Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Intent To Rescind in Part, 26496-26507 [2012-10838]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
26496
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
FRONTSEATING SERVICE VALVES FROM section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless
the time limit is extended.
THE PRC
Exporter
Weighted-average margin
(percentage)
Zhejiang DunAn Hetian
Metal Co. Ltd. ...................
Zhejiang Sanhua Co., Ltd. ...
0.00%
0.00%
Disclosure
The Department intends to disclose
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within
10 days of the date of the public
announcement of the results of this
review in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Comments
Interested parties may submit written
comments no later than 30 days after the
date of publication of these preliminary
results of review.85 Rebuttal comments
must be limited to the issues raised in
the written comments and may be filed
no later than five days after the time
limit for filing the case briefs.86
Interested parties, who wish to request
a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, filed electronically using
Import Administration’s Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the Department’s
electronic records system, IA ACCESS,
by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within
30 days after the date of publication of
this notice.87 Requests should contain
the party’s name, address, and
telephone number, the number of
participants, and a list of the issues to
be discussed. If a request for a hearing
is made, we will inform parties of the
scheduled date for the hearing which
will be held at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at
a time and location to be determined.88
Parties should confirm by telephone the
date, time, and location of the hearing.
The Department intends to issue the
final results of the administrative
review, which will include the results of
its analysis of issues raised in the briefs,
within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, in accordance with
85 See
19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
19 CFR 351.309(d).
87 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
88 See 19 CFR 351.310.
86 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review.89 The Department intends to
issue assessment instructions to CBP 15
days after the publication date of the
final results of this review. For any
individually examined respondent
whose weighted-average dumping
margin is above de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent) in the final results of
this review, we will calculate an
importer-specific assessment rate on the
basis of the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the
importer’s examined sales and the total
entered value of sales, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).90 Where we
calculate a margin by dividing the total
dumping margins for reviewed sales to
that party by the total sales quantity
associated with those transactions, in
this and future reviews, we will direct
CBP to assess importer-specific
assessment rates based on the resulting
per-unit (i.e., per-kilogram) rates by the
weight in kilograms of each entry of the
subject merchandise during the POR.
Where an importer (or customer)specific per-unit rate is greater than de
minimis, we will apply the assessment
rate to the entered value of the
importer’s/customer’s entries during the
POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where
an importer (or customer)-specific perunit rate is zero or de minimis, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate
entries without regard to antidumping
duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for shipments of
the subject merchandise from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by
sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
DunAn and Sanhua, which have
separate rates, the cash deposit rates
will be those established in the final
89 See
19 CFR 351.212(b).
these preliminary results, the Department
applied the assessment rate calculation method
adopted in Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., on
the basis of monthly average-to-average
comparisons using only the transactions associated
with that importer with offsets being provided for
non-dumped comparisons. See Antidumping
Proceeding: Calculation of the Weighted-Average
Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain
Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification,
77 FR 8103, February 14, 2012.
90 In
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
results of this review (except, if the rates
are zero or de minimis, then zero cash
deposit will be required); (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters not listed above
that received a separate rate in a prior
segment of this proceeding, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise that
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 55.62 percent;
and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporter that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification To Importers
This notice serves as a 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 administrative review and notice
are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213.
Dated: April 30, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–10839 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–904]
Certain Activated Carbon From the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the Fourth
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, and Intent To Rescind in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) is conducting the fourth
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
activated carbon from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) for the
period April 1, 2010, through March 31,
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
2011. The Department has preliminarily
determined that sales have been made
below normal value (‘‘NV’’) by certain
respondents examined in this
administrative review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of this review, the
Department will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise during
the period of review.
DATES: Effective Date: May 4, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
Palmer or Josh Startup, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–9068 or (202) 482–
5260, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
The Department received timely
requests from Petitioners 1 and certain
PRC and other companies, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b),
during the anniversary month of April,
to conduct a review of certain activated
carbon exporters from the PRC. On May
27, 2011, the Department initiated this
review with respect to all requested
companies.2
On June 10, 2011, Petitioners
withdrew their request for an
administrative review for Calgon Carbon
(Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (‘‘CCT’’) and Ningxia
Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Huahui’’). On the same date, Huahui
withdrew its request for a review of
itself, and Albemarle Corporation
(‘‘Albemarle’’), a company we
previously determined to be a
wholesaler of the domestic-like product,
withdrew its request for review of CCT.
Likewise, on June 15, 2011, CCT
withdrew its request for a review of
itself. On July 7, 2011, the Department
published a notice of rescission in the
Federal Register for these two
companies for which the request for
review was withdrawn.3 On August 25,
2011, Petitioners withdrew the request
for review with respect to an additional
166 companies.4 On September 20,
1 Collectively, Norit Americas Inc. (‘‘Norit’’) and
Calgon Carbon Corporation (‘‘Calgon’’).
2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR
30912 (May 27, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
3 See Certain Activated Carbon From the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
39581 (July 7, 2011).
4 Petitioners also withdrew their request for
review of United Manufacturing International
(Beijing) Ltd. (‘‘UMI’’). However, UMI submitted a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
2011, the Department published a
second notice of rescission in the
Federal Register for those 165
companies.5 Nineteen companies
remain subject to this review.6
On July 25, 2011, Shanxi Dapu
International Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dapu’’)
submitted a letter certifying it had no
shipments during the period of review
(‘‘POR’’).7 On September 30, 2011, the
Department published a notice 8
extending the time period for issuing
the preliminary results by 120 days to
April 29, 2012.9
On April 2, 2012, the Department
received comments from Datong Juqiang
and Guanghua Cherishmet regarding
surrogate country selection and certain
surrogate values. However, because of
the close proximity to the preliminary
results, we are unable to take Datong
Juqiang and Guanghua Cherishmet’s
comments into consideration for the
preliminary results. Datong Juqiang and
Guanghua Cherishmet’s comments will
be considered for the final results of this
review.
Respondent Selection
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’) directs
the Department to calculate individual
dumping margins for each known
exporter or producer of the subject
merchandise.10 However, section
request on its behalf for an administrative review
in the current segment of the proceeding. See Letter
from UMI, dated April 21, 2011.
5 See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
58246 (September 20, 2011).
6 These companies are: Adsorbent Carbons Pvt,
Ltd.; Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co.,
Ltd.; Cherishmet Incorporated; Datong Juqiang
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Datong Municipal
Yungang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Hebei Foreign
Trade and Advertising Corporation; Jacobi Carbons
AB; Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.;
Jilin Province Bright Futures Industry and
Commerce Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Guanghua
Cherishment Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Ningxia
Mineral & Chemical Limited; Shanxi Dapu
International Trade Co., Ltd.; Shanxi DMD
Corporation; Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.;
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd.;
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Maijin
Industries Co., Ltd.; and United Manufacturing
International (Beijing) Ltd.
7 Companies have the opportunity to submit
statements certifying that they did not ship the
subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR.
8 See Fourth Administrative Review of Certain
Activated Carbon From the People’s Republic of
China: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary
Results, 76 FR 60803 (September 30, 2011).
9 Because April 29, 2011, is a Sunday, the actual
deadline for issuing the preliminary results falls on
April 30, 2012, the next business day. See Notice
of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business
Day’’ Rule for Administrative Determination
Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As
Amended, 70 FR 24533, 24533 (May 10, 2005).
10 See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding
respondent selection, in general.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26497
777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the
Department discretion to limit its
examination to a reasonable number of
exporters or producers, if it is not
practicable to examine all exporters or
producers for which the review is
initiated.
On May 31, 2011, the Department
released CBP data for entries of the
subject merchandise during the POR
under administrative protective order
(‘‘APO’’) to all interested parties having
access to materials released under APO
and invited comments regarding the
CBP data and respondent selection. The
Department received comments
regarding respondent selection on June
9, 2011.
On July 11, 2011, the Department
issued its respondent selection
memorandum after assessing its
resources, considering the number of
individual exporters of certain activated
carbon for which a review had been
requested, and determining that it could
reasonably examine three of the
exporters subject to this review.11
Pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the
Act, the Department selected Datong
Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Datong Juqiang’’), Jacobi Carbons AB
(‘‘Jacobi’’), and Ningxia Guanghua
Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Guanghua Cherishmet’’) as mandatory
respondents.
Questionnaires
On July 11, 2011, the Department
issued its initial non-market economy
(‘‘NME’’) antidumping duty
questionnaire to the mandatory
respondents, Datong Juqiang, Guanghua
Cherishmet, and Jacobi. Datong Juqiang,
Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi
timely responded to the Department’s
initial and subsequent supplemental
questionnaires between August 2011
and March 2012.
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2010, through
March 31, 2011.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order
is certain activated carbon. Certain
activated carbon is a powdered,
granular, or pelletized carbon product
obtained by ‘‘activating’’ with heat and
steam various materials containing
carbon, including but not limited to coal
(including bituminous, lignite, and
11 See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Jamie BlairWalker, International Trade Compliance Analysts,
Office 9; Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
of Certain Activated Carbon from the PRC: Selection
of Respondents for Individual Review, dated July
11, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
26498
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
anthracite), wood, coconut shells, olive
stones, and peat. The thermal and steam
treatments remove organic materials and
create an internal pore structure in the
carbon material. The producer can also
use carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in place of
steam in this process. The vast majority
of the internal porosity developed
during the high temperature steam (or
CO2 gas) activated process is a direct
result of oxidation of a portion of the
solid carbon atoms in the raw material,
converting them into a gaseous form of
carbon.
