Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Rescission in Part, 13264-13270 [2012-5413]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13264
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices
Road in the Jefferson County Industrial
Park (Site 1). The facility is used to
produce pressure-sensitive adhesive
athletic tape with textile fabric backing
material for the U.S. market and export.
JCIDA has now amended the
application to provide updated and
corrected information regarding the
domestic availability and technical
specifications of the textile fabric that
would be used as an input to NAT’s
manufacturing process.
Public comment on the amended
application is invited from interested
parties. Submissions (original and 3
copies) shall be addressed to the Board’s
Executive Secretary at the following
address: Office of the Executive
Secretary, Room 2111, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230–0002. The
closing period for receipt of comments
is April 5, 2012. Rebuttal comments in
response to material submitted during
the foregoing period may be submitted
during the subsequent 15-day period to
April 20, 2012.
A copy of the amended application
will be available for public inspection at
the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones
Board’s Executive Secretary at the
address listed above and in the
‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s
Web site, which is accessible via
www.trade.gov/ftz. For further
information, contact Pierre Duy at or
(202) 482–1378.
Dated: February 29, 2012.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–5418 Filed 3–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–851]
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, and
Rescission in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 2012.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is currently
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain
preserved mushrooms from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the
period February 1, 2010, through
January 31, 2011. We preliminarily
determine that sales made by Blue Field
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:56 Mar 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
(Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd.
(Blue Field), and Dujiangyan Xingda
Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Xingda) were made
below normal value (‘‘NV’’). We invite
interested parties to comment on these
preliminary results. In addition, we are
also rescinding this administrative
review with respect to China National
Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import &
Export Corp. (China National), China
Processed Food Import & Export Co.
(China Processed), Fujian Pinghe
Baofeng Canned Foods (Fujian Pinghe),
Fujian Yuxing Fruits and Vegetables
Foodstufs Development Co., Ltd. (Fujian
Yuxing), Fujian Zishan Group Co., Ltd.
(Fujian Zishan), Guangxi Eastwing
Trading Co., Ltd. (Guangxi Eastwing),
Guangxi Hengyong Industrial &
Commercial Dev. Ltd. (Guangxi
Hengyong), Guangxi Jisheng Foods, Inc.
(Jisheng), Linyi City Kangfu Foodstuff
Drinkable Co.Ltd. (Linyi City), Longhai
Guangfa Food Co., Ltd.(Longhai
Guangfa), Primera Harvest (Xingfan) Co.,
Ltd. (Primera Harvest), Shandong
Fengyu Edible Fungus Corporation Ltd.
(Shangdong Fengyu), Sun Wave Trading
Co., Ltd. (Sun Wave Trading), Xiamen
Greenland Import & Export Co., Ltd.
(Xiamen Greenland), Xiamen Gulong
Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Xiamen
Gulong), Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export
Trading Co., Ltd. (Xiamen Jiahua),
Xiamen International Trade & Industrial
Co., Ltd. (XITIC), Xiamen Longhuai
Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Xiamen
Longhuai), Zhangzhou Ganchang Foods
Co., Ltd. (Zhangzhou Ganchang),
Zhangzhou Hongda Import & Export
Trading Co., Ltd. (Zhangzhou Hongda),
and Zhangzhou Tongfa Foods Industry
Co., Ltd. (Zhangzhou Tongfa).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael J. Heaney, 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) 482–4475 or (202) 482–
0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 19, 1999, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on certain
preserved mushrooms (‘‘mushrooms’’)
from the PRC.1 On February 1, 2011, the
Department published in the Federal
Register its notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
1 See Notice of Amendment of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China,
64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999) (‘‘the Order’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
antidumping duty order on mushrooms
from the PRC.2 On February 25, 2011,
Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co.,Ltd.
(Ayecue) filed a request for review. On
February 28, 2011, Blue Field also filed
a review request. Finally, on February
28, 2011, Petitioner, Monterey
Mushrooms, Inc., requested reviews for
the following exporters: (1) Ayecue, (2)
Blue Field, (3) China National, (4) China
Processed, (5) Dujiangyan Xingda
Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Xingda), (6) Fujian
Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.
(Golden Banyan), (7) Fujian Pinghe, (8)
Fujian Yuxing, (9) Fujian Zishan, (10)
Guangxi Eastwing, (11) Guangxi
Hengyong, (12) Jisheng, (13) Linyi City,
(14) Longhai Guangfa, (15) Primera
Harvest, (16) Shandong Fengyu, (17)
Shandong Jiufa, (18) Sun Wave Trading,
(19) Xiamen Greenland, (20) Xiamen
Gulong, (21) XITIC, (22) Xiamen Jiahua,
(23) XITIC, (24) Xiamen Longhuai, (25)
Zhangzhou Ganchang, Ltd. (Zhangzhou
Ganchang), (26) Zhangzhou Golden
Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd.
(Zhangzgou Golden), (27) Zhangzhou
Hongda, (28) Zhangzhou Tongfa Foods
Industry Co., Ltd., (Zhangzhou Tongfa)
and (29) Zhejiang Iceman Food Co., Ltd
(Zhejiang Iceman). On March 31 2011,
the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of initiation of
the antidumping duty administrative
review of mushrooms from the PRC for
the period February 1, 2010, through
January 31, 2011, with respect to the 28
companies named in the review
requests specified above.3
On April 8, 2011, we received a
separate rate certification from Ayecue.
On April 28, 2010, we received a
separate rate certification from Jisheng.
On May 27, 2011, Shandong Jiufa
submitted a separate rate certificaton.
On May 31, 2011, Golden Banyan filed
a separate rate certification.
On June 27, 2011 the petitioner filed
a letter withdrawing its request for Linyi
City and for Zhangzhou Ganchang.
Finally, on June 29, 2011, the petitioner
filed a letter withdrawing its request for
review of XITIC. As the review request
was timely withdrawn for one of the
exporters previously selected for
examination (i.e., XITIC), the
Department selected an additional
exporter for individual examination in
this administrative review according to
the methodology specified below.
2 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 5559
(February 1, 2011).
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,
Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of
Administrative Review, 76 FR 17825 (March 31,
2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
E:\FR\FM\06MRN1.SGM
06MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Respondent Selection
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), directs
the Department to calculate individual
dumping margins for each known
exporter or producer of the subject
merchandise. However, section
777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the
Department discretion to limit its
examination to a reasonable number of
exporters or producers if it is not
practicable to examine all exporters or
producers involved in the review.
On April 4, 2011, the Department
released U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data for entries of
the subject merchandise during the
period of review (‘‘POR’’) under
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
to all interested parties having an APO,
inviting comments regarding the CBP
data and respondent selection. The
Department received comments from
Ayecue on April 8, 2011, and XITIC,
Shandong Jiufia, and Blue Field on
April 13, 2011.
Based on the large number of
potential exporters or producers
involved in this administrative review
and, after considering our resources, we
determined that it was not practicable to
individually examine all 28 companies.
Accordingly, on May 18, 2011, we
issued our first respondent selection
memorandum indicating that, pursuant
to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, we
could reasonably examine only the two
largest producers/exporters of subject
merchandise by volume. Therefore, we
selected Blue Field and XITIC as
mandatory respondents.4 As noted,
previously, on June 29, 2011, the
petitioner filed a letter withdrawing its
request for review of XITIC.
