Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order; and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 34048-34053 [2011-14363]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34048
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2011 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–937]
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts
From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the First
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order; and Partial
Rescission of Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) is conducting
the first administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on citric acid
and certain citrate salts (‘‘citric acid’’)
from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’), covering the period November
20, 2008, through April 30, 2010. The
Department has preliminarily
determined that during the period of
review (‘‘POR’’) respondents in this
proceeding have made sales of subject
merchandise at less than normal value
(‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of review,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise during
the POR. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
We will issue 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: June 10, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Krisha Hill or Lilit Asvatsatrian, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–4037 or (202) 482–
6412, respectively.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Background
On May 29, 2009, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on citric acid
from the PRC.1 On June 30, 2010, the
Department initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on citric acid from the PRC.2 On
1 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).
2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 37759 (June
30, 2010) (‘‘Initiation’’). In the Initiation, the firm
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 Jun 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
October 7, 2010, the Department issued
the respondent selection memorandum
in which it selected RZBC Co., Ltd.,
RZCB Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., and RZBC
(Juxian) Co., Ltd. (collectively ‘‘RZBC’’)
and Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Yixing Union’’) as respondents for
individual review.3 Between October
12, 2010, and January 24, 2011, the
Department sent the original
antidumping questionnaire and
supplemental questionnaires to RZBC
and Yixing Union. RZBC and Yixing
Union submitted timely questionnaire
responses between November 10, 2010,
and March 31, 2011.
On November 17, 2010, Petitioners,4
RZBC, and Yixing Union commented on
surrogate country selection. On
November 30, 2010, Yixing Union
submitted rebuttal comments on
surrogate country selection. On
December 8, 2010, Petitioners, RZBC,
and Yixing Union submitted surrogate
value comments. On December 20,
2010, Petitioners submitted rebuttal
comments on surrogate country and
surrogate value selections.
On January 25, 2011, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the time limit for the
preliminary results of review by 60 days
allowed under section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act to April 1, 2011.5 On March 31,
2011, the Department further extended
the preliminary results of review by 60
additional days to a maximum 120 days
allowed under section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act to May 31, 2011.6
Period of Review
The POR is November 20, 2008,
through April 30, 2010.
names for the non-mandatory respondents were
listed as follows: Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Laiwu Taihe’’); Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co.,
Ltd. and Anhui BBCA International Co., Ltd.
(collectively, ‘‘BBCA’’); Anhui Worldbest BioPharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Shanghai Worldbest
Group Company, Shanghai Worldbest Co., Ltd.,
Shanghai Worldbest Anui, Thai Worldbest
Biochemical Co., Ltd., and Worldbest Biochemicals
(Thailand) Co., Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘Worldbest’’); and
Pioneers Pharmavet S.L. (‘‘Pioneers’’).
3 See the Department’s memorandum regarding,
‘‘Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Citric Acid and Citrate Salts from the
People’s Republic of China: Respondent Selection,’’
dated October 7, 2010.
4 Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill,
Incorporated and Tate & Lyle Americas LLC
(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’).
5 See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Extension
of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
4288 (January 25, 2011).
6 See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time
Limit for the Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
17835 (March 31, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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%, 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
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.
Partial Rescission of the Administrative
Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review, in whole or in part, if a party
that requested the review withdraws the
request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the initiation notice of
the requested review. Further, pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department
is permitted to extend this time if it is
reasonable to do so.
E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM
10JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2011 / Notices
On September 24, 2010, Nutralliance,
Inc., a U.S. importer of subject
merchandise produced and exported by
Laiwu Taihe, timely withdrew its
request for an administrative review of
Laiwu Taihe’s exports to the United
States. On October 15, 2010, Petitioners
timely withdrew their review requests
for BBCA, Worldbest, and Pioneers.
Because no other parties requested a
review of Laiwu Taihe’s, BBCA’s,
Worldbest’s or Pioneers’ exports to the
United States, the Department hereby
rescinds the administrative review of
citric acid with respect to these entities
in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1).
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Non-Market-Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country.7 In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. None of the
parties to this proceeding has contested
such treatment. Accordingly, the
Department has calculated NV in
accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act, which applies to NME countries.
Surrogate Country
When the Department conducts an
antidumping duty administrative review
of imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the
Department to base NV, in most cases,
on the NME producer’s factors of
production (‘‘FOP’’), valued in a
surrogate market-economy (‘‘ME’’)
country or countries considered
appropriate by the Department. In
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the
Act, the Department will value FOPs
using ‘‘to the extent possible, the prices
or costs of the FOPs in one or more
market-economy countries that are: (A)
At a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country,
and (B) significant producers of
comparable merchandise.’’