The scope of the order covers all
forms of activated carbon that are
activated by steam or CO2, regardless of
the raw material, grade, mixture,
additives, further washing or postactivation chemical treatment (chemical
or water washing, chemical
impregnation or other treatment), or
product form. Unless specifically
excluded, the scope of the order covers
all physical forms of certain activated
carbon, including powdered activated
carbon (‘‘PAC’’), granular activated
carbon (‘‘GAC’’), and pelletized
activated carbon.
Excluded from the scope of the order
are chemically activated carbons. The
carbon-based raw material used in the
chemical activation process is treated
with a strong chemical agent, including
but not limited to phosphoric acid, zinc
chloride, sulfuric acid or potassium
hydroxide, that dehydrates molecules in
the raw material, and results in the
formation of water that is removed from
the raw material by moderate heat
treatment. The activated carbon created
by chemical activation has internal
porosity developed primarily due to the
action of the chemical dehydration
agent. Chemically activated carbons are
typically used to activate raw materials
with a lignocellulosic component such
as cellulose, including wood, sawdust,
paper mill waste and peat.
To the extent that an imported
activated carbon product is a blend of
steam and chemically activated carbons,
products containing 50 percent or more
steam (or CO2 gas) activated carbons are
within the scope, and those containing
more than 50 percent chemically
activated carbons are outside the scope.
This exclusion language regarding
blended material applies only to
mixtures of steam and chemically
activated carbons.
Also excluded from the scope are
reactivated carbons. Reactivated carbons
are previously used activated carbons
that have had adsorbed materials
removed from their pore structure after
use through the application of heat,
steam and/or chemicals.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
Also excluded from the scope is
activated carbon cloth. Activated carbon
cloth is a woven textile fabric made of
or containing activated carbon fibers. It
is used in masks and filters and clothing
of various types where a woven format
is required.
Any activated carbon meeting the
physical description of subject
merchandise provided above that is not
expressly excluded from the scope is
included within the scope. The
products subject to the order are
currently classifiable under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading
3802.10.00. Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
Intent to Partially Rescind
Administrative Review
As discussed in the ‘‘Background’’
section above, Dapu filed a no-shipment
certification indicating that it did not
export subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR. In order
to examine this claim, we reviewed the
CBP data used for respondent selection
and found no discrepancies with the
statement made by Dapu.12
Additionally, we sent an inquiry to CBP
asking if any CBP office had any
information contrary to the noshipments claim and requested that CBP
alert the Department of any such
information within ten days of receiving
our inquiry. CBP received our inquiry
on December 21, 2011. We have not
received a response from CBP with
regard to our inquiry which indicates
that CBP did not have information that
was contrary to the claim of Dapu.
Therefore, because the record indicates
that Dapu did not export subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR, we intend to rescind this
administrative review with respect to
this company.13
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
12 See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Jamie BlairWalker, International Trade Compliance Analysts,
Office 9; Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
of Certain Activated Carbon from the PRC: Selection
of Respondents for Individual Review, dated July
11, 2011 at Attachment I.
13 See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the
Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72
FR 53527, 53530 (September 19, 2007), unchanged
in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission,
73 FR 15479, 15480 (March 24, 2008).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
amended (‘‘the Act’’), the designation of
a country as an NME country remains in
effect until it is revoked by the
Department. As such, we continue to
treat the PRC as a NME in this
proceeding. When the Department
investigates imports from an NME
country and available information does
not permit the Department to determine
NV, pursuant to section 773(a) of the
Act, then, pursuant to section 773(c)(1),
the Department determines NV on the
basis of the factors of production
(‘‘FOP’’) utilized in producing the
merchandise.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act, directs
the Department to value an NME
producer’s FOPs, to the extent possible,
in one or more market-economy
countries that (1) are at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the NME country, and (2) are
significant producers of comparable
merchandise. From the countries that
are both economically comparable and
significant producers, the Department
will select a primary surrogate country
based upon whether the data for valuing
FOPs are both available and reliable.14
In this review, the Department
determined that Colombia, Indonesia,
the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand,
and Ukraine are countries comparable to
the PRC in terms of economic
development.15
On July 26, 2011, the Department sent
interested parties a letter inviting
comments on surrogate country
selection and information regarding
valuing FOPs.16 On October 27, 2011,
Datong Juqiang, Jacobi, and Guanghua
Cherishmet submitted comments on the
selection of a surrogate country,
contending that the Philippines is the
appropriate surrogate country for this
review.17 On October 28, 2011,
14 See Import Administration Policy Bulletin
04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country
Selection Process (March 1, 2004) (‘‘Policy Bulletin
04.1’’), available on the Department’s Web site at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/.
15 See Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Import Administration, from Carole Showers,
Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration re:
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Certain Activated Carbon from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), dated July 25,
2011.
16 See the Department’s Letter to All Interested
Parties; Fourth Administrative Review of Certain
Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of
China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country and
Surrogate Value Comments, dated July 26, 2011
(‘‘Surrogate Country List’’).
17 See Letter from Jacobi regarding Surrogate
Country Comments dated October 27, 2011; see also
Letter from Guanghua Cherishmet and Datong
Juqiang regarding Surrogate Country Comments
dated October 27, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
Petitioners submitted comments on the
selection of a surrogate country, arguing
that Indonesia or Thailand are
appropriate surrogate countries for this
review.18 On November 16, 2011, the
Department received information to
value FOPs from Datong Juqiang, Jacobi,
Guanghua Cherishmet and Petitioners.19
On November 23, 2011, Jacobi
submitted rebuttal surrogate value
comments.20 On November 28, 2011,
Petitioners, Datong Juqiang, and
Guanghua Cherishmet submitted
rebuttal surrogate value comments.21 On
February 21, 2012, Jacobi submitted
additional information to value FOPs.22
Economic Comparability
As explained in our Surrogate
Country List, the Department considers
Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines,
South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine all
comparable to the PRC in terms of
economic development.23 Therefore, we
consider all six countries as having met
this prong of the surrogate country
selection criteria.24
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Significant Producers of Comparable
Merchandise
Section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act
requires the Department to value FOPs
in a surrogate country that is a
significant producer of comparable
merchandise. Neither the statute nor the
Department’s regulations provide
further guidance on what may be
considered comparable merchandise.
Given the absence of any definition in
the statute or regulations, the
Department looks to other sources such
as the Policy Bulletin 04.1 for guidance
on defining comparable merchandise.
The Policy Bulletin 04.1 states that
‘‘{t}he terms ‘comparable level of
economic development,’ ‘comparable
merchandise,’ and ‘significant producer’
are not defined in the statute.’’ 25 The
Policy Bulletin 04.1 further states that
‘‘{i}n all cases, if identical merchandise
is produced, the country qualifies as a
18 See Letter from Petitioners regarding Surrogate
Country Comments dated October 28, 2011.
19 See First Surrogate Value Submission from
Cherishment and DJAC, dated November 16, 2011;
see Jacobi’s Surrogate Value Comments, dated
November 16, 2011; see Petitioners Comments on
Surrogate Values for Preliminary Results, dated
November 16, 2011.
20 See Letter from Jacobi Clarifying Factual
Information, dated November 23, 2011.
21 See Petitioners’ Comments on Respondents’
Surrogate Value Submissions for Preliminary
Results, dated November 28, 2011; see First
Surrogate Value Rebuttal Submission of Cherishmet
Group and DJAC, dated November 28, 2011.
22 See Jacobi’s Supplemental Surrogate Value
Comments, dated February 21, 2011.
23 See Surrogate Country List.
24 See section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act.
25 See Policy Bulletin 04.1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
producer of comparable
merchandise.’’ 26 Conversely, if
identical merchandise is not produced,
then a country producing comparable
merchandise is sufficient in selecting a
surrogate country.27 Further, when
selecting a surrogate country, the statute
requires the Department to consider the
comparability of the merchandise, not
the comparability of the industry.28 ‘‘In
cases where the identical merchandise
is not produced, the team must
determine if other merchandise that is
comparable is produced. How the team
does this depends on the subject
merchandise.’’ 29 In this regard, the
Department recognizes that any analysis
of comparable merchandise must be
done on a case-by-case basis:
In other cases, however, where there are
major inputs, i.e., inputs that are specialized
or dedicated or used intensively, in the
production of the subject merchandise, e.g.,
processed agricultural, aquatic and mineral
products, comparable merchandise should be
identified narrowly, on the basis of a
comparison of the major inputs, including
energy, where appropriate.30
Further, the statute grants the
Department discretion to examine
various data sources for determining the
best available information.31
The legislative history provides that
the term ‘‘significant producer’’
includes any country that is a
significant ‘‘net exporter,’’32 and it does
not preclude reliance on additional or
alternative metrics. In this case, because
production data of identical or
comparable merchandise from the
countries on the surrogate country list
are not available, we analyzed which of
the six countries are exporters of
identical or comparable merchandise as
a proxy for production data. We
obtained export data using the Global
Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’) for Harmonized
26 See
id.
Policy Bulletin 04.1 also states that ‘‘{i}f
considering a producer of identical merchandise
leads to data difficulties, the operations team may
consider countries that produce a broader category
of reasonably comparable merchandise.’’ See id., at
n. 6.
28 See Sebacic Acid from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 65674 (December 15,
1997) and accompany Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1 (‘‘to impose a
requirement that merchandise must be produced by
the same process and share the same end uses to
be considered comparable would be contrary to the
intent of the statute’’).
