Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76375-76382 [2011-31436]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76375-76382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31436]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-831]


Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from People's 
Republic of China (PRC) covering the period of review (POR) of November 
1, 2009, through October 31, 2010.
    The Department preliminarily finds that two fully participating 
mandatory respondents have demonstrated their eligibility for a 
separate rate, and sold subject merchandise to the United States at 
prices below normal value (NV). The Department preliminarily grants a 
separate rate to five additional companies which demonstrated 
eligibility for separate rate status; the rates assigned to each of 
these seven companies can be found in the ``Preliminary Results'' 
section.
    The Department invites interested parties to comment on these 
preliminary results. If these preliminary results are adopted in the 
final results, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR for which assessment rates are above de 
minimis.

DATES: Effective Date: December 7, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Lindsay or Lingjun Wang, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0780 and (202) 482-2316.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 16, 1994, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC.\1\ On 
November 1, 2010, the Department published a notice of opportunity to 
request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh 
garlic from the PRC for the period November 1, 2009 through October 31, 
2010.\2\ On December 28, 2010, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of administrative review with respect to 112 companies.\3\ 
On October 20, 2011, the Department published partial preliminary 
results, rescission of, and intent to rescind, in part, the 
administrative review.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic From the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 59209 (November 16, 1994) (Order).
    \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 67079 (November 1, 2010).
    \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 
81565, 81568-81569 (December 28, 2010) (Initiation Notice). The 
Department also initiated a review of Zhengzhou Dadi. However, the 
responses of Shenzhen Xinboda, a mandatory respondent, indicate that 
Zhengzhou Dadi is its affiliated producer. As such, we will address 
Zhenghou Dadi in the context of our analysis of Shenzhen Xinboda. We 
do not include Zhengzhou Dadi in our company counts in this notice.
    \4\ See Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: 
Partial Preliminary Results, Rescission of, and Intent To Rescind, 
in Part, the 2009-2010 Administrative Review, 76 FR 65172 (October 
20, 2011) (Partial Preliminary Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In February 2011, each of the following five companies timely 
submitted a separate rate status certification: (1) Hebei Golden Bird 
Trading Co., Ltd. (Golden Bird); (2) Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., 
Ltd. (Xinboda); (3) Henan Weite Industrial Co., Ltd. (Henan Weite); (4) 
Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd. (Farmlady); (5) Qingdao Xintianfeng 
Foods Co., Ltd. (QXF). On March 4, 2011, Chengwu County Yuanxiang 
Industry & Commerce Co., Ltd. (Yuanxiang) submitted a separate rate 
status certification and explained that its submission was delayed due 
to a medical issue with one of its attorneys. The Department found this 
explanation to be reasonable and therefore accepted the certificate. On 
August 17, 2011, the Department moved documents related to Yantai 
Jinyan Trading Inc.'s (Jinyan) separate rate status, submitted by 
Jinyan during the most recently complete new shipper review, to the 
record of this administrative review.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Memorandum to The File, Through Dana S. Mermelstein, 
From Jacqueline Arrowsmith, Re: Moving Yantai Jinyan's Separate 
Rates Application to the November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2010 
(16th) Administrative Review (August 17, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 4, 2011, the Department selected the five largest 
exporters by volume as mandatory respondents: (1)

[[Page 76376]]

