Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Review in Part, 21529-21532 [2012-8601]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Notices
intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction. See Assessment of
Antidumping Duties for a full
discussion of this clarification.
The Department will issue
instructions to CBP 15 days after the
publication of the final results of
review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon publication of the
notice of final results of administrative
review for all shipments of CTL plate
from Korea entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the date of publication, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act): (1) The cash
deposit rate for DSM will be the 1.64
percent; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company-specific rate published for
the most recent period; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, a prior review, or the less-thanfair-value investigation but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer has its
own rate, the cash deposit rate will be
0.98 percent,2 the all-others rate
established in the less-than-fair-value
investigation, adjusted for the exportsubsidy rate in the companion
countervailing duty investigation. These
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Notification to Importer
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during this review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Department’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Order
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
2 See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 2036, and
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate
Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
19046, 19048 (April 27, 2009).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Apr 09, 2012
Jkt 226001
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO as explained in
the APO itself. See 19 CFR
351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of the destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
These final results of administrative
review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(5).
Dated: April 4, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–8604 Filed 4–9–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–848]
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Rescission
of Review in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 7, 2011, the
Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on freshwater crawfish tail meat from
the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
The review covers five exporters. The
period of review is September 1, 2009,
through August 31, 2010.
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made
changes in the margin calculations for
one company. Therefore, the final
results differ from the preliminary
results. The final weighted-average
dumping margins for the reviewed firms
are listed below in the section entitled
‘‘Final Results of the Review.’’
DATES: Effective Date: April 10, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0665 or (202) 482–
1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21529
Background
On October 7, 2011, the Department
of Commerce (the Department)
published Freshwater Crawfish Tail
Meat From the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Intent To Rescind Review in
Part, 76 FR 62349 (October 7, 2011)
(Preliminary Results),1 in the Federal
Register. The administrative review
covers Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd.
(Xiping Opeck), Shanghai Ocean Flavor
International Trading Co., Ltd.
(Shanghai Ocean Flavor), China
Kingdom (Beijing) Import & Export Co.,
Ltd. (China Kingdom), Xuzhou Jinjiang
Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Xuzhou Jinjiang),
and Nanjing Gemsen International Co.,
Ltd. (Nanjing Gemsen).
On January 25, 2012, we published
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People’s Republic of China: Extension of
Time Limit for Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 77 FR 3730 (January 25, 2012),
in which we extended fully the deadline
for the final results to April 4, 2012.
On February 13, 2012, we determined
a rate for Xiping Opeck, the sole
mandatory respondent in this review,
on the basis of adverse facts available
(AFA). See memorandum to Paul
Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, entitled ‘‘Freshwater
Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s
Republic of China—Post-Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum—The Use of
Adverse Facts Available,’’ dated
February 13, 2012 (AFA Memo). We
invited interested parties to comment on
the Preliminary Results and the AFA
Memo.
We received case and rebuttal briefs
from Xiping Opeck and the petitioner,
the Crawfish Processors Alliance. No
interested party requested a hearing.
The Department has conducted this
administrative review in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the
antidumping duty order is freshwater
crawfish tail meat, in all its forms
(whether washed or with fat on,
whether purged or un-purged), grades,
and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or
chilled; and regardless of how it is
packed, preserved, or prepared.
Excluded from the scope of the order are
live crawfish and other whole crawfish,
1 In publishing the Preliminary Results, the
Federal Register distorted the title of the notice; the
Federal Register thereafter published the correct
title of the notice in 76 FR 65497 (October 21,
2011).
E:\FR\FM\10APN1.SGM
10APN1
21530
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Notices
whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled.
Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of
any type, and parts thereof.
Freshwater crawfish tail meat is
currently classifiable in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) under item numbers
1605.40.10.10 and 1605.40.10.90, which
are the HTSUS numbers for prepared
foodstuffs, indicating peeled crawfish
tail meat and other, as introduced by
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) in 2000, and HTSUS numbers
0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00.00, which
are reserved for fish and crustaceans in
general. The HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes only. The written description
of the scope of the order is dispositive.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Rescission of Administrative Review in
Part
In the Preliminary Results, we
preliminarily found that Shanghai
Ocean Flavor, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and
Nanjing Gemsen had no shipments of
subject merchandise during the period
of review and we stated our intent to
rescind the administrative review with
respect to these companies. See
Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62350. We
have received no comments concerning
our intent to rescind this administrative
review in part. We continue to find that
Shanghai Ocean Flavor, Xuzhou
Jinjiang, and Nanjing Gemsen had no
shipments of freshwater crawfish tail
meat from the PRC during the period of
review. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding the
review of Shanghai Ocean Flavor,
Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Nanjing Gemsen.
