Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers From Mexico, 17422-17427 [2012-7271]

Download as PDF 17422 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Apply the Same Electricity Benchmark to both ABZ and SBZ Comment 12: Application of AFA to the Huayuan Companies and M&M VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2012–7214 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–201–839] Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers From Mexico Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: We determine that imports of bottom mount combination refrigeratorfreezers (bottom mount refrigerators) from Mexico 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 critical circumstances exist with respect to the subject merchandise exported from Mexico by Samsung Electronics Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Samsung). Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 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: David Goldberger or Katherine Johnson, 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) 482–4136 and (202) 482–4929, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: 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 Mexico.1 Since the 1 See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 preliminary determination, the following events have occurred. In November 2011, we issued supplemental questionnaires to, and received responses from, all four respondents: Electrolux Home Products Corp. NV/Electrolux Home Products De Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Electrolux), LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (LGEMM), Controladora Mabe, S.A. de C.V./Mabe, S.A. de C.V. (Mabe), and Samsung. Also, in November 2011, we received updated shipment information for our critical circumstances analysis from Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung. On December 5, 2011, Whirlpool Corporation (hereafter, the petitioner) amended its targeted dumping allegation with respect to Samsung to reflect the revised U.S. sales data submitted by Samsung in response to the Department’s November 2011, supplemental questionnaire. In November and December 2011, we verified the questionnaire responses of the four respondents in this case, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Act. In December, January and February 2012, we issued our verification findings for each respondent.2 Final Determination, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from Mexico, 76 FR 67688 (Nov. 2, 2011) (Preliminary Determination). 2 See Memorandum to The File entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Electrolux Home Products, Corp. N.V. and Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (collectively ‘‘Electrolux’’) in the Antidumping Investigation of Bottom Mount. Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from Mexico,’’ dated December 22, 2011; Memorandum to The File entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of Electrolux Home Products, Corp. N.V. and Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (collectively ‘‘Electrolux’’) in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers (BMRFs) from Mexico,’’ dated February 1, 2012; Memorandum to The File entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of LG Electronics, Inc. in the Antidumping Investigation of Bottom-Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from the Republic of Korea, dated December 22, 2011; Memorandum to the File entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V. in the Antidumping Investigation of Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from Mexico,’’ dated December 22, 2011; Memorandum to The File entitled ‘‘Verification of the Third Country Sales Response of LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A, de C.V, and LG Electronics Canada,’’ February 1, 2012; Memorandum to The File entitled ‘‘Verification of the U.S. Sales Response of LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V. and LG Electronics USA, Inc.,’’ dated February 2, 2012; Memorandum to the File entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers from Korea,’’ dated February 2, 2012; Memorandum to the File entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Controladora Mabe S.A. de C.V. Mabe S.A. de C.V., and Leiser S. de R.L. in the Antidumping Investigation of Bottom-Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from Mexico,’’ dated January 4, 2012; Memorandum to The File entitled PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 In February 2012, the Department requested, and the respondents submitted, revised U.S. and/or comparison-market sales listings to reflect certain verification findings. Also, in February 2012, the petitioner and the respondents (except for Electrolux) submitted case and rebuttal briefs. On February 22, 2012, the Government of Mexico submitted comments on certain aspects of the Department’s preliminary determination. On February 24, 2012, the Department held a hearing in this case. 