With respect to the Department’s
selection of surrogate country, both
Petitioners and RZBC submitted
comments arguing that Indonesia is the
most appropriate surrogate country from
which to derive surrogate factor values
for the PRC because Indonesia: (a) Has
7 See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the
People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760
(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet
Paper from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR
60632 (October 25, 2007).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 Jun 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
a per capita gross national income
(‘‘GNI’’) which is economically
comparable to that of the PRC, (b) is also
a significant producer of citric acid, and
(c) provides reliable data to value
respondents’ factors of production.8 On
November 17, 2010, Yixing Union
identified both Indonesia and India to
be appropriate for selection as the
primary surrogate country.9 On
November 30, 2010, Yixing Union
submitted rebuttal comments regarding
Petitioners’ argument that India is
inappropriate for surrogate country
selection.10 In this submission, Yixing
Union agreed that Indonesia is the most
appropriate primary surrogate country,
but also argued that India be considered
a viable surrogate country in the
instance that surrogate values from
Indonesia are not available.
In the instant review, the Department
has identified India, Indonesia, the
Philippines, Ukraine, Thailand, and
Peru as countries that are at a level of
economic development comparable to
the PRC.11 The Department uses per
capita GNI as the primary basis for
determining economic comparability.12
Once the countries that are
economically comparable to the PRC
have been identified, the Department
selects an appropriate surrogate country
by determining whether an
economically comparable country is a
significant producer of comparable
merchandise and whether data for
8 See RZBC’s submission regarding, ‘‘Citric Acid
and Certain Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic
of China: Surrogate Country Comments,’’ dated
November 17, 2010 (‘‘RZBC’s Surrogate Country
Comments’’) and Petitioner’s submission regarding,
‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Citric
Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People’s
Republic of China: Surrogate Country Selection,’’
dated November 17, 2010 (‘‘Petitioner’s Surrogate
Country Comments’’).
9 See Yixing Union’s submission regarding,
‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Citric
Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People’s
Republic of China—Response of Yixing Union
Biochemical Co., Ltd. to Request for Comments
Regarding Surrogate Country Selection,’’ dated
November 17, 2010 (‘‘Yixing Union’s Surrogate
Country Comments’’).
10 See Yixing Union’s submission regarding,
‘‘Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the
People’s Republic of China (A–570–937)—Surrogate
Value Rebuttal Letter of Yixing Union Biochemical
Co., Ltd.,’’ dated December 20, 2010.
11 See the Department’s Memorandum regarding
‘‘Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the
People’s Republic of China: Request for Comments
on Surrogate Country Selection,’’ dated October 12,
2010. The Department notes that these six countries
are part of a non-exhaustive list of countries that are
at a level of economic development comparable to
the PRC.
12 See the Department’s Policy Bulletin No. 04.1,
regarding, ‘‘Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country
Selection Process,’’ (March 1, 2004) (‘‘Policy Bulletin
04.1’’), available on the Department’s Web site at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04–1.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34049
valuing FOPs are both available and
reliable.
The Department has determined that
it is appropriate to use Indonesia as a
surrogate country, pursuant to section
773(c)(4) of the Act, based on the
following: (1) It is at a similar level of
economic development to the PRC; (2)
it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise, and (3) the
Department has reliable data from
Indonesia that it can use to value the
FOPs.13 Accordingly, we have
calculated NV using Indonesian prices
when available and appropriate to value
each respondent’s FOPs.14 In certain
instances where Indonesian SVs were
not deemed to be the best available data,
we have relied on Indian and Thai SVs
in the alternative. Both India and
Thailand are at a similar level of
economic development to the PRC and
are significant producers of comparable
merchandise.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of
an administrative review, interested
parties may submit publicly available
information to value the FOPs within 20
days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results.15
Separate Rates
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 assigned a single
antidumping duty rate.16 It is the
13 See RZBC’s Surrogate Country Comments,
Yixing Union’s Surrogate Country Comments,
Petitioner’s Surrogate Country Comments ; see also
the Department’s Memorandum regarding
‘‘Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review
of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the
People’s Republic of China: Surrogate Value
Memorandum,’’ dated May 31, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate
Value Memorandum’’).
14 See Surrogate Value Memorandum; see also
‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section, below.
15 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for
the final results of this administrative 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 will not
accept the submission of additional, previously
absent-from-the-record, alternative surrogate value
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.
16 See, e.g., Certain Coated Paper Suitable for
High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed
Presses From the People’s Republic of China: Notice
E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM
Continued
10JNN1
34050
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2011 / Notices
Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to
review in an NME country this 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 government
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 the 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 determine whether it
is independent from government
control.
In order to demonstrate separate-rate
status eligibility, the Department
normally requires entities, for whom a
review was requested, and who were
assigned a separate rate in a previous
segment of this proceeding, to submit a
separate-rate certification stating that
they continue to meet the criteria for
obtaining a separate rate.17 For entities
that were not assigned a separate rate in
the previous segment of a proceeding, to
demonstrate eligibility for such, the
Department requires a separate-rate
application.18 On August 25 and 31,
2010, RZBC and Yixing Union,
respectively, each submitted separate
rate certifications.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
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.19
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 75 FR 24892, 24899 (May 6, 2010),
unchanged in Certain Coated Paper Suitable for
High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed
Presses From the People’s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75
FR 59217 (September 27, 2010).