Adverse Facts Available
In the Preliminary Results, we stated
that the record evidence suggests a lack
of commercial soundness in the
transactions reported by Xiping Opeck
in this review and that another entity
(hereinafter, Company A) 2 plays a role
in the pricing associated with the
entries of subject merchandise in this
review. See Preliminary Results, 76 FR
at 62350. For a detailed discussion on
this issue, see the memorandum entitled
‘‘Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from
the People’s Republic of China—
Evaluation of an Allegation of
Middleman Dumping and Nature of
Transactions Pertaining to the Entries
Under Review,’’ dated September 30,
2011. In the Preliminary Results, we
also stated that further inquiry on this
issue is necessary. See Preliminary
Results, 76 FR at 62350. Consequently,
2 We are withholding the identity of Company A
because Xiping Opeck’s U.S. customer claimed
business-proprietary treatment of this information.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Apr 09, 2012
Jkt 226001
on October 3, 2011, we issued a nonmarket economy questionnaire to
Company A. Company A did not answer
the non-market economy questionnaire,
arguing that it was not required to
submit a response. See AFA Memo at 2.
We determined that Company A
significantly impeded the proceeding
because it did not provide any of the
information which we determined to be
critical and necessary for the
completion of an administrative review
of the entries and sales made by Xiping
Opeck. See AFA Memo at 3. We found
it necessary, pursuant to sections
776(a)(1), (2)(A) and (C) of the Act, to
use facts otherwise available to calculate
the dumping margin for Xiping Opeck
in this review. See AFA Memo at 4.
Because Company A did not cooperate
to the best of its ability in this review,
in relying on facts otherwise available,
we found that pursuant to section 776(b)
of the Act an adverse inference is
warranted in determining a dumping
margin for Xiping Opeck in this review.
See AFA Memo at 4. In determining the
AFA rate for Xiping Opeck in this
review, we relied on primary
information on the record. Using this
information, we calculated an AFA rate
of 70.12 percent for Xiping Opeck in
this review. See AFA Memo at 4.
After our consideration of the
comments on this issue, for the final
results of this review, we continue to
find that the use of AFA is warranted for
Xiping Opeck in this review pursuant to
sections 776(a) (1), (2)(A) and (C) and
776(b) of the Act.
Non-Market-Economy Country Status
In the Preliminary Results, we treated
the PRC as a non-market-economy
(NME) country. See Preliminary Results,
76 FR at 62350. No interested party
commented on our designation of the
PRC as an NME country. Therefore, for
the final results of review, we have
continued to treat the PRC as an NME
country in accordance with section
773(c) of the Act.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department begins with a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus,
should be assigned a single
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the
Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to
review in an NME country this single
rate unless an exporter can demonstrate
that it is sufficiently independent so as
to be entitled to a separate rate.
In the Preliminary Results, we found
that Xiping Opeck and China Kingdom
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
demonstrated their eligibility for
separate-rate status. See Preliminary
Results, 76 FR at 62351–62352. We
received no comments from interested
parties regarding the separate-rate status
of these companies. Therefore, in these
final results of review, we continue to
find that the evidence placed on the
record of this review by Xiping Opeck
and China Kingdom demonstrates an
absence of government control, both in
law and in fact, with respect to these
companies’ exports of the subject
merchandise. Thus, we have determined
that Xiping Opeck and China Kingdom
are eligible to receive a separate rate.
Separate Rate for a Non-Selected
Company
China Kingdom is the only exporter of
crawfish tail meat from the PRC that
demonstrated its eligibility for a
separate rate which was not selected for
individual examination in this review.
