Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the First Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order and Final Rescission of the Administrative Review, in Part, 56397-56401 [2011-23357]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
56397
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Notices
Decision Memorandum, which is a
public document, is on file in the
Central Records Unit, main Department
of Commerce building, Room 7046, and
is accessible on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper
copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
Changes From the Preliminary Results
As a result of our analysis of the
comments we received, we have made
certain changes to the margin
calculation for PSC VSMPO–AVISMA
Corporation (AVISMA) for the final
results. Specifically, we have revised
AVISMA’s reported costs of production
for the April 1 through December 31,
2009, period to reflect the treatment of
chlorine gas as a byproduct of raw
magnesium production. We then
calculated AVISMA’s POR costs as the
weighted average of the revised costs for
the period April 1 through December 31,
2009, and the costs for the period
January 1 through March 31, 2010, that
we calculated for the Preliminary
Results. For further discussion of this
change, see Comment 1.A of the
Decision Memorandum.
Our comparison of AVISMA’s revised
costs to its reported sales establishes
that all of AVISMA’s sales in the
comparison market were made at prices
below cost. In accordance with section
773(b)(1)(B) of the Act, we have relied
upon the constructed value of the
subject merchandise for purposes of
these final results. For further
discussion of this change, see Comment
1.B of the Decision Memorandum.
Final Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we
determine that the following weightedaverage dumping margins on
magnesium metal from the Russian
Federation exist for the period April 1,
2009, through March 31, 2010:
Manufacturer/exporter
Margin
(percent)
PSC VSMPO–AVISMA Corporation ....................................................................................................................................................
Solikamsk Magnesium Works .............................................................................................................................................................
2.24
*
* No shipments or sales subject to this review.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) shall assess antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
calculated an importer-specific
assessment rate for AVISMA reflecting
these final results of review.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. This clarification will
apply to entries of subject merchandise
during the POR produced by AVISMA
or SMW for which AVISMA or SMW
did not know their merchandise was
destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries of
merchandise produced by AVISMA or
SMW at the all-others rate if there is no
rate for the intermediate company(ies)
involved in the transaction. For a full
discussion of this clarification, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May
6, 2003).
The Department intends to issue
instructions to CBP 15 days after the
publication of the final results of
review.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
Because we revoked the order
effective April 15, 2010, no cash deposit
for estimated antidumping duties on
future entries of subject merchandise is
required.
Notifications
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 Department’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
This notice also serves as a 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
notification of 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.
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: September 6, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix
1. Cost Methodology
2. Affiliation
3. Zeroing
[FR Doc. 2011–23379 Filed 9–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–929]
Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes
from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of the First
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order and Final
Rescission of the Administrative
Review, in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2011, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published the
preliminary results of the first
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on small
diameter graphite electrodes (‘‘SDGE’’)
from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’), covering the period August 21,
2008, through January 31, 2010. See
Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes
from the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the First
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order; Partial
Rescission of Administrative Review;
and Intent to Rescind Administrative
Review, in Part, 75 FR 12325 (March 7,
2011) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’).
We invited interested parties to
comment on our Preliminary Results.
Based on our analysis of the comments
received, we made certain changes to
our margin calculations for the
mandatory respondents. The final
dumping margins for this review are
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
56398
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
listed in the ‘‘Final Results of the
Review’’ section below.
DATES: Effective Date: September 13,
2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lindsey Novom or Frances Veith, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington DC, 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5256 or (202) 482–
4295, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 7, 2011, the Department
published the Preliminary Results of the
first administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on SDGE from
the PRC. On March 28, 2011, the
following parties each submitted
additional surrogate value (‘‘SV’’)
information: SGL Carbon LLC and
Superior Graphite Co. (‘‘Petitioners’’);
Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Fushun Jinly’’); and Beijing
Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd. (‘‘Beijing
Fangda’’), Chengdu Rongguang Carbon
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Rongguang’’), Fangda Carbon
New Material Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fangda
Carbon’’), Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd.