17 See Initiation.
18 Id.
19 See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 Jun 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
The evidence provided by RZBC and
Yixing Union supports a preliminary
finding of de jure absence of
government control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with the
individual exporter’s business and
export licenses; (2) there are applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing
control of the companies; and (3) there
are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of the
companies.20
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.21
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
government control over export
activities that would preclude the
Department from assigning separate
rates. For RZBC and Yixing Union, we
determine that the evidence on the
record supports a preliminary finding of
de facto absence of government control
based on record statements and
supporting documentation showing the
following: (1) Each respondent sets its
own export prices independent of the
government and without the approval of
a government authority; (2) each
respondent retains the proceeds from its
sales and makes independent decisions
regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses; (3) each respondent
has the authority to negotiate and sign
20 See Letter from Yixing Union to the
Department entitled, ‘‘Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China
(A–570–937)—Section A Questionnaire Response of
Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd.,’’ dated
November 10, 2010 (‘‘Yixing Union’s Section A
Response’’); see also Letter from RZBC to the
Department entitled, ‘‘Citric Acid and Citrate Salt
from the People’s Republic of China: Section A
Response’’ dated November 12, 2010 (‘‘RZBC’s
Section A Response’’).
21 See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
contracts and other agreements; and (4)
each respondent has autonomy from the
government regarding the selection of
management.22 Additionally, each of
these companies’ questionnaire
responses indicates that their pricing
during the POR does not involve
coordination among exporters.
The evidence placed on the record of
this review by RZBC and Yixing Union
demonstrates an absence of de jure and
de facto government control with
respect each company’s respective
exports of the merchandise under
review, in accordance with the criteria
identified in Sparklers and Silicon
Carbide. Therefore, we are preliminarily
granting RZBC and Yixing Union a
separate rate.
Fair-Value Comparisons
To determine whether RZBC’s and
Yixing Union’s sales of subject
merchandise were made at less than NV,
we compared the NV to individual
export price (‘‘EP’’) transactions in
accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of
the Act. See ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal
Value’’ sections of this notice, below.
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, EP is ‘‘the price at which subject
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
sold) before the date of importation by
the producer or exporter of the subject
merchandise outside of the United
States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States or to an unaffiliated
purchaser for exportation to the United
States,’’ as adjusted under section 772(c)
of the Act. For each respondent, we
used EP methodology, in accordance
with section 772(a) of the Act, for sales
in which the subject merchandise was
first sold prior to importation by the
exporter outside the United States
directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in
the United States and for sales in which
constructed export price was not
otherwise indicated.
We based EP on the price to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. In accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, where
appropriate, we made deductions from
the starting price (gross unit price) for
foreign inland freight, marine insurance,
domestic and market-economy
brokerage and handling, and
international freight. We valued
brokerage and handling using a price
list of export procedures necessary to
export a standardized cargo of goods in
Indonesia. The price list is compiled
based on a survey case study of the
22 See Yixing Union’s Section A Response and
RZBC’s Section A Response.
E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM
10JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2011 / Notices
procedural requirements for trading a
standard shipment of goods by ocean
transport in India as reported in ‘‘Doing
Business 2010: Indonesia’’ published by
the World Bank.23
Normal Value
We compared NV to individual EP
transactions in accordance with section
777A(d)(2) of the Act, as appropriate.
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine NV
using an FOP methodology if: (1) The
merchandise is exported from an NME
country; and (2) the 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. Under section 773(c)(3)
of the Act, FOPs include but are not
limited to: (1) Hours of labor required;
(2) quantities of raw materials
employed; and (3) representative capital
costs. The Department used FOPs
reported by the respondents for
materials, labor, packing and byproducts.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on
FOPs reported by respondents for the
POR. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available
information to find an appropriate
surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) to value FOPs,
but when a producer sources an input
from a market economy and pays for it
in market economy currency, the
Department normally will value the
factor using the actual price paid for the
input.24 To calculate NV, we multiplied
the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available
SVs (except as discussed below). In
selecting SVs, we considered the
quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data.25 As
23 See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof
Assembly Components Div of Ill Tool Works v.
United States, 268 F. 3d 1376, 1382–1383 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (affirming the Department’s use of marketbased prices to value certain FOPs).
25 See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 (December
4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final Results of
First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
24 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 Jun 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to import SVs surrogate 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, where
appropriate. This adjustment is in
accordance with the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit’s decision in
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d
1401, 1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
For the preliminary results, except
where noted below, we used data from
the Indonesian and Thai import
Statistics in the Global Trade Atlas
(‘‘GTA’’) and other publicly available
Indian and Indonesian sources in order
to calculate SVs for RZBC’s and Yixing
Union’s FOPs (i.e. direct materials,
energy, and packing materials) and
certain movement expenses. As
Indonesia is the primary surrogate
country, we used Indonesian data and
applied Thai and Indian data where
there were no usable Indonesian data. 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 nonexport average values, most
contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.26
The record shows that data in the
Indonesian Import Statistics, as well as
those from the other Indonesian, Thai,
and Indian sources, are
contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.27 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
Indonesian Wholesale Price Index
(‘‘WPI’’) as published in the IMF’s
International Financial Statistics.28
Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China,
66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
26 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).
