered Wood Flooring
from the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigation, 75 FR 70719 (November
18, 2010) and Multilayered Wood
Flooring From the People’s Republic of
China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 75 FR 70714 (November
18, 2010).
On April 6, 2011, the Department
published the preliminary affirmative
countervailing duty determination
pertaining to wood flooring from the
PRC. See Multilayered Wood Flooring
From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination, 76 FR 19034 (April
6, 2011). On April 4, 2011, the
petitioner (the Coalition for American
Hardwood Parity) requested alignment
of the final countervailing duty
determination with the final
determination in the companion
antidumping duty investigation of wood
flooring from the PRC, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4)(i) and 19 CFR
351.210(i). This request was timely
made.
Therefore, in accordance with section
705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 CFR
351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final
countervailing duty determination of
wood flooring from the PRC with the
final determination in the companion
antidumping duty investigation of wood
flooring from the PRC. The final
countervailing duty determination will
be issued on the same date as the final
antidumping duty determination, which
is currently scheduled for August 2,
2011.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act.
International Trade Administration
Dated: May 3, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–11254 Filed 5–6–11; 8:45 am]
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
[A–570–933]
Frontseating Service Valves from the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the 2008–2010
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission of
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on
frontseating service valves (‘‘FSVs’’)
from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’), covering the period October 22,
2008 through March 31, 2010.
We have preliminarily determined
that the mandatory respondents in this
administrative review have made sales
in the United States at prices below
normal value (‘‘NV’’) during the period
of review (‘‘POR’’). None of the
remaining respondents provided
evidence that they are separate from the
state-controlled entity. As a result, they
are considered part of the PRC entity. If
these preliminary results are adopted in
the final results of review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the POR for which
the importer-specific assessment rates
are above de minimis.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit comments are
requested to submit with each argument
a summary of the argument. We intend
to issue the final results no later than
120 days from the date of publication of
this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’).
DATES: Effective Date: May 9, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurel LaCivita, Sergio Balbontin, or
Eugene Degnan, 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)
482–4243, (202) 482–6478, and (202)
482–0414, respectively.
AGENCY:
Background
On April 28, 2009, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on FSVs from
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the PRC.1 On April 1, 2010, the
Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on FSVs from
the PRC for the period October 22, 2008
through March 31, 2010.2 On April 28,
2010, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(2), Zhejiang Sanhua Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Sanhua’’), a foreign exporter of the
subject merchandise, requested the
Department to review its sales of subject
merchandise. On April 30, 2010, ParkerHannifin Corporation (‘‘Petitioner’’)
requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review of the exports
of subject merchandise of 97 exporters
and producers of the subject
merchandise.3 On the same date,
Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. Ltd.
(‘‘DunAn’’), a foreign exporter of the
subject merchandise, requested the
Department to review its sales of subject
merchandise. On May 28, 2010, the
Department initiated an administrative
review of the order on FSVs from the
PRC for the POR with respect to 97
producers and exporters of the subject
merchandise.4
On June 25, 2010, Tycon Alloy
Industries (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tycon
Alloy’’) reported that it had no
shipments of subject merchandise and
requested that the Department rescind
the review with respect to it. On July 26,
2010, Amtek/CAG, Inc., an exporter of
the subject merchandise, entered its
appearance in this review and withdrew
its appearance on August 5, 2010.
On August 13, 2010, the Department
selected two mandatory respondents for
this administrative review: Sanhua and
DunAn. See the Respondent Selection
section below.
Between August 2010 and February
2011, the Department issued its initial
and supplemental antidumping duty
questionnaires to the two mandatory
respondents in this review, DunAn and
Sanhua.5 DunAn and Sanhua submitted
their responses between September
2010 and March 2011, and Petitioner
1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Frontseating
Service Valves from the People’s Republic of China,
74 FR 19196 (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 Petitioners, ‘‘Frontseating
Service Valves from the People’s Republic of
China—Request for Initiation of Antidumping
Administrative Review,’’ dated April 30, 2010, at
Attachment A.
4 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR
29976 (May 28, 2010) (‘‘Initiation’’).
5 See the ‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section of this
notice below.
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
responded with comments in November
2010 and April 2011.
On July 8, 2010, the Department
requested that Import Administration’s
Office of Policy provide a list of
surrogate countries for this review.6 On
July 20, 2010, the Office of Policy issued
its list of surrogate countries.7 On
October 22, 2010, the Department issued
a letter to interested parties seeking
comments on surrogate country
selection and surrogate values (‘‘SVs’’).8
On November 4 and 5, 2010, Petitioners,
DunAn and Sanhua provided surrogate
country selection comments
(‘‘Petitioners’ Surrogate Country
Selection Letter,’’ ‘‘DunAn’s Surrogate
Country Selection Letter’’ and ‘‘Sanhua’s
Surrogate Country Selection Letter,’’
respectively). DunAn and Sanhua
submitted SV comments (‘‘DunAn’s SV
Comments’’ and ‘‘Sanhua’s SV
Comments,’’ respectively). On
November 29, 2010, Petitioner
submitted rebuttal SV comments
(‘‘Petitioners’ Rebuttal SV Comments’’).
On January 7, 2011, the Department
extended the time period for completion
of the preliminary results of this review
by 120 days until May 2, 2011.9
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Respondent Selection
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs
the Department to calculate individual
dumping margins for each known
exporter or producer of the subject
merchandise. However, section
777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the
Department discretion to limit its
examination to a reasonable number of
exporters or producers if it is not
practicable to examine all exporters or
producers involved in the review.
On June 2, 2010, the Department
released CBP data for entries of the
subject merchandise during the POR
under administrative protective order
(‘‘APO’’) to all interested parties having
an APO, inviting comments regarding
6 See Memorandum to Carole Showers, Director,
Office of Policy, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Frontseating Service Valves from the
People’s Republic of China: Surrogate-Country
Selection,’’ dated July 8, 2010.
7 See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Acting
Director, Office of Policy, ‘‘Request for a List of
Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frontseating
Service Valves (‘‘Service Valves’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’),’’ dated July 20, 2010
(‘‘Surrogate Country List’’).
8 See Letter to Interested Parties, ‘‘First
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Front Seating Valves from the People’s
Republic of China: Request for Comments on the
Selection of a Surrogate Country and Surrogate
Values,’’ dated October 22, 2010.
9 See Frontseating Service Valves from the
People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time for
the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 1135 (January 7,
2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:13 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
the CBP data and respondent selection.
The Department received comments and
rebuttal comments on June 14, 2010,
and June 17, 2010, from Petitioners and
Sanhua, respectively. On July 1, 2010,
the Department released revised CBP
data to all parties under APO.
Petitioners and DunAn provided
comments on this data on July 8, 2010.
On August 13, 2010, the Department
issued its Respondent Selection
Memorandum after assessing its
resources and determining that it could
reasonably examine two exporters
subject to this review. Pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the
Department selected DunAn and
Sanhua as mandatory respondents.10
Period of Review
The POR is October 22, 2008 through
March 31, 2010.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this
order is frontseating service valves,
assembled or unassembled, complete or
incomplete, and certain parts thereof.
Frontseating service valves contain a
sealing surface on the front side of the
valve stem that allows the indoor unit
or outdoor unit to be isolated from the
refrigerant stream when the air
conditioning or refrigeration unit is
being serviced. Frontseating service
valves rely on an elastomer seal when
the stem cap is removed for servicing
and the stem cap metal to metal seat to
create this seal to the atmosphere during
normal operation.11
For purposes of the scope, the term
‘‘unassembled’’ frontseating service
valve means a brazed subassembly
requiring any one or more of the
following processes: the insertion of a
valve core pin, the insertion of a valve
stem and/or O ring, the application or
installation of a stem cap, charge port
cap or tube dust cap. The term
‘‘complete’’ frontseating service valve
means a product sold ready for
installation into an air conditioning or
refrigeration unit. The term
‘‘incomplete’’ frontseating service valve
means a product that when sold is in
multiple pieces, sections, subassemblies
10 See Memorandum regarding Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Frontseating Service
Valves from the People’s Republic of China:
Selection of Mandatory Respondents, dated August
13, 2010 (‘‘Respondent Selection Memorandum’’).
11 The frontseating service valve differs from a
backseating service valve in that a backseating
service valve has two sealing surfaces on the valve
stem. This difference typically incorporates a valve
stem on a backseating service valve to be machined
of steel, where a frontseating service valve has a
brass stem. The backseating service valve dual stem
seal (on the back side of the stem), creates a metal
to metal seal when the valve is in the open position,
thus, sealing the stem from the atmosphere.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26687
or components and is incapable of being
installed into an air conditioning or
refrigeration unit as a single, unified
valve without further assembly.
The major parts or components of
frontseating service valves intended to
be covered by the scope under the term
‘‘certain parts thereof’’ are any brazed
subassembly consisting of any two or
more of the following components: a
valve body, field connection tube,
factory connection tube or valve charge
port. The valve body is a rectangular
block, or brass forging, machined to be
hollow in the interior, with a generally
square shaped seat (bottom of body).
The field connection tube and factory
connection tube consist of copper or
other metallic tubing, cut to length,
shaped and brazed to the valve body in
order to create two ports, the factory
connection tube and the field
connection tube, each on opposite sides
of the valve assembly body. The valve
charge port is a service port via which
a hose connection can be used to charge
or evacuate the refrigerant medium or to
monitor the system pressure for
diagnostic purposes.
The scope includes frontseating
service valves of any size, configuration,
material composition or connection
type. Frontseating service valves are
classified under subheading
8481.80.1095, and also have been
classified under subheading
8415.90.80.85, of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). It is possible for frontseating
service valves to be manufactured out of
primary materials other than copper and
brass, in which case they would be
classified under HTSUS subheadings
8481.80.3040, 8481.80.3090, or
8481.80.5090. In addition, if
unassembled or incomplete frontseating
service valves are imported, the various
parts or components would be classified
under HTSUS subheadings
8481.90.1000, 8481.90.3000, or
8481.90.5000. The HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, but the written
description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
Partial Rescission of Administrative
Review
The Department is rescinding this
review with respect to Tycon Alloy
because it submitted a ‘‘no shipment’’
letter on June 25, 2010, and our review
of the CBP import data did not reveal
any contradictory information.12 13
12 See letter from Tycon Alloy, ‘‘Frontseating
Service Valves from the People’s Republic of China:
Request for Rescission of the Administration
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
Continued
09MYN1
26688
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
Non-Market Economy Country Status
The Department has treated the PRC
as a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’)
country in all past antidumping duty
investigations and administrative
reviews and continues to do so in this
case.14 The Department has previously
examined the PRC’s market-economy
(‘‘ME’’) status and determined that NME
status should continue for the PRC.15 In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. No interested
party to this proceeding has contested
such treatment. Accordingly, we
calculated NV using a factors of
production (‘‘FOP’’) methodology in
accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act, which applies to NME countries.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV
on the NME producer’s FOPs. The Act
further instructs that valuation of the
FOPs shall be based on the best
available information in a surrogate ME
country or countries considered to be
appropriate by the Department.16 When
valuing the FOPs, the Department shall
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices
or costs of FOPs in one or more ME
countries that are: (1) At a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the NME country; and (2)
significant producers of comparable
merchandise.17 Further, the Department
normally values all FOPs in a single
surrogate country.18 The sources of SVs
are discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’
section below and in the Factor
Review,’’ dated June 25, 2010. See also
Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Frontseating Service
Valves from the People’s Republic of China:
Customs Data for Respondent Selection Concerning
U.S. Imports of Front Seating Valves,’’ dated July 1,
2010.
