Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 17436-17439 [2012-7215]

Download as PDF 17436 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices calculated the AFA rate for M&M Industries using program-specific rates calculated for the cooperating respondents. Therefore, in the CVD investigation, because there was only one export subsidy rate calculated (for Baozhang, a cooperative respondent in the CVD investigation), the export subsidy portion of the AFA-rate for M&M Industries is equal to the export subsidy rate calculated for Baozhang (0.21%). In addition, Baozhang’s rate is the basis for the all-others rate in the CVD case. Therefore, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price for the M&M Industries, reduced by the export subsidy rate (0.21%) found for all companies. Further, with respect to the other companies receiving a separate rate in the instant investigation, excluding M&M Industries Co., Ltd., these companies are subject to the all-others rate in the companion CVD investigation. Moreover, as noted above, all companies were found to have the same amount of export subsidies, the amount found for the cooperative respondent in the CVD case. Therefore, for companies receiving a separate rate, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price for the separate rate recipients, as indicated above, reduced by the export subsidy rate (0.21%) found for all companies. (‘‘Huayuan’’) A. Whether the Department Incorrectly Determined Huayuan’s Eligibility for a Separate Rate B. Whether the Department Should Have Applied Adverse Facts Available (‘‘AFA’’) to Huayuan C. Whether the Department Failed to Meet the Statutory Obligation to Verify Huayuan Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Assign AFA to Tianjin Honbase Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tianjin Honbase’’) and to Anhui Bao Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Baozhang’’) Notification Regarding APO Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012. SUMMARY: On November 3, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) published its preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the antidumping investigation of certain stilbenic optical brightening agents (‘‘stilbenic OBAs’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1 The Department invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. Based on the Department’s analysis of the comments received, the Department has made changes from the Preliminary Determination, and continues to find that stilbenic OBAs from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Dated: March 19, 2012. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Company-Specific Issues Comment 1: The Department’s Preliminary Determination With Respect to Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd. 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 [FR Doc. 2012–7212 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–972] Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY: This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. VerDate Mar<15>2010 General Issues Comment 3: Whether Hobby Wire is Within the Scope of the Investigation Comment 4: Surrogate Country Selection Comment 5: Whether Double-Remedies Have Been Applied Comment 6: Whether the NME Separate Rate Methodology is Contrary to Law and Should Be Eliminated Comment 7: Appropriate Separate Rate to Assign to Cooperative Non-Selected Companies Jkt 226001 1 See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 76 FR 68148 (November 3, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’). The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination’’ section below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Higgins or Maisha Cryor, 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) 482–0679, or (202) 482–5831, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published its Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV and postponement of the final determination on November 3, 2011. Between November 7, 2011, and November 18, 2011, the Department conducted verification of mandatory respondents Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon Chemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Transfar’’) and Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hongda’’).2 Clariant Corporation (‘‘Petitioner’’), Transfar, and Hongda submitted case briefs on January 6, 2012.3 On January 11, 2012, Petitioner and Transfar filed rebuttal briefs. The Department conducted a public hearing on February 1, 2012. Period of Investigation The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is July 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which was March 2011.4 Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.5 A list of 2 See the ‘‘Verification’’ section below. Department rejected Transfar’s original case brief because it contained untimely information. See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Transfar, regarding Transfar’s submission of untimely information (January 10, 2012). Transfar submitted a revised version of its case brief on January 13, 2012. See Letter from Transfar to the Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from China’’ (January 13, 2012) (‘‘Transfar’s Case Brief’’); Letter from Transfar to the Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from China’’ (January 11, 2012) (‘‘Transfar’s Rebuttal Brief’’). 4 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 5 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of 3 The E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘IA ACCESS’’). Access to IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at https:// www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Changes Since the Preliminary Determination • The Department changed the surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) for ocean freight to reflect shipping rates that actually occurred during the POI. In addition, the Department included certain additional charges (i.e., fuel surcharges, destination delivery charges, and bill of lading charges) in the ocean freight calculation because these charges were not separately covered by the brokerage and handling SV.6 • The Department changed the SV for ice blocks from Global Trade Atlas import data to a value reported in the publication Business Report Thailand.7 • The Department made changes based on minor corrections presented at verification.8 China’’ (March 19, 2012) (‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’). 6 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of China: Final Surrogate Value Memorandum’’ (March 19, 2012) (‘‘Final SV Memo’’) at Attachment 2. 7 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; Final SV Memo at Attachment 1. 8 See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, and Abdelali Elouaradia, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of China: Verification of the Antidumping Duty Questionnaire Responses of Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co., Ltd.’’ (December 15, 2011) (‘‘Hongda’s Verification Report’’); Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination Analysis Memorandum for Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co., Ltd.’’ (March 19, 2012); Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, and Maisha Cryor, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 Scope of the Investigation The stilbenic OBAs covered by this investigation are all forms (whether free acid or salt) of compounds known as triazinylaminostilbenes (i.e., all derivatives of 4,4’-bis [1,3,5- triazin-2yl]9 amino-2,2’-stilbenedisulfonic acid), except for compounds listed in the following paragraph. The stilbenic OBAs covered by this investigation include final stilbenic OBA products, as well as intermediate products that are themselves triazinylaminostilbenes produced during the synthesis of stilbenic OBA products. Excluded from this investigation are all forms of 4,4’-bis[4-anilino-6morpholino-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]10 amino2,2’-stilbenedisulfonic acid, C40H40N12O8S2 (‘‘Fluorescent Brightener 71’’). This investigation covers the above-described compounds in any state (including but not limited to powder, slurry, or solution), of any concentrations of active stilbenic OBA ingredient, as well as any compositions regardless of additives (i.e., mixtures or blends, whether of stilbenic OBAs with each other, or of stilbenic OBAs with additives that are not stilbenic OBAs), and in any type of packaging. These stilbenic OBAs are classifiable under subheading 3204.20.8000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), but they may also enter under subheadings 2933.69.6050, 2921.59.4000 and 2921.59.8090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department verified the information submitted by Transfar and Hongda for use in its final determination. The Department used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records and Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of China: Verification of the Antidumping Duty Questionnaire Responses of Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon Chemical Co., Ltd.’’ (December 15, 2011) (‘‘Transfar’s Verification Report’’); Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination Analysis Memorandum for Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon Chemical Co., Ltd.’’ (March 19, 2012). 9 The brackets in this sentence are part of the chemical formula. 10 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17437 original source documents provided by the respondents.11 Non-Market Economy Country The Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) country. 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. The Department has not revoked the PRC’s status as an NME country. No party has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this investigation. Therefore, the Department continues to treat the PRC as an NME for purposes of the final determination. Surrogate Country In the preliminary determination, the Department selected Thailand as the appropriate surrogate country for use in this investigation pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act based on the following: (1) It is at a similar level of economic development as the PRC; (2) it is a significant producer of merchandise comparable to the merchandise under consideration; and (3) the record contains reliable data from Thailand that the Department can use to value the factors of production.12 The Department has not made changes to these findings for the final determination. Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply facts available (‘‘FA’’) if (1) necessary information is not on the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying FA when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse inference may include 11 See Transfar’s Verification Report; Hongda’s Verification Report. 12 See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia from Shawn Higgins, ‘‘Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of China: Surrogate Country Memorandum’’ (October 27, 2011). E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 17438 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. PRC-Wide Entity In the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that certain PRC exporters/producers did not respond to the Department’s requests for information including information pertaining to whether they were separate from the PRC-wide entity.13 Thus, the Department has found that these PRC exporters/producers are part of the PRC-wide entity and the PRCwide entity has not responded to requests for information.14 No additional information was placed on the record with respect to any of these companies after the Preliminary Determination. Because the PRC-wide entity did not provide the Department with requested information, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department continues to find it appropriate to base the PRC-wide rate on FA. Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, the Department has determined that the PRC-wide entity has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has found that, in selecting from among the FA, an adverse inference is appropriate for the PRCwide entity. Because the Department begins with the presumption that all companies within an NME country are subject to government control and only the mandatory respondents have overcome that presumption, the Department is applying a single antidumping rate to all other exporters of merchandise under consideration from the PRC. Such companies have not demonstrated entitlement to a separate rate.15 Accordingly, the PRC-wide entity rate applies to all entries of merchandise under consideration except for entries from Transfar and Hongda. Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate for the PRC-Wide Entity In selecting a rate for adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’), the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.’’ 16 Further, it is the Department’s practice to select a rate that ensures ‘‘that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.’’ 17 It is the Department’s practice to select as AFA the higher of (a) the highest margin alleged in the petition or (b) the highest rate calculated for any respondent in the investigation.18 The highest margin alleged in the petition is 203.16 percent.19 This rate is higher than any of the rates calculated for individually examined companies. Thus, as AFA, the Department’s practice would be to assign the rate of 203.16 percent to the PRC-wide entity. However, in order to determine the probative value of the margins in the petition for use as AFA for purposes of this final determination, the Department examined information on the record and found that it was unable to corroborate either the highest margin in the petition or both its U.S. price and normal value components. In addition, the Department does not find the highest calculated weighted-average margin of the mandatory respondents to be sufficiently adverse to act as the AFA rate.20 The Department finds, however, that the highest transaction-specific margin of the mandatory respondents (i.e., 109.95 percent) is sufficiently adverse to serve as the AFA rate.21 No corroboration of this rate is necessary because the Department is relying on information obtained in the course of this investigation, rather than secondary information.22 This was the same methodology the Department employed in the Preliminary Determination. No interested party has commented on this methodology for calculating the PRCwide rate. The dumping margin for the PRCwide entity applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries of merchandise under investigation from the exporter/ manufacturer combinations listed in the chart in the ‘‘Final Determination’’ section below. Combination Rates In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation.23 This practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1.24 Final Determination The Department determines that the following dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010: Weighted average margin Exporter Producer Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co., Ltd ...................................... Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon Chemical Co., Ltd ......................... PRC-wide Entity ....................................................................... Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co., Ltd ...................................... Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon Chemical Co., Ltd ......................... ................................................................................................... 13 See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 68150. 14 Id. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Market Value: Synthetic Indigo From the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 2, 2000). 16 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). 17 See Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (Nov. 18, 2005) (quoting the Statement of VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994)). 18 See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 60725, 60729 (October 1, 2010). 19 See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 76 FR 23554, 23558 (April 27, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 20 See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318, 64322 (October 18, 2011). PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 95.29 63.98 109.95 21 Id. 22 See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d) and section 776(c) of the Act; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 23 See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 23559. 24 See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, available at https:// ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices Disclosure The Department intends to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of stilbenic OBAs from the PRC as described in the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 3, 2011, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. The Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. As the Department’s final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the merchandise under consideration. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the merchandise under consideration entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of propriety information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or distruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 19, 2012. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Issues for Final Determination Issue 1: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value for 4,4´Diamino-2,2´ Stilbenedisulfonic Acid Issue 2: Whether the Department Should Revise the Calculation of the Surrogate Financial Ratios Issue 3: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value for Ice Blocks Issue 4: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value for Ocean Freight Issue 5: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value for Brokerage and Handling Issue 6: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value for Labor [FR Doc. 2012–7215 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–570–980] Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells) from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Calvert, Jun Jack Zhao, or Emily Halle, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7866, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3586, (202) 482–1396, or (202) 482– 0176, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Case History The Department initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17439 of solar cells from the PRC on November 8, 2011.1 Since the initiation, the following events have occurred. The Department released U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry data for U.S. imports of solar cells from the PRC for the period January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010, to be used as the basis for respondent selection. The CBP entry data covered products included in this investigation which entered under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers likely to include subject merchandise: 8541.40.6020 and 8541.40.6030. The entry data did not cover entries under the other HTSUS numbers included in the scope description below because those numbers represent broad basket categories. In the memorandum releasing the entry data, the Department stated that, because the subject merchandise is imported as either solar cells or solar cells assembled into modules or panels, and thus quantity is not recorded consistently in the entry data, the Department intended to select respondents based on the aggregate value (as opposed to quantity) of subject merchandise that was imported into the United States. On November 29, 2011, the Department completed its respondent selection analysis. Given available resources, the Department determined it could examine no more than two producers/exporters and selected Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. (Trina Solar) and Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd. (Wuxi Suntech) as mandatory respondents.2 These companies were the two largest producers/exporters of subject merchandise, based on aggregate value, to the United States. On December 5, 2011, the petitioner, Solar World Industries, America, Inc. (Petitioner), submitted an additional subsidy allegation, claiming that the government of the PRC (GOC), through state-owned enterprises (SOEs), 1 See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 76 FR 70966 (November 16, 2011) (Initiation Notice), and accompanying Initiation Checklist. Public documents and public versions of proprietary Departmental memoranda referenced in this notice are on file electronically on Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (IA ACCESS), accessible via the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Commerce building and on the web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. 2 See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People’s Republic of China, Countervailing Duty Investigation: Respondent Selection,’’ November 29, 2011 (Respondent Selection Memorandum). E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17436-17439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7215]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-972]


Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

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

DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012.
SUMMARY: On November 3, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at 
less than fair value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of 
certain stilbenic optical brightening agents (``stilbenic OBAs'') from 
the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\ The Department invited 
interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. Based 
on the Department's analysis of the comments received, the Department 
has made changes from the Preliminary Determination, and continues to 
find that stilbenic OBAs from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in section 735 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act''). The final dumping margins 
for this investigation are listed in the ``Final Determination'' 
section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 76 FR 
68148 (November 3, 2011) (``Preliminary Determination'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Higgins or Maisha Cryor, 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-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0679, or (202) 482-5831, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Department published its Preliminary Determination of sales at 
LTFV and postponement of the final determination on November 3, 2011. 
Between November 7, 2011, and November 18, 2011, the Department 
conducted verification of mandatory respondents Zhejiang Transfar 
Whyyon Chemical Co., Ltd. (``Transfar'') and Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals 
Co., Ltd. (``Hongda'').\2\ Clariant Corporation (``Petitioner''), 
Transfar, and Hongda submitted case briefs on January 6, 2012.\3\ On 
January 11, 2012, Petitioner and Transfar filed rebuttal briefs. The 
Department conducted a public hearing on February 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the ``Verification'' section below.
    \3\ The Department rejected Transfar's original case brief 
because it contained untimely information. See Letter from Robert 
Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Transfar, 
regarding Transfar's submission of untimely information (January 10, 
2012). Transfar submitted a revised version of its case brief on 
January 13, 2012. See Letter from Transfar to the Secretary of 
Commerce, ``Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from 
China'' (January 13, 2012) (``Transfar's Case Brief''); Letter from 
Transfar to the Secretary of Commerce, ``Certain Stilbenic Optical 
Brightening Agents from China'' (January 11, 2012) (``Transfar's 
Rebuttal Brief'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2010, through 
December 31, 2010. This period corresponds to the two most recent 
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which 
was March 2011.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.\5\ A list of

[[Page 17437]]

these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and 
Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically 
via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''). Access to IA 
ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main 
Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet 
at https://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum 
and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are 
identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 
Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical 
Brightening Agents from the People's Republic of China'' (March 19, 
2012) (``Issues and Decision Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