27 See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
28 See, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34051
In accordance with legislative history,
the Department continues to apply its
long-standing practice of disregarding
SVs if it has a reason to believe or
suspect the source data may be
subsidized.29 In this regard, the
Department has previously found that it
is appropriate to disregard such prices
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and
Thailand because we have determined
that these countries maintain broadly
available, non-industry specific export
subsidies.30 Based on the existence of
these subsidy programs that were
generally available to all exporters and
producers in these countries at the time
of the POR, the Department finds that it
is reasonable to infer that all exporters
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and
Thailand may have benefitted from
these subsidies. Therefore, the
Department has not used prices from
India, Indonesia, South Korea and
Thailand in calculating the importbased SVs.
Additionally, we disregarded prices
from NME countries.31 Finally, imports
that were labeled as originating from an
‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded
from the average value, because the
Department could not be certain that
they were not from either an NME
country or a country with generally
available export subsidies.32
We valued truck freight expenses
using a per-unit average rate calculated
from data on the infobanc Web site:
https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/
logtruck.htm. The logistics section of
this Web site contains inland freight
truck rates between many large Indian
cities.33
We valued the surrogate value for
inland water freight using price data for
barge freight reported in a March 19,
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24,
2009) (‘‘Kitchen Racks Final’’).
29 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep.
No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) at 590.
30 See e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from
India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-year
(Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order,
75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4–5; Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from
Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset
Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
4; Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19–20; Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination:
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
23.
31 See, e.g., Kitchen Racks Prelim, 74 FR at 9600,
unchanged in Kitchen Racks Final.
32 See id.
33 See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM
10JNN1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
34052
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2011 / Notices
2007 article published in The Hindu
Business Line. The data is based on
average inland transport costs and port
handling charges. We inflated the
inland water transportation rate by
using the appropriate Indian WPI
inflator.
On May 14, 2010, the Federal Circuit
in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604
F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010), 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 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
Surrogate Value Memorandum. The
Department calculated a simple average
industry-specific wage rate of $2.01 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 24 of the ISIC–
Revision 3 standard by countries
determined to be both economically
comparable to the PRC and significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
The Department finds the two-digit
description under ISIC–Revision 3
(‘‘Manufacture of Chemicals and
Chemical Products’’) 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 which are significant producers of
comparable merchandise: Ecuador,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 Jun 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru,
Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine. For
further information on the calculation of
the wage rate, see Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
We were unable to segregate and,
therefore, were unable to exclude energy
costs from the calculation of the
surrogate financial ratios. Accordingly,
for the preliminary results, we have
disregarded the respondents’ energy
inputs (electricity and steam for both
RZBC and Yixing Union) in the
calculation of normal value for purposes
of the final determination, in order to
avoid double-counting energy costs that
have necessarily been captured in the
surrogate financial ratios.34
To value factory overhead, selling,
general, and administrative expenses,
and profit, we used audited financial
statements for the year ending December
2009 of PT Budi Acid Jaya TBK, a
producer of comparable merchandise
from Indonesia. The Department may
consider other publicly available
financial statements for the final results,
as appropriate.
RZBC and Yixing Union reported that
they have recovered by-products in their
production of subject merchandise and
successfully demonstrated that all of
them have commercial value; therefore,
we have granted a by-product offset for
the quantities of each respondent’s
reported by-products, valued using
Indonesian GTA data.
Currency Conversion
Where appropriate, we made currency
conversions into U.S. dollars, in
accordance with section 773A(a) of the
Act, based on the exchange rates in
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
The weighted-average dumping
margins for the individually reviewed
exporters are as follows:
Exporter
Margin
RZBC Co., Ltd./RZBC Imp. &
Exp. Co., Ltd./RZBC
(Juxian) Co., Ltd.
Yixing Union Biochemical
Co., Ltd.
0.36 (de minimis).
66.75.
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department will disclose
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within
five days of the date of publication of
34 See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74
FR 16838 (April 13, 2009) and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b). Interested parties may
submit written comments no later than
30 days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results of review.35
Rebuttals to written comments may be
filed no later than five days after the
written comments are filed.36 Further,
parties submitting written comments
and rebuttal comments are requested to
provide the Department with an
additional copy of those comments on a
CD.
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
this notice.37 Hearing requests should
contain the following information: (1)
The party’s name, address, and
telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of the issues
to be discussed. Oral presentations will
be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
If a request for a hearing is made, parties
will be notified of the time and date for
the hearing to be held at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.38
The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review,
which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such
comments, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results,
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act.
Assessment Rates
The Department will determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries of subject
merchandise in accordance with the
final results of this review. For Laiwu
Taihe and BBCA, which had previously
established eligibility for a separate rate,
antidumping duties shall be assessed at
rates equal to the cash deposit of
estimated antidumping duties required
at the time of entry, or withdrawal from
warehouse, for consumption, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2).