Accordingly, on July 22, 2011, we
issued a second respondent selection
memorandum in which we selected
Xingda, the second largest exporter of
the remaining respondents for which
the Department had a continuing
request for review, as the second
respondent in this review.5
We issued our antidumping
questionnaire to Blue Field and Xingda
4 See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, from Michael J.
Heaney, Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7,
Subject: ‘‘Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China:
Respondent Selection Memorandum,’’ dated May
18, 2011.
5 See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, from Michael J.
Heaney, Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7,
Subject: ‘‘Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China:
Respondent Selection Memorandum,’’ dated July
22, 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:56 Mar 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
on June 1, 2011, and July 25, 2011,
respectively. On October 26, 2011, we
issued supplemental questionnaires to
Blue Field and Xingda. Blue Field and
Xingda filed their responses to our
request for supplemental information on
November 10, 2011.
Verification
From January 9 through January 13,
we conducted a verification of Blue
Field. We used standard verification
procedures, including examination of
relevant accounting and production
records, as well as source
documentation provided by the
respondents.6
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value
Data
Partial Rescission
Section 351.213(d)(1) of the
Department’s regulations provide that
the Department will rescind an
administrative review if the party that
requested the review withdraws its
request for review within 90 days of the
date of publication of the notice of
initiation of the requested review, or
withdraws it at a later date if the
Department determines it is reasonable
to extend the time limit for withdrawing
the request. The Department initiated
this administrative review on March 31,
2011. See Initiation Notice, 76 FR
17825.
Petitioner withdrew its request for
review for 18 exporters on May 6, 2011.
Additionally, on June 27, 2011
petitioner withdrew its request for
review of Linyi City and for Zhangzhou
Ganchang. Finally, on June 29, 2011, the
petitioner filed a letter withdrawing its
request for review of XITIC. Because the
party that requested this review has
timely withdrawn the request for
review, we are rescinding this review
with respect to the following
companies: (1) China National, (2)
China Processed, (3) Fujian Pinghe, (4)
Fujian Yuxing, (5) Fujian Zishan, (6)
Guangxi Eastwing, (7) Guangxi
Hengyong, (8) Jisheng, (9) Linyi City,
(10) Longhai Guangfa, (11) Primera
Harvest, (12) Shandong Fengyu, (13)
Sun Wave Trading, (14) Xiamen
Greenland, (15) Xiamen Gulong, (16)
Xiamen Jiahua, (17) XITIC, (18) Xiamen
Longhuai, (19) Zhangzhou Ganchang,
(20) Zhangzhou Hongda, and (21)
Zhangzhou Tongfa.
6 See ‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors
Response of Blue Field in the Antidumping Review
of Certain Preserved Mushrooms’’ (‘‘Blue Filed
Verification Report’’), dated February 14, 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13265
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are certain preserved mushrooms,
whether imported whole, sliced, diced,
or as stems and pieces. The certain
preserved mushrooms covered under
this order are the species Agaricus
bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis.
‘‘Certain Preserved Mushrooms’’ refers
to mushrooms that have been prepared
or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and
sometimes slicing or cutting. These
mushrooms are then packed and heated
in containers including, but not limited
to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid
medium, including, but not limited to,
water, brine, butter or butter sauce.
Certain preserved mushrooms may be
imported whole, sliced, diced, or as
stems and pieces. Included within the
scope of this order are ‘‘brined’’
mushrooms, which are presalted and
packed in a heavy salt solution to
provisionally preserve them for further
processing.7
Excluded from the scope of this order
are the following: (1) All other species
of mushroom, including straw
mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled
mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or
‘‘quick blanched mushrooms;’’ (3) dried
mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and
(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or
‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are
prepared or preserved by means of
vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain
oil or other additives.
The merchandise subject to this order
is classifiable under subheadings:
2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131,
2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143,
2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, and
0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and Customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of this order is dispositive.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, we have
treated the PRC as a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country.8 In
7 On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that
‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms
containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are
within the scope of the antidumping duty order.
See Recommendation Memorandum—Final Ruling
of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for ‘‘Exclusion of
Certain Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic
of China’’, dated June 19, 2000. On February 9,
2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit upheld this decision. See Tak Fat
v. United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
8 See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
E:\FR\FM\06MRN1.SGM
Continued
06MRN1
13266
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
Department.9
Separate Rates Determination
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
It is the Department’s policy to assign
all exporters of the merchandise subject
to review in NME countries a single rate
unless an exporter can affirmatively
demonstrate an absence of government
control, both in law (de jure) and in fact
(de facto), with respect to exports. To
establish whether a company is
sufficiently independent to be entitled
to a separate, company-specific rate, the
Department analyzes each exporting
entity in an NME country under the test
established in Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers
from the People’s Republic of China, 56
FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’),
and amplified by 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’’).
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that all firms that
wish to qualify for separate-rate status
must complete, as appropriate, either a
separate-rate application or certification.
See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 17826. To
establish separate-rate eligibility, the
Department requires entities for which a
review was requested that were assigned
a separate rate in the most recent
segment of the proceeding in which
they participated to certify that they
continue to meet the criteria for
obtaining a separate rate. In this
administrative review, Ayecue, Fujian
Golden Banyan Foodstuffs, and
Shandong Juifa (‘‘the separate-rate
applicants’’) each submitted a separaterate certification indicating they
continued to meet the criteria for
obtaining a separate rate. Additionally,
Blue Field and Xingda both submitted a
separate-rate certification and answered
all the separate-rate questions in our
questionnaires. As such, we have
determined that Blue Field, Xingda, and
the separate-rate applicants each
provided company-specific information
and each stated that it met the criteria
for the assignment of a separate rate.
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 76336
(December 16, 2008); and Frontseating Service
Valves from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Final Negative Determination of Critical
Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 12, 2009).
9 See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review
and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper
Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:56 Mar 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
The Department’s separate-rate test to
determine whether the exporter is
independent from government control
does not consider, in general,
macroeconomic/border-type controls
(e.g., export licenses, quotas, and
minimum export prices), particularly if
these controls are imposed to prevent
dumping. The test focuses, rather, on
controls over the investment, pricing,
and output decision-making process at
the individual firm level.10
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 the individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) any other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
In this administrative review, Blue
Field and Xingda demonstrated, and the
separate-rate applicants certified, that
consistent with the most recent segment
of this proceeding in which the entities
participated and were granted a separate
rate, there is an absence of de jure
government control of their respective
exports.11 Each of the separate-rate
applicants certified to its separate-rate
10 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon
Steel Plate From Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758
(November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, finished and Unfinished, From the
People’s Republic of China; Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276,
61279 (November 17, 1997).
11 The most recently completed segment of this
proceeding in which Fujian Golden Banyan
Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd. participated and was
granted separate rate status was Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 73 FR 75083 (December 10, 2008). The
most recently completed segment of this proceeding
in which Ayecue participated and was granted
separate rate status was Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 73 FR 21904 (April 23, 2008). The most
recently completed segment of this proceeding in
which Blue Field participated and was granted
separate rate status was Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China:
Notice of Final Results of the Eighth New Shipper
Review, 70 FR 60789 (October 19, 2005). The most
recently completed segment of this proceeding in
which Shandong Jiufa participated and was granted
separate rate status was Notice of Amended Final
Results of Antidumping duty Administrative
Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 60280 (October
17, 2005). The most recently completed segment of
this proceeding in which Xingda participated and
was granted separate rate status was Certain
Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review, 73 FR 45402 (August 5, 2008).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
status. Additionally, Blue Field, Xingda,
and the separate-rate applicants stated
that their companies 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 our
previous determinations of the absence
of de jure government control with
regard to these companies. Thus, we
find that evidence on the record
supports a preliminary finding of an
absence of de jure government control
with regard to the export activities of
Blue Field, XITIC, and the separate-rate
applicants.
