Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind, in Part, 62356-62364 [2011-26016]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
62356
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2011 / Notices
CFR 351.310(d). Parties who submit
case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
review are requested to submit with
each argument a statement of the issue,
a summary of the arguments not
exceeding five pages, and a table of
statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
The Department intends to issue the
final results of this administrative
review, including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such
written briefs or at the hearing, if held,
not later than 120 days after the date of
publication of this notice. See section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
calculated importer-specific (or
customer-specific) assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review.
Based on these preliminary results, we
will direct CBP to assess no dumping
duties on each entry made by the sole
importer Xiping Opeck reported as its
customer.
For China Kingdom, we will instruct
CBP to apply the rate listed above to all
entries of subject merchandise exported
by this company.
We intend to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the
date of publication of the final results of
review.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Cash-Deposit Requirements
16:33 Oct 06, 2011
This notice also serves as a
preliminary 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 antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This review and notice are in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1),
751(a)(2)(B)(iv), 751(a)(3), and 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: September 30, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–26069 Filed 10–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–912]
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road
Tires From the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of the
2009–2010 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent To
Rescind, in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
The following cash-deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of review
for all shipments of the subject
merchandise 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
subject merchandise exported by Xiping
Opeck and China Kingdom, the cashdeposit rate will be that established in
the final results of review; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above that have
separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3)
for all other PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not been
found to be entitled to a separate rate,
the cash-deposit rate will be PRC-wide
rate of 223.01 percent; (4) for all nonPRC exporters of subject merchandise
the cash-deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC entity that
supplied that exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Notification to Importers
Jkt 226001
The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain new
pneumatic off-the-road tires (‘‘OTR
tires’’) from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the period
September 1, 2009, through August 31,
2010. We have preliminarily determined
that the mandatory respondent, Tianjin
United Tire & Rubber International Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘TUTRIC’’), made sales of subject
merchandise to the United States at
prices below normal value (‘‘NV’’).
Additionally, we also preliminarily
determine that Weihai Zhongwei
Rubber Co., Ltd. (‘‘Weihai’’) had no
shipments during the POR, and
therefore we intend to rescind the
review with respect to Weihai. 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 entries of subject merchandise
during the POR for which the importer-
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
specific assessment rates are above de
minimis.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
We intend to issue the 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: October 7, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Raquel Silva or Erin Begnal, 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) 482–6475 or (202) 482–
1442, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 4, 2008, the
Department published the antidumping
duty order on OTR tires from the PRC.1
On September 1, 2010, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
order for the period of review (‘‘POR’’)
September 1, 2009, through August 31,
2010.2 Interested parties made requests
for review between September 17, 2010,
and September 30, 2010, on certain
exporters. On October 28, 2010, the
Department initiated the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on OTR tires from the PRC for the
2009—2010 POR.3 On January 18, 2011,
the Department exercised its authority
to limit the number of respondents
selected for individual examination
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the
Act. The Department selected the three
largest exporters by volume as our
mandatory respondents for this review:
Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full World
International Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Full
World’’), Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Starbright’’), and TUTRIC. On January
19, 2011, the Department issued its
antidumping duty questionnaire to the
three mandatory respondents. On March
18, 2011, the Department published in
the Federal Register a partial rescission
of review for eight exporters, including
Full World and Starbright.4 Two
1 See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires
From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Amended Final Affirmative Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order, 73 FR 51624 (September 4, 2008).
2 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 53635
(September 1, 2010).
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR
66349 (October 28, 2010).
4 The other companies for which the review was
rescinded in addition to Full World and Starbright
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2011 / Notices
companies remain under review:
TUTRIC and Weihai.
On June 1, 2011, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
notice extending the time limit for the
preliminary results of review by the full
120 days allowed under section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, to September 30,
2011.5 Between February 17, 2011, and
September 2, 2011, TUTRIC responded
to the Department’s original and
supplemental questionnaires. Between
August 31, 2011, and September 12,
2011, Titan Tire Corporation
(‘‘Petitioner’’) and Bridgestone
Americas, Inc. and Bridgestone
Americas Tire Operations, LLC
(collectively, ‘‘Bridgestone’’), a domestic
interested party, submitted prepreliminary comments.
Period of Review
The POR is September 1, 2009,
through August 31, 2010.
Scope of Order
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The products covered by the order are
new pneumatic tires designed for offthe-road and off-highway use, subject to
exceptions identified below. Certain
OTR tires are generally designed,
manufactured and offered for sale for
use on off-road or off-highway surfaces,
including but not limited to, agricultural
fields, forests, construction sites, factory
and warehouse interiors, airport
tarmacs, ports and harbors, mines,
quarries, gravel yards, and steel mills.
The vehicles and equipment for which
certain OTR tires are designed for use
include, but are not limited to: (1)
Agricultural and forestry vehicles and
equipment, including agricultural
tractors,6 combine harvesters,7
agricultural high clearance sprayers,8
include: Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd., Guizhou Advance
Rubber Co., Ltd. and Guizhou Tyre Import and
Export Corporation; Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber Co.,
Ltd.; KS Holding Limited/KS Resources Limited;
Laizhou Xiongying Rubber Industry Co., Ltd.;
Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd.; and Mai Shandong
Radial Tyre Co., Ltd. See Certain New Pneumatic
Off-the-Road Tires from the People’s Republic of
China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 14919 (March
18, 2011).
5 See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires
from the People’s Republic of China: Extension of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 31584 (June 1, 2011).
6 Agricultural tractors are dual-axle vehicles that
typically are designed to pull farming equipment in
the field and that may have front tires of a different
size than the rear tires.
7 Combine harvesters are used to harvest crops
such as corn or wheat.
8 Agricultural sprayers are used to irrigate
agricultural fields.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:33 Oct 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
industrial tractors,9 log-skidders,10
agricultural implements, highwaytowed implements, agricultural logging,
and agricultural, industrial, skid-steers/
mini-loaders;11 (2) construction vehicles
and equipment, including earthmover
articulated dump products, rigid frame
haul trucks,12 front end loaders,13
dozers,14 lift trucks, straddle carriers,15
graders,16 mobile cranes,17 compactors;
and (3) industrial vehicles and
equipment, including smooth floor,
industrial, mining, counterbalanced lift
trucks, industrial and mining vehicles
other than smooth floor, skid-steers/
mini-loaders, and smooth floor off-theroad counterbalanced lift trucks. The
foregoing list of vehicles and equipment
generally have in common that they are
used for hauling, towing, lifting, and/or
loading a wide variety of equipment and
materials in agricultural, construction
and industrial settings. Such vehicles
and equipment, and the descriptions
contained in the footnotes are
illustrative of the types of vehicles and
equipment that use certain OTR tires,
but are not necessarily all-inclusive.
While the physical characteristics of
certain OTR tires will vary depending
on the specific applications and
conditions for which the tires are
designed (e.g., tread pattern and depth),
all of the tires within the scope have in
common that they are designed for off9 Industrial tractors are dual-axle vehicles that
typically are designed to pull industrial equipment
and that may have front tires of a different size than
the rear tires.
10 A log-skidder has a grappling lift arm that is
used to grasp, lift and move trees that have been
cut down to a truck or trailer for transport to a mill
or other destination.
11 Skid-steer loaders are four-wheel drive vehicles
with the left-side drive wheels independent of the
right-side drive wheels and lift arms that lie
alongside the driver with the major pivot points
behind the driver’s shoulders. Skid-steer loaders are
used in agricultural, construction and industrial
settings.
12 Haul trucks, which may be either rigid frame
or articulated (i.e., able to bend in the middle) are
typically used in mines, quarries and construction
sites to haul soil, aggregate, mined ore, or debris.
13 Front loaders have lift arms in front of the
vehicle. They can scrape material from one location
to another, carry material in their buckets, or load
material into a truck or trailer.
14 A dozer is a large four-wheeled vehicle with a
dozer blade that is used to push large quantities of
soil, sand, rubble, etc., typically around
construction sites. They can also be used to perform
‘‘rough grading’’ in road construction.
15 A straddle carrier is a rigid frame, enginepowered machine that is used to load and offload
containers from container vessels and load them
onto (or off of) tractor trailers.
16 A grader is a vehicle with a large blade used
to create a flat surface. Graders are typically used
to perform ‘‘finish grading.’’ Graders are commonly
used in maintenance of unpaved roads and road
construction to prepare the base course on to which
asphalt or other paving material will be laid.
17 I.e., ‘‘on-site’’ mobile cranes designed for offhighway use.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62357
road and off-highway use. Except as
discussed below, OTR tires included in
the scope of the order range in size (rim
diameter) generally but not exclusively
from 8 inches to 54 inches. The tires
may be either tube-type18 or tubeless,
radial or non-radial, and intended for
sale either to original equipment
manufacturers or the replacement
market. The subject merchandise is
currently classifiable under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25,
4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30,
4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00,
4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00,
4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00,
4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00,
4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. While
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope is
dispositive.