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. See March 16, 2012, Memoranda to The File entitled ‘‘Final Determination Margin Calculation for LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (LGEMM)’’ (LGEMM Calculation Memo); ‘‘Final Determination Margin Calculation for Samsung Electronics Mexico S.A. de C.V. (SEM)’’ (Samsung Calculation Memo); ‘‘Final Determination Margin Calculation for Electrolux Home Products, Corp. N.V./ Electrolux Home Products de Mexico, S.A. de C.V’’ (Electrolux Calculation Memo); and ‘‘Final Determination Margin Calculation for Controladora Mabe S.A. de C.V., Mabe S.A. de C.V., and Leiser S. de R.L. (collectively, Mabe),’’ 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. ‘‘Verification of the Sales Responses of General Electric Company,’’ dated January 13, 2012; Memorandum to The File entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales Responses of Controladora Mabe S.A. de C.V., and Mabe S.A. de C.V. (collectively, ‘‘Mabe’’),’’ dated January 25, 2012; Memorandum to The File entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Samsung Electronics Mexico S.A. de C.V. in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from Mexico’’, dated December 21, 2011; Memorandum to The File entitled ‘‘Verification of the U.S. Sales Response of Samsung Electronics Mexico, S.A. de C.V.,’’ dated January 9, 2012; and Memorandum to The File entitled ‘‘Verification of Samsung Electronics America Inc.,’’ dated January 26, 2012. E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices Scope of Investigation The products covered by the investigation are all bottom mount combination refrigerator-freezers and certain assemblies thereof from Mexico. 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 • 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 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 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 67690–67691. No party commented on our preliminary scope determination. Therefore, we made no further changes to the description of the scope, as stated in the Preliminary Determination. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision Memorandum), which is adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The 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 (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at https:// www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17423 documents provided by the respondents. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for each respondent. For a discussion of these changes, see the ‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the Decision Memorandum. 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 cost of production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 67698–67699. For this final determination, we performed the cost test following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Determination, after making certain adjustments to the reported comparison-market cost and sales data based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, where appropriate. 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. MNC Provision As we discussed in the Preliminary Determination, we applied the Special Rule for Certain Multinational Corporations (MNC Provision) in the calculation of normal value (NV) for LGEMM because, based on the record evidence, LGEMM satisfied each of the three criteria enumerated under section 773(d) of the Act. In so doing, we based NV for LGEMM on the prices of sales made by LG Electronics, Inc. (LGE) in Korea. See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 67692–67693. E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 17424 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices We have continued to apply the MNC Provision to the calculation of LGEMM’s NV for purposes of the final determination because all three criteria enumerated in the Act have been met. Specifically, we verified that LGEMM is owned in part by LGE, which produces bottom mount refrigerators, and that LGEMM’s home market sales are not viable for comparison to its U.S. sales. Furthermore, using the same methodology as that employed in the Preliminary Determination, after taking into account adjustments made to LGEMM’s and LGE’s sales and cost data based on our analysis of other comments received and our findings at verification, we continue to find that the NV of the foreign like product produced in Korea is higher than the NV of the foreign like product produced in Mexico. Therefore, we compared LGEMM’s U.S. prices to the prices of sales made by LGE in Korea. For further discussion of this issue, see Comment 3 of the Decision Memorandum. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 Electrolux, LGEMM, 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) (Nails), and applied in more recent investigations.4 As a result, we preliminarily determined that there was 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 a pattern of U.S. prices for comparable merchandise that differed significantly among certain time periods for Samsung and LGEMM, in accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We also preliminarily determined that no such pattern existed for Electrolux. Furthermore, for Samsung, we found that the standard average-to-average methodology took into account the price differences because the alternative average-to-transaction methodology yielded no difference in the margin or yielded a difference in the margin that was so insignificant relative to the size of the resulting margin as to be immaterial. Accordingly, we preliminarily applied the standard average-to-average methodology to all U.S. sales made by Samsung. For LGEMM, we found that 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-totransaction methodology to all U.S. sales made by LGEMM. For Electrolux, because we did not find a pattern of prices that differed significantly for certain time periods, we applied our standard average-to-average price comparison methodology to all U.S. sales made by Electrolux. See Preliminary Determination at 76 FR 67691–67692. 