Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 34046-34047 [2011-14446]
Download as PDF
34046
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2011 / Notices
entries during this review period.
Failure to comply with this requirement
could result in the Secretary’s
presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of
their responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice
are published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.221.
Dated: June 2, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix—Issues in Decision Memo
1. Currency Conversions
2. Post-Sale Billing Adjustments
3. Depreciation Expenses
4. Proposed Rules Regarding the Margin
Calculation Methodology in
Administrative Reviews
5. Corrections to the Dumping Margin
Calculations
[FR Doc. 2011–14361 Filed 6–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Non-Market Economy Antidumping
Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Request for comments.
AGENCY:
In antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’)
administrative reviews involving nonmarket economy countries (‘‘NME’’), the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) currently instructs U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to liquidate entries from non-reviewed
exporters at the cash-deposit rate
required at the time the subject
merchandise entered into the United
States, consistent with 19 CFR
351.212(c)(i). The Department is aware
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 Jun 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
of instances where merchandise from a
non-reviewed exporter enters the United
States at the cash-deposit rate of an
exporter subject to review but where the
basis for that cash deposit is not
consistent with information
subsequently reported to the
Department during an administrative
review. Accordingly, to ensure that
entries are liquidated at appropriate
rates and in accordance with the
information reported to the Department
during an administrative review, the
Department is proposing to refine its
practice with respect to the rate at
which it instructs CBP to liquidate
certain entries from non-reviewed
exporters. Specifically, the Department
proposes to instruct CBP to liquidate
such entries at the NME-wide rate.
Through this notice, the Department
invites the public to comment on the
proposed refinement to its practice.
Effective Date: The Department
proposes that this refinement in practice
apply to all entries for which the
anniversary for requesting an
administrative review of an AD order is
on or after the date of publication of a
final notice on this issue.
DATES: Comments must be submitted to
the Department by 30 days after
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia
Hancock, Special Assistant, China/NME
Unit, Office of Antidumping and
Countervailing Operations, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, at 202–482–1394.
Background
In AD proceedings, the Department
establishes a cash-deposit rate for each
company subject to the investigation or
review. In market economy (‘‘ME’’)
proceedings, the Department establishes
an ‘‘all-others’’ rate that applies to
exporters that have not been assigned a
company-specific rate. See section
735(c)(1)(B)(i)(II) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). In NME
proceedings, the Department establishes
an ‘‘NME-wide’’ rate that applies to
exporters that do not qualify for and do
not receive a separate rate.1
In an ME proceeding, importers enter
subject merchandise into the United
States at either a company-specific cashdeposit rate or at the all-others rate in
ME proceedings. In an NME proceeding,
importers enter subject merchandise at
1 In proceedings involving NME countries, it is
the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of
subject merchandise in an NME country a single
antidumping duty rate, the NME-wide rate, unless
an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent of government control so as to be
entitled to a ‘‘separate rate.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
a company-specific cash-deposit rate, a
separate rate, or the NME-wide rate.
Entries of subject merchandise are
subject to cash-deposit requirements
and are suspended from liquidation
until the Department instructs CBP to
liquidate the entries. See section
733(d)(2) of the Act. When no review is
requested for a particular AD order for
a given review period, the Department
instructs CBP to liquidate all entries of
subject merchandise for that period at
the cash-deposit rate that was required
at the time of entry. See 19 CFR
351.212(c). When a review is requested
for a firm for a given review period,
entries that have been identified by an
importer as that firm’s merchandise
remain suspended from liquidation
during the pendency of the
administrative review.
Sometimes an importer identifies its
entry as merchandise from a particular
firm, but the sales underlying the entry
from the firm are not reported to and/
or reviewed by the Department during
the administrative review of that firm.
Nevertheless, such entries remain
suspended during the administrative
review because they were identified as
merchandise from a firm under review.
During its proceeding, the Department
determines the merchandise to which
its final results of administrative review
apply. There may be suspended entries
to which the Department’s final review
results do not apply.
In the past, in both ME and NME
cases, the Department instructed CBP to
assess AD duties on entries not
examined and/or not otherwise covered
by the final results of review for a firm
that was subject to the review at the rate
at which the merchandise entered the
United States, i.e., at the cash-deposit
rate in effect at the time of entry.
However, in May 2003, the Department
announced a change to its practice. In
ME cases with an anniversary month of
May 2003 or later, the Department began
instructing CBP to assess duties at the
rate applicable to a party that did not
have its own antidumping duty rate, i.e.,
the all-others rate, on entries that were
suspended at the deposit rate of the
producer subject to review but that were
not covered by the final results of
review for that firm subject to review.
See Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May
6, 2003) (‘‘2003 Antidumping Duties
Notice’’). In other words, to the extent
that a firm did not report sales to a
particular importer or customer during
a given review period, the customer or
importer is not entitled to a rate that the
Department previously established for
that firm. The Department stated that its
E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM
10JNN1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2011 / Notices
prior practice ‘‘often result[ed] in the use
of an inaccurate rate for duty assessment
* * * where the Department
conduct[ed] a review * * * [T]he duty
rate for non-reviewed resellers (which
do not have their own rate and where
the deposit rate at the time of entry
becomes the final rate of duty) is based
on a previous review of the producer’s
selling experience, not the reseller’s
selling experience.’’ Id., 68 FR at 23955.
Because discussions had not fully
explored the Department’s revised
practice in the NME context, to date, the
Department has not applied the 2003
Antidumping Duties Notice in NME
cases. Nevertheless, in both ME and
NME proceedings, the Department
maintains an interest in having entries
liquidated in a manner that is consistent
with the final results of its
administrative reviews. Id., 68 FR
23958. Along these lines, the
Department has received arguments that
some imports from NME countries have
benefitted from an exporter’s
previously-established cash-deposit rate
but have not been reported to the
Department during the relevant
administrative review of the exporter
and, therefore, should be liquidated at
the NME-wide rate. See, e.g., Glycine
From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 41121
(August 14, 2009) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 7 (which did not change in
Notice of Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Glycine from the People’s
Republic of China, 74 FR 48223
(September 22, 2009)); First
Administrative Review of Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 1336 (January 11, 2010)
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3. In such
situations, because an importer entered
merchandise at a particular exporter’s
cash-deposit rate, the assumption at the
time of entry was that the exporter made
the U.S. sale. In certain cases, however,
that assumption was disproven during
the administrative review, as the entries
did not correspond to the exporter’s
reported U.S. sales, therefore the
claimed cash-deposit based on the
exporter’s rate was not appropriate.
When the declaration of the exporter’s
cash-deposit rate at the time of entry is
inconsistent with the information
reported to the Department, the
liquidation rate applicable to such
entries from firms without their own
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 Jun 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
separate rate should be the NME-wide
rate.
Additionally, as described in the 2003
Antidumping Duties Notice, the practice
of liquidating entries at an exporter’s
cash-deposit rate claimed at the time of
entry where the entries have been
suspended pursuant to a request for
review of the exporter but are not
covered by the final results of review for
the exporter subject to review allows
intermediaries to benefit from another
firm’s rate. 68 FR 23961. Yet, as the
Court of International Trade stated in
connection with the 2003 Antidumping
Duties Notice, ‘‘there is no reason that a
reseller or importer should be entitled to
choose among the rates it prefers when
none is specific to it, and when it may
request its own rate.’’ Parkdale Int’l, Ltd.
v. United States, 491 F. Supp. 2d 1262,
1272 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007). This same
logic is applicable to exporters in NME
proceedings. The Department’s
proposed refinement of its practice is
intended to prevent non-reviewed
exporters in NME cases from benefitting
from the rates of other exporters.
For the above reasons, the Department
proposes revising its liquidation
instructions in NME cases to instruct
CBP to liquidate entries of merchandise
from a non-reviewed exporter at the
NME-wide rate. The Department
proposes to apply this refinement to
merchandise produced in the NME
country and exported to the United
States either directly from the NME
country or from a third-country reseller.
Regardless of the location of the nonreviewed exporter or reseller, when a
party does not file a separate-rate
application, the Department lacks
necessary information on the record to
determine whether it is entitled to a
separate rate. By revising the NME
liquidation instructions in a manner
similar to that described in the 2003
Antidumping Duties Notice, the
Department intends to ensure that
entries are liquidated at the appropriate
rate, i.e., the NME-wide rate for entries
from firms without a separate rate
assigned to them.
This refinement will increase the
need for interested parties (including
exporters and importers of merchandise
produced in NME countries) to
participate in the Department’s
proceedings. For example, exporters and
importers of subject merchandise will
need to determine whether to request an
administrative review and file a
separate-rate application. Through an
administrative review, a party can seek
a separate cash-deposit rate for its
merchandise.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
34047
The Department welcomes written
comments on this proposed refinement
of its practice.
Submission of Comments
As specified above, to be assured of
consideration, comments must be
received no later than 30 days after the
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. All comments must be
submitted through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov, into Docket
Number ITA–2011–0007, unless the
commenter does not have access to the
Internet. Commenters that do not have
access to the Internet may submit the
original and two copies of each set of
comments by mail or hand delivery/
courier. Please address the written
comments to the Secretary of
Commerce, Attention: Julia Hancock,
Special Assistant, China/NME Unit,
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, Room AA118, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Constitution Avenue and
14th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20230.