Specifically excluded from the scope
are new pneumatic tires designed,
manufactured and offered for sale
primarily for on-highway or on-road
use, including passenger cars, race cars,
station wagons, sport utility vehicles,
minivans, mobile homes, motorcycles,
bicycles, on-road or on-highway trailers,
light trucks, and trucks and buses. Such
tires generally have in common that the
symbol ‘‘DOT’’ must appear on the
sidewall, certifying that the tire
conforms to applicable motor vehicle
safety standards. Such excluded tires
may also have the following
designations that are used by the Tire
and Rim Association:
Prefix Letter Designations
• P—Identifies a tire intended
primarily for service on passenger cars;
• LT—Identifies a tire intended
primarily for service on light trucks;
and,
• ST—Identifies a special tire for
trailers in highway service.
Suffix letter designations
• TR—Identifies a tire for service on
trucks, buses, and other vehicles with
rims having specified rim diameter of
nominal plus 0.156’’ or plus 0.250’’;
• MH—Identifies tires for Mobile
Homes;
• HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire
designated for use on ‘‘HC’’ 15’’ tapered
rims used on trucks, buses, and other
vehicles. This suffix is intended to
differentiate among tires for light trucks,
18 While tube-type tires are subject to the scope
of this proceeding, tubes and flaps are not subject
merchandise and therefore are not covered by the
scope of this proceeding, regardless of the manner
in which they are sold (e.g., sold with or separately
from subject merchandise).
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
62358
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2011 / Notices
and other vehicles or other services,
which use a similar designation.
• Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC;
• LT—Identifies light truck tires for
service on trucks, buses, trailers, and
multipurpose passenger vehicles used
in nominal highway service; and
• MC—Identifies tires and rims for
motorcycles.
The following types of tires are also
excluded from the scope: pneumatic
tires that are not new, including
recycled or retreaded tires and used
tires; non-pneumatic tires, including
solid rubber tires; tires of a kind
designed for use on aircraft, all-terrain
vehicles, and vehicles for turf, lawn and
garden, golf and trailer applications.
Also excluded from the scope are radial
and bias tires of a kind designed for use
in mining and construction vehicles and
equipment that have a rim diameter
equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such
tires may be distinguished from other
tires of similar size by the number of
plies that the construction and mining
tires contain (minimum of 16) and the
weight of such tires (minimum 1500
pounds).
Intent To Rescind, in Part, the
Administrative Review
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
On January 10, 2011, Weihai
submitted a letter stating that it had no
shipments of OTR tires during the
POR.19 The Department reviewed the
CBP data it had obtained for respondent
selection purposes, and found that
Weihai was not listed as having entered
subject merchandise during the POR.20
On February 7, 2011, the Department
sent an inquiry to CBP regarding
whether Weihai had any shipments of
subject merchandise that entered during
the POR and requesting that CBP inform
the Department within ten days if
Weihei had shipments of subject
merchandise that entered during the
POR.21 We did not receive a response
from CBP within the allotted ten days.
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), we intend to rescind the
review with respect to Weihai because
there is no evidence on the record to
indicate that Weihai had sales of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR.
19 See Letter from Weihai, ‘‘Certification of no
exports, sales or entries of the subject
merchandise,’’ dated January 10, 2011.
20 See Letter to All Interested Parties, ‘‘2009–2010
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road
Tires From the People’s Republic of China: CBP
Data for Respondent Selection,’’ dated November
12, 2010, at attachment 1.
21 See CBP message number 1038304, dated
February 7, 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:33 Oct 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
Non-Market Economy Country Status
No party contested the Department’s
treatment of the PRC as a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country, and the
Department has treated the PRC as an
NME country in all past antidumping
duty investigations and administrative
reviews.22 No interested party in this
case has argued that we should do
otherwise. Pursuant to section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, designation as
an NME country remains in effect until
it is revoked by the Department. As
such, we continue to treat the PRC as an
NME in this segment of the proceeding.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the
Department to base NV on the NME
producer’s factors of production
(‘‘FOPs’’), valued in a surrogate market
economy (‘‘ME’’) country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
Department. In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the
FOPs, the Department shall use, to the
extent possible, the prices or costs of the
FOPs in one or more ME countries that
are: (1) At a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
NME country; and (2) significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
The sources of the surrogate factor
values are discussed under the ‘‘Factor
Valuations’’ section below.23
The Department determined that
India, the Philippines, Indonesia,
Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru are
countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of economic development.24 Once
we have identified the countries that are
economically comparable to the PRC,
we select an appropriate surrogate
country by determining whether an
economically comparable country is a
significant producer of comparable
merchandise and whether the data for
valuing FOPs are both available and
reliable.
The Department has determined that
India is the appropriate surrogate
22 See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
52645 (September 10, 2008); and Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 3560 (January 21,
2009).
23 See the Department’s Memorandum,
‘‘Preliminary Results of the 2009–2010
Administrative Review of Certain New Pneumatic
Off-the-Road Tires From the People’s Republic of
China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,’’ dated
concurrently with this notice (‘‘Surrogate Value
Memorandum’’).
24 See the Department’s Memorandum, ‘‘Request
for a List of Surrogate Countries for an
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Certain Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires
(‘‘Tires’’) From the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘China’’),’’ dated February 24, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
country for use in this review. The
Department based its decision on the
following facts: (1) India is at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise;
and (3) India provides the best
opportunity to use quality, publicly
available data to value the FOPs.
Bridgestone provided comments on
March 15, 2011, arguing that India is the
appropriate surrogate country for use in
this review. Additionally, the data
submitted by Titan, Bridgestone and
TUTRIC for our consideration as
potential surrogate values are sourced
from India. For these reasons, and
because no party has argued for a
different country, we have selected
India as the surrogate country and,
accordingly, have calculated NV using
Indian prices to value the respondent’s
FOPs, when available and appropriate.
See Surrogate Value Memorandum. We
have obtained and relied upon publicly
available information wherever
possible.
Separate Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department explained the process by
which exporters and producers not
being individually reviewed may obtain
separate-rate status in NME reviews.
The process requires exporters and
producers to submit a separate-rate
status application or separate-rate status
certification (‘‘SRC’’).25 However, the
standard for eligibility for a separate rate
(which is whether a firm can
demonstrate an absence of both de jure
and de facto government control over its
export activities) has not changed. On
December 27, 2011, TUTRIC filed a
timely response to the Department’s
SRC.26
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 assessed a single antidumping
duty rate.27 It is the Department’s policy
25 See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates
Practice and Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market
Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05–1.pdf.
26 See Letter from TUTRIC, ‘‘Separate Rate
Certification in the Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on New Pneumatic Offthe-Road Tires from the People’s Republic of
China,’’ dated December 27, 2010 (‘‘TUTRIC’s
SRC’’) at 5.
27 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
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2011 / Notices
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.28 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 Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers
From the People’s Republic of China, 56
FR 20588, at Comment 1 (May 6, 1991)
(‘‘Sparklers’’), as further developed in
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide
from the People’s Republic of China, 59
FR 22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon
Carbide’’). However, if the Department
determines that a company is wholly
foreign-owned or located in an ME, then
a further separate rate analysis is not
necessary to determine whether it is
independent from government
control.29
TUTRIC submitted information
indicating that it is partly owned by a
PRC company. Therefore, the
Department must analyze whether
TUTRIC can demonstrate the absence of
both de jure and de facto governmental
control over export activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD 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.30
The evidence provided by TUTRIC
supports a preliminary finding of de
jure absence of governmental control
based on the following: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporters’ business
and export licenses; (2) there are
applicable legislative enactments
decentralizing control of the companies;
and (3) there are formal measures by the
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)).
28 Id.
29 See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles
From the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 52355,
52356 (September 13, 2007).
30 See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:33 Oct 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
government decentralizing control of
companies.31
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
governmental control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a governmental 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.32 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 governmental control
which would preclude the Department
from assigning separate rates. For
TUTRIC, 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) TUTRIC sets its own export prices
independent of the government
authority; (2) TUTRIC retains the
proceeds from its sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses; (3) TUTRIC has the authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; and (4) TUTRIC has
autonomy from the government
regarding the selection of
management.33
The evidence placed on the record of
this review by TUTRIC demonstrates an
absence of de jure and de facto
government control with respect to its
exports of the merchandise under
review, in accordance with the criteria
identified in Sparklers and Silicon
Carbide. Therefore, we are preliminarily
granting TUTRIC separate-rate status.
Date of Sale
Section 401(i) of the Department’s
regulations states that:
In identifying the date of sale of the subject
merchandise or foreign like product, the
Secretary normally will use the date of
TUTRIC’s SRC at 5.
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).