The statute and the Department’s
regulations do not address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to
individual companies not selected for
examination when the Department
limits its examination in an
administrative review pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally,
we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of
the Act, which provides instructions for
calculating the all-others rate in an
investigation, for guidance when
calculating the rate for respondents we
did not examine in an administrative
review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act
articulates a preference that we are not
to calculate an all-others rate using any
zero or de minimis margins or any
margins based entirely on facts
available. Accordingly, the
Department’s usual practice has been to
average the margins for the selected
companies, excluding margins that are
zero, de minimis, or based entirely on
facts available.3 Section 735(c)(5)(B) of
the Act also provides that, where all
margins are zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on facts available, we may use
‘‘any reasonable method’’ for assigning
the rate to non-selected respondents,
including ‘‘averaging the estimated
weighted-average dumping margins
determined for the exporters and
producers individually investigated.’’
In previous cases, the Department has
determined that a ‘‘reasonable method’’
to use when, as here, the rate of the
respondent selected for individual
3 See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United
Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews
in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008),
and accompanying Issues and Decision (I&D)
Memorandum at Comment 16.
E:\FR\FM\10APN1.SGM
10APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
examination is based entirely on facts
available is to apply to those companies
not selected for individual examination
(but eligible for a separate rate in NME
cases) the average of the most recently
determined rates that are not zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on facts
available (which may be from a prior
administrative review or a new shipper
review).4 If any such non-selected
company had its own calculated rate
that is contemporaneous with or more
recent than such prior determined rates,
however, the Department has applied
such individual rate to the non-selected
company in the review in question,
including when that rate is zero or de
minimis.5 In this case, there is only one
non-selected company under review
that is eligible for a separate rate and
this company received its own
calculated rate that is contemporaneous
with or more recent than the most
recent rates determined for other
companies that are not zero, de minimis,
or based entirely on facts available.
Accordingly, we have concluded that in
this case a reasonable method for
determining the rate for the nonselected company, China Kingdom, is to
apply its most recent individually
calculated rate. Pursuant to this method,
we have assigned a rate of 18.87 percent
to China Kingdom, its calculated rate in
the previous administrative review.6 In
4 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and
Preliminary Partial Rescission of Fifth Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 8338, 8342
(February 14, 2011) (unchanged in Administrative
Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 51940 (August 19,
2011)); see also Administrative Review of Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 49460, 49463 (August 13, 2010), and
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 774
F. Supp. 2d 1286 (CIT April 14, 2011).
5 See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of
Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review and
Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Partial Rescission of the Fourth Administrative
Review, 73 FR 52015 (September 8, 2008), Certain
Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews,
74 FR 11349 (March 17, 2009) (changing rate for
non-selected respondents because the final
calculated rate for the selected respondent was
above de minimis) (unchanged in Certain Frozen
Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Amended Final Results of the Fourth Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 17816 (April 17,
2009)); see also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final
Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
47191, 47195 (September 15, 2009), and
accompanying I&D Memorandum at Comment 16.
6 See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Apr 09, 2012
Jkt 226001
assigning this separate rate, we did not
impute the actions of any other
companies to the behavior of the
company not individually examined but
based this determination on record
evidence that may be deemed
reasonably reflective of the potential
dumping margin for the nonindividually examined company, China
Kingdom, in this administrative review.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
administrative review are addressed in
the I&D Memorandum which is hereby
adopted by this notice. A list of the
issues raised is attached to this notice as
an appendix. The I&D 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 I&D Memorandum can be
accessed directly on the internet at
https://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed
I&D Memorandum and the electronic
versions of the I&D Memorandum are
identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
We determined the margin for Xiping
Opeck based on AFA.
Final Results of the Review
As a result of the administrative
review, we determine that the following
percentage weighted-average dumping
margins exist for the period September
1, 2009, through August 31, 2010:
Margin
(percent)
Company
Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. ....
China Kingdom (Beijing) Import
& Export Co., Ltd. .................
