Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers From the Republic of Korea, 17413-17418 [2012-7237]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices Dated: March 16, 2012. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Appendix I. Summary II. Subsidy Valuation Information A. Period of Investigation B. Cross-Ownership and Attribution of Subsidies C. Allocation Period D. Discount Rates and Interest Rate Benchmarks For Loans E. Equityworthiness of DWJ and DWE III. Application of Facts Available, Including the Application of Adverse Inferences IV. Analysis of Programs A. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable 1. Restructuring of Daewoo Electronics Corporation a. GOK Equity Infusions under the Daewoo Workout b. GOK Preferential Lending under the Daewoo Workout 2. KDB and IBK Short-Term Discounted Loans for Export Receivables 3. K–SURE Short-term Export Insurance 4. Tax Programs a. Tax Reduction for Research and Manpower Development: RSTA 10(1)(3) b. RSTA Article 25(2) Tax Deductions for Investments in Energy Economizing Facilities c. RSTA Article 26 Tax Deduction for Facilities Investment d. Gwangju Metropolitan City Production Facilities Subsidies: Tax Reductions/Tax Exemptions e. Gyeongsangnam Province Production Facilities Subsidies: Tax Reductions/Tax Exemptions 5. Grant Programs a. GOK Subsidies for ‘‘Green Technology R&D’’ and its Commercialization b. GOK 21st Century Frontier R&D Program/Information Display R&D Center Program c. R&D Grants Discovered at Verification B. Program Determined To Be Not Countervailable Gyeongsangnam Province and KEMCO Energy Savings Subsidies/ESF Program C. Programs Determined To Be Not Used 1. KEXIM Programs A. KEXIM Short-Term Export Credit B. KEXIM Export Loan Guarantees C. KEXIM Trade Bill Rediscounting Program D. KEXIM Export Factoring 2. K–SURE—Export Credit Guarantees 3. Gwangju Metropolitan City Programs A. Relocation Grants B. Facilities Grants C. Employment Grants D. Training Grants E. Consulting Grants F. Preferential Financing for Business Restructuring G. Interest Grants for the Stabilization of Management Costs H. ‘‘Special Support’’ for Large Corporate Investors I. Research and Development and Other Technical Support Services VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 4. Changwon City Subsidy Programs A. Relocation Grants B. Employment Grants C. Training Grants D. Facilities Grants E. Grant for ‘‘Moving Metropolitan AreaBase Company to Changwon’’ F. Preferential Financing for Land Purchase G. Financing for the Stabilization of Business Activities H. Special Support for Large Companies 5. Other GOK Programs A. Research, Supply, or Workforce Development Investment Tax Deductions for ‘‘New Growth Engines’’ Under RSTA Art. 10(1)(1) B. Research, Supply, or Workforce Development Expense Tax Deductions for ‘‘Core Technologies’’ Under RSTA Art. 10(1)(2) C. Targeted Facilities Subsidies through Korea Finance Corporation (KoFC), KDB, and IBK ‘‘New Growth Engines Industry Fund’’ D. GOK Green Fund Subsidies E. IBK Preferential Loans to Green Enterprises F. Gwangju ‘‘Photonics Industry Promotion Project’’ (PIPP) Product Development Support V. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether RSTA Article 25(2) is De Facto Specific Comment 2: Whether RSTA Article 25(2) relates to Subject Merchandise Comment 3: Whether RSTA Article 26 Benefits are Specific Comment 4: Whether RSTA Article 10(1)(3) is De Facto Specific Comment 5: Whether the Gwangju Metropolitan City and Gyeongsangnam Province Production Facilities Tax Reductions/Tax Exemptions are Specific Comment 6: Whether KDB/IBK Short-Term Discounted Loans for Export Receivables are Specific Comment 7: Whether SEC Received KDB/ IBK Short-Term Discounted Loans for Export Receivables Comment 8: Whether D/A and O/A Financing Were Provided in Accordance With Market Interest Rates Comment 9: Whether K–SURE Charged Adequate Premiums in a Way that Covers Its Long-Term Costs and Losses Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Apply AFA to Calculate a Benefit to SEC from the K–SURE Export Insurance Program Comment 11: Whether SEC’s K–SURE Payouts Relate to Subject Merchandise Comment 12: Whether K–SURE Benefits Granted to SEC’s U.S. Affiliate Are Countervailable Comment 13: Whether the Green Technology R&D Program is Countervailable Comment 14: Whether Green Technology R&D Grants are tied to Non-Subject Merchandise Comment 15: Whether AFA Should be Applied to Grants Received by LGE from the 21st Century Frontier R&D Program Comment 16: Whether the Department Should Revise the Denominator Used to Calculate the Subsidy Rate for LGE’s Use of the ‘‘Green Technology R&D’’ Program PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17413 Comment 17: Whether Grants Received by SGEC for Refrigerator Compressor R&D are Countervailable Comment 18: Whether the Department Should Apply AFA to Grants Received by SGEC for Refrigerator Compressor R&D Comment 19: Whether the Department Should Revise Sales Denominators to Reflect Changes from Verification Comment 20: Whether there is Cross Ownership Among All of the Companies in the Samsung Group Comment 21: Whether the Attribution Rules Were Correctly Applied to the Calculation of Benefits to SGEC, SEL and SEC Comment 22: Whether the Department Should Attribute Any Subsidies Received by ServeOne to LGE Comment 23: Whether the Department Should Continue to Find that SEC did not Use Other Programs Comment 24: Whether Government Ownership Alone Transforms a Financial Institution Into a Government Authority Comment 25: Whether the Department Properly Analyzed DWJ’s Restructuring and Debt Adjustment under CRPA Comment 26: Whether Private Investor Participation on DWJ/DWE’s Creditors’ Council Provides a Benchmark Comment 27: Whether the Department’s Analysis of the 2001 and 2002 Debt Restructuring Was Correct Comment 28: Equityworthiness of DWJ/ DWE at the Time of the 2001 and 2002 Debt-to- Equity Conversions Comment 29: Whether the GOK and FSS Used KAMCO to Gain Control of DWJ/ DWE’s Creditors’ Council Comment 30: Whether the Department Should Establish a Zero Cash Deposit Rate for DWE Comment 31: Whether the GOK-owned Creditors Held a Supermajority in DWE’s 29th Creditors’ Council Meeting Comment 32: Whether the Reclassification of the KAMCO–Held Debentures to Long- Term Loans Results in a Countervailable Benefit Comment 33: Whether Private Creditors Restructured Their Loans on the Same Basis and on the Same Terms [FR Doc. 2012–7217 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–865] Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers From the Republic of Korea Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 17414 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices We determine that imports of narrow bottom mount combination refrigerator-freezers (bottom mount refrigerators) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). In addition, we determine that there is no reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to the subject merchandise exported from Korea. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final determination differs from the preliminary determination. The final weightedaverage dumping margins for the investigated companies are listed below in the section entitled ‘‘Final Determination Margins.’’ DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood or Henry Almond, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3874 and (202) 482–0049, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: Background On November 2, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping duty investigation of bottom mount refrigerators from Korea.1 Since the preliminary determination, the following events have occurred. In November 2011, we issued supplemental questionnaires to two respondents, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung), and we received responses to these supplemental questionnaires in this same month. In November and December 2011, we verified the questionnaire responses of three respondents in this case, Daewoo Electronics Corporation (Daewoo), LG, and Samsung, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Act. In January 2012, the Government of Korea submitted comments on certain aspects of the Department’s preliminary determination. 