Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 17013-17017 [2012-7060]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 57 (Friday, March 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17013-17017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7060]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-908]


Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') is conducting 
the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
sodium hexametaphosphate (``sodium hex'') from the People's Republic of 
China (``PRC'') for the period of review (``POR'') March 1, 2010, 
through February 28, 2011. The Department has preliminarily determined 
that sales have been made below normal value (``NV'') by Hubei Xingfa 
Chemical Group Co., Ltd. (``Hubei Xingfa''). If these preliminary 
results are adopted in the final results of this review, the Department 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise 
during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: March 23, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington DC 20230; telephone 202.482.0413.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case Schedule

    On April 27, 2011, the Department published the notice of 
initiation of the administrative review of sodium hex from the PRC for 
one company, Hubei Xingfa.\1\ On November 18, 2011 the Department 
extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this review to 
January 30, 2012.\2\ On January 25, 2012, the Department extended the 
deadline for the preliminary results of this review to March 15, 
2012.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 23545 (April 27, 2011) 
(``Initiation'').
    \2\ See Second Administrative Review of Sodium Hexametaphosphate 
From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Preliminary 
Results, 76 FR 73599 (November 29, 2011).
    \3\ See Second Administrative Review of Sodium Hexametaphosphate 
From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Preliminary 
Results, 77 FR 6060 (February 7, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submissions by Interested Parties

    On April 29, 2011, the Department issued Hubei Xingfa the 
antidumping duty questionnaire. From June 3, 2011, to January 20, 2012, 
Hubei Xingfa submitted responses to the Department's antidumping duty 
questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires.
    On June 6, 2011, the Department sent interested parties a letter 
inviting comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate value 
(``SV'') data.\4\ Between September 15, 2011, and January 20, 2012, 
Hubei Xingfa and Petitioners \5\ submitted comments on surrogate 
country selection and information to value factors of production 
(``FOP'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See letter to All Interested Parties, ``Second 
Administrative Review of Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's 
Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country,'' dated June 6, 
2011 (``Surrogate Country Letter'').
    \5\ ICL Performance Products and Innophos, Inc. (collectively, 
``Petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this review is sodium hexametaphosphate. 
Sodium hexametaphosphate is a water-soluble polyphosphate glass that 
consists of a distribution of polyphosphate chain lengths. It is a 
collection of sodium polyphosphate polymers built on repeating 
NaPO3 units. Sodium hexametaphosphate has a 
P2O5 content from 60 to 71 percent. Alternate 
names for sodium hexametaphosphate include the following: Calgon; 
Calgon S; Glassy Sodium Phosphate; Sodium Polyphosphate, Glassy; 
Metaphosphoric Acid; Sodium Salt; Sodium Acid Metaphosphate; Graham's 
Salt; Sodium Hex; Polyphosphoric Acid, Sodium Salt; Glass H; Hexaphos; 
Sodaphos; Vitrafos; and BAC-N-FOS. Sodium hexametaphosphate is 
typically sold as a white powder or granule (crushed) and may also be 
sold in the form of sheets (glass) or as a liquid solution. It is 
imported under heading 2835.39.5000, HTSUS. It may also be imported as 
a blend or mixture under heading 3824.90.3900, HTSUS. The American 
Chemical Society, Chemical Abstract Service (``CAS'') has assigned the 
name ``Polyphosphoric Acid, Sodium Salt'' to sodium hexametaphosphate. 
The CAS registry number is 68915-31-1. However, sodium 
hexametaphosphate is commonly identified by CAS No. 10124-56-8 in the 
market. For purposes of the review, the narrative description is 
dispositive, not the tariff heading, CAS registry number or CAS name.
    The product covered by this review includes sodium 
hexametaphosphate in

[[Page 17014]]

all grades, whether food grade or technical grade. The product covered 
by this review includes sodium hexametaphosphate without regard to 
chain length i.e., whether regular or long chain. The product covered 
by this review includes sodium hexametaphosphate without regard to 
physical form, whether glass, sheet, crushed, granule, powder, fines, 
or other form, and whether or not in solution.
    However, the product covered by this review does not include sodium 
hexametaphosphate when imported in a blend with other materials in 
which the sodium hexametaphosphate accounts for less than 50 percent by 
volume of the finished product.