70.12
18.87
Assessment
For Xiping Opeck and China
Kingdom, we will instruct CBP to apply
the rates listed above to all entries of
subject merchandise exported
respectively by these companies. We
intend to issue assessment instructions
to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of
review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
Antidumping Duty Administrative and NewShipper Reviews, 75 FR 79337 (December 20, 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21531
publication of these final results of this
review for all shipments of the subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the publication date as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
subject merchandise exported by Xiping
Opeck and China Kingdom, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate established
in this final results of review, as listed
above, for each exporter; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above that have
separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3)
for all other PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not been
found to be entitled to a separate rate,
the cash deposit rate will be PRC-wide
rate of 223.01 percent; (4) for all nonPRC exporters of subject merchandise
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC entity that
supplied that exporter. These deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notifications
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a 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
notification of the destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: April 4, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix
1. Determination that Company A is an
Interested Party
2. Application of Adverse Facts Available
E:\FR\FM\10APN1.SGM
10APN1
21532
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Notices
3. Selection of Adverse Facts Available
Rate
[FR Doc. 2012–8601 Filed 4–9–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–836]
Glycine From the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Partial Affirmative
Determination of Circumvention of the
Antidumping Duty Order and Initiation
of Scope Inquiry
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine
that glycine processed by Salvi
Chemical Industries Limited (Salvi) and
AICO Laboratories India Ltd. (AICO)
and exported to the United States from
India is circumventing the antidumping
duty order on glycine from the People’s
Republic of China (China), as provided
in section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).1 With
respect to Paras Intermediates Pvt. Ltd.
(Paras), we preliminarily find that Paras
is not circumventing the Order because
it is producing glycine from raw
materials of Indian origin and exporting
such merchandise to the United States.
DATES: Effective Date: April 10, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Cordell, Dena Crossland, or
Angelica Mendoza, 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) 482–0408, (202) 482–
3362, or (202) 482–3019, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
The Department of Commerce (the
Department) issued the antidumping
duty order on glycine from China in
1995. See Order. The Department
conducted a less-than-fair value
investigation on glycine from India in
2007 through 2008, covering the period
of investigation of January 1 through
December 31, 2006, where we found
that certain Chinese glycine further
processed in India did not change the
country of origin of such glycine.2
1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Glycine From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 16116 (March 29,
1995) (Order).
2 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Glycine from India, 73 FR
16640 (March 28, 2008) (Indian Investigation) and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Apr 09, 2012
Jkt 226001
On December 18, 2009, GEO Specialty
Chemicals, Inc. and Chattem Chemicals,
Inc., domestic interested parties,
requested that the Department initiate
an anti-circumvention inquiry, pursuant
to section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.225(h), to determine whether U.S.
imports of glycine exported by AICO
and Paras, and made from Chineseorigin glycine, are circumventing the
Order.3 In their request, domestic
interested parties allege that AICO and
Paras are circumventing the Order
through completion and assembly in
India of the same class or kind of
merchandise that is subject to the Order
and by labeling the merchandise as
Indian origin. Id.
On January 15, 2010, the Department
requested that domestic interested
parties resubmit legible copies of
AICO’s financial statements and of the
Port Import Export Reporting Service
(PIERS) report regarding AICO’s
shipments to the United States, which
they provided in their original AntiCircumvention Allegation at Exhibits A
and B, respectively. The legible copies
of the requested documents were
submitted by the domestic interested
parties on January 22, 2010.4 On
February 22, 2010, the Department
requested additional information from
the domestic interested parties in the
form of a supplemental questionnaire.
On August 19, 2010, the domestic
interested parties submitted additional
information to supplement their
December 18, 2009 Anti-Circumvention
Allegation and included another
allegation against a third company,
Salvi, and its exporter/affiliate,
Nutracare International. As part of their
supplemental submission and allegation
against Salvi, domestic interested
parties included a market survey from a
foreign market researcher, at Exhibit 12
of its submission.5 In their August 19,
2010 supplemental circumvention
allegation, the domestic interested
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 5. We note that this investigation did not
result in an antidumping duty order because the
International Trade Commission made a final
negative injury determination. See Glycine From
India; Determination, 73 FR 26413 (May 9, 2008);
Glycine From India Investigation No. 731–TA–1111
(Final) Publication 3997 (United States
International Trade Commission May 2008).
3 See Domestic Interested Parties’ request for an
anti-circumvention inquiry entitled ‘‘Antidumping
Duty Order on Glycine from the People’s Republic
of China—Circumvention of Antidumping Duty
Order,’’ dated December 18, 2009 (AntiCircumvention Allegation).
4 See Letter from the domestic interested parties
to the Department, dated January 22, 2010.