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 Electrolux’s, LGEMM’s and Samsung’s reported U.S. sales data based on verification findings and our evaluation of other comments submitted by the parties, as enumerated in the ‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the Decision Memo. In so doing, we found that the results of our final targeteddumping analysis were consistent with those of our preliminary targeteddumping analysis with respect to Electrolux. Therefore, we continued to apply the standard average-to-average methodology to all of Electrolux’s U.S. sales. For Samsung and LGEMM, while we found a pattern of price differences that differed significantly for certain time periods pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined that the differences can be taken into account using the average-to-average methodology. Therefore, we applied the standard average-to-average PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 methodology to all U.S. sales made by Samsung and LGEMM. See LGEMM Calculation Memo, Samsung Calculation Memo, and Electrolux Calculation Memo. For further discussion, see Comment 2 of the Decision Memorandum. Critical Circumstances In the Preliminary Determination, we found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the subject merchandise from Samsung but not with respect to imports of subject merchandise from Electrolux or LGEMM.5 See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 67701–67702. Samsung objected to our preliminary affirmative critical circumstances determination with respect to it, arguing among other things, that its imports have not been massive since the filing of the petition. In conducting our critical circumstances analysis for the final determination, we relied on updated shipment data provided by Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung which we examined at verification. Based on our analysis of these data and the criteria enumerated under section 735(a)(3) of the Act, we continue to find that critical circumstances exist only with respect to imports of bottom mount refrigerators from Samsung, 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.’’ 5 The petitioner did not make a critical circumstances allegation with respect to imports from Mabe or All Others. E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 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.6 As mentioned in the Preliminary Determination, the petitioner did not identify any proceeding with respect to bottom mount refrigerators from Mexico, nor are we aware of any existing antidumping duty order in any country on bottom mount refrigerators from Mexico. For this reason, the Department does not find a history of injurious dumping of the subject merchandise from Mexico 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) 6 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 (August 2, 2010). VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 transactions sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping.7 Electrolux made only CEP sales and the vast majority of LGEMM’s sales are CEP. Samsung had both EP and CEP sales, a majority of which are CEP sales. The final dumping margins calculated for Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung exceed the threshold sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping (i.e., 15 percent for CEP sales). Therefore, we determine that there is sufficient basis to find that importers should have known that each of these companies was selling the subject merchandise at LTFV pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act. 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 Mexico. See ITC Preliminary Determination. Based on the ITC’s preliminary determination of injury, and the final antidumping margins for Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung, 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 7 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 (August 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 (January 13, 2006) (Certain Orange Juice from Brazil). PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17425 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.8 According to the monthly shipment information, we found the volume of shipments of bottom mount refrigerators increased by more than 15 percent for Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung. 