29 See Policy Bulletin 04.1.
30 See id.
31 See section 773(c)(1) of the Act; Nation Ford
Chem. Co. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1373, 1377
(Fed. Cir. 1999).
32 See Conference Report accompanying H.R. 3,
the 1988 Omnibus Trade & Competitiveness Act, H.
Rep. No. 100–576, at 590 (1988) (‘‘Conference
Report’’).
27 The
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26499
Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) 3802.10:
Activated Carbon, which is identical to
the merchandise under consideration.
The GTA data demonstrates that
Indonesia, the Philippines, and
Thailand were significant net exporters
of identical merchandise in 2010.33
Accordingly, because Colombia, South
Africa and Ukraine are not significant
net exporters of activated carbon under
HTS 3802.10, these countries will not be
considered for primary surrogate
country selection purposes at this time.
Since only Indonesia, the Philippines
and Thailand of the potential surrogate
countries have not been disqualified
through the above analysis, the
Department looks to the availability of
surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) data to
determine the most appropriate
surrogate country.34
Data Availability
When evaluating SV data, the
Department considers several factors
including whether the SV is publicly
available, contemporaneous with the
POR, represents a broad-market average,
from an approved surrogate country, tax
and duty-exclusive, and specific to the
input.35 There is no hierarchy among
these criteria.36 It is the Department’s
practice to carefully consider the
available evidence in light of the
particular facts of each industry when
undertaking its analysis.37 With respect
to Indonesia, although Petitioners
placed certain surrogate value data on
the record, surrogate financial
statements from Indonesia are
unavailable, whereas there are surrogate
financial statements from both the
Philippines and Thailand on the record;
therefore, we will not consider
Indonesia for primary surrogate country
selection purposes at this time.
With Colombia, Indonesia, South
Africa, and Ukraine disqualified, the
Department is left with the Philippines
and Thailand as potential surrogate
countries. Again, we looked to data
considerations in selecting the
appropriate surrogate country and found
that there are no usable import statistics
for Philippine bituminous coal on the
record. Specifically, all of the
33 GTA subtracts a country’s imports from its
exports to arrive at net exports. See Memorandum
to the File through Catherine Bertrand, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Katie
Marksberry and Josh Startup, International Trade
Specialists, Office 9, re: ‘‘Fourth Administrative
Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the
People’s Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the
Preliminary Results,’’ dated concurrently with this
notice (‘‘Prelim SV Memo’’) at Exhibit 3.
34 See Policy Bulletin 04.1.
35 See id.
36 See id.
37 See id.
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
26500
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
Philippine imports of bituminous coal
under HTS 2701.12 are from Indonesia,
which are excluded from the
Department’s calculation of surrogate
values.38 One respondent, Datong
Juqiang, reported that it used
bituminous coal with a calorific value
over 5,833 kcal/kg, which indicates that
the best surrogate value data to apply to
its bituminous coal input is for HTS
2701.12. Therefore, we do not have a
bituminous coal surrogate value from
the Philippines that is specific to the
input used by Datong Juqiang. The
specificity of the inputs is one of the
Department’s SV selection criteria and
the GTA has been consistently used as
a reliable source of import statistics 39
that fulfill the other SV selection
criteria. In addition, we have Thai SV
data for all other inputs (with the
exception of steam, which is also
missing from the Philippines SV data)
and a Thai financial statement to
calculate surrogate financial ratios.
Therefore, we have selected Thailand as
the primary surrogate country over the
Philippines. A detailed explanation of
the SVs is provided below in the
‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this notice.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2) of the
Act provide that, if necessary
information is not available on the
record, or if an interested party: (A)
Withholds information that has been
requested by the Department; (B) fails to
provide such information in a timely
manner or in the form or manner
requested subject to sections 782(c)(1)
and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly
impedes a proceeding under the
antidumping statute; or (D) provides
such information but the information
cannot be verified, the Department
shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the
Act, use facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides
that if an interested party ‘‘promptly
after receiving a request from {the
Department} for information, notifies
{the Department} that such party is
unable to submit the information in the
38 See China Nat’l Mach. Import & Export Corp.
v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1336 (CIT
2003), aff’d 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum,
at Comment 4.
39 See, e.g., 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) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 4.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
requested form and manner, together
with a full explanation and suggested
alternative forms in which such party is
able to submit the information,’’ the
Department may modify the
requirements to avoid imposing an
unreasonable burden on that party.
Section 782(d) of the Act provides
that, if the Department determines that
a response to a request for information
does not comply with the request, the
Department will inform the person
submitting the response of the nature of
the deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that person the
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. If that person submits
further information that continues to be
unsatisfactory, or this information is not
submitted within the applicable time
limits, the Department may, subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all
or part of the original and subsequent
responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act states that
the Department shall not decline to
consider information deemed
‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1)
The information is submitted by the
established deadline; (2) the information
can be verified; (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as
a reliable basis for reaching the
applicable determination; (4) the
interested party has demonstrated that it
acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information and meeting
the requirements established by the
Department; and (5) the information can
be used without undue difficulties.
However, section 776(b) of the Act
states that if the Department ‘‘finds that
an interested party has failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for
information from the administering
authority or the Commission, the
administering authority or the
Commission * * *, in reaching the
applicable determination under this
title, may use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of that party in
selecting from among the facts
otherwise available.’’40 Adverse
inferences are appropriate ‘‘to ensure
that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate
than if it had cooperated fully.’’41 An
adverse inference may include reliance
on information derived from the
petition, the final determination in the
investigation, any previous review, or
40 See also Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994)
(‘‘SAA’’), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040,
4198–99.
41 See id.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
any other information placed on the
record.42
Jacobi’s Excluded Producers
On July 22, 2011, Jacobi requested to
be excused from reporting FOP data for
certain Chinese producers. On August 1,
2011, Petitioners submitted comments
on Jacobi’s request. On August 12, 2011,
the Department notified Jacobi that due
to the large number of producers that
supplied Jacobi during the POR, Jacobi
would be excused from reporting certain
FOP data.43 Specifically, the
Department did not require Jacobi to
report FOP data for its eleven smallest
producers.44 Additionally, the
Department notified Jacobi that it was
not required to report FOP data for
products that were purchased by
Jacobi’s suppliers, as indicated in
Jacobi’s July 22, 2011 letter.45
Guanghua Cherishmet’s Excluded
Producers
On September 9, 2011, Guanghua
Cherishmet requested to be excused
from reporting FOP data for a Chinese
producer because of the limited quantity
it produced. On September 19, 2011, the
Department notified Guanghua
Cherishmet that, because the quantity
produced by one of its suppliers is
limited and Guanghua Cherishmet
produces comparable products during
the POR, Guanghua Cherishmet would
be excused from reporting certain FOP
data.46 Specifically, the Department did
not require Guanghua Cherishmet to
report FOP data for its smallest
producer as indicated in its September
9, 2011, submission.47
In accordance with section 776(a)(1)
of the Act, the Department is applying
facts available to determine the NV for
the sales corresponding to the FOP data
that Jacobi and Guanghua Cherishmet
were excused from reporting. As facts
available, the Department is applying
the calculated average normal value of
Jacobi and Guanghua Cherishmet’s
reported sales to the sales produced by
their excluded producers, respectively.
These issues are addressed in separate
company-specific memoranda where a
detailed explanation of the facts
available calculation is provided.48
42 See
id.
the Department’s Letter to Jacobi dated
August 12, 2011.
44 See id.
45 See id.
46 See the Department’s letter to Guanghua
Cherishmet dated September 19, 2010.
47 See id.
48 See Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
from Joshua Startup, Case Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9: Preliminary Results Analysis
Memorandum for Jacobi Carbons AB in the
43 See
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Separate Rates
The designation of a country as an
NME remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department.49 In
proceedings involving NME countries, it
is the Department’s practice to begin
with a rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate.50
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters
and producers may obtain separate rate
status in NME reviews.51 It is the
Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to
investigation in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
affirmatively demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate.52 Exporters
can demonstrate this independence
through the absence of both de jure and
de facto government control over export
activities.53 The Department analyzes
each entity’s export independence
under a test first articulated in Sparklers
and as further developed in Silicon
Carbide.54 However, if the Department
determines that a company is wholly
foreign-owned or located in a market
economy (‘‘ME’’), then a separate rate
analysis is not necessary to determine
whether it is independent from
government control.55
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s
Republic of China, dated concurrently with this
notice (‘‘Jacobi Prelim Analysis Memo’’); see also
Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Bob
Palmer, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office
9: Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon
Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the
People’s Republic of China, dated concurrently
with this notice (‘‘Guanghua Cherishmet Prelim
Analysis Memo’’).
49 See section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act.
50 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical
Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper
Products From the People’s Republic of China, 71
FR 53079, 53080 (September 8, 2006); Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts
Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR
29303, 29307 (May 22, 2006).
51 See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 30912–30913.
52 See id.
53 See id.
54 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s Republic of
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’); see
also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People’s
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994)
(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’)
55 See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
The Department received separate rate
applications or certifications from the
following companies: Adsorbent
Carbons Pvt. Ltd.; Beijing Pacific
Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd.;
Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated
Carbon Co., Ltd.; Jilin Bright Future
Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Ningxia
Mineral & Chemical Limited; Shanxi
DMD Corporation; Shanxi Sincere
Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Industry
Technology Trading Co., Ltd.; Tangshan
Solid Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tangshan’’);
Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.; and
United Manufacturing International
(Beijing) Ltd. (‘‘UMI’’).