13 See ‘‘No Shipments Inquiry Re: Front Seating
Service Valves From The People’s Republic Of
China (A–570–933),’’ dated April 6, 2011.
14 See 771(18)(C) of the Act; see also, e.g., Pure
Magnesium from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 76336 (December 16, 2008); and
Frontseating Service Valves From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 74 FR
10886 (March 13, 2009).
15 See Memorandum from the Office of Policy to
David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, ‘‘The People’s Republic of China
(PRC) Status as a Non-Market Economy (NME),’’
dated May 15, 2006. This document is available
online at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nmestatus/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf.
16 See section 773(c)(1) of the Act.
17 See section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
18 See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
Valuation Memorandum,19 which is on
file in the Central Records Unit, Room
7046 of the main Department building.
In examining which country to select
as its primary surrogate country for this
proceeding, the Department first
determined that India, the Philippines,
Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine and Peru
are countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of economic development.20
Petitioner, DunAn and Sanhua each
submitted letters asserting that India is
the most appropriate surrogate country
because: (1) India is at a level of
economic development comparable to
the PRC; (2) India is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise;
and, (3) India has the most reliable,
nationally published, publicly available
data with which to value the FOPs used
to produce the subject merchandise.21
After evaluating interested parties’
comments, the Department has
determined that India is the appropriate
surrogate country to use in this review
in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of
the Act. The Department based its
decision on the following facts: (1) India
is at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the PRC; (2) India
is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise; and (3) India provides the
best opportunity to use quality, publicly
available data to value the FOPs. All the
data submitted by Petitioner, DunAn
and Sanhua for our consideration as
potential SVs and surrogate financial
ratios are sourced from India. Finally,
on the record of this review, we have
usable SV data (including financial
data) from India, but no such surrogate
data from other potential surrogate
country.
Therefore, because India best
represents the experience of producers
of comparable merchandise operating in
a surrogate country, we have selected
India as the surrogate country and,
accordingly, have calculated NV using
Indian prices to value DunAn’s and
Sanhua’s FOPs, when available and
appropriate. We have obtained and
relied upon publicly available
information wherever possible.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may
submit publicly available information to
value the FOPs within 20 days after the
19 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘2008–2009
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on FSVs from the People’s Republic of China:
Factor Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary
Results,’’ dated May 2, 2011 (‘‘Factor Valuation
Memorandum’’).
20 See Surrogate Country List.
21 See Petitioner’s Surrogate Country Selection
Letter at 2; DunAn’s Surrogate Country Selection
Letter at 2; and, Sanhua’s Surrogate Country
Selection Letter at 3–5.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
date of publication of the preliminary
results of review.22
Separate Rates
A designation of a country as an NME
remains in effect until it is revoked by
the Department.23 In proceedings
involving NME countries, the
Department has a rebuttable
presumption that all companies within
the country are subject to government
control and thus should be assessed a
single antidumping duty rate.24
In the Initiation, the Department
notified parties of the application and
certification process by which exporters
may obtain separate rate status in NME
proceedings.25 It is the Department’s
policy to assign all exporters of subject
merchandise in an NME country a
single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate
this independence through the absence
of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export
activities. The Department analyzes
each entity exporting the subject
merchandise under a test arising from
the Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the
People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588
(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further
developed in 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’’).
However, if the Department determines
that a company is wholly foreign-owned
or located in a market economy, then a
separate rate analysis is not necessary to
22 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for
the final determination of this review, interested
parties may submit factual information to rebut,
clarify, or correct factual information submitted by
an interested party less than ten days before, on, or
after the applicable deadline for submission of such
factual information. However, the Department notes
that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information
only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects
information recently placed on the record. The
Department generally cannot accept the submission
of additional, previously absent-from-the-record
alternative SV information pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission,
in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2.
23 See section 771(18)(C) of the Act.
24 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical
Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper
Products From the People’s Republic of China, 71
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006) (‘‘Lined Paper from
the PRC’’); Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond
Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
25 See Initiation, 75 FR at 29977.
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
determine whether it is independent
from government control.26
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Separate Rate Recipients
In this administrative review, Sanhua
submitted its separate rate certification
on July 27, 2010.27 DunAn submitted its
separate rate certification in its Section
A Questionnaire response (‘‘DunAn’s
AQR’’).28 DunAn and Sanhua each
reported that they are wholly Chineseowned companies.29 Therefore, the
Department must analyze whether they
can demonstrate the absence of both de
jure and de facto government control
over export activities.
PRC–Wide Entity
Except for Sanhua, DunAn, and
Tycon Alloy, none of the other 94
companies upon which the Department
initiated an administrative review
submitted a separate-rate application, a
separate-rate certification, or a
certification of no shipments. As such,
they have not demonstrated their
eligibility for separate rate status nor
provided evidence of no-shipments
during the POR. Therefore, the
Department preliminarily determines
that these companies belong to the PRCwide entity.30 Furthermore, CBP data
26 See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles
From the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 52355,
52356 (September 13, 2007).
27 See Sanhua’s letter, ‘‘Certain Frontseating
Service Valves from the People’s Republic of China;
A–570–933; Separate Rate Certification of Zhejiang
Sanhua Co., Ltd.,’’ dated July 27, 2010.
28 See DunAn’s AQR at 2–13 and DunAn’s letter,
‘‘DunAn’s Comments on Absence of Separate Rate
Certification: Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Order on Fronseating Service Valves
from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated August
4, 2010.
29 See DunAn’s AQR at 13–19 and Sanhua’s
Section A Questionnaire Response (‘‘Sanhua’s
AQR’’) at 1–3.
30 The names of the companies are: AMTEK/CAG
Inc.; Anhui Technology Imp Exp Co., Ltd.; Anhui
Yingliu Casting Industrial Co.; Anhui Yingliu
Electromechanical Co.; Ningbo Weitao Electrical
Appliance Co., Ltd.; Atico International (Asia) Ltd.;
Beijing KJL Int’l Cargo Agent Co., Ltd.; Bergstrom
China Group; Bowen Casting Co Ltd; Broad-Ocean
Motor (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.; C.H. Robinson
Worldwide Logistics (Dalian) Co., Ltd.; Catic Fujian
Co., Ltd.; Ceiec International Electronics Service
Company; Changzhou Ranco Reversing Valve Co.,
Ltd.; Changzhou Regal-Beloit Motor Co., Ltd.; Chian
International Electronics A; China National
Building Materials & Equipment Imp & Exp Corp;
Chongqing Jianshe Automobile; Zhonghuan Mach.
Factory; CPI Motor Co.; Dongyou International Co.,
Ltd.; Egelhof Regelungstechnik (Suzhou); Fujitsui
General (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.; Gamela Enterprise Co
Ltd; GD Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment Co
Ltd.; Global PMX Co. Ltd; Globe Express ServicesNGB; Grace Meng; Guangdong Sanyo Air
Conditioner Co., Ltd.; Guangzhou Lai-Long Co, Ltd;
Hang Ji Industries International Co; Hangzhou
Chunjiang Valve Corporation; Headwin Logistics
Co., Ltd.; Higher Hardware Co., Limited; Jiangsu
Wei Xi Group Co.; Jiashan Sinhai Precision Casting
Co., Ltd.; Leyuan Kuo Enterprise Co Ltd; LHMW
Investment Corporation; Long Quan Heng Feng
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
indicates that there were exports from
China of subject merchandise which is
not attributable to the two mandatory
respondents, and, therefore, the
Department preliminarily determines
that the PRC-wide entity exported
subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR. The PRC-wide
entity is thus assigned a single
antidumping duty rate distinct from the
separate rate(s) determined for
companies that are found to be
independent of government control with
respect to their export activities. The
Department considers the influence that
the government has been found to have
over the economy to warrant
determining a rate for the PRC-wide
entity that is distinct from the rates
found for companies that have provided
sufficient evidence to establish that they
operate freely with respect to their
export activities.31 We are preliminarily
assigning to the PRC-wide entity its
current rate of 55.62 percent.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence
Auto Air Accessories Co., Ltd.; Long Term Elec Co.
Ltd; Nantong Bochuang Fine Ceramic Co. Ltd.;
Netmotor (Mfg.) Ltd.; New Centurion Import Export
Ltd.; Ningbo Chindr Industry Co., Ltd.; Ningbo
Gime Bicycle Co. Ltd.; Ningbo IDC Int’l Trading Co.,
Ltd; Ningbo Kaiyuan Shipping Co., Ltd.; Ningbo ND
Imp. Exp Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Riyue Refri. Equip. Co.,
Ltd.; Ningbo Silvertie Foreign Economic Trading
Corp.; Ningbo Waywell International Co., Ltd.;
Ningbo Yinzhou Along Imp Exp Co.; On Time
Taiwan Ltd.; Orient Refrigeration Group Ltd.; Pan
Pacific Express Corp.; Promac Intl Corp. No 35;
Shanghai Haitai Precision Machine Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Highly Group Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanghai
Huan Long Im Ex Co. Ltd.; Shanghai Jing HE
Worked Trade Ltd.; Shanghai Research Institute OF;
Shanghai Sitico International Trading Co.; Shanghai
Velle Automobile Air; Shenyang Henyi Enterprise
Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Heg Import and Export Co., ltd.;
Shenzhen Pacific-Net Logistics, Ltd.; Summit
International Logistics, Ltd.; Suzhou KF Valve Co.,
Ltd.; Suzhou Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd.; Taizhou
Boxin Imp Exp Co., Ltd.; Taizhou Chen’s Copper
Co., Ltd.; Taizhou DBW Metal Pipe Fittings Co.,
Ltd.; Traffic Tech International Freight; Uniauto
Co., Ltd.; Uniauto International Limited; Uniauto
International Ltd.; Uniauto Intl Ltd; WDI (Xiamen)
Technology Inc.; Weiss-Rohlig China Co., Ltd.;
Wudi County Import and Export Corp.; Xiamen
Chengeng Auto Parts Supplier Co., Ltd.; Yancheng
H&M Pressure Valve; York International (Northern
Asia) Ltd.; Yuyao Dianbo Machinery Co., Ltd.;
Yuyao Shule Air Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd.;
Yuyao Smart Mold Plastic Co Ltd; Zhejiang Delisai
Air Conditioner Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Friendship
Valve Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Pinghu Foreign Trade;
Zhejiang Sanhua Climate and Appliance Controls
Group Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Sanrong Refrigeration;
Zhejiang Tongxiang; Zhejiang Yili Automobile Air
Condition Co., Ltd.; and Zhejiang Yilida Ventilator
Co., Ltd.