Absence of De Facto Control
As stated in previous cases, there is
some evidence that certain enactments
of the PRC central government have not
been implemented uniformly among
different sectors and/or jurisdictions in
the PRC. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at
22586–87; Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People’s Republic
of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 31,
1998). 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
Department from assigning separate
rates.
The Department typically considers
the following four factors in evaluating
whether a respondent is subject to de
facto government control over its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
are set by, or subject to the approval of,
a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent retains the proceeds from its
export sales and makes independent
decisions regarding the disposition of
profits or financing of losses; (3)
whether the respondent has the
authority to negotiate and sign contracts
and other agreements; (4) whether the
respondent has autonomy from the
government regarding the selection of
management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR
at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589;
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).
The evidence provided by Blue Field,
Xingda, and the separate-rate applicants
supports a preliminary finding of
absence of de facto government control
based on the following facts: (1) The
companies set their own export prices
independent of the government and
without the approval of a government
E:\FR\FM\06MRN1.SGM
06MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices
authority; (2) there is no restriction on
any of the companies’ use of export
revenue, nor the disposition of profits or
financing of losses; (3) the companies
have authority to negotiate and sign
contracts and other agreements; (4) the
companies have autonomy from the
government in making decisions
regarding the selection of
management.12
Additionally, in this administrative
review we have no new information on
the record that would cause us to
reconsider our previous determinations
of the absence of de facto government
control with regard to these companies.
Therefore, the Department preliminarily
finds that Blue Field, Xingda and the
separate-rate applicants have
established that they qualify for separate
rates under the criteria established by
Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.
The PRC-Wide Entity
In addition to the separate-rate
applications discussed above, there was
one company, Golden Banyan, for
which we initiated a review in this
proceeding and which did not
previously have a separate rate. Because
this company did not file a separate rate
application to demonstrate eligibility for
a separate rate in this administrative
review or certify that it had no
shipments, we preliminarily determine
that this company will remain part of
the PRC-wide entity. See Initiation
Notice, 75 FR at 15680.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV,
in most circumstances, on the NME
producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate
market economy 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 utilize, to
the extent possible, the prices or costs
of FOPs in one or more market economy
countries that are: (1) At a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the NME country; and (2)
significant producers of comparable
merchandise.13 From the countries that
are both economically comparable and
12 See, e.g., Blue Field’s June 21, 2011, Section A
response at A–1 through A–8; Xingda’s September
6, 2011, Section A response at A–1 through A–8,
Ayecue April 18, 2011, separate rate certification at
3–5; Golden Banyan May 27, 2011, separate rate
certification at 4–7, and Shandong Juifa separate
rates certification at 4–7.
13 See Import Administration Policy Bulletin
04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country
Selection Process (March 1, 2004) (‘‘Policy
Bulletin’’), available on the Department’s Web site
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:56 Mar 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
significant producers, the Department
will select a primary surrogate country
based upon whether the data for valuing
FOPs are both available and reliable.14
Economic Comparability
As explained in our surrogate country
list, the Department considers
Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines,
South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine all
comparable to the PRC in economic
development.15 Therefore, we consider
all six counties on the Surrogate
Country List as having satisfied the
comparable economic development
prong of the surrogate selection
criteria.16 Furthermore, in Steel
Wheels,17 the Department stated:
{U}nless we find that all of the countries
determined to be equally economically
comparable are not significant producers of
comparable merchandise, do not provide a
reliable source of publicly available surrogate
data or are unsuitable for use for other
reasons, we will rely on data from one of
these countries.
Because the Department finds that one
of these countries from the Surrogate
Country List meets the selection criteria,
as explained below, the Department will
not consider India as the primary
surrogate country.
Significant Producers of Identical or
Comparable Merchandise
Based on publicly available
information placed on the record by
interested parties (e.g., production data),
the Department determines that
Colombia, Ukraine, and the Philippines
to be significant producers of identical
or comparable merchandise. Because
Colombia has publicly available and
reliable data for all but two of the factors
of production, the Department has
determined to use Colombia as the
primary surrogate country. Colombia is
at a comparable level of economic
development pursuant to section
773(c)(4)(A) of the Act, and is a
significant producer of the subject
merchandise pursuant to section
773(c)(4)(B) of the Act. See Petitioner’s
January 6, 2012, submission at
14 Id.
15 See Memoandum from Carole Showers, Office
of Policy to Richard Weible, Office Director, Office
7, AD/CVD Operations RE: Request for a List of
Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Preserved Mushrroms (Mushrooms) from the
People’s Republic of China (China) dated October
12, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’).
16 See section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act.
17 See Certain Steel Wheels From the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary
Deterrmination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of
Critical Circumstances, and Postponent of Final
Determination, 76 FR 67703, 67708 (November 2,
2011) (‘‘Steel Wheels’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13267
Exhibit 1.18 Accordingly because
Colombia meets all of the criteria for
selection as a surrogate country, the
Department has selected Colombia as
the primary source for valuing surrogate
values. With the exception of mushroom
spawn and land rent discussed below,
the Department used Colombia as the
source of surrogate values in this
proceeding.
For mushroom spawn and land rent,
the Department was unable to find
surrogate value information from
Colombia. For mushroom spawn, the
Department used mushroom data
derived from Ukraine because, among
the six countries on the Surrogate
Country List, Ukraine represented by
HTS category the most specific and
reliable source of data for the input
among the six countries listed on the
Surrogate Country List. For land rent,
the Department used data derived from
the Philippines, since these data were
publicly available, specific to the
production input in question, and
Philippine land rent was the only
available source of data among the six
countries comprising our Surrogate
Country List.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of
this administrative review, interested
parties may submit publicly available
information to value FOPs within 20
days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, we based Blue Field’s and
Xingda’s U.S. prices on export prices
(‘‘EP’’) because their first sales to
unaffiliated purchasers were made
before the date of importation and the
use of constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’)
was not otherwise warranted by the
facts on the record. As appropriate, we
deducted foreign inland freight and
foreign brokerage and handling from the
starting price (or gross unit price), in
accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the
Act. Where these services were
provided by NME vendors, we based the
deduction on surrogate values.
Both respondents used foreign inland
freight via truck and train. As
previously stated, where applicable, we
made deductions for these expenses
from the U.S. price. We valued truck
and train freight using a per-unit, PORwide, average rate calculated from the
18 See Memorandum to the File through Robert
James, Program Manager Office 7 from Michael J.
Heaney International Trade Analyst: Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Preserved
Mushrroms from the People’s Republic of China,
dated February 28, 2012 (‘‘Factors Valuation
Memorandum’’).
E:\FR\FM\06MRN1.SGM
06MRN1
13268
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices
World Bank’s Doing Business in
Colombia study. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at page 11. We valued
foreign brokerage and handling using
the publicly summarized brokerage and
handling expense reported in the World
Bank’s Doing Business in Colombia
study. See Petitioner’s January 6
Submission, at Exhibit 42; Surrogate
Values Memorandum at page 11.