Additionally, the Department
received completed responses to the
Section A portion of the NME
questionnaire from the mandatory
respondents Datong Juqiang, Guanghua
Cherishmet, and Jacobi, which
contained information pertaining to the
companies’ eligibility for a separate rate.
However, Hebei Foreign Trade and
Advertising Corporation and Jilin
Province Bright Future Industry and
Commerce Co., Ltd., companies upon
which the Department initiated
administrative reviews that have not
been rescinded, did not submit either a
separate-rate application or certification.
Companies Not Receiving a Separate
Rate
On July 27, 2011, Adsorbent, an
Indian activated carbon company,
submitted a separate rate application as
it claims it had sales of the subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR.56 On December 2, 2011, the
Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Adsorbent regarding its
claim.57 On December 22, 2011,
Adsorbent responded to a supplemental
questionnaire regarding its separate rate
application, claiming that it had
purchased activated carbon from
unaffiliated PRC suppliers,58 and
reprocessed and repackaged the
activated carbon in India for resale to its
U.S. customer.59 However, the CBP data
used for respondent selection indicates
no entries of the subject merchandise
were made by Adsorbent.60
from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 52355,
52356 (September 13, 2007).
56 See Letter from Adsorbent, dated July 27, 2011.
57 See Letter from the Department dated
December 2, 2011.
58 See Letter from Adsorbent, dated July 27, 2011
at 12.
59 See Letter from Adsorbent, dated December 11,
2011 at 3.
60 See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Jamie BlairWalker, International Trade Compliance Analysts,
Office 9; Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
of Certain Activated Carbon from the PRC: Selection
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26501
Additionally, the CBP 7501 Forms
provided by Adsorbent’s importer
indicate that the entries of the
merchandise Adsorbent claims were
subject PRC-origin were in fact made as
non-subject ‘‘Type 1’’ entries.61
CBP data reviewed by the Department
do not show any reviewable entries of
subject merchandise made by the thirdcountry exporter Adsorbent during the
POR. There is no information on the
record of this proceeding indicating that
Adsorbent made entries of subject
merchandise during the POR.62
Additionally, we intend to refer this
matter to CBP to investigate whether
Adsorbent’s entries were entered
properly.
On July 22, 2011, the Department
received a timely separate rate
application from UMI, a company
currently considered part of the PRC
wide entity.63 On November 21, 2011,
the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to UMI requesting
clarification on certain deficiencies in
its separate rate application.64 However,
UMI did not submit a response or
request an extension to the
Department’s supplemental
questionnaire by the deadline.
Therefore, because Hebei Foreign
Trade and Advertising Corporation, Jilin
Province Bright Future Industry and
Commerce Co., Ltd., and UMI did not
demonstrate their eligibility for separate
rate status, we have preliminarily
determined to consider these companies
as part of the PRC-wide entity.
Separate Rate Recipients
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
Jacobi reported that it is whollyowned by a company located in an ME
country, Sweden.65 Therefore, there is
no PRC ownership of Jacobi and,
because the Department has no evidence
indicating that Jacobi is under the
control of the PRC, a separate rates
analysis is not necessary to determine
whether it is independent from
of Respondents for Individual Review, dated May
31, 2011 at Attachment I.
61 See Adsorbent’s supplemental response, dated
December 11, 2011, at Exhibit 2.
62 See Saccharin from the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in
Part, 77 FR 21966, 21967 (April 12, 2012).
63 See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 70208, 70210
(November 17, 2010).
64 See the Department’s Letter to UMI, dated
November 21, 2011.
65 See Jacobi’s Section A Questionnaire Response,
dated August 11, 2011, at 2.
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
26502
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
government control.66 Additionally, one
of the exporters under review not
selected for individual review,
Tangshan, demonstrated in its separaterate certification that it is 100 percent
ME foreign owned.67 Accordingly, the
Department has preliminarily granted
separate rate status to Jacobi and
Tangshan.
2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and
Foreign Companies or Wholly ChineseOwned Companies
preliminary finding of de jure absence
of government control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with the
individual exporter’s business and
export licenses; (2) there are applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing
control of the companies; and (3) there
are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.72
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Datong Juqiang,68 Guanghua
Cherishmet,69 and eight 70 of the
separate rate applicants in this
administrative review stated that they
are either joint ventures between
Chinese and foreign companies or are
wholly Chinese-owned companies. In
accordance with our practice, the
Department has analyzed whether the
separate-rate applicants have
demonstrated the absence of de jure and
de facto governmental control over their
respective export activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) any other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.71
The evidence provided by Datong
Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and the
eight separate rate applicants supports a
66 See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
the Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of
the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8, 2001),
unchanged in Brake Rotors From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review and
Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 66 FR 27063 (May 16,
2001); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From
the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104
(December 20, 1999).
67 See Tangshan Solid Carbon Co. Ltd.’s Separate
Rate Certification dated July 26, 2011, at
Attachment 1.
68 See Datong Juqiang’s Section A Questionnaire
Response, dated August 18, 2011, at 2–6.
69 See Guanghua Cherishmet’s Section A
Questionnaire Response, dated August 18, 2011, at
2–8.
70 These companies are: Beijing Pacific Activated
Carbon Products Co., Ltd.; Datong Municipal
Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Jilin Bright
Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral
& Chemical Limited; Shanxi DMD Corporation;
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Industry
Technology Trading Co., Ltd.; and Tianjin Maijin
Industries Co., Ltd.
71 See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
Typically the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
government control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses.73 The Department has
determined that an analysis of de facto
control is critical in determining
whether respondents are, in fact, subject
to a degree of government control which
would preclude the Department from
assigning separate rates. The evidence
provided by Datong Juqiang, Guanghua
Cherishmet, and the eight separate rate
applicants supports a preliminary
finding of de facto absence of
government control based on the
following: (1) The companies set their
own export prices independent of the
government and without the approval of
a government authority; (2) the
companies have authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) the companies have
autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4) there
is no restriction on any of the
companies’ use of export revenue.74
Therefore, the Department preliminarily
finds that Datong Juqiang, Guanghua
72 See, e.g., Guanghua Cherishmet’s Section A
Questionnaire Response, dated August 18, 2011, at
5, Exhibit A–3, and Exhibit A–4; and Jilin Bright
Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.’s Separate Rate
Certification dated July 26, 2011, at 5–6.
73 See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see
also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545
(May 8, 1995).
74 See, e.g., Datong Juqiang ’s Section A
Questionnaire Response, dated August 18, 2011, at
2–8 and Exhibit A–4; and Shanxi Sincere Industrial
Co., Ltd. Separate Rate Application, dated
November 25, 2011, at 17–19.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Cherishmet, and eight separate-rate
applicants have established that they
qualify for a separate rate under the
criteria established by Silicon Carbide
and Sparklers.
Rate for Non-Selected Companies
The eight companies which are not
mandatory respondents and which
submitted timely information as
requested by the Department remain
subject to this review as separate rate
respondents.
The Department has preliminarily
calculated a de minimis margin for
Datong Juqiang. Furthermore, because
using the weighted-average margin
based on the calculated net U.S. sales
quantities for Guanghua Cherishmet and
Jacobi would allow these two
respondents to deduce each other’s
business-proprietary information and
thus cause an unwarranted release of
such information, we cannot assign to
the separate rate companies the
weighted-average margin based on the
calculated net U.S. sales values from
these two respondents.
For these preliminary results and
consistent with our practice,75 we
determine that using the ranged total
sales quantities reported by Guanghua
Cherishemet and Jacobi from the public
versions of their submissions is more
appropriate than applying a simple
average.76 These publicly available
figures provide the basis on which we
can calculate a margin which is the best
proxy for the weighted-average margin
based on the calculated net U.S. sales
values of Guanghua Cherishmet and
Jacobi. We find that this approach is
more consistent with the intent of
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act and our
use of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act as
guidance when we establish the rate for
respondents not examined individually
in an administrative review.77
Because the calculated net U.S. sales
values for Guanghua Cherishmet and
Jacobi are business-proprietary figures,
we find that 1.34 U.S. Dollars/kilogram
(‘‘USD/kg’’), which we calculated using
the publicly available figures of U.S.
75 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and
Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 56158, 56160
(September 12, 2011) (‘‘Vietnam Shrimp’’); see also
Galvanized Steel Wire From the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 77 FR 68407, 68415 (November 4,
2011) (‘‘Galvanized Wire LTFV’’).
76 See Jacobi Section A questionnaire response
(Public Version) dated September 13, 2011, at
Exhibit 4; see also Guanghua Cherishmet Public
Version of Exhibit SA–1 for the Section A
Response, dated August 19, 2011.
77 See Vietnam Shrimp at 56160; see also
Galvanized Wire LTFV at 68415.
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
sales quantities for these two firms, is
the best reasonable proxy for the
weighted-average margin based on the
calculated U.S. sales quantities of
Guanghua Cherishmet and Jacobi.78 For
the PRC-wide entity, we have assigned
the entity’s 2.42 USD/kg, which is the
current and only rate ever determined
for the entity in this proceeding.79
Date of Sale
Datong Juqiang, Guanghua
Cherishmet, and Jacobi reported the
invoice date as the date of sale because
they claim that for their U.S. sales of
subject merchandise made during the
POR, the material terms of sale were
established on the invoice date. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) and
the Department’s long-standing practice
of determining the date of sale,80 and in
the absence of any information to the
contrary, the Department preliminarily
determines that the invoice date is the
most appropriate date to use as Datong
Juqiang’s, Guanghua Cherishmet’s, and
Jacobi’s date of sale.