(‘‘‘Fushun Carbon’’), and Hefei Carbon
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hefei’’) (collectively ‘‘the
Fangda Group’’). On March 28, 2011,
Petitioners submitted comments on an
apparent discrepancy between the
volume of subject merchandise sold and
exported to the United States during the
period of review (‘‘POR’’) as (1) reported
in the U.S. sales listings of the
mandatory respondents (i.e., Fushun
Jinly and the Fangda Group) and (2)
reported in the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data on the
administrative record relating to entries
of subject merchandise during the
period of review. On April 5, 2011, the
Department requested new factual
information from the mandatory
respondents regarding their customers’
import processes, including a
description of any documents generated
by the customer, the Fangda Group,
and/or Fushun Jinly related to the
importation process. On April 11, 2011,
the mandatory respondents submitted
new factual information as requested by
the Department. On April 25, 2011,
Petitioners provided comments on the
mandatory respondents’ April 11, 2011
new factual information submission. On
April 28, 2011, the Department placed
CBP data on the record. Petitioners
submitted comments on the CBP data on
May 5, 2011, and the mandatory
respondents rebutted Petitioners’
comments regarding CBP data on May
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
16, 2011. On May 23, 2011, Petitioners
submitted a case brief and the
mandatory respondents submitted a
joint case brief. On May 31, 2011, the
mandatory respondents submitted a
joint rebuttal brief and Petitioners
submitted a rebuttal brief; however, on
June 2, 2011, the Department rejected
Petitioners’ rebuttal brief because it
contained comments on arguments not
raised in respondents’ case brief.
Petitioners submitted their redacted
rebuttal brief on June 6, 2011. We did
not receive briefs or rebuttal briefs from
any other interested party to this review.
On June 21, 2011, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the time limit for the
final results of review by the full 60
days allowed under section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘the Act’’), to September 6, 2011.1 On
June 29, 2011, the Department released
a Memorandum to the File, titled
‘‘Industry-Specific Surrogate Wage Rates
and Surrogate Financial Ratio
Adjustments,’’ dated June 29, 2011
(‘‘Wage Rate Memorandum’’), for use in
these final results. We did not receive
comments from interested parties
pertaining to the Wage Rate
Memorandum.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this
review are addressed in the
Memorandum from Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, titled ‘‘Small Diameter
Graphite Electrodes from the People’s
Republic of China: Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Results of
the 2008–2010 Administrative Review,’’
dated concurrently with this notice
(‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’),
which is hereby adopted by this notice.
A list of the issues that parties raised
and to which we responded in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum
follows as an appendix to this notice.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum
is a public document and is on file in
the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main
Commerce Building, Room 7046, and is
also accessible on the web at https://ia.
ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
1 See Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From
the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time
Limit for the Final Results of the First
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order, 76 FR 36092 (June 21, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Period of Review
The POR is August 21, 2008, through
January 31, 2010.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this
order includes all small diameter
graphite electrodes of any length,
whether or not finished, of a kind used
in furnaces, with a nominal or actual
diameter of 400 millimeters (16 inches)
or less, and whether or not attached to
a graphite pin joining system or any
other type of joining system or
hardware. The merchandise covered by
this order also includes graphite pin
joining systems for small diameter
graphite electrodes, of any length,
whether or not finished, of a kind used
in furnaces, and whether or not the
graphite pin joining system is attached
to, sold with, or sold separately from,
the small diameter graphite electrode.
Small diameter graphite electrodes and
graphite pin joining systems for small
diameter graphite electrodes are most
commonly used in primary melting,
ladle metallurgy, and specialty furnace
applications in industries including
foundries, smelters, and steel refining
operations. Small diameter graphite
electrodes and graphite pin joining
systems for small diameter graphite
electrodes that are subject to this order
are currently classified under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading
8545.11.0000. The HTSUS number is
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, but the written description of
the scope is dispositive.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on an analysis of the comments
received from interested parties, the
Department has made certain changes to
the margin calculations. For the final
results, the Department has made the
following changes:
Changes to Fushun Jinly’s Margin
Calculation
• We revised Fushun Jinly’s toller’s
electricity consumption because, in the
Preliminary Results, we inadvertently
overstated this toller’s electricity
consumption when we applied partial
facts available to the toller’s FOP data.2
• We have revised Fushun Jinly’s byproduct offset in the final results and
2 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 13. See also Memorandum to the File,
titled ‘‘2008–2010 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Small Diameter
Electrodes from the People’s Republic of China:
Analysis of the Final Results Margin Calculation for
Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd.,’’
dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘Fushun
Jinly’s Final Analysis Memorandum’’).
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Notices
will use the production quantity from
the verification documentation as the
basis for Fushun Jinly’s by-product
offsets.3
• We are excluding certain sales
reported in Fushun Jinly’s U.S.
shipment database where we have
evidence that they did not enter the
United States for consumption.4
• In accordance with sections
776(a)(2)(C) and 776(b) of the Act, as
partial adverse facts available, we have
adjusted the reported graphitizing FOPs
by increasing the reported consumption
of inputs used in the graphitization
stage to reflect the largest difference
between the weight of semi-finished
products before graphitizing and the
weight of semi-finished products after
graphitizing based on Fushun Jinly’s
Verification Exhibit 19.5
Changes to the Fangda Group’s Margin
Calculation
• We are excluding certain sales
reported in the Fangda Group’s U.S.
shipment database where we have
evidence that they did not enter the
United States for consumption during
the POR.6
Changes to Surrogate Values
• We have revised the surrogate value
source used to value respondents’
natural gas. The revised surrogate value
is derived from the Indian gas prices as
published by the Indian Gas Utility
Gail.7
• In light of Dorbest Ltd. v. United
States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
and consistent with Antidumping
Methodologies in Proceedings Involving
Non-Market Economies: Valuing the
Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011), we have made
revisions to the surrogate labor rate and
the surrogate manufacturing overhead
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3 See
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 12. See also Fushun Jinly’s Final Analysis
Memorandum. See also Fushun Jinly’s Verification
Exhibit 22.