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 except one. Specifically, with respect to Electrolux and LGEMM, 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 8 See e.g., 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, 2002), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation, 68 FR 6885 (February 11, 2003). E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 17426 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices time period from year to year, and the shipment increases observed in the April–October time period from year to year decreased. Therefore, for purposes of the final determination, we find that imports from these companies during the period after the filing of the petition have not been massive in accordance with section 735(a)(3)(B) of the Act. However, with respect to Samsung, we found that the percentage increase in shipments during the comparison period is not related to seasonal trends but associated with the filing of the petition because shipments in the April–October 2010 time period were lower than those in the September 2009–March 2010 time period, and the shipment increase observed in the April–October period between 2010 and 2011 was substantial. Accordingly, for purposes of the final determination, we find that imports from Samsung during the period after the filing of the petition have 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 Mexico by Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung. In addition, we find that there have been massive imports of bottom mount refrigerators over a relatively short period from Samsung, irrespective of seasonality. However, we do not find that there have been massive imports of bottom mount refrigerators over a relatively short period from Electrolux and LGEMM 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 Electrolux and LGEMM, but continues to find that critical circumstances exist for imports of the subject merchandise from Samsung in the final determination. For a complete discussion of our final critical circumstances analysis, see the Decision Memorandum at Comment 34 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 Mexico— Final Determination of Critical Circumstances.’’ 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 Mexico, produced/ exported by Electrolux, LGEMM, Mabe, and ‘‘All Others’’ and 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. 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 Mexico, produced/ exported by Samsung and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 4, 2011, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register, i.e., November 2, 2011. 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. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. Final Determination Margins The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: WeightedAverage margin percentage Exporter/manufacturer Electrolux Home Products, Corp. NV/Electrolux Home Products De Mexico, S.A. de C.V ..................................... LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V. ....................................................................................................... Controladora Mabe S.A. de C.V./Mabe S.A. de C.V. ................................................................................................ Samsung Electronics Mexico, S.A. de C.V. .............................................................................................................. All Others ................................................................................................................................................................... ‘‘All Others’’ Rate In accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we based the ‘‘All Others’’ rate on the weighted 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. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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). ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we notified the ITC of our final determination. As our final VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 22.94 30.34 6.00 15.95 20.26 Critical circumstances No. No. NA. Yes. NA. 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 E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 2. Zeroing in Average-to-Transaction Comparisons DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Company-Specific Issues International Trade Administration LGEMM [A–201–840] 3. Application of MNC Provision 4. Lump Sum and Sell-Out Rebates on U.S. Sales 5. Non-Product-Specific Accrual Rebates on U.S. Sales 6. Warehouse-to-Customer U.S. Inland Freight Expenses 7. Billing Adjustments on U.S. Sales 8. Interest Rate for U.S. Inventory Carrying Costs 9. Payment Dates on Certain U.S. Sales 10. Payment Dates on Certain Canadian Sales 11. Lump Sum and Sell-Out Rebates on Canadian Sales 12. Direct Advertising Expense Ratio for Canadian Sales 13. Conversion Cost Allocation Error 14. Research and Development Costs 15. Global Costs 16. Affiliated Party Input Purchases Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Galvanized Steel Wire From Mexico Samsung 17. Corrections Presented at Start of Sales Verifications 18. U.S. Rebates 19. CEP Offset 20. The Denominator for Certain Selling Expense Ratios 21. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 22. Classification of Certain Costs as Packaging or Packing 23. Treatment of Payments for Defective Merchandise 24. Unreported Bank Charges 25. Comparison Market Viability 26. Calculation of CV Selling Expenses and Profit 27. Research and Development Costs 28. Certain Affiliated Party Purchases 29. Affiliated Party Compressors Purchases 30. Erroneously Reported Input Quantities 31. General and Administrative Expense Ratio 32. Interest Expense Offset 33. Understatement of Input Freight Costs 34. Critical Circumstances Mabe tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 35. Costs Excluded From Cost of Production 36. Fees Related to Agreements Between Mabe and GEA 37. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 38. U.S. Rebates 39. U.S. Advertising Expenses 40. Cost Verification Corrections 41. Home Market Rebate Identified at Verification Electrolux 42. Verification Findings [FR Doc. 2012–7271 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012. SUMMARY: On November 4, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published its preliminary determination in the investigation of sales at less than fair value of galvanized steel wire (galvanized wire) from Mexico.1 The Department has determined that galvanized wire from Mexico is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final margins of sales at less than fair value are listed below in the section entitled ‘‘Final Determination of Investigation.’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Edwards or Ericka Ukrow, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–8029 or (202) 482– 0405, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background The preliminary determination in this investigation was published on November 4, 2011. See Preliminary Determination. We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. On November 8, 2011, we received timely-filed allegations from Deacero S.A. de C.V. (Deacero) that the Department made several ministerial errors in calculating its dumping margin for the preliminary determination.2 On November 10 and 23, 2011, the Department issued Deacero supplemental questionnaires. On December 5, 2011, the Department released its memorandum addressing Deacero’s ministerial error allegations, finding that no amendment to the preliminary determination was 1 See Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 76 FR 68422 (November 4, 2011) (Preliminary Determination). 2 See Letter from Deacero, regarding ‘‘Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated November 8, 2011. Petitioners did not comment on Deacero’s ministerial error allegations. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17427 warranted. See Ministerial Error Memorandum.3 On December 5, 2011, Deacero submitted its response to the November 23, 2011, questionnaire.4 Also on December 5, 2011, Petitioners 5 and respondent Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. (Camesa) timely filed a request for a public hearing.6 We conducted cost and sales verifications of the responses submitted by Deacero and Camesa (collectively, respondents).7 All verification reports 3 See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, Director, Office 7, from Patrick Edwards and Ericka Ukrow, Case Analysts, through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, entitled ‘‘Ministerial Error Allegation in the Preliminary Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico: Deacero S.A. de C.V.,’’ dated December 5, 2011 (Ministerial Error Memorandum). 4 See Deacero’s Fourth Supplemental Questionnaire Response, dated December 8, 2011. 5 The Petitioners in this investigation are Davis Wire Corporation, Johnston Wire Technologies, Inc., Mid-South Wire Company, Inc., National Standard, LLC, and Oklahoma Steel & Wire Company, Inc. (collectively, Petitioners). 6 Deacero, also on December 5, 2011, requested to participate in a hearing in the event that another party requested a hearing. 7 See Memorandum to the File from Christopher J. Zimpo and Frederick W. Mines, Case Accountants, through Theresa C. Deeley, Lead Accountant, and Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost of Production and Constructed Value Data Submitted by Deacero S.A. de C.V. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated January 13, 2012 (Deacero Cost Verification Report); Memorandum to the File from Frederick W. Mines and Christopher J. Zimpo, Case Accountants, through Theresa C. Deeley, Lead Accountant, and Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated January 13, 2012 (Camesa Cost Verification Report); Memorandum to the File from Christopher J. Zimpo and Frederick W. Mines, Case Accountants, through Theresa C. Deeley, Lead Accountant, and Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Further Manufacturing Data Submitted by Deacero S.A. de C.V. for Deacero USA Inc. and Stay-Tuff Fence Manufacturing, Inc. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated January 27, 2012 (Deacero Further-Manufacturing Verification Report); Memorandum to the File from Patrick Edwards, Case Analyst, through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales Responses of Aceros Camesa, S.A. de C.V. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated February 13, 2012 (Camesa Verification Report); Memorandum to the File from Ericka Ukrow and Patrick Edwards, Case Analysts, through Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of Deacero USA Inc. (Deacero USA) and Stay-Tuff Fence Manufacturing, Inc. (Stay-Tuff) in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated February 15, 2012 (Deacero CEP Verification Report); Memorandum to the File from Patrick Edwards and Ericka Ukrow, Case Analysts, through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales Responses of Deacero S.A. de C.V. in the E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM Continued 26MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17422-17427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7271]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-839]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount
Combination Refrigerator-Freezers From Mexico