33 See TUTRIC’s SRC at 5–7.
62359
invoice, as recorded in the exporter or
producer’s records kept in the ordinary
course of business. However, the Secretary
may use a date other than the date of invoice
if the Secretary is satisfied that a different
date better reflects the date on which the
exporter or producer establishes the material
terms of sale.34
After examining the questionnaire
responses and the sales documentation
placed on the record by TUTRIC, we
preliminarily determine that invoice
date is the most appropriate date of sale
for TUTRIC. Nothing on the record
rebuts the presumption that invoice date
should be the date of sale.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether TUTRIC’s sales
of OTR tires to the United States were
made at less than fair value, we
compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as
described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice,
below, pursuant to section 771(35) of
the Act.
U.S. Price
The Department considers the U.S.
prices of sales by TUTRIC to be EPs in
accordance with section 772(a) of the
Act because they were the prices at
which the subject merchandise was first
sold before the date of importation by
the producer/exporter of the subject
merchandise outside of the United
States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States. We calculated EPs based
on prices to unaffiliated purchaser(s) 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 and brokerage and
handling.
We valued foreign brokerage and
handling using a price list of export
procedures necessary to export a
standardized cargo of goods from India
where foreign brokerage and handling
were provided by PRC service providers
or paid for in renminbi. The price list
is compiled based on a survey case
study of the procedural requirements for
trading a standard shipment of goods by
truck in India as reported in ‘‘Doing
Business 2010: India’’ published by the
World Bank.35 Where foreign inland
truck freight was provided by PRC
service providers or paid for in
renminbi, we also based those charges
on surrogate rates from India. See
‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section below for
31 See
32
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34 See also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v.
United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090–1092
(CIT 2001) (upholding the Department’s rebuttable
presumption that invoice date is the appropriate
date of sale).
35 See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
62360
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2011 / Notices
further discussion of these surrogate
values.
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.36 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; (3) amounts of energy and
other utilities consumed; and (4)
representative capital costs. The
Department used FOPs reported by
TUTRIC for materials, energy and labor.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on
FOPs reported by TUTRIC 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 if the quantities were meaningful
and where the prices have not been
distorted by dumping or subsidies.37 To
calculate NV, we multiplied the
reported per-unit factor-consumption
rates by publicly available SVs (except
as discussed below). In selecting the
best available information for valuing
36 See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical
Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products From
the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703
(April 17, 2006) (unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People’s
Republic of China), 71 FR 53079 (September 8,
2006)).
37 See Shakeproof Assembly Components Div of
Ill Tool Works v. United States, 268 F. 3d 1376,
1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the
Department’s use of market-based prices to value
certain FOPs).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:33 Oct 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
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, contemporaneous with
the POR, represent a broad-market
average, are product-specific, and taxexclusive.38 We therefore consider SVs
based on the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data.39 As
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to import SVs a 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).
On March 1, 2011, the Department
invited all interested parties to submit
publicly available information to value
FOPs for consideration in the
Department’s preliminary results of
review.40 Petitioner, Bridgestone and
TUTRIC each submitted publicly
available information to value FOPs for
the preliminary results between
February 17, 2011, and September 8,
2011. A detailed description of all
surrogate values used for TUTRIC can
be found in the Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
For the preliminary results, in
accordance with the Department’s
practice, except where noted below, we
used data from the Indian import
statistics in the Global Trade Atlas
(‘‘GTA’’), published by Global Trade
Information Services, Inc. (‘‘GTIS’’) and
other publicly available Indian sources
to calculate SVs for TUTRIC’s FOPs (i.e.,
direct materials, energy, and scrap
38 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)).
39 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.
40 See Letter to Interested Parties, ‘‘2009–2010
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road
Tires from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated
March 1, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
materials) and certain movement
expenses. The GTA reports import
statistics, such as from India, in the
original reporting currency and thus this
data corresponds to the original
currency value reported by each
country. The record shows that data in
the Indian import statistics, as well as
those from the other Indian sources, are
contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.41 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
Indian Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’)
as published in the International
Monetary Fund’s International
Financial Statistics.42
As explained in the legislative history
of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988, the
Department continues to apply its longstanding practice of disregarding SVs if
it has a reason to believe or suspect the
source data may reflect subsidized
prices.43 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.44 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
41 See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
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)
(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)).
43 See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep.
No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (‘‘OTCA
1988’’) at 590, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547,
1623–24.
44 See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order on Carbazole Violet
Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 (March 19,
2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 4–5; Expedited Sunset Review of
the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia,
70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4; CorrosionResistant 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 Results of
Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand,
66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23.
42 See,
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Thailand may have benefitted from
these subsidies. Accordingly, we
disregarded GTA import data from
Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand.
Additionally, we disregarded prices
from NME countries.45 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.46
TUTRIC claimed that certain of its
reported raw material inputs were
sourced from an ME country and paid
for in ME currencies. When a
respondent sources inputs from an ME
supplier in meaningful quantities, we
use the actual price paid by respondent
for those inputs, except when prices
may have been distorted by dumping or
subsidies.47 Where we found ME
purchases to be of significant quantities
(i.e., 33 percent or more), in accordance
with our statement of policy as outlined
in Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs,48 we used the actual
purchase prices of these inputs to value
the full input.
Accordingly, we valued certain of
TUTRIC’s inputs using the ME currency
prices paid where the total volume of
the input purchased from all ME
sources during the POR exceeds or is
equal to 33 percent of the total volume
of the input purchased from all sources
during the period. Where the quantity of
the reported input purchased from ME
suppliers was below 33 percent of the
total volume of the input purchased
from all sources during the POR, and
were otherwise valid, we weightaveraged the ME input’s purchase price
with the appropriate surrogate value for
the input according to their respective
shares of the reported total volume of
purchases.49 Where appropriate, we
added freight to the ME prices of inputs.
For a detailed description of the actual
values used for the ME inputs reported,
45 See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2008–
2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order, 75 FR 41148, 41154 (July 15, 2010)
(unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the
2008–2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 3086 (January 19, 2011)).
46 See id.
47 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997).
48 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy
Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments,
71 FR 61716, 61717–18 (October 19, 2006)
(‘‘Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy
Inputs’’).
49 See id. at 61718.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:33 Oct 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
see ‘‘Analysis Memorandum for the
Preliminary Results: Tianjin United Tire
& Rubber International Co., Ltd.
(‘‘TUTRIC’’)’’, dated concurrently with
this notice (‘‘Prelim Analysis
Memorandum’’).
With respect to the valuation of
technically specified natural rubber
(‘‘TSNR’’), Bridgestone suggested the
Department use prices reported by the
Indian Rubber Board (‘‘IRB’’), stating
that the IRB reports prices for the
specific type of TSNR used by TUTRIC
and meets all of the Department’s SV
criteria in that the prices are periodwide, specific to the input, net of taxes
and import duties, contemporaneous,
and publicly available. Bridgestone
further noted that the HTS categories for
TSNR import data are basket categories
that do not distinguish between grades,
and therefore are not as specific to
TUTRIC’s input as the IRB’s data.50
TUTRIC submitted sections from the
IRB’s Web site showing that the IRB
issued subsidies and other benefits to
domestic rubber growers covering the
period of 2000 through 2007.51
Bridgestone countered by asserting that
the subsidies do not cover the POR, and
that subsidies would affect domestic
and imported rubber prices equally, as
imports seek to compete in the domestic
market.52
For the preliminary results, we have
determined to use Indian import data to
value TUTRIC’s TSNR, as we did in the
previous two segments of the
proceeding.53 Although the IRB
50 See Letter from Bridgestone, ‘‘Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on New
Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires From China:
Bridgestone’s Initial Submission of Surrogate
Values,’’ dated April 18, 2011. See also Letter from
Bridgestone, ‘‘Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Off-The-Road Tires
From The People’s Republic of China: Bridgestone’s
Initial Pre-Preliminary Comments,’’ dated August
31, 2011 (‘‘Bridgestone’s Initial Pre-Prelim
Comments’’).
51 Letter from TUTRIC, ‘‘First Surrogate Value
Rebuttal Submission for TUTRIC in the Second
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from
the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated April 28,
2011.
52 See Bridgestone’s Initial Pre-Prelim Comments.
53 See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires
From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 64259 (October 19, 2010) (unchanged
in Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the
2008–2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 22871 (April 25, 2011) (‘‘Tires AR1
Final’’)); Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires
From the People’s Republic of China; Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 9278
(February 20, 2008) (unchanged in Certain New
Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62361
provides data more specific to the type
of TSNR TUTRIC uses in production,
we are unable to identify the source of
the prices listed on the IRB’s Web site.54
Moreover, during the investigation, we
rejected the IRB’s data because we
found the data to be ‘‘quoted/indicative
prices published on a particular day and
do not necessarily reflect an actual sale
of natural rubber.’’ 55 Because the Indian
import data are known to be based on
actual sales that are contemporaneous
with the POR, tax-exclusive, and cover
the input at issue, we find that they
represent the best available information
with which to value TSNR in this
administrative review.