Fair Value Comparisons
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
To determine whether sales of certain
activated carbon to the United States by
Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet,
and Jacobi were made at less than
normal value, the Department compared
constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to NV,
as described in the ‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections below.81
78 See ‘‘Memorandum to the File from Bob
Palmer, International Trade Specialist, Office 9 Re:
Calculation of Separate Rate,’’ dated concurrently
with this notice.
79 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the
People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 9508 (March 2,
2007) and Notice of Amended Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated
Carbon From the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR
15099 (March 30, 2007); see also Certain Activated
Carbon From the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Second
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
70208 (November 17, 2010) (‘‘AR2 Carbon’’).
80 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 10.
81 In these preliminary results, the Department
applied the weighted-average dumping margin
calculation method adopted in Antidumping
Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average
Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain
Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77
FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (‘‘Final Modification
for Reviews’’). In particular, the Department
compared monthly weighted-average export prices
(or constructed export prices) with monthly
weighted-average NVs and granted offsets for nondumped comparisons in the calculation of the
weighted average dumping margin.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
26503
U.S. Price
Normal Value
Export Price
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine the
NV using an FOP methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME
and the information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market
prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act. The Department bases NV on
the FOPs because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of non-market economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under the
Department’s normal methodologies.
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, the Department calculated the
EP for Datong Juqiang’s sales to the
United State because the first sale to an
unaffiliated party was made before the
date of importation, and the use of CEP
was not otherwise warranted. The
Department calculated EP based on the
price to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States. In accordance with
section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate,
the Department deducted from the
starting price (gross unit price) to
unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland
freight and brokerage and handling.
Each of these services was either
provided by an NME vendor or paid for
using an NME currency. Thus, the
Department based the deduction of
these movement charges on surrogate
values.82
Constructed Export Price
For all of Guanghua Cherishmet and
Jacobi’s sales, the Department based
U.S. price on CEP in accordance with
section 772(b) of the Act because sales
of Chinese-origin merchandise were
made on behalf of the companies
located in the PRC by a U.S. affiliate to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. For these sales, the Department
based CEP on prices to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States. Where appropriate, the
Department made deductions from the
starting price (gross unit price) for
foreign movement expenses,
international movement expenses, U.S.
movement expenses, and appropriate
selling adjustments, in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1)
of the Act, the Department also
deducted those selling expenses
associated with economic activities
occurring in the United States. The
Department deducted, where
appropriate, commissions, inventory
carrying costs, interest revenue, credit
expenses, warranty expenses, and
indirect selling expenses. For those
expenses that were provided by an ME
provider and paid for in an ME
currency, the Department used the
reported expense. Due to the proprietary
nature of certain adjustments to U.S.
price, for a detailed description of all
adjustments made to U.S. price for each
company, see the company specific
analysis memoranda, dated
concurrently with this notice.
82 See Prelim SV Memo for details regarding the
surrogate values for movement expenses.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Factor Valuations
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available
information to value the FOPs, but
when a producer sources an input from
an ME country and pays for it in an ME
currency, the Department may value the
factor using the actual price paid for the
input.83 During the POR, Jacobi reported
that it purchased certain inputs from an
ME supplier and paid for the inputs in
an ME currency.84 The Department has
a rebuttable presumption that ME input
prices are the best available information
for valuing an input when the total
volume of the input purchased from all
ME sources during the period of
investigation or review exceeds 33
percent of the total volume of the input
purchased from all sources during the
period.85 In these cases, unless casespecific facts provide adequate grounds
to rebut the Department’s presumption,
the Department will use the weightedaverage ME purchase price to value the
input. Alternatively, when the volume
of an NME firm’s purchases of an input
from ME suppliers during the period is
below 33 percent of its total volume of
purchases of the input during the
period, but where these purchases are
otherwise valid and there is no reason
to disregard the prices, the Department
will weight-average the ME purchase
price with an appropriate surrogate
value according to their respective
shares of the total volume of purchases,
unless case-specific facts provide
adequate grounds to rebut the
83 See Lasko Metal Products, Inc. v. United States,
43 F.3d 1442, 1445–1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming
the Department’s use of market-based prices to
value certain FOPs).
84 See Jacobi’s Section D Questionnaire Response
dated September 1, 2011, at page D–9, and Exhibit
JT–2.
85 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy
Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments,
71 FR 61716, 61717–18 (October 19, 2006)
(‘‘Antidumping Methodologies’’).
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
26504
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
presumption.86 When a firm has made
ME input purchases that may have been
dumped or subsidized, are not bona
fide, or are otherwise not acceptable for
use in a dumping calculation, the
Department will exclude them from the
numerator of the ratio to ensure a fair
determination of whether valid ME
purchases meet the 33-percent
threshold.87
The Department used Thai Import
Statistics to value the raw material and
packing material inputs that Datong
Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and
Jacobi used to produce the subject
merchandise under review during the
POR, except where listed below. In
accordance with the OTCA 1988
legislative history, the Department
continues to apply its long-standing
practice of disregarding surrogate values
if it has a reason to believe or suspect
the source data may be subsidized.88 In
this regard, the Department has
previously found that it is appropriate
to disregard such prices from India,
Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand
because we have determined that these
countries maintain broadly available,
non-industry specific export
subsidies.89 Based on the existence of
these subsidy programs that were
generally available to all exporters and
producers in these countries at the time
of the POR, the Department finds that it
is reasonable to infer that all exporters
from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and
Thailand may have benefitted from
these subsidies. Therefore, the
Department has not used prices from
these countries in calculating the Thai
import-based surrogate values.
Additionally, the Department
disregarded prices from NME countries.
Finally, imports that were labeled as
originating from an ‘‘unspecified’’
country were excluded from the average
value, as the Department could not be
certain that they were not from either an
NME country or a country with general
export subsidies.90
86 See
id.
id.
88 See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 100–576, at 590 (1988)
(‘‘OTCA 1988’’), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N.
1547, 1623–24.
89 See e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results
and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011
(September 13, 2005), unchanged in Certain Frozen
Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Final Results of the First Administrative Review, 71
FR 14170 (March 21, 2006).
90 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008),
unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip From the People’s Republic of
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
87 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, for subject merchandise
produced by Datong Juqiang, Guanghua
Cherishmet, and Jacobi, the Department
calculated NV based on the FOPs
reported by Datong Juqiang, Guanghua
Cherishmet, and Jacobi for the POR. The
Department used data from Thai Import
Statistics and other publicly available
Thai sources in order to calculate
surrogate values for Datong Juqiang’s,
Guanghua Cherishmet’s, and Jacobi’s
FOPs (direct materials, energy, and
packing materials) and certain
movement expenses. To calculate NV,
the Department multiplied the reported
per-unit factor quantities by publicly
available Thai surrogate values (except
as noted below). The Department’s
practice when selecting the best
available information for valuing FOPs
is to select, to the extent practicable,
surrogate values which are productspecific, representative of a broadmarket average, publicly available,
contemporaneous with the POR, and
exclusive of taxes and duties.91
As appropriate, the Department
adjusted input prices by including
freight costs to render the prices
delivered prices. Specifically, the
Department added to Thai import
surrogate values a surrogate freight cost
using the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to
the factory or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory. This
adjustment is in accordance with the
decision of the Federal Circuit in Sigma
Corp. v. United States.92 For a detailed
description of all surrogate values used
for Datong Juqiang, Guanghua
Cherishmet, and Jacobi, see Prelim SV
Memo.
In those instances where the
Department could not obtain publicly
available information contemporaneous
to the POR with which to value factors,
the Department adjusted the surrogate
values using, where appropriate, the
Thai Producer Price Index as published
in the International Financial Statistics
of the International Monetary Fund, a
printout of which is attached to the
Prelim SV Memo at Attachment 6.
Where necessary, the Department
adjusted surrogate values for inflation,
exchange rates, and taxes, and the
Department converted all applicable
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008).
91 See, e.g., Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From
the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 48195
(August 18, 2008) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
92 See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d
1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
items to a per-kilogram or per-metric ton
basis.
The Department valued electricity
using data from the Electrical
Generating Authority of Thailand,
Annual Report 2010: Key Statistical
Data. We calculated an average of the
price of energy sales to various
customers.93
Because water was used by the
respondents in the production process
of certain activated carbon, the
Department considers water to be a
direct material input, and not as
overhead, and valued water with a SV
according to our practice.94 The
Department valued water using data
from Thailand’s Board of Investment.95
This source provides water rates for
industrial users that are VAT exclusive.
Although Petitioners suggested that we
value water using information from
Thailand’s Metropolitan Waterworks
Authority, we find that the information
provided is approximate and not
explicitly tax-exclusive. Therefore, the
data provided by the Board of
Investment provides a more specific and
accurate surrogate value.96
The Department was unable to locate
a suitable surrogate value for purchased
steam from Thailand or from any of the
other countries on the surrogate country
list. As noted above, the Department
prefers to use surrogate values chosen
from the primary surrogate country,
however, where no reliable data exists
in the primary surrogate country, the
Department may look to additional
countries for reliable surrogate values.97
The Department has preliminarily
determined to use the 2010–2011
financial statement of Hindalco
Industries Limited from India, which
contains a surrogate value for steam,98
as it is the only information currently on
the record for valuing steam, and is a
source we have used in previous
segments of this proceeding.99
93 See
Prelim SV Memo at 9.