31 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From
the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results
and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Fifth
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
8338, 8342 (February 14, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26689
of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.32
The evidence provided by DunAn and
Sanhua supports a preliminary finding
of de jure absence of government control
based on the following: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with their businesses and export
licenses; (2) applicable legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) formal measures by
the government decentralizing control
of companies.33
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
government control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses.34 The Department has
determined that an analysis of de facto
control is critical in determining
whether respondents are, in fact, subject
to a degree of governmental control,
which would preclude the Department
from assigning separate rates.
The evidence provided by DunAn and
Sanhua supports a preliminary finding
of de facto absence of government
control based on the following: (1) The
absence of evidence that the export
prices are set by or are subject to the
approval of a government agency; 35 (2)
the respondents have authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; 36 (3) the respondents have
autonomy from the government in
32 See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
Foreign Trade Law of the People’s Republic
of China, contained in Sanhua’s AQR, at Exhibit A–
2. See also DunAn’s AQR at 3–4.
34 See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People’s
Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8,
1995).
35 See DunAn’s AQR, at 8–9, Sanhua’s AQR, at
7–10 and Exhibit A–5, and Sanhua’s first
supplemental questionnaire response (‘‘Sanhua’s 1st
SQR’’) at 2 and Exhibit SA–2.
36 See DunAn’s AQR, at 8–9 and Sanhua’s AQR,
at 9.
33 See
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
26690
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; 37 and (4) the
respondents retain the proceeds of their
export sales and make independent
decisions regarding disposition of
profits or financing of losses.38
Therefore, the evidence placed on the
record of this review by DunAn and
Sanhua demonstrates an absence of de
jure and de facto government control
with respect to DunAn’s and Sanhua’s
exports of the merchandise under
review, in accordance with the criteria
identified in Sparklers and Silicon
Carbide. Accordingly, we have
determined that DunAn and Sanhua
have demonstrated their eligibility for
separate rates.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of FSVs
to the United States by DunAn and
Sanhua were made at prices below NV,
we compared constructed export price
(‘‘CEP’’) to NV, as described in the
‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal
Value’’ sections of this notice.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of
the Act, CEP is the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold (or
agreed to be sold) in the United States
before or after the date of importation by
or for the account of the producer or
exporter of such merchandise or by a
seller affiliated with the producer or
exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated
with the producer or exporter, as
adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d)
of the Act. In accordance with section
772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for
DunAn’s and Sanhua’s sales because the
sales were made by U.S. affiliates in the
United States.
We calculated CEP based on delivered
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States. We made adjustments to
the reported gross unit prices for billing
adjustments to arrive at the price at
which the subject merchandise is first
sold in the United States to an
unaffiliated customer. We made
deductions from the U.S. sales price for
movement expenses in accordance with
section 772(c)(2) of the Act. These
included, where applicable, foreign
inland freight from plant to the port of
exportation, foreign brokerage and
handling, ocean freight, marine
insurance, U.S. inland freight from port
to the warehouse, U.S. freight from
warehouse to customer, U.S.
warehousing, U.S. customs duty, and
37 See DunAn’s AQR, at 10–11 and Sanhua’s
AQR, at 9.
38 See DunAn’s AQR, at 11 and Sanhua’s AQR, at
10–11.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
U.S. brokerage and handling. In
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the
Act, the Department deducted, where
applicable, commissions, credit
expenses, inventory carrying costs, and
indirect selling expenses from the U.S.
price, all of which relate to commercial
activity in the United States. In
accordance with section 772(d) of the
Act, we calculated DunAn’s and
Sanhua’s credit expenses and inventory
carrying costs based on each company’s
respective short-term interest rate. In
addition, we deducted CEP profit in
accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and
772(f) of the Act.39
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine NV
using a factors of production
methodology if the merchandise is
exported from an NME country and the
Department finds that the available
information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market
prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act. When determining NV in an
NME context, the Department will base
NV on FOPs because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of these economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under our
normal methodologies. The
Department’s questionnaire requires
that DunAn and Sanhua each provide
information regarding the weightedaverage FOPs across all of the
company’s plants and/or suppliers that
produce the subject merchandise, not
just the FOPs from a single plant or
supplier. This methodology ensures that
the Department’s calculations are as
accurate as possible.40
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available
information to find an appropriate SV to
value FOPs, but when a producer
sources an input from a ME and pays for
39 For a detailed description of all adjustments,
see Memorandum titled ‘‘Frontseating Service
Valves from the People’s Republic of China:
Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results
of the 2008–2010 Administrative Review: Zhejiang
DunAn Hetian Metal Co. Ltd.,’’ (‘‘DunAn
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum’’), dated May 2,
2011; and, ‘‘Frontseating Service Valves (‘‘FSVs’’)
from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’):
Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results
of the 2008–2010 Administrative Review: Zhejiang
Sanhua Co., Ltd. (‘‘Sanhua’’),’’ (‘‘Sanhua Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum’’), dated May 2, 2011.
40 See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances:
Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the
People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October
28, 2003), and accompanying Issue and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 19.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
it in ME currency, the Department may
value the factor using the actual price
paid for the input.41 DunAn and Sanhua
each reported that they did not purchase
inputs from ME suppliers for the
production of the subject
merchandise.42
We calculated NV based on FOPs in
accordance with section 773(c)(3) and
(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
The FOPs include but are not limited to:
(1) Hours of labor required; (2)
quantities of raw materials employed;
(3) amounts of energy and other utilities
consumed; and (4) representative capital
costs. The Department used FOPs
reported by DunAn and Sanhua for
materials, energy, labor, by-products,
and packing.
DunAn reported the FOPs of certain
unaffiliated third parties and requested
that the Department value recycled
brass bar, an intermediate input to the
production of FSVs, using these FOPs.
The Department sought additional
information in a supplemental
questionnaire regarding these FOPs, but
finds that DunAn’s reply does not
sufficiently address the deficiencies on
the record regarding this issue.43
Therefore, for the preliminary results,
the Department is valuing the recycled
brass bars reported by DunAn using a
surrogate value for brass bar. The
Department, however, expects to release
an additional supplemental
questionnaire addressing this issue, and
to consider the response to that
questionnaire when addressing this
issue for the final results.
DunAn and Sanhua separately
reported that they each generate brass
scrap during the production process of
subject merchandise.44 DunAn and
Sanhua each requested a by-product
offset for brass scrap. Sanhua
established that it sold all of the scrap
that it produced during the POR.
Therefore, for these preliminary results,
we have granted Sanhua a by-product
offset for scrap because it demonstrated
that there is commercial value to this
scrap.45 DunAn also established
commercial value for its scrap by
demonstrating that it sold a portion of
the scrap that it produced during the
41 See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof
Assembly Components, Div. of Ill. Tool Works, Inc.
v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382–1383 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department’s use of
market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
42 See DunAn’s Section D Questionnaire response
(‘‘DunAn’s DQR’’) at D–9 and Sanhua’s Section D
Questionnaire response (‘‘Sanhua’s DQR’’) at D–8.
43 See DunAn’s March 15, 2011 Section D
supplemental questionnaire response.
44 See DunAn’s DQR at D–20 and Sanhua’s DQR
at pages D–16—D–18, and Exhibit D–10a–e.
45 See Sanhua’s Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum.
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
POR, and provided the remaining scrap
to unaffiliated processors for production
into recycled bar. Accordingly, we have
granted DunAn a by-product offset for
its brass scrap generated during
production during the POR.46
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, the Department calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by DunAn and
Sanhua for the POR. To calculate NV,
the Department multiplied the reported
per-unit factor consumption quantities
by publicly available Indian SVs. In
selecting the SVs, the Department
considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. The
Department adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices, as appropriate.
Specifically, the Department added to
Indian import values a surrogate for
freight cost using the shorter of the
reported distance from the domestic
supplier to the factory or the distance
from the nearest seaport to the factory.
This adjustment is in accordance with
the decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma
Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401,
1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed
description of all SVs used to value
DunAn’s and Sanhua’s reported FOPs
may be found in the Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
For the preliminary results, in
accordance with the Department’s
practice, except where noted below, we
used data from the Indian import
statistics in the Global Trade Atlas
(‘‘GTA’’) and other publicly available
Indian sources in order to calculate SVs
for DunAn and Sanhua’s FOPs (i.e.,
direct materials, energy, and packing
materials) and certain movement
expenses. In selecting the best available
information for valuing FOPs in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the
Act, the Department’s practice is to
select, to the extent practicable, SVs
which are non-export average values,
most contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.47
The record shows that data in the Indian
import statistics, as well as those from
the other Indian sources, are
46 See DunAn’s Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum.
47 See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative
Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.48 In
those instances where we could not
obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous to the POR with
which to value factors, we adjusted the
SVs using, where appropriate, the
Indian Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as
published in the International Monetary
Fund’s International Financial
Statistics.49
Furthermore, with regard to Indian
import-based SVs, we have disregarded
prices that we have reason to believe or
suspect may be subsidized, such as
those from Indonesia, South Korea, and
Thailand. We have found in other
proceedings that these countries
maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies and,
therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all
exports to all markets from these
countries may be subsidized.50 We are
also guided by the statute’s legislative
history that explains that it is not
necessary to conduct a formal
investigation to ensure that such prices
are not subsidized.51 Rather, the
Department was instructed by Congress
to base its decision on information that
is available to it at the time it is making
its determination. In accordance with
the foregoing, we have not used prices
from these countries in calculating the
Indian import-based SVs.
We used Chemical Weekly prices to
value nitric acid and hydrochloric acid
for these preliminary results. We have
determined Chemical Weekly represents
the best data source to value these
chemicals because Chemical Weekly
specifies the concentration level of this
chemical input, while the GTA data do
not include this information. Therefore,
because DunAn reported the purity
level of these inputs, we find that
Chemical Weekly data are more specific
to the inputs.
48 See
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
Factor Valuation Memorandum. See also,
e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 9591,
9600 (March 5, 2009) (‘‘Kitchen Racks Prelim’’),
unchanged in Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009) (‘‘Kitchen Racks
Final’’).
50 See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results
and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011
(September 13, 2005), unchanged in Certain Frozen
Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Final Results of the First Administrative Review, 71
FR 14170 (March 21, 2006); and China Nat’l Mach.
Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 293 F.
Supp. 2d 1334 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003), affirmed 104
Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
51 See H.R. Rep. No. 100–576 at 590 (1988).
49 See
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26691
We used Indian transport information
to value the inland freight cost of the
raw materials. The Department
determined the best available
information for valuing truck freight to
be from the following Web site: https://
www.infobanc.com/logistics/
logtruck.htm. The logistics section of
this source contains inland truck freight
rates from four major points of origin to
25 destinations in India. The
Department obtained inland truck
freight rates for the POR from each point
of origin to each destination and
averaged the data accordingly. Since
this value is contemporaneous with the
POR, we made no adjustments for
inflation.52
On May 14, 2010, the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(‘‘CAFC’’) in Dorbest Ltd. v. United
States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC
2010) (‘‘Dorbest IV’’), found that the
‘‘{regression-based} method for
calculating wage rates {as stipulated by
19 CFR 351.408(c)(3)} uses data not
permitted by {the statutory
requirements laid out in section 773 of
the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c))}.’’ The
Department is continuing to evaluate
options for determining labor values in
light of the recent CAFC decision.