With respect to the valuation of Tyre
cord B fabric (‘‘NYCHFR’’) and harness
cloth (‘‘HCLOTH’’), TUTRIC submitted
descriptions of NYCHFR as ‘‘Nylon Tire
Cord Fabric of High Tenacity Yarn;’’ and
of HCLOTH as ‘‘Nylon Tire Cord Fabric
of High Tenacity Yarn made of nylon
6.’’ TUTRIC reported both FOPs in
kilograms. Bridgestone proposed using
Indian import data corresponding to
HTS category 56049000 56 to value both
of these FOPs, which was also used in
both previous segments of the
proceeding and is reported in Rs/kg.57
TUTRIC proposed HTS categories
59021090 58 and 59021010,59 which are
reported in square meters, but TUTRIC
did not provide a conversion formula
from kilograms to square meters.
For the preliminary results, we have
determined to use Indian import data
corresponding to HTS category
56049000, which is not as specific to the
input in question, but in the correct unit
of measure. However, we intend to
request that TUTRIC report a conversion
factor for its NYCHFR and HCLOTH
(from kg to square meters) subsequent to
the issuance of these preliminary results
in the event we determine a different
HTS category (or categories) to be more
representative of the input.
We valued truck freight expenses
using a per-unit average rate calculated
from data on the infobanc Web site:
https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/
logtruck.htm. The logistics section of
this Web site contains inland freight
truck rates between many large Indian
cities. We valued coal using data
Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008) (‘‘Tires
LTFV Final’’)).
54 See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
55 See Tires LTFV Final, accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 12.
56 ‘‘Textile yarn, thread or cord covered or
impregnated with rubber or plastic: Other Rubber
Thread or Cord.’’
57 See Tires AR1 Final and Tires LTFV Final.
58 ‘‘Tire Cord Fabric of High Tenacity Yarn of
Nylon, Polyamides, Polyesters or Viscose Rayon.’’
59 ‘‘Tire Cord Fabric of High Tenacity Yarn of
Nylon, Polyamides, Polyesters or Viscose Rayon.’’
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
62362
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2011 / Notices
obtained for grade E coal reported in the
2007 edition of the Indian Minerals
Yearbook published by the Indian
Bureau of Mines. We valued water using
the revised Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation water rates
available at https://www.midcindia.com/
water-supply. We calculated the SV for
steam based upon the 2009–2010
financial statement of Hindalco
Industries Limited. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
We valued electricity using the
updated electricity price data for small,
medium, and large industries, as
published by the Central Electricity
Authority, an administrative body of the
Government of India, in its publication
titled ‘‘Electricity Tariff & Duty and
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in
India,’’ dated March 2008. These
electricity rates represent actual
country-wide, publicly-available
information on tax-exclusive electricity
rates charged to small, medium, and
large industries in India. Because the
rates listed in this source became
effective on a variety of different dates,
we are not adjusting the average value
for inflation. In other words, the
Department did not inflate this value to
the POR because the utility rates
represent current rates, as indicated by
the effective date listed for each of the
rates provided.60
Section 733(c) of the Act, provides
that the Department will value the FOPs
in NME cases using the best available
information regarding the value of such
factors in a ME country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
administering authority. The Act
requires that when valuing FOPs, the
Department utilizes, to the extent
possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in
one or more ME countries that are: (1)
At a comparable level of economic
development and (2) significant
producers of comparable
merchandise.61
Previously, the Department used
regression-based wages that captured
the worldwide relationship between per
capita GNI and hourly manufacturing
wages, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3), to value the respondent’s
cost of labor in NME cases. However, on
May 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’), in Dorbest
Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (‘‘Dorbest’’),
invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). As a
consequence of the CAFC’s ruling in
60 See, e.g., Wire Decking from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 32905 (June 10, 2010),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3.
61 See section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:33 Oct 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
Dorbest, the Department no longer relies
on the regression-based wage rate
methodology described in its
regulations.
On June 21, 2011, the Department
revised its methodology for valuing the
labor input in NME antidumping
proceedings.62 In Labor Methodologies,
the Department determined that the best
methodology to value the labor input is
to use industry-specific labor rates from
the primary surrogate country.
Additionally, the Department
determined that the best data source for
industry-specific labor rates is Chapter
6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from
the International Labor Organization
(ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics
(‘‘Yearbook’’).
In these preliminary results, the
Department calculated the labor input
using the wage method described in
Labor Methodologies. To value
TUTRIC’s labor input, the Department
relied on data reported by India to the
ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. The
Department further finds the two-digit
description under ISIC–Revision 3
(‘‘25—Manufacture of Rubber and
Plastics Products’’) to be the best
available information on the record
because it is specific to the industry
being examined, and is therefore
derived from industries that produce
comparable merchandise. Accordingly,
relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook,
the Department calculated the labor
input using labor data reported by India
to the ILO under Sub-Classification 25
of the ISIC–Revision 3 standard, in
accordance with Section 773(c)(4) of the
Act. For these preliminary results, the
calculated industry-specific wage rate is
49.49 Rs per hour. Because this wage
rate does not separate the labor rates
into different skill levels or types of
labor, the Department has applied the
same wage rate to all skill levels and
types of labor reported by TUTRIC.63 A
more detailed description of the wage
rate calculation methodology is
provided in the Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
As stated above, the Department used
India’s ILO data reported under Chapter
6A of Yearbook, which reflects all costs
related to labor, including wages,
benefits, housing, training, etc. Because
the financial statements used to
calculate the surrogate financial ratios
include itemized detail of indirect labor
costs, the Department made adjustments
62 See Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies:
Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (‘‘Labor Methodologies’’).
63 See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
to the surrogate financial ratios as
contemplated by Labor Methodologies.64
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), the
Department valued factory overhead,
selling, general and administrative
expenses and profit using nonproprietary information gathered from
producers of identical or comparable
merchandise in the surrogate country.
The Department’s practice is to
disregard financial statements
containing evidence that the company
received subsidies that the Department
has previously found to be
countervailable, and where there are
other reliable data on the record for
purposes of calculating the surrogate
financial ratios.65 For these preliminary
results, we used the average of the ratios
derived from the financial statements of
two Indian producers of OTR tires:
Falcon Tyres Ltd. (for the year ending
on September 30, 2010) and TVS
Srichakra Ltd. (for the year ending on
March 31, 2010). We did not use
financial statements from two other
Indian producers, MRF Limited and JK
Tyre and Industries Ltd., because they
each contained evidence of receipt of a
subsidy which the Department has
found to be countervailable.66
Specifically, these two Indian producers
received benefits under the Export
Promotion Capital Goods Scheme and
the Sales Tax Deferred from
Government of Karnataka program,
respectively, both programs that the
Department has previously determined
to be countervailable.67
TUTRIC reported that scrap
compound, scrap bead, scrap cloth and
scrap tire were recovered as by-products
of the production of subject
merchandise and successfully
demonstrated that the scrap materials
have commercial value. Therefore, we
have granted a by-product offset for the
quantities of the reported by-product,
valued using Indian import data.68
64 See Surrogate Value Memorandum and Labor
Methodologies, 76 FR at 36094.
65 See First Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
27994 (May 13, 2011), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
66 See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
67 See, e.g., Commodity Matchbooks From India:
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination, 74 FR 54547 (October 22, 2009)
(finding the Export Promotion Capital Goods
Scheme to be countervailable); Notice of
Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review:
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
from India, 71 FR 45037, 45043 (August 8, 2006)
(unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
6530 (February 12, 2007)).
68 See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2011 / Notices
of publication of the preliminary results.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1), if an interested party
submits factual information less than
ten days before, on, or after (if the
Department has extended the deadline),
the applicable deadline for submission
of such factual information, an
Preliminary Results of Review
interested party may submit factual
information to rebut, clarify, or correct
We preliminarily find that the
the factual information no later than ten
following weighted-average dumping
days after such factual information is
margin exists for the period September
served on the interested party. However,
1, 2009, through August 31, 2010:
the Department generally will not
Percent accept in the rebuttal submission
Exporter
margin
additional or alternative surrogate value
information not previously on the
Tianjin United Tire & Rubber Interrecord, if the deadline for submission of
national Co., Ltd. .........................
7.35 surrogate value information has
passed.73 Furthermore, the Department
Disclosure and Public Comment
generally will not accept business
proprietary information in either the
The Department will disclose
surrogate value submissions or the
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within rebuttals thereto, as the regulation
regarding the submission of surrogate
five days of the date of publication of
values allows only for the submission of
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
publicly available information.74
351.224(b). Interested parties may
submit written comments no later than
Assessment Rates
30 days after the date of publication of
The Department will determine, and
these preliminary results of review.69
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
Rebuttals to written comments may be
all appropriate entries of subject
filed no later than five days after the
merchandise in accordance with the
written comments are filed.70
final results of this review. For
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of assessment purposes, we calculated
exporter/importer- (or customer)
this notice.71 Hearing requests should
-specific assessment rates for
contain the following information: (1)
merchandise subject to this review.
The party’s name, address, and
Where appropriate, we calculated an ad
telephone number; (2) the number of
valorem rate for each importer (or
participants; and (3) a list of the issues
customer) by dividing the total dumping
to be discussed. Oral presentations will
margins for reviewed sales to that party
be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
If a request for a hearing is made, parties by the total entered values associated
with those transactions. For dutywill be notified of the time and date for
assessment rates calculated on this
the hearing to be held at the U.S.