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. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), any determination that a foreign country is an 
NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering 
authority.\6\ None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such 
treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 
773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 
Administrative Review and Preliminary Notice of Intent To Rescind 
the 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 26736 (May 8, 2006), 
unchanged in 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

    A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is 
revoked by the Department.\7\ Accordingly, 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.
    \8\ See 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, the Department notified parties of the 
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate rate status in NME proceedings.\9\ 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), as 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). In this 
administrative review, the Department received a completed response to 
the Section A portion of the NME antidumping questionnaire from Hubei 
Xingfa, which contained information pertaining to the company's 
eligibility for a separate rate.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Initiation.
    \10\ See Hubei Xingfa's Section A questionnaire response dated 
June 3, 2011 (``AQR'') and Hubei Xingfa's supplemental Section A 
questionnaire response dated October 24, 2011 (``SAQR'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of 
companies.\11\ The evidence provided by Hubei Xingfa supports a 
preliminary finding of de jure absence of government control based on 
the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated 
with Hubei Xingfa's business and export licenses; (2) there are 
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; 
and (3) there are formal measures by the government decentralizing 
control of companies.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    \12\ See Hubei Xingfa's AQR at 1-5 and Exhibits 4 and 5; see 
also Hubei Xingfa's SAQR at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a government 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.\13\ 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 government control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates. The evidence provided by 
Hubei Xingfa supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of 
government control based on the following: (1) The company sets its own 
export prices independent of the government, and without the approval 
of a government authority; (2) the company has authority to negotiate 
and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) the company has autonomy 
from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of 
management; and (4) there is no restriction on the company's use of 
export revenue.\14\ Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that 
Hubei Xingfa has established that it qualifies for a separate rate 
under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Silicon Cafrbide, 59 FR at 22587; 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).
    \14\ See Hubei Xingfa's AQR at 5-9 and Exhibit 7; see also Hubei 
Xingfa's SAQR at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    When the Department investigates 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 at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME 
country and significant producers of comparable merchandise. The 
sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal 
Value'' section below and in the surrogate values memorandum.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Memorandum to the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, 
Program Manager, Office 9, from Paul Walker, Case Analyst, Office 9, 
``Second Administrative Review of Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the 
People's Republic of China: Surrogate Factor Valuations for the 
Preliminary Results,'' dated concurrently with this notice 
(``Surrogate Values Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the ``Non-Market Economy Country Status'' section, 
above, the Department considers the

[[Page 17015]]

PRC to be an NME country. The Department determined that Colombia, 
Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand and Ukraine are 
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.\16\ 
Moreover, it is the Department's practice to select an appropriate 
surrogate country based on the availability and reliability of data 
from these countries.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Surrogate Country Letter at Attachment I.
    \17\ See Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate 
Country Selection Process, dated March 1, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on publicly available information placed on the record, the 
Department determines that Thailand is a reliable source for surrogate 
values because Thailand is at a comparable level of economic 
development, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant 
producer of comparable, and has publicly available and reliable data. 
Furthermore, all surrogate values placed on the record by the parties 
were obtained from sources in Thailand.\18\ Accordingly, the Department 
has selected Thailand as the surrogate country for purposes of valuing 
the FOPs because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate 
country selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Surrogate Values Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of sodium hex to the United States by 
Hubei Xingfa were made at less than normal value, the Department 
compared the export price (``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S. 
Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections below.