However, for these preliminary results,
we have calculated an hourly wage rate
to use in valuing respondents’ reported
labor input by averaging industryspecific earnings and/or wages in
countries that are economically
comparable to the PRC and that are
significant producers of comparable
merchandise.
For the preliminary results of this
administrative review, the Department
is valuing labor using a simple-average,
industry-specific wage rate using
earnings or wage data reported under
Chapter 5B by the International Labor
Organization (‘‘ILO’’). To achieve an
industry-specific labor value, we relied
on industry-specific labor data from the
countries we determined to be both
economically comparable to the PRC,
and significant producers of comparable
merchandise. A full description of the
industry-specific wage rate calculation
methodology is provided in the Factor
Valuation Memorandum. The
Department calculated a simple average
industry-specific wage rate of $1.49 for
these preliminary results. Specifically,
for this review, the Department has
calculated the wage rate using a simple
average of the data provided to the ILO
under Sub-Classification 29 of the ISICRevision 3 standard by countries
determined to be both economically
comparable to the PRC and significant
52 See
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
09MYN1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
26692
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
producers of comparable merchandise.
The Department finds the two-digit
description under ISIC-Revision 3
(‘‘Manufacture of Machinery and
Equipment, n.e.c.’’) to be the best
available wage rate surrogate value on
the record because it is specific and
derived from industries that produce
merchandise comparable to the subject
merchandise. Consequently, we
averaged the ILO industry-specific wage
rate data or earnings data available from
the following countries found to be
economically comparable to the PRC
and significant producers of comparable
merchandise: The Philippines, Egypt,
Indonesia, Ukraine, Jordan, Thailand,
Ecuador, and Peru. For further
information on the calculation of the
wage rate, see the Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
We valued electricity using the
updated electricity price data for small,
medium, and large industries, as
published by the Central Electricity
Authority, an administrative body of the
Government of India, in its publication
titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in
India, dated March 2008.53 These
electricity rates represent actual
country-wide, publicly-available
information on tax-exclusive electricity
rates charged to small, medium, and
large industries in India. We did not
inflate this value because utility rates
represent current rates, as indicated by
the effective dates listed for each of the
rates provided.
We valued natural gas using April
through June 2002 data from the Gas
Authority of India Ltd. (‘‘GAIL’’).
Consistent with the Department’s recent
determination in Polyvinyl Alcohol,54
we averaged the base and ceiling gas
prices of 2,850 rupees (Rs.) per
thousand cubic meters (‘‘m3’’) and Rs.
2,150 per thousand m3 and added a
transmission charge of Rs. 1,150 per
thousand m3 in calculating a value of
Rs. 3.650 per m3. To be
contemporaneous with the POR, the
Department inflated this factor value
using the POR wholesale WPI for
India.55
We valued water using the average
water rate charged by the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation,
which shows industrial water rates from
various areas within the Maharashtra
Province, India (‘‘Maharashtra Data’’).
The water rate is based on the average
53 See
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 27991 (May 15,
2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2.
55 See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
54 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
of the Indian rupees per m3 rates for 386
industrial usage rates 56 in India for the
months April, May, June, October,
November and December 2009. We did
not inflate this rate since all data points
are contemporaneous with the POR.57
We valued truck freight expenses
using an Indian per-unit average rate
calculated for the POR using data on the
following Web site: https://
www.infobanc.com/logistics/
logtruck.htm.58 The logistics section of
this Web site contains inland freight
truck rates between many large Indian
cities. We did not inflate this rate since
it is contemporaneous with the POR.
We valued brokerage and handling
using a price list of export procedures
necessary to export a standardized cargo
of goods from India. The price list is
compiled based on a survey case study
of the procedural requirements for
trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in India that is
published in Doing Business 2010:
India, published by the World Bank.59
We valued marine insurance using a
price quote we obtained from RJG
Consultants. RJG Consultants is a
market-economy provider of marine
insurance. We did not inflate this rate
since it is contemporaneous with the
POR.60
19 CFR 351.408(c)(4) directs the
Department to value overhead, general,
and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’)
and profit using non-proprietary
information gathered from producers of
identical or comparable merchandise in
the surrogate country. In this
administrative review, Petitioner
submitted the 2009–2010 financial
statements of one valve producer, Rane
Engine Valve Ltd. (‘‘Rane’’), and one
fastener producer, Sundram Fasteners
Limited (‘‘Sundram’’). In addition, it
placed the 2008–2009 financial
statements of a second valve producer,
Triton Valves Ltd. (‘‘Triton’’) on the
record of this review. DunAn provided
the 2009–2010 audited financial
statements of two producers of cast
products, Siddhi Cast Private Limited
(‘‘Siddhi Cast’’) and Pyrocast India
Private Limited (‘‘Pyrocast’’), and the
2008–2009 financial statements for
Siddhi Cast. Sanhua provided the 2009–
2010 audited financial statements of one
producer of copper products, Nissan
Copper (‘‘Nissan Copper’’). In addition,
it provided the 2008–2009 and the
2009–2010 audited financial statements
56 The 386 rates consist of 193 rates for industrial
use in ‘‘industrial areas,’’ and 193 rates for industrial
use ‘‘outside industrial areas.’’
57 See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
58 See id.
59 See id.
60 See id.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
for a producer of aluminum foils,
Gujarat Foils, Ltd. (‘‘Gujarat Foils’’).
First, we determined not to use the
2009–2010 audited financial statements
for Gujarat Foils because Gujarat Foils
audited financial statements indicate
that it received benefits under the Duty
Entitlement Pass Book (‘‘DEPB
Premium’’),61 a program the Department
has previously determined to be
countervailable. Congress indicated that
the Department should ‘‘avoid using any
prices which it had reason to believe or
suspect may be dumped or subsidized
prices.’’ Consistent with this
Congressional directive, the
Department’s practice is to not use
financial statements of a company that
we have reason to believe or suspect
may have received subsidies where
there are other sufficient reliable and
representative data on the record for
purposes of calculating the surrogate
financial ratios, because the financial
statements of companies receiving
actionable subsidies are less
representative of the financial
experience of the relevant industry than
the ratios derived from financial
statements that do not contain evidence
of subsidization.
Second, we have determined not to
rely on the 2009–2010 audited financial
statements of Nissan Copper, Gujarat
Foils, Rane, and Sundram, or the 2008–
2009 audited financial statements of
Gujarat Foils, Siddhi Cast and Triton as
surrogate producers under section
351.408(c)(4) of the Department’s
regulations because the companies do
not produce merchandise that is
identical or comparable to subject
merchandise. Gujarat Foils produces
aluminum rolled products, aluminum
foils and strips,62 products that are
comparable to subject merchandise.
Rane produces engine valves which are
made of martensitic and austentitic
grades of valve steel, cast iron, chilled
cast iron or cold forgings, rather than
brass 63 and thus are not comparable to
the subject merchandise. Sundram
produces high tensile fasteners, cold
extruded parts, powder metal parts, iron
powder, radiator caps, gear shifters, hot
forged parts, precision forged
differential gears, water pumps, oil
pumps, fuel pumps, belt tensioners,
rocker arm assemblies, cam followers,
61 See Gujarat Foils Limited’s 18th Annual Report
2009–2010 at p. 27 in Sanhua’s SV Comments at
Exhibit SV–3.
62 See Gujarat Foils, Ltd.’s Annual Report 2008–
2009 at p. 12 in Sanhua’s SV Comments at Exhibit
SV–3.
63 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Frontseating
Service Valves from the People’s Republic of China:
Information from the Web Indicating that Rane
Engine Valve Limited’s (‘‘Rane’’) Engine Valves Are
Made of Iron and Steel,’’ dated April 12, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
bearing housings, hubs and shafts,
tappets & other engine components and
valve train parts.64 Thus, like Gujarat
Foils and Rane, Sundram does not
produce comparable merchandise.
Triton produces valve cores and tire
tube valves.65 Tire tube valves are
similar to the valves used as inputs into
the subject merchandise, and valve
cores are inputs into the subject
merchandise. Nissan Copper produces
copper pipes and tubes, sections,
mother tubes, flat rods and wire bars,
and copper ingots, billets and/or bars.66
Copper tubes are also used as an input
into the subject merchandise. Therefore,
Triton and Nissan Copper’s financial
statements are not comparable because
the financial statements of companies
that produce inputs which are
consumed in manufacturing the subject
merchandise would not capture
downstream costs of producing the
subject merchandise.67
As a result, we have preliminarily
determined to use the contemporaneous
2009–2010 audited financial statements
of Siddhi and Pyrocast as the basis of
the surrogate financial ratios in this
review. Siddhi and Pyrocast both
produce valves. Both companies earned
a profit, and there is no record evidence
to indicate that they received benefits
that the Department has a basis to
believe or suspect to be
countervailable.68 Further, their audited
financial statements are complete and
are sufficiently detailed to disaggregate
materials, labor, overhead, and SG&A
expenses. For a complete listing of all
the inputs and a detailed discussion
about our SV selections, see the Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, the Department
made currency conversions into U.S.
dollars, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
64 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Frontseating
Service Valves from the People’s Republic of China:
Information Concerning the Products Produced by
Sundram Fasteners Limited (‘‘Sundram’’)’’, dated
April 26, 2011.
65 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Frontseating
Service Valves from the People’s Republic of China:
Information Concerning the Products Produced by
Triton Valves Ltd. (‘‘Triton’’),’’ dated April 26, 2011.
66 See Nissan Copper’s 21st Annual Report 2009–
2010 at page 13 in Sanhua’ SV Comments at Exhibit
SV–3.
67 See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 8907 (February
27, 2009) and accompanying issues and decision
memorandum at Comment 1.
68 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Frontseating
Service Valves from the People’s Republic of China:
Information from the Web Indicating that Pyrocast
India Private Ltd. (‘‘Pyrocast’’) and Siddhi Cast
Private Ltd. (‘‘Siddhi Cast’’) Produce Valves,’’ dated
April 11, 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
26693
subject to this review. The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions
to CBP 15 days after the publication
date of the final results of this review.
Weighted-Average Dumping Margins
In accordance with 19 CFR
The preliminary weighted-average
351.212(b)(1), we calculated exporter/
dumping margin is as follows:
importer (or customer)-specific
assessment rates for the merchandise
MAGNESIUM METAL FROM THE PRC
subject to this review. We calculated an
ad valorem rate for each importer or
Weightedcustomer by dividing the total dumping
average
Exporter
margins for reviewed sales to that party
margin
by the total entered value associated
(percentage)
with those transactions. For dutyZhejiang DunAn Hetian
assessment rates calculated on this
Metal Co. Ltd ....................