4 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1. See also Fushun Jinly’s Final Analysis
Memorandum.
5 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 18. See also Fushun Jinly’s Final Analysis
Memorandum.
6 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1. See also Memorandum to the File,
titled ‘‘2008–2010 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Small Diameter
Electrodes from the People’s Republic of China:
Analysis of the Final Results Margin Calculation for
the Fangda Group,’’ dated concurrently with this
notice.
7 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 10. See also Memorandum to the File,
titled ‘‘First Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Small Diameter
Graphite Electrodes from the People’s Republic of
China: Selection of Factor Values,’’ (‘‘Final Factors
Memorandum’’) dated concurrently with this
notice.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
(‘‘MOH’’) ratio for the final results of
this administrative review. For these
final results, the surrogate labor rate has
changed from US$1.47/hour to 75.41
Indian Rupees per hour and the
surrogate MOH ratio changed from
25.94 percent to 23.87 percent. See
Wage Rate Memorandum; see also Final
Factors Memorandum.
Final Rescission, in Part, of the
Administrative Review
In the Preliminary Results, the
Department stated its intent to rescind
the review with respect to UK Carbon &
Graphite (‘‘UKCG’’) because the
Department preliminarily determined
that UKCG had no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR.8 Interested parties had an
opportunity to submit comments on the
Department’s intent to rescind this
review with respect to UKCG. The
Department did not receive any
comments from interested parties with
respect to rescinding the review of
UKCG. Thus, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with
our practice, we are rescinding this
review with respect to UKCG.
Separate Rates Determination
In the Preliminary Results, we
determined that Fushun Jinly, the
Fangda Group, and Xinghe County Muzi
Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Muzi Carbon’’) met
the criteria for separate rate status.9 We
have not received any information since
issuance of the Preliminary Results that
provides a basis for reconsidering this
preliminary determination. Therefore,
the Department continues to find that
Fushun Jinly, the Fangda Group, and
Muzi Carbon meet the criteria for a
separate rate.
Margin for Separate Rate Company
Consistent with the Department’s
practice, as the separate rate, we have
established a margin for Muzi Carbon
based on the weighted-average of the
rates we calculated for the mandatory
respondents, the Fangda Group and
Fushun Jinly, excluding, where
appropriate, any rates that were zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on AFA.10
8 See
Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 12328–29.
Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 12330–31.
10 See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of
China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of
China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007).
9 See
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
56399
The PRC-Wide Entity
As explained in the Preliminary
Results, Shijiazhuang Huanan Carbon
Factory (‘‘Huanan Carbon’’), Sinosteel
Jilin Carbon Co., Ltd./Sinosteel Jilin
Carbon Import & Export Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Sinosteel Jilin’’), Jilin Carbon Graphite
Material Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jilin Carbon’’), and
Jilin Carbon Import and Export
Company (‘‘Jilin Carbon I&E’’) did not
apply for separate-rate status. As such,
they have not demonstrated their
eligibility for a rate separate status in
this administrative review.11
Additionally, none of these companies
notified the Department that they had
no shipments of subject merchandise
during the POR. In the Preliminary
Results we determined that, because
there were exports of merchandise
under review from PRC exporters that
did not demonstrate their eligibility for
separate rate status, they should be
treated as part of the PRC-wide entity.
We have not received any information
since issuance of the Preliminary
Results that provides a basis for
reconsidering this preliminary
determination. Therefore, the
Department continues to find that they
should be treated as part of the PRCwide entity and subject to the PRC-wide
entity rate.
In accordance with section 776(a) and
(b) of the Act and as explained in more
detail in the Preliminary Results, we
determined that the PRC-wide entity’s
rate should be based on total AFA.12 No
party has commented on the use of a
total AFA rate for the PRC-wide entity.
Accordingly, the Department continues
to assign an AFA rate to the PRC-wide
entity. As an AFA rate, the Department
continues to use the highest percent
margin alleged in the Petition,13 159.64
percent.14 As explained in the
Preliminary Results, the Department
considers that rate corroborated
pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act
based upon our pre-initiation analysis of
the adequacy and accuracy of the
information in the Petition.15 No party
has commented on the Department’s
corroboration of the selected total AFA
rate for the PRC-wide entity.