     The Department changed the surrogate value (``SV'') for 
ocean freight to reflect shipping rates that actually occurred during 
the POI. In addition, the Department included certain additional 
charges (i.e., fuel surcharges, destination delivery charges, and bill 
of lading charges) in the ocean freight calculation because these 
charges were not separately covered by the brokerage and handling 
SV.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; Memorandum 
from Maisha Cryor, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, to the File, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Surrogate Value Memorandum'' (March 19, 
2012) (``Final SV Memo'') at Attachment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Department changed the SV for ice blocks from Global 
Trade Atlas import data to a value reported in the publication Business 
Report Thailand.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; Final SV 
Memo at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Department made changes based on minor corrections 
presented at verification.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, and Abdelali 
Elouaradia, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the 
File, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical 
Brightening Agents from the People's Republic of China: Verification 
of the Antidumping Duty Questionnaire Responses of Zhejiang Hongda 
Chemicals Co., Ltd.'' (December 15, 2011) (``Hongda's Verification 
Report''); Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File, 
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical 
Brightening Agents from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination Analysis Memorandum for Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co., 
Ltd.'' (March 19, 2012); Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 
and Maisha Cryor, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, to the File, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People's 
Republic of China: Verification of the Antidumping Duty 
Questionnaire Responses of Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon Chemical Co., 
Ltd.'' (December 15, 2011) (``Transfar's Verification Report''); 
Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade Compliance 
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File, ``Antidumping 
Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination Analysis 
Memorandum for Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon Chemical Co., Ltd.'' (March 
19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The stilbenic OBAs covered by this investigation are all forms 
(whether free acid or salt) of compounds known as 
triazinylaminostilbenes (i.e., all derivatives of 4,4'-bis [1,3,5- 
triazin-2-yl]\9\ amino-2,2'-stilbenedisulfonic acid), except for 
compounds listed in the following paragraph. The stilbenic OBAs covered 
by this investigation include final stilbenic OBA products, as well as 
intermediate products that are themselves triazinylaminostilbenes 
produced during the synthesis of stilbenic OBA products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The brackets in this sentence are part of the chemical 
formula.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excluded from this investigation are all forms of 4,4'-bis[4-
anilino-6-morpholino-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]\10\ amino-2,2'-
stilbenedisulfonic acid, 
C40H40N12O8S2 
(``Fluorescent Brightener 71''). This investigation covers the above-
described compounds in any state (including but not limited to powder, 
slurry, or solution), of any concentrations of active stilbenic OBA 
ingredient, as well as any compositions regardless of additives (i.e., 
mixtures or blends, whether of stilbenic OBAs with each other, or of 
stilbenic OBAs with additives that are not stilbenic OBAs), and in any 
type of packaging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These stilbenic OBAs are classifiable under subheading 3204.20.8000 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''), but 
they may also enter under subheadings 2933.69.6050, 2921.59.4000 and 
2921.59.8090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department verified 
the information submitted by Transfar and Hongda for use in its final 
determination. The Department used standard verification procedures, 
including examination of relevant accounting and production records and 
original source documents provided by the respondents.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Transfar's Verification Report; Hongda's Verification 
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market Economy Country

    The Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy 
(``NME'') country. 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. The Department 
has not revoked the PRC's status as an NME country. No party has 
challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this 
investigation. Therefore, the Department continues to treat the PRC as 
an NME for purposes of the final determination.

Surrogate Country

    In the preliminary determination, the Department selected Thailand 
as the appropriate surrogate country for use in this investigation 
pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act based on the following: (1) It 
is at a similar level of economic development as the PRC; (2) it is a 
significant producer of merchandise comparable to the merchandise under 
consideration; and (3) the record contains reliable data from Thailand 
that the Department can use to value the factors of production.\12\ The 
Department has not made changes to these findings for the final 
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia from Shawn Higgins, 
``Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People's 
Republic of China: Surrogate Country Memorandum'' (October 27, 
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply 
facts available (``FA'') if (1) necessary information is not on the 
record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) withholds 
information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information 
within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested 
by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of 
the Act.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying FA when a party has failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information. Such an adverse inference may include

[[Page 17438]]

reliance on information derived from the petition, the final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record.

PRC-Wide Entity

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that 
certain PRC exporters/producers did not respond to the Department's 
requests for information including information pertaining to whether 
they were separate from the PRC-wide entity.\13\ Thus, the Department 
has found that these PRC exporters/producers are part of the PRC-wide 
entity and the PRC-wide entity has not responded to requests for 
information.\14\ No additional information was placed on the record 
with respect to any of these companies after the Preliminary 
Determination. Because the PRC-wide entity did not provide the 
Department with requested information, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) 
of the Act, the Department continues to find it appropriate to base the 
PRC-wide rate on FA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 68150.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for 
information, the Department has determined that the PRC-wide entity has 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has found that, in selecting 
from among the FA, an adverse inference is appropriate for the PRC-wide 
entity.
    Because the Department begins with the presumption that all 
companies within an NME country are subject to government control and 
only the mandatory respondents have overcome that presumption, the 
Department is applying a single antidumping rate to all other exporters 
of merchandise under consideration from the PRC. Such companies have 
not demonstrated entitlement to a separate rate.\15\ Accordingly, the 
PRC-wide entity rate applies to all entries of merchandise under 
consideration except for entries from Transfar and Hongda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Market Value: Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of 
China, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 2, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate for the PRC-Wide Entity