5 See Letter from domestic interested parties to
the Department, entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty Order
on Glycine from the People’s Republic of China—
Supplement to Domestic Industry’s Request for
Circumvention Inquiry,’’ dated August 19, 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
parties alleged that all three Indian
companies, i.e., AICO, Paras and Salvi,
are importing technical-grade glycine
from companies in China, processing
and/or repackaging the Chinese-origin
glycine, and then exporting the finished
product to the United States, marked as
Indian-origin glycine. Id.
On September 23, 2010, the
Department conducted a telephone
interview with the foreign market
researcher to corroborate the
information in the market survey that
the domestic interested parties
submitted on August 19, 2010.6 On
October 6, 2010, the domestic interested
parties amended their request for the
initiation of an anti-circumvention
inquiry with respect to AICO, citing the
Telephone Interview Memo.7 Therein,
the domestic interested parties alleged
that, based on the telephone interview,
AICO is both repackaging and refining
glycine of Chinese origin. Id.
On October 22, 2010, based on
sufficient record evidence, the
Department initiated an anticircumvention inquiry on imports of
glycine produced and/or exported by
AICO, Paras, and Salvi.8 In the Initiation
Notice, the Department explicitly stated
that ‘‘{t}hese anticircumvention
inquiries pertain solely to Paras, Salvi,
and AICO.’’ Id. at 66356. The
Department further stated that ‘‘{i}f,
within sufficient time, the Department
receives a formal request from an
interested party regarding potential anticircumvention of the PRC Glycine Order
by other Indian companies, we will
consider conducting additional
inquiries concurrently.’’ Id.
As discussed below in the
‘‘Questionnaires’’ section, from
December 2010 through October 2011,
AICO, Paras, and Salvi responded to the
Department’s initial and supplemental
questionnaires.
On October 3, 2011, the domestic
interested parties submitted comments,
in which they requested that the
Department preliminarily determine
that all glycine exported from India is
within the scope of the Order unless
U.S. importers certify that the product
6 See the Memorandum to the File, entitled
‘‘Antidumping Circumvention Inquiry: Telephone
Interview with the Foreign Market Researcher,’’
dated October 5, 2010 (Telephone Interview Memo).
7 See Letter from domestic interested parties,
entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine from
the People’s Republic of China (PRC): Antidumping
Circumvention Inquiry—Amendment to Domestic
Industry’s Circumvention Allegation based on
Department’s Memorandum to File,’’ dated October
6, 2010, at 2 (Amendment Letter).
8 See Glycine From the People’s Republic of
China: Initiation of Antidumping
Anticircumvention Inquiry, 75 FR 66352 (October
28, 2010) (Initiation Notice).
E:\FR\FM\10APN1.SGM
10APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21529-21532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8601]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-848]
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Rescission of Review in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 7, 2011, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic
of China (PRC). The review covers five exporters. The period of review
is September 1, 2009, through August 31, 2010.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
changes in the margin calculations for one company. Therefore, the
final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-
average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the
section entitled ``Final Results of the Review.''
DATES: Effective Date: April 10, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0665 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 7, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Intent To Rescind Review in Part, 76 FR 62349 (October 7, 2011)
(Preliminary Results),\1\ in the Federal Register. The administrative
review covers Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. (Xiping Opeck), Shanghai
Ocean Flavor International Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Ocean Flavor),
China Kingdom (Beijing) Import & Export Co., Ltd. (China Kingdom),
Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Xuzhou Jinjiang), and Nanjing
Gemsen International Co., Ltd. (Nanjing Gemsen).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In publishing the Preliminary Results, the Federal Register
distorted the title of the notice; the Federal Register thereafter
published the correct title of the notice in 76 FR 65497 (October
21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 25, 2012, we published Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat
from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 3730 (January
25, 2012), in which we extended fully the deadline for the final
results to April 4, 2012.
On February 13, 2012, we determined a rate for Xiping Opeck, the
sole mandatory respondent in this review, on the basis of adverse facts
available (AFA). See memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, entitled ``Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat
from the People's Republic of China--Post-Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum--The Use of Adverse Facts Available,'' dated February 13,
2012 (AFA Memo). We invited interested parties to comment on the
Preliminary Results and the AFA Memo.