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated the EP 
for sales to the United States for Hubei Xingfa, because the first sale 
to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of importation and 
the use of constructed EP was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP 
based on the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, we deducted 
from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland 
freight and foreign brokerage and handling. For the services provided 
by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency, we based the 
deduction of these movement charges on SVs.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Surrogate Values Memo for details regarding the 
surrogate values for movement expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise 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.
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by Hubei Xingfa for the POR. To calculate 
NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by 
publicly available SVs.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered 
prices. We added to each import SV a surrogate freight cost calculated 
from 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.\20\ Where we could not obtain publicly available 
information contemporaneous to the POR with which to value FOPs, we 
adjusted the SVs, where appropriate, using the Thai Producer Price 
Index (``PPI''), or Indonesian PPI, as published in the International 
Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.\21\ For further 
detail, see the Surrogate Values Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
    \21\ See Surrogate Values Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department used Thai import statistics from Global Trade Atlas 
(``GTA'') \22\ to value the raw material and packing material inputs 
that Hubei Xingfa used to produce subject merchandise during the POR, 
except where listed below. Consistent with the Department's long-
standing practice, the Department has disregarded import prices that we 
have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized.\23\ In this 
regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate to 
disregard such prices from India, Indonesia and South Korea because we 
have determined that these countries maintain broadly available, non-
industry specific export subsidies.\24\ Based on the existence of these 
subsidy programs that were generally available to all exporters and 
producers in these countries at the time of the POR, the Department 
finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters from India, 
Indonesia and South Korea may have benefitted from these subsidies. 
Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.\25\ Finally, 
imports that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' 
country were excluded from the average value, because the Department 
could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a 
country with generally available export subsidies. Therefore, based on 
the information currently available, we have not used import prices 
from India, Indonesia or South Korea when calculating import-based SVs. 
For further detail, see the Surrogate Values Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Published by Global Trade Information Services, Inc. GTA 
reports import statistics, such as those from Thailand, India and 
Indonesia, in the original reporting currency and, thus, these data 
correspond to the original currency value reported by each country.
    \23\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. 
Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd 
Sess. (1988) at 590; see, e.g., First Administrative Review of 
Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China: Notice 
of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 19613 (April 15, 2010) (``First Review Prelim''), 
unchanged in First Administrative Review of Sodium Hexametaphosphate 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 64695 (October 20, 
2010) (``First Review Final'').
    \24\ See, e.g., 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 Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4-5; Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from India, Indonesia, and the 
Republic of Korea: Continuation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Orders, 77 FR 264 (January 4, 2012); Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 
Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 
2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19-20.
    \25\ See First Review Prelim, unchanged in First Review Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We did not value phosphate rock or ferro-phosphorous using Thai 
import statistics. Regarding phosphate rock, Petitioners proposed that 
the Department value phosphate rock using Thai Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (``HTS'') 2510.10.10 (``Natural Calcium Phosphates * * 
*Apatite''), whereas Hubei Xingfa proposed HTS 2510.10.90 (``Natural 
Calcium Phosphates * * * Other'') as the correct value. Because record 
evidence indicates that neither of these values is specific to 
phosphate rock, we valued phosphate rock using HTS 2510.10.10 
(``Natural Calcium Phosphates * * * Unground''), from Indonesia.\26\ 
For further discussion of

[[Page 17016]]

this issue, see the Surrogate Values Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results, Partial 
Rescission, and Request for Revocation, In Part, of the Fifth 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 12054 (March 4, 2011), (where the 
Department valued shrimp by-products with a surrogate value from 
Indonesia, when a value was not available in the primary surrogate 
country), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56158 
(September 12, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding ferro-phosphorous, both parties provided import data from 
Thailand to value ferro-phosphorous. Hubei Xingfa proposed that the 
Department rely on Thai HTS 7202.99.00, (``Ferro alloys other'') to 
value ferro-phosphorous, whereas Petitioners suggested 7202.99.11, 
(``Ferro Alloys NES''). We find, however, that neither of the proposed 
Thai HTS categories is sufficiently specific to the input in question, 
as both are basket categories containing many types of ferro-alloys. 
Therefore we have valued ferro-phosphorous using HTS 7202.99.11, 
described as ``Ferro-phosphorous,'' from India.\27\ For further 
discussion of this issue, see the Surrogate Values Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 14e (where the Department 
valued a by-product using a U.S. price due the specificity of the 
value).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 21, 2011, the Department announced its new methodology to 
value the cost of labor in NME countries.\28\ 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's 
Yearbook of Labor Statistics.
    For this review the Department found that Thailand last reported 
industry-specific data in Chapter 6A, under Sub-Classification 24 of 
the ISIC-Revision 3, in 2000. However, more recently Thailand reported 
total manufacturing wage data under Chapter 6A in 2005. To calculate 
the labor value in these preliminary results, the Department relied on 
total manufacturing wage data from Chapter 6A, reported by Thailand in 
2005, because these data are more contemporaneous with the POR than the 
data reported in 2000. We further inflated the labor value using the 
consumer price index (``CPI'') for Thailand to be contemporaneous with 
the POR. For the preliminary results the calculated wage rate is 135.27 
Baht/hour. A more detailed description of the wage rate calculation 
methodology is provided in the Surrogate Values Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies''). This notice 
followed the decision in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 
1363, 1372 (CAFC 2010), where the Federal Circuit found that the 
Department's regression-based method for calculating wage rates, as 
stipulated by section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations, 
uses data not permitted by the statutory requirements set forth in 
section 773(c)(4) of the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Labor Methodologies, the Department considered whether 
financial ratios required adjustment to account for any labor expenses 
that might also be included in the financial ratios. However, because 
the record evidence did not indicate that any labor expenses were 
included in the financial ratios, no adjustments were necessary. See 
Surrogate Values Memo.
    To value truck freight expenses, we used the World Bank's Doing 
Business 2012: Thailand, which we find to be specific to the cost of 
shipping goods in Thailand, and representative of a broad market 
average.\29\ Because this value was not contemporaneous to the POR, we 
deflated it using the Thai CPI. This report gathers information 
concerning the cost to transport a 20-foot container of dry goods from 
the largest city to the nearest seaport. Because there is no Thai value 
for inland freight charges by boat on the record, we valued inland 
freight charges by boat using Indonesian freight rates that were 
published by the Indonesian freight forwarder, PT. Mantap Abiah 
Abadi.\30\ Rates were given on a per cubic meter basis, by city, which 
we converted to a metric ton basis. Because this value is not 
contemporaneous with the POR, we deflated it using the Indonesian CPI. 
In addition, we valued brokerage and handling using a price list of 
export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in 
Thailand published in the World Bank's Doing Business 2012: Thailand. 
The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the 
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by 
ocean transport in Thailand. Because this value was not contemporaneous 
to the POR, we deflated it using the Thai CPI. For further discussion 
of movement expenses, see the Surrogate Values Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Surrogate Value Memo, at 7-8, and Exhibit 6, relying on 
information found at https://www.doingbusiness.org.
    \30\ Id., at 8, and Exhibit 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value the surrogate financial ratios for overhead, selling, 
general and administrative expenses and profit, the Department used the 
2009-2010 financial statement of Aditya Birla (Thailand) (``Aditya''). 
Aditya is a producer of sodium hex in Thailand. Its financial ratio 
expenses are comparable to Hubei Xingfa's financial ratios by virtue of 
each company's production of identical merchandise. However, the 
Department has determined that the financial statement of Aditya does 
not permit us to accurately calculate overhead, because it does not 
contain information upon which to apply a reasonable methodology to 
apportion raw material expenses and consumable expenses. As a result, 
the Department has used the financial statement from Aditya's parent 
company, Aditya Birla Group, to calculate the overhead ratio.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 73 FR 48195 (August 18, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 3 (where the Department was unable to 
calculate a financial ratio based on a lower level financial 
statement, the Department used a consolidated financial statement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to segregate and, therefore, exclude 
energy costs from the calculation of the surrogate financial ratio, it 
is the Department's practice to disregard the respondent's energy 
inputs in the calculation of NV in order to avoid double-counting 
energy costs which have necessarily been captured in the surrogate 
financial ratios.\32\ Because Aditya financial statement does not 
identify energy expenses, we disregarded Hubei Xingfa's energy inputs 
in the NV calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 74 FR 16838, 16839 (April 13, 2009) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where appropriate, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, 
in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange 
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the 
Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    The Department has determined that the following preliminary 
dumping margin exists for the period March 1, 2010, through February 
28, 2011:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Exporter                              Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hubei Xingfa................................................     52.39%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of 
publication of