Shandong Longtai Fruits and Vegetables Co., Ltd. (Longtai); (2) Weifang 
Hongqiao International Logistic Co., Ltd. (Hongqiao); (3) Golden Bird; 
(4) Xinboda; (5) Harmoni.\6\ On March 14, 2011, the Department issued a 
Non-Market Economy Antidumping Duty Questionnaire (Initial 
Questionnaire) to each of the five mandatory respondents. Golden Bird 
and Xinboda submitted their responses on April 25 and May 18, 2011, 
respectively.\7\ Petitioners \8\ commented on these responses on July 
6, 2011; and Golden Bird responded to Petitioners' comments on July 20, 
2011. On July 29, 2011, the Department issued its first supplemental 
questionnaires to Golden Bird and Xinboda, and received responses from 
both on August 19, 2011. On August 29, 2011, Petitioners made their 
initial comments on the supplemental questionnaire responses and 
renewed their request to conduct verification. On September 19, 2011, 
Petitioners commented on Xinboda's supplemental questionnaire response. 
On October 5, 2011, Petitioners commented on Golden Bird's supplemental 
questionnaire response, and Golden Bird rebutted these comments on 
October 17, 2011. On October 20, 2011, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1), the Department rescinded the review with respect to 
Harmoni because both Petitioners and Harmoni had withdrawn their 
respective requests for a review of Harmoni within the 90 day period 
provided by the regulations.\9\ Also on October 20, 2011, the 
Department determined that Hongqiao and Longtai are subject to the PRC-
wide entity rate.\10\ On October 28, 2011, the Department issued second 
supplemental questionnaires to Golden Bird and Xinboda. Golden Bird 
submitted its supplemental response on November 14, 2011, and Xinboda 
submitted its supplemental response on November 16, 2011. The 
Department notes that these questionnaire responses were received too 
late to be considered for this preliminary determination. The 
Department will therefore consider these submissions in its analysis 
for the final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Through Thomas 
Gilgunn, From Nicholas Czajkowski, Re: Antidumping Administrative 
Review of Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: 
Respondent Selection Memorandum (March 4, 2011).
    \7\ The Department granted several extensions (in April through 
November 2011) for various sections of the Initial Questionnaire.
    \8\ The Petitioners are the Fresh Garlic Producers Association, 
its individual members being Christopher Ranch L.L.C., The Garlic 
Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, Inc.
    \9\ See Partial Preliminary Results.
    \10\ See Partial Preliminary Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 31, 2011, the Department issued a letter to interested 
parties soliciting comments on selecting surrogate country and 
surrogate values (SV). On July 12, 2011, Petitioners submitted SV 
information. On July 29, 2011, Petitioners provided additional SV 
information which was rebutted by Golden Bird in a submission dated 
August 8, 2011 and commented on by Yuanxiang in a submission dated 
August 11, 2011. Also on July 29, 2011, Golden Bird provided SV 
information which was rebutted by Petitioners in a submission dated 
August 5, 2011, and that submission was rebutted by Golden Bird on 
August 15, 2011 (sur-rebuttal); Petitioners commented on the sur-
rebuttal on September 15, 2011, and those sur-rebuttal comments were 
commented on by Golden Bird on October 11, 2011. On October 5, 2011, 
Xinboda asked the Department to clarify and revise the surrogate 
country list in the Department's letter issued on March 31, 2011; 
Petitioners responded to Xinboda's request on October 13, 2011. On 
October 26, 2011, Petitioners provided comments in advance of the 
preliminary results.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are all grades of garlic, whole 
or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, 
chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other 
neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of 
other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades 
are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of 
the order does not include the following: (a) Garlic that has been 
mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, 
destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially 
prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and 
otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used 
principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is 
currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 
0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 
2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS).
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive. In order to be excluded from the order, garlic entered 
under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) Mechanically 
harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh 
use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then 
harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by 
declarations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to that effect.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) 
country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative 
reviews.\11\ A designation as an NME country remains in effect until it 
is revoked by the Department pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). No interested party to this 
proceeding has contested such treatment. Hence, the Department 
calculated NV using factors of production (FOPs) methodology in 
accordance with section 773(C) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Memorandum from the Office of Policy to David M. 
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, The People's 
Republic of China (PRC) Status as a Non-Market Economy (NME), dated 
May 15, 2006. This document is available online at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market-Oriented Industry

    On July 29, 2011 and August 15, 2011, Golden Bird informed the 
Department that it should consider granting the PRC garlic industry 
market economy (ME) treatment. The Department has interpreted this as a 
request that the Department conduct a market oriented industry (MOI) 
examination for the PRC garlic industry. On August 5, 2011, Petitioners 
submitted a letter to the Department stating that the Department should 
reject this MOI request as being without merit.
    As a threshold matter, the Department requires that any MOI claim 
be submitted such that it provides sufficient time to consider the 
claim.\12\ As the Department made clear in the Coated Paper Preliminary 
Results, respondents that request MOI treatment should submit a 
complete MOI claim no later than two months after the initiation of a 
segment of a proceeding. This ensures that there is sufficient time to 
analyze the request and in the event the Department makes an 
affirmative MOI determination, there would be