We received case and rebuttal briefs from Xiping Opeck and the
petitioner, the Crawfish Processors Alliance. No interested party
requested a hearing.
The Department has conducted this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the antidumping duty order is freshwater
crawfish tail meat, in all its forms (whether washed or with fat on,
whether purged or un-purged), grades, and sizes; whether frozen, fresh,
or chilled; and regardless of how it is packed, preserved, or prepared.
Excluded from the scope of the order are live crawfish and other whole
crawfish,
[[Page 21530]]
whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. Also excluded are saltwater
crawfish of any type, and parts thereof.
Freshwater crawfish tail meat is currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item
numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 1605.40.10.90, which are the HTSUS numbers
for prepared foodstuffs, indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and
other, as introduced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in
2000, and HTSUS numbers 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00.00, which are
reserved for fish and crustaceans in general. The HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Rescission of Administrative Review in Part
In the Preliminary Results, we preliminarily found that Shanghai
Ocean Flavor, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Nanjing Gemsen had no shipments of
subject merchandise during the period of review and we stated our
intent to rescind the administrative review with respect to these
companies. See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62350. We have received no
comments concerning our intent to rescind this administrative review in
part. We continue to find that Shanghai Ocean Flavor, Xuzhou Jinjiang,
and Nanjing Gemsen had no shipments of freshwater crawfish tail meat
from the PRC during the period of review. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding the review of Shanghai Ocean Flavor,
Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Nanjing Gemsen.
Adverse Facts Available
In the Preliminary Results, we stated that the record evidence
suggests a lack of commercial soundness in the transactions reported by
Xiping Opeck in this review and that another entity (hereinafter,
Company A) \2\ plays a role in the pricing associated with the entries
of subject merchandise in this review. See Preliminary Results, 76 FR
at 62350. For a detailed discussion on this issue, see the memorandum
entitled ``Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of
China--Evaluation of an Allegation of Middleman Dumping and Nature of
Transactions Pertaining to the Entries Under Review,'' dated September
30, 2011. In the Preliminary Results, we also stated that further
inquiry on this issue is necessary. See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at
62350. Consequently, on October 3, 2011, we issued a non-market economy
questionnaire to Company A. Company A did not answer the non-market
economy questionnaire, arguing that it was not required to submit a
response. See AFA Memo at 2. We determined that Company A significantly
impeded the proceeding because it did not provide any of the
information which we determined to be critical and necessary for the
completion of an administrative review of the entries and sales made by
Xiping Opeck. See AFA Memo at 3. We found it necessary, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(1), (2)(A) and (C) of the Act, to use facts otherwise
available to calculate the dumping margin for Xiping Opeck in this
review. See AFA Memo at 4. Because Company A did not cooperate to the
best of its ability in this review, in relying on facts otherwise
available, we found that pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act an
adverse inference is warranted in determining a dumping margin for
Xiping Opeck in this review. See AFA Memo at 4. In determining the AFA
rate for Xiping Opeck in this review, we relied on primary information
on the record. Using this information, we calculated an AFA rate of
70.12 percent for Xiping Opeck in this review. See AFA Memo at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We are withholding the identity of Company A because Xiping
Opeck's U.S. customer claimed business-proprietary treatment of this
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After our consideration of the comments on this issue, for the
final results of this review, we continue to find that the use of AFA
is warranted for Xiping Opeck in this review pursuant to sections
776(a) (1), (2)(A) and (C) and 776(b) of the Act.
Non-Market-Economy Country Status
In the Preliminary Results, we treated the PRC as a non-market-
economy (NME) country. See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62350. No
interested party commented on our designation of the PRC as an NME
country. Therefore, for the final results of review, we have continued
to treat the PRC as an NME country in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign
all exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
In the Preliminary Results, we found that Xiping Opeck and China
Kingdom demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status. See
Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62351-62352. We received no comments from
interested parties regarding the separate-rate status of these
companies. Therefore, in these final results of review, we continue to
find that the evidence placed on the record of this review by Xiping
Opeck and China Kingdom demonstrates an absence of government control,
both in law and in fact, with respect to these companies' exports of
the subject merchandise. Thus, we have determined that Xiping Opeck and
China Kingdom are eligible to receive a separate rate.
