Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 13534-13539 [2012-5582]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13534
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–806]
Silicon Metal From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on silicon
metal from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’). The period of review
(‘‘POR’’) is June 1, 2010, through May
31, 2011. The Department has
preliminarily determined that the
mandatory respondent, Shanghai
Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Shanghai Jinneng’’), made sales of
subject merchandise to the United
States at prices below normal value
(‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of review,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the POR for which
the importer-specific assessment rates
are above de minimis.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
We intend to issue the final results no
later than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rebecca Pandolph or Howard Smith,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3627, and (202)
482–5193, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On June 10, 1991, the Department
published the antidumping duty order
on silicon metal from the PRC.1 On June
1, 2011, the Department published a
notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the order for
the June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011
POR.2 On June 30, 2011, the Department
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal
from the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 26649
(June 10, 1991).
2 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 31586
(June 1, 2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 Mar 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
received a timely request from Globe
Metallurgical Inc. (‘‘Petitioner’’) for an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on silicon
metal from the PRC for Shanghai
Jinneng.3 On July 28, 2011, the
Department initiated the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on silicon metal from the PRC for the
2010–2011 POR.4
On August 2, 2011, the Department
issued the antidumping questionnaire to
Shanghai Jinneng. Between September
2011 and January 2012, Shanghai
Jinneng responded to the Department’s
questionnaire and supplemental
questionnaires and Petitioner
commented on Shanghai Jinneng’s
responses.
In response to the Department’s
September 15, 2011, letter providing
parties with an opportunity to submit
comments regarding surrogate country
and surrogate value selection,5 Shanghai
Jinneng and Petitioner filed surrogate
country and surrogate value comments
on November 4, 2011 and rebuttal
comments on November 14, 2011.
On November 7, 2011, the Department
received a request from Petitioner to
verify the information submitted by
Shanghai Jinneng pursuant to 19 CFR
351.307(b)(1)(v) and for good cause.6 On
February 15, 2012, Petitioner submitted
comments for the Department’s
consideration in the preliminary results
and on February 21, 2012, Shanghai
Jinneng submitted rebuttal comments.7
3 See letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of
Commerce, regarding ‘‘Silicon Metal From the
People’s Republic of China; Request for 2010–11
Administrative Review,’’ dated June 30, 2011.
4 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,
Requests for Revocations in Part and Deferral of
Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 45227 (July 28,
2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
5 See Letter from Howard Smith, Program
Manager, Office 4, to All Interested Parties,
‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Silicon Metal from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated September 15, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate Country and
Values Letter’’).
6 See letter from Petitioner to the Honorable John
Bryson, Secretary of Commerce, regarding, ‘‘Silicon
Metal from the People’s Republic of China; 2010–
11 Administrative Review; Request for
Verification,’’ dated November 7, 2011. The
Department responded to this request in a
memorandum to the file from Rebecca Pandolph,
International Trade Analyst, Office 4, AD/CVD
Operations, regarding, ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Silicon Metal from the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated concurrently
with this notice.
7 See letter from Petitioner to the Honorable John
Bryson, Secretary of Commerce, regarding, ‘‘Silicon
Metal from the People’s Republic of China; 2010–
11 Administrative Review; Preliminary Results
Comments,’’ dated February 15, 2012 and letter
from Shanghai Jinneng to the Honorable John
Bryson, Secretary of Commerce, regarding, ‘‘Silicon
Metal from the People’s Republic of China:
Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd.—
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the order are
shipments of silicon metal containing at
least 96.00 but less than 99.99 percent
of silicon by weight. Also covered by
the order is silicon metal from the PRC
containing between 89.00 and 96.00
percent silicon by weight but which
contain a higher aluminum content than
the silicon metal containing at least
96.00 percent but less than 99.99
percent silicon by weight. Silicon metal
is currently provided for under
subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) as a
chemical product, but is commonly
referred to as a metal. Semiconductorgrade silicon (silicon metal containing
by weight not less than 99.99 percent of
silicon and provided for in subheading
2804.61.00 of the HTSUS) is not subject
to the order. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and for customs purposes,
the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country.8 In
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
administering authority. Accordingly,
we calculated NV in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies
to NME countries.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, there is a rebuttable
presumption that all companies within
the PRC are subject to government
control and, thus, should be assessed a
single antidumping duty rate.9
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department notified parties of the
Rebuttal to Petitioner’s Comments on the
Preliminary Results,’’ dated February 21, 2012.
8 See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9593 (March 5, 2009)
(unchanged in Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009)).
9 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical
Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper
Products From the People’s Republic of China, 71
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006), and Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts
Thereof From the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR
29303 (May 22, 2006).
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices
application process by which exporters
and producers may obtain separate rate
status in NME proceedings.10 It is the
Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to a
proceeding involving an NME country 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, companyspecific rate, the Department analyzes
each exporting entity in an NME
country under the test established in
Sparklers,11 as amplified by Silicon
Carbide.12 However, if the Department
determines that a company is wholly
foreign-owned or located in a market
economy (‘‘ME’’), then a separate rate
analysis is not necessary to determine
whether it is independent from
government control.13
Wholly Chinese-Owned
Shanghai Jinneng stated that it is a
wholly Chinese-owned company.14
Therefore, the Department must analyze
whether this respondent can
demonstrate the absence of both de jure
and de facto governmental control over
its export activities.
1. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.15
The evidence provided by Shanghai
Jinneng supports a preliminary finding
of a de jure absence of governmental
control based on the following: (1)
There is an absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with the
10 See
Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 45228.