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People’s
Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 2003)
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 11.
95 See Prelim SV Memo at 8.
96 See id.
97 See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at n. 7.
98 See Jacobi’s Surrogate Value Comments:
Certain Activated Carbon from China, dated
November 16, 2011, at Exhibit SV–7.
99 See, e.g., Certain Activated Carbon From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, and Preliminary Rescission in Part, 76 FR
23978, 23988 (April 29, 2011), unchanged in
Certain Activated Carbon From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 67142 (October 31,
2011).
94 See
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
We used Thai transport information
in order to value the freight-in cost of
the raw materials. The Department
determined the best available
information for valuing truck freight to
be from Siam Partners Group Company
Limited.100 We calculated the per-unit
inland freight costs using the distance
from five different provinces in
Thailand to Thailand’s largest city,
Bangkok.101 We inflated the calculated
a per-metric ton, per-kilometer surrogate
inland freight because this source was
from 2005.102
We valued brokerage and handling
using a price list of export procedures
necessary to export a standardized cargo
of goods in Thailand. The price list is
compiled based on a survey case study
of the procedural requirements for
trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in Thailand that is
published in Doing Business 2011:
Thailand, published by the World
Bank.103
To value factory overhead, selling,
general, and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’)
expenses, and profit, the Department
used the 2010 audited financial
statement of Carbokarn Co., Ltd., the
only Thai financial statement available
on the record of this review.104 Because
the Department has chosen Thailand as
the primary surrogate country, the
discussion here is limited to financial
statements placed on the record from
Thailand.
On June 21, 2011, the Department
revised its methodology for valuing the
labor input in NME antidumping
proceedings.105 In Labor Methodologies,
the Department determined that the best
methodology to value the labor input is
to use industry-specific labor rates from
the primary surrogate country.
Additionally, the Department
determined that the best data source for
industry-specific labor rates is Chapter
6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from
the International Labor Organization
(ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics
(‘‘Yearbook’’).
For these preliminary results, the
Department calculated the labor input
100 See
Prelim SV Memo at 9.
id.
102 See id., at Exhibit 8.
103 See Prelim SV Memo at 10.
104 See Petitioners November 28, 2011, Surrogate
Value Submission at Exhibits 5 & 6.
105 See Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies:
Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (‘‘Labor Methodologies’’).
This notice followed the Federal Circuit decision in
Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372
(CAFC 2010), which found that the regression-based
method for calculating wage rates as stipulated by
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
101 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
using the wage method described in
Labor Methodologies. To value the
respondent’s labor input, the
Department relied on data reported by
Thailand to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the
Yearbook. Although the Department
further finds the two-digit description
Sub-Classification 24 under ISICRevision 3 (‘‘Manufacture of Chemicals
and Chemical Products’’) to be the best
available information on the record
because it is specific to the industry
being examined, and is therefore
derived from industries that produce
comparable merchandise, Thailand has
not reported data specific to the twodigit description since 2000. However,
Thailand did report total manufacturing
labor data in 2005. Accordingly, relying
on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the
Department calculated the labor input
using total 2005 manufacturing labor
data reported by Thailand to the ILO, in
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the
Act. For the preliminary results, the
calculated industry-specific wage rate is
135.93 Baht/hour. A more detailed
description of the wage rate calculation
methodology is provided in the Prelim
SV Memo.
As stated above, the Department used
Thai ILO data reported in 2005 under
Chapter 6A of the ILO Yearbook, which
reflects all costs related to labor,
including wages, benefits, housing,
training, etc. Pursuant to Labor
Methodologies, the Department’s
practice is to consider whether financial
ratios reflect labor expenses that are
included in other elements of the
respondent’s factors of production (e.g.,
general and administrative expenses).106
However, the financial statements used
to calculate financial ratios in this
review were insufficiently detailed to
permit the Department to isolate
whether any labor expenses were
included in other components of NV.
Therefore, in this review, the
Department preliminary has made no
adjustment to these financial
statements.107
19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) uses data not permitted by the
statutory requirements laid out in section 773 of the
Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c)).
106 See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093–94.
107 See Prelim SV Memo at 9.
108 See Ltr. From the Department to Datong
Juqiang, re: ‘‘NME Questionnaire’’, dated July 11,
2011 at D–6.
109 See Datong Juqiang’s section D questionnaire
response, dated September 12, 2011 at page 15 and
Exhibit D–10.
110 See Datong Juqiang’s supplemental section D
questionnaire response, dated March 15, 2012, at 5–
6; see also Datong Juqiang’s supplemental section
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26505
Treatment of Datong Juqiang’s Packing
Factors
For these preliminary results, we are
applying partial adverse facts available
to Datong Juqiang for packing bags for
certain customers. In the initial Section
D questionnaire, the Department
informs parties that if they receive any
inputs used in the production process
for free, they must include the amount
of that input used.108 In its Section D
questionnaire response, Datong Juqiang
reported the amount of packing bags it
used for its other customers.109 On
March 15, 2012, in response to a
supplemental questionnaire and request
for documentation, Datong Juqiang
stated that its agreement with the
customers was over the phone, that it
had no agreement in writing, and that it
could provide no evidence that packing
bags were supplied by those certain
customers.110 Datong did not provide
the Department with any additional
information. Therefore, because Datong
Juqiang has failed to cooperate at the
Department’s request to the best of its
ability in reporting the total amount
packing bags used in the production of
subject merchandise, for these
preliminary results the Department is
applying as partial adverse facts
available the highest single, per-unit
consumption of packing bags reported
by Datong Juqiang as the packing bags
used by Datong Juqiang in the packing
stage for those certain customers.111
Currency Conversion
Where appropriate, the Department
made currency conversions into U.S.
dollars, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department preliminarily
determines that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist:
A, C & D questionnaire response, dated November
29, 2011 at 23.
111 For further details, see Memorandum to
Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, from Bob Palmer, Case
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary
Results Analysis Memorandum for Datong Juqiang
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Activated
Carbon from the People’s Republic of China, dated
concurrently with this notice (‘‘DJAC Prelim
Analysis Memo’’).
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
26506
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
Margin
(dollars per
kilogram) 112
Exporter
Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................
Jacobi Carbons AB 113 .................................................................................................................................................................
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd114 ....................................................................................................
Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................
Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd ...............................................................................................................................
Ningxia Mineral and Chemical Limited ........................................................................................................................................
Shanxi DMD Corporation .............................................................................................................................................................
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd ...............................................................................................................................................
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................
Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................
PRC-Wide Rate 115 ......................................................................................................................................................................
* 0.00
1.49
1.07
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
2.42
* De minimis.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department will disclose to
parties the calculations performed in
connection with these preliminary
results within five days of the date of
publication of this notice.116 Interested
parties may submit case briefs and/or
written comments no later than 30 days
after the date of publication of these
preliminary results of review.117
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written
112 In the second administrative review of this
order, the Department determined that it would
calculate per-unit assessment and cash deposit rates
for all future reviews. See Certain Activated Carbon
From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results
and Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 70208, 70210
(November 17, 2010).
113 In Activated Carbon AR3, the Department
found Jacobi Carbons AB, Tianjin Jacobi
International Trading Co. Ltd., and Jacobi Carbons
Industry (Tianjin) are a single entity and, because
there has been no changes to this determination
since the first administrative review, we continue
to find these companies to be part of a single entity.
Therefore, we will assign this rate to the companies
in the single entity. See Certain Activated Carbon
From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results
and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 67142 (October
31, 2011) (‘‘Activated Carbon AR3’’).
114 In Activated Carbon AR1, the Department
found Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products
Co., Ltd., Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated
Carbon Co., Ltd., and Ningxia Guanghua Activated
Carbon Co., Ltd. are a single entity and, because
there has been no changes to this determination
since the first administrative review, we continue
to find these companies to be part of a single entity.
Therefore, we will assign this rate to the companies
in the single entity. See Certain Activated Carbon
From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Extension of Time
Limits for the Final Results, 74 FR 21317 (May 7,
2009), unchanged in First Administrative Review of
Certain Activated Carbon From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 57995
(November 10, 2009).
115 The PRC-Wide entity includes Hebei Foreign
Trade and Advertising Corporation; Jilin Province
Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd.; and
United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd.
116 See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
117 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
comments, limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments, may be filed
no later than five days after the deadline
for filing case briefs.118 Parties who
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in
this proceeding are requested to submit
with each argument: (1) A statement of
the issue; (2) a brief summary of the
argument; and (3) a table of
authorities.119
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of
this administrative review, interested
parties may submit publicly available
information to value FOPs within 20
days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results. Interested
parties must provide the Department
with supporting documentation for the
publicly available information to value
each FOP. Additionally, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
results of this administrative review,
interested parties may submit factual
information to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information submitted by an
interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable
deadline for submission of such factual
information. However, the Department
notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits
new information only insofar as it
rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information
recently placed on the record. The
Department generally cannot accept
‘‘the submission of additional,
previously absent-from-the-record
alternative surrogate value or financial
ratio information’’ pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1).120 Additionally, for each
piece of factual information submitted
with surrogate value rebuttal comments,
the interested party must provide a
118 See
19 CRR 351.309(d).
19 CFR 351.309(c), (d).
120 See Glycine From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in
Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2.
119 See
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
written explanation of what information
that is already on the record of the
ongoing proceeding that the factual
information is rebutting, clarifying, or
correcting.