    In selecting a rate for adverse facts available (``AFA''), the 
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to 
effectuate the purpose of the adverse facts available rule to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner.'' \16\ Further, it is the Department's 
practice to select a rate that ensures ``that the party does not obtain 
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' \17\ It is the Department's practice to select as 
AFA the higher of (a) the highest margin alleged in the petition or (b) 
the highest rate calculated for any respondent in the 
investigation.\18\ The highest margin alleged in the petition is 203.16 
percent.\19\ This rate is higher than any of the rates calculated for 
individually examined companies. Thus, as AFA, the Department's 
practice would be to assign the rate of 203.16 percent to the PRC-wide 
entity. However, in order to determine the probative value of the 
margins in the petition for use as AFA for purposes of this final 
determination, the Department examined information on the record and 
found that it was unable to corroborate either the highest margin in 
the petition or both its U.S. price and normal value components. In 
addition, the Department does not find the highest calculated weighted-
average margin of the mandatory respondents to be sufficiently adverse 
to act as the AFA rate.\20\ The Department finds, however, that the 
highest transaction-specific margin of the mandatory respondents (i.e., 
109.95 percent) is sufficiently adverse to serve as the AFA rate.\21\ 
No corroboration of this rate is necessary because the Department is 
relying on information obtained in the course of this investigation, 
rather than secondary information.\22\ This was the same methodology 
the Department employed in the Preliminary Determination. No interested 
party has commented on this methodology for calculating the PRC-wide 
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 
63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998).
    \17\ See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; 
Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 
(Nov. 18, 2005) (quoting the Statement of Administrative Action 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d 
Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994)).
    \18\ See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 75 FR 60725, 60729 (October 1, 2010).
    \19\ See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the 
People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping 
Duty Investigations, 76 FR 23554, 23558 (April 27, 2011) 
(``Initiation Notice'').
    \20\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic 
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 
FR 64318, 64322 (October 18, 2011).
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d) and section 776(c) of the 
Act; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: Light-
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of 
China, 73 FR 35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008) and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity applies to all entries 
of the merchandise under investigation except for entries of 
merchandise under investigation from the exporter/manufacturer 
combinations listed in the chart in the ``Final Determination'' section 
below.

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a 
separate rate in this investigation.\23\ This practice is described in 
Policy Bulletin 05.1.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 23559.
    \24\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination

    The Department determines that the following dumping margins exist 
for the period July 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted average
             Exporter                    Producer            margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co.,     Zhejiang Hongda                 95.29
 Ltd.                               Chemicals Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon Chemical  Zhejiang Transfar               63.98
 Co., Ltd.                          Whyyon Chemical
                                    Co., Ltd.
PRC-wide Entity..................  ...................            109.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17439]]

Disclosure

    The Department intends to disclose the calculations performed to 
parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication 
of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue 
to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of stilbenic OBAs 
from the PRC as described in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
November 3, 2011, the date of publication of the Preliminary 
Determination in the Federal Register. The Department will instruct CBP 
to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the 
weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, 
as indicated above.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of the final affirmative 
determination of sales at LTFV. As the Department's final determination 
is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the 
ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in 
the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material 
injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 
importation, of the merchandise under consideration. If the ITC 
determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an 
antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further 
instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the 
merchandise under consideration entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of 
liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of propriety information disclosed under APO 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or 
distruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms 
of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 19, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Issues for Final Determination

Issue 1: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value 
for 4,4[acute]-Diamino-2,2[acute] Stilbenedisulfonic Acid
Issue 2: Whether the Department Should Revise the Calculation of the 
Surrogate Financial Ratios
Issue 3: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value 
for Ice Blocks
Issue 4: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value 
for Ocean Freight
Issue 5: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value 
for Brokerage and Handling
Issue 6: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value 
for Labor

[FR Doc. 2012-7215 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.