Because the record indicates that the
material terms of Blue Field’s and
Xingda’s U.S. sales were established on
the date of invoice, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.401(i), we determine that invoice
date is the appropriate date to use as the
date of sale for these two respondents.
See Blue Field July 6, 2011, Section C
response at C–8; Xingda September 19,
2011, Section C response at C–8.
Normal Value
1. Methodology
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act
provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using an FOP
methodology if the merchandise under
review is exported from an NME and 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. The Department bases NV on
FOPs because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of NMEs renders price comparisons and
the calculation of production costs
invalid under the Department’s normal
methodologies.19 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, including
depreciation. The Department based NV
on FOPs reported by the respondents for
materials, energy, labor, and packing.
Thus, in accordance with section
773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV by
adding the values of the FOPs,
overhead, selling, general and
administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses,
profit, and packing costs.
2. Selection of Surrogate Values
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In selecting the ‘‘best available
information for surrogate values,’’
19 See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744
(July 11, 2005), unchanged in Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of 2003–2004 Administrative Review
and Partial Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517
(January 17, 2006).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:56 Mar 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
consistent with the Department’s
preference, we considered whether the
potential surrogate value data on the
record were: Publicly available;
product-specific; representative of broad
market average prices; contemporaneous
with the POR; and free of taxes and
import duties.20 Where only surrogate
values that were not contemporaneous
with the POR were available on the
record of this administrative review, we
inflated the surrogate values using,
where appropriate, the Colombian WPI
as published in International Financial
Statistics by the International Monetary
Fund. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Exhibit 2.
In accordance with these guidelines,
we calculated surrogate values, except
as noted below, from import statistics of
the primary selected surrogate country,
Colombia, from Global Trade Atlas
(‘‘GTA’’), as published by Global Trade
Information Services. Our use of GTA
import data is in accordance with past
practice and satisfies all of our criteria
for surrogate values noted above.21
After identifying appropriate
surrogate values, we calculated NV by
multiplying the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by the surrogate
values. As appropriate, we also added
freight costs to the surrogate values that
we calculated for the respondents’
material inputs to make these prices
delivered prices. We calculated these
freight costs by multiplying surrogate
freight rates by the shorter of the
reported distance from the domestic
supplier to the factory that produced the
subject merchandise or the distance
from the nearest seaport to the factory
that produced the subject merchandise,
as appropriate. Where there were
multiple domestic suppliers of a
material input, we calculated a
weighted-average distance after limiting
each supplier’s distance to no more than
the distance from the nearest seaport to
the factory of each of the two
respondents. This adjustment is in
accordance with the decision by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States,
20 See, e.g., Drill Pipe From the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, and
Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 51004
(August 18, 2010), unchanged in Drill Pipe From the
People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical
Circumstances, 76 FR 196 (January 11, 2011).
21 See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR
50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009), unchanged in
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520 (December
10, 2009).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
117 F. 3d 1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. Cir.
1997). We increased the calculated costs
of the FOPs for surrogate general
expenses and profit. See Surrogate
Values Memorandum at page 12.
Because Colombian surrogate values
were denominated in Colombian Pesos,
we converted these data to U.S. dollars
(‘‘USD’’) using the applicable average
exchange rate based on exchange rate
data from the Department’s Web site.
For further details regarding the
specific surrogate values used for direct
materials, energy inputs, and packing
materials in these preliminary results,
see the Surrogate Values Memorandum
at Exhbit 1.
To calculate the labor input, we based
our calculation on the methodology
which the Department enunciated on
June 21, 2011, in Antidumping
Methodologies in Proceedings Involving
Non-Market Economies: Valuing the
Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (‘‘Labor
Methodologies’’). Prior to 2010, the
Department used regression-based
wages that captured the worldwide
relationship between per capita Gross
National Income and hourly
manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.408(c)(3). On May 14, 2010, the
Federal Circuit in Dorbest Ltd. v. United
States, 604 F. 3d 1363, 1372–73 (Fed
Cir. 2010) (‘‘Dorbest’’), invalidated part
of that regulation. As a consequence of
the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Dorbest,
the Department no longer relies on the
regression-based methodology described
in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
In Labor Methodologies, the
Department explained that the best
methodology to value the labor input is
to use industry-specific labor rates from
the primary surrogate country. See
Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093.
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’s
(‘‘ILO’’) Yearbook of Labor Statistics
(‘‘Yearbook’’). See Labor Methodologies,
76 FR at 36093–36094.
Consistent with this methodology, to
calculate labor expense in this review,
we used 2005 data from Colombia that
falls under International Standard
Industrial Classification (‘‘ISIC’’) 15
‘‘Manufacture of Food Products and
Beverages’’ in Chapter 6A of the ILO’
Yearbook. We used Colombian WPI data
to inflate these values to POR amounts.
This results in a calculated labor rate of
10,863 Colombia pesos per hour. Based
on the reporting of financial ratios in
this review, we find that the facts and
information on the record do not
warrant or permit an adjustment to the
E:\FR\FM\06MRN1.SGM
06MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices
surrogate financial statements. See
Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36094.
Accordingly, we made no offset to the
surrogate financial statements in this
review. A more detailed description of
the wage rate calculation methodology
is provided in the Factors Valuation
Memorandum at page 9–10.
We offset the respondents’ material
costs for revenue generated from the
sale of tin scrap. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at page 12.
Finally, to value overhead, SG&A, and
profit, we have preliminarily
determined that the 2010 financial
statements of the Setas Colombianas
S.A. constitute the best information
available. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at page 12.
Preliminary Results of the Review
The Department has determined that
the following preliminary dumping
margins exist for the period February 1,
2010, through January 31, 2011.
Respondents other than mandatory
respondents will receive the weightedaverage of the margins calculated for
those companies selected for individual
review (i.e., mandatory respondents),
excluding de minimis margins or
margins based entirely on adverse facts
available.
Weightedaverage
margin
(percent)
Exporter
Blue Field ....................................
Xingda .........................................
Ayecue ........................................
Golden Banyan ...........................
Shandong Jiufa ...........................
PRC-wide rate * ..........................
215.10
222.78
215.41
215.41
215.41
198.63
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
* Includes Zhangzhou Golden.
Public Comment
The Department will disclose to
parties to this proceeding the
calculations performed in reaching the
preliminary results within five days of
the date of publication of these
preliminary results. See 19 CFR
351.224(b). Interested parties may
submit written comments (case briefs)
within 30 days of publication of the
preliminary results and rebuttal
comments (rebuttal briefs) within five
days after the time limit for filing case
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and
351.309(d)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must be
limited to issues raised in the case
briefs. Parties who submit arguments are
requested to submit with the argument:
(1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief
summary of the argument; and (3) a
table of authorities. Further, the
Department requests that parties
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:56 Mar 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
submitting written comments
concurrently provide a public version of
those comments.
In accordance with section 774 of the
Act, we will hold a public hearing, if
requested, to afford interested parties an
opportunity to comment on arguments
raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Any
interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of publication of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Interested parties who wish to request a
hearing or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, and electronically file the
request via the Department’s Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). Id. An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time
(ET). Requests should contain: (1) The
party’s name, address, and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants;
and (3) a list of issues to be discussed.
See id. Issues raised in the hearing will
be limited to those raised in the briefs.
Unless the deadline is extended
pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of
the Act, the Department will issue the
final results of this administrative
review, including the results of our
analysis of the issues raised by the
parties in their comments, within 120
days after issuance of these preliminary
results.