1 See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from the Republic of Korea, 76 FR 67675 (Nov. 2, 2011) (Preliminary Determination). VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:07 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 In February 2012, Whirlpool Corporation (hereafter, the petitioner) and two of the three respondents submitted case and rebuttal briefs. Daewoo submitted only a rebuttal brief. Also in February 2012, the Department held a public hearing at the request of the petitioner and the three respondents. Subsequent to the Preliminary Determination, the Department revised the computer programs used to calculate the respondents’ dumping margins to ensure that they accurately reflected the methodological choices made in that determination. These revisions to the programming, had they been included in the preliminary determination, would not have altered the weighted-average dumping margins calculated there.2 Period of Investigation The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. Scope of Investigation The products covered by the investigation are all bottom mount combination refrigerator-freezers and certain assemblies thereof from Korea. For purposes of the investigation, the term ‘‘bottom mount combination refrigerator-freezers’’ denotes freestanding or built-in cabinets that have an integral source of refrigeration using compression technology, with all of the following characteristics: • The cabinet contains at least two interior storage compartments accessible through one or more separate external doors or drawers or a combination thereof; • An upper-most interior storage compartment(s) that is accessible through an external door or drawer is either a refrigerator compartment or convertible compartment, but is not a freezer compartment; 3 and 2 See March 16, 2012, Memoranda to the File entitled, ‘‘Calculations Performed for Daewoo Electronics Corporation (Daewoo) for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from the Republic of Korea,’’ ‘‘Calculations Performed for LG for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from the Republic of Korea’’ (LG Calculation Memo), and ‘‘Calculations Performed for Samsung Electronics Corporation (Samsung) for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Bottom Mount Refrigerators from Korea’’ (Samsung Calculation Memo), which contain the revised preliminary antidumping duty margin program log and output for each respondent. 3 The existence of an interior sub-compartment for ice-making in an upper-most storage compartment does not render an upper-most storage compartment a freezer compartment. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 • There is at least one freezer or convertible compartment that is mounted below an upper-most interior storage compartment(s). For purposes of the investigation, a refrigerator compartment is capable of storing food at temperatures above 32 degrees F (0 degrees C), a freezer compartment is capable of storing food at temperatures at or below 32 degrees F (0 degrees C), and a convertible compartment is capable of operating as either a refrigerator compartment or a freezer compartment, as defined above. Also covered are certain assemblies used in bottom mount combination refrigerator-freezers, namely: (1) Any assembled cabinets designed for use in bottom mount combination refrigeratorfreezers that incorporate, at a minimum: (a) An external metal shell, (b) a back panel, (c) a deck, (d) an interior plastic liner, (e) wiring, and (f) insulation; (2) any assembled external doors designed for use in bottom mount combination refrigerator-freezers that incorporate, at a minimum: (a) An external metal shell, (b) an interior plastic liner, and (c) insulation; and (3) any assembled external drawers designed for use in bottom mount combination refrigeratorfreezers that incorporate, at a minimum: (a) An external metal shell, (b) an interior plastic liner, and (c) insulation. The products subject to the investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 8418.10.0010, 8418.10.0020, 8418.10.0030, and 8418.10.0040 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to this investigation may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8418.21.0010, 8418.21.0020, 8418.21.0030, 8418.21.0090, and 8418.99.4000, 8418.99.8050, and 8418.99.8060. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive. Scope Comments In the Preliminary Determination, we did not modify the description of the scope of this investigation in the manner requested by certain interested parties. Specifically, we did not modify the scope to be consistent with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) definition, nor did we exclude kimchi refrigerators or Quatro Cooling Refrigerators from the scope. We did, however, clarify the scope to eliminate any ambiguity with respect to the inclusion of Quatro Cooling Refrigerators in the scope of the investigation. See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 67677. No party E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices commented on our preliminary scope determination. Therefore, we made no further changes to the description of the scope, as stated in the Preliminary Determination. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Cost of Production As discussed in the preliminary determination, we conducted an investigation to determine whether the respondents made comparison market sales of the foreign like product during the POI at prices below their COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR 67684–85 (Nov. 2, 2011). For this final determination, we performed the cost test following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Determination. We found that 20 percent or more of each respondent’s sales of a given product during the POI were at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. See sections 773(b)(1)–(2) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this final determination, we found that each respondent made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value for each respondent pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Targeted Dumping The Act allows the Department to employ the average-to-transaction margin calculation methodology under the following circumstances: (1) There is a pattern of export prices that differ significantly among purchasers, regions or periods of time; and (2) the Department explains why such differences cannot be taken into account using the average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction methodology. See section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. In the Preliminary Determination, we conducted time-period targeted dumping analyses for LG and Samsung based on timely allegations of targeted dumping filed by the petitioner, using the methodology adopted in Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008), and Certain Steel Nails from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 2008), and applied in more recent investigations.4 As a result, we preliminarily determined that there was a pattern of U.S. prices for comparable merchandise that differed significantly among certain time periods for Samsung and LG, in accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. Further, for both Samsung and LG, we found that the standard average-toaverage methodology did not take into account the price differences because the alternative average-to-transaction methodology yielded a material difference in the margin. Accordingly, we preliminarily applied the average-totransaction methodology to all U.S. sales made by LG and Samsung. See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 67678–67679. For purposes of the final determination, we performed our targeted-dumping analysis following the methodology employed in the Preliminary Determination, after taking into account the petitioner’s revised targeted dumping allegation with respect to Samsung, and making certain revisions to LG’s and Samsung’s reported U.S. sales data based on verification findings and other comments submitted by the parties, as enumerated in the ‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’ (Decision Memorandum) from Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Import Administration, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated March 16, 2012. In so doing, we found that the results of our final targeted-dumping analysis were generally consistent with those of our preliminary targeteddumping analysis. Therefore, we continued to apply the alternative average-to-transaction methodology for LG’s and Samsung’s U.S. sales, in the final determination. See the LG Calculation Memo and the Samsung Calculation Memo for further discussion. Critical Circumstances In the Preliminary Determination, we found that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of bottom 4 These investigations include Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 59223 (Sept. 27, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1, and Multilayered Wood Flooring From the Peoples’ Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318 (Oct. 18, 2011), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17415 mount refrigerators produced in, and exported from, Korea. See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 67686–67687. Samsung submitted comments in support of our preliminary negative critical circumstances determination with respect to it, and reiterated, among other things, that its imports have not been massive since the filing of the petition. For the final determination, we relied on updated shipment data provided by Daewoo, LG, and Samsung, which we examined at verification. Based on our analysis of these data and the comments submitted by the parties, we continue to find that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of bottom mount refrigerators from Korea, as explained below. Section 735(a)(3) of the Act provides that the Department will determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department’s regulations provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been ‘‘massive,’’ the Department normally will examine: (i) The volume and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides that an increase in imports of 15 percent during the ‘‘relatively short period’’ of time may be considered ‘‘massive.’’ Section 351.206(i) of the Department’s regulations defines ‘‘relatively short period’’ as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. The regulations also provide, however, that if the Department finds that importers, exporters, or producers had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time. In determining whether the above criteria have been satisfied, we examined: (1) The evidence placed on the record by the respondents and the petitioner; and (2) the International E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 17416 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Trade Commission’s (ITC’s) preliminary determination of injury (see Bottom Mount Refrigerator Freezers from Mexico and Korea, Investigation Nos. 701–TA–477 and 731–TA–1180–1181 (Preliminary), 76 FR 29791 (May 23, 2011) (ITC Preliminary Determination)). To determine whether there is a history of injurious dumping of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with section 735(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department normally considers evidence of an existing antidumping duty order on the subject merchandise in the United States or elsewhere to be sufficient.5 As mentioned in the Preliminary Determination, while the petitioner noted that New Zealand imposed antidumping duties on the subject merchandise produced in Korea in 2001, this order was terminated in 2006. Moreover, the petitioner did not identify any additional proceedings with respect to Korean-origin products, nor are we aware of any antidumping duty order in any country on bottom mount refrigerators from Korea. For this reason, the Department does not find a history of injurious dumping of the subject merchandise from Korea pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Act. To determine whether the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at LTFV, and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales in accordance with section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for export price (EP) sales or 15 percent or more for constructed export price (CEP) transactions sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping.6 The final dumping margin calculated for LG exceeds the threshold sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping (i.e., 15 percent for CEP sales, which are the vast majority of the sales on which the calculation is based). Therefore, we 5 See e.g., Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 75 FR 28237 (May 20, 2010), unchanged in Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances 75 FR 45468 (Aug. 2, 2010). 6 See e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, 70 FR 49557 (Aug. 24, 2005), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, 71 FR 2183 (Jan. 13, 2006) (Certain Orange Juice from Brazil). VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 determine that there is sufficient basis to find that importers should have known that LG was selling the subject merchandise at LTFV pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act. For Daewoo and Samsung, we calculated final margins of de minimis and 5.16 percent, respectively, which do not meet the 15- and 25-percent thresholds necessary to impute knowledge of dumping for either CEP or EP sales. Finally, for the companies covered by the ‘‘All Others’’ rate, the final calculated dumping margin of 10.29 percent also does not meet the 15percent threshold necessary to impute knowledge of dumping for CEP sales, which are the vast majority of the sales on which the calculation of the ‘‘All Others’’ rate is based. Therefore, we find that the importer knowledge criterion, as set forth in section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, has been met for LG, but has not been met for Daewoo, Samsung, and the companies covered by the ‘‘All Others’’ rate. In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, the Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination of the ITC. If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of present material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the Department will determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge that material injury is likely by reason of such imports. See e.g., Certain Orange Juice from Brazil. In the present case, the ITC preliminarily found reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by imports of bottom mount refrigerators from Korea. See ITC Preliminary Determination. Based on the ITC’s preliminary determination of injury, and the final antidumping margin for LG, the Department finds that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the importer knew or should have known that there was likely to be injurious dumping of subject merchandise for these companies. In determining whether there are ‘‘massive imports’’ over a ‘‘relatively short period,’’ pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(B) of the Act, the Department normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., the base period) to a comparable period of at least three months following the filing of the petition (i.e., the comparison period). Accordingly, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been massive, we based our analysis for each of the three PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 companies on shipment data for comparable seven-month periods preceding and following the filing of the petition. Specifically, the Department requested and obtained from each of the respondents monthly shipment data from January 2008 to October 2011. To determine whether imports of subject merchandise have been massive over a relatively short period, we compared, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1)(i), the respondents’ export volumes for the seven months before the filing of the petition (i.e., September 2010–March 2011) to those during the seven months after the filing of the petition (i.e., April through October 2011). These periods were selected based on the Department’s practice of using the longest period for which information is available up to the date of the preliminary determination.7 According to the monthly shipment information, we found the volume of shipments of bottom mount refrigerators increased by more than 15 percent for LG. For purposes of our ‘‘massive imports’’ determination, we also considered the impact of seasonality on imports of bottom mount refrigerators based on interested party comments and information contained in the ITC’s preliminary determination. In order to determine whether the seasonality factor accounted for the increase in imports observed for each of the respondents in the post-petition filing period (the comparison period), we analyzed company-specific shipment data for a historical three-year period, where possible, using the same base and comparison time periods noted above. As a result of this analysis, we found that there is a consistent pattern of seasonality in the industry, and that seasonal trends account for the increase in imports subsequent to the filing of the petition from each of the respondents. Specifically, with respect to LG, we found that the percentage increase in shipments during the comparison period is not related to the filing of the petition but rather to the consistent seasonal trends in the industry because shipments during the April–October time period were consistently higher than those in the September–March time period, and the shipment increases observed in the April–October time period from year to 7 See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation, 67 FR 59253, 59256 (Sept. 20, 2001), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation, 68 FR 6885 (Feb. 11, 2003). E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 17417 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices year decreased. Therefore, for purposes of the final determination, we find that imports from LG during the period after the filing of the petition have not been massive in accordance with section 735(a)(3)(B) of the Act. In summary, we find that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect importers had knowledge of dumping and the likelihood of material injury with respect to bottom mount refrigerators produced and exported from Korea by LG. However, we do not find that there have been massive imports of bottom mount refrigerators over a relatively short period from LG due to seasonality. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Department finds that critical circumstances do not exist for imports of the subject merchandise from Korea. For a complete discussion of our final critical circumstances analysis, see the Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 and the March 16, 2012, Memorandum to James P. Maeder, Jr., Director, Office 2, from The Team entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Bottom Mount Refrigerator Freezers from Korea—Final Determination of Critical Circumstances.’’ Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at https:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the ‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the Decision Memorandum. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and cost information submitted by the respondents for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents. Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Pursuant to 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Korea, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 2, 2011, the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register. CBP shall require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown below, adjusted for export subsidies found in the final determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation of this merchandise. Specifically, consistent with our practice, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeds the EP or CEP, as indicated below, less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy.8 Accordingly, for cash deposit purposes, we are subtracting from the applicable cash deposit rate that portion of the rate attributable to the export subsidies found in the affirmative countervailing duty determination for each respondent with a final dumping margin above de minimis (i.e., 1.65 percent for Samsung and 1.60 percent for the companies covered by the ‘‘All Others’’ rate). After the adjustment for the cash deposit rates attributed to export subsidies, the resulting cash deposit rates will be 3.51 percent for Samsung and 8.69 percent for the companies covered by the ‘‘All Others’’ rate. For LG, although its final dumping margin is above de minimis, the Department found no export subsidies for this company and therefore we have not adjusted LG’s final cash deposit rate. For Daewoo, because its estimated weighted-average final dumping margin is zero, we are not directing CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of bottom mount refrigerators produced and exported by this company. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. Final Determination Margins The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Weighted-average margin percentage Exporter/manufacturer Daewoo Electronics Corporation .................................................................................................................... LG Electronics, Inc ......................................................................................................................................... Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................ All Others ........................................................................................................................................................ tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ‘‘All Others’’ Rate In accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we have based the ‘‘All Others’’ rate on the simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the exporters/ manufacturers investigated in this proceeding. The ‘‘All Others’’ rate is calculated exclusive of all de minimis 8 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 (Nov. 17, 2004). VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 0.00 15.41 5.16 10.29 Critical circumstances No. No. No. No. margins and margins based entirely on AFA. Because we cannot apply our normal methodology of calculating a weighted-average margin due to requests to protect business-proprietary information, we find this rate to be the best proxy of the actual weightedaverage margin determined for the mandatory respondents.9 Disclosure 9 See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed- Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (Sept. 1, 2010). PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 17418 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine within 45 days whether imports of the subject merchandise are causing material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/ 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. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: March 16, 2012. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. 12. LG’s U.S. Lump Sum and Sell-Out Rebates 13. LG’s Non-Product-Specific Accruals for U.S. Rebates 14. LG’s U.S. Freight Expenses 15. LG’s U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 16. LG’s U.S. Inventory Carrying Costs 17. LG’s Materials Purchased from Affiliated Parties 18. LG’s Research and Development (R&D) Expenses Samsung 19. Critical Circumstances 20. Use of Total Adverse Facts Available (AFA) for Samsung 21. Samsung’s Early Payment Discounts in the Home Market 22. Samsung’s Home Market Rebates on Discontinued Models and Kimchi Refrigerators 23. Samsung’s Remaining Home Market Rebates 24. Samsung’s Home Market Advertising Expenses 25. Samsung’s Home Market Warranty Expenses 26. Corrections Presented at the Start of Samsung’s Sales Verifications 27. Samsung’s U.S. Rebates 28. Treatment of Payments for Defective Samsung Merchandise 29. The Denominator of Various Expense Calculations for Samsung 30. Samsung’s U.S. Credit Periods 31. Samsung’s U.S. Interest Rate 32. Samsung’s U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 33. Classification of Certain Costs as Packaging or Packing for Samsung 34. Corrections Presented at the Start of Samsung’s Cost Verification 35. SEC’s G&A Ratio 36. Samsung’s Scrap Sales 37. Samsung’s Financing Costs 38. Samsung’s Materials Purchased from Affiliated Parties 39. Samsung’s R&D Expenses [FR Doc. 2012–7237 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Appendix—Issues in Decision Memorandum International Trade Administration General Issues 1. Targeted Dumping 2. Zeroing in Average-to-Transaction Comparisons 3. Adjustments to Expenses Paid to Affiliated Parties 4. Classification of Return Freight Expenses Galvanized Steel Wire From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination Company-Specific Issues tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Daewoo 5. General and Administrative Expenses for Daewoo LG 6. LG’s Corrected Control Numbers 7. LG’s Home Market Rebates 8. LG’s Home Market Advertising Expenses 9. LG’s Home Market Payment Dates 10. LG’s U.S. Payment Dates 11. LG’s U.S. Billing Adjustments VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 [C–570–976] Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of galvanized steel wire (galvanized wire) from the People’s Republic of China (the PRC). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Czajkowski or David Lindgren, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7866, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–1395 or 202–482–3870, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The U.S. producers that filed the petition for this investigation are Davis Wire Corporation, Johnstown Wire Technologies, Inc., Mid-South Wire Company, Inc., National Standard, LLC, and Oklahoma Steel & Wire Company, Inc. (collectively, Petitioners). This investigation covers 40 programs. The mandatory respondents in this investigation are: (1) M&M Industries Co. Ltd. (M&M); (2) Shandong Hualing Hardware and Tool Co., Ltd. (Hualing); (3) Shanghai Bao Zhang Industry Co. Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliated companies Anhui Bao Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Li Chao Industry Co., Ltd. (collectively, the Bao Zhang Companies); and, (4) Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliated companies Tianjin Tianxin Metal Products Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Mei Jia Hua Trade Co., Ltd. (collectively, the Huayuan Companies). Period of Investigation The period of investigation for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. Case History The following events have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination 1 on September 6, 2011.2 The Huayuan Companies filed a ministerial error allegation on September 7, 2011, and, on September 12, 2011, Petitioners filed responses to the Huayuan Companies’ allegation. On September 29, 2011, the Department released its analysis of the ministerial error allegation, finding that no ministerial errors were made in the Preliminary Determination. Petitioners, the Huayuan Companies and the 1 See Galvanized Steel Wire From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Determination, 76 FR 55031 (September 6, 2011) (Preliminary Determination). 2 Public versions of all business proprietary documents and all public documents are 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 (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17413-17418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7237]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-865]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount 
Combination Refrigerator-Freezers From the Republic of Korea