[[Page 76377]]

sufficient time in a proceeding to obtain home market prices and/or 
cost data.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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 (May 
6, 2010) (Coated Paper Preliminary Results).
    \13\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic 
of China, 62 FR 41347, 41353 (August 1, 1997) (Crawfish LTFV Final).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to consider a timely submitted MOI claim, the Department 
requires information on each of the three prongs of the MOI test 
regarding the situation and experience of the PRC garlic industry as a 
whole. Specifically, the Department requires information in support of 
the party's claims that: (1) There is virtually no government 
involvement in production or prices for the industry; (2) the industry 
is marked by private or collective ownership that behaves in a manner 
consistent with market considerations; and (3) producers pay market-
determined prices for all major inputs and for all but an insignificant 
proportion of minor inputs. Even in those cases where the Department 
limits the number of firms it investigates, an MOI claim must cover all 
(or virtually all) of the producers in the industry in question.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) (TV Receivers LTFV 
Final), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
1. See also Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Synthetic 
Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 69723, 59725 
(December 14, 1999) (Indigo Preliminary Results). See also Crawfish 
LTFV Final, 62 FR at 41353.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Golden Bird's request that the Department 
consider granting the PRC garlic industry ME treatment is an untimely 
and deficient MOI request. As an initial matter, Golden Bird's request 
was not received by the Department until July 29, 2011, seven months 
after the initiation of this review, well beyond any reasonable time in 
which to properly consider and act on a claim, and well beyond the two 
month-period following initiation to make a claim that the Department 
specified in Coated Paper Preliminary Results.
    In addition to being untimely, Golden Bird's request is deficient 
as an MOI claim because Golden Bird failed to demonstrate that it 
represents ``all or virtually all of the producers'' in the garlic 
industry.\15\ Meeting this initial threshold is necessary to ensure 
that the Department's MOI analysis is based on evidence that reflects 
the experience of the garlic industry.\16\ Moreover, Golden Bird's 
request does not meaningfully attempt to address any of prongs of the 
MOI test regarding ownership and market-determined inputs.\17\ For all 
of the reasons noted above, the Department determines that the MOI 
claim does not warrant further consideration in this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See TV Receivers LTFV Final and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (an MOI allegation must cover all 
(or virtually all) of the producers in the industry in question). 
See Indigo Preliminary Results, 64 FR at 69725. See also Crawfish 
LTFV Final, 62 FR at 41353.
    \16\ Golden Bird's request is unclear as to the garlic industry 
for which it claims ``market economy treatment.'' Golden Bird is a 
trading company who sells fresh garlic produced by a non-integrated 
processor.
    \17\ We note that Golden Bird's request provided no information 
to substantiate the claims regarding the first prong of the MOI test 
regarding the ``independence'' of garlic farmers and the absence of 
government regulation of ``garlic production and market''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on 
the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate 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. Moreover, it is the Department's practice to 
select an appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and 
reliability of data from the countries.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy 
Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004) (Policy 
Bulletin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department determined that India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 
Thailand, Ukraine and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in terms 
of economic development.\19\ Once the Department has identified the 
countries that are economically comparable to the PRC, the Department 
selects 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Letter to All Interested Parties, Re: 16th 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh Garlic 
from the People's Republic of China (March 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the preliminary results, Golden Bird, Yuanxiang, and 
Petitioners submitted data for valuing FOPs, and these data are sourced 
from India. On October 5, 2011, Xinboda argued for the first time that 
India is not the appropriate surrogate country for this review because 
its economic comparability was determined based on the data which is 
not contemporaneous with the POR. Responding to Xinboda's argument, on 
October 13, 2011, Petitioners argued that India is the only appropriate 
surrogate for comparable merchandise.
    The Department issued its list of potential surrogate countries on 
March 31, 2011, providing parties four months, until July 29, 2011,\20\ 
in which to comment on the selection. On October 5, 2011, more than two 
months after the deadline, Xinboda argued against the selection of 
India and provided no explanation for the delay or data in support of 
an alternative surrogate country. In light of the untimeliness of 
Xinboda's argument and the lack of any alternative SV data to consider, 
the Department declines to reject India as the surrogate country for 
the preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Memorandum to All Interested Parties, Through Thomas 
Gilgunn, From David Lindgren, Subject: Request for Extension to 
Submission of Comments and Information related to Surrogate Country 
and Values Selection (June 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Department has determined that India is the 
appropriate surrogate country for use in this review, based 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.\21\ Therefore, 
the Department has selected India as the surrogate country and, 
accordingly, has calculated NV using Indian prices to value the 
respondent's FOPs, when available and appropriate. The Department has 
obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever 
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Memorandum to The File, Through Thomas Gilgunn, From 
Lingjun Wang, Re: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China--
2009-2010 Administrative Review--Surrogate Values for the 
Preliminary Results (November 30, 2011) (SV Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