11 See
Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 12331–32.
Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 12331–33.
13 See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties Against Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes
from the People’s Republic of China, Exhibit
General 3, Volume I (January 17, 2008) (‘‘Petition’’).
14 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances: Small Diameter Graphite
Electrodes from the People’s Republic of China, 74
FR 2049, 2054 (January 14, 2009).
15 See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 12332–33.
12 See
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
56400
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Notices
Final Results of the Review
The Department has determined that
the following margins exist for the
period August 21, 2008, through January
31, 2010:
SDGE from the PRC
Percent
margin
Exporters
Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd., Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd., Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd., Hefei Carbon Co.,
Ltd., (collectively, The Fangda Group) ............................................................................................................................................
Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................
Xinghe Country Muzi Carbon Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................
PRC-wide Entity* .................................................................................................................................................................................
2.75
56.63
23.47
159.64
* The PRC-wide Entity includes, inter alia, Huanan Carbon, Sinosteel Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and Jilin Carbon I&E.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), 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. The
Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the
publication date of the final results of
these reviews. For assessment purposes,
we calculated exporter/importer- (or
customer-) specific assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review
consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
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
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 in accordance with
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). We intend to
instruct CBP to liquidate entries
containing subject merchandise
exported by the PRC-wide entity at the
PRC-wide rate we determine in the final
results of this review.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 the
Fangda Group, Fushun Jinly, and Muzi
Carbon, the cash deposit rate will be the
margins listed above; (2) for previously
investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC 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,
the cash deposit rate will be the PRCwide rate of 159.64 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 that non-PRC
exporter. These deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of the antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under the APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment
of the proceeding. Timely written
notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
Disclosure
We intend to disclose the calculations
performed within five days of the date
of publication of this notice to parties in
this proceeding in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
We are issuing and publishing the
final results and notice in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: September 6, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix
Comment 1: Whether To Apply Total
Adverse Facts Available To the Mandatory
Respondents
Comment 2: Whether the Fangda Group and
Fushun Jinly Properly Reported Their
Universe of U.S. Sales
Comment 3: Whether the Respondents
Reported All of Their U.S. Selling
Expenses
Comment 4: Whether the Fangda Group
Reported Accurate Energy & Labor
Consumption
Comment 5: Whether to Impute Reporting
Failures of Fushun Carbon to the Other
Fangda Group Producers
Comment 6: Whether the Fangda Group
Reported Accurate Supplier Distances
Comment 7: Whether the Fangda Group
Reported Accurate Market Economy
Purchases
Comment 8: The Fangda Group’s By-Products
Comment 9: Whether the Fangda Group
Reported Complete and Reliable FOPs for
Itself and Its Tollers
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Notices
Comment 10: Whether the Fangda Group
Reported Accurate Sales Prices
Comment 11: Surrogate Value for Natural Gas
Comment 12: Whether Fushun Jinly Failed to
Submit CONNUM-Specific Factor Data
Comment 13: Whether Fushun Jinly’s ByProduct Offsets Should Be Rejected
Comment 14: Whether Fushun Jinly Reported
Accurate Electricity Consumption Factors
and Whether the Department Incorrectly
Valued Fushun Jinly’s Coal Consumption
Comment 15: Whether Fushun Jinly’s
Reported Market Economy Purchase Prices
for Needle Coke Are Understated
Comment 16: Whether Fushun Jinly Reported
All Factor Data
Comment 17: Whether to Reject Fushun
Jinly’s Tollers’ Data Because It Included
Non-Subject Merchandise in the FOP
Allocations
Comment 18: Whether Fushun Jinly’s
Graphitization Toller’s FOP Data are
Understated, Incomplete and Unreliable
Comment 19: Whether Fushun Jinly’s
Accounting Records Can Be Reconciled to
the Toller’s Records With Respect to
Quantities
Comment 20: Whether Fushun Jinly’s Toller
#1’s Data Are Incomplete
Comment 21: Whether Fushun Jinly’s Toller
#2’s Data Are Incomplete
Comment 22: Fushun Jinly’s Toller #2’s
Electricity Consumption
Comment 23: Whether Fushun Jinly’s
Toller’s Data Are Otherwise Understated
Comment 24: Offsetting Negative Margins
[FR Doc. 2011–23357 Filed 9–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–810]
Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, and Revocation
of the Order, in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 4, 2011, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published the
preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on stainless steel bar from India. The
review covers shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States for the
period February 1, 2009, through
January 31, 2010, by Facor Steels Ltd./
Ferro Alloys Corporation, Ltd.