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s Republic of
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’).
12 See 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’’).
13 See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles
From the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 52355,
52356 (September 13, 2007).
14 See Letter from Shanghai Jinneng to Rebecca M.
Blank, Acting Secretary of Commerce, regarding,
‘‘Silicon Metal from the People’s Republic of China:
Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd.—
Section A Questionnaire Response,’’ dated August
30, 2011 (‘‘Section A Response’’) at 2.
15 See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 Mar 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
company’s business and export licenses;
(2) there are applicable legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
PRC companies; and (3) there are formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of PRC
companies.16
2. Absence of De Facto Control
The Department considers four factors
in evaluating whether each respondent
is subject to de facto governmental
control of its export functions: (1)
Whether the export prices are set by or
are subject to the approval of a
governmental agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses.17 The Department has
determined that an analysis of de facto
control is critical in determining
whether respondents are, in fact, subject
to a degree of governmental control
which would preclude the Department
from assigning separate rates.
We determine that the evidence on
the record supports a preliminary
finding of a de facto absence of
governmental control with respect to
Shanghai Jinneng based on record
statements and supporting
documentation showing that the
company: (1) Sets its own export prices
independent of the government and
without the approval of a government
authority; (2) has the authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) has autonomy from the
government regarding the selection of
management; and (4) retains the
proceeds from its sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses.18
The evidence placed on the record of
this administrative review by Shanghai
Jinneng demonstrates an absence of de
jure and de facto government control
with respect to the company’s exports of
the merchandise under review, in
accordance with the criteria identified
in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
Therefore, we have preliminarily
16 See
Section A Response at 5–10.
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see
also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545
(May 8, 1995).
18 See Section A Response at 5–10.
17 See
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13535
granted Shanghai Jinneng separate rate
status.
Selection of a Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the
Department to base NV, in most cases,
on the NME producer’s factors of
production (‘‘FOP’’) valued in a
surrogate ME country or countries
considered appropriate by the
Department. In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department will
value FOP using ‘‘to the extent possible,
the prices or costs of factors of
production in one or more marketeconomy countries that are—(A) at a
level of economic development
comparable to that of the nonmarket
economy country, and (B) significant
producers of comparable merchandise.’’
Further, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.408(c)(2), the Department will
normally value FOP in a single country.
In the instant review, the Department
identified Colombia, Indonesia, the
Philippines, South Africa, Thailand and
Ukraine as a non-exhaustive list of
countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC
and for which good quality data is most
likely available.19 On January 13, 2010,
Petitioner and Shanghai Jinneng
proposed selecting Thailand as the
surrogate country because it is at a level
of economic development comparable to
the PRC and is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise.20 Petitioner
provided export data from Global Trade
Atlas (‘‘GTA’’) demonstrating that
during the POR, Thailand exported
14,022 metric tons of silicon metal
worldwide.21 With respect to data
considerations, in selecting a surrogate
country, it is the Department’s practice
that, ‘‘* * * if more than one country
has survived the selection process to
this point, the country with the best
factors data is selected as the primary
surrogate country.’’22 Currently, the
record contains surrogate value
information, including a surrogate
financial statement, only from Thailand.
The Department is preliminarily
19 See Surrogate Country and Values Letter at
Attachment 1.
20 See letter from Shanghai Jinneng to Rebecca M.
Blank, Acting Secretary of Commerce regarding,
‘‘Silicon Metal from the People’s Republic of
China,’’ dated November 4, 2011 (‘‘Shanghai
Jinneng’s SV Comments’’) at 1–2 and letter from
Petitioner to John Bryson, Secretary of Commerce
regarding, ‘‘Silicon Metal from the People’s
Republic of China; 2010–11 Administrative Review;
Comments on Surrogate Country Selection and
Submission of Surrogate Value Data’’ dated
November 4, 2011 (‘‘Petitioner’s SV Comments’’).
21 See Petitioner’s SV Comments at 4 and Exhibit
4.
22 See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy
Surrogate Country Selection Process, (March 1,
2004) available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov.
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
13536
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices
selecting Thailand as the surrogate
country on the basis that: (1) It is at a
comparable level of economic
development to the PRC, pursuant to
section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act; (2) it is
a significant producer of comparable
merchandise, pursuant to section
733(c)(4)(B) of the Act; and (3) we have
reliable data from Thailand that we can
use to value the FOP. Therefore, we
have calculated NV using Thai prices,
when available and appropriate, to
value Shanghai Jinneng’s FOP.23 In
accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may
submit publicly available information to
value FOP until 20 days after the date
of publication of the preliminary
results.24
Fair Value Comparisons
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2)
of the Act, to determine whether
Shanghai Jinneng sold silicon metal to
the United States at less than fair value,
we compared the export price (‘‘EP’’) of
the silicon metal to the NV of the silicon
metal, as described in the ‘‘Export
Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of
this notice.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, we used EP for all sales
reported by Shanghai Jinneng. We
calculated EP based on the packed
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or
23 See Memorandum to the File through Howard
Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, from Rebecca Pandolph, International
Trade Compliance Analyst, regarding
‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Silicon Metal from the People’s Republic of China:
Factor Valuation Memorandum,’’ dated March 1,
2012 (‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’).
24 Interested parties must provide the Department
with supporting documentation for the publicly
available information to value each FOP.
Additionally, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this
administrative review, interested parties may
submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or
correct factual information submitted by an
interested party less than ten days before, on, or
after, the applicable deadline for submission of
such factual information. 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.