38.85 basis, we will direct CBP to assess the
Zhejiang Sanhua Co., Ltd ....
5.35 resulting ad valorem rate against the
PRC-Wide Entity ...................
55.62 entered customs values for the subject
merchandise. Where appropriate, we
Disclosure
calculated a per-unit rate for each
importer or customer by dividing the
The Department will disclose
total dumping margins for reviewed
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within sales to that party by the total sales
quantity associated with those
five days of the date of publication of
transactions. For duty-assessment rates
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
calculated on this basis, we will direct
351.224(b).
CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate
Comments
against the entered quantity of the
Any interested party may request a
subject merchandise. Where an
hearing within 30 days of publication of importer- or customer-specific
these preliminary results.69 If a hearing
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent) in accordance with
is requested, the Department will
announce the hearing schedule at a later the requirement of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2),
date. Interested parties may submit case the Department will instruct CBP to
briefs and/or written comments no later assess that importer’s or customer’s
than 30 days after the publication of the entries of subject merchandise without
regard to antidumping duties. We
preliminary results of this review.70
intend to instruct CBP to liquidate
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written
entries containing subject merchandise
comments, limited to issues raised in
exported by the PRC-wide entity
such briefs or comments, may be filed
(including Tycon Alloy Industries
no later than five days after the time
limit for filing the case briefs.71 Further, (Shenzhen) Co.) at the PRC-wide rate we
determine in the final results of this
we request that parties submitting
review.
written comments provide the
Department with an additional
Cash Deposit Requirements
electronic copy of those comments on a
The following cash deposit
CD–ROM. The Department intends to
requirements will be effective upon
issue the final results of this
publication of the final results of this
administrative review, which will
administrative review for shipments of
include the results of its analysis of
the subject merchandise from the PRC
issues raised in all comments, and at a
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
hearing, within 120 days of publication
of these preliminary results, pursuant to for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
Assessment Rates
DunAn and Sanhua, which have
separate rates, the cash deposit rates
The Department will determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on will be that established in the final
results of this review (except, if the rates
all appropriate entries of subject
are zero or de minimis, then zero cash
merchandise in accordance with the
deposit will be required); (2) for
final results of this review.72 For
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
assessment purposes, we calculated
and non-PRC exporters not listed above
importer- or customer-specific
that received a separate rate in a prior
assessment rates for merchandise
segment of this proceeding, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
69 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC
70 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
71 See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
exporters of subject merchandise that
72 See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
have not been found to be entitled to a
exchange rates in effect as certified by
the Federal Reserve Bank on the date of
the U.S. sale.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
26694
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 55.62 percent;
and (4) 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 that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice
are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213.
Dated: May 2, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–11253 Filed 5–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Naval Postgraduate School; Notice of
Consolidated Decision on Application
for Duty-Free Entry of Electron
Microscope
This is a decision consolidated
pursuant to Section 6(c) of the
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.
L 89–651, as amended by Pub. L 106–
36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).
Related records can be viewed between
8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC.
Docket Number: 11–021. Applicant:
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,
CA 93943. Instrument: Electron
Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI
Company, Czech Republic. Intended
Use: See notice at 76 FR 15945, March
22, 2011.
Comments: None received. Decision:
Approved. No instrument of equivalent
scientific value to the foreign
instrument, for such purposes as this
instrument is intended to be used, is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
being manufactured in the United States
at the time the instrument was ordered.
Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an
electron microscope and is intended for
research or scientific educational uses
requiring an electron microscope. We
know of no electron microscope, or any
other instrument suited to these
purposes, which was being
manufactured in the United States at the
time of order of each instrument.
Dated: May 3, 2011.
Gregory W. Campbell,
Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office,
Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–11252 Filed 5–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
UChicago Argonne, LLC, et al.; Notice
of Consolidated Decision on
Applications for Duty-Free Entry of
Scientific Instruments
This is a decision pursuant to Section
6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Materials Importation Act of
1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by
Pub. L. 106–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR
part 301). Related records can be viewed
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room
3720, U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th and Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC.
Docket Number: 11–012. Applicant:
UChicago Argonne, LLC, Lemont, IL
60439. Instrument: TFS500 Atomic
Layer Deposition System. Manufacturer:
Beneq OY, Finland. Intended Use: See
notice at 76 FR 15945, March 22, 2011.
Comments: None received. Decision:
Approved. We know of no instruments
of equivalent scientific value to the
foreign instruments described below, for
such purposes as each is intended to be
used, that was being manufactured in
the United States at the time of its order.
Reasons: Pertinent characteristics of this
instrument include its modular
deposition chamber in order that the
system can be reconfigured to optimize
the coating process for different
substrates. It also has a precursor
delivery system that can be heated to
500 degrees Celsius to vaporize nonvolatile chemical precursors. Lastly, it is
capable of inert gas purging between the
deposition chamber and outer heating
chambers to contain the precursors
without the need for a gas-tight seal at
this junction.
Docket Number: 11–016. Applicant:
UChicago Argonne, LLC, Lemont, IL
60439–4873. Instrument: Single Roll
Presser. Manufacturer: A-Pro Co., Ltd.,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
South Korea. Intended Use: See notice
at 76 FR 15945, March 22, 2011.
Comments: None received. Decision:
Approved. We know of no instruments
of equivalent scientific value to the
foreign instruments described below, for
such purposes as each is intended to be
used, that was being manufactured in
the United States at the time of its order.
Reasons: The instrument is unique in
that it is semi-automated with a high
attention to dimensional tolerances,
temperature control and safety, which
ensures that the research cells made will
be of industrial level quality and
consistency.
Docket Number: 11–018. Applicant:
Purdue University, Birck
Nanotechnology Center, West Lafayette,
IN 47907–2057. Instrument: Rapid
Thermal Annealer. Manufacturer:
Quailflow Jipelec, France. Intended Use:
See notice at 76 FR 15945, March 22,
2011. Comments: None received.
Decision: Approved. We know of no
instruments of equivalent scientific
value to the foreign instruments
described below, for such purposes as
each is intended to be used, that was
being manufactured in the United States
at the time of its order. Reasons: Key
characteristics of this instrument
include a temperature ramp rate of 300
degrees Celsius per second, vacuum
purge capability and contamination
control.
Dated: May 3, 2011.
Gregory W. Campbell,
Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office,
Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–11250 Filed 5–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–533–821]
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From India: Final Rescission
of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: May 9, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Ave., NW.,
Room 4014, Washington, DC 20230,
telephone: (202) 482–4793.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26686-26694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11253]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-933]
Frontseating Service Valves from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the 2008-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission of Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frontseating
service valves (``FSVs'') from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''), covering the period October 22, 2008 through March 31, 2010.
We have preliminarily determined that the mandatory respondents in
this administrative review have made sales in the United States at
prices below normal value (``NV'') during the period of review
(``POR''). None of the remaining respondents provided evidence that
they are separate from the state-controlled entity. As a result, they
are considered part of the PRC entity. If these preliminary results are
adopted in the final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries
of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific
assessment rates are above de minimis.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each
argument a summary of the argument. We intend to issue the final
results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this
notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act'').
DATES: Effective Date: May 9, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita, Sergio Balbontin, or
Eugene Degnan, 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) 482-4243, (202) 482-6478, and (202) 482-0414, respectively.
Background
On April 28, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on FSVs from the PRC.\1\ On April 1, 2010,
the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on FSVs from the PRC for the period October 22, 2008 through
March 31, 2010.\2\ On April 28, 2010, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(2), Zhejiang Sanhua Co., Ltd. (``Sanhua''), a foreign
exporter of the subject merchandise, requested the Department to review
its sales of subject merchandise. On April 30, 2010, Parker-Hannifin
Corporation (``Petitioner'') requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review of the exports of subject merchandise of 97
exporters and producers of the subject merchandise.\3\ On the same
date, Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. Ltd. (``DunAn''), a foreign
exporter of the subject merchandise, requested the Department to review
its sales of subject merchandise. On May 28, 2010, the Department
initiated an administrative review of the order on FSVs from the PRC
for the POR with respect to 97 producers and exporters of the subject
merchandise.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Frontseating Service Valves from
the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 19196 (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 Petitioners, ``Frontseating Service Valves
from the People's Republic of China--Request for Initiation of
Antidumping Administrative Review,'' dated April 30, 2010, at
Attachment A.
\4\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 29976 (May 28, 2010) (``Initiation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 25, 2010, Tycon Alloy Industries (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
(``Tycon Alloy'') reported that it had no shipments of subject
merchandise and requested that the Department rescind the review with
respect to it. On July 26, 2010, Amtek/CAG, Inc., an exporter of the
subject merchandise, entered its appearance in this review and withdrew
its appearance on August 5, 2010.
On August 13, 2010, the Department selected two mandatory
respondents for this administrative review: Sanhua and DunAn. See the
Respondent Selection section below.
Between August 2010 and February 2011, the Department issued its
initial and supplemental antidumping duty questionnaires to the two
mandatory respondents in this review, DunAn and Sanhua.\5\ DunAn and
Sanhua submitted their responses between September 2010 and March 2011,
and Petitioner
[[Page 26687]]
responded with comments in November 2010 and April 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See the ``Respondent Selection'' section of this notice
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 8, 2010, the Department requested that Import
Administration's Office of Policy provide a list of surrogate countries
for this review.\6\ On July 20, 2010, the Office of Policy issued its
list of surrogate countries.\7\ On October 22, 2010, the Department
issued a letter to interested parties seeking comments on surrogate
country selection and surrogate values (``SVs'').\8\ On November 4 and
5, 2010, Petitioners, DunAn and Sanhua provided surrogate country
selection comments (``Petitioners' Surrogate Country Selection
Letter,'' ``DunAn's Surrogate Country Selection Letter'' and ``Sanhua's
Surrogate Country Selection Letter,'' respectively). DunAn and Sanhua
submitted SV comments (``DunAn's SV Comments'' and ``Sanhua's SV
Comments,'' respectively). On November 29, 2010, Petitioner submitted
rebuttal SV comments (``Petitioners' Rebuttal SV Comments'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Memorandum to Carole Showers, Director, Office of
Policy, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Frontseating
Service Valves from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate-
Country Selection,'' dated July 8, 2010.
\7\ See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Acting Director, Office
of Policy, ``Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frontseating
Service Valves (``Service Valves'') from the People's Republic of
China (``PRC''),'' dated July 20, 2010 (``Surrogate Country List'').
\8\ See Letter to Interested Parties, ``First Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Front Seating Valves from
the People's Republic of China: Request for Comments on the
Selection of a Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values,'' dated
October 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 2011, the Department extended the time period for
completion of the preliminary results of this review by 120 days until
May 2, 2011.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Frontseating Service Valves from the People's Republic
of China: Extension of Time for the Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 1135 (January 7,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent Selection
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate
individual dumping margins for each known exporter or producer of the
subject merchandise. However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the
Department discretion to limit its examination to a reasonable number
of exporters or producers if it is not practicable to examine all
exporters or producers involved in the review.