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

[[Page 17414]]

SUMMARY: We determine that imports of narrow bottom mount combination 
refrigerator-freezers (bottom mount refrigerators) from the Republic of 
Korea (Korea) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States 
at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). In addition, we determine 
that there is no reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to the subject merchandise exported 
from Korea.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final determination 
differs from the preliminary determination. The final weighted-average 
dumping margins for the investigated companies are listed below in the 
section entitled ``Final Determination Margins.''

DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood or Henry Almond, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3874 and (202) 482-0049, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On November 2, 2011, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the 
antidumping duty investigation of bottom mount refrigerators from 
Korea.\1\ Since the preliminary determination, the following events 
have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Negative 
Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount Combination 
Refrigerator-Freezers from the Republic of Korea, 76 FR 67675 (Nov. 
2, 2011) (Preliminary Determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In November 2011, we issued supplemental questionnaires to two 
respondents, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), and Samsung Electronics Co., 
Ltd. (Samsung), and we received responses to these supplemental 
questionnaires in this same month.
    In November and December 2011, we verified the questionnaire 
responses of three respondents in this case, Daewoo Electronics 
Corporation (Daewoo), LG, and Samsung, in accordance with section 
782(i) of the Act.
    In January 2012, the Government of Korea submitted comments on 
certain aspects of the Department's preliminary determination.
    In February 2012, Whirlpool Corporation (hereafter, the petitioner) 
and two of the three respondents submitted case and rebuttal briefs. 
Daewoo submitted only a rebuttal brief. Also in February 2012, the 
Department held a public hearing at the request of the petitioner and 
the three respondents.
    Subsequent to the Preliminary Determination, the Department revised 
the computer programs used to calculate the respondents' dumping 
margins to ensure that they accurately reflected the methodological 
choices made in that determination. These revisions to the programming, 
had they been included in the preliminary determination, would not have 
altered the weighted-average dumping margins calculated there.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See March 16, 2012, Memoranda to the File entitled, 
``Calculations Performed for Daewoo Electronics Corporation (Daewoo) 
for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from the Republic of 
Korea,'' ``Calculations Performed for LG for the Final Determination 
in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Bottom Mount Combination 
Refrigerator-Freezers from the Republic of Korea'' (LG Calculation 
Memo), and ``Calculations Performed for Samsung Electronics 
Corporation (Samsung) for the Final Determination in the Antidumping 
Duty Investigation of Bottom Mount Refrigerators from Korea'' 
(Samsung Calculation Memo), which contain the revised preliminary 
antidumping duty margin program log and output for each respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2010, through 
December 31, 2010.