The Department generally cannot accept the
submission of additional, previously absent-fromthe-record alternative surrogate value information
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See 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 (‘‘IDM’’) at Comment 2. Additionally,
for each piece of factual information submitted with
surrogate value rebuttal comments, the Department
is hereby requesting that the interested party
provide a written explanation of what information
that is already on the record of the ongoing
proceeding the factual information is rebutting,
clarifying, or correcting.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 Mar 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
for exportation to, the United States. We
made deductions, as appropriate, for
any movement expenses (e.g., foreign
inland freight from the plant to the port
of exportation, domestic brokerage,
international freight to the port of
importation) in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Where foreign
inland freight or foreign brokerage and
handling fees were provided by PRC
service providers or paid for in
renminbi, we based those charges on
surrogate values.25
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine NV
using an FOP methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME
country and the available information
does not permit the calculation of NV
using home-market prices, third-country
prices, or constructed value under
section 773(a) of the Act. When
determining NV in an NME context, the
Department uses an FOP methodology
because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of NMEs
renders price comparisons and the
calculation of production costs invalid
under its normal methodologies.26
Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOP
include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours
of labor required; (2) quantities of raw
materials employed; (3) amounts of
energy and other utilities consumed;
and (4) representative capital costs. The
Department based NV on FOP reported
by Shanghai Jinneng for materials,
energy, labor and packing.
Factor Valuation Methodology
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV by adding
together the values of the FOPs, general
expenses, profit, and packing costs. We
calculated FOP values by multiplying
the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available
surrogate values (except as discussed
below). In selecting the surrogate values,
we considered the quality, specificity,
and contemporaneity of the data.27 As
25 See
the ‘‘Factor Valuation Methodology’’
section for further discussion of surrogate values.
26 See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical
Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from
the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703
(April 17, 2006) (unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 (September 8,
2006)).
27 See, e.g., New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires
from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to Thai import surrogate values a Thai
surrogate freight cost using the shorter
of the reported distance from the
domestic supplier to the factory or the
distance from the nearest seaport to the
factory where appropriate. This
adjustment is in accordance with the
Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit’s (‘‘CAFC’’) decision in Sigma
Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401,
1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed
description of all surrogate values used
for Shanghai Jinneng can be found in
the Surrogate Value Memorandum.
In selecting the best available
information for valuing FOP in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the
Act, the Department’s practice is to
select, to the extent practicable,
surrogate values which are non-export
average values, contemporaneous or
closest in time with the POR, productspecific, and tax-exclusive.28 The record
shows that import data from Thailand’s
Customs Department, as published by
the GTA, as well as data from other Thai
sources used, are typically
contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific or for similar products,
and tax-exclusive.29 Thus, for these
preliminary results, in accordance with
its practice, the Department used data
from the Thailand Customs Department
and other publicly available sources
from Thailand in order to calculate
surrogate values for Shanghai Jinneng’s
FOP (direct materials and packing
materials) and certain movement
expenses.30 In those instances where we
could not obtain publicly available
surrogate values contemporaneous with
the POR with which to value FOPs, we
adjusted the surrogate values using,
where appropriate, the International
Monetary Fund’s Consumer Price Index
(‘‘CPI’’) for Thailand.31
Furthermore, with regard to
Thailand’s import-based surrogate
values, we have disregarded import
prices that we have reason to believe or
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008),
and accompanying IDM at Comment 9.
28 See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative
Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004)
(unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004)).
29 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 3–6.
30 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 1–2 and
Attachment 1.
31 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2 and
Attachment 3.
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
suspect may be subsidized. We have
reason to believe or suspect that prices
of inputs from India, Indonesia, South
Korea, and Thailand may have been
subsidized. We have found in other
proceedings that these countries
maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies and,
therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all
exports to all markets from these
countries may be subsidized.32
Further, guided by the legislative
history, it is the Department’s practice
not to conduct a formal investigation to
ensure that such prices are not
subsidized.33 Rather, the Department
bases its decision on information that is
available to it at the time it makes its
determination.34 Therefore, we have not
used prices from India, Indonesia, or
South Korea in calculating Thailand’s
import-based surrogate values.
Additionally, we disregarded prices
from NME countries. Furthermore,
imports that were labeled as originating
from an ‘‘unspecified’’ country were
excluded from the average value,
because the Department could not be
certain that they were not from either an
NME country or a country with general
export subsidies.35 Lastly, the
Department has also excluded imports
from Thailand into Thailand because
there is no evidence on the record
regarding what these data represent
(e.g., re-importations, another category
of unspecified imports, or the result of
an error in reporting). Thus, these data
32 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Color Television Receivers From the People’s
Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004),
and accompanying IDM at Comment 7; see also
Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final
Results of the Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review
of the Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257
(March 19, 2010), and accompanying IDM at 4–5;
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate
from Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset
Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and
accompanying IDM at 4; Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of
Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15,
2009), and accompanying IDM at 17, 19–20.
33 See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, Conference Report to accompany H.R. Rep.
100–576 at 590 (1988) reprinted in 1988
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623–24; see also Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic
of China, 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 2007) (unchanged
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People’s
Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007)).
34 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip from the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008)
(unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008)).