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

SUMMARY: We determine that imports of bottom mount combination
refrigerator-freezers (bottom mount refrigerators) from Mexico 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 critical
circumstances exist with respect to the subject merchandise exported
from Mexico by Samsung Electronics Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Samsung).
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 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: David Goldberger or Katherine Johnson,
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-
4136 and (202) 482-4929, 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
Mexico.\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
Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount
Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from Mexico, 76 FR 67688 (Nov. 2,
2011) (Preliminary Determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In November 2011, we issued supplemental questionnaires to, and
received responses from, all four respondents: Electrolux Home Products
Corp. NV/Electrolux Home Products De Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Electrolux),
LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (LGEMM), Controladora
Mabe, S.A. de C.V./Mabe, S.A. de C.V. (Mabe), and Samsung. Also, in
November 2011, we received updated shipment information for our
critical circumstances analysis from Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung.
On December 5, 2011, Whirlpool Corporation (hereafter, the
petitioner) amended its targeted dumping allegation with respect to
Samsung to reflect the revised U.S. sales data submitted by Samsung in
response to the Department's November 2011, supplemental questionnaire.
In November and December 2011, we verified the questionnaire
responses of the four respondents in this case, in accordance with
section 782(i) of the Act. In December, January and February 2012, we
issued our verification findings for each respondent.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ See Memorandum to The File entitled ``Verification of the
Cost Response of Electrolux Home Products, Corp. N.V. and Electrolux
Home Products, Inc. (collectively ``Electrolux'') in the Antidumping
Investigation of Bottom Mount. Combination Refrigerator-Freezers
from Mexico,'' dated December 22, 2011; Memorandum to The File
entitled ``Verification of the Sales Response of Electrolux Home
Products, Corp. N.V. and Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
(collectively ``Electrolux'') in the Antidumping Duty Investigation
of Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers (BMRFs) from
Mexico,'' dated February 1, 2012; Memorandum to The File entitled
``Verification of the Cost Response of LG Electronics, Inc. in the
Antidumping Investigation of Bottom-Mount Combination Refrigerator-
Freezers from the Republic of Korea, dated December 22, 2011;
Memorandum to the File entitled ``Verification of the Cost Response
of LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V. in the Antidumping
Investigation of Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from
Mexico,'' dated December 22, 2011; Memorandum to The File entitled
``Verification of the Third Country Sales Response of LG Electronics
Monterrey Mexico, S.A, de C.V, and LG Electronics Canada,'' February
1, 2012; Memorandum to The File entitled ``Verification of the U.S.
Sales Response of LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V. and
LG Electronics USA, Inc.,'' dated February 2, 2012; Memorandum to
the File entitled ``Verification of the Sales Response of Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of
Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers from Korea,'' dated February 2,
2012; Memorandum to the File entitled ``Verification of the Cost
Response of Controladora Mabe S.A. de C.V. Mabe S.A. de C.V., and
Leiser S. de R.L. in the Antidumping Investigation of Bottom-Mount
Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from Mexico,'' dated January 4,
2012; Memorandum to The File entitled ``Verification of the Sales
Responses of General Electric Company,'' dated January 13, 2012;
Memorandum to The File entitled ``Verification of the Sales
Responses of Controladora Mabe S.A. de C.V., and Mabe S.A. de C.V.
(collectively, ``Mabe''),'' dated January 25, 2012; Memorandum to
The File entitled ``Verification of the Cost Response of Samsung
Electronics Mexico S.A. de C.V. in the Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigation of Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from
Mexico'', dated December 21, 2011; Memorandum to The File entitled
``Verification of the U.S. Sales Response of Samsung Electronics
Mexico, S.A. de C.V.,'' dated January 9, 2012; and Memorandum to The
File entitled ``Verification of Samsung Electronics America Inc.,''
dated January 26, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In February 2012, the Department requested, and the respondents
submitted, revised U.S. and/or comparison-market sales listings to
reflect certain verification findings.
Also, in February 2012, the petitioner and the respondents (except
for Electrolux) submitted case and rebuttal briefs. On February 22,
2012, the Government of Mexico submitted comments on certain aspects of
the Department's preliminary determination. On February 24, 2012, the
Department held a hearing in this case.
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. See
March 16, 2012, Memoranda to The File entitled ``Final Determination
Margin Calculation for LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
(LGEMM)'' (LGEMM Calculation Memo); ``Final Determination Margin
Calculation for Samsung Electronics Mexico S.A. de C.V. (SEM)''
(Samsung Calculation Memo); ``Final Determination Margin Calculation
for Electrolux Home Products, Corp. N.V./Electrolux Home Products de
Mexico, S.A. de C.V'' (Electrolux Calculation Memo); and ``Final
Determination Margin Calculation for Controladora Mabe S.A. de C.V.,
Mabe S.A. de C.V., and Leiser S. de R.L. (collectively, Mabe),'' 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.

[[Page 17423]]

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by the investigation are all bottom mount
combination refrigerator-freezers and certain assemblies thereof from
Mexico. 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 67690-67691. No party commented on our
preliminary scope determination. Therefore, we made no further changes
to the description of the scope, as stated in the Preliminary
Determination.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in
this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
(Decision Memorandum), which is adopted by this notice. A list of the
issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The 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 (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of
Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at https://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic
version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

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.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

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

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 cost of production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b) of
the Act. See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 67698-67699. For this
final determination, we performed the cost test following the same
methodology as in the Preliminary Determination, after making certain
adjustments to the reported comparison-market cost and sales data based
on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at
verification, where appropriate.
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.

MNC Provision

As we discussed in the Preliminary Determination, we applied the
Special Rule for Certain Multinational Corporations (MNC Provision) in
the calculation of normal value (NV) for LGEMM because, based on the
record evidence, LGEMM satisfied each of the three criteria enumerated
under section 773(d) of the Act. In so doing, we based NV for LGEMM on
the prices of sales made by LG Electronics, Inc. (LGE) in Korea. See
Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 67692-67693.