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
resulting ad valorem rate against the
and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
entered customs values for the subject
Washington, DC 20230.72
merchandise.
The Department will issue the final
Where appropriate, we calculated a
results of this administrative review,
per-unit rate for each importer (or
which will include the results of its
customer) by dividing the total dumping
analysis of issues raised in any such
margins for reviewed sales to that party
comments, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results, by the total sales quantity associated
with those transactions. For dutypursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
assessment rates calculated on this
Act.
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the
Deadline for Submission of Publicly
resulting per-unit rate against the
Available Surrogate Value Information entered quantity of the subject
merchandise. Where an importer- (or
In accordance with 19 CFR
customer) -specific assessment rate is de
351.301(c)(3)(ii), the deadline for
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the
submission of publicly available
information to value FOPs under 19
73 See, e.g., Glycine from the People’s Republic of
CFR 351.408(c) is 20 days after the date
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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.
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.
74 See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3).
69 See
19 CFR 351.309(c).
70 See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
71 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
72 See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:33 Oct 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62363
Department will instruct CBP to assess
that importer (or customer’s) entries of
subject merchandise without regard to
antidumping duties. The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after publication of 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 entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TUTRIC,
the cash deposit rate will be the
company-specific rate 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 or exporter/producerspecific rate published for the most
recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters
of subject merchandise that have not
been found to be entitled to a separate
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the
PRC-wide rate of 210.48 percent
established in the Tires LTFV Final; and
(4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise that 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
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.
We are issuing and publishing these
preliminary results of review in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.213.
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
62364
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2011 / Notices
Dated: September 30, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Background
Administrative Review’’ for this CVD
order. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 75
FR 53635, 53636 (September 1, 2010).
On September 30, 2010, Nashville Wire
Products Inc. and SSW Holding
Company, Inc. (collectively
‘‘Petitioners’’) requested a review of ten
companies. On October 28, 2010, we
initiated a review of five of the
companies: Wireking; NKS; Leader
Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (aka Marmon
Retail Services Asia) (‘‘Leader Metal’’);
Hangzhou Dunli Import and Export Co.,
Ltd./Hangzhou Dunli Industry Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Dunli’’); and Jiangsu Weixi Group Co.
(‘‘Jiangsu Weixi’’). See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 66349,
66351 (October 28, 2010), as corrected
by Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews; Correction, 75 FR 69054
(November 10, 2010) (‘‘Initiation
Correction’’).1 On November 29, 2010,
after receiving further information from
Petitioners, we initiated reviews of two
additional companies requested by
Petitioners: Asia Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Asia Pacific CIS’’) and Hengtong
Hardware Manufacturing (Huizhou) Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Hengtong’’). See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 73036,
73038 (November 29, 2010).
In order to select mandatory
respondents for this review, we issued
questionnaires on December 3, 2010, to
the seven companies covered by the
review, requesting information about
the quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) of
subject merchandise exports made to
the United States during the POR (‘‘Q&V
questionnaires’’). As in the underlying
investigation, we did not rely on CBP
data for respondent selection because
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) categories that
include subject merchandise are broad
and contain products other than the
subject merchandise. See Memorandum
to Susan H. Kuhbach from Joseph
Shuler, regarding ‘‘Selection of
Respondents for the Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review of Certain
Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
from the People’s Republic of China’’
On July 27, 2009, the Department
published a CVD order on Kitchen
Racks from the PRC. See Certain Kitchen
Appliance Shelving and Racks From the
People’s Republic of China:
Countervailing Duty Order, 74 FR 46973
(September 14, 2009) (‘‘CVD Order’’).
On September 1, 2010, we published a
notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request
1 The Department notes that only the POR for the
antidumping duty administrative review was
included in the November 10, 2010 notice. See
Initiation Correction, 75 FR at 69059. All notices
concerning the administrative review of the
countervailing duty order apply to the POR
referenced in the initiation notices and this notice,
generally January 7, 2009, through December 31,
2009 (see ‘‘Period of Review’’ section below for
further discussion).
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–942]
[FR Doc. 2011–26016 Filed 10–6–11; 8:45 am]
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of the
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel
Reviews; Notice of Completion of
Panel Review
NAFTA Secretariat, United
States Section, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
AGENCY:
Notice of Completion of Panel
Review of the International Trade
Commission’s final determination of
Certain Welded Large Diameter Line
Pipe from Mexico (Secretariat File No.
USA–MEX–2007–1904–03).
ACTION:
Pursuant to the Decision of
the Binational Panel dated August 29,
2011, affirming the International Trade
Commission’s final determination on
remand described above, the panel
review was completed on September 29,
2011.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ellen Bohon, United States Secretary,
NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th
and Constitution Avenue, Washington,
DC 20230, (202) 482–5438.
On August
29, 2011, the Binational Panel issued a
Decision of the Panel affirming the
International Trade Commission’s
remand determination concerning
Certain Welded Large Diameter Line
Pipe from Mexico (Secretariat File No.
USA–MEX–2007–1904–03). The
Secretariat was instructed to issue a
Notice of Completion of Panel Review
on the 31st day following the issuance
of the Notice of Final Panel Action, if
no request for an Extraordinary
Challenge Committee was filed. No such
request was filed. Therefore, on the
basis of the Panel Order and Rule 80 of
the Article 1904 Panel Rules, the Panel
Review was completed and the panelists
were discharged from their duties
effective September 29, 2011.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: October 3, 2011.
Ellen Bohon,
United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2011–25952 Filed 10–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:33 Oct 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of the
countervailable duty order on certain
kitchen appliance shelving and racks
(‘‘Kitchen Racks’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The period
of review (‘‘POR’’) is January 7, 2009,
through December 31, 2009 (see further
explanation in the ‘‘Period of Review’’
section of this notice). This review
covers multiple exporters/producers,
two of which are being individually
reviewed as mandatory respondents. We
preliminarily find that the mandatory
respondents, Guangdong Wireking
Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Wireking’’) and New King Shan (Zhu
Hai) Co., Ltd. (‘‘NKS’’), received
countervailable subsidies during the
POR. Their countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’)
rates have been used to calculate the
rate applied to the other firms subject to
this review. If these preliminary results
are adopted in our final results of
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
countervailing duties as detailed in the
‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section
of this notice. Interested parties are
invited to comment on these
preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: October 7, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexander Montoro or Jennifer Meek,
Office of 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) 482–0238
and (202) 482–2778, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62356-62364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26016]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-912]
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind, in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain new
pneumatic off-the-road tires (``OTR tires'') from the People's Republic
of China (``PRC'') covering the period September 1, 2009, through
August 31, 2010. We have preliminarily determined that the mandatory
respondent, Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd.
(``TUTRIC''), made sales of subject merchandise to the United States at
prices below normal value (``NV''). Additionally, we also preliminarily
determine that Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd. (``Weihai'') had no
shipments during the POR, and therefore we intend to rescind the review
with respect to Weihai. 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 entries of subject
merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment
rates are above de minimis.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. We intend to issue the 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: October 7, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raquel Silva or Erin Begnal, 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-
6475 or (202) 482-1442, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 4, 2008, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on OTR tires from the PRC.\1\ On September 1, 2010, the
Department published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the order for the period of review (``POR'')
September 1, 2009, through August 31, 2010.\2\ Interested parties made
requests for review between September 17, 2010, and September 30, 2010,
on certain exporters. On October 28, 2010, the Department initiated the
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OTR tires from
the PRC for the 2009--2010 POR.\3\ On January 18, 2011, the Department
exercised its authority to limit the number of respondents selected for
individual examination pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The
Department selected the three largest exporters by volume as our
mandatory respondents for this review: Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full
World International Trading Co., Ltd. (``Full World''), Hebei
Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. (``Starbright''), and TUTRIC. On January 19,
2011, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to the
three mandatory respondents. On March 18, 2011, the Department
published in the Federal Register a partial rescission of review for
eight exporters, including Full World and Starbright.\4\ Two
[[Page 62357]]
companies remain under review: TUTRIC and Weihai.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the
People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Affirmative
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order, 73 FR 51624 (September 4, 2008).
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, 75 FR 53635 (September 1, 2010).
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 66349 (October 28, 2010).
\4\ The other companies for which the review was rescinded in
addition to Full World and Starbright include: Guizhou Tyre Co.,
Ltd., Guizhou Advance Rubber Co., Ltd. and Guizhou Tyre Import and
Export Corporation; Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber Co., Ltd.; KS Holding
Limited/KS Resources Limited; Laizhou Xiongying Rubber Industry Co.,
Ltd.; Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd.; and Mai Shandong Radial Tyre
Co., Ltd. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the
People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 14919 (March 18,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 1, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a
notice extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review
by the full 120 days allowed under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, to
September 30, 2011.\5\ Between February 17, 2011, and September 2,
2011, TUTRIC responded to the Department's original and supplemental
questionnaires. Between August 31, 2011, and September 12, 2011, Titan
Tire Corporation (``Petitioner'') and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and
Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (collectively,
``Bridgestone''), a domestic interested party, submitted pre-
preliminary comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the
People's Republic of China: Extension of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 31584 (June 1, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is September 1, 2009, through August 31, 2010.