35 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 Mar 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
do not represent the best available
information upon which to rely for
valuation purposes.36
Previously to value the respondent’s
cost of labor, the Department used
regression-based wages that captured
the worldwide relationship between per
capita Gross National Income (‘‘GNI’’)
and hourly manufacturing wages,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
However, on May 14, 2010, the CAFC,
in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604
F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(‘‘Dorbest’’), invalidated 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3). As a consequence of the
CAFC’s ruling in Dorbest, the
Department no longer relies on the
regression-based wage rate methodology
described in its regulations. On
February 18, 2011, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
request for public comment on the
interim methodology, and the data
sources.37
On June 21, 2011, the Department
revised its methodology for valuing the
labor input in NME antidumping
proceedings.38 In Labor Methodologies,
the Department determined that the best
methodology to value the labor input is
to use industry-specific labor rates from
the primary surrogate country.
Additionally, the Department
determined that the best data source for
industry-specific labor rates is Chapter
6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from
the International Labor Organization
(‘‘ILO’’) Yearbook of Labor Statistics
(‘‘Yearbook’’).
In these preliminary results, the
Department calculated the labor input
using the data on industry specific labor
cost from the primary surrogate country
(i.e., Thailand), as described in Labor
Methodologies. The Department relied
on Chapter 6A labor cost data for
Thailand from the ILO’s Yearbook. The
Department used ILO Chapter 6A labor
cost data for the year 2000 because this
is the most recent Chapter 6A data
available for Thailand. The Department
further determined that the two-digit
description under ISIC–Revision 3–D
(‘‘Manufacture of Basic Metals’’) is the
best available information because it is
specific to the industry being examined
36 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9,
2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6.
37 See Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies:
Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, Request for
Comment, 76 FR 9544 (February 18, 2011).
38 See Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies:
Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (‘‘Labor Methodologies’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13537
and, therefore, is derived from
industries that produce comparable
merchandise. Accordingly, relying on
Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the
Department calculated the labor input
using labor cost data reported by
Thailand to the ILO under SubClassification 27 of the ISIC–Revision 3–
D, in accordance with section 773(c)(4)
of the Act. For these preliminary results,
the calculated industry-specific wage
rate is 81.96 baht per hour. The
Department inflated this value to the
POR using Thai CPI data. For further
information on the calculation of the
wage rate, see Surrogate Value
Memorandum at 5.
The ILO data from Chapter 6A of the
Yearbook, which was used to value
labor, reflects all costs related to labor,
including wages, benefits, housing,
training, etc. The financial statement
used to calculate the surrogate financial
ratios does not include itemized details
regarding the indirect labor costs
incurred. Therefore, the Department has
not made adjustments to the surrogate
financial ratios.
We valued all packing and direct
materials, except quartz, using Thai
import data from the GTA that are
contemporaneous with the POR. We
valued quartz using the price of
unground quartz in 2010 from Mineral
Statistics of Thailand 2006–2010 report
issued by the Thai Department of
Primary Industries and Mines.39
We valued electricity using data from
the Thai Provincial Electricity Authority
and Electricity Generating Authority of
Thailand as reported by the Thailand
Board of Investment in its 2011
publication Costs of Doing Business in
Thailand for large general services at a
voltage of 22–33 kilovolts. These
electricity rates represent actual
country-wide, publicly available
information on tax-exclusive electricity
rates in Thailand. As the rates were in
effect during the POR, we are not
adjusting the average value for
inflation.40
We valued truck freight expenses
using a per-unit average rate from the
Express Transportation Organization of
Thailand as reported in Thailand Board
of Investment’s 2011 publication, Costs
of Doing Business in Thailand.41
Because the rate is from August 2005,
we inflated this rate to a POR rate using
Thai CPI data.
We valued railway freight using price
data from State Railway of Thailand as
reported in Thailand Board of
Investment’s 2011 publication, Costs of
39 See
Surrogate Value Memorandum at 4.
Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6.
41 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7.
40 See
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
13538
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices
Doing Business in Thailand.42 Because
the rate is from August 2011, we
deflated it to the POR using Thai CPI
data.
We valued ocean freight using price
data from Profreight International Co.,
Ltd., as reported in Thailand Board of
Investment’s 2011 publication, Costs of
Doing Business in Thailand.43
We valued brokerage and handling
using a price list of export procedures
necessary to export a standardized cargo
of goods in Thailand for a 20 foot
container published in the World Bank
publication, Doing Business 2012:
Thailand.44
Lastly, we valued selling, general and
administrative expenses, factory
overhead costs, and profit using the
contemporaneous 2010 financial
statement of GS Energy Co., Ltd., a Thai
producer of silicon metal, which is
identical to subject merchandise.45
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, we made currency
conversions into U.S. dollars, in
accordance with section 773A(a) of the
Act, based on the exchange rates in
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.46
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the
following dumping margin exists for the
period June 1, 2010 through May 31,
2011.
SILICON METAL FROM THE PRC
Exporter
Margin
(percentage)
Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd. ....
5.5
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Disclosure
The Department intends to disclose
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within
10 days of the date of the public
announcement of the results of this
review in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
Comments
Interested parties may submit written
comments no later than 30 days after the
date of publication of these preliminary
results of review.47 Rebuttal comments
must be limited to the issues raised in
the written comments and may be filed
no later than five days after the time
42 See
Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8.
Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8.
44 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6.
45 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 10.
46 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2.
47 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
limit for filing the case briefs.48
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, filed electronically using
Import Administration’s Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the Department’s
electronic records system, IA ACCESS,
by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within
30 days after the date of publication of
this notice.49 Requests should contain
the party’s name, address, and
telephone number, the number of
participants, and a list of the issues to
be discussed. If a request for a hearing
is made, we will inform parties of the
scheduled date for the hearing which
will be held at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at
a time and location to be determined.50
Parties should confirm by telephone the
date, time, and location of the hearing.
The Department will issue the final
results of the administrative review,
which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in the briefs,
within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, in accordance with
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless
the time limit is extended.
