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 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 http://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: http://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 http://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: http://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