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by the investigation are all bottom mount 
combination refrigerator-freezers and certain assemblies thereof from 
Korea. For purposes of the investigation, the term ``bottom mount 
combination refrigerator-freezers'' denotes freestanding or built-in 
cabinets that have an integral source of refrigeration using 
compression technology, with all of the following characteristics:
     The cabinet contains at least two interior storage 
compartments accessible through one or more separate external doors or 
drawers or a combination thereof;
     An upper-most interior storage compartment(s) that is 
accessible through an external door or drawer is either a refrigerator 
compartment or convertible compartment, but is not a freezer 
compartment; \3\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The existence of an interior sub-compartment for ice-making 
in an upper-most storage compartment does not render an upper-most 
storage compartment a freezer compartment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     There is at least one freezer or convertible compartment 
that is mounted below an upper-most interior storage compartment(s).
    For purposes of the investigation, a refrigerator compartment is 
capable of storing food at temperatures above 32 degrees F (0 degrees 
C), a freezer compartment is capable of storing food at temperatures at 
or below 32 degrees F (0 degrees C), and a convertible compartment is 
capable of operating as either a refrigerator compartment or a freezer 
compartment, as defined above.
    Also covered are certain assemblies used in bottom mount 
combination refrigerator-freezers, namely: (1) Any assembled cabinets 
designed for use in bottom mount combination refrigerator-freezers that 
incorporate, at a minimum: (a) An external metal shell, (b) a back 
panel, (c) a deck, (d) an interior plastic liner, (e) wiring, and (f) 
insulation; (2) any assembled external doors designed for use in bottom 
mount combination refrigerator-freezers that incorporate, at a minimum: 
(a) An external metal shell, (b) an interior plastic liner, and (c) 
insulation; and (3) any assembled external drawers designed for use in 
bottom mount combination refrigerator-freezers that incorporate, at a 
minimum: (a) An external metal shell, (b) an interior plastic liner, 
and (c) insulation.
    The products subject to the investigation are currently 
classifiable under subheadings 8418.10.0010, 8418.10.0020, 
8418.10.0030, and 8418.10.0040 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the 
United States (HTSUS). Products subject to this investigation may also 
enter under HTSUS subheadings 8418.21.0010, 8418.21.0020, 8418.21.0030, 
8418.21.0090, and 8418.99.4000, 8418.99.8050, and 8418.99.8060. 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this 
scope is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    In the Preliminary Determination, we did not modify the description 
of the scope of this investigation in the manner requested by certain 
interested parties. Specifically, we did not modify the scope to be 
consistent with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 
definition, nor did we exclude kimchi refrigerators or Quatro Cooling 
Refrigerators from the scope. We did, however, clarify the scope to 
eliminate any ambiguity with respect to the inclusion of Quatro Cooling 
Refrigerators in the scope of the investigation. See Preliminary 
Determination, 76 FR at 67677. No party

[[Page 17415]]

commented on our preliminary scope determination. Therefore, we made no 
further changes to the description of the scope, as stated in the 
Preliminary Determination.

Cost of Production

    As discussed in the preliminary determination, we conducted an 
investigation to determine whether the respondents made comparison 
market sales of the foreign like product during the POI at prices below 
their COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. See 
Preliminary Determination, 76 FR 67684-85 (Nov. 2, 2011). For this 
final determination, we performed the cost test following the same 
methodology as in the Preliminary Determination.
    We found that 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POI were at prices less than the weighted-
average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost 
sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period 
of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. See 
sections 773(b)(1)-(2) of the Act.
    Therefore, for purposes of this final determination, we found that 
each respondent made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of 
trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales and used the remaining 
sales as the basis for determining normal value for each respondent 
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Targeted Dumping

    The Act allows the Department to employ the average-to-transaction 
margin calculation methodology under the following circumstances: (1) 
There is a pattern of export prices that differ significantly among 
purchasers, regions or periods of time; and (2) the Department explains 
why such differences cannot be taken into account using the average-to-
average or transaction-to-transaction methodology. See section 
777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
    In the Preliminary Determination, we conducted time-period targeted 
dumping analyses for LG and Samsung based on timely allegations of 
targeted dumping filed by the petitioner, using the methodology adopted 
in Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 
16, 2008), and Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 
16, 2008), and applied in more recent investigations.\4\ As a result, 
we preliminarily determined that there was a pattern of U.S. prices for 
comparable merchandise that differed significantly among certain time 
periods for Samsung and LG, in accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ These investigations include Certain Coated Paper Suitable 
for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From 
Indonesia: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 
FR 59223 (Sept. 27, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1, and Multilayered Wood Flooring From the 
Peoples' Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318 (Oct. 18, 2011), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, for both Samsung and LG, we found that the standard 
average-to-average methodology did not take into account the price 
differences because the alternative average-to-transaction methodology 
yielded a material difference in the margin. Accordingly, we 
preliminarily applied the average-to-transaction methodology to all 
U.S. sales made by LG and Samsung. See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR 
at 67678-67679.
    For purposes of the final determination, we performed our targeted-
dumping analysis following the methodology employed in the Preliminary 
Determination, after taking into account the petitioner's revised 
targeted dumping allegation with respect to Samsung, and making certain 
revisions to LG's and Samsung's reported U.S. sales data based on 
verification findings and other comments submitted by the parties, as 
enumerated in the ``Margin Calculations'' section of the ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum'' (Decision Memorandum) from Gary Taverman, Acting 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, Import Administration, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, dated March 16, 2012. In so doing, we found 
that the results of our final targeted-dumping analysis were generally 
consistent with those of our preliminary targeted-dumping analysis. 
Therefore, we continued to apply the alternative average-to-transaction 
methodology for LG's and Samsung's U.S. sales, in the final 
determination. See the LG Calculation Memo and the Samsung Calculation 
Memo for further discussion.

Critical Circumstances

    In the Preliminary Determination, we found that critical 
circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of bottom mount 
refrigerators produced in, and exported from, Korea. See Preliminary 
Determination, 76 FR at 67686-67687. Samsung submitted comments in 
support of our preliminary negative critical circumstances 
determination with respect to it, and reiterated, among other things, 
that its imports have not been massive since the filing of the 
petition.
    For the final determination, we relied on updated shipment data 
provided by Daewoo, LG, and Samsung, which we examined at verification. 
Based on our analysis of these data and the comments submitted by the 
parties, we continue to find that critical circumstances do not exist 
with respect to imports of bottom mount refrigerators from Korea, as 
explained below.
    Section 735(a)(3) of the Act provides that the Department will 
determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping 
and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or 
elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or (ii) the person by whom, or 
for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have 
known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less 
than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by 
reason of such sales; and (B) there have been massive imports of the 
subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 
351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that, in 
determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been 
``massive,'' the Department normally will examine: (i) The volume and 
value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of 
domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 
351.206(h)(2) provides that an increase in imports of 15 percent during 
the ``relatively short period'' of time may be considered ``massive.'' 
Section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations defines ``relatively 
short period'' as normally being the period beginning on the date the 
proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) and ending at 
least three months later. The regulations also provide, however, that 
if the Department finds that importers, exporters, or producers had 
reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the 
proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the Department may consider a 
period of not less than three months from that earlier time.
    In determining whether the above criteria have been satisfied, we 
examined: (1) The evidence placed on the record by the respondents and 
the petitioner; and (2) the International