Scope of Order
The products covered by the order are new pneumatic tires designed
for off-the-road and off-highway use, subject to exceptions identified
below. Certain OTR tires are generally designed, manufactured and
offered for sale for use on off-road or off-highway surfaces, including
but not limited to, agricultural fields, forests, construction sites,
factory and warehouse interiors, airport tarmacs, ports and harbors,
mines, quarries, gravel yards, and steel mills. The vehicles and
equipment for which certain OTR tires are designed for use include, but
are not limited to: (1) Agricultural and forestry vehicles and
equipment, including agricultural tractors,\6\ combine harvesters,\7\
agricultural high clearance sprayers,\8\ industrial tractors,\9\ log-
skidders,\10\ agricultural implements, highway-towed implements,
agricultural logging, and agricultural, industrial, skid-steers/mini-
loaders;\11\ (2) construction vehicles and equipment, including
earthmover articulated dump products, rigid frame haul trucks,\12\
front end loaders,\13\ dozers,\14\ lift trucks, straddle carriers,\15\
graders,\16\ mobile cranes,\17\ compactors; and (3) industrial vehicles
and equipment, including smooth floor, industrial, mining,
counterbalanced lift trucks, industrial and mining vehicles other than
smooth floor, skid-steers/mini-loaders, and smooth floor off-the-road
counterbalanced lift trucks. The foregoing list of vehicles and
equipment generally have in common that they are used for hauling,
towing, lifting, and/or loading a wide variety of equipment and
materials in agricultural, construction and industrial settings. Such
vehicles and equipment, and the descriptions contained in the footnotes
are illustrative of the types of vehicles and equipment that use
certain OTR tires, but are not necessarily all-inclusive. While the
physical characteristics of certain OTR tires will vary depending on
the specific applications and conditions for which the tires are
designed (e.g., tread pattern and depth), all of the tires within the
scope have in common that they are designed for off-road and off-
highway use. Except as discussed below, OTR tires included in the scope
of the order range in size (rim diameter) generally but not exclusively
from 8 inches to 54 inches. The tires may be either tube-type\18\ or
tubeless, radial or non-radial, and intended for sale either to
original equipment manufacturers or the replacement market. The subject
merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (``HTSUS'') subheadings: 4011.20.10.25,
4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00,
4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00,
4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. While
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
our written description of the scope is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Agricultural tractors are dual-axle vehicles that typically
are designed to pull farming equipment in the field and that may
have front tires of a different size than the rear tires.
\7\ Combine harvesters are used to harvest crops such as corn or
wheat.
\8\ Agricultural sprayers are used to irrigate agricultural
fields.
\9\ Industrial tractors are dual-axle vehicles that typically
are designed to pull industrial equipment and that may have front
tires of a different size than the rear tires.
\10\ A log-skidder has a grappling lift arm that is used to
grasp, lift and move trees that have been cut down to a truck or
trailer for transport to a mill or other destination.
\11\ Skid-steer loaders are four-wheel drive vehicles with the
left-side drive wheels independent of the right-side drive wheels
and lift arms that lie alongside the driver with the major pivot
points behind the driver's shoulders. Skid-steer loaders are used in
agricultural, construction and industrial settings.
\12\ Haul trucks, which may be either rigid frame or articulated
(i.e., able to bend in the middle) are typically used in mines,
quarries and construction sites to haul soil, aggregate, mined ore,
or debris.
\13\ Front loaders have lift arms in front of the vehicle. They
can scrape material from one location to another, carry material in
their buckets, or load material into a truck or trailer.
\14\ A dozer is a large four-wheeled vehicle with a dozer blade
that is used to push large quantities of soil, sand, rubble, etc.,
typically around construction sites. They can also be used to
perform ``rough grading'' in road construction.
\15\ A straddle carrier is a rigid frame, engine-powered machine
that is used to load and offload containers from container vessels
and load them onto (or off of) tractor trailers.
\16\ A grader is a vehicle with a large blade used to create a
flat surface. Graders are typically used to perform ``finish
grading.'' Graders are commonly used in maintenance of unpaved roads
and road construction to prepare the base course on to which asphalt
or other paving material will be laid.
\17\ I.e., ``on-site'' mobile cranes designed for off-highway
use.
\18\ While tube-type tires are subject to the scope of this
proceeding, tubes and flaps are not subject merchandise and
therefore are not covered by the scope of this proceeding,
regardless of the manner in which they are sold (e.g., sold with or
separately from subject merchandise).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically excluded from the scope are new pneumatic tires
designed, manufactured and offered for sale primarily for on-highway or
on-road use, including passenger cars, race cars, station wagons, sport
utility vehicles, minivans, mobile homes, motorcycles, bicycles, on-
road or on-highway trailers, light trucks, and trucks and buses. Such
tires generally have in common that the symbol ``DOT'' must appear on
the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor
vehicle safety standards. Such excluded tires may also have the
following designations that are used by the Tire and Rim Association:
Prefix Letter Designations
P--Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on
passenger cars;
LT--Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on
light trucks; and,
ST--Identifies a special tire for trailers in highway
service.
Suffix letter designations
TR--Identifies a tire for service on trucks, buses, and
other vehicles with rims having specified rim diameter of nominal plus
0.156'' or plus 0.250'';
MH--Identifies tires for Mobile Homes;
HC--Identifies a heavy duty tire designated for use on
``HC'' 15'' tapered rims used on trucks, buses, and other vehicles.
This suffix is intended to differentiate among tires for light trucks,
[[Page 62358]]
and other vehicles or other services, which use a similar designation.
Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC;
LT--Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks,
buses, trailers, and multipurpose passenger vehicles used in nominal
highway service; and
MC--Identifies tires and rims for motorcycles.
The following types of tires are also excluded from the scope:
pneumatic tires that are not new, including recycled or retreaded tires
and used tires; non-pneumatic tires, including solid rubber tires;
tires of a kind designed for use on aircraft, all-terrain vehicles, and
vehicles for turf, lawn and garden, golf and trailer applications. Also
excluded from the scope are radial and bias tires of a kind designed
for use in mining and construction vehicles and equipment that have a
rim diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such tires may be
distinguished from other tires of similar size by the number of plies
that the construction and mining tires contain (minimum of 16) and the
weight of such tires (minimum 1500 pounds).
Intent To Rescind, in Part, the Administrative Review
On January 10, 2011, Weihai submitted a letter stating that it had
no shipments of OTR tires during the POR.\19\ The Department reviewed
the CBP data it had obtained for respondent selection purposes, and
found that Weihai was not listed as having entered subject merchandise
during the POR.\20\ On February 7, 2011, the Department sent an inquiry
to CBP regarding whether Weihai had any shipments of subject
merchandise that entered during the POR and requesting that CBP inform
the Department within ten days if Weihei had shipments of subject
merchandise that entered during the POR.\21\ We did not receive a
response from CBP within the allotted ten days. Therefore, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we intend to rescind the review
with respect to Weihai because there is no evidence on the record to
indicate that Weihai had sales of subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Letter from Weihai, ``Certification of no exports,
sales or entries of the subject merchandise,'' dated January 10,
2011.
\20\ See Letter to All Interested Parties, ``2009-2010
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China:
CBP Data for Respondent Selection,'' dated November 12, 2010, at
attachment 1.
\21\ See CBP message number 1038304, dated February 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Country Status
No party contested the Department's treatment of the PRC as a non-
market economy (``NME'') country, and the Department has treated the
PRC as an NME country in all past antidumping duty investigations and
administrative reviews.\22\ No interested party in this case has argued
that we should do otherwise. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the
Act, designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department. As such, we continue to treat the PRC as an
NME in this segment of the proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 52645 (September 10, 2008); and Folding Metal Tables
and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 3560 (January 21,
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on
the NME producer's factors of production (``FOPs''), valued in a
surrogate market economy (``ME'') country or countries considered to be
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of
the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall use, to the extent
possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs in one or more ME countries
that are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable to that of
the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable
merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed
under the ``Factor Valuations'' section below.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See the Department's Memorandum, ``Preliminary Results of
the 2009-2010 Administrative Review of Certain New Pneumatic Off-
the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value
Memorandum,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``Surrogate Value
Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department determined that India, the Philippines, Indonesia,
Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of economic development.\24\ Once we have identified the
countries that are economically comparable to the PRC, we select an
appropriate surrogate country by determining whether an economically
comparable country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise
and whether the data for valuing FOPs are both available and reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See the Department's Memorandum, ``Request for a List of
Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Certain Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires (``Tires'') From
the People's Republic of China (``China''),'' dated February 24,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has determined that India is the appropriate
surrogate country for use in this review. The Department based its
decision on the following facts: (1) India is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) India provides the best
opportunity to use quality, publicly available data to value the FOPs.