[[Page 17017]]

this notice, in accordance with section 351.224(b) of the Department's 
regulations.
    In accordance with section 351.301(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's 
regulations, 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. Interested parties must provide the Department with supporting 
documentation for the publicly available information to value each FOP. 
Pursuant to section 351.301(c)(1) of the Department's regulations, 
submissions of factual information may be rebutted, however the 
Department reminds that section 351.301(c)(1) of the Department's 
regulations permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. The 
Department will not accept the submission of additional, alternative 
surrogate value information submitted with rebuttal submissions, where 
that information has not previously been part of the review record, 
pursuant to section 351.301(c)(1) of the Department's regulations.\33\ 
Additionally, for each piece of factual information submitted with 
surrogate value rebuttal comments, the interested party must include an 
explanation to indicate the record information the new information is 
rebutting, clarifying, or correcting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 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 at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments 
no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results of review.\34\ Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments are limited to issues raised in such briefs or 
comments, and may be filed no later than five days after the deadline 
for filing case briefs.\35\ Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal 
briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: 
(1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and 
3) a table of authorities.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's regulations.
    \35\ See section 351.309(d) of the Department's regulations.
    \36\ See section 351.309(c) and (d) of the Department's 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised 
in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by these reviews. 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 section 351.212(b)(1) of the 
Department's regulations, for Hubei Xingfa, we calculated an exporter/
importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate for the merchandise 
subject to this review. Because Hubei Xingfa 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).\37\ 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 
importer's/customer's entries during the POR.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See section 351.212(b)(1) of the Department's regulations.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in 
accordance with the requirement set forth in section 351.106(c)(2) of 
the Department's regulations, 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.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See section 351.106(c)(2) of the Department's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for 
shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, 
as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Hubei Xingfa, 
the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of 
review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will 
be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-
PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 188.05 
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 exporters that supplied that non-PRC 
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until further notice.

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility, under section 351.402(f) of the Department's 
regulations, to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of 
antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during 
this POR. 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 this notice are published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and section 
351.221(b)(4) of the Department's regulations.

    Dated: March 13, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-7060 Filed 3-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P