Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70112-70113 [2011-29175]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
70112
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 218 / Thursday, November 10, 2011 / Notices
The Department determines that this
new shipper review involves
extraordinarily complicated
methodological issues. Interested parties
have submitted voluminous surrogate
country comments and surrogate value
data, and thus, the Department requires
additional time to analyze these data.
We are, therefore, further extending the
time for the completion of the
preliminary results of this new shipper
review by 31 days to December 5, 2011.
The final results continue to be due 90
days after the publication of the
preliminary results.
This notice is published in
accordance with sections
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.
Dated: November 4, 2011.
Gary Taverman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011–29172 Filed 11–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–851]
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
the People’s Republic of China:
Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: November 10,
2011.
SUMMARY: On September 14, 2011, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal
Register the final results of
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
preserved mushrooms from the People’s
Republic of China (PRC). See Certain
Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Rescission in Part, 76 FR
56732 (September 14, 2011) (Final
Results). The period of review is
February 1, 2009, through January 31,
2010. We are amending our final results
to correct a ministerial error.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred
Baker, Scott Hoefke, or Robert James,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Nov 09, 2011
Jkt 226001
telephone: (202) 482–2924, (202) 482–
4947 or (202) 482–0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
19 CFR 351.224(c)(2) states that a
party to an antidumping duty
proceeding must file comments
concerning ministerial errors within five
days after the earlier of the date on
which the Secretary released documents
to that party or held a disclosure
meeting with that party. We released
disclosure documents to Blue Field
(Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Blue Field’’) and Zhejiang Iceman
Group, Co., Ltd. (‘‘Iceman Group’’) on
September 7, 2011. On September 12,
2011, Blue Field filed a timely
allegation of a ministerial error with the
Department. On September 14, 2011, the
Department released disclosure
documents to Xiamen International
Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘XITIC’’),
thus establishing the deadline for
XITIC’s ministerial error comments as
September 19, 2011. On September 19,
2011, XITIC and Iceman Group filed
allegations of ministerial errors with the
Department. On September 26, 2011,
Monterey Mushrooms, Inc. (petitioner)
filed rebuttal comments in response to
the filings from XITIC and Iceman
Group.
On October 5, 2011, the Department
rejected from the record Iceman Group’s
September 19, 2011, submission
because it was untimely given that the
Department released all disclosure
materials to it on September 7, 2011. On
October 7, 2011, Iceman Group
submitted a letter arguing that its
September 19, 2011, submission was not
untimely because, inter alia, it actually
had not received all disclosure materials
on September 7, 2011. Specifically,
Iceman Group claimed that it had not
received the computation of the rate for
the separate-rate respondents. The
Department subsequently determined
that it had indeed failed to release to
interested parties the computation of the
rate for the separate-rate respondents.
Therefore, on October 18, 2011, the
Department released this computation
to all interested parties and also invited
Iceman Group to resubmit its September
19, 2011, submission.
No interested parties submitted
ministerial error allegations with respect
to the computation of the rate for the
separate-rate respondents. Iceman
Group resubmitted its ministerial error
allegation on October 25, 2011.
Ministerial Errors
A ministerial error as defined in
section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (‘‘the Act’’), includes
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
‘‘errors in addition, subtraction, or other
arithmetic function, clerical errors
resulting from inaccurate copying,
duplication, or the like, and any other
type of unintentional error with the
administering authority considers
ministerial.’’ 1 In this review, interested
parties have alleged a total of four
ministerial errors.
Æ Blue Field alleges that the
Department erred in its normal value
calculation by applying incorrect
programming language regarding the
cost of metal lids for tin can products.
Æ XITIC alleges that the Department
erred in failing to value labor using the
methodology announced in
Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market
Economics: Valuing the Factor of
Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June
21, 2011).
Æ XITIC also alleges the Department
used an incorrect surrogate value for its
lime input.
Æ Iceman Group alleges the
Department made a clerical error by
including Iceman Group in the
proceedings.
No interested party commented on
Blue Field’s allegation. After analyzing
Blue Field’s allegation, we find, in
accordance with section 751(h) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f), that the
Department made a ministerial error in
its normal value calculation by applying
incorrect programming language
regarding the cost of metal lids for tin
can products.. Therefore, in accordance
with section 751(h) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the
Final Results for Blue Field and the
weighted-average margin for companies
that applied for separate-rate status. For
details, see Memorandum from Scott
Hoefke to the File, Subject: ‘‘Analysis of
Data Submitted by Blue Field (Sichuan)
Food Industrial Co., Ltd. (Blue Field) in
the Amended Final Results of
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s
Republic of China,’’ dated concurrently
with this notice.
