Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 34044-34046 [2011-14361]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34044
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2011 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–201–830]
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire
Rod From Mexico: Extension of Time
Limits for the Preliminary Results of
Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Greynolds or Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–6071 and (202)
482–8362, respectively.
AGENCY:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Background
On November 29, 2010, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal
Register a notice of initiation of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on carbon and
certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico,
covering the period October 1, 2009,
through September 30, 2010. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 75 FR 73036 (November 29,
2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). The
preliminary results of the review are
currently due no later than July 3, 2011.
Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary
Results
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
requires the Department to make a
preliminary determination within 245
days after the last day of the anniversary
month of an order for which a review
is requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act further states that if it is not
practicable to complete the review
within the time period specified, the
administering authority may extend the
245 day period to issue its preliminary
results by up to 120 days.
We determine that completion of the
preliminary results of this review within
the 245 day period is not practicable for
the following reasons. This review
requires the Department to gather and
analyze a significant amount of
information pertaining to the company’s
sales practices, manufacturing costs,
and corporate relationships. Given the
number and complexity of issues in this
case, and in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are extending
the time period for issuing the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 Jun 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
preliminary results of review by 120
days. The preliminary results will now
be due no later than October 31, 2011,
the first business day following 120
days from the current deadline. See
Notice of Clarification: Application of
‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for
Administrative Determination Deadlines
Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as
Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
The final results continue to be due 120
days after the publication of the
preliminary results.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 3, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011–14359 Filed 6–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–122–853]
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts
From Canada: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 2, 2011, the
Department of Commerce (Department)
published the preliminary results of the
first administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on citric acid
and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from
Canada. The review covers one
manufacturer/exporter of the subject
merchandise to the United States:
Jungbunzlauer Canada Inc. (JBL
Canada). The review covers the period
November 20, 2008, through May 19,
2009, and May 29, 2009, through April
30, 2010. The final weighted-average
dumping margin for the manufacturer/
exporter is listed below in the ‘‘Final
Results of Review’’ section of this notice.
AGENCY:
DATES:
Effective Date: June 10, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230;
telephone (202) 482–4007 or (202) 482–
4929, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Background
On February 2, 2011, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of the 2008–2010
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on citric acid
from Canada. See Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts From Canada:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 5782
(February 2, 2011) (Preliminary Results).
We invited parties to comment on the
preliminary results of the review. We
received case briefs from the petitioners
(i.e., Archer Daniels Midland Co.,
Cargill, Inc. and Tate & Lyle Americas
LLC) and the respondent, JBL Canada,
on March 4, 2011. We received rebuttal
briefs from the petitioners and the
respondent on March 9, 2011.
On March 4, 2011, both parties
requested that a public hearing be held
in this proceeding. On March 18, and
21, 2011, the petitioners and JBL
Canada, respectively, withdrew their
hearing requests.
The Department has conducted this
administrative review in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order includes all
grades and granulation sizes of citric
acid, sodium citrate, and potassium
citrate in their unblended forms,
whether dry or in solution, and
regardless of packaging type. The scope
also includes blends of citric acid,
sodium citrate, and potassium citrate; as
well as blends with other ingredients,
such as sugar, where the unblended
form(s) of citric acid, sodium citrate,
and potassium citrate constitute 40
percent or more, by weight, of the blend.
The scope of this order also includes all
forms of crude calcium citrate,
including dicalcium citrate
monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate
tetrahydrate, which are intermediate
products in the production of citric
acid, sodium citrate, and potassium
citrate. The scope of this order does not
include calcium citrate that satisfies the
standards set forth in the United States
Pharmacopeia and has been mixed with
a functional excipient, such as dextrose
or starch, where the excipient
constitutes at least 2 percent, by weight,
of the product. The scope of this order
includes the hydrous and anhydrous
forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and
anhydrous forms of sodium citrate,
otherwise known as citric acid sodium
salt, and the monohydrate and
monopotassium forms of potassium
citrate. Sodium citrate also includes
both trisodium citrate and monosodium
E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM
10JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2011 / Notices
citrate, which are also known as citric
acid trisodium salt and citric acid
monosodium salt, respectively. Citric
acid and sodium citrate are classifiable
under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS), respectively.