Deadline for Submission of Publicly
Available Surrogate Value Information
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3), the deadline for
submission of publicly available
information to value factors of
production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) is
20 days after the date of publication of
the preliminary determination. 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 has ten
days to 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 notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information
only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or
corrects information recently placed on
the record. See, e.g., Glycine from the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13269
Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2. 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.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review. The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions directly to CBP
15 days after the date of publication of
the final results of this review. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
we calculated exporter/importer (or
customer)-specific assessment rates for
the merchandise subject to this review.
Where the respondent has reported
reliable entered values, we calculated
importer or customer-specific ad
valorem rates by aggregating the
dumping margins calculated for all U.S.
sales to each importer or customer, and
dividing this amount by the total
entered value of the sales to each
importer or customer. See 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). Where an importer or
customer-specific ad valorem rate is
greater than de minimis, we will apply
the assessment rate to the entered value
of the importers’/customers’ entries
during the POR. See 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1).
Where we do not have entered values
for all U.S. sales, we calculated a perunit assessment rate by aggregating the
antidumping duties due for all U.S.
sales to each importer or customer and
dividing this amount by the total
quantity sold to that importer or
customer. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To
determine whether the duty assessment
rates are de minimis, in accordance with
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer or
customer-specific ad valorem ratios
based on the estimated entered value.
Where an importer or customer-specific
ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis,
we will instruct CBP to liquidate
appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties. See 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2).
For the companies that were not
selected for individual review, we
calculated an assessment rate based on
the weighted-average of the cash deposit
rates calculated for companies selected
for individual review, where those rates
were not de minimis or based on
E:\FR\FM\06MRN1.SGM
06MRN1
13270
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices
adverse facts available, in accordance
with Department practice.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, will be
effective upon publication of the final
results of this administrative review for
all shipments of 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 the
exporters listed above, the cash-deposit
rate will be that established in the final
results of this review (except, if the rate
is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent, no cash deposit 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 that
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;
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 nonPRC exporter. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Dated: February 28, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–5413 Filed 3–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
14:56 Mar 05, 2012
Stainless Steel Bar From India:
Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel bar (SSBar) from India. The period
of review (POR) is February 1, 2010,
through January 31, 2011. This review
covers three exporters/producers, one of
which is being individually reviewed as
a mandatory respondent. We
preliminarily determine that the
mandatory respondent made sales of the
subject merchandise at prices below
normal value (NV). We have assigned
the second respondent the margin
calculated for the mandatory
respondent. In addition, we have
rescinded the review with respect to the
remaining company. Interested parties
are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) to assess
antidumping duties on appropriate
entries.
AGENCY:
DATES:
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.
This administrative review and notice
are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
[A–533–810]
Jkt 226001
Effective Date: March 6, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph Shuler or Yasmin Nair, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–1293 or (202) 482–
3813, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 21, 1995, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on SSBar from
India. See Antidumping Duty Orders:
Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India
and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21,
1995) (the Order). On February 1, 2011,
the Department published its notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of the Order on SSBar from
India. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 76
FR 5559, 5560 (February 1, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In February 2011, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), the Department
received self-requests to conduct
administrative reviews of the Order
from two producers/exporters of the
subject merchandise: Venus Industries,
Pvt. Ltd (Venus) and Chandan Steel
Limited (Chandan). Additionally,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1),
domestic interested parties Carpenter
Technology Corp.; Electralloy Co., (a
division of G.O. Carlson, Inc.);
Outokumpu Stainless Bar, Inc.;
Universal Stainless & Alloy Products,
Inc.; and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc.
(collectively, Petitioners), requested that
the Department conduct an
administrative review of the following
producers/exporters: Venus, Ambica
Steels Limited (Ambica), Atlas Stainless
Corporation (Atlas), Bhansali Bright
Bars Pvt. Ltd. (Bhansali), FACOR Steels
Limited (Facor), Grand Foundry, Ltd.
(Grand Foundry), India Steel Works,
Ltd. (India Steel), Meltroll Engineering
Pvt. Ltd. (Meltroll), Mukand Ltd.
(Mukand), Sindia Steels Limited
(Sindia), Snowdrop Trading Pvt. Ltd.
(Snowdrop), and their respective
affiliates.
On March 31, 2011, in accordance
with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), the
Department published a notice of
initiation of an administrative review
for all twelve companies. See Initiation
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, Requests for Revocation in
Part, and Deferral of Administrative
Review, 76 FR 17825 (March 31, 2011)
(Initiation Notice). We indicated that we
would select mandatory respondents for
review based upon CBP data in the
event we limited the number of
respondents selected for individual
review in accordance with section
777A(c)(2) of the Act. See Initiation
Notice.
In our respondent selection memo, we
determined that it was not practicable to
examine all twelve producers/exporters
for which a review was requested and,
therefore, we limited the number of
respondents selected for individual
review. See Memorandum to Susan
Kuhbach from Seth Isenberg,
‘‘Respondent Selection Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Stainless
Steel Bar from India’’ (April 19, 2011).
As a result, we selected the two largest
producers/exporters of SSBar from India
during the POR for individual review,
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the
Act. The mandatory respondents
selected were Mukand and Venus.
Chandan had requested individual
review, but was not selected.
On April 26, 2011, Petitioners timely
withdrew their request for
E:\FR\FM\06MRN1.SGM
06MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13264-13270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5413]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-851]
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and
Rescission in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 2012.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is currently
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'') covering the period February 1, 2010, through January 31,
2011. We preliminarily determine that sales made by Blue Field
(Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. (Blue Field), and Dujiangyan Xingda
Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Xingda) were made below normal value (``NV''). We
invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. In
addition, we are also rescinding this administrative review with
respect to China National Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export
Corp. (China National), China Processed Food Import & Export Co. (China
Processed), Fujian Pinghe Baofeng Canned Foods (Fujian Pinghe), Fujian
Yuxing Fruits and Vegetables Foodstufs Development Co., Ltd. (Fujian
Yuxing), Fujian Zishan Group Co., Ltd. (Fujian Zishan), Guangxi
Eastwing Trading Co., Ltd. (Guangxi Eastwing), Guangxi Hengyong
Industrial & Commercial Dev. Ltd. (Guangxi Hengyong), Guangxi Jisheng
Foods, Inc. (Jisheng), Linyi City Kangfu Foodstuff Drinkable Co.Ltd.
(Linyi City), Longhai Guangfa Food Co., Ltd.(Longhai Guangfa), Primera
Harvest (Xingfan) Co., Ltd. (Primera Harvest), Shandong Fengyu Edible
Fungus Corporation Ltd. (Shangdong Fengyu), Sun Wave Trading Co., Ltd.
(Sun Wave Trading), Xiamen Greenland Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Xiamen
Greenland), Xiamen Gulong Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Xiamen Gulong),
Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd. (Xiamen Jiahua), Xiamen
International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd. (XITIC), Xiamen Longhuai
Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Xiamen Longhuai), Zhangzhou Ganchang Foods
Co., Ltd. (Zhangzhou Ganchang), Zhangzhou Hongda Import & Export
Trading Co., Ltd. (Zhangzhou Hongda), and Zhangzhou Tongfa Foods
Industry Co., Ltd. (Zhangzhou Tongfa).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney, 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-
4475 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms
(``mushrooms'') from the PRC.\1\ On February 1, 2011, the Department
published in the Federal Register its notice of opportunity to request
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on mushrooms
from the PRC.\2\ On February 25, 2011, Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff
Co.,Ltd. (Ayecue) filed a request for review. On February 28, 2011,
Blue Field also filed a review request. Finally, on February 28, 2011,
Petitioner, Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., requested reviews for the
following exporters: (1) Ayecue, (2) Blue Field, (3) China National,
(4) China Processed, (5) Dujiangyan Xingda Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.