The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the publication date of the final
results of this review. For assessment
purposes, we calculated exporter/
importer-specific assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review.39
Where appropriate, we calculated an ad
valorem rate for each importer (or
customer) by dividing the total dumping
margins for reviewed sales to that party
by the total entered values associated
35 See
19 CFR 351.309(c).
19 CFR 351.309(d).
37 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
38 See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
39 See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
36 See
E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM
10JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2011 / Notices
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
with those transactions. For dutyassessment rates calculated on this
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the
resulting ad valorem rate against the
entered customs values for the subject
merchandise. Where appropriate, we
calculated a per-unit rate for each
importer (or customer) by dividing the
total dumping margins for reviewed
sales to that party by the total sales
quantity associated with those
transactions. For duty-assessment rates
calculated on this basis, we will direct
CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate
against the entered quantity of the
subject merchandise. Where an importer
(or customer)-specific assessment rate is
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent),
the Department will instruct CBP to
assess that importer’s (or customer’s)
entries of subject merchandise without
regard to antidumping duties. We
intend to instruct CBP to liquidate
entries containing subject merchandise
exported by the PRC-wide entity 40 at
the PRC-wide rate we determine in the
final results of this review. Where the
weighted average ad valorem rate is zero
or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties. See 19
CFR 351.106(c)(2).
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For RZBC
and Yixing Union the cash deposit rate
will be their respective rates established
in the final results of this review, except
if the rate is zero or de minimis no cash
deposit will be required; (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed
PRC, and non-PRC exporters not listed
above that have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, including Pioneers and
Worldbest, the cash deposit rate will be
the PRC-wide rate of 156.87 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 exporters that supplied those nonPRC exporters. These deposit
40 PRC-wide entity includes Pioneers and
Worldbest, which did not previously establish
eligibility for a separate rate.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 Jun 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this
notice are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and (3) and 777(i) of the Act,
and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: May 31, 201.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–14363 Filed 6–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RIN 0648–XA488]
Marine Mammals; File No. 16314
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; receipt of application.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
Jennifer Lewis, Ph.D., Tropical Dolphin
Research Foundation, Pembroke Pines,
FL 33024 has applied in due form for a
permit to conduct research on
bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops
truncatus).
SUMMARY:
Written, telefaxed, or e-mail
comments must be received on or before
July 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: The application and related
documents are available for review by
selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public
Comment’’ from the Features box on the
Applications and Permits for Protected
Species (APPS) home page, https://
apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting
File No. 16314 from the list of available
applications.
These documents are also available
upon written request or by appointment
in the following offices:
Permits, Conservation and Education
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34053
13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone
(301) 713–2289; fax (301) 713–0376; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th
Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida
33701; phone (727) 824–5312; fax (727)
824–5309.
Written comments on this application
should be submitted to the Chief,
Permits, Conservation and Education
Division, at the address listed above.
Comments may also be submitted by
facsimile to (301) 713–0376, or by email to NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov.
Please include the File No. in the
subject line of the e-mail comment.
Those individuals requesting a public
hearing should submit a written request
to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and
Education Division at the address listed
above. The request should set forth the
specific reasons why a hearing on this
application would be appropriate.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joselyd Garcia-Reyes or Kristy Beard,
(301) 713–2289.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
subject permit is requested under the
authority of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972, as amended
(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the
regulations governing the taking and
importing of marine mammals (50 CFR
part 216).
The applicant requests a five-year
permit to conduct photo-identification
surveys and biopsy sampling. Research
would occur in Whitewater Bay, Shark
River, Ponce de Leon Bay and Florida
Bay, which are found in Everglades
National Park (ENP). Up to 3,020
bottlenose dolphins could be taken by
level B harassment each year during
photo-identification surveys.
Additionally, up to 38 bottlenose
dolphins from each location could be
taken by level A harassment annually,
to acquire 30 successful biopsy samples
from each location over the life of the
permit. Research would stop when the
desired number of samples has been
obtained. The purposes of the proposed
research are to: (1) Examine
spatiotemporal variation in trophic
interactions (diets) of the dolphins, (2)
elucidate patterns of transmission of a
unique foraging behavior, mud ring
feeding, and (3) compare trophic
interactions and genetics of dolphins in
ENP with existing samples from the
Lower Florida Keys.
In compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial
determination has been made that the
activity proposed is categorically
excluded from the requirement to
prepare an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement.
E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM
10JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34048-34053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14363]
[[Page 34048]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-937]
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order; and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the first
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric acid and
certain citrate salts (``citric acid'') from the People's Republic of
China (``PRC''), covering the period November 20, 2008, through April
30, 2010. The Department has preliminarily determined that during the
period of review (``POR'') respondents in this proceeding have made
sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV''). If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise
during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. We will issue 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: June 10, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krisha Hill or Lilit Asvatsatrian, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4037
or (202) 482-6412, respectively.
Background
On May 29, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on citric acid from the PRC.\1\ On June 30,
2010, the Department initiated an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on citric acid from the PRC.\2\ On October 7,
2010, the Department issued the respondent selection memorandum in
which it selected RZBC Co., Ltd., RZCB Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., and RZBC
(Juxian) Co., Ltd. (collectively ``RZBC'') and Yixing Union Biochemical
Co., Ltd. (``Yixing Union'') as respondents for individual review.\3\
Between October 12, 2010, and January 24, 2011, the Department sent the
original antidumping questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires to
RZBC and Yixing Union. RZBC and Yixing Union submitted timely
questionnaire responses between November 10, 2010, and March 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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).