Additionally, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.310(c), interested parties who wish
to request a hearing, or to participate if
one is requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, within 30 days
of the date of publication of this notice
and file the request via the Department’s
Import Administration’s Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’).121 An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time
(ET). Requests should contain: (1) The
party’s name, address and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants;
and (3) a list of issues to be discussed.
Issues raised in the hearing will be
limited to those raised in the respective
case and rebuttal briefs. The Department
will issue the final results of this
administrative review, including the
results of its analysis of the issues raised
in any written briefs, not later than 120
days after the date of publication of this
notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Act unless the deadline is
extended.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review. The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the publication date of the final
results of this review. For any
individually examined respondents
whose weighted-average dumping
margin is above de minimis, we
calculated exporter/importer (or
customer)-specific assessment rates for
121 See
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
19 CFR 351.310(c).
04MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
the merchandise subject to this review
in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1).122 In this and future
reviews, we will direct CBP to assess
importer-specific assessment rates based
on the resulting per-unit (i.e., perkilogram) rates by the weight in
kilograms of each entry of the subject
merchandise during the POR. Where an
importer (or customer)-specific per-unit
rate is greater than de minimis, we will
apply the assessment rate to the entered
value of the importer’s/customer’s
entries during the POR. See 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or
customer)-specific per-unit rate is zero
or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties. See 19
CFR 351.106(c)(2).
For the companies receiving a
separate rate that were not selected for
individual review, we will assign an
assessment rate based on the rate we
calculated for the mandatory respondent
whose rate was not de minimis, as
discussed above. We intend to instruct
CBP to liquidate entries containing
subject merchandise exported by the
PRC-wide entity (including Dapu) at the
PRC-wide rate. Finally, for those
companies for which this review has
been preliminarily rescinded, the
Department intends to assess
antidumping duties at rates equal to the
cash deposit of estimated antidumping
duties required at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(c)(2), if the review is
rescinded for these companies.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided for by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
the exporters listed above, the cash
deposit rate will be established in the
final results of this review (except, if the
rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than
0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be
required for that company); (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters not listed above
that have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
122 In these preliminary results, the Department
applied the assessment rate calculation method
adopted in Final Modification for Reviews, i.e. on
the basis of monthly average-to-average
comparisons using only the transactions associated
with that importer with offsets being provided for
non-dumped comparisons.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
exporter-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of $2.42 per
kilogram 123; and (4) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not received their own rate, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporters that
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary 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 determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: April 27, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–10838 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of
Scientific Instruments
Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the
Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.
L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106–
36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we
invite comments on the question of
whether instruments of equivalent
scientific value, for the purposes for
which the instruments shown below are
intended to be used, are being
manufactured in the United States.
Comments must comply with 15 CFR
301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and
be postmarked on or before May 24,
2012. Address written comments to
Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room
3720, U.S. Department of Commerce,
123 See AR2 Carbon 70208, 70209 and
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum
at Comment 3.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26507
Washington, DC 20230. Applications
may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department of
Commerce in Room 3720.
Docket Number: 12–013. Applicant:
Washington University in St. Louis, 1
Brookings Dr., Saint Louis, MO 63130.
Instrument: Electron Microscope.
Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech
Republic. Intended Use: The instrument
will be used for research on primitive
solar system materials extracted from
meteorites as well as on samples from
NASA sample return missions, such as
STARDUST. The instrument will be
used for the preparation of TEM thin
sections of micron-sized stardust grains
as well as samples extracted from
STARDUST Al foils, to increase the
understanding of the chemical origin of
the solar system and the processes by
which its small bodies evolved.
Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There
are no instruments of the same general
category manufactured in the United
States. Application accepted by
Commissioner of Customs: March 29,
2012.
Docket Number: 12–018. Applicant:
The Regents of the University of
California, 1 Cyclotron Rd., MS
46R0125, Berkeley, CA 94720.
Instrument: Electron Microscope.
Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech
Republic. Intended Use: The instrument
will be used to investigate the structure
and composition of micro- and nanomaterials that will be used as light
absorbers, catalysts, and membranes in
photoelectrochemical devices that are
engineered to convert solar energy to
fuel. Justification for Duty-Free Entry:
There are no instruments of the same
general category manufactured in the
United States. Application accepted by
Commissioner of Customs: March 28,
2012.
Docket Number: 12–019. Applicant:
Schepens Eye Research Institute, 20
Staniford St., Boston MA, 02114.
Instrument: Electron Microscope.
Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech
Republic. Intended Use: The instrument
will be used to investigate the genes and
proteins that underlie normal and
pathologic processes associated with
human vision, to allow the repair,
prevention, and cure of sightthreatening pathologies. The instrument
will be used to examine the ultra
structure of biological specimens
including eye tissues, using
conventional observation as well as
immune-electron microscopy.
Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There
are no instruments of the same general
category manufactured in the United
States. Application accepted by
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26496-26507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10838]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-904]
Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, and Intent To Rescind in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the
fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain
activated carbon from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') for the
period April 1, 2010, through March 31,
[[Page 26497]]
2011. The Department has preliminarily determined that sales have been
made below normal value (``NV'') by certain respondents examined in
this administrative review. If these preliminary results are adopted in
our final results of this review, the Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the period of
review.
DATES: Effective Date: May 4, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Palmer or Josh Startup, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068 or (202)
482-5260, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department received timely requests from Petitioners \1\ and
certain PRC and other companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b),
during the anniversary month of April, to conduct a review of certain
activated carbon exporters from the PRC. On May 27, 2011, the
Department initiated this review with respect to all requested
companies.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Collectively, Norit Americas Inc. (``Norit'') and Calgon
Carbon Corporation (``Calgon'').
\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 30912 (May 27, 2011) (``Initiation
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 10, 2011, Petitioners withdrew their request for an
administrative review for Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (``CCT'')
and Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Huahui''). On the same
date, Huahui withdrew its request for a review of itself, and Albemarle
Corporation (``Albemarle''), a company we previously determined to be a
wholesaler of the domestic-like product, withdrew its request for
review of CCT. Likewise, on June 15, 2011, CCT withdrew its request for
a review of itself. On July 7, 2011, the Department published a notice
of rescission in the Federal Register for these two companies for which
the request for review was withdrawn.\3\ On August 25, 2011,
Petitioners withdrew the request for review with respect to an
additional 166 companies.\4\ On September 20, 2011, the Department
published a second notice of rescission in the Federal Register for
those 165 companies.\5\ Nineteen companies remain subject to this
review.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 39581 (July 7, 2011).
\4\ Petitioners also withdrew their request for review of United
Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. (``UMI''). However, UMI
submitted a request on its behalf for an administrative review in
the current segment of the proceeding. See Letter from UMI, dated
April 21, 2011.
\5\ See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 58246 (September 20, 2011).
\6\ These companies are: Adsorbent Carbons Pvt, Ltd.; Beijing
Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd.; Cherishmet
Incorporated; Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Datong
Municipal Yungang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Hebei Foreign Trade
and Advertising Corporation; Jacobi Carbons AB; Jilin Bright Future
Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Jilin Province Bright Futures Industry and
Commerce Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment Activated Carbon
Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited; Shanxi Dapu
International Trade Co., Ltd.; Shanxi DMD Corporation; Shanxi
Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Industry Technology Trading
Co., Ltd.; Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Maijin
Industries Co., Ltd.; and United Manufacturing International
(Beijing) Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 25, 2011, Shanxi Dapu International Trade Co., Ltd.
(``Dapu'') submitted a letter certifying it had no shipments during the
period of review (``POR'').\7\ On September 30, 2011, the Department
published a notice \8\ extending the time period for issuing the
preliminary results by 120 days to April 29, 2012.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Companies have the opportunity to submit statements
certifying that they did not ship the subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR.
\8\ See Fourth Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon
From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary Results, 76 FR 60803 (September 30, 2011).
\9\ Because April 29, 2011, is a Sunday, the actual deadline for
issuing the preliminary results falls on April 30, 2012, the next
business day. See Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next
Business Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines
Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533, 24533
(May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 2, 2012, the Department received comments from Datong
Juqiang and Guanghua Cherishmet regarding surrogate country selection
and certain surrogate values. However, because of the close proximity
to the preliminary results, we are unable to take Datong Juqiang and
Guanghua Cherishmet's comments into consideration for the preliminary
results. Datong Juqiang and Guanghua Cherishmet's comments will be
considered for the final results of this review.
Respondent Selection
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
``Act'') directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins
for each known exporter or producer of the subject merchandise.\10\
However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department discretion
to limit its examination to a reasonable number of exporters or
producers, if it is not practicable to examine all exporters or
producers for which the review is initiated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding respondent selection,
in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 31, 2011, the Department released CBP data for entries of
the subject merchandise during the POR under administrative protective
order (``APO'') to all interested parties having access to materials
released under APO and invited comments regarding the CBP data and
respondent selection. The Department received comments regarding
respondent selection on June 9, 2011.
On July 11, 2011, the Department issued its respondent selection
memorandum after assessing its resources, considering the number of
individual exporters of certain activated carbon for which a review had
been requested, and determining that it could reasonably examine three
of the exporters subject to this review.\11\ Pursuant to section
777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected Datong Juqiang
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Datong Juqiang''), Jacobi Carbons AB
(``Jacobi''), and Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co.,
Ltd. (``Guanghua Cherishmet'') as mandatory respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, from Jamie Blair-Walker, International Trade Compliance
Analysts, Office 9; Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Activated Carbon from the PRC: Selection of Respondents for
Individual Review, dated July 11, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questionnaires
On July 11, 2011, the Department issued its initial non-market
economy (``NME'') antidumping duty questionnaire to the mandatory
respondents, Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi. Datong
Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi timely responded to the
Department's initial and subsequent supplemental questionnaires between
August 2011 and March 2012.