(Xingda), (6) Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Golden
Banyan), (7) Fujian Pinghe, (8) Fujian Yuxing, (9) Fujian Zishan, (10)
Guangxi Eastwing, (11) Guangxi Hengyong, (12) Jisheng, (13) Linyi City,
(14) Longhai Guangfa, (15) Primera Harvest, (16) Shandong Fengyu, (17)
Shandong Jiufa, (18) Sun Wave Trading, (19) Xiamen Greenland, (20)
Xiamen Gulong, (21) XITIC, (22) Xiamen Jiahua, (23) XITIC, (24) Xiamen
Longhuai, (25) Zhangzhou Ganchang, Ltd. (Zhangzhou Ganchang), (26)
Zhangzhou Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd. (Zhangzgou
Golden), (27) Zhangzhou Hongda, (28) Zhangzhou Tongfa Foods Industry
Co., Ltd., (Zhangzhou Tongfa) and (29) Zhejiang Iceman Food Co., Ltd
(Zhejiang Iceman). On March 31 2011, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty
administrative review of mushrooms from the PRC for the period February
1, 2010, through January 31, 2011, with respect to the 28 companies
named in the review requests specified above.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 8308 (February
19, 1999) (``the Order'').
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, 76 FR 5559 (February 1, 2011).
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral
of Administrative Review, 76 FR 17825 (March 31, 2011) (``Initiation
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 8, 2011, we received a separate rate certification from
Ayecue. On April 28, 2010, we received a separate rate certification
from Jisheng.
On May 27, 2011, Shandong Jiufa submitted a separate rate
certificaton. On May 31, 2011, Golden Banyan filed a separate rate
certification.
On June 27, 2011 the petitioner filed a letter withdrawing its
request for Linyi City and for Zhangzhou Ganchang. Finally, on June 29,
2011, the petitioner filed a letter withdrawing its request for review
of XITIC. As the review request was timely withdrawn for one of the
exporters previously selected for examination (i.e., XITIC), the
Department selected an additional exporter for individual examination
in this administrative review according to the methodology specified
below.
[[Page 13265]]
Respondent Selection
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act''), directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins
for each known exporter or producer of the subject merchandise.
However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department discretion
to limit its examination to a reasonable number of exporters or
producers if it is not practicable to examine all exporters or
producers involved in the review.
On April 4, 2011, the Department released U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') data for entries of the subject merchandise during
the period of review (``POR'') under administrative protective order
(``APO'') to all interested parties having an APO, inviting comments
regarding the CBP data and respondent selection. The Department
received comments from Ayecue on April 8, 2011, and XITIC, Shandong
Jiufia, and Blue Field on April 13, 2011.
Based on the large number of potential exporters or producers
involved in this administrative review and, after considering our
resources, we determined that it was not practicable to individually
examine all 28 companies. Accordingly, on May 18, 2011, we issued our
first respondent selection memorandum indicating that, pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, we could reasonably examine only the
two largest producers/exporters of subject merchandise by volume.
Therefore, we selected Blue Field and XITIC as mandatory
respondents.\4\ As noted, previously, on June 29, 2011, the petitioner
filed a letter withdrawing its request for review of XITIC.
Accordingly, on July 22, 2011, we issued a second respondent selection
memorandum in which we selected Xingda, the second largest exporter of
the remaining respondents for which the Department had a continuing
request for review, as the second respondent in this review.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, from Michael J. Heaney, Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Subject: ``Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People's Republic of China: Respondent Selection Memorandum,'' dated
May 18, 2011.
\5\ See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, from Michael J. Heaney, Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Subject: ``Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People's Republic of China: Respondent Selection Memorandum,'' dated
July 22, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We issued our antidumping questionnaire to Blue Field and Xingda on
June 1, 2011, and July 25, 2011, respectively. On October 26, 2011, we
issued supplemental questionnaires to Blue Field and Xingda. Blue Field
and Xingda filed their responses to our request for supplemental
information on November 10, 2011.
Verification
From January 9 through January 13, we conducted a verification of
Blue Field. We used standard verification procedures, including
examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as
source documentation provided by the respondents.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See ``Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Blue
Field in the Antidumping Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms''
(``Blue Filed Verification Report''), dated February 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data
Partial Rescission
Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations provide that
the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that
requested the review withdraws its request for review within 90 days of
the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested
review, or withdraws it at a later date if the Department determines it
is reasonable to extend the time limit for withdrawing the request. The
Department initiated this administrative review on March 31, 2011. See
Initiation Notice, 76 FR 17825.
Petitioner withdrew its request for review for 18 exporters on May
6, 2011. Additionally, on June 27, 2011 petitioner withdrew its request
for review of Linyi City and for Zhangzhou Ganchang. Finally, on June
29, 2011, the petitioner filed a letter withdrawing its request for
review of XITIC. Because the party that requested this review has
timely withdrawn the request for review, we are rescinding this review
with respect to the following companies: (1) China National, (2) China
Processed, (3) Fujian Pinghe, (4) Fujian Yuxing, (5) Fujian Zishan, (6)
Guangxi Eastwing, (7) Guangxi Hengyong, (8) Jisheng, (9) Linyi City,
(10) Longhai Guangfa, (11) Primera Harvest, (12) Shandong Fengyu, (13)
Sun Wave Trading, (14) Xiamen Greenland, (15) Xiamen Gulong, (16)
Xiamen Jiahua, (17) XITIC, (18) Xiamen Longhuai, (19) Zhangzhou
Ganchang, (20) Zhangzhou Hongda, and (21) Zhangzhou Tongfa.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms,
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The
certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species
Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ``Certain Preserved
Mushrooms'' refers to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by
cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms
are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to,
cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not
limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Certain preserved
mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces.
Included within the scope of this order are ``brined'' mushrooms, which
are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally
preserve them for further processing.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms containing
less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the
antidumping duty order. See Recommendation Memorandum--Final Ruling
of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for ``Exclusion of Certain Marinated,
Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China'',
dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld this decision. See Tak Fat v.
United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All
other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and
chilled mushrooms, including ``refrigerated'' or ``quick blanched
mushrooms;'' (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5)
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms, which are
prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may
contain oil or other additives.
The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under
subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143,
2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, we
have treated the PRC as a non-market economy (``NME'') country.\8\ In
[[Page 13266]]
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the Department.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73
FR 76336 (December 16, 2008); and Frontseating Service Valves from
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical
Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 12, 2009).
\9\ See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China:
Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative
Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71
FR 66304 (November 14, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates Determination
It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of the
merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless an
exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government
control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to
exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to
be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department
analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test
established in Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991) (``Sparklers''), and amplified by 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'').