\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR
37759 (June 30, 2010) (``Initiation''). In the Initiation, the firm
names for the non-mandatory respondents were listed as follows:
Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd. (``Laiwu Taihe''); Anhui BBCA
Biochemical Co., Ltd. and Anhui BBCA International Co., Ltd.
(collectively, ``BBCA''); Anhui Worldbest Bio-Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd., Shanghai Worldbest Group Company, Shanghai Worldbest Co.,
Ltd., Shanghai Worldbest Anui, Thai Worldbest Biochemical Co., Ltd.,
and Worldbest Biochemicals (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (collectively,
``Worldbest''); and Pioneers Pharmavet S.L. (``Pioneers'').
\3\ See the Department's memorandum regarding, ``Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Citric Acid and Citrate
Salts from the People's Republic of China: Respondent Selection,''
dated October 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 17, 2010, Petitioners,\4\ RZBC, and Yixing Union
commented on surrogate country selection. On November 30, 2010, Yixing
Union submitted rebuttal comments on surrogate country selection. On
December 8, 2010, Petitioners, RZBC, and Yixing Union submitted
surrogate value comments. On December 20, 2010, Petitioners submitted
rebuttal comments on surrogate country and surrogate value selections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated and
Tate & Lyle Americas LLC (collectively, ``Petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 25, 2011, the Department published a notice in the
Federal Register extending the time limit for the preliminary results
of review by 60 days allowed under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act to
April 1, 2011.\5\ On March 31, 2011, the Department further extended
the preliminary results of review by 60 additional days to a maximum
120 days allowed under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act to May 31,
2011.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
76 FR 4288 (January 25, 2011).
\6\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 17835
(March 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is November 20, 2008, through April 30, 2010.
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%, 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 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.
Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested
the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the initiation notice of the requested review. Further,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department is permitted to extend
this time if it is reasonable to do so.
[[Page 34049]]
On September 24, 2010, Nutralliance, Inc., a U.S. importer of
subject merchandise produced and exported by Laiwu Taihe, timely
withdrew its request for an administrative review of Laiwu Taihe's
exports to the United States. On October 15, 2010, Petitioners timely
withdrew their review requests for BBCA, Worldbest, and Pioneers.
Because no other parties requested a review of Laiwu Taihe's, BBCA's,
Worldbest's or Pioneers' exports to the United States, the Department
hereby rescinds the administrative review of citric acid with respect
to these entities in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Non-Market-Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country.\7\ In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked
by the administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding
has contested such treatment. Accordingly, the Department has
calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which
applies to NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free
Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760
(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic
of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
When the Department conducts an antidumping duty administrative
review of imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act
directs the Department to base NV, in most cases, on the NME producer's
factors of production (``FOP''), valued in a surrogate market-economy
(``ME'') country or countries considered appropriate by the Department.
In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department will
value FOPs using ``to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the
FOPs in one or more market-economy countries that are: (A) At a level
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (B)
significant producers of comparable merchandise.''
With respect to the Department's selection of surrogate country,
both Petitioners and RZBC submitted comments arguing that Indonesia is
the most appropriate surrogate country from which to derive surrogate
factor values for the PRC because Indonesia: (a) Has a per capita gross
national income (``GNI'') which is economically comparable to that of
the PRC, (b) is also a significant producer of citric acid, and (c)
provides reliable data to value respondents' factors of production.\8\
On November 17, 2010, Yixing Union identified both Indonesia and India
to be appropriate for selection as the primary surrogate country.\9\ On
November 30, 2010, Yixing Union submitted rebuttal comments regarding
Petitioners' argument that India is inappropriate for surrogate country
selection.\10\ In this submission, Yixing Union agreed that Indonesia
is the most appropriate primary surrogate country, but also argued that
India be considered a viable surrogate country in the instance that
surrogate values from Indonesia are not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See RZBC's submission regarding, ``Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Country
Comments,'' dated November 17, 2010 (``RZBC's Surrogate Country
Comments'') and Petitioner's submission regarding, ``Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts
from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Country Selection,''
dated November 17, 2010 (``Petitioner's Surrogate Country
Comments'').
\9\ See Yixing Union's submission regarding, ``Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
the People's Republic of China--Response of Yixing Union Biochemical
Co., Ltd. to Request for Comments Regarding Surrogate Country
Selection,'' dated November 17, 2010 (``Yixing Union's Surrogate
Country Comments'').
\10\ See Yixing Union's submission regarding, ``Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China (A-570-
937)--Surrogate Value Rebuttal Letter of Yixing Union Biochemical
Co., Ltd.,'' dated December 20, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the instant review, the Department has identified India,
Indonesia, the Philippines, Ukraine, Thailand, and Peru as countries
that are at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC.\11\
The Department uses per capita GNI as the primary basis for determining
economic comparability.\12\ Once the countries that are economically
comparable to the PRC have been identified, the Department selects an
appropriate surrogate country by determining whether an economically
comparable country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise
and whether data for valuing FOPs are both available and reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See the Department's Memorandum regarding ``Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Request
for Comments on Surrogate Country Selection,'' dated October 12,
2010. The Department notes that these six countries are part of a
non-exhaustive list of countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC.