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 to CBP 15 days
after the publication date of the final
results of this review. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are
calculating customer-specific
assessment rates for the merchandise
subject to this review. Because we do
not have entered values for all U.S. sales
to a particular importer/customer, we
calculate a per-unit assessment rate by
aggregating the antidumping duties due
for all U.S. sales to that importer (or
customer) and dividing this amount by
the total quantity sold to that importer
(or customer).51 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 customerspecific ad valorem ratios based on the
43 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 Mar 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
48 See
19 CFR 351.309(d).
19 CFR 351.310(c).
50 See 19 CFR 351.310.
51 See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
49 See
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
estimated entered value. Where a
customer-specific ad valorem rate is
zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP
to liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties.52
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the
exporter listed above, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate established in the
final results of this review (except, if the
rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than
0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate will
be required for that company); (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters not listed above
that have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise that
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 139.49 53
percent; and (4) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not received their own rate, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and
publishing these preliminary results of
administrative review in accordance
with sections751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
52 See
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Metal from the People’s
Republic of China, 56 FR 18570, 18571–2 (April 23,
1991).
53 See
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices
Dated: March 1, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–5582 Filed 3–6–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–933]
Frontseating Service Valves From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Second Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurel LaCivita or Brooke Kennedy, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4243 or (202) 482–
3818, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
On May 27, 2011, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published in the Federal Register a
notice of initiation of an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on frontseating service valves from the
People’s Republic of China for the
period April 1, 2010, through March 31,
2011.1 On December 13, 2011, the
Department extended the deadline for
the preliminary results by 90 days, to
March 30, 2012.2
Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary
Results
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), the Department shall make a
preliminary determination in an
administrative review of an
antidumping duty order within 245
days after the last day of the anniversary
month of the date of publication of the
order. The Act further provides,
however, that the Department may
1 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR
30912 (May 27, 2011).
2 See Frontseating Service Valves from the
People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time for
the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 77479 (December 13,
2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 Mar 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
13539
extend that 245-day period to 365 days
if it determines it is not practicable to
complete the review within the
foregoing time period.
We determine that completion of the
preliminary results of this review by
March 30, 2012, is not practicable
because the Department requires
additional time to analyze information
pertaining to the respondents’ sales
practices, factors of production, as well
as issue and review responses to
supplemental questionnaires. Therefore,
in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Act, we are extending the time
limit for completion of the preliminary
results of this administrative review by
30 additional days, until April 29, 2012.
However, because April 29, 2012, falls
on a weekend, the preliminary results
are now due no later than April 30,
2012.3
This notice is published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
our final results of the review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise during
the POR.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
We intend to issue the final results no
later than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’).
DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit
Astvatsatrian or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–6412 and (202)
482–0650, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: March 1, 2012.
Gary Taverman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
Background
[FR Doc. 2012–5580 Filed 3–6–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–868]
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on folding
metal tables and chairs from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).
The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is June 1,
2010, through May 31, 2011. The 2010–
2011 administrative review covers Feili
Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd. and Feili
Furniture Development Limited
Quanzhou City (collectively, ‘‘Feili’’).
We have preliminarily determined that
Feili made sales in the United States at
prices below normal value (‘‘NV’’)
during the period of review (‘‘POR’’). If
these preliminary results are adopted in
AGENCY:
3 See Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next
Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative
Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act
of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
On June 27, 2002, the Department
published the antidumping duty order
on folding metal tables and chairs from
the PRC.1 On June 1, 2010, the
Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of this order for the period June
1, 2009, through May 31, 2010.2 In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b),
interested parties made the following
requests for an administrative review:
(1) On June 28, 2011, Meco Corporation
(‘‘Meco’’), a domestic producer of the
like product, requested that the
Department conduct an administrative
review of Feili and of New-Tec
Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (NewTec), a producer and exporter of subject
merchandise to the United States; (2) on
June 29, 2011, Feili requested that the
Department conduct an administrative
review of its sales; (3) on June 30, 2011,
Cosco Home & Office Products
(‘‘Cosco’’), a U.S. importer of subject
merchandise, requested that the
Department conduct an administrative
review of Feili and New-Tec; and (4) on
June 30, 2011, New-Tec requested that
the Department revoke the antidumping
duty order with respect to exports of
subject merchandise manufactured and
exported by New-Tec and defer the
initiation of its review for the current
POR. On July 28, 2011, the Department
initiated the 2010–2011 review for Feili
1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs From the People’s Republic of
China, 67 FR 43277 (June 27, 2002).
2 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 31586
(June 1, 2011).
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13534-13539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5582]
[[Page 13534]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-806]
Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the People's
Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of review (``POR'') is June 1,
2010, through May 31, 2011. The Department has preliminarily determined
that the mandatory respondent, Shanghai Jinneng International Trade
Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Jinneng''), made sales of subject merchandise to
the United States at prices below normal value (``NV''). If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the POR for
which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days
from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Pandolph or Howard Smith, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3627, and (202) 482-5193, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On June 10, 1991, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on silicon metal from the PRC.\1\ On June 1, 2011, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review
of the order for the June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011 POR.\2\ On June
30, 2011, the Department received a timely request from Globe
Metallurgical Inc. (``Petitioner'') for an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the PRC for Shanghai
Jinneng.\3\ On July 28, 2011, the Department initiated the
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal
from the PRC for the 2010-2011 POR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal from the People's
Republic of China, 56 FR 26649 (June 10, 1991).
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 76 FR 31586 (June 1, 2011).