With respect to both of XITIC’s
allegations, petitioners argue that they
constitute methodological issues, and
not ministerial errors.
After analyzing the interested parties’
allegations and reply comments
regarding XITIC, we find, in accordance
with section 751(h) of the Act, that the
allegations made by XITIC challenge
methodological determinations in the
final results, rather than any clerical
errors made in carrying out its
intentions. XITIC cited no record
1 See
E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM
also 19 CFR 351.224(f).
10NON1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 218 / Thursday, November 10, 2011 / Notices
evidence in its ministerial error
allegation that it was the Department’s
intention in preparing the final results
to use either the labor rate methodology
announced on June 21, 2011, or to value
lime using any surrogate value other
than the one it used in the final results.
Thus, XITIC’s allegations do not fall
under the definition of a ministerial
error set forth in 751(h) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.224(f). Therefore, the
Department has not amended the final
results with respect to XITIC’s
allegations.
Finally, Iceman Group argues that the
Department made a clerical error by
including Iceman Group in the
proceedings. Iceman Group claims that
no party requested a review of Iceman
Group, and that the Department did not
initiate an administrative review of
shipments by Iceman Group. Instead,
Iceman Group argues, petitioners
requested a review of Zhejiang Iceman
Food, Co., Ltd. (‘‘Iceman Food’’), and it
was on this entity that the Department
initiated an administrative review.
Petitioner argues the Department
should reject Iceman Group’s argument
for three reasons: (1) Iceman Group
actively participated in the
administrative proceedings before the
Department (submitting a separate rate
certification) and its counsel filed an
entry of appearance on behalf of Iceman
Food; (2) the Department’s Preliminary
Results 2 specifically identified Iceman
Group as an entity preliminarily eligible
for a separate rate; and (3) Iceman
Group’s attempt to raise this issue as a
clerical error—rather than having raised
it during the Department’s on-going
proceedings—is an inappropriate use of
the clerical error provision in the
Department’s regulations.
After analyzing the interested parties’
allegations and reply comments
regarding Iceman Group, in accordance
with section 751(h) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.224(e), we find that the
Department did not err by including
Iceman Group in the proceedings. First,
the allegations made by Iceman Group
do not fall under the definition of
‘‘ministerial error’’ set forth in 751(h) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f).
Additionally, four reasons support
equating Iceman Group with the entity
Iceman Food: (1) Counsel filed an entry
of appearance on behalf of Iceman Food
on April 5, 2010; (2) Iceman Group,
which never filed a separate notice of
appearance, filed a certification for a
separate rate on April 29, 2010; (3) the
2 See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
Recission in Part, and Intent to Rescind in Part, 76
FR 12704 (March 8, 2011) (Preliminary Results)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Nov 09, 2011
Jkt 226001
separate rate certification filed by
Iceman Group lists the company Web
site as www.icemanfood.com and the
company email address as
‘‘jacky@icemanfood.com;’’ and (4)
Iceman Group did not comment on the
Preliminary Results, which specifically
list Iceman Group as preliminarily
receiving a separate rate. Therefore, the
Department correctly and reasonably
assigned a separate rate to Iceman
Group as a result of counsel’s
representation of Iceman Group and
Iceman Food, and the party’s own
actions before the Department
indicating that the two names apply to
the same company which is subject to
the review. Thus, the Department will
not amend the Final Results for Iceman
Group other than to account for
adjustments to the weighted-average
margin for companies that applied for
separate-rates status as described above.
Amended Final Results of the Review
The Department has determined that
the following amended margins exist for
the period February 1, 2009, through
January 31, 2010.
Weightedaverage
margin
(percent)
Exporter
Blue Field (Sichuan) Food
Industrial Co., Ltd ..............
Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co., Ltd .....................
Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd ....
Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Corporation, Ltd .........
Zheijiang Iceman Group Co.,
Ltd .....................................
2.17
76.12
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: November 4, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–29175 Filed 11–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Executive-Led Medical Trade Mission
to India Mumbai, New Delhi and
Hyderabad March 2–8, 2012
76.12
76.12
Mission Description
Cash Deposit Requirements
Cash deposit requirements related to
the amended final results will be
effective retroactively for all shipments
of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date of the final results, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The cash
deposit rates for companies whose rate
was corrected are noted above. For
Frm 00007
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters that have
separate rates whose rate has not
changed as a result of these amended
final results, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the exporter-specific rate
published for the most recent period.