Bridgestone provided comments on March 15, 2011, arguing that India is
the appropriate surrogate country for use in this review. Additionally,
the data submitted by Titan, Bridgestone and TUTRIC for our
consideration as potential surrogate values are sourced from India. For
these reasons, and because no party has argued for a different country,
we have selected India as the surrogate country and, accordingly, have
calculated NV using Indian prices to value the respondent's FOPs, when
available and appropriate. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. We have
obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever
possible.
Separate Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the Department explained the process by
which exporters and producers not being individually reviewed may
obtain separate-rate status in NME reviews. The process requires
exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate status application or
separate-rate status certification (``SRC'').\25\ However, the standard
for eligibility for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can
demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto government control
over its export activities) has not changed. On December 27, 2011,
TUTRIC filed a timely response to the Department's SRC.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
\26\ See Letter from TUTRIC, ``Separate Rate Certification in
the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on New
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China,''
dated December 27, 2010 (``TUTRIC's SRC'') at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 assessed a single
antidumping duty rate.\27\ It is the Department's policy
[[Page 62359]]
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.\28\
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 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR
20588, at Comment 1 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed
in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22587
(May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). However, if the Department
determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in an ME,
then a further separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine
whether it is independent from government control.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 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)).
\28\ Id.
\29\ See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China,
72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TUTRIC submitted information indicating that it is partly owned by
a PRC company. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether TUTRIC
can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental
control over export activities.
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.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by TUTRIC supports a preliminary finding of
de jure absence of governmental control based on the following: (1) An
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual
exporters' 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
companies.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See TUTRIC's SRC at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a governmental 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.\32\ 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 governmental control which would
preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. For TUTRIC, 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)
TUTRIC sets its own export prices independent of the government
authority; (2) TUTRIC retains the proceeds from its sales and makes
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of
losses; (3) TUTRIC has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts
and other agreements; and (4) TUTRIC has autonomy from the government
regarding the selection of management.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 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).
\33\ See TUTRIC's SRC at 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence placed on the record of this review by TUTRIC
demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with
respect to its exports of the merchandise under review, in accordance
with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
Therefore, we are preliminarily granting TUTRIC separate-rate status.
Date of Sale
Section 401(i) of the Department's regulations states that:
In identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or
foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of
invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in
the ordinary course of business. However, the Secretary may use a
date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied
that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter
or producer establishes the material terms of sale.\34\
\34\ See also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States,
132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1092 (CIT 2001) (upholding the
Department's rebuttable presumption that invoice date is the
appropriate date of sale).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales
documentation placed on the record by TUTRIC, we preliminarily
determine that invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for
TUTRIC. Nothing on the record rebuts the presumption that invoice date
should be the date of sale.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether TUTRIC's sales of OTR tires to the United
States were made at less than fair value, we compared export price
(``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value''
sections of this notice, below, pursuant to section 771(35) of the Act.
U.S. Price
The Department considers the U.S. prices of sales by TUTRIC to be
EPs in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because they were the
prices at which the subject merchandise was first sold before the date
of importation by the producer/exporter of the subject merchandise
outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States. We calculated EPs based on prices to unaffiliated purchaser(s)
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 and brokerage and
handling.
We valued foreign brokerage and handling using a price list of
export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods
from India where foreign brokerage and handling were provided by PRC
service providers or paid for in renminbi. The price list is compiled
based on a survey case study of the procedural requirements for trading
a standard shipment of goods by truck in India as reported in ``Doing
Business 2010: India'' published by the World Bank.\35\ Where foreign
inland truck freight was provided by PRC service providers or paid for
in renminbi, we also based those charges on surrogate rates from India.
See ``Factor Valuations'' section below for
[[Page 62360]]
further discussion of these surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 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.\36\ 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; (3) amounts of energy and other
utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. The
Department used FOPs reported by TUTRIC for materials, energy and
labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products
From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703 (April 17,
2006) (unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China),
71 FR 53079 (September 8, 2006)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by TUTRIC 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 if the
quantities were meaningful and where the prices have not been distorted
by dumping or subsidies.\37\ To calculate NV, we multiplied the
reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available SVs
(except as discussed below). 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, contemporaneous
with the POR, represent a broad-market average, are product-specific,
and tax-exclusive.\38\ We therefore consider SVs based on the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.\39\ As appropriate, we
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered
prices. Specifically, we added to import SVs a 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Shakeproof Assembly Components Div of Ill Tool Works v.
United States, 268 F. 3d 1376, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming
the Department's use of market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
\38\ 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)).
\39\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 1, 2011, the Department invited all interested parties to
submit publicly available information to value FOPs for consideration
in the Department's preliminary results of review.\40\ Petitioner,
Bridgestone and TUTRIC each submitted publicly available information to
value FOPs for the preliminary results between February 17, 2011, and
September 8, 2011. A detailed description of all surrogate values used
for TUTRIC can be found in the Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Letter to Interested Parties, ``2009-2010
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China,''
dated March 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the preliminary results, in accordance with the Department's
practice, except where noted below, we used data from the Indian import
statistics in the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA''), published by Global
Trade Information Services, Inc. (``GTIS'') and other publicly
available Indian sources to calculate SVs for TUTRIC's FOPs (i.e.,
direct materials, energy, and scrap materials) and certain movement
expenses. The GTA reports import statistics, such as from India, in the
original reporting currency and thus this data corresponds to the
original currency value reported by each country. The record shows that
data in the Indian import statistics, as well as those from the other
Indian sources, are contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and
tax-exclusive.\41\ 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 Indian
Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in the International
Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
\42\ 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) (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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the legislative history of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988, 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 reflect subsidized prices.\43\
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.\44\ 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
[[Page 62361]]
Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies. Accordingly, we
disregarded GTA import data from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand.
Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.\45\ 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.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf.
Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd
Sess. (1988) (``OTCA 1988'') at 590, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N.
1547, 1623-24.
\44\ See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing
Duty Order on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257
(March 19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
4-5; Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia, 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
Results of 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.
\45\ See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the 2008-2009 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 41148, 41154 (July 15, 2010)
(unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished
and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results
of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 3086
(January 19, 2011)).
\46\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TUTRIC claimed that certain of its reported raw material inputs
were sourced from an ME country and paid for in ME currencies. When a
respondent sources inputs from an ME supplier in meaningful quantities,
we use the actual price paid by respondent for those inputs, except
when prices may have been distorted by dumping or subsidies.\47\ Where
we found ME purchases to be of significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent
or more), in accordance with our statement of policy as outlined in
Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,\48\ we used the
actual purchase prices of these inputs to value the full input.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27366 (May 19, 1997).
\48\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717-18 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we valued certain of TUTRIC's inputs using the ME
currency prices paid where the total volume of the input purchased from
all ME sources during the POR exceeds or is equal to 33 percent of the
total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the period.
Where the quantity of the reported input purchased from ME suppliers
was below 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from
all sources during the POR, and were otherwise valid, we weight-
averaged the ME input's purchase price with the appropriate surrogate
value for the input according to their respective shares of the
reported total volume of purchases.\49\ Where appropriate, we added
freight to the ME prices of inputs. For a detailed description of the
actual values used for the ME inputs reported, see ``Analysis
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results: Tianjin United Tire & Rubber
International Co., Ltd. (``TUTRIC'')'', dated concurrently with this
notice (``Prelim Analysis Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See id. at 61718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the valuation of technically specified natural
rubber (``TSNR''), Bridgestone suggested the Department use prices
reported by the Indian Rubber Board (``IRB''), stating that the IRB
reports prices for the specific type of TSNR used by TUTRIC and meets
all of the Department's SV criteria in that the prices are period-wide,
specific to the input, net of taxes and import duties, contemporaneous,
and publicly available. Bridgestone further noted that the HTS
categories for TSNR import data are basket categories that do not
distinguish between grades, and therefore are not as specific to
TUTRIC's input as the IRB's data.\50\ TUTRIC submitted sections from
the IRB's Web site showing that the IRB issued subsidies and other
benefits to domestic rubber growers covering the period of 2000 through
2007.\51\ Bridgestone countered by asserting that the subsidies do not
cover the POR, and that subsidies would affect domestic and imported
rubber prices equally, as imports seek to compete in the domestic
market.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See Letter from Bridgestone, ``Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires From
China: Bridgestone's Initial Submission of Surrogate Values,'' dated
April 18, 2011. See also Letter from Bridgestone, ``Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Off-The-Road Tires From The
People's Republic of China: Bridgestone's Initial Pre-Preliminary
Comments,'' dated August 31, 2011 (``Bridgestone's Initial Pre-
Prelim Comments'').
\51\ Letter from TUTRIC, ``First Surrogate Value Rebuttal
Submission for TUTRIC in the Second Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the
People's Republic of China,'' dated April 28, 2011.