On June 2, 2010, the Department released CBP data for entries of
the subject merchandise during the POR under administrative protective
order (``APO'') to all interested parties having an APO, inviting
comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection. The
Department received comments and rebuttal comments on June 14, 2010,
and June 17, 2010, from Petitioners and Sanhua, respectively. On July
1, 2010, the Department released revised CBP data to all parties under
APO. Petitioners and DunAn provided comments on this data on July 8,
2010.
On August 13, 2010, the Department issued its Respondent Selection
Memorandum after assessing its resources and determining that it could
reasonably examine two exporters subject to this review. Pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected DunAn and
Sanhua as mandatory respondents.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Memorandum regarding Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Frontseating Service Valves from the People's Republic of
China: Selection of Mandatory Respondents, dated August 13, 2010
(``Respondent Selection Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is October 22, 2008 through March 31, 2010.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this order is frontseating service
valves, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain
parts thereof. Frontseating service valves contain a sealing surface on
the front side of the valve stem that allows the indoor unit or outdoor
unit to be isolated from the refrigerant stream when the air
conditioning or refrigeration unit is being serviced. Frontseating
service valves rely on an elastomer seal when the stem cap is removed
for servicing and the stem cap metal to metal seat to create this seal
to the atmosphere during normal operation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The frontseating service valve differs from a backseating
service valve in that a backseating service valve has two sealing
surfaces on the valve stem. This difference typically incorporates a
valve stem on a backseating service valve to be machined of steel,
where a frontseating service valve has a brass stem. The backseating
service valve dual stem seal (on the back side of the stem), creates
a metal to metal seal when the valve is in the open position, thus,
sealing the stem from the atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of the scope, the term ``unassembled'' frontseating
service valve means a brazed subassembly requiring any one or more of
the following processes: the insertion of a valve core pin, the
insertion of a valve stem and/or O ring, the application or
installation of a stem cap, charge port cap or tube dust cap. The term
``complete'' frontseating service valve means a product sold ready for
installation into an air conditioning or refrigeration unit. The term
``incomplete'' frontseating service valve means a product that when
sold is in multiple pieces, sections, subassemblies or components and
is incapable of being installed into an air conditioning or
refrigeration unit as a single, unified valve without further assembly.
The major parts or components of frontseating service valves
intended to be covered by the scope under the term ``certain parts
thereof'' are any brazed subassembly consisting of any two or more of
the following components: a valve body, field connection tube, factory
connection tube or valve charge port. The valve body is a rectangular
block, or brass forging, machined to be hollow in the interior, with a
generally square shaped seat (bottom of body). The field connection
tube and factory connection tube consist of copper or other metallic
tubing, cut to length, shaped and brazed to the valve body in order to
create two ports, the factory connection tube and the field connection
tube, each on opposite sides of the valve assembly body. The valve
charge port is a service port via which a hose connection can be used
to charge or evacuate the refrigerant medium or to monitor the system
pressure for diagnostic purposes.
The scope includes frontseating service valves of any size,
configuration, material composition or connection type. Frontseating
service valves are classified under subheading 8481.80.1095, and also
have been classified under subheading 8415.90.80.85, of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). It is possible for
frontseating service valves to be manufactured out of primary materials
other than copper and brass, in which case they would be classified
under HTSUS subheadings 8481.80.3040, 8481.80.3090, or 8481.80.5090. In
addition, if unassembled or incomplete frontseating service valves are
imported, the various parts or components would be classified under
HTSUS subheadings 8481.90.1000, 8481.90.3000, or 8481.90.5000. The
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
but the written description of the scope of this proceeding is
dispositive.
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review
The Department is rescinding this review with respect to Tycon
Alloy because it submitted a ``no shipment'' letter on June 25, 2010,
and our review of the CBP import data did not reveal any contradictory
information.12 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See letter from Tycon Alloy, ``Frontseating Service Valves
from the People's Republic of China: Request for Rescission of the
Administration Review,'' dated June 25, 2010. See also Memorandum to
the File, ``Frontseating Service Valves from the People's Republic
of China: Customs Data for Respondent Selection Concerning U.S.
Imports of Front Seating Valves,'' dated July 1, 2010.
\13\ See ``No Shipments Inquiry Re: Front Seating Service Valves
From The People's Republic Of China (A-570-933),'' dated April 6,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26688]]
Non-Market Economy Country Status
The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy
(``NME'') country in all past antidumping duty investigations and
administrative reviews and continues to do so in this case.\14\ The
Department has previously examined the PRC's market-economy (``ME'')
status and determined that NME status should continue for the PRC.\15\
In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority. No interested party to this
proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV
using a factors of production (``FOP'') methodology in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 771(18)(C) of the Act; see also, e.g., Pure Magnesium
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 76336 (December 16, 2008); and
Frontseating Service Valves From the People's Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final
Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March
13, 2009).
\15\ See Memorandum from the Office of Policy to David M.
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ``The
People's Republic of China (PRC) Status as a Non-Market Economy
(NME),'' dated May 15, 2006. This document is available online at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV on the NME
producer's FOPs. The Act further instructs that valuation of the FOPs
shall be based on the best available information in a surrogate ME
country or countries considered to be appropriate by the
Department.\16\ When valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to
the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more ME
countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable
to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable
merchandise.\17\ Further, the Department normally values all FOPs in a
single surrogate country.\18\ The sources of SVs are discussed under
the ``Normal Value'' section below and in the Factor Valuation
Memorandum,\19\ which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046
of the main Department building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See section 773(c)(1) of the Act.
\17\ See section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
\18\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2).
\19\ See Memorandum to the File, ``2008-2009 Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on FSVs from the People's
Republic of China: Factor Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary
Results,'' dated May 2, 2011 (``Factor Valuation Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In examining which country to select as its primary surrogate
country for this proceeding, the Department first determined that
India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine and Peru are
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.\20\
Petitioner, DunAn and Sanhua each submitted letters asserting that
India is the most appropriate surrogate country because: (1) India is
at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC; (2) India is
a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and, (3) India has
the most reliable, nationally published, publicly available data with
which to value the FOPs used to produce the subject merchandise.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Surrogate Country List.
\21\ See Petitioner's Surrogate Country Selection Letter at 2;
DunAn's Surrogate Country Selection Letter at 2; and, Sanhua's
Surrogate Country Selection Letter at 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After evaluating interested parties' comments, the Department has
determined that India is the appropriate surrogate country to use in
this review in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act. The
Department based its decision on the following facts: (1) India is at a
level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) India
is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) India
provides the best opportunity to use quality, publicly available data
to value the FOPs. All the data submitted by Petitioner, DunAn and
Sanhua for our consideration as potential SVs and surrogate financial
ratios are sourced from India. Finally, on the record of this review,
we have usable SV data (including financial data) from India, but no
such surrogate data from other potential surrogate country.
Therefore, because India best represents the experience of
producers of comparable merchandise operating in a surrogate country,
we have selected India as the surrogate country and, accordingly, have
calculated NV using Indian prices to value DunAn's and Sanhua's FOPs,
when available and appropriate. We have obtained and relied upon
publicly available information wherever possible.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may
submit publicly available information to value the FOPs within 20 days
after the date of publication of the preliminary results of review.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
determination of this review, interested parties may submit factual
information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information
submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or
after the applicable deadline for submission of such factual
information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1)
permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or
corrects information recently placed on the record. The Department
generally cannot accept the submission of additional, previously
absent-from-the-record alternative SV information pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final
Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department.\23\ In proceedings involving NME countries,
the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within
the country are subject to government control and thus should be
assessed a single antidumping duty rate.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See section 771(18)(C) of the Act.
\24\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain
Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR
53079 (September 8, 2006) (``Lined Paper from the PRC''); Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond
Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 71
FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Initiation, the Department notified parties of the
application and certification process by which exporters may obtain
separate rate status in NME proceedings.\25\ It is the Department's
policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise in an NME country
a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both
de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities. The
Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under
a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May
6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in 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''). However, if the Department determines that a company is
wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate
rate analysis is not necessary to
[[Page 26689]]
determine whether it is independent from government control.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Initiation, 75 FR at 29977.
\26\ See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China,
72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rate Recipients
In this administrative review, Sanhua submitted its separate rate
certification on July 27, 2010.\27\ DunAn submitted its separate rate
certification in its Section A Questionnaire response (``DunAn's
AQR'').\28\ DunAn and Sanhua each reported that they are wholly
Chinese-owned companies.\29\ Therefore, the Department must analyze
whether they can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Sanhua's letter, ``Certain Frontseating Service Valves
from the People's Republic of China; A-570-933; Separate Rate
Certification of Zhejiang Sanhua Co., Ltd.,'' dated July 27, 2010.
\28\ See DunAn's AQR at 2-13 and DunAn's letter, ``DunAn's
Comments on Absence of Separate Rate Certification: Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Order on Fronseating Service Valves from
the People's Republic of China,'' dated August 4, 2010.