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order is certain activated carbon.
Certain activated carbon is a powdered, granular, or pelletized carbon
product obtained by ``activating'' with heat and steam various
materials containing carbon, including but not limited to coal
(including bituminous, lignite, and
[[Page 26498]]
anthracite), wood, coconut shells, olive stones, and peat. The thermal
and steam treatments remove organic materials and create an internal
pore structure in the carbon material. The producer can also use carbon
dioxide gas (CO2) in place of steam in this process. The
vast majority of the internal porosity developed during the high
temperature steam (or CO2 gas) activated process is a direct
result of oxidation of a portion of the solid carbon atoms in the raw
material, converting them into a gaseous form of carbon.
The scope of the order covers all forms of activated carbon that
are activated by steam or CO2, regardless of the raw
material, grade, mixture, additives, further washing or post-activation
chemical treatment (chemical or water washing, chemical impregnation or
other treatment), or product form. Unless specifically excluded, the
scope of the order covers all physical forms of certain activated
carbon, including powdered activated carbon (``PAC''), granular
activated carbon (``GAC''), and pelletized activated carbon.
Excluded from the scope of the order are chemically activated
carbons. The carbon-based raw material used in the chemical activation
process is treated with a strong chemical agent, including but not
limited to phosphoric acid, zinc chloride, sulfuric acid or potassium
hydroxide, that dehydrates molecules in the raw material, and results
in the formation of water that is removed from the raw material by
moderate heat treatment. The activated carbon created by chemical
activation has internal porosity developed primarily due to the action
of the chemical dehydration agent. Chemically activated carbons are
typically used to activate raw materials with a lignocellulosic
component such as cellulose, including wood, sawdust, paper mill waste
and peat.
To the extent that an imported activated carbon product is a blend
of steam and chemically activated carbons, products containing 50
percent or more steam (or CO2 gas) activated carbons are
within the scope, and those containing more than 50 percent chemically
activated carbons are outside the scope. This exclusion language
regarding blended material applies only to mixtures of steam and
chemically activated carbons.
Also excluded from the scope are reactivated carbons. Reactivated
carbons are previously used activated carbons that have had adsorbed
materials removed from their pore structure after use through the
application of heat, steam and/or chemicals.
Also excluded from the scope is activated carbon cloth. Activated
carbon cloth is a woven textile fabric made of or containing activated
carbon fibers. It is used in masks and filters and clothing of various
types where a woven format is required.
Any activated carbon meeting the physical description of subject
merchandise provided above that is not expressly excluded from the
scope is included within the scope. The products subject to the order
are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (``HTSUS'') subheading 3802.10.00. Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Intent to Partially Rescind Administrative Review
As discussed in the ``Background'' section above, Dapu filed a no-
shipment certification indicating that it did not export subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR. In order to examine
this claim, we reviewed the CBP data used for respondent selection and
found no discrepancies with the statement made by Dapu.\12\
Additionally, we sent an inquiry to CBP asking if any CBP office had
any information contrary to the no-shipments claim and requested that
CBP alert the Department of any such information within ten days of
receiving our inquiry. CBP received our inquiry on December 21, 2011.
We have not received a response from CBP with regard to our inquiry
which indicates that CBP did not have information that was contrary to
the claim of Dapu. Therefore, because the record indicates that Dapu
did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR,
we intend to rescind this administrative review with respect to this
company.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, from Jamie Blair-Walker, International Trade Compliance
Analysts, Office 9; Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Activated Carbon from the PRC: Selection of Respondents for
Individual Review, dated July 11, 2011 at Attachment I.
\13\ See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72
FR 53527, 53530 (September 19, 2007), unchanged in Certain Frozen
Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 73
FR 15479, 15480 (March 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (``the Act''), the designation of a country as an NME
country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. As
such, we continue to treat the PRC as a NME in this proceeding. When
the Department investigates imports from an NME country and available
information does not permit the Department to determine NV, pursuant to
section 773(a) of the Act, then, pursuant to section 773(c)(1), the
Department determines NV on the basis of the factors of production
(``FOP'') utilized in producing the merchandise.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act, directs the Department to value an
NME producer's FOPs, to the extent possible, in one or more market-
economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are significant
producers of comparable merchandise. From the countries that are both
economically comparable and significant producers, the Department will
select a primary surrogate country based upon whether the data for
valuing FOPs are both available and reliable.\14\ In this review, the
Department determined that Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South
Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine are countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of economic development.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market
Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004)
(``Policy Bulletin 04.1''), available on the Department's Web site
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/.
\15\ See Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, from Carole
Showers, Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration re:
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Activated Carbon
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''), dated July 25, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 26, 2011, the Department sent interested parties a letter
inviting comments on surrogate country selection and information
regarding valuing FOPs.\16\ On October 27, 2011, Datong Juqiang,
Jacobi, and Guanghua Cherishmet submitted comments on the selection of
a surrogate country, contending that the Philippines is the appropriate
surrogate country for this review.\17\ On October 28, 2011,
[[Page 26499]]
Petitioners submitted comments on the selection of a surrogate country,
arguing that Indonesia or Thailand are appropriate surrogate countries
for this review.\18\ On November 16, 2011, the Department received
information to value FOPs from Datong Juqiang, Jacobi, Guanghua
Cherishmet and Petitioners.\19\ On November 23, 2011, Jacobi submitted
rebuttal surrogate value comments.\20\ On November 28, 2011,
Petitioners, Datong Juqiang, and Guanghua Cherishmet submitted rebuttal
surrogate value comments.\21\ On February 21, 2012, Jacobi submitted
additional information to value FOPs.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties;
Fourth Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the
People's Republic of China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country and
Surrogate Value Comments, dated July 26, 2011 (``Surrogate Country
List'').
\17\ See Letter from Jacobi regarding Surrogate Country Comments
dated October 27, 2011; see also Letter from Guanghua Cherishmet and
Datong Juqiang regarding Surrogate Country Comments dated October
27, 2011.
\18\ See Letter from Petitioners regarding Surrogate Country
Comments dated October 28, 2011.
\19\ See First Surrogate Value Submission from Cherishment and
DJAC, dated November 16, 2011; see Jacobi's Surrogate Value
Comments, dated November 16, 2011; see Petitioners Comments on
Surrogate Values for Preliminary Results, dated November 16, 2011.
\20\ See Letter from Jacobi Clarifying Factual Information,
dated November 23, 2011.
\21\ See Petitioners' Comments on Respondents' Surrogate Value
Submissions for Preliminary Results, dated November 28, 2011; see
First Surrogate Value Rebuttal Submission of Cherishmet Group and
DJAC, dated November 28, 2011.
\22\ See Jacobi's Supplemental Surrogate Value Comments, dated
February 21, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Comparability
As explained in our Surrogate Country List, the Department
considers Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand,
and Ukraine all comparable to the PRC in terms of economic
development.\23\ Therefore, we consider all six countries as having met
this prong of the surrogate country selection criteria.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Surrogate Country List.
\24\ See section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Producers of Comparable Merchandise
Section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act requires the Department to value
FOPs in a surrogate country that is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise. Neither the statute nor the Department's
regulations provide further guidance on what may be considered
comparable merchandise. Given the absence of any definition in the
statute or regulations, the Department looks to other sources such as
the Policy Bulletin 04.1 for guidance on defining comparable
merchandise. The Policy Bulletin 04.1 states that ``{t{time} he terms
`comparable level of economic development,' `comparable merchandise,'
and `significant producer' are not defined in the statute.'' \25\ The
Policy Bulletin 04.1 further states that ``{i{time} n all cases, if
identical merchandise is produced, the country qualifies as a producer
of comparable merchandise.'' \26\ Conversely, if identical merchandise
is not produced, then a country producing comparable merchandise is
sufficient in selecting a surrogate country.\27\ Further, when
selecting a surrogate country, the statute requires the Department to
consider the comparability of the merchandise, not the comparability of
the industry.\28\ ``In cases where the identical merchandise is not
produced, the team must determine if other merchandise that is
comparable is produced. How the team does this depends on the subject
merchandise.'' \29\ In this regard, the Department recognizes that any
analysis of comparable merchandise must be done on a case-by-case
basis:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1.
\26\ See id.
\27\ The Policy Bulletin 04.1 also states that ``{i{time} f
considering a producer of identical merchandise leads to data
difficulties, the operations team may consider countries that
produce a broader category of reasonably comparable merchandise.''
See id., at n. 6.
\28\ See Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 65674
(December 15, 1997) and accompany Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1 (``to impose a requirement that merchandise must be
produced by the same process and share the same end uses to be
considered comparable would be contrary to the intent of the
statute'').
\29\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1.
In other cases, however, where there are major inputs, i.e.,
inputs that are specialized or dedicated or used intensively, in the
production of the subject merchandise, e.g., processed agricultural,
aquatic and mineral products, comparable merchandise should be
identified narrowly, on the basis of a comparison of the major
inputs, including energy, where appropriate.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See id.
Further, the statute grants the Department discretion to examine
various data sources for determining the best available
information.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See section 773(c)(1) of the Act; Nation Ford Chem. Co. v.
United States, 166 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legislative history provides that the term ``significant
producer'' includes any country that is a significant