\3\ See letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce,
regarding ``Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China;
Request for 2010-11 Administrative Review,'' dated June 30, 2011.
\4\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocations in Part and
Deferral of Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 45227 (July 28, 2011)
(``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 2, 2011, the Department issued the antidumping
questionnaire to Shanghai Jinneng. Between September 2011 and January
2012, Shanghai Jinneng responded to the Department's questionnaire and
supplemental questionnaires and Petitioner commented on Shanghai
Jinneng's responses.
In response to the Department's September 15, 2011, letter
providing parties with an opportunity to submit comments regarding
surrogate country and surrogate value selection,\5\ Shanghai Jinneng
and Petitioner filed surrogate country and surrogate value comments on
November 4, 2011 and rebuttal comments on November 14, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Letter from Howard Smith, Program Manager, Office 4, to
All Interested Parties, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China,'' dated September
15, 2011 (``Surrogate Country and Values Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 7, 2011, the Department received a request from
Petitioner to verify the information submitted by Shanghai Jinneng
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(v) and for good cause.\6\ On February
15, 2012, Petitioner submitted comments for the Department's
consideration in the preliminary results and on February 21, 2012,
Shanghai Jinneng submitted rebuttal comments.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See letter from Petitioner to the Honorable John Bryson,
Secretary of Commerce, regarding, ``Silicon Metal from the People's
Republic of China; 2010-11 Administrative Review; Request for
Verification,'' dated November 7, 2011. The Department responded to
this request in a memorandum to the file from Rebecca Pandolph,
International Trade Analyst, Office 4, AD/CVD Operations, regarding,
``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Silicon Metal from the
People's Republic of China,'' dated concurrently with this notice.
\7\ See letter from Petitioner to the Honorable John Bryson,
Secretary of Commerce, regarding, ``Silicon Metal from the People's
Republic of China; 2010-11 Administrative Review; Preliminary
Results Comments,'' dated February 15, 2012 and letter from Shanghai
Jinneng to the Honorable John Bryson, Secretary of Commerce,
regarding, ``Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China:
Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd.--Rebuttal to
Petitioner's Comments on the Preliminary Results,'' dated February
21, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the order are shipments of silicon metal
containing at least 96.00 but less than 99.99 percent of silicon by
weight. Also covered by the order is silicon metal from the PRC
containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight but which
contain a higher aluminum content than the silicon metal containing at
least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight.
Silicon metal is currently provided for under subheadings 2804.69.10
and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'') as a chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a
metal. Semiconductor-grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight
not less than 99.99 percent of silicon and provided for in subheading
2804.61.00 of the HTSUS) is not subject to the order. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs
purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country.\8\ In
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 administering authority. Accordingly, we calculated NV
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 74
FR 9591, 9593 (March 5, 2009) (unchanged in Certain Kitchen
Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656
(July 24, 2009)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, there is a rebuttable
presumption that all companies within the PRC are subject to government
control and, thus, should be assessed a single antidumping duty
rate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006), and Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the
[[Page 13535]]
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain
separate rate status in NME proceedings.\10\ It is the Department's
policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to a proceeding
involving an NME country 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 Sparklers,\11\
as amplified by Silicon Carbide.\12\ However, if the Department
determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a
market economy (``ME''), then a separate rate analysis is not necessary
to determine whether it is independent from government control.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 45228.
\11\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991) (``Sparklers'').
\12\ See 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'').
\13\ See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China,
72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wholly Chinese-Owned
Shanghai Jinneng stated that it is a wholly Chinese-owned
company.\14\ Therefore, the Department must analyze whether this
respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over its export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Letter from Shanghai Jinneng to Rebecca M. Blank,
Acting Secretary of Commerce, regarding, ``Silicon Metal from the
People's Republic of China: Shanghai Jinneng International Trade
Co., Ltd.--Section A Questionnaire Response,'' dated August 30, 2011
(``Section A Response'') at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by Shanghai Jinneng supports a preliminary
finding of a de jure absence of governmental control based on the
following: (1) There is an absence of restrictive stipulations
associated with the company's business and export licenses; (2) there
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of PRC
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of PRC companies.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Section A Response at 5-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Absence of De Facto Control
The Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to
the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the respondent has
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3)
whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making
decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the
respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of
losses.\17\ The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto
control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact,
subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the
Department from assigning separate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May
8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We determine that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary
finding of a de facto absence of governmental control with respect to
Shanghai Jinneng based on record statements and supporting
documentation showing that the company: (1) Sets its own export prices
independent of the government and without the approval of a government
authority; (2) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and
other agreements; (3) has autonomy from the government regarding the
selection of management; and (4) retains the proceeds from its sales
and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Section A Response at 5-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence placed on the record of this administrative review by
Shanghai Jinneng demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto
government control with respect to the company's exports of the
merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria identified in
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we have preliminarily granted
Shanghai Jinneng separate rate status.
Selection of a Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV, in
most cases, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOP'')
valued in a surrogate ME country or countries considered appropriate by
the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the
Department will value FOP using ``to the extent possible, the prices or
costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy countries
that are--(A) at a level of economic development comparable to that of
the nonmarket economy country, and (B) significant producers of
comparable merchandise.'' Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2),
the Department will normally value FOP in a single country.