\29\ See DunAn's AQR at 13-19 and Sanhua's Section A
Questionnaire Response (``Sanhua's AQR'') at 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Entity
Except for Sanhua, DunAn, and Tycon Alloy, none of the other 94
companies upon which the Department initiated an administrative review
submitted a separate-rate application, a separate-rate certification,
or a certification of no shipments. As such, they have not demonstrated
their eligibility for separate rate status nor provided evidence of no-
shipments during the POR. Therefore, the Department preliminarily
determines that these companies belong to the PRC-wide entity.\30\
Furthermore, CBP data indicates that there were exports from China of
subject merchandise which is not attributable to the two mandatory
respondents, and, therefore, the Department preliminarily determines
that the PRC-wide entity exported subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR. The PRC-wide entity is thus assigned a single
antidumping duty rate distinct from the separate rate(s) determined for
companies that are found to be independent of government control with
respect to their export activities. The Department considers the
influence that the government has been found to have over the economy
to warrant determining a rate for the PRC-wide entity that is distinct
from the rates found for companies that have provided sufficient
evidence to establish that they operate freely with respect to their
export activities.\31\ We are preliminarily assigning to the PRC-wide
entity its current rate of 55.62 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The names of the companies are: AMTEK/CAG Inc.; Anhui
Technology Imp Exp Co., Ltd.; Anhui Yingliu Casting Industrial Co.;
Anhui Yingliu Electromechanical Co.; Ningbo Weitao Electrical
Appliance Co., Ltd.; Atico International (Asia) Ltd.; Beijing KJL
Int'l Cargo Agent Co., Ltd.; Bergstrom China Group; Bowen Casting Co
Ltd; Broad-Ocean Motor (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.; C.H. Robinson
Worldwide Logistics (Dalian) Co., Ltd.; Catic Fujian Co., Ltd.;
Ceiec International Electronics Service Company; Changzhou Ranco
Reversing Valve Co., Ltd.; Changzhou Regal-Beloit Motor Co., Ltd.;
Chian International Electronics A; China National Building Materials
& Equipment Imp & Exp Corp; Chongqing Jianshe Automobile; Zhonghuan
Mach. Factory; CPI Motor Co.; Dongyou International Co., Ltd.;
Egelhof Regelungstechnik (Suzhou); Fujitsui General (Shanghai) Co.,
Ltd.; Gamela Enterprise Co Ltd; GD Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment
Co Ltd.; Global PMX Co. Ltd; Globe Express Services-NGB; Grace Meng;
Guangdong Sanyo Air Conditioner Co., Ltd.; Guangzhou Lai-Long Co,
Ltd; Hang Ji Industries International Co; Hangzhou Chunjiang Valve
Corporation; Headwin Logistics Co., Ltd.; Higher Hardware Co.,
Limited; Jiangsu Wei Xi Group Co.; Jiashan Sinhai Precision Casting
Co., Ltd.; Leyuan Kuo Enterprise Co Ltd; LHMW Investment
Corporation; Long Quan Heng Feng Auto Air Accessories Co., Ltd.;
Long Term Elec Co. Ltd; Nantong Bochuang Fine Ceramic Co. Ltd.;
Netmotor (Mfg.) Ltd.; New Centurion Import Export Ltd.; Ningbo
Chindr Industry Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Gime Bicycle Co. Ltd.; Ningbo IDC
Int'l Trading Co., Ltd; Ningbo Kaiyuan Shipping Co., Ltd.; Ningbo ND
Imp. Exp Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Riyue Refri. Equip. Co., Ltd.; Ningbo
Silvertie Foreign Economic Trading Corp.; Ningbo Waywell
International Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Yinzhou Along Imp Exp Co.; On Time
Taiwan Ltd.; Orient Refrigeration Group Ltd.; Pan Pacific Express
Corp.; Promac Intl Corp. No 35; Shanghai Haitai Precision Machine
Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Highly Group Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Huan
Long Im Ex Co. Ltd.; Shanghai Jing HE Worked Trade Ltd.; Shanghai
Research Institute OF; Shanghai Sitico International Trading Co.;
Shanghai Velle Automobile Air; Shenyang Henyi Enterprise Co., Ltd.;
Shenzhen Heg Import and Export Co., ltd.; Shenzhen Pacific-Net
Logistics, Ltd.; Summit International Logistics, Ltd.; Suzhou KF
Valve Co., Ltd.; Suzhou Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd.; Taizhou Boxin
Imp Exp Co., Ltd.; Taizhou Chen's Copper Co., Ltd.; Taizhou DBW
Metal Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd.; Traffic Tech International Freight;
Uniauto Co., Ltd.; Uniauto International Limited; Uniauto
International Ltd.; Uniauto Intl Ltd; WDI (Xiamen) Technology Inc.;
Weiss-Rohlig China Co., Ltd.; Wudi County Import and Export Corp.;
Xiamen Chengeng Auto Parts Supplier Co., Ltd.; Yancheng H&M Pressure
Valve; York International (Northern Asia) Ltd.; Yuyao Dianbo
Machinery Co., Ltd.; Yuyao Shule Air Conditioning Equipment Co.,
Ltd.; Yuyao Smart Mold Plastic Co Ltd; Zhejiang Delisai Air
Conditioner Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Friendship Valve Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang
Pinghu Foreign Trade; Zhejiang Sanhua Climate and Appliance Controls
Group Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Sanrong Refrigeration; Zhejiang Tongxiang;
Zhejiang Yili Automobile Air Condition Co., Ltd.; and Zhejiang
Yilida Ventilator Co., Ltd.
\31\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial
Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
8338, 8342 (February 14, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by DunAn and Sanhua supports a preliminary
finding of de jure absence of government control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with
their businesses and export licenses; (2) applicable legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) formal measures
by the government decentralizing control of companies.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China,
contained in Sanhua's AQR, at Exhibit A-2. See also DunAn's AQR at
3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses.\34\ The Department has determined that an analysis
of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are,
in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control, which would
preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; see also Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May
8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by DunAn and Sanhua supports a preliminary
finding of de facto absence of government control based on the
following: (1) The absence of evidence that the export prices are set
by or are subject to the approval of a government agency; \35\ (2) the
respondents have authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; \36\ (3) the respondents have autonomy from the government
in
[[Page 26690]]
making decisions regarding the selection of management; \37\ and (4)
the respondents retain the proceeds of their export sales and make
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of
losses.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See DunAn's AQR, at 8-9, Sanhua's AQR, at 7-10 and Exhibit
A-5, and Sanhua's first supplemental questionnaire response
(``Sanhua's 1st SQR'') at 2 and Exhibit SA-2.
\36\ See DunAn's AQR, at 8-9 and Sanhua's AQR, at 9.
\37\ See DunAn's AQR, at 10-11 and Sanhua's AQR, at 9.
\38\ See DunAn's AQR, at 11 and Sanhua's AQR, at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this review by
DunAn and Sanhua demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto
government control with respect to DunAn's and Sanhua's exports of the
merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria identified in
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Accordingly, we have determined that
DunAn and Sanhua have demonstrated their eligibility for separate
rates.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of FSVs to the United States by DunAn
and Sanhua were made at prices below NV, we compared constructed export
price (``CEP'') to NV, as described in the ``Constructed Export Price''
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in
the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the
account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated
with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and
(d) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used
CEP for DunAn's and Sanhua's sales because the sales were made by U.S.
affiliates in the United States.
We calculated CEP based on delivered prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments to the reported
gross unit prices for billing adjustments to arrive at the price at
which the subject merchandise is first sold in the United States to an
unaffiliated customer. We made deductions from the U.S. sales price for
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act.
These included, where applicable, foreign inland freight from plant to
the port of exportation, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight,
marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from port to the warehouse, U.S.
freight from warehouse to customer, U.S. warehousing, U.S. customs
duty, and U.S. brokerage and handling. In accordance with section
772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department deducted, where applicable,
commissions, credit expenses, inventory carrying costs, and indirect
selling expenses from the U.S. price, all of which relate to commercial
activity in the United States. In accordance with section 772(d) of the
Act, we calculated DunAn's and Sanhua's credit expenses and inventory
carrying costs based on each company's respective short-term interest
rate. In addition, we deducted CEP profit in accordance with sections
772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ For a detailed description of all adjustments, see
Memorandum titled ``Frontseating Service Valves from the People's
Republic of China: Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results
of the 2008-2010 Administrative Review: Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal
Co. Ltd.,'' (``DunAn Preliminary Analysis Memorandum''), dated May
2, 2011; and, ``Frontseating Service Valves (``FSVs'') from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC''): Analysis Memorandum for the
Preliminary Results of the 2008-2010 Administrative Review: Zhejiang
Sanhua Co., Ltd. (``Sanhua''),'' (``Sanhua Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum''), dated May 2, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using a factors of production methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME country and the Department finds
that the available information does not permit the calculation of NV
using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value
under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining NV in an NME context,
the Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of these economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our
normal methodologies. The Department's questionnaire requires that
DunAn and Sanhua each provide information regarding the weighted-
average FOPs across all of the company's plants and/or suppliers that
produce the subject merchandise, not just the FOPs from a single plant
or supplier. This methodology ensures that the Department's
calculations are as accurate as possible.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe
Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October
28, 2003), and accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment
19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available information to find an appropriate SV
to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a ME and pays
for it in ME currency, the Department may value the factor using the
actual price paid for the input.\41\ DunAn and Sanhua each reported
that they did not purchase inputs from ME suppliers for the production
of the subject merchandise.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly
Components, Div. of Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. United States, 268 F.3d
1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department's use of
market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
\42\ See DunAn's Section D Questionnaire response (``DunAn's
DQR'') at D-9 and Sanhua's Section D Questionnaire response
(``Sanhua's DQR'') at D-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We calculated NV based on FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(3)
and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include but are not
limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw
materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed;
and (4) representative capital costs. The Department used FOPs reported
by DunAn and Sanhua for materials, energy, labor, by-products, and
packing.
DunAn reported the FOPs of certain unaffiliated third parties and
requested that the Department value recycled brass bar, an intermediate
input to the production of FSVs, using these FOPs. The Department
sought additional information in a supplemental questionnaire regarding
these FOPs, but finds that DunAn's reply does not sufficiently address
the deficiencies on the record regarding this issue.\43\ Therefore, for
the preliminary results, the Department is valuing the recycled brass
bars reported by DunAn using a surrogate value for brass bar. The
Department, however, expects to release an additional supplemental
questionnaire addressing this issue, and to consider the response to
that questionnaire when addressing this issue for the final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See DunAn's March 15, 2011 Section D supplemental
questionnaire response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DunAn and Sanhua separately reported that they each generate brass
scrap during the production process of subject merchandise.\44\ DunAn
and Sanhua each requested a by-product offset for brass scrap. Sanhua
established that it sold all of the scrap that it produced during the
POR. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we have granted Sanhua a
by-product offset for scrap because it demonstrated that there is
commercial value to this scrap.\45\ DunAn also established commercial
value for its scrap by demonstrating that it sold a portion of the
scrap that it produced during the
[[Page 26691]]
POR, and provided the remaining scrap to unaffiliated processors for
production into recycled bar. Accordingly, we have granted DunAn a by-
product offset for its brass scrap generated during production during
the POR.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See DunAn's DQR at D-20 and Sanhua's DQR at pages D-16--D-
18, and Exhibit D-10a-e.
\45\ See Sanhua's Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
\46\ See DunAn's Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department
calculated NV based on FOPs reported by DunAn and Sanhua for the POR.
To calculate NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor
consumption quantities by publicly available Indian SVs. In selecting
the SVs, the Department considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. The Department adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them delivered prices, as appropriate.
Specifically, the Department added to Indian import values a surrogate
for freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the
domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest
seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma
Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A
detailed description of all SVs used to value DunAn's and Sanhua's
reported FOPs may be found in the Factor Valuation Memorandum.
For the preliminary results, in accordance with the Department's
practice, except where noted below, we used data from the Indian import
statistics in the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA'') and other publicly
available Indian sources in order to calculate SVs for DunAn and
Sanhua's FOPs (i.e., direct materials, energy, and packing materials)
and certain movement expenses. In selecting the best available
information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of
the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the extent
practicable, SVs which are non-export average values, most
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\47\
The record shows that data in the Indian import statistics, as well as
those from the other Indian sources, are contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\48\ In those instances where we
could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the
POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the SVs using, where
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in
the International Monetary Fund's International Financial
Statistics.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
\48\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
\49\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum. See also, e.g., Certain
Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5,
2009) (``Kitchen Racks Prelim''), unchanged in Certain Kitchen
Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656
(July 24, 2009) (``Kitchen Racks Final'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, with regard to Indian import-based SVs, we have
disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be
subsidized, such as those from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand. We
have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly
available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is
reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these
countries may be subsidized.\50\ We are also guided by the statute's
legislative history that explains that it is not necessary to conduct a
formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized.\51\
Rather, the Department was instructed by Congress to base its decision
on information that is available to it at the time it is making its
determination. In accordance with the foregoing, we have not used
prices from these countries in calculating the Indian import-based SVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011
(September 13, 2005), unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First
Administrative Review, 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006); and China Nat'l
Mach. Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334
(Ct. Int'l Trade 2003), affirmed 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
\51\ See H.R. Rep. No. 100-576 at 590 (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We used Chemical Weekly prices to value nitric acid and
hydrochloric acid for these preliminary results. We have determined
Chemical Weekly represents the best data source to value these
chemicals because Chemical Weekly specifies the concentration level of
this chemical input, while the GTA data do not include this
information. Therefore, because DunAn reported the purity level of
these inputs, we find that Chemical Weekly data are more specific to
the inputs.