Potassium citrate and crude calcium
citrate are classifiable under
2918.15.5000 and 3824.90.9290 of the
HTSUS, respectively. Blends that
include citric acid, sodium citrate, and
potassium citrate are classifiable under
3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is
November 20, 2008, through May 19,
2009, and May 29, 2009, through April
30, 2010. In accordance with section
733(d) of the Act, and subsequent to the
imposition of the antidumping duty
order, we instructed U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) to terminate the
suspension of liquidation and to
liquidate, without regard to
antidumping duties, entries of subject
merchandise for the period May 20,
2009, through May 28, 2009.
Accordingly, this administrative review
does not include the period May 20,
2009, through May 28, 2009.
Cost of Production
As discussed in the Preliminary
Results, we conducted an investigation
to determine whether JBL Canada made
comparison market sales of the foreign
like product during the POR at prices
below the costs of production (COP)
within the meaning of section 773(b) of
the Act. We performed the cost test for
these final results following the same
methodology as in the Preliminary
Results. Based on this test, we did not
disregard any of JBL Canada’s home
market sales of citric acid because, for
all products, we found that less than 20
percent of these sales were at prices
below the COP.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by
parties to this administrative review are
listed in the Appendix to this notice and
addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum (Decision Memo), which
is adopted by this notice. Parties can
find a complete discussion of all issues
raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Central Records Unit, Room 7046, of
the main Department building.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 Jun 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
In addition, a complete version of
the Decision Memo can be accessed
directly on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.
gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic
version of the Decision Memo are
identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made
certain changes in the margin
calculations for JBL Canada. These
changes are discussed in the relevant
sections of the Decision Memo.
Final Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we
determined that the following weightedaverage margin percentage applies for
the period November 20, 2008, through
May 19, 2009, and May 29, 2009,
through April 30, 2010, as follows:
Manufacturer/Exporter
Jungbunzlauer Canada, Inc .....
Margin
(percent)
1.60
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Pursuant to
19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends
to issue appropriate appraisement
instructions for the respondent subject
to this review directly to CBP 41 days
after the date of publication of the final
results of this review.
Because the respondent did not report
entered value for all sales to each
importer or customer, we calculated
importer- or customer-specific per-unit
duty assessment rates by aggregating the
total amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales and
dividing this amount by the total
quantity of those sales. To determine
whether the duty assessment rates are
de minimis, in accordance with the
requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(1), we calculated importerspecific ad valorem ratios based on the
estimated entered value.
We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries covered by this review if any
importer-specific assessment rate
calculated in the final results of this
review is above de minimis (i.e., at or
above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to
liquidate without regard to antidumping
duties any entries for which the
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent). The final results of
this review shall be the basis for the
assessment of antidumping duties on
entries of merchandise covered by the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34045
final results of this review and for future
deposits of estimated duties, where
applicable.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
Policy Notice). This clarification will
apply to entries of subject merchandise
during the POR produced by the
company included in these final results
of review for which the reviewed
company did not know that the
merchandise it sold to the intermediary
(e.g., a reseller, trading company, or
exporter) was destined for the United
States. In such instances, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
entries at the all-others rate effective
during the POR if there is no rate for the
intermediary involved in the
transaction. See Assessment Policy
Notice for a full discussion of this
clarification.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results of
this administrative review, as provided
by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)
The cash deposit rate for the company
listed above will be the rate shown
above; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not
participating in this review, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review, a prior
review, or the original less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) the cash
deposit rate for all other manufacturers
or exporters will continue to be 23.21
percent, the all-others rate made
effective by the LTFV investigation. See
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts
From Canada and the People’s Republic
of China: Antidumping Duty Orders, 74
FR 25703 (May 29, 2009). These deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM
10JNN1
34046
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2011 / Notices
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.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of
their responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice
are published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.221.
Dated: June 2, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix—Issues in Decision Memo
1. Currency Conversions
2. Post-Sale Billing Adjustments
3. Depreciation Expenses
4. Proposed Rules Regarding the Margin
Calculation Methodology in
Administrative Reviews
5. Corrections to the Dumping Margin
Calculations
[FR Doc. 2011–14361 Filed 6–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Non-Market Economy Antidumping
Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Request for comments.