A. Methodology

    We compared NV to individual EP transactions in accordance with 
section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, as appropriate. Section 773(c)(1)(B) of 
the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOPs 
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

[[Page 76378]]

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.\22\ However, there are 
circumstances in which the Department will modify its standard FOP 
methodology, choosing to apply SVs to an intermediate input instead of 
the individual FOPs used to produce that intermediate input. In some 
cases, a respondent may report factors used to produce an intermediate 
input that accounts for an insignificant share of total output. When 
the potential increase in accuracy to the overall calculation that 
results from valuing each of the FOPs is outweighed by the resources, 
time, and burden such an analysis would place on all parties to the 
proceeding, the Department has valued the intermediate input directly 
using SVs.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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)).
    \23\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of 
China, 68 FR 47538 (August 11, 2003), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (PVA) (citing 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the final results of several prior administrative reviews and 
new shipper reviews under the garlic order,\24\ the Department found 
that garlic industry producers in the PRC do not generally track actual 
labor hours incurred for growing, tending, and harvesting activities 
and, thus, do not maintain appropriate records which would allow most, 
if not all, respondents to quantify, report, and substantiate this 
information. In the preliminary results of Garlic 11, Garlic 12, Garlic 
13, and Garlic 15, the Department also stated that ``should a 
respondent be able to provide sufficient factual evidence that it 
maintains the necessary information in its internal books and records 
that would allow us to establish the completeness and accuracy of the 
reported FOPs, we will revisit this issue and consider whether to use 
its reported FOPs in the calculation of NV.\25\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Eleventh 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 
2007) (Garlic 11); Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 12th Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 34251 (June 17, 2008) (Garlic 12); Fresh Garlic from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Rescission, In 
Part, of Twelfth New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 56550 (September 29, 
2008); and Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the 13th Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 29174 (June 19, 
2009) (Garlic 13); and Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of the 2008-2009 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 37321 (June 27, 2011) 
(Garlic 15).
    \25\ See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: 
Partial Rescission and Preliminary Results of the Eleventh 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 71510, 71520 
(December 11, 2006); Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial 
Rescission of the Twelfth Administrative Review, 72 FR 69652 
(December 10, 2007); Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
and New Shipper Reviews and Intent to Rescind, In Part, the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 74462 
(December 8, 2008); and Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of, Partial Rescission of, and Intent to 
Rescind, in Part, the 15th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
75 FR 80458 (December 22, 2010). All were unchanged in their 
respective final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the preliminary results, the Department is applying an 
``intermediate-input product valuation methodology'' to calculate NV 
for Golden Bird and Xinboda.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Memorandum to Thomas Gilgunn, From Lingjun Wang, Re: 
Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China 2009-2010 
Administrative Review--Intermediate Input Methodology (November 30, 
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department 
calculated NV based on the FOPs data reported by Golden Bird and 
Xinboda for the POR. We relied on the factor-specific data submitted by 
Golden Bird and Xinboda for the production inputs in their 
questionnaire responses, where applicable, for purposes of selecting 
SVs. To calculate NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-unit 
factor consumption rates by publicly available India SVs.
    In selecting the SVs, consistent with our past practice, the 
Department considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of 
the data.\27\ As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by 
including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, 
the Department added to the SVs, as appropriate, a surrogate freight 
cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic 
suppliers to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to 
the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). See Sigma Corp. 
v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where 
necessary, we adjusted the SVs for inflation/deflation using the 
Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as published in the International Monetary 
Fund's International Financial Statistics, available at https://ifs.apdi.net/imf. For more information regarding the Department's 
valuation for the various FOPs, see SV Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 (December 11, 2006), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Garlic Bulb Valuation
    The Department's practice when selecting the ``best available 
information'' for valuing FOPs, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of 
the Act,\28\ is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are 
publicly available, product-specific, representative of a broad market 
average, tax-exclusive and contemporaneous with the POR.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act states that ``the valuation 
of the factors of production shall be based on the best available 
information regarding the values of such factors in a market economy 
country or countries considered to be appropriate by the 
administering authority.''
    \29\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Artist Canvas from the People's Republic of China, 71 
FR 16116 (March 30, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Department is applying an intermediate 
input methodology for Golden Bird and Xinboda. Therefore, the 
Department sought to identify the best available SV for the garlic bulb 
input into production. For the preliminary results, the Department 
finds that data from the Azadpur APMC's ``Market Information Bulletin'' 
are the most appropriate information available to value the garlic bulb 
input. Consistent with the findings in the Garlic 12, Garlic 13, and 
Garlic 15, the Department continues to find that garlic bulb sizes that 
range from 55 mm and above are Grade Super-A, and garlic bulb sizes 
that range between 40 mm and 55 mm are Grade A and Grade Super-A. The 
Department has used Grade A and Grade Super A for garlic bulb 
valuation. Because the Grade Super-A prices reported by the APMC which 
are on the record of this review are from 2007-2008, the Department 
applied a garlic-specific Wholesale Price Index to the non-
contemporaneous data to make them contemporaneous to the POR.
Other Factors of Production
    The Department has obtained import statistics from the Global Trade 
Atlas