In the instant review, the Department identified Colombia,
Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand and Ukraine as a
non-exhaustive list of countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC and for which good quality data is
most likely available.\19\ On January 13, 2010, Petitioner and Shanghai
Jinneng proposed selecting Thailand as the surrogate country because it
is at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC and is a
significant producer of comparable merchandise.\20\ Petitioner provided
export data from Global Trade Atlas (``GTA'') demonstrating that during
the POR, Thailand exported 14,022 metric tons of silicon metal
worldwide.\21\ With respect to data considerations, in selecting a
surrogate country, it is the Department's practice that, ``* * * if
more than one country has survived the selection process to this point,
the country with the best factors data is selected as the primary
surrogate country.''\22\ Currently, the record contains surrogate value
information, including a surrogate financial statement, only from
Thailand. The Department is preliminarily
[[Page 13536]]
selecting Thailand as the surrogate country on the basis that: (1) It
is at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC, pursuant
to section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act; (2) it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise, pursuant to section 733(c)(4)(B) of the Act;
and (3) we have reliable data from Thailand that we can use to value
the FOP. Therefore, we have calculated NV using Thai prices, when
available and appropriate, to value Shanghai Jinneng's FOP.\23\ In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may submit
publicly available information to value FOP until 20 days after the
date of publication of the preliminary results.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Surrogate Country and Values Letter at Attachment 1.
\20\ See letter from Shanghai Jinneng to Rebecca M. Blank,
Acting Secretary of Commerce regarding, ``Silicon Metal from the
People's Republic of China,'' dated November 4, 2011 (``Shanghai
Jinneng's SV Comments'') at 1-2 and letter from Petitioner to John
Bryson, Secretary of Commerce regarding, ``Silicon Metal from the
People's Republic of China; 2010-11 Administrative Review; Comments
on Surrogate Country Selection and Submission of Surrogate Value
Data'' dated November 4, 2011 (``Petitioner's SV Comments'').
\21\ See Petitioner's SV Comments at 4 and Exhibit 4.
\22\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate
Country Selection Process, (March 1, 2004) available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov.
\23\ See Memorandum to the File through Howard Smith, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, from Rebecca Pandolph,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, regarding ``Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of
China: Factor Valuation Memorandum,'' dated March 1, 2012
(``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
\24\ Interested parties must provide the Department with
supporting documentation for the publicly available information to
value each FOP. Additionally, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this administrative review,
interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify,
or correct factual information submitted by an interested party less
than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for
submission of such factual information. 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. The Department generally cannot accept the submission of
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See 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
(``IDM'') at Comment 2. Additionally, for each piece of factual
information submitted with surrogate value rebuttal comments, the
Department is hereby requesting that the interested party provide a
written explanation of what information that is already on the
record of the ongoing proceeding the factual information is
rebutting, clarifying, or correcting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, to determine
whether Shanghai Jinneng sold silicon metal to the United States at
less than fair value, we compared the export price (``EP'') of the
silicon metal to the NV of the silicon metal, as described in the
``Export Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for all
sales reported by Shanghai Jinneng. We calculated EP based on the
packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the
United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement
expenses (e.g., foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of
exportation, domestic brokerage, international freight to the port of
importation) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Where
foreign inland freight or foreign brokerage and handling fees were
provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based
those charges on surrogate values.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See the ``Factor Valuation Methodology'' section for
further discussion of surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported
from an NME country and the available information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining NV
in an NME context, the Department uses an FOP methodology because the
presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders
price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under
its normal methodologies.\26\ Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOP
include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2)
quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other
utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. The
Department based NV on FOP reported by Shanghai Jinneng for materials,
energy, labor and packing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products
from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703 (April 17,
2006) (unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuation Methodology
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV by
adding together the values of the FOPs, general expenses, profit, and
packing costs. We calculated FOP values by multiplying the reported
per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available surrogate
values (except as discussed below). In selecting the surrogate values,
we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the
data.\27\ As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight
costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Thai
import surrogate values a Thai surrogate freight cost using the shorter
of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or
the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate.
This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit's (``CAFC'') decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States,
117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all
surrogate values used for Shanghai Jinneng can be found in the
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See, e.g., New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales
at Less than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008), and
accompanying IDM at Comment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In selecting the best available information for valuing FOP in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice
is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are
non-export average values, contemporaneous or closest in time with the
POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\28\ The record shows that
import data from Thailand's Customs Department, as published by the
GTA, as well as data from other Thai sources used, are typically
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific or for similar products,
and tax-exclusive.\29\ Thus, for these preliminary results, in
accordance with its practice, the Department used data from the
Thailand Customs Department and other publicly available sources from
Thailand in order to calculate surrogate values for Shanghai Jinneng's
FOP (direct materials and packing materials) and certain movement
expenses.\30\ In those instances where we could not obtain publicly
available surrogate values contemporaneous with the POR with which to
value FOPs, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate,
the International Monetary Fund's Consumer Price Index (``CPI'') for
Thailand.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004) (unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004)).
\29\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 3-6.
\30\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 1-2 and Attachment 1.
\31\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2 and Attachment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, with regard to Thailand's import-based surrogate
values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to
believe or
[[Page 13537]]
suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that
prices of inputs from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may
have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to
all markets from these countries may be subsidized.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's
Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004), and accompanying
IDM at Comment 7; see also Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India:
Final Results of the Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010), and
accompanying IDM at 4-5; Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel
Plate from Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review, 70
FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying IDM at 4; Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea:
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
2512 (January 15, 2009), and accompanying IDM at 17, 19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, guided by the legislative history, it is the Department's
practice not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such
prices are not subsidized.\33\ Rather, the Department bases its
decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes
its determination.\34\ Therefore, we have not used prices from India,
Indonesia, or South Korea in calculating Thailand's import-based
surrogate values. Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME
countries. Furthermore, imports that were labeled as originating from
an ``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value,
because the Department could not be certain that they were not from
either an NME country or a country with general export subsidies.\35\
Lastly, the Department has also excluded imports from Thailand into
Thailand because there is no evidence on the record regarding what
these data represent (e.g., re-importations, another category of
unspecified imports, or the result of an error in reporting). Thus,
these data do not represent the best available information upon which
to rely for valuation purposes.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988,
Conference Report to accompany H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988)
reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24; see also Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet
Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758 (June 4,
2007) (unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China,
72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007)).