AGENCY:
In antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’)
administrative reviews involving nonmarket economy countries (‘‘NME’’), the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) currently instructs U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to liquidate entries from non-reviewed
exporters at the cash-deposit rate
required at the time the subject
merchandise entered into the United
States, consistent with 19 CFR
351.212(c)(i). The Department is aware
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 Jun 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
of instances where merchandise from a
non-reviewed exporter enters the United
States at the cash-deposit rate of an
exporter subject to review but where the
basis for that cash deposit is not
consistent with information
subsequently reported to the
Department during an administrative
review. Accordingly, to ensure that
entries are liquidated at appropriate
rates and in accordance with the
information reported to the Department
during an administrative review, the
Department is proposing to refine its
practice with respect to the rate at
which it instructs CBP to liquidate
certain entries from non-reviewed
exporters. Specifically, the Department
proposes to instruct CBP to liquidate
such entries at the NME-wide rate.
Through this notice, the Department
invites the public to comment on the
proposed refinement to its practice.
Effective Date: The Department
proposes that this refinement in practice
apply to all entries for which the
anniversary for requesting an
administrative review of an AD order is
on or after the date of publication of a
final notice on this issue.
DATES: Comments must be submitted to
the Department by 30 days after
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia
Hancock, Special Assistant, China/NME
Unit, Office of Antidumping and
Countervailing Operations, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, at 202–482–1394.
Background
In AD proceedings, the Department
establishes a cash-deposit rate for each
company subject to the investigation or
review. In market economy (‘‘ME’’)
proceedings, the Department establishes
an ‘‘all-others’’ rate that applies to
exporters that have not been assigned a
company-specific rate. See section
735(c)(1)(B)(i)(II) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). In NME
proceedings, the Department establishes
an ‘‘NME-wide’’ rate that applies to
exporters that do not qualify for and do
not receive a separate rate.1
In an ME proceeding, importers enter
subject merchandise into the United
States at either a company-specific cashdeposit rate or at the all-others rate in
ME proceedings. In an NME proceeding,
importers enter subject merchandise at
1 In proceedings involving NME countries, it is
the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of
subject merchandise in an NME country a single
antidumping duty rate, the NME-wide rate, unless
an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent of government control so as to be
entitled to a ‘‘separate rate.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
a company-specific cash-deposit rate, a
separate rate, or the NME-wide rate.
Entries of subject merchandise are
subject to cash-deposit requirements
and are suspended from liquidation
until the Department instructs CBP to
liquidate the entries. See section
733(d)(2) of the Act. When no review is
requested for a particular AD order for
a given review period, the Department
instructs CBP to liquidate all entries of
subject merchandise for that period at
the cash-deposit rate that was required
at the time of entry. See 19 CFR
351.212(c). When a review is requested
for a firm for a given review period,
entries that have been identified by an
importer as that firm’s merchandise
remain suspended from liquidation
during the pendency of the
administrative review.
Sometimes an importer identifies its
entry as merchandise from a particular
firm, but the sales underlying the entry
from the firm are not reported to and/
or reviewed by the Department during
the administrative review of that firm.
Nevertheless, such entries remain
suspended during the administrative
review because they were identified as
merchandise from a firm under review.
During its proceeding, the Department
determines the merchandise to which
its final results of administrative review
apply. There may be suspended entries
to which the Department’s final review
results do not apply.
In the past, in both ME and NME
cases, the Department instructed CBP to
assess AD duties on entries not
examined and/or not otherwise covered
by the final results of review for a firm
that was subject to the review at the rate
at which the merchandise entered the
United States, i.e., at the cash-deposit
rate in effect at the time of entry.
However, in May 2003, the Department
announced a change to its practice. In
ME cases with an anniversary month of
May 2003 or later, the Department began
instructing CBP to assess duties at the
rate applicable to a party that did not
have its own antidumping duty rate, i.e.,
the all-others rate, on entries that were
suspended at the deposit rate of the
producer subject to review but that were
not covered by the final results of
review for that firm subject to review.
See Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May
6, 2003) (‘‘2003 Antidumping Duties
Notice’’). In other words, to the extent
that a firm did not report sales to a
particular importer or customer during
a given review period, the customer or
importer is not entitled to a rate that the
Department previously established for
that firm. The Department stated that its
E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM
10JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34044-34046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14361]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-853]
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Canada: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 2, 2011, the Department of Commerce (Department)
published the preliminary results of the first administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on citric acid and certain citrate salts
(citric acid) from Canada. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter
of the subject merchandise to the United States: Jungbunzlauer Canada
Inc. (JBL Canada). The review covers the period November 20, 2008,
through May 19, 2009, and May 29, 2009, through April 30, 2010. The
final weighted-average dumping margin for the manufacturer/exporter is
listed below in the ``Final Results of Review'' section of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: June 10, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4007 or (202) 482-4929, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 2, 2011, the Department published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of the 2008-2010 administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on citric acid from Canada. See Citric
Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Canada: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 5782 (February 2, 2011)
(Preliminary Results). We invited parties to comment on the preliminary
results of the review. We received case briefs from the petitioners
(i.e., Archer Daniels Midland Co., Cargill, Inc. and Tate & Lyle
Americas LLC) and the respondent, JBL Canada, on March 4, 2011. We
received rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and the respondent on
March 9, 2011.