\12\ See the Department's Policy Bulletin No. 04.1, regarding,
``Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process,'' (March
1, 2004) (``Policy Bulletin 04.1''), available on the Department's
Web site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has determined that it is appropriate to use
Indonesia as a surrogate country, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the
Act, based on the following: (1) It is at a similar level of economic
development to the PRC; (2) it is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise, and (3) the Department has reliable data from Indonesia
that it can use to value the FOPs.\13\ Accordingly, we have calculated
NV using Indonesian prices when available and appropriate to value each
respondent's FOPs.\14\ In certain instances where Indonesian SVs were
not deemed to be the best available data, we have relied on Indian and
Thai SVs in the alternative. Both India and Thailand are at a similar
level of economic development to the PRC and are significant producers
of comparable merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See RZBC's Surrogate Country Comments, Yixing Union's
Surrogate Country Comments, Petitioner's Surrogate Country Comments
; see also the Department's Memorandum regarding ``Preliminary
Results of the Administrative Review of Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value
Memorandum,'' dated May 31, 2011 (``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
\14\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum; see also ``Factor
Valuations'' section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
of an administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value the FOPs within 20 days after the date
of publication of these preliminary results.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
results of this administrative 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 will not accept the submission of
additional, previously absent-from-the-record, alternative surrogate
value 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
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 assigned a single
antidumping duty rate.\16\ It is the
[[Page 34050]]
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to
review in an NME country this 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 government 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 the
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 determine whether it is
independent from government control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See, e.g., Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality
Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 24892,
24899 (May 6, 2010), unchanged in Certain Coated Paper Suitable for
High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 75 FR 59217 (September 27, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to demonstrate separate-rate status eligibility, the
Department normally requires entities, for whom a review was requested,
and who were assigned a separate rate in a previous segment of this
proceeding, to submit a separate-rate certification stating that they
continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate.\17\ For
entities that were not assigned a separate rate in the previous segment
of a proceeding, to demonstrate eligibility for such, the Department
requires a separate-rate application.\18\ On August 25 and 31, 2010,
RZBC and Yixing Union, respectively, each submitted separate rate
certifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Initiation.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by RZBC and Yixing Union supports a
preliminary finding of de jure absence of government control based on
the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of the companies.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Letter from Yixing Union to the Department entitled,
``Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic
of China (A-570-937)--Section A Questionnaire Response of Yixing
Union Biochemical Co., Ltd.,'' dated November 10, 2010 (``Yixing
Union's Section A Response''); see also Letter from RZBC to the
Department entitled, ``Citric Acid and Citrate Salt from the
People's Republic of China: Section A Response'' dated November 12,
2010 (``RZBC's Section A Response'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; 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 Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control
is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to
a degree of government control over export activities that would
preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. For RZBC and
Yixing Union, we determine that the evidence on the record supports a
preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based on
record statements and supporting documentation showing the following:
(1) Each respondent sets its own export prices independent of the
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) each
respondent retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3)
each respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and
other agreements; and (4) each respondent has autonomy from the
government regarding the selection of management.\22\ Additionally,
each of these companies' questionnaire responses indicates that their
pricing during the POR does not involve coordination among exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Yixing Union's Section A Response and RZBC's Section A
Response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence placed on the record of this review by RZBC and Yixing
Union demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government
control with respect each company's respective exports of the
merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria identified in
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we are preliminarily granting
RZBC and Yixing Union a separate rate.
Fair-Value Comparisons
To determine whether RZBC's and Yixing Union's sales of subject
merchandise were made at less than NV, we compared the NV to individual
export price (``EP'') transactions in accordance with section
777A(d)(2) of the Act. See ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value''
sections of this notice, below.
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is ``the price at
which subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before
the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to
the United States,'' as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. For
each respondent, we used EP methodology, in accordance with section
772(a) of the Act, for sales in which the subject merchandise was first
sold prior to importation by the exporter outside the United States
directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States and for
sales in which constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
We based EP on the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, where
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit
price) for foreign inland freight, marine insurance, domestic and
market-economy brokerage and handling, and international freight. We
valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export procedures
necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in Indonesia. The
price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the
[[Page 34051]]
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in India as reported in ``Doing Business 2010:
Indonesia'' published by the World Bank.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
We compared NV to individual EP transactions in accordance with
section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, as appropriate. Section 773(c)(1) of the
Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP
methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME country;
and (2) the 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. Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include
but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of
raw materials employed; and (3) representative capital costs. The
Department used FOPs reported by the respondents for materials, labor,
packing and by-products.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. In accordance with
19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly
available information to find an appropriate surrogate value (``SV'')
to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market
economy and pays for it in market economy currency, the Department
normally will value the factor using the actual price paid for the
input.\24\ To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-
consumption rates by publicly available SVs (except as discussed
below). In selecting SVs, we considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data.\25\ As appropriate, we adjusted input
prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices.
Specifically, we added to import SVs surrogate 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, where
appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117
F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly
Components Div of Ill Tool Works 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).