[[Page 76379]]

(GTA) for valuing various FOPs. The data reported in the GTA published 
by the Global Trade Information Services, such as those from India, are 
in original currency and correspond to the original currency value 
reported by each country. Additionally, these data are reported to the 
nearest digit which has the same level of accuracy as the original data 
released.
    Furthermore, with regard to the GTA Indian import-based SVs, in 
accordance with the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 
legislative history, the Department continues to apply its long-
standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason to believe or 
suspect the source data may be subsidized.\30\ In this regard, the 
Department has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard 
such prices from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand, because the 
Department has determined that these countries maintain broadly 
available, non-industry specific export subsidies.\31\ Based on the 
existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available to 
all exporters and producers in Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand at 
the time of the POR, the Department finds that it is reasonable to 
infer that all exporters from these countries may have benefitted from 
these subsidies. The Department also disregarded prices from NME 
countries \32\ and those imports that were labeled as originating from 
an ``unspecified'' country from the average Indian import values, 
because we could not be certain that they were not from either an NME 
or a country with general export subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report 
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. 
(1988) at 590.
    \31\ See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 
from Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 
45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at 4; Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19-20; and Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23.
    \32\ The NME countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, 
Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, North Korea, the People's 
Republic of China, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department valued the packing material inputs using weighted-
average unit import values derived from the Monthly Statistics of the 
Foreign Trade of India, as published by the Directorate General of 
Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and 
Industry, Government of India, and compiled by the GTA.
    The Department valued truck freight cost using a per-unit average 
rate calculated from monthly data published on https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm \33\ for the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 52282, 52286 (September 9, 2008) 
(unchanged in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 6857 (February 11, 2009)); and SV Memorandum at 
Attachment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department valued electricity using March 2009 electricity 
price rates from Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of 
Electricity Supply in India, published by the Central Electricity 
Authority of the Government of India.
    The Department valued brokerage and handling expenses using a price 
list of export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of 
goods in India. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study 
of the procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods 
by ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010: 
India, published by the World Bank.
    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 
respondents' 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.\34\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 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 
Golden Bird and Xinboda'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 (15-Manufacture of Food Products and Beverages) 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 15 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 33.028 Rs per hour.
Financial Ratios
    The Department is using Tata Tea Ltd.'s (Tata Tea) unconsolidated 
2010/2011 financial statements as the basis for the surrogate financial 
ratios. Since the 2002-2003 administrative review, the Department has 
considered tea processing to be sufficiently similar to garlic 
processing in that neither product is highly processed or preserved 
prior to sale.\35\ Accordingly, the Department finds that non-
integrated tea processors to be a comparable industry to fresh garlic. 
Tata Tea's unconsolidated financial statement indicates that it has not 
received subsidies under programs the Department has found 
countervailable in Indian countervailing duty proceedings \36\ and 
Tata' Tea's unconsolidated 2010/2011 financial statements cover seven 
months of the instant POR. The Department has not used Golden Bird's 
suggested financial data from Limtex Tea Limited, Garlico, REI Agro 
Limited and LT Foods Limited because, in Garlic 15, the Department 
found that the 09/10 financial statements of Limtex Tea Limited, REI 
Agro Limited and LT Foods Limited