(‘‘Facor’’), Mukand Ltd. (‘‘Mukand’’),
and Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.
(‘‘Venus Wire’’).1 Based on our analysis
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
1 For the reasons explained in the Preliminary
Results, we have determined that Venus Wire and
its affiliates, Hindustan Inox, Precision Metals
(‘‘Hindustan’’) and Sieves Manufacturers (India)
Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Sieves’’), should be treated as a single
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
of the comments received, we have
made changes to the preliminary results,
which are discussed below. For the final
dumping margins, see the ‘‘Final Results
of the Review’’ section below. Finally,
we are announcing our revocation of the
order on stainless steel bar from India,
in part, with respect to subject
merchandise produced and/or exported
by Venus to the United States.
DATES: Effective Date: September 13,
2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Austin Redington, Scott Holland, or
Yasmin Nair, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)
482–1664, (202) 482–1279, or (202) 482–
3813, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 4, 2011, the Department
published Stainless Steel Bar From
India: Preliminary Results of, and
Partial Rescission of, the Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, and Intent
Not To Revoke the Order, in Part, 76 FR
12044 (March 4, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary
Results’’). After publishing the
Preliminary Results, the Department
conducted verification of the cost of
production responses from Venus Wire
and its affiliate, Sieves, from March 7,
2011, through March 18, 2011. The
results of this verification were
disclosed to the interested parties on
April 29, 2011. See Memorandum from
Angie Sepulveda and Heidi K. Schriefer
to Neal M. Halper, ‘‘Verification of the
Cost Response of Venus Wire Industries
Pvt. Ltd. in the Antidumping Review of
Stainless Steel Bar from India,’’ dated
April 29, 2011; see also Memorandum
from Angie Sepulveda and Heidi K.
Schriefer to Neal M. Halper,
‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of
Sieves Manufacturers (India) Private
Limited in the Antidumping Review of
Stainless Steel Bar from India,’’ dated
April 29, 2011, which are on file in the
Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room
7046 in the main Department building.
entity and collapsed for the purposes of this review.
See Memorandum from Patricia Tran and Austin
Redington to the File, ‘‘Whether to Collapse Venus
Wire Industries Pvt., Ltd. and Hindustan Inox in the
Preliminary Results’’ dated July 20, 2010; see also
Memorandum from Austin Redington to the File,
‘‘Relationship of Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.
and Precision Metals,’’ dated May 20, 2010; see also
Memorandum from Austin Redington to the File,
‘‘Relationship of Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and
Sieves Manufactures (India) Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated May
20, 2010. The collapsed entity is referred to as
‘‘Venus.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
56401
We preliminarily determined to treat
Venus Wire and its affiliate Hindustan
as a single entity for this review. See
Preliminary Results; see also
Memorandum from Austin Redington to
the File, ‘‘Whether to Collapse Venus
Wire Industries Pvt., Ltd. and Hindustan
Inox in the Preliminary Results,’’ dated
July 20, 2010. We invited comment on
this issue from the interested parties:
None was received. We are continuing
to treat Venus Wire and its affiliate
Hindustan as a single entity for the final
results of this review.
On April 14, 2011, the Department
extended the time limit for the
completion of the final results of this
review by 60 days (to August 31, 2011),
in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘the Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).
See Stainless Steel Bar From India:
Extension of Time Limit for the Final
Results of the 2009–2010 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
20950 (April 14, 2011).
We invited parties to comment on the
Preliminary Results. On April 4, 2011,
we received a letter from Venus
detailing and correcting administrative
errors in its questionnaire response and
verification. On April 25, 2011, we
received a response to Venus’ April 4,
2011 letter from Petitioners.2 On May 3,
2011, we received an additional letter
from Venus, which clarified its
comments of April 4, 2011.
On June 16, 2011, we received case
briefs from Venus and Petitioners. On
June 16, 2011, pursuant to a request
from Mukand, we extended the deadline
for submission of case briefs to June 20,
2011. See Memorandum from Seth
Isenberg to the File, ‘‘2009/2010
Administrative Review of Stainless
Steel Bar from India: Revised Briefing
Schedule,’’ dated June 16, 2011. On
June 20, 2011, we again extended the
deadline, pursuant to a request from
Mukand, Ltd. See Memorandum from
Seth Isenberg to the File, ‘‘2009/2010
Administrative Review of Stainless
Steel Bar from India: Revised Briefing
Schedule,’’ dated June 20, 2011. On
June 22, 2011, we received case briefs
from Mukand and Facor. On June 24,
2011, we extended the deadline for
submission of rebuttal briefs to June 29,
2011, pursuant to a request from
Petitioners. See Memorandum from the
Team to the File, ‘‘2009/2010
Administrative Review of Stainless
Steel Bar from India: Revised Briefing
Schedule,’’ dated June 24, 2011. We
2 Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna
Slater Stainless, Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a
Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc., Universal Stainless
(collectively ‘‘Petitioners’’).