[[Page 17416]]

Trade Commission's (ITC's) preliminary determination of injury (see 
Bottom Mount Refrigerator Freezers from Mexico and Korea, Investigation 
Nos. 701-TA-477 and 731-TA-1180-1181 (Preliminary), 76 FR 29791 (May 
23, 2011) (ITC Preliminary Determination)).
    To determine whether there is a history of injurious dumping of the 
merchandise under investigation, in accordance with section 
735(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department normally considers evidence 
of an existing antidumping duty order on the subject merchandise in the 
United States or elsewhere to be sufficient.\5\ As mentioned in the 
Preliminary Determination, while the petitioner noted that New Zealand 
imposed antidumping duties on the subject merchandise produced in Korea 
in 2001, this order was terminated in 2006. Moreover, the petitioner 
did not identify any additional proceedings with respect to Korean-
origin products, nor are we aware of any antidumping duty order in any 
country on bottom mount refrigerators from Korea. For this reason, the 
Department does not find a history of injurious dumping of the subject 
merchandise from Korea pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See e.g., Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Determination 
of Critical Circumstances, 75 FR 28237 (May 20, 2010), unchanged in 
Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical 
Circumstances 75 FR 45468 (Aug. 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether the person by whom, or for whose account, the 
merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter 
was selling the subject merchandise at LTFV, and that there was likely 
to be material injury by reason of such sales in accordance with 
section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department normally considers 
margins of 25 percent or more for export price (EP) sales or 15 percent 
or more for constructed export price (CEP) transactions sufficient to 
impute knowledge of dumping.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and 
Affirmative Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination: 
Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, 70 FR 49557 (Aug. 24, 2005), 
unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, 71 FR 2183 (Jan. 
13, 2006) (Certain Orange Juice from Brazil).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final dumping margin calculated for LG exceeds the threshold 
sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping (i.e., 15 percent for CEP 
sales, which are the vast majority of the sales on which the 
calculation is based). Therefore, we determine that there is sufficient 
basis to find that importers should have known that LG was selling the 
subject merchandise at LTFV pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the 
Act. For Daewoo and Samsung, we calculated final margins of de minimis 
and 5.16 percent, respectively, which do not meet the 15- and 25-
percent thresholds necessary to impute knowledge of dumping for either 
CEP or EP sales. Finally, for the companies covered by the ``All 
Others'' rate, the final calculated dumping margin of 10.29 percent 
also does not meet the 15-percent threshold necessary to impute 
knowledge of dumping for CEP sales, which are the vast majority of the 
sales on which the calculation of the ``All Others'' rate is based. 
Therefore, we find that the importer knowledge criterion, as set forth 
in section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, has been met for LG, but has 
not been met for Daewoo, Samsung, and the companies covered by the 
``All Others'' rate.
    In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that 
there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, the 
Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination 
of the ITC. If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of present 
material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the Department will 
determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge 
that material injury is likely by reason of such imports. See e.g., 
Certain Orange Juice from Brazil. In the present case, the ITC 
preliminarily found reasonable indication that an industry in the 
United States is materially injured by imports of bottom mount 
refrigerators from Korea. See ITC Preliminary Determination. Based on 
the ITC's preliminary determination of injury, and the final 
antidumping margin for LG, the Department finds that there is a 
reasonable basis to conclude that the importer knew or should have 
known that there was likely to be injurious dumping of subject 
merchandise for these companies.
    In determining whether there are ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(B) of the 
Act, the Department normally compares the import volumes of the subject 
merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing 
of the petition (i.e., the base period) to a comparable period of at 
least three months following the filing of the petition (i.e., the 
comparison period). Accordingly, in determining whether imports of the 
subject merchandise have been massive, we based our analysis for each 
of the three companies on shipment data for comparable seven-month 
periods preceding and following the filing of the petition.
    Specifically, the Department requested and obtained from each of 
the respondents monthly shipment data from January 2008 to October 
2011. To determine whether imports of subject merchandise have been 
massive over a relatively short period, we compared, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.206(h)(1)(i), the respondents' export volumes for the seven months 
before the filing of the petition (i.e., September 2010-March 2011) to 
those during the seven months after the filing of the petition (i.e., 
April through October 2011). These periods were selected based on the 
Department's practice of using the longest period for which information 
is available up to the date of the preliminary determination.\7\ 
According to the monthly shipment information, we found the volume of 
shipments of bottom mount refrigerators increased by more than 15 
percent for LG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Silicon 
Metal From the Russian Federation, 67 FR 59253, 59256 (Sept. 20, 
2001), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation, 68 FR 
6885 (Feb. 11, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of our ``massive imports'' determination, we also 
considered the impact of seasonality on imports of bottom mount 
refrigerators based on interested party comments and information 
contained in the ITC's preliminary determination. In order to determine 
whether the seasonality factor accounted for the increase in imports 
observed for each of the respondents in the post-petition filing period 
(the comparison period), we analyzed company-specific shipment data for 
a historical three-year period, where possible, using the same base and 
comparison time periods noted above. As a result of this analysis, we 
found that there is a consistent pattern of seasonality in the 
industry, and that seasonal trends account for the increase in imports 
subsequent to the filing of the petition from each of the respondents. 
Specifically, with respect to LG, we found that the percentage increase 
in shipments during the comparison period is not related to the filing 
of the petition but rather to the consistent seasonal trends in the 
industry because shipments during the April-October time period were 
consistently higher than those in the September-March time period, and 
the shipment increases observed in the April-October time period from 
year to