[[Page 17424]]

We have continued to apply the MNC Provision to the calculation of
LGEMM's NV for purposes of the final determination because all three
criteria enumerated in the Act have been met. Specifically, we verified
that LGEMM is owned in part by LGE, which produces bottom mount
refrigerators, and that LGEMM's home market sales are not viable for
comparison to its U.S. sales. Furthermore, using the same methodology
as that employed in the Preliminary Determination, after taking into
account adjustments made to LGEMM's and LGE's sales and cost data based
on our analysis of other comments received and our findings at
verification, we continue to find that the NV of the foreign like
product produced in Korea is higher than the NV of the foreign like
product produced in Mexico. Therefore, we compared LGEMM's U.S. prices
to the prices of sales made by LGE in Korea. For further discussion of
this issue, see Comment 3 of the Decision Memorandum.

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 Electrolux, LGEMM, 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) (Nails), 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
LGEMM, in accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We also
preliminarily determined that no such pattern existed for Electrolux.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, for Samsung, we found that the standard average-to-
average methodology took into account the price differences because the
alternative average-to-transaction methodology yielded no difference in
the margin or yielded a difference in the margin that was so
insignificant relative to the size of the resulting margin as to be
immaterial. Accordingly, we preliminarily applied the standard average-
to-average methodology to all U.S. sales made by Samsung. For LGEMM, we
found that 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 LGEMM. For
Electrolux, because we did not find a pattern of prices that differed
significantly for certain time periods, we applied our standard
average-to-average price comparison methodology to all U.S. sales made
by Electrolux. See Preliminary Determination at 76 FR 67691-67692.
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 Electrolux's, LGEMM's and Samsung's reported U.S. sales
data based on verification findings and our evaluation of other
comments submitted by the parties, as enumerated in the ``Margin
Calculations'' section of the Decision Memo. In so doing, we found that
the results of our final targeted-dumping analysis were consistent with
those of our preliminary targeted-dumping analysis with respect to
Electrolux. Therefore, we continued to apply the standard average-to-
average methodology to all of Electrolux's U.S. sales. For Samsung and
LGEMM, while we found a pattern of price differences that differed
significantly for certain time periods pursuant to section
777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined that the differences can be
taken into account using the average-to-average methodology. Therefore,
we applied the standard average-to-average methodology to all U.S.
sales made by Samsung and LGEMM. See LGEMM Calculation Memo, Samsung
Calculation Memo, and Electrolux Calculation Memo. For further
discussion, see Comment 2 of the Decision Memorandum.

Critical Circumstances

In the Preliminary Determination, we found that critical
circumstances exist with respect to imports of the subject merchandise
from Samsung but not with respect to imports of subject merchandise
from Electrolux or LGEMM.\5\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at
67701-67702. Samsung objected to our preliminary affirmative critical
circumstances determination with respect to it, arguing among other
things, that its imports have not been massive since the filing of the
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The petitioner did not make a critical circumstances
allegation with respect to imports from Mabe or All Others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In conducting our critical circumstances analysis for the final
determination, we relied on updated shipment data provided by
Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung which we examined at verification. Based
on our analysis of these data and the criteria enumerated under section
735(a)(3) of the Act, we continue to find that critical circumstances
exist only with respect to imports of bottom mount refrigerators from
Samsung, 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.''

[[Page 17425]]

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 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.\6\ As mentioned in the
Preliminary Determination, the petitioner did not identify any
proceeding with respect to bottom mount refrigerators from Mexico, nor
are we aware of any existing antidumping duty order in any country on
bottom mount refrigerators from Mexico. For this reason, the Department
does not find a history of injurious dumping of the subject merchandise
from Mexico pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ 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 (August 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ 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 (August 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 (January
13, 2006) (Certain Orange Juice from Brazil).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electrolux made only CEP sales and the vast majority of LGEMM's
sales are CEP. Samsung had both EP and CEP sales, a majority of which
are CEP sales. The final dumping margins calculated for Electrolux,
LGEMM, and Samsung exceed the threshold sufficient to impute knowledge
of dumping (i.e., 15 percent for CEP sales). Therefore, we determine
that there is sufficient basis to find that importers should have known
that each of these companies was selling the subject merchandise at
LTFV pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act. 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 Mexico. See ITC
Preliminary Determination. Based on the ITC's preliminary determination
of injury, and the final antidumping margins for Electrolux, LGEMM, and
Samsung, 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.\8\
According to the monthly shipment information, we found the volume of
shipments of bottom mount refrigerators increased by more than 15
percent for Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See e.g., 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, 2002), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation, 68
FR 6885 (February 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
except one. Specifically, with respect to Electrolux and LGEMM, 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