For all PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not been
found to be entitled to a separate rate,
the cash deposit rate will be the PRCwide rate of 198.63 percent. For all nonPRC exporters of subject merchandise
which have not received their own rate,
the cash deposit will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporters that
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These
deposit requirements shall remain in
effect until further notice.
These amended final results are
published in accordance with sections
751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
International Trade
Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
76.12
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department shall determine, and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions
to CBP that are related to the amended
final results 15 days after the of
publication of the amended final results
of review.
PO 00000
70113
AGENCY:
The United States Department of
Commerce, International Trade
Administration, U.S. and Foreign
Commercial Service (CS) is organizing
an Executive-Led Medical Trade
Mission to India from March 2–8, 2012.
The Medical Trade Mission to India is
intended to include representatives
from a variety of U.S. medical/
healthcare industry manufacturers
(equipment/devices, laboratory
equipments, emergency equipment,
diagnostic, physiotherapy and
orthopedic, healthcare information
technology, and other allied sectors),
service providers, and associations and
trade organizations. The mission will
introduce the participants to the
government bodies, end-users and
prospective partners whose needs and
capabilities are best suited to each U.S.
participant’s strengths. Participating in
an official U.S. industry delegation,
rather than traveling to India on their
own, will enhance the participants’
E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM
10NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70112-70113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29175]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-851]
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China:
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: November 10, 2011.
SUMMARY: On September 14, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal Register the final results of
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain
preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (PRC). See
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in
Part, 76 FR 56732 (September 14, 2011) (Final Results). The period of
review is February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010. We are amending
our final results to correct a ministerial error.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Scott Hoefke, or Robert
James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-2924, (202) 482-4947 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
19 CFR 351.224(c)(2) states that a party to an antidumping duty
proceeding must file comments concerning ministerial errors within five
days after the earlier of the date on which the Secretary released
documents to that party or held a disclosure meeting with that party.
We released disclosure documents to Blue Field (Sichuan) Food
Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Blue Field'') and Zhejiang Iceman Group, Co.,
Ltd. (``Iceman Group'') on September 7, 2011. On September 12, 2011,
Blue Field filed a timely allegation of a ministerial error with the
Department. On September 14, 2011, the Department released disclosure
documents to Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd.
(``XITIC''), thus establishing the deadline for XITIC's ministerial
error comments as September 19, 2011. On September 19, 2011, XITIC and
Iceman Group filed allegations of ministerial errors with the
Department. On September 26, 2011, Monterey Mushrooms, Inc.
(petitioner) filed rebuttal comments in response to the filings from
XITIC and Iceman Group.
On October 5, 2011, the Department rejected from the record Iceman
Group's September 19, 2011, submission because it was untimely given
that the Department released all disclosure materials to it on
September 7, 2011. On October 7, 2011, Iceman Group submitted a letter
arguing that its September 19, 2011, submission was not untimely
because, inter alia, it actually had not received all disclosure
materials on September 7, 2011. Specifically, Iceman Group claimed that
it had not received the computation of the rate for the separate-rate
respondents. The Department subsequently determined that it had indeed
failed to release to interested parties the computation of the rate for
the separate-rate respondents. Therefore, on October 18, 2011, the
Department released this computation to all interested parties and also
invited Iceman Group to resubmit its September 19, 2011, submission.
No interested parties submitted ministerial error allegations with
respect to the computation of the rate for the separate-rate
respondents. Iceman Group resubmitted its ministerial error allegation
on October 25, 2011.
Ministerial Errors
A ministerial error as defined in section 751(h) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), includes ``errors in addition,
subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting
from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type
of unintentional error with the administering authority considers
ministerial.'' \1\ In this review, interested parties have alleged a
total of four ministerial errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See also 19 CFR 351.224(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] Blue Field alleges that the Department erred in its normal
value calculation by applying incorrect programming language regarding
the cost of metal lids for tin can products.
[cir] XITIC alleges that the Department erred in failing to value
labor using the methodology announced in Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economics: Valuing the Factor of
Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June 21, 2011).
[cir] XITIC also alleges the Department used an incorrect surrogate
value for its lime input.
[cir] Iceman Group alleges the Department made a clerical error by
including Iceman Group in the proceedings.