[[Page 17417]]

year decreased. Therefore, for purposes of the final determination, we 
find that imports from LG during the period after the filing of the 
petition have not been massive in accordance with section 735(a)(3)(B) 
of the Act.
    In summary, we find that there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect importers had knowledge of dumping and the likelihood of 
material injury with respect to bottom mount refrigerators produced and 
exported from Korea by LG. However, we do not find that there have been 
massive imports of bottom mount refrigerators over a relatively short 
period from LG due to seasonality. Therefore, for the reasons stated 
above, the Department finds that critical circumstances do not exist 
for imports of the subject merchandise from Korea. For a complete 
discussion of our final critical circumstances analysis, see the 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 and the March 16, 2012, Memorandum to 
James P. Maeder, Jr., Director, Office 2, from The Team entitled, 
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Bottom Mount Refrigerator 
Freezers from Korea--Final Determination of Critical Circumstances.''

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in 
this investigation are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is 
adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the 
issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding 
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department building.
    In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be 
accessed directly on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. 
The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are 
identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at 
verification, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations. 
For a discussion of these changes, see the ``Margin Calculations'' 
section of the Decision Memorandum.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and 
cost information submitted by the respondents for use in our final 
determination. We used standard verification procedures including an 
examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original 
source documents provided by the respondents.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    Pursuant to 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of subject merchandise from Korea, entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after November 2, 2011, the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register. 
CBP shall require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the 
estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as 
shown below, adjusted for export subsidies found in the final 
determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation of 
this merchandise. Specifically, consistent with our practice, where the 
product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent 
countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash 
deposit or posting of a bond equal to the amount by which the normal 
value exceeds the EP or CEP, as indicated below, less the amount of the 
countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 
67306, 67307 (Nov. 17, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, for cash deposit purposes, we are subtracting from the 
applicable cash deposit rate that portion of the rate attributable to 
the export subsidies found in the affirmative countervailing duty 
determination for each respondent with a final dumping margin above de 
minimis (i.e., 1.65 percent for Samsung and 1.60 percent for the 
companies covered by the ``All Others'' rate). After the adjustment for 
the cash deposit rates attributed to export subsidies, the resulting 
cash deposit rates will be 3.51 percent for Samsung and 8.69 percent 
for the companies covered by the ``All Others'' rate. For LG, although 
its final dumping margin is above de minimis, the Department found no 
export subsidies for this company and therefore we have not adjusted 
LG's final cash deposit rate. For Daewoo, because its estimated 
weighted-average final dumping margin is zero, we are not directing CBP 
to suspend liquidation of entries of bottom mount refrigerators 
produced and exported by this company. These instructions suspending 
liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

Final Determination Margins

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Weighted-average         Critical
     Exporter/manufacturer      margin percentage      circumstances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daewoo Electronics Corporation               0.00  No.
LG Electronics, Inc...........              15.41  No.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd..               5.16  No.
All Others....................              10.29  No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

``All Others'' Rate

    In accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we have based 
the ``All Others'' rate on the simple average of the dumping margins 
calculated for the exporters/manufacturers investigated in this 
proceeding. The ``All Others'' rate is calculated exclusive of all de 
minimis margins and margins based entirely on AFA. Because we cannot 
apply our normal methodology of calculating a weighted-average margin 
due to requests to protect business-proprietary information, we find 
this rate to be the best proxy of the actual weighted-average margin 
determined for the mandatory respondents.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final 
Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order 
in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (Sept. 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

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

[[Page 17418]]

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our final determination. As our final determination is 
affirmative, the ITC will determine within 45 days whether imports of 
the subject merchandise are causing material injury, or threat of 
material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC 
determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the 
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be 
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does 
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing 
CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

    This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of return/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.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: March 16, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum

General Issues

1. Targeted Dumping
2. Zeroing in Average-to-Transaction Comparisons
3. Adjustments to Expenses Paid to Affiliated Parties
4. Classification of Return Freight Expenses

Company-Specific Issues

Daewoo

5. General and Administrative Expenses for Daewoo

LG

6. LG's Corrected Control Numbers
7. LG's Home Market Rebates
8. LG's Home Market Advertising Expenses
9. LG's Home Market Payment Dates
10. LG's U.S. Payment Dates
11. LG's U.S. Billing Adjustments
12. LG's U.S. Lump Sum and Sell-Out Rebates
13. LG's Non-Product-Specific Accruals for U.S. Rebates
14. LG's U.S. Freight Expenses
15. LG's U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses
16. LG's U.S. Inventory Carrying Costs
17. LG's Materials Purchased from Affiliated Parties
18. LG's Research and Development (R&D) Expenses

Samsung

19. Critical Circumstances
20. Use of Total Adverse Facts Available (AFA) for Samsung
21. Samsung's Early Payment Discounts in the Home Market
22. Samsung's Home Market Rebates on Discontinued Models and Kimchi 
Refrigerators
23. Samsung's Remaining Home Market Rebates
24. Samsung's Home Market Advertising Expenses
25. Samsung's Home Market Warranty Expenses
26. Corrections Presented at the Start of Samsung's Sales 
Verifications
27. Samsung's U.S. Rebates
28. Treatment of Payments for Defective Samsung Merchandise
29. The Denominator of Various Expense Calculations for Samsung
30. Samsung's U.S. Credit Periods
31. Samsung's U.S. Interest Rate
32. Samsung's U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses
33. Classification of Certain Costs as Packaging or Packing for 
Samsung
34. Corrections Presented at the Start of Samsung's Cost 
Verification
35. SEC's G&A Ratio
36. Samsung's Scrap Sales
37. Samsung's Financing Costs
38. Samsung's Materials Purchased from Affiliated Parties
39. Samsung's R&D Expenses
[FR Doc. 2012-7237 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.