\34\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008) (unchanged
in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008)).
\35\ Id.
\36\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9, 2010)
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously to value the respondent's cost of labor, the Department
used regression-based wages that captured the worldwide relationship
between per capita Gross National Income (``GNI'') and hourly
manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). However, on May
14, 2010, the CAFC, in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Dorbest''), invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
As a consequence of the CAFC's ruling in Dorbest, the Department no
longer relies on the regression-based wage rate methodology described
in its regulations. On February 18, 2011, the Department published in
the Federal Register a request for public comment on the interim
methodology, and the data sources.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, Request
for Comment, 76 FR 9544 (February 18, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings.\38\ In Labor
Methodologies, the Department determined that the best methodology to
value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor rates from the
primary surrogate country. Additionally, the Department determined that
the best data source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A:
Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from the International Labor Organization
(``ILO'') Yearbook of Labor Statistics (``Yearbook'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In these preliminary results, the Department calculated the labor
input using the data on industry specific labor cost from the primary
surrogate country (i.e., Thailand), as described in Labor
Methodologies. The Department relied on Chapter 6A labor cost data for
Thailand from the ILO's Yearbook. The Department used ILO Chapter 6A
labor cost data for the year 2000 because this is the most recent
Chapter 6A data available for Thailand. The Department further
determined that the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 3-D
(``Manufacture of Basic Metals'') is the best available information
because it is specific to the industry being examined and, therefore,
is derived from industries that produce comparable merchandise.
Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the Department
calculated the labor input using labor cost data reported by Thailand
to the ILO under Sub-Classification 27 of the ISIC-Revision 3-D, in
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act. For these preliminary
results, the calculated industry-specific wage rate is 81.96 baht per
hour. The Department inflated this value to the POR using Thai CPI
data. For further information on the calculation of the wage rate, see
Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5.
The ILO data from Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, which was used to
value labor, reflects all costs related to labor, including wages,
benefits, housing, training, etc. The financial statement used to
calculate the surrogate financial ratios does not include itemized
details regarding the indirect labor costs incurred. Therefore, the
Department has not made adjustments to the surrogate financial ratios.
We valued all packing and direct materials, except quartz, using
Thai import data from the GTA that are contemporaneous with the POR. We
valued quartz using the price of unground quartz in 2010 from Mineral
Statistics of Thailand 2006-2010 report issued by the Thai Department
of Primary Industries and Mines.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued electricity using data from the Thai Provincial
Electricity Authority and Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
as reported by the Thailand Board of Investment in its 2011 publication
Costs of Doing Business in Thailand for large general services at a
voltage of 22-33 kilovolts. These electricity rates represent actual
country-wide, publicly available information on tax-exclusive
electricity rates in Thailand. As the rates were in effect during the
POR, we are not adjusting the average value for inflation.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate from
the Express Transportation Organization of Thailand as reported in
Thailand Board of Investment's 2011 publication, Costs of Doing
Business in Thailand.\41\ Because the rate is from August 2005, we
inflated this rate to a POR rate using Thai CPI data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued railway freight using price data from State Railway of
Thailand as reported in Thailand Board of Investment's 2011
publication, Costs of
[[Page 13538]]
Doing Business in Thailand.\42\ Because the rate is from August 2011,
we deflated it to the POR using Thai CPI data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued ocean freight using price data from Profreight
International Co., Ltd., as reported in Thailand Board of Investment's
2011 publication, Costs of Doing Business in Thailand.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export
procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in
Thailand for a 20 foot container published in the World Bank
publication, Doing Business 2012: Thailand.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, we valued selling, general and administrative expenses,
factory overhead costs, and profit using the contemporaneous 2010
financial statement of GS Energy Co., Ltd., a Thai producer of silicon
metal, which is identical to subject merchandise.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in
accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists
for the period June 1, 2010 through May 31, 2011.
Silicon Metal From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Exporter (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd.......... 5.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within 10 days of the date of the
public announcement of the results of this review in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
Comments
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of
review.\47\ Rebuttal comments must be limited to the issues raised in
the written comments and may be filed no later than five days after the
time limit for filing the case briefs.\48\ 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, filed electronically using
Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''). An electronically filed
document must be received successfully in its entirety by the
Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice.\49\ Requests should contain the party's name, address, and
telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues
to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform
parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined.\50\
Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the
hearing. The Department will issue the final results of the
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in the briefs, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act, unless the time limit is extended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
\48\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
\49\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\50\ See 19 CFR 351.310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final
results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are
calculating customer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise
subject to this review. Because we do not have entered values for all
U.S. sales to a particular importer/customer, we calculate a per-unit
assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S.
sales to that importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the
total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).\51\ 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
customer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered
value. Where a customer-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis,
we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\52\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be
required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed
PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of
subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of
139.49 \53\ percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied
that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 18570,
18571-2 (April 23, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results
of administrative review in accordance with sections751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
[[Page 13539]]
Dated: March 1, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-5582 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