On March 4, 2011, both parties requested that a public hearing be
held in this proceeding. On March 18, and 21, 2011, the petitioners and
JBL Canada, respectively, withdrew their hearing requests.
The Department has conducted this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order includes all grades and granulation sizes
of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their
unblended forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of
packaging type. The scope also includes blends of citric acid, sodium
citrate, and potassium citrate; as well as blends with other
ingredients, such as sugar, where the unblended form(s) of citric acid,
sodium citrate, and potassium citrate constitute 40 percent or more, by
weight, of the blend. The scope of this order also includes all forms
of crude calcium citrate, including dicalcium citrate monohydrate, and
tricalcium citrate tetrahydrate, which are intermediate products in the
production of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate. The
scope of this order does not include calcium citrate that satisfies the
standards set forth in the United States Pharmacopeia and has been
mixed with a functional excipient, such as dextrose or starch, where
the excipient constitutes at least 2 percent, by weight, of the
product. The scope of this order includes the hydrous and anhydrous
forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium
citrate, otherwise known as citric acid sodium salt, and the
monohydrate and monopotassium forms of potassium citrate. Sodium
citrate also includes both trisodium citrate and monosodium
[[Page 34045]]
citrate, which are also known as citric acid trisodium salt and citric
acid monosodium salt, respectively. Citric acid and sodium citrate are
classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), respectively. Potassium
citrate and crude calcium citrate are classifiable under 2918.15.5000
and 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS, respectively. Blends that include citric
acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate are classifiable under
3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is November 20, 2008, through May 19,
2009, and May 29, 2009, through April 30, 2010. In accordance with
section 733(d) of the Act, and subsequent to the imposition of the
antidumping duty order, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to
liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, entries of subject
merchandise for the period May 20, 2009, through May 28, 2009.
Accordingly, this administrative review does not include the period May
20, 2009, through May 28, 2009.
Cost of Production
As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an
investigation to determine whether JBL Canada made comparison market
sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below the
costs of production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the
Act. We performed the cost test for these final results following the
same methodology as in the Preliminary Results. Based on this test, we
did not disregard any of JBL Canada's home market sales of citric acid
because, for all products, we found that less than 20 percent of these
sales were at prices below the COP.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this
administrative review are listed in the Appendix to this notice and
addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision Memo), which
is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of
all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations
in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records
Unit, Room 7046, of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be
accessed directly on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in
content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
certain changes in the margin calculations for JBL Canada. These
changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo.
Final Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we determined that the following
weighted-average margin percentage applies for the period November 20,
2008, through May 19, 2009, and May 29, 2009, through April 30, 2010,
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jungbunzlauer Canada, Inc.................................. 1.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to
issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the respondent subject
to this review directly to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of
the final results of this review.
Because the respondent did not report entered value for all sales
to each importer or customer, we calculated importer- or customer-
specific per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount
of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing
this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether
the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the
requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), we calculated importer-
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value.
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above
de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to
antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The final results of this
review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on
entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and
for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in these
final results of review for which the reviewed company did not know
that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller,
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at
the all-others rate effective during the POR if there is no rate for
the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy
Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company
listed above will be the rate shown above; (2) for previously reviewed
or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published
for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered
in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value
(LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most recent period for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all
other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 23.21 percent, the
all-others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. See Citric
Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Canada and the People's Republic of
China: Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 25703 (May 29, 2009). These
deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant
[[Page 34046]]
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.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.
Dated: June 2, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix--Issues in Decision Memo
1. Currency Conversions
2. Post-Sale Billing Adjustments
3. Depreciation Expenses
4. Proposed Rules Regarding the Margin Calculation Methodology in
Administrative Reviews
5. Corrections to the Dumping Margin Calculations
[FR Doc. 2011-14361 Filed 6-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