The Department will consider all
comments received before the close of
the comment period. The Department
will not accept comments accompanied
by a request that part or all of the
material be treated confidentially
because of its business proprietary
nature or for any other reason. All
comments responding to this notice will
be a matter of public record and will be
available for inspection at Import
Administration’s Central Records Unit
(Room 7046 of the Herbert C. Hoover
Building) and on the Department’s Web
site at https://www.trade.gov/ia/.
Any questions concerning file
formatting, document conversion,
access on the Internet, or other
electronic filing issues should be
addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import
Administration Webmaster, at (202)
482–0866, e-mail address: webmastersupport@ita.doc.gov.
Dated: May 25, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–14446 Filed 6–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM
10JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34046-34047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14446]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In antidumping duty (``AD'') administrative reviews involving
non-market economy countries (``NME''), the Department of Commerce
(``the Department'') currently instructs U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') to liquidate entries from non-reviewed exporters
at the cash-deposit rate required at the time the subject merchandise
entered into the United States, consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(i).
The Department is aware of instances where merchandise from a non-
reviewed exporter enters the United States at the cash-deposit rate of
an exporter subject to review but where the basis for that cash deposit
is not consistent with information subsequently reported to the
Department during an administrative review. Accordingly, to ensure that
entries are liquidated at appropriate rates and in accordance with the
information reported to the Department during an administrative review,
the Department is proposing to refine its practice with respect to the
rate at which it instructs CBP to liquidate certain entries from non-
reviewed exporters. Specifically, the Department proposes to instruct
CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. Through this
notice, the Department invites the public to comment on the proposed
refinement to its practice.
Effective Date: The Department proposes that this refinement in
practice apply to all entries for which the anniversary for requesting
an administrative review of an AD order is on or after the date of
publication of a final notice on this issue.
DATES: Comments must be submitted to the Department by 30 days after
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Hancock, Special Assistant,
China/NME Unit, Office of Antidumping and Countervailing Operations,
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, at 202-482-1394.
Background
In AD proceedings, the Department establishes a cash-deposit rate
for each company subject to the investigation or review. In market
economy (``ME'') proceedings, the Department establishes an ``all-
others'' rate that applies to exporters that have not been assigned a
company-specific rate. See section 735(c)(1)(B)(i)(II) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). In NME proceedings, the
Department establishes an ``NME-wide'' rate that applies to exporters
that do not qualify for and do not receive a separate rate.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In proceedings involving NME countries, it is the
Department's policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise
in an NME country a single antidumping duty rate, the NME-wide rate,
unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent of government control so as to be entitled to a
``separate rate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an ME proceeding, importers enter subject merchandise into the
United States at either a company-specific cash-deposit rate or at the
all-others rate in ME proceedings. In an NME proceeding, importers
enter subject merchandise at a company-specific cash-deposit rate, a
separate rate, or the NME-wide rate. Entries of subject merchandise are
subject to cash-deposit requirements and are suspended from liquidation
until the Department instructs CBP to liquidate the entries. See
section 733(d)(2) of the Act. When no review is requested for a
particular AD order for a given review period, the Department instructs
CBP to liquidate all entries of subject merchandise for that period at
the cash-deposit rate that was required at the time of entry. See 19
CFR 351.212(c). When a review is requested for a firm for a given
review period, entries that have been identified by an importer as that
firm's merchandise remain suspended from liquidation during the
pendency of the administrative review.
Sometimes an importer identifies its entry as merchandise from a
particular firm, but the sales underlying the entry from the firm are
not reported to and/or reviewed by the Department during the
administrative review of that firm. Nevertheless, such entries remain
suspended during the administrative review because they were identified
as merchandise from a firm under review. During its proceeding, the
Department determines the merchandise to which its final results of
administrative review apply. There may be suspended entries to which
the Department's final review results do not apply.
In the past, in both ME and NME cases, the Department instructed
CBP to assess AD duties on entries not examined and/or not otherwise
covered by the final results of review for a firm that was subject to
the review at the rate at which the merchandise entered the United
States, i.e., at the cash-deposit rate in effect at the time of entry.
However, in May 2003, the Department announced a change to its
practice. In ME cases with an anniversary month of May 2003 or later,
the Department began instructing CBP to assess duties at the rate
applicable to a party that did not have its own antidumping duty rate,
i.e., the all-others rate, on entries that were suspended at the
deposit rate of the producer subject to review but that were not
covered by the final results of review for that firm subject to review.