We used Indian transport information to value the inland freight
cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available
information for valuing truck freight to be from the following Web
site: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics
section of this source contains inland truck freight rates from four
major points of origin to 25 destinations in India. The Department
obtained inland truck freight rates for the POR from each point of
origin to each destination and averaged the data accordingly. Since
this value is contemporaneous with the POR, we made no adjustments for
inflation.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(``CAFC'') in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC
2010) (``Dorbest IV''), found that the ``{regression-based{time}
method for calculating wage rates {as stipulated by 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3){time} uses data not permitted by {the statutory
requirements laid out in section 773 of the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C.
1677b(c)){time} .'' The Department is continuing to evaluate options
for determining labor values in light of the recent CAFC decision.
However, for these preliminary results, we have calculated an hourly
wage rate to use in valuing respondents' reported labor input by
averaging industry-specific earnings and/or wages in countries that are
economically comparable to the PRC and that are significant producers
of comparable merchandise.
For the preliminary results of this administrative review, the
Department is valuing labor using a simple-average, industry-specific
wage rate using earnings or wage data reported under Chapter 5B by the
International Labor Organization (``ILO''). To achieve an industry-
specific labor value, we relied on industry-specific labor data from
the countries we determined to be both economically comparable to the
PRC, and significant producers of comparable merchandise. A full
description of the industry-specific wage rate calculation methodology
is provided in the Factor Valuation Memorandum. The Department
calculated a simple average industry-specific wage rate of $1.49 for
these preliminary results. Specifically, for this review, the
Department has calculated the wage rate using a simple average of the
data provided to the ILO under Sub-Classification 29 of the ISIC-
Revision 3 standard by countries determined to be both economically
comparable to the PRC and significant
[[Page 26692]]
producers of comparable merchandise. The Department finds the two-digit
description under ISIC-Revision 3 (``Manufacture of Machinery and
Equipment, n.e.c.'') to be the best available wage rate surrogate value
on the record because it is specific and derived from industries that
produce merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise.
Consequently, we averaged the ILO industry-specific wage rate data or
earnings data available from the following countries found to be
economically comparable to the PRC and significant producers of
comparable merchandise: The Philippines, Egypt, Indonesia, Ukraine,
Jordan, Thailand, Ecuador, and Peru. For further information on the
calculation of the wage rate, see the Factor Valuation Memorandum.
We valued electricity using the updated electricity price data for
small, medium, and large industries, as published by the Central
Electricity Authority, an administrative body of the Government of
India, in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average
Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated March 2008.\53\ These
electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-available
information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small,
medium, and large industries in India. We did not inflate this value
because utility rates represent current rates, as indicated by the
effective dates listed for each of the rates provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued natural gas using April through June 2002 data from the
Gas Authority of India Ltd. (``GAIL''). Consistent with the
Department's recent determination in Polyvinyl Alcohol,\54\ we averaged
the base and ceiling gas prices of 2,850 rupees (Rs.) per thousand
cubic meters (``m\3\'') and Rs. 2,150 per thousand m\3\ and added a
transmission charge of Rs. 1,150 per thousand m\3\ in calculating a
value of Rs. 3.650 per m\3\. To be contemporaneous with the POR, the
Department inflated this factor value using the POR wholesale WPI for
India.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 27991
(May 15, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2.
\55\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued water using the average water rate charged by the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, which shows industrial
water rates from various areas within the Maharashtra Province, India
(``Maharashtra Data''). The water rate is based on the average of the
Indian rupees per m\3\ rates for 386 industrial usage rates \56\ in
India for the months April, May, June, October, November and December
2009. We did not inflate this rate since all data points are
contemporaneous with the POR.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ The 386 rates consist of 193 rates for industrial use in
``industrial areas,'' and 193 rates for industrial use ``outside
industrial areas.''
\57\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued truck freight expenses using an Indian per-unit average
rate calculated for the POR using data on the following Web site:
https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm.\58\ The logistics
section of this Web site contains inland freight truck rates between
many large Indian cities. We did not inflate this rate since it is
contemporaneous with the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export
procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods from
India. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010:
India, published by the World Bank.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued marine insurance using a price quote we obtained from RJG
Consultants. RJG Consultants is a market-economy provider of marine
insurance. We did not inflate this rate since it is contemporaneous
with the POR.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 CFR 351.408(c)(4) directs the Department to value overhead,
general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and profit using non-
proprietary information gathered from producers of identical or
comparable merchandise in the surrogate country. In this administrative
review, Petitioner submitted the 2009-2010 financial statements of one
valve producer, Rane Engine Valve Ltd. (``Rane''), and one fastener
producer, Sundram Fasteners Limited (``Sundram''). In addition, it
placed the 2008-2009 financial statements of a second valve producer,
Triton Valves Ltd. (``Triton'') on the record of this review. DunAn
provided the 2009-2010 audited financial statements of two producers of
cast products, Siddhi Cast Private Limited (``Siddhi Cast'') and
Pyrocast India Private Limited (``Pyrocast''), and the 2008-2009
financial statements for Siddhi Cast. Sanhua provided the 2009-2010
audited financial statements of one producer of copper products, Nissan
Copper (``Nissan Copper''). In addition, it provided the 2008-2009 and
the 2009-2010 audited financial statements for a producer of aluminum
foils, Gujarat Foils, Ltd. (``Gujarat Foils'').
First, we determined not to use the 2009-2010 audited financial
statements for Gujarat Foils because Gujarat Foils audited financial
statements indicate that it received benefits under the Duty
Entitlement Pass Book (``DEPB Premium''),\61\ a program the Department
has previously determined to be countervailable. Congress indicated
that the Department should ``avoid using any prices which it had reason
to believe or suspect may be dumped or subsidized prices.'' Consistent
with this Congressional directive, the Department's practice is to not
use financial statements of a company that we have reason to believe or
suspect may have received subsidies where there are other sufficient
reliable and representative data on the record for purposes of
calculating the surrogate financial ratios, because the financial
statements of companies receiving actionable subsidies are less
representative of the financial experience of the relevant industry
than the ratios derived from financial statements that do not contain
evidence of subsidization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See Gujarat Foils Limited's 18th Annual Report 2009-2010 at
p. 27 in Sanhua's SV Comments at Exhibit SV-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, we have determined not to rely on the 2009-2010 audited
financial statements of Nissan Copper, Gujarat Foils, Rane, and
Sundram, or the 2008-2009 audited financial statements of Gujarat
Foils, Siddhi Cast and Triton as surrogate producers under section
351.408(c)(4) of the Department's regulations because the companies do
not produce merchandise that is identical or comparable to subject
merchandise. Gujarat Foils produces aluminum rolled products, aluminum
foils and strips,\62\ products that are comparable to subject
merchandise. Rane produces engine valves which are made of martensitic
and austentitic grades of valve steel, cast iron, chilled cast iron or
cold forgings, rather than brass \63\ and thus are not comparable to
the subject merchandise. Sundram produces high tensile fasteners, cold
extruded parts, powder metal parts, iron powder, radiator caps, gear
shifters, hot forged parts, precision forged differential gears, water
pumps, oil pumps, fuel pumps, belt tensioners, rocker arm assemblies,
cam followers,
[[Page 26693]]
bearing housings, hubs and shafts, tappets & other engine components
and valve train parts.\64\ Thus, like Gujarat Foils and Rane, Sundram
does not produce comparable merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See Gujarat Foils, Ltd.'s Annual Report 2008-2009 at p. 12
in Sanhua's SV Comments at Exhibit SV-3.
\63\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Frontseating Service Valves
from the People's Republic of China: Information from the Web
Indicating that Rane Engine Valve Limited's (``Rane'') Engine Valves
Are Made of Iron and Steel,'' dated April 12, 2011.
\64\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Frontseating Service Valves
from the People's Republic of China: Information Concerning the
Products Produced by Sundram Fasteners Limited (``Sundram'')'',
dated April 26, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Triton produces valve cores and tire tube valves.\65\ Tire tube
valves are similar to the valves used as inputs into the subject
merchandise, and valve cores are inputs into the subject merchandise.
Nissan Copper produces copper pipes and tubes, sections, mother tubes,
flat rods and wire bars, and copper ingots, billets and/or bars.\66\
Copper tubes are also used as an input into the subject merchandise.
Therefore, Triton and Nissan Copper's financial statements are not
comparable because the financial statements of companies that produce
inputs which are consumed in manufacturing the subject merchandise
would not capture downstream costs of producing the subject
merchandise.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Frontseating Service Valves
from the People's Republic of China: Information Concerning the
Products Produced by Triton Valves Ltd. (``Triton''),'' dated April
26, 2011.
\66\ See Nissan Copper's 21st Annual Report 2009-2010 at page 13
in Sanhua' SV Comments at Exhibit SV-3.
\67\ See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74
FR 8907 (February 27, 2009) and accompanying issues and decision
memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, we have preliminarily determined to use the
contemporaneous 2009-2010 audited financial statements of Siddhi and
Pyrocast as the basis of the surrogate financial ratios in this review.
Siddhi and Pyrocast both produce valves. Both companies earned a
profit, and there is no record evidence to indicate that they received
benefits that the Department has a basis to believe or suspect to be
countervailable.\68\ Further, their audited financial statements are
complete and are sufficiently detailed to disaggregate materials,
labor, overhead, and SG&A expenses. For a complete listing of all the
inputs and a detailed discussion about our SV selections, see the
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Frontseating Service Valves
from the People's Republic of China: Information from the Web
Indicating that Pyrocast India Private Ltd. (``Pyrocast'') and
Siddhi Cast Private Ltd. (``Siddhi Cast'') Produce Valves,'' dated
April 11, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, the Department made currency conversions into U.S.
dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank on
the date of the U.S. sale.
Weighted-Average Dumping Margins
The preliminary weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:
Magnesium Metal From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Exporter average margin
(percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. Ltd..................... 38.85
Zhejiang Sanhua Co., Ltd................................ 5.35
PRC-Wide Entity......................................... 55.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Comments
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of these preliminary results.\69\ If a hearing is
requested, the Department will announce the hearing schedule at a later
date. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments
no later than 30 days after the publication of the preliminary results
of this review.\70\ Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments,
limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no
later than five days after the time limit for filing the case
briefs.\71\ Further, we request that parties submitting written
comments provide the Department with an additional electronic copy of
those comments on a CD-ROM. The Department intends to issue the final
results of this administrative review, which will include the results
of its analysis of issues raised in all comments, and at a hearing,
within 120 days of publication of these p