[[Page 76380]]

indicated that each company received subsidies under programs the 
Department found to be countervailable. Moreover, Garlico's 09/10 
financial statements indicate that it operates as a trading company 
(rather than a processor) for nearly one quarter of its sales. Although 
parties have argued that Tata Tea has received subsidies the Department 
has found countervailable, in our analysis of Tata Tea's 09/10 
financial statement, we did not find evidence of these subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 34082 (June 
13, 2005) (Garlic 9), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at 34-35.
    \36\ 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) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17.A, the Department 
stated that its practice is to disregard financial statements where 
we have reason to suspect that the company has received actionable 
subsidies, and where there is other usable data on the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Department finds that Tata Tea's 
unconsolidated financial statement is the best information on the 
record and provides complete and usable financial data for a non-
integrated producer and seller of tea.

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated export 
prices (EP) for Golden Bird's and Xinboda's sales to the United States 
because they were made to unaffiliated parties before the date of 
importation. We calculated Golden Bird's and Xinboda's EP based on 
their price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, where appropriate, we 
deducted movement expenses (e.g. foreign inland freight, international 
freight, brokerage and handling, marine insurance, warehousing, and 
U.S. customs duties) from the starting price to unaffiliated 
purchasers. For the expenses that were either provided by an NME vendor 
or paid for with an NME currency, we used SVs as appropriate.

Separate Rate

    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.\37\ It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of subject merchandise in an NME country this single rate 
unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent 
so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this 
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities. The Department analyzes 
each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from 
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 
From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) 
(Sparklers), as further developed in the Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). 
However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-
owned or located in an ME, then a separate rate analysis is not 
necessary to determine whether it is independent from government 
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rate Recipients

    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. 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.
    Golden Bird, Xinboda, Henan Weite, Farmlady, QXF, and Yuanxiang 
each certified its eligibility for separate rate status with a Separate 
Rate Certification. The Department moved Jinyan's Initial Questionnaire 
response and supplemental questionnaire responses from a new shipper 
review to this review.\38\ Jinyan's new shipper review sale was found 
to be outside of the POR of the new shipper review, so the Department 
rescinded that review.\39\ However, as Jinyan's sale was within the POR 
of this administrative review, the Department transferred the documents 
from Jinyan's questionnaire responses from the new shipper review that 
related to its eligibility for a separate rate to the instant review 
for consideration here. These documents serve as the basis for the 
Department to consider Jinyan's for eligibility for separate rate 
status. Each company reported that it is a wholly Chinese-owned 
company. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether each company 
can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government 
control over export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Memorandum to The File, Through Dana S. Mermelstein, 
From Jacqueline Arrowsmith, Re: Moving Yantai Jinyan's Separate 
Rates Application to the November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2010 
(16th) Administrative Review.
    \39\ See Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Rescission of New Shipper Reviews of Jining Yifa Garlic Produce Co., 
Ltd., Shenzhen Bainong Co., Ltd., and Yantai Jinyan Trading Inc., 76 
FR 52315 (August 22, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Sparklers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Golden Bird, Henan Weite, Xinboda, Farmlady, QFX, Yuanxiang and 
Jinyan each certified that, consistent with the most recently complete 
segment of this proceeding in which it participated and was granted a 
separate rate, there is an absence of de jure government control of its 
exports.\41\ Each of these companies certified to its separate rate 
status, and stated, where applicable, that the company had no 
relationship with any level of the PRC government with respect to 
ownership, internal management, and business operations. In this 
segment, we have no new information on the record that would cause us 
to reconsider the previous de jure control determinations with regard 
to these companies. Thus, the Department finds that evidence on the 
record supports a preliminary finding of an absence of de jure 
government control with regard to the export activities of these 
companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The most recently complete segment of this proceeding in 
which Golden Bird participated and was granted a separate rate was 
Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and 
Rescission, In Part, of Twelfth New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 56550 
(September 29, 2008). The most recently complete segment of this 
proceeding in which Henan Weite participated and was granted a 
separate rate was Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 14th Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 34976 (June 21, 2010). The most 
recently complete segment of this proceeding in which Xinboda, 
Farmlady, and QXF participated and were granted a separate rate was 
Garlic 15. The most recently complete segment of this proceeding in 
which Yuanxiang participated and was granted a separate rate was 
Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and 
Final Rescission, In Part, of New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 50952 
(October 2, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Absence of De Facto Control
    As stated in previous cases, there is evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC.\42\ 
Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto 
control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude 
the