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56397-56401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23357]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-929]
Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of the First Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order and Final Rescission of the Administrative
Review, in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2011, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
published the preliminary results of the first administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on small diameter graphite electrodes
(``SDGE'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''), covering the
period August 21, 2008, through January 31, 2010. See Small Diameter
Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of the First Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order; Partial Rescission of Administrative Review; and Intent to
Rescind Administrative Review, in Part, 75 FR 12325 (March 7, 2011)
(``Preliminary Results'').
We invited interested parties to comment on our Preliminary
Results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made
certain changes to our margin calculations for the mandatory
respondents. The final dumping margins for this review are
[[Page 56398]]
listed in the ``Final Results of the Review'' section below.
DATES: Effective Date: September 13, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lindsey Novom or Frances Veith, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5256 or (202) 482-4295, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 7, 2011, the Department published the Preliminary Results
of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
SDGE from the PRC. On March 28, 2011, the following parties each
submitted additional surrogate value (``SV'') information: SGL Carbon
LLC and Superior Graphite Co. (``Petitioners''); Fushun Jinly
Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Fushun Jinly''); and Beijing Fangda
Carbon Tech Co., Ltd. (``Beijing Fangda''), Chengdu Rongguang Carbon
Co., Ltd. (``Rongguang''), Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd.
(``Fangda Carbon''), Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd. (```Fushun Carbon''), and
Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Hefei'') (collectively ``the Fangda Group'').
On March 28, 2011, Petitioners submitted comments on an apparent
discrepancy between the volume of subject merchandise sold and exported
to the United States during the period of review (``POR'') as (1)
reported in the U.S. sales listings of the mandatory respondents (i.e.,
Fushun Jinly and the Fangda Group) and (2) reported in the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (``CBP'') data on the administrative record
relating to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review.
On April 5, 2011, the Department requested new factual information from
the mandatory respondents regarding their customers' import processes,
including a description of any documents generated by the customer, the
Fangda Group, and/or Fushun Jinly related to the importation process.
On April 11, 2011, the mandatory respondents submitted new factual
information as requested by the Department. On April 25, 2011,
Petitioners provided comments on the mandatory respondents' April 11,
2011 new factual information submission. On April 28, 2011, the
Department placed CBP data on the record. Petitioners submitted
comments on the CBP data on May 5, 2011, and the mandatory respondents
rebutted Petitioners' comments regarding CBP data on May 16, 2011. On
May 23, 2011, Petitioners submitted a case brief and the mandatory
respondents submitted a joint case brief. On May 31, 2011, the
mandatory respondents submitted a joint rebuttal brief and Petitioners
submitted a rebuttal brief; however, on June 2, 2011, the Department
rejected Petitioners' rebuttal brief because it contained comments on
arguments not raised in respondents' case brief. Petitioners submitted
their redacted rebuttal brief on June 6, 2011. We did not receive
briefs or rebuttal briefs from any other interested party to this
review. On June 21, 2011, the Department published a notice in the
Federal Register extending the time limit for the final results of
review by the full 60 days allowed under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), to September 6, 2011.\1\
On June 29, 2011, the Department released a Memorandum to the File,
titled ``Industry-Specific Surrogate Wage Rates and Surrogate Financial
Ratio Adjustments,'' dated June 29, 2011 (``Wage Rate Memorandum''),
for use in these final results. We did not receive comments from
interested parties pertaining to the Wage Rate Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of
the First Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties
in this review are addressed in the Memorandum from Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, titled ``Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from
the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Results of the 2008-2010 Administrative Review,'' dated
concurrently with this notice (``Issues and Decision Memorandum''),
which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that
parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and
Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central
Records Unit (``CRU''), Main Commerce Building, Room 7046, and is also
accessible on the web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical
in content.