[[Page 17426]]

time period from year to year, and the shipment increases observed in
the April-October time period from year to year decreased. Therefore,
for purposes of the final determination, we find that imports from
these companies during the period after the filing of the petition have
not been massive in accordance with section 735(a)(3)(B) of the Act.
However, with respect to Samsung, we found that the percentage increase
in shipments during the comparison period is not related to seasonal
trends but associated with the filing of the petition because shipments
in the April-October 2010 time period were lower than those in the
September 2009-March 2010 time period, and the shipment increase
observed in the April-October period between 2010 and 2011 was
substantial. Accordingly, for purposes of the final determination, we
find that imports from Samsung during the period after the filing of
the petition have 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 Mexico by Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung. In addition, we
find that there have been massive imports of bottom mount refrigerators
over a relatively short period from Samsung, irrespective of
seasonality. However, we do not find that there have been massive
imports of bottom mount refrigerators over a relatively short period
from Electrolux and LGEMM 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 Electrolux and
LGEMM, but continues to find that critical circumstances exist for
imports of the subject merchandise from Samsung in the final
determination. For a complete discussion of our final critical
circumstances analysis, see the Decision Memorandum at Comment 34 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 Mexico--Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances.''

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 Mexico, produced/exported by
Electrolux, LGEMM, Mabe, and ``All Others'' and 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. 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 Mexico, produced/exported by
Samsung and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after August 4, 2011, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication
of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register, i.e.,
November 2, 2011. 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. These instructions suspending
liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

Final Determination Margins

The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Exporter/manufacturer Average margin Critical
percentage circumstances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrolux Home Products, Corp. 22.94 No.
NV/Electrolux Home Products De
Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, 30.34 No.
S.A. de C.V..
Controladora Mabe S.A. de C.V./ 6.00 NA.
Mabe S.A. de C.V..
Samsung Electronics Mexico, S.A. 15.95 Yes.
de C.V..
All Others....................... 20.26 NA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

``All Others'' Rate

In accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we based the
``All Others'' rate on the weighted 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.

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).

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we 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

[[Page 17427]]

2. Zeroing in Average-to-Transaction Comparisons

Company-Specific Issues

LGEMM

3. Application of MNC Provision
4. Lump Sum and Sell-Out Rebates on U.S. Sales
5. Non-Product-Specific Accrual Rebates on U.S. Sales
6. Warehouse-to-Customer U.S. Inland Freight Expenses
7. Billing Adjustments on U.S. Sales
8. Interest Rate for U.S. Inventory Carrying Costs
9. Payment Dates on Certain U.S. Sales
10. Payment Dates on Certain Canadian Sales
11. Lump Sum and Sell-Out Rebates on Canadian Sales
12. Direct Advertising Expense Ratio for Canadian Sales
13. Conversion Cost Allocation Error
14. Research and Development Costs
15. Global Costs
16. Affiliated Party Input Purchases

Samsung

17. Corrections Presented at Start of Sales Verifications
18. U.S. Rebates
19. CEP Offset
20. The Denominator for Certain Selling Expense Ratios
21. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses
22. Classification of Certain Costs as Packaging or Packing
23. Treatment of Payments for Defective Merchandise
24. Unreported Bank Charges
25. Comparison Market Viability
26. Calculation of CV Selling Expenses and Profit
27. Research and Development Costs
28. Certain Affiliated Party Purchases
29. Affiliated Party Compressors Purchases
30. Erroneously Reported Input Quantities
31. General and Administrative Expense Ratio
32. Interest Expense Offset
33. Understatement of Input Freight Costs
34. Critical Circumstances

Mabe

35. Costs Excluded From Cost of Production
36. Fees Related to Agreements Between Mabe and GEA
37. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses
38. U.S. Rebates
39. U.S. Advertising Expenses
40. Cost Verification Corrections
41. Home Market Rebate Identified at Verification

Electrolux

42. Verification Findings

[FR Doc. 2012-7271 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.