\25\ See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR
72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final Results of First New Shipper
Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 31204
(June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the preliminary results, except where noted below, we used data
from the Indonesian and Thai import Statistics in the Global Trade
Atlas (``GTA'') and other publicly available Indian and Indonesian
sources in order to calculate SVs for RZBC's and Yixing Union's FOPs
(i.e. direct materials, energy, and packing materials) and certain
movement expenses. As Indonesia is the primary surrogate country, we
used Indonesian data and applied Thai and Indian data where there were
no usable Indonesian data. 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.\26\ The record shows that data in
the Indonesian Import Statistics, as well as those from the other
Indonesian, Thai, and Indian sources, are contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\27\ 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 Indonesian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as
published in the IMF's International Financial Statistics.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 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).
\27\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
\28\ See, 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with legislative history, the Department continues to
apply its long-standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason
to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.\29\ In this
regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate to
disregard such prices from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand
because we have determined that these countries maintain broadly
available, non-industry specific export subsidies.\30\ Based on the
existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available to
all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the POR,
the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have benefitted
from these subsidies. Therefore, the Department has not used prices
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand in calculating the
import-based SVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess.
(1988) at 590.
\30\ See e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final
Results of the Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4-5; Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia: Final Results of
Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4; Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea:
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 17, 19-20; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.\31\
Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an
``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, because
the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an
NME country or a country with generally available export subsidies.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See, e.g., Kitchen Racks Prelim, 74 FR at 9600, unchanged
in Kitchen Racks Final.
\32\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate
calculated from data on the infobanc Web site: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this Web site contains
inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued the surrogate value for inland water freight using price
data for barge freight reported in a March 19,
[[Page 34052]]
2007 article published in The Hindu Business Line. The data is based on
average inland transport costs and port handling charges. We inflated
the inland water transportation rate by using the appropriate Indian
WPI inflator.
On May 14, 2010, the Federal Circuit in Dorbest Ltd. v. United
States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010), 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
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 Surrogate Value Memorandum. The Department
calculated a simple average industry-specific wage rate of $2.01 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 24 of the ISIC-
Revision 3 standard by countries determined to be both economically
comparable to the PRC and significant producers of comparable
merchandise. The Department finds the two-digit description under ISIC-
Revision 3 (``Manufacture of Chemicals and Chemical Products'') 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 which are significant producers of comparable merchandise: Ecuador,
Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine. For
further information on the calculation of the wage rate, see Surrogate
Value Memorandum.
We were unable to segregate and, therefore, were unable to exclude
energy costs from the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios.
Accordingly, for the preliminary results, we have disregarded the
respondents' energy inputs (electricity and steam for both RZBC and
Yixing Union) in the calculation of normal value for purposes of the
final determination, in order to avoid double-counting energy costs
that have necessarily been captured in the surrogate financial
ratios.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 74 FR 16838 (April 13, 2009) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
expenses, and profit, we used audited financial statements for the year
ending December 2009 of PT Budi Acid Jaya TBK, a producer of comparable
merchandise from Indonesia. The Department may consider other publicly
available financial statements for the final results, as appropriate.
RZBC and Yixing Union reported that they have recovered by-products
in their production of subject merchandise and successfully
demonstrated that all of them have commercial value; therefore, we have
granted a by-product offset for the quantities of each respondent's
reported by-products, valued using Indonesian GTA data.
Currency Conversion
Where appropriate, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars,
in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
The weighted-average dumping margins for the individually reviewed
exporters are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RZBC Co., Ltd./RZBC Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd./ 0.36 (de minimis).
RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd.
Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd......... 66.75.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Comment
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).
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of
review.\35\ Rebuttals to written comments may be filed no later than
five days after the written comments are filed.\36\ Further, parties
submitting written comments and rebuttal comments are requested to
provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on a
CD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c).
\36\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice.\37\ Hearing requests should contain the
following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to
be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in
the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be
notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\38\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance
with the final results of this review. For Laiwu Taihe and BBCA, which
had previously established eligibility for a separate rate, antidumping
duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of
estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(c)(2). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions
to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this
review. For assessment purposes, we calculated exporter/importer-
specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review.\39\
Where appropriate, we calculated an ad valorem rate for each importer
(or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales
to that party by the total entered values associated
[[Page 34053]]
with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad valorem rate
against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise. Where
appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each importer (or
customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to
that party by the total sales quantity associated with those
transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we
will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against the
entered quantity of the subject merchandise. Where an importer (or
customer)-specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50
percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer's
(or customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to
antidumping duties. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries
containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity \40\ at
the PRC-wide rate we determine in the final results of this review.
Where the weighted average ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\40\ PRC-wide entity includes Pioneers and Worldbest, which did
not previously establish eligibility for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For RZBC and Yixing
Union the cash deposit rate will be their respective rates established
in the final results of this review, except if the rate is zero or de
minimis no cash deposit will be required; (2) for previously
investigated or reviewed PRC, and non-PRC exporters not listed above
that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for
all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to
be entitled to a separate rate, including Pioneers and Worldbest, the
cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 156.87 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 exporters that supplied those non-PRC exporters.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and (3) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213
and 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: May 31, 201.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-14363 Filed 6-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