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that all firms that
wish to qualify for separate-rate status must complete, as appropriate,
either a separate-rate application or certification. See Initiation
Notice, 76 FR at 17826. To establish separate-rate eligibility, the
Department requires entities for which a review was requested that were
assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of the proceeding
in which they participated to certify that they continue to meet the
criteria for obtaining a separate rate. In this administrative review,
Ayecue, Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs, and Shandong Juifa (``the
separate-rate applicants'') each submitted a separate-rate
certification indicating they continued to meet the criteria for
obtaining a separate rate. Additionally, Blue Field and Xingda both
submitted a separate-rate certification and answered all the separate-
rate questions in our questionnaires. As such, we have determined that
Blue Field, Xingda, and the separate-rate applicants each provided
company-specific information and each stated that it met the criteria
for the assignment of a separate rate.
The Department's separate-rate test to determine whether the
exporter is independent from government control does not consider, in
general, macroeconomic/border-type controls (e.g., export licenses,
quotas, and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are
imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over
the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the
individual firm level.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine,
62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic
of China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR
61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
In this administrative review, Blue Field and Xingda demonstrated,
and the separate-rate applicants certified, that consistent with the
most recent segment of this proceeding in which the entities
participated and were granted a separate rate, there is an absence of
de jure government control of their respective exports.\11\ Each of the
separate-rate applicants certified to its separate-rate status.
Additionally, Blue Field, Xingda, and the separate-rate applicants
stated that their companies 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 our previous determinations of
the absence of de jure government control with regard to these
companies. Thus, we find that evidence on the record supports a
preliminary finding of an absence of de jure government control with
regard to the export activities of Blue Field, XITIC, and the separate-
rate applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The most recently completed segment of this proceeding in
which Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd.
participated and was granted separate rate status was Certain
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 73 FR 75083
(December 10, 2008). The most recently completed segment of this
proceeding in which Ayecue participated and was granted separate
rate status was Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 73 FR 21904 (April 23, 2008). The most recently completed
segment of this proceeding in which Blue Field participated and was
granted separate rate status was Certain Preserved Mushrooms from
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of the
Eighth New Shipper Review, 70 FR 60789 (October 19, 2005). The most
recently completed segment of this proceeding in which Shandong
Jiufa participated and was granted separate rate status was Notice
of Amended Final Results of Antidumping duty Administrative Review:
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 70
FR 60280 (October 17, 2005). The most recently completed segment of
this proceeding in which Xingda participated and was granted
separate rate status was Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review, 73 FR 45402 (August 5, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absence of De Facto Control
As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 1998). 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 Department
from assigning separate rates.
The Department typically considers the following four factors in
evaluating whether a respondent is subject to de facto government
control over its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are
set by, or subject to the approval of, a government agency; (2) whether
the respondent retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing
of losses; (3) whether the respondent has the authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other agreements; (4) whether the respondent has
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; 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).
The evidence provided by Blue Field, Xingda, and the separate-rate
applicants supports a preliminary finding of absence of de facto
government control based on the following facts: (1) The companies set
their own export prices independent of the government and without the
approval of a government
[[Page 13267]]
authority; (2) there is no restriction on any of the companies' use of
export revenue, nor the disposition of profits or financing of losses;
(3) the companies have authority to negotiate and sign contracts and
other agreements; (4) the companies have autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., Blue Field's June 21, 2011, Section A response
at A-1 through A-8; Xingda's September 6, 2011, Section A response
at A-1 through A-8, Ayecue April 18, 2011, separate rate
certification at 3-5; Golden Banyan May 27, 2011, separate rate
certification at 4-7, and Shandong Juifa separate rates
certification at 4-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in this administrative review we have no new
information on the record that would cause us to reconsider our
previous determinations of the absence of de facto government control
with regard to these companies. Therefore, the Department preliminarily
finds that Blue Field, Xingda and the separate-rate applicants have
established that they qualify for separate rates under the criteria
established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.
The PRC-Wide Entity
In addition to the separate-rate applications discussed above,
there was one company, Golden Banyan, for which we initiated a review
in this proceeding and which did not previously have a separate rate.
Because this company did not file a separate rate application to
demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this administrative
review or certify that it had no shipments, we preliminarily determine
that this company will remain part of the PRC-wide entity. See
Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 15680.
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most
circumstances, on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market
economy 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 utilize, to the extent possible, the
prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that
are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable to that of the
NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable
merchandise.\13\ From the countries that are both economically
comparable and significant producers, the Department will select a
primary surrogate country based upon whether the data for valuing FOPs
are both available and reliable.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market
Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004)
(``Policy Bulletin''), available on the Department's Web site at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/.
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Comparability
As explained in our surrogate country list, the Department
considers Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand,
and Ukraine all comparable to the PRC in economic development.\15\
Therefore, we consider all six counties on the Surrogate Country List
as having satisfied the comparable economic development prong of the
surrogate selection criteria.\16\ Furthermore, in Steel Wheels,\17\ the
Department stated:
\15\ See Memoandum from Carole Showers, Office of Policy to
Richard Weible, Office Director, Office 7, AD/CVD Operations RE:
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrroms
(Mushrooms) from the People's Republic of China (China) dated
October 12, 2011 (``Surrogate Country List'').
\16\ See section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act.
\17\ See Certain Steel Wheels From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Preliminary Deterrmination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of
Critical Circumstances, and Postponent of Final Determination, 76 FR
67703, 67708 (November 2, 2011) (``Steel Wheels'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
{U{time} nless we find that all of the countries determined to be
equally economically comparable are not significant producers of
comparable merchandise, do not provide a reliable source of publicly
available surrogate data or are unsuitable for use for other
reasons, we will rely on data from one of these countries.
Because the Department finds that one of these countries from the
Surrogate Country List meets the selection criteria, as explained
below, the Department will not consider India as the primary surrogate
country.
Significant Producers of Identical or Comparable Merchandise
Based on publicly available information placed on the record by
interested parties (e.g., production data), the Department determines
that Colombia, Ukraine, and the Philippines to be significant producers
of identical or comparable merchandise. Because Colombia has publicly
available and reliable data for all but two of the factors of
production, the Department has determined to use Colombia as the
primary surrogate country. Colombia is at a comparable level of
economic development pursuant to section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act, and
is a significant producer of the subject merchandise pursuant to
section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act. See Petitioner's January 6, 2012,
submission at Exhibit 1.\18\ Accordingly because Colombia meets all of
the criteria for selection as a surrogate country, the Department has
selected Colombia as the primary source for valuing surrogate values.
With the exception of mushroom spawn and land rent discussed below, the
Department used Colombia as the source of surrogate values in this
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Memorandum to the File through Robert James, Program
Manager Office 7 from Michael J. Heaney International Trade Analyst:
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Preserved
Mushrroms from the People's Republic of China, dated February 28,
2012 (``Factors Valuation Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For mushroom spawn and land rent, the Department was unable to find
surrogate value information from Colombia. For mushroom spawn, the
Department used mushroom data derived from Ukraine because, among the
six countries on the Surrogate Country List, Ukraine represented by HTS
category the most specific and reliable source of data for the input
among the six countries listed on the Surrogate Country List. For land
rent, the Department used data derived from the Philippines, since
these data were publicly available, specific to the production input in
question, and Philippine land rent was the only available source of
data among the six countries comprising our Surrogate Country List.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based Blue Field's
and Xingda's U.S. prices on export prices (``EP'') because their first
sales to unaffiliated purchasers were made before the date of
importation and the use of constructed export price (``CEP'') was not
otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. As appropriate, we
deducted foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling from
the starting price (or gross unit price), in accordance with section
772(c)(2) of the Act. Where these services were provided by NME
vendors, we based the deduction on surrogate values.