[[Page 76381]]

Department from assigning separate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The absence of de facto government control over exports is based on 
whether a company: (1) Sets its own export prices independent of the 
government and other exporters; (2) retains the proceeds from its 
export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition 
of profits or financing of losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate 
and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) has autonomy from the 
government regarding the selection of management.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See, e.g., Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers, 
56 FR at 20589; 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each company certified that there is an absence of de facto 
government control of its exports in the most recently complete segment 
of proceeding in which it was granted a separate rate. Their separate 
rate certifications, stated, where applicable, that they had no 
relationship with any level of the PRC government with respect to 
ownership, internal management, and business operations. In this 
segment, we have no new information on the record that would cause us 
to reconsider the previous period's de facto control determinations 
with regard to these companies. Therefore, the Department preliminarily 
finds that these companies have established, prima facie, that they 
qualify for separate rates under the criteria established by Silicon 
Carbide and Sparklers.

Margin for the Separate Rate Recipients

    As discussed above, the Department has preliminarily determined 
that Golden Bird, Xinboda, Henan Weite, Farmlady, QXF, Yuanxiang, and 
Jinyan have demonstrated their eligibility for separate rate status. 
The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the 
establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not 
selected for examination where the Department limited its examination 
in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. 
Generally, we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which 
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an 
investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents 
we did not examine in an administrative review. For the exporters 
subject to a review that were determined to be eligible for separate 
rate status, but were not selected as mandatory respondents, the 
Department generally weight-averages the rates calculated for the 
mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, 
or based entirely on facts available.\44\ However, the Department has 
calculated a positive margin for the two fully participating mandatory 
respondents, Golden Bird and Xinboda. Accordingly, for the preliminary 
results, consistent with our practice, the Department has preliminarily 
determined that the margin to be assigned to the separate rate 
recipients should be a simple average of these two margins.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and 
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 8273, 8279 
(February 13, 2008) (unchanged in Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 
20, 2008)).
    \45\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic 
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 
FR 64318 (October 18, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currency Conversion

    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. 
See https://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.

Preliminary Results

    As a result of the review, the Department preliminarily determines 
that the following margins exist for the period November 1, 2009 
through October 31, 2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Weighted-average margin (dollars
              Companies                          per kilogram)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebei Golden Bird Trading Co., Ltd..  $0.20/kg.
Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd  $0.75/kg.
Henan Weite Industrial Co., Ltd.....  $0.48/kg.
Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd.....  $0.48/kg.
Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods Co., Ltd..  $0.48/kg.
Chengwu County Yuanxiang Industry &   $0.48/kg.
 Commerce Co., Ltd.
Yantai Jinyan Trading Co., Ltd......  $0.48/kg.
PRC-Wide Rate.......................  $4.71/kg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), 
the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties 
on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with 
the final results of this review. The Department will direct CBP to 
assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-
unit (i.e., per kilogram) amount on each entry of the subject 
merchandise during the POR. The Department intends to issue appropriate 
assessment instructions for such companies directly to CBP 15 days 
after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

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 the exporters 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in 
these final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be 
required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed 
PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of $4.71 
per kilogram; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which

[[Page 76382]]

have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the 
rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC 
exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until further notice.

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.\46\ Rebuttals to written comments may be filed no later than 
five days after the written comments are filed.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c); Parties submitting written comments 
must submit them pursuant to the Department's e-filing regulations. 
See https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/IA%20ACCESS%20User%20Guide.pdf.
    \47\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice.\48\ 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.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    \49\ 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.
Notification to Importers
    This notice 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.
    We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 
351.214(h) and 351.221(b)(4).

     Dated: November 30, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-31436 Filed 12-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P