See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (``2003 Antidumping
Duties Notice''). In other words, to the extent that a firm did not
report sales to a particular importer or customer during a given review
period, the customer or importer is not entitled to a rate that the
Department previously established for that firm. The Department stated
that its
[[Page 34047]]
prior practice ``often result[ed] in the use of an inaccurate rate for
duty assessment * * * where the Department conduct[ed] a review * * *
[T]he duty rate for non-reviewed resellers (which do not have their own
rate and where the deposit rate at the time of entry becomes the final
rate of duty) is based on a previous review of the producer's selling
experience, not the reseller's selling experience.'' Id., 68 FR at
23955.
Because discussions had not fully explored the Department's revised
practice in the NME context, to date, the Department has not applied
the 2003 Antidumping Duties Notice in NME cases. Nevertheless, in both
ME and NME proceedings, the Department maintains an interest in having
entries liquidated in a manner that is consistent with the final
results of its administrative reviews. Id., 68 FR 23958. Along these
lines, the Department has received arguments that some imports from NME
countries have benefitted from an exporter's previously-established
cash-deposit rate but have not been reported to the Department during
the relevant administrative review of the exporter and, therefore,
should be liquidated at the NME-wide rate. See, e.g., Glycine From the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 41121 (August 14, 2009) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 (which did not change in
Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Glycine from the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 48223
(September 22, 2009)); First Administrative Review of Certain Polyester
Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 1336 (January 11, 2010)
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. In such
situations, because an importer entered merchandise at a particular
exporter's cash-deposit rate, the assumption at the time of entry was
that the exporter made the U.S. sale. In certain cases, however, that
assumption was disproven during the administrative review, as the
entries did not correspond to the exporter's reported U.S. sales,
therefore the claimed cash-deposit based on the exporter's rate was not
appropriate. When the declaration of the exporter's cash-deposit rate
at the time of entry is inconsistent with the information reported to
the Department, the liquidation rate applicable to such entries from
firms without their own separate rate should be the NME-wide rate.
Additionally, as described in the 2003 Antidumping Duties Notice,
the practice of liquidating entries at an exporter's cash-deposit rate
claimed at the time of entry where the entries have been suspended
pursuant to a request for review of the exporter but are not covered by
the final results of review for the exporter subject to review allows
intermediaries to benefit from another firm's rate. 68 FR 23961. Yet,
as the Court of International Trade stated in connection with the 2003
Antidumping Duties Notice, ``there is no reason that a reseller or
importer should be entitled to choose among the rates it prefers when
none is specific to it, and when it may request its own rate.''
Parkdale Int'l, Ltd. v. United States, 491 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1272 (Ct.
Int'l Trade 2007). This same logic is applicable to exporters in NME
proceedings. The Department's proposed refinement of its practice is
intended to prevent non-reviewed exporters in NME cases from
benefitting from the rates of other exporters.
For the above reasons, the Department proposes revising its
liquidation instructions in NME cases to instruct CBP to liquidate
entries of merchandise from a non-reviewed exporter at the NME-wide
rate. The Department proposes to apply this refinement to merchandise
produced in the NME country and exported to the United States either
directly from the NME country or from a third-country reseller.
Regardless of the location of the non-reviewed exporter or reseller,
when a party does not file a separate-rate application, the Department
lacks necessary information on the record to determine whether it is
entitled to a separate rate. By revising the NME liquidation
instructions in a manner similar to that described in the 2003
Antidumping Duties Notice, the Department intends to ensure that
entries are liquidated at the appropriate rate, i.e., the NME-wide rate
for entries from firms without a separate rate assigned to them.
This refinement will increase the need for interested parties
(including exporters and importers of merchandise produced in NME
countries) to participate in the Department's proceedings. For example,
exporters and importers of subject merchandise will need to determine
whether to request an administrative review and file a separate-rate
application. Through an administrative review, a party can seek a
separate cash-deposit rate for its merchandise.
The Department welcomes written comments on this proposed
refinement of its practice.
Submission of Comments
As specified above, to be assured of consideration, comments must
be received no later than 30 days after the publication of this notice
in the Federal Register. All comments must be submitted through the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov, into Docket
Number ITA-2011-0007, unless the commenter does not have access to the
Internet. Commenters that do not have access to the Internet may submit
the original and two copies of each set of comments by mail or hand
delivery/courier. Please address the written comments to the Secretary
of Commerce, Attention: Julia Hancock, Special Assistant, China/NME
Unit, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Room AA118,
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Constitution Avenue
and 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The Department will consider all comments received before the close
of the comment period. The Department will not accept comments
accompanied by a request that part or all of the material be treated
confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any
other reason. All comments responding to this notice will be a matter
of public record and will be available for inspection at Import
Administration's Central Records Unit (Room 7046 of the Herbert C.
Hoover Building) and on the Department's Web site at https://www.trade.gov/ia/.
Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion,
access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be
addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at
(202) 482-0866, e-mail address: webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov.
Dated: May 25, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-14446 Filed 6-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P