Both respondents used foreign inland freight via truck and train.
As previously stated, where applicable, we made deductions for these
expenses from the U.S. price. We valued truck and train freight using a
per-unit, POR-wide, average rate calculated from the
[[Page 13268]]
World Bank's Doing Business in Colombia study. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at page 11. We valued foreign brokerage and handling using
the publicly summarized brokerage and handling expense reported in the
World Bank's Doing Business in Colombia study. See Petitioner's January
6 Submission, at Exhibit 42; Surrogate Values Memorandum at page 11.
Because the record indicates that the material terms of Blue
Field's and Xingda's U.S. sales were established on the date of
invoice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), we determine that invoice date
is the appropriate date to use as the date of sale for these two
respondents. See Blue Field July 6, 2011, Section C response at C-8;
Xingda September 19, 2011, Section C response at C-8.
Normal Value
1. Methodology
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise under
review is exported from an NME and 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. The Department bases
NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various
aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under the Department's normal
methodologies.\19\ 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, including depreciation.
The Department based NV on FOPs reported by the respondents for
materials, energy, labor, and packing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744 (July 11, 2005),
unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
2003-2004 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 71
FR 2517 (January 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated
NV by adding the values of the FOPs, overhead, selling, general and
administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, profit, and packing costs.
2. Selection of Surrogate Values
In selecting the ``best available information for surrogate
values,'' consistent with the Department's preference, we considered
whether the potential surrogate value data on the record were: Publicly
available; product-specific; representative of broad market average
prices; contemporaneous with the POR; and free of taxes and import
duties.\20\ Where only surrogate values that were not contemporaneous
with the POR were available on the record of this administrative
review, we inflated the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the
Colombian WPI as published in International Financial Statistics by the
International Monetary Fund. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See, e.g., Drill Pipe From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, and
Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 51004 (August 18, 2010),
unchanged in Drill Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical
Circumstances, 76 FR 196 (January 11, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with these guidelines, we calculated surrogate
values, except as noted below, from import statistics of the primary
selected surrogate country, Colombia, from Global Trade Atlas
(``GTA''), as published by Global Trade Information Services. Our use
of GTA import data is in accordance with past practice and satisfies
all of our criteria for surrogate values noted above.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review, 74 FR 50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009), unchanged in
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520
(December 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After identifying appropriate surrogate values, we calculated NV by
multiplying the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by the
surrogate values. As appropriate, we also added freight costs to the
surrogate values that we calculated for the respondents' material
inputs to make these prices delivered prices. We calculated these
freight costs by multiplying surrogate freight rates by the shorter of
the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory that
produced the subject merchandise or the distance from the nearest
seaport to the factory that produced the subject merchandise, as
appropriate. Where there were multiple domestic suppliers of a material
input, we calculated a weighted-average distance after limiting each
supplier's distance to no more than the distance from the nearest
seaport to the factory of each of the two respondents. This adjustment
is in accordance with the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-
1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We increased the calculated costs of the FOPs
for surrogate general expenses and profit. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at page 12.
Because Colombian surrogate values were denominated in Colombian
Pesos, we converted these data to U.S. dollars (``USD'') using the
applicable average exchange rate based on exchange rate data from the
Department's Web site.
For further details regarding the specific surrogate values used
for direct materials, energy inputs, and packing materials in these
preliminary results, see the Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhbit 1.
To calculate the labor input, we based our calculation on the
methodology which the Department enunciated on June 21, 2011, in
Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-Market
Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June
21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies''). Prior to 2010, the Department used
regression-based wages that captured the worldwide relationship between
per capita Gross National Income and hourly manufacturing wages,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). On May 14, 2010, the Federal Circuit
in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F. 3d 1363, 1372-73 (Fed Cir.
2010) (``Dorbest''), invalidated part of that regulation. As a
consequence of the Federal Circuit's ruling in Dorbest, the Department
no longer relies on the regression-based methodology described in 19
CFR 351.408(c)(3).
In Labor Methodologies, the Department explained that the best
methodology to value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor
rates from the primary surrogate country. See Labor Methodologies, 76
FR at 36093. 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's (``ILO'')
Yearbook of Labor Statistics (``Yearbook''). See Labor Methodologies,
76 FR at 36093-36094.
Consistent with this methodology, to calculate labor expense in
this review, we used 2005 data from Colombia that falls under
International Standard Industrial Classification (``ISIC'') 15
``Manufacture of Food Products and Beverages'' in Chapter 6A of the
ILO' Yearbook. We used Colombian WPI data to inflate these values to
POR amounts. This results in a calculated labor rate of 10,863 Colombia
pesos per hour. Based on the reporting of financial ratios in this
review, we find that the facts and information on the record do not
warrant or permit an adjustment to the
[[Page 13269]]
surrogate financial statements. See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at
36094. Accordingly, we made no offset to the surrogate financial
statements in this review. A more detailed description of the wage rate
calculation methodology is provided in the Factors Valuation Memorandum
at page 9-10.
We offset the respondents' material costs for revenue generated
from the sale of tin scrap. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at page 12.
Finally, to value overhead, SG&A, and profit, we have preliminarily
determined that the 2010 financial statements of the Setas Colombianas
S.A. constitute the best information available. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at page 12.
Preliminary Results of the Review
The Department has determined that the following preliminary
dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2010, through January
31, 2011. Respondents other than mandatory respondents will receive the
weighted-average of the margins calculated for those companies selected
for individual review (i.e., mandatory respondents), excluding de
minimis margins or margins based entirely on adverse facts available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Field.................................................. 215.10
Xingda...................................................... 222.78
Ayecue...................................................... 215.41
Golden Banyan............................................... 215.41
Shandong Jiufa.............................................. 215.41
PRC-wide rate *............................................. 198.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes Zhangzhou Golden.
Public Comment
The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the
calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five
days of the date of publication of these preliminary results. See 19
CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit written comments (case
briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and
rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within five days after the time
limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and
351.309(d)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit
arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of
the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of
authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting
written comments concurrently provide a public version of those
comments.
In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Any interested
party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties who wish to request a
hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, and electronically file the request via the
Department's Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''). Id. An
electronically filed document must be received successfully in its
entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). Requests should contain: (1) The
party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See id. Issues
raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the briefs.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review, including the results of our
analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within
120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
Deadline for Submission of Publicly Available Surrogate Value
Information
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3), the deadline for
submission of publicly available information to value factors of
production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) is 20 days after the date of
publication of the preliminary determination. 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 has ten days to 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 notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. 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. 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.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of
the final results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific
assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review. Where the
respondent has reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer
or customer-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping
margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer or customer, and
dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each
importer or customer. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer or
customer-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we will
apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importers'/
customers' entries during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, we
calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping
duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer or customer and dividing
this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer or customer.
See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the duty assessment
rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer or customer-specific ad
valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where an importer
or customer-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
For the companies that were not selected for individual review, we
calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted-average of the cash
deposit rates calculated for companies selected for individual review,
where those rates were not de minimis or based on
[[Page 13270]]
adverse facts available, in accordance with Department practice.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements, when imposed, will be
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative
review for all shipments of 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 the exporters
listed above, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in the
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit 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 that 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; 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 cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
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.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 28, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-5413 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