No interested party commented on Blue Field's allegation. After
analyzing Blue Field's allegation, we find, in accordance with section
751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f), that the Department made a
ministerial error in its normal value calculation by applying incorrect
programming language regarding the cost of metal lids for tin can
products.. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results for Blue Field and
the weighted-average margin for companies that applied for separate-
rate status. For details, see Memorandum from Scott Hoefke to the File,
Subject: ``Analysis of Data Submitted by Blue Field (Sichuan) Food
Industrial Co., Ltd. (Blue Field) in the Amended Final Results of
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,'' dated
concurrently with this notice.
With respect to both of XITIC's allegations, petitioners argue that
they constitute methodological issues, and not ministerial errors.
After analyzing the interested parties' allegations and reply
comments regarding XITIC, we find, in accordance with section 751(h) of
the Act, that the allegations made by XITIC challenge methodological
determinations in the final results, rather than any clerical errors
made in carrying out its intentions. XITIC cited no record
[[Page 70113]]
evidence in its ministerial error allegation that it was the
Department's intention in preparing the final results to use either the
labor rate methodology announced on June 21, 2011, or to value lime
using any surrogate value other than the one it used in the final
results. Thus, XITIC's allegations do not fall under the definition of
a ministerial error set forth in 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.224(f). Therefore, the Department has not amended the final results
with respect to XITIC's allegations.
Finally, Iceman Group argues that the Department made a clerical
error by including Iceman Group in the proceedings. Iceman Group claims
that no party requested a review of Iceman Group, and that the
Department did not initiate an administrative review of shipments by
Iceman Group. Instead, Iceman Group argues, petitioners requested a
review of Zhejiang Iceman Food, Co., Ltd. (``Iceman Food''), and it was
on this entity that the Department initiated an administrative review.
Petitioner argues the Department should reject Iceman Group's
argument for three reasons: (1) Iceman Group actively participated in
the administrative proceedings before the Department (submitting a
separate rate certification) and its counsel filed an entry of
appearance on behalf of Iceman Food; (2) the Department's Preliminary
Results \2\ specifically identified Iceman Group as an entity
preliminarily eligible for a separate rate; and (3) Iceman Group's
attempt to raise this issue as a clerical error--rather than having
raised it during the Department's on-going proceedings--is an
inappropriate use of the clerical error provision in the Department's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Recission in Part, and Intent to Rescind in Part, 76 FR
12704 (March 8, 2011) (Preliminary Results)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After analyzing the interested parties' allegations and reply
comments regarding Iceman Group, in accordance with section 751(h) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we find that the Department did not err
by including Iceman Group in the proceedings. First, the allegations
made by Iceman Group do not fall under the definition of ``ministerial
error'' set forth in 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f).
Additionally, four reasons support equating Iceman Group with the
entity Iceman Food: (1) Counsel filed an entry of appearance on behalf
of Iceman Food on April 5, 2010; (2) Iceman Group, which never filed a
separate notice of appearance, filed a certification for a separate
rate on April 29, 2010; (3) the separate rate certification filed by
Iceman Group lists the company Web site as www.icemanfood.com and the
company email address as ``jacky@icemanfood.com;'' and (4) Iceman Group
did not comment on the Preliminary Results, which specifically list
Iceman Group as preliminarily receiving a separate rate. Therefore, the
Department correctly and reasonably assigned a separate rate to Iceman
Group as a result of counsel's representation of Iceman Group and
Iceman Food, and the party's own actions before the Department
indicating that the two names apply to the same company which is
subject to the review. Thus, the Department will not amend the Final
Results for Iceman Group other than to account for adjustments to the
weighted-average margin for companies that applied for separate-rates
status as described above.
Amended Final Results of the Review
The Department has determined that the following amended margins
exist for the period February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd........... 2.17
Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co., Ltd................... 76.12
Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd..... 76.12
Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Corporation, Ltd........... 76.12
Zheijiang Iceman Group Co., Ltd......................... 76.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b),
the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP that are
related to the amended final results 15 days after the of publication
of the amended final results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Cash deposit requirements related to the amended final results will
be effective retroactively for all shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The cash deposit rates for companies whose
rate was corrected are noted above. For previously investigated or
reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that have separate rates whose rate
has not changed as a result of these amended final results, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published
for the most recent period. For all PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 198.63
percent. For all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have
not received their own rate, the cash deposit will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
These amended final results are published in accordance with
sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: November 4, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-29175 Filed 11-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