Period of Review
The POR is August 21, 2008, through January 31, 2010.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this order includes all small diameter
graphite electrodes of any length, whether or not finished, of a kind
used in furnaces, with a nominal or actual diameter of 400 millimeters
(16 inches) or less, and whether or not attached to a graphite pin
joining system or any other type of joining system or hardware. The
merchandise covered by this order also includes graphite pin joining
systems for small diameter graphite electrodes, of any length, whether
or not finished, of a kind used in furnaces, and whether or not the
graphite pin joining system is attached to, sold with, or sold
separately from, the small diameter graphite electrode. Small diameter
graphite electrodes and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter
graphite electrodes are most commonly used in primary melting, ladle
metallurgy, and specialty furnace applications in industries including
foundries, smelters, and steel refining operations. Small diameter
graphite electrodes and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter
graphite electrodes that are subject to this order are currently
classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'') subheading 8545.11.0000. The HTSUS number is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, but the written description of the
scope is dispositive.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on an analysis of the comments received from interested
parties, the Department has made certain changes to the margin
calculations. For the final results, the Department has made the
following changes:
Changes to Fushun Jinly's Margin Calculation
We revised Fushun Jinly's toller's electricity consumption
because, in the Preliminary Results, we inadvertently overstated this
toller's electricity consumption when we applied partial facts
available to the toller's FOP data.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 13. See also
Memorandum to the File, titled ``2008-2010 Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Small Diameter Electrodes from the
People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Final Results Margin
Calculation for Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd.,'' dated
concurrently with this notice (``Fushun Jinly's Final Analysis
Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have revised Fushun Jinly's by-product offset in the
final results and
[[Page 56399]]
will use the production quantity from the verification documentation as
the basis for Fushun Jinly's by-product offsets.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12. See also
Fushun Jinly's Final Analysis Memorandum. See also Fushun Jinly's
Verification Exhibit 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are excluding certain sales reported in Fushun Jinly's
U.S. shipment database where we have evidence that they did not enter
the United States for consumption.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. See also
Fushun Jinly's Final Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(C) and 776(b) of the
Act, as partial adverse facts available, we have adjusted the reported
graphitizing FOPs by increasing the reported consumption of inputs used
in the graphitization stage to reflect the largest difference between
the weight of semi-finished products before graphitizing and the weight
of semi-finished products after graphitizing based on Fushun Jinly's
Verification Exhibit 19.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18. See also
Fushun Jinly's Final Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes to the Fangda Group's Margin Calculation
We are excluding certain sales reported in the Fangda
Group's U.S. shipment database where we have evidence that they did not
enter the United States for consumption during the POR.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. See also
Memorandum to the File, titled ``2008-2010 Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Small Diameter Electrodes from the
People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Final Results Margin
Calculation for the Fangda Group,'' dated concurrently with this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes to Surrogate Values
We have revised the surrogate value source used to value
respondents' natural gas. The revised surrogate value is derived from
the Indian gas prices as published by the Indian Gas Utility Gail.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. See also
Memorandum to the File, titled ``First Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from
the People's Republic of China: Selection of Factor Values,''
(``Final Factors Memorandum'') dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2010) and consistent with Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of
Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June 21, 2011), we have made revisions
to the surrogate labor rate and the surrogate manufacturing overhead
(``MOH'') ratio for the final results of this administrative review.
For these final results, the surrogate labor rate has changed from
US$1.47/hour to 75.41 Indian Rupees per hour and the surrogate MOH
ratio changed from 25.94 percent to 23.87 percent. See Wage Rate
Memorandum; see also Final Factors Memorandum.
Final Rescission, in Part, of the Administrative Review
In the Preliminary Results, the Department stated its intent to
rescind the review with respect to UK Carbon & Graphite (``UKCG'')
because the Department preliminarily determined that UKCG had no
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR.\8\ Interested parties had an opportunity to submit comments on the
Department's intent to rescind this review with respect to UKCG. The
Department did not receive any comments from interested parties with
respect to rescinding the review of UKCG. Thus, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding
this review with respect to UKCG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 12328-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates Determination
In the Preliminary Results, we determined that Fushun Jinly, the
Fangda Group, and Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Muzi Carbon'')
met the criteria for separate rate status.\9\ We have not received any
information since issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides a
basis for reconsidering this preliminary determination. Therefore, the
Department continues to find that Fushun Jinly, the Fangda Group, and
Muzi Carbon meet the criteria for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 12330-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin for Separate Rate Company
Consistent with the Department's practice, as the separate rate, we
have established a margin for Muzi Carbon based on the weighted-average
of the rates we calculated for the mandatory respondents, the Fangda
Group and Fushun Jinly, excluding, where appropriate, any rates that
were zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR
19690 (April 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-Wide Entity
As explained in the Preliminary Results, Shijiazhuang Huanan Carbon
Factory (``Huanan Carbon''), Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Co., Ltd./Sinosteel
Jilin Carbon Import & Export Co., Ltd. (``Sinosteel Jilin''), Jilin
Carbon Graphite Material Co., Ltd. (``Jilin Carbon''), and Jilin Carbon
Import and Export Company (``Jilin Carbon I&E'') did not apply for
separate-rate status. As such, they have not demonstrated their
eligibility for a rate separate status in this administrative
review.\11\ Additionally, none of these companies notified the
Department that they had no shipments of subject merchandise during the
POR. In the Preliminary Results we determined that, because there were
exports of merchandise under review from PRC exporters that did not
demonstrate their eligibility for separate rate status, they should be
treated as part of the PRC-wide entity. We have not received any
information since issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides a
basis for reconsidering this preliminary determination. Therefore, the
Department continues to find that they should be treated as part of the
PRC-wide entity and subject to the PRC-wide entity rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 12331-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 776(a) and (b) of the Act and as
explained in more detail in the Preliminary Results, we determined that
the PRC-wide entity's rate should be based on total AFA.\12\ No party
has commented on the use of a total AFA rate for the PRC-wide entity.