\52\ See Bridgestone's Initial Pre-Prelim Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the preliminary results, we have determined to use Indian
import data to value TUTRIC's TSNR, as we did in the previous two
segments of the proceeding.\53\ Although the IRB provides data more
specific to the type of TSNR TUTRIC uses in production, we are unable
to identify the source of the prices listed on the IRB's Web site.\54\
Moreover, during the investigation, we rejected the IRB's data because
we found the data to be ``quoted/indicative prices published on a
particular day and do not necessarily reflect an actual sale of natural
rubber.'' \55\ Because the Indian import data are known to be based on
actual sales that are contemporaneous with the POR, tax-exclusive, and
cover the input at issue, we find that they represent the best
available information with which to value TSNR in this administrative
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 64259 (October 19, 2010) (unchanged in
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic
of China: Final Results of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 22871 (April 25, 2011) (``Tires AR1
Final'')); Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the
People's Republic of China; Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR
9278 (February 20, 2008) (unchanged in Certain New Pneumatic Off-
The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final
Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR
40485 (July 15, 2008) (``Tires LTFV Final'')).
\54\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
\55\ See Tires LTFV Final, accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the valuation of Tyre cord B fabric (``NYCHFR'')
and harness cloth (``HCLOTH''), TUTRIC submitted descriptions of NYCHFR
as ``Nylon Tire Cord Fabric of High Tenacity Yarn;'' and of HCLOTH as
``Nylon Tire Cord Fabric of High Tenacity Yarn made of nylon 6.''
TUTRIC reported both FOPs in kilograms. Bridgestone proposed using
Indian import data corresponding to HTS category 56049000 \56\ to value
both of these FOPs, which was also used in both previous segments of
the proceeding and is reported in Rs/kg.\57\ TUTRIC proposed HTS
categories 59021090 \58\ and 59021010,\59\ which are reported in square
meters, but TUTRIC did not provide a conversion formula from kilograms
to square meters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ ``Textile yarn, thread or cord covered or impregnated with
rubber or plastic: Other Rubber Thread or Cord.''
\57\ See Tires AR1 Final and Tires LTFV Final.
\58\ ``Tire Cord Fabric of High Tenacity Yarn of Nylon,
Polyamides, Polyesters or Viscose Rayon.''
\59\ ``Tire Cord Fabric of High Tenacity Yarn of Nylon,
Polyamides, Polyesters or Viscose Rayon.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the preliminary results, we have determined to use Indian
import data corresponding to HTS category 56049000, which is not as
specific to the input in question, but in the correct unit of measure.
However, we intend to request that TUTRIC report a conversion factor
for its NYCHFR and HCLOTH (from kg to square meters) subsequent to the
issuance of these preliminary results in the event we determine a
different HTS category (or categories) to be more representative of the
input.
We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate
calculated from data on the infobanc Web site: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this Web site contains
inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities. We valued
coal using data
[[Page 62362]]
obtained for grade E coal reported in the 2007 edition of the Indian
Minerals Yearbook published by the Indian Bureau of Mines. We valued
water using the revised Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
water rates available at https://www.midcindia.com/water-supply. We
calculated the SV for steam based upon the 2009-2010 financial
statement of Hindalco Industries Limited. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
We valued electricity using the updated electricity price data for
small, medium, and large industries, as published by the Central
Electricity Authority, an administrative body of the Government of
India, in its publication titled ``Electricity Tariff & Duty and
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India,'' dated March 2008. These
electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-available
information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small,
medium, and large industries in India. Because the rates listed in this
source became effective on a variety of different dates, we are not
adjusting the average value for inflation. In other words, the
Department did not inflate this value to the POR because the utility
rates represent current rates, as indicated by the effective date
listed for each of the rates provided.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See, e.g., Wire Decking from the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR
32905 (June 10, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 733(c) of the Act, provides that the Department will value
the FOPs in NME cases using the best available information regarding
the value of such factors in a ME country or countries considered to be
appropriate by the administering authority. The Act requires that when
valuing FOPs, the Department utilizes, to the extent possible, the
prices or costs of FOPs in one or more ME countries that are: (1) At a
comparable level of economic development and (2) significant producers
of comparable merchandise.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously, the Department used regression-based wages that
captured the worldwide relationship between per capita GNI and hourly
manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), to value the
respondent's cost of labor in NME cases. However, on May 14, 2010, the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC''), in Dorbest Ltd. v.
United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Dorbest''),
invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). As a consequence of the CAFC's ruling
in Dorbest, the Department no longer relies on the regression-based
wage rate methodology described in its regulations.
On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings.\62\ In Labor
Methodologies, the Department determined that the best methodology to
value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor rates from the
primary surrogate country. Additionally, the Department determined that
the best data source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A:
Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from the International Labor Organization
(ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics (``Yearbook'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In these preliminary results, the Department calculated the labor
input using the wage method described in Labor Methodologies. To value
TUTRIC's labor input, the Department relied on data reported by India
to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. The Department further finds
the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 3 (``25--Manufacture of
Rubber and Plastics Products'') to be the best available information on
the record because it is specific to the industry being examined, and
is therefore derived from industries that produce comparable
merchandise. Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the
Department calculated the labor input using labor data reported by
India to the ILO under Sub-Classification 25 of the ISIC-Revision 3
standard, in accordance with Section 773(c)(4) of the Act. For these
preliminary results, the calculated industry-specific wage rate is
49.49 Rs per hour. Because this wage rate does not separate the labor
rates into different skill levels or types of labor, the Department has
applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor
reported by TUTRIC.\63\ A more detailed description of the wage rate
calculation methodology is provided in the Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, the Department used India's ILO data reported
under Chapter 6A of Yearbook, which reflects all costs related to
labor, including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. Because the
financial statements used to calculate the surrogate financial ratios
include itemized detail of indirect labor costs, the Department made
adjustments to the surrogate financial ratios as contemplated by Labor
Methodologies.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum and Labor Methodologies, 76
FR at 36094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), the Department valued factory
overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses and profit using
non-proprietary information gathered from producers of identical or
comparable merchandise in the surrogate country. The Department's
practice is to disregard financial statements containing evidence that
the company received subsidies that the Department has previously found
to be countervailable, and where there are other reliable data on the
record for purposes of calculating the surrogate financial ratios.\65\
For these preliminary results, we used the average of the ratios
derived from the financial statements of two Indian producers of OTR
tires: Falcon Tyres Ltd. (for the year ending on September 30, 2010)
and TVS Srichakra Ltd. (for the year ending on March 31, 2010). We did
not use financial statements from two other Indian producers, MRF
Limited and JK Tyre and Industries Ltd., because they each contained
evidence of receipt of a subsidy which the Department has found to be
countervailable.\66\ Specifically, these two Indian producers received
benefits under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme and the Sales
Tax Deferred from Government of Karnataka program, respectively, both
programs that the Department has previously determined to be
countervailable.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See First Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment
Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
27994 (May 13, 2011), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2.
\66\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
\67\ See, e.g., Commodity Matchbooks From India: Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 54547 (October
22, 2009) (finding the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme to be
countervailable); Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission, in
Part, of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, 71 FR 45037, 45043
(August 8, 2006) (unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 6530 (February 12, 2007)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TUTRIC reported that scrap compound, scrap bead, scrap cloth and
scrap tire were recovered as by-products of the production of subject
merchandise and successfully demonstrated that the scrap materials have
commercial value. Therefore, we have granted a by-product offset for
the quantities of the reported by-product, valued using Indian import
data.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62363]]
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
We preliminarily find that the following weighted-average dumping
margin exists for the period September 1, 2009, through August 31,
2010:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd........... 7.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\69\ Rebuttals to written comments may be filed no later than
five days after the written comments are filed.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c).
\70\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice.\71\ 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.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\72\ 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.
Deadline for Submission of Publicly Available Surrogate Value
Information
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), the deadline for
submission of publicly available information to value FOPs under 19 CFR
351.408(c) is 20 days after the date of publication of the preliminary
results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), if an interested
party submits factual information less than ten days before, on, or
after (if the Department has extended the deadline), the applicable
deadline for submission of such factual information, an interested
party may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct the
factual information no later than ten days after such factual
information is served on the interested party. However, the Department
generally will not accept in the rebuttal submission additional or
alternative surrogate value information not previously on the record,
if the deadline for submission of surrogate value information has
passed.\73\ Furthermore, the Department generally will not accept
business proprietary information in either the surrogate value
submissions or the rebuttals thereto, as the regulation regarding the
submission of surrogate values allows only for the submission of
publicly available information.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ See, e.g., 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.
\74\ See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 assessment purposes, we
calculated exporter/importer- (or customer) -specific assessment rates
for merchandise subject to this review. 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 (or
customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to
antidumping duties. The Department intends to issue appropriate
assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of
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 entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TUTRIC, the
cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate 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
or exporter/producer-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not
been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate
will be the PRC-wide rate of 210.48 percent established in the Tires
LTFV Final; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise
that 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 preliminary reminder to impor