Separate Rate for a Non-Selected Company
China Kingdom is the only exporter of crawfish tail meat from the
PRC that demonstrated its eligibility for a separate rate which was not
selected for individual examination in this review. The statute and the
Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to
be applied to individual companies not selected for examination when
the Department limits its examination in an administrative review
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, we have looked to
section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for
calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when
calculating the rate for respondents we did not examine in an
administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act articulates a
preference that we are not to calculate an all-others rate using any
zero or de minimis margins or any margins based entirely on facts
available. Accordingly, the Department's usual practice has been to
average the margins for the selected companies, excluding margins that
are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.\3\ Section
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also provides that, where all margins are zero,
de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, we may use ``any
reasonable method'' for assigning the rate to non-selected respondents,
including ``averaging the estimated weighted-average dumping margins
determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in Part, 73 FR
52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008), and accompanying Issues and
Decision (I&D) Memorandum at Comment 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In previous cases, the Department has determined that a
``reasonable method'' to use when, as here, the rate of the respondent
selected for individual
[[Page 21531]]
examination is based entirely on facts available is to apply to those
companies not selected for individual examination (but eligible for a
separate rate in NME cases) the average of the most recently determined
rates that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts
available (which may be from a prior administrative review or a new
shipper review).\4\ If any such non-selected company had its own
calculated rate that is contemporaneous with or more recent than such
prior determined rates, however, the Department has applied such
individual rate to the non-selected company in the review in question,
including when that rate is zero or de minimis.\5\ In this case, there
is only one non-selected company under review that is eligible for a
separate rate and this company received its own calculated rate that is
contemporaneous with or more recent than the most recent rates
determined for other companies that are not zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on facts available. Accordingly, we have concluded that in
this case a reasonable method for determining the rate for the non-
selected company, China Kingdom, is to apply its most recent
individually calculated rate. Pursuant to this method, we have assigned
a rate of 18.87 percent to China Kingdom, its calculated rate in the
previous administrative review.\6\ In assigning this separate rate, we
did not impute the actions of any other companies to the behavior of
the company not individually examined but based this determination on
record evidence that may be deemed reasonably reflective of the
potential dumping margin for the non-individually examined company,
China Kingdom, in this administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial
Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
8338, 8342 (February 14, 2011) (unchanged in Administrative Review
of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 51940 (August 19, 2011)); see also
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 49460, 49463 (August
13, 2010), and Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 774 F.
Supp. 2d 1286 (CIT April 14, 2011).
\5\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review
and Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of the Fourth Administrative Review, 73 FR 52015
(September 8, 2008), Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 11349 (March
17, 2009) (changing rate for non-selected respondents because the
final calculated rate for the selected respondent was above de
minimis) (unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended Final Results of the Fourth
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 17816 (April 17,
2009)); see also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 47191, 47195
(September 15, 2009), and accompanying I&D Memorandum at Comment 16.
\6\ See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New-
Shipper Reviews, 75 FR 79337 (December 20, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this administrative review are addressed in the I&D Memorandum which is
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached
to this notice as an appendix. The I&D 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 I&D Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the internet at https://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed I&D
Memorandum and the electronic versions of the I&D Memorandum are
identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
We determined the margin for Xiping Opeck based on AFA.
Final Results of the Review
As a result of the administrative review, we determine that the
following percentage weighted-average dumping margins exist for the
period September 1, 2009, through August 31, 2010:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Company (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd................................. 70.12
China Kingdom (Beijing) Import & Export Co., Ltd........... 18.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
For Xiping Opeck and China Kingdom, we will instruct CBP to apply
the rates listed above to all entries of subject merchandise exported
respectively by these companies. We intend to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final
results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results of this review for all shipments of
the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by Xiping
Opeck and China Kingdom, the cash deposit rate will be the rate
established in this final results of review, as listed above, for each
exporter; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not
listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which
have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit
rate will be PRC-wide rate of 223.01 percent; (4) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise the cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC entity that supplied that exporter. These deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notifications
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a 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 notification of the
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms
of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: April 4, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
1. Determination that Company A is an Interested Party
2. Application of Adverse Facts Available
[[Page 21532]]
3. Selection of Adverse Facts Available Rate
[FR Doc. 2012-8601 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