Accordingly, the Department continues to assign an AFA rate to the PRC-
wide entity. As an AFA rate, the Department continues to use the
highest percent margin alleged in the Petition,\13\ 159.64 percent.\14\
As explained in the Preliminary Results, the Department considers that
rate corroborated pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act based upon our
pre-initiation analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of the information
in the Petition.\15\ No party has commented on the Department's
corroboration of the selected total AFA rate for the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 12331-33.
\13\ See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties
Against Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's
Republic of China, Exhibit General 3, Volume I (January 17, 2008)
(``Petition'').
\14\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Small
Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 74
FR 2049, 2054 (January 14, 2009).
\15\ See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 12332-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56400]]
Final Results of the Review
The Department has determined that the following margins exist for
the period August 21, 2008, through January 31, 2010:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDGE from the PRC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Exporters margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd., Fangda Carbon New 2.75
Material Co., Ltd., Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd., Hefei
Carbon Co., Ltd., (collectively, The Fangda Group).....
Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd.............. 56.63
Xinghe Country Muzi Carbon Co., Ltd..................... 23.47
PRC-wide Entity*........................................ 159.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The PRC-wide Entity includes, inter alia, Huanan Carbon, Sinosteel
Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and Jilin Carbon I&E.
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b),
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. The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of
the final results of these reviews. For assessment purposes, we
calculated exporter/importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates
for merchandise subject to this review consistent with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). 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
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 in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). We intend
to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise
exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate we determine in
the final results of this review.
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 the Fangda Group,
Fushun Jinly, and Muzi Carbon, the cash deposit rate will be the
margins listed above; (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, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of
159.64 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
that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of
the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction
of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
Disclosure
We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days
of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 6, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
Comment 1: Whether To Apply Total Adverse Facts Available To the
Mandatory Respondents
Comment 2: Whether the Fangda Group and Fushun Jinly Properly
Reported Their Universe of U.S. Sales
Comment 3: Whether the Respondents Reported All of Their U.S.
Selling Expenses
Comment 4: Whether the Fangda Group Reported Accurate Energy & Labor
Consumption
Comment 5: Whether to Impute Reporting Failures of Fushun Carbon to
the Other Fangda Group Producers
Comment 6: Whether the Fangda Group Reported Accurate Supplier
Distances
Comment 7: Whether the Fangda Group Reported Accurate Market Economy
Purchases
Comment 8: The Fangda Group's By-Products
Comment 9: Whether the Fangda Group Reported Complete and Reliable
FOPs for Itself and Its Tollers
[[Page 56401]]
Comment 10: Whether the Fangda Group Reported Accurate Sales Prices
Comment 11: Surrogate Value for Natural Gas
Comment 12: Whether Fushun Jinly Failed to Submit CONNUM-Specific
Factor Data
Comment 13: Whether Fushun Jinly's By-Product Offsets Should Be
Rejected
Comment 14: Whether Fushun Jinly Reported Accurate Electricity
Consumption Factors and Whether the Department Incorrectly Valued
Fushun Jinly's Coal Consumption
Comment 15: Whether Fushun Jinly's Reported Market Economy Purchase
Prices for Needle Coke Are Understated
Comment 16: Whether Fushun Jinly Reported All Factor Data
Comment 17: Whether to Reject Fushun Jinly's Tollers' Data Because
It Included Non-Subject Merchandise in the FOP Allocations
Comment 18: Whether Fushun Jinly's Graphitization Toller's FOP Data
are Understated, Incomplete and Unreliable
Comment 19: Whether Fushun Jinly's Accounting Records Can Be
Reconciled to the Toller's Records With Respect to Quantities
Comment 20: Whether Fushun Jinly's Toller 1's Data Are
Incomplete
Comment 21: Whether Fushun Jinly's Toller 2's Data Are
Incomplete
Comment 22: Fushun Jinly's Toller 2's Electricity
Consumption
Comment 23: Whether Fushun Jinly's Toller's Data Are Otherwise
Understated
Comment 24: Offsetting Negative Margins
[FR Doc. 2011-23357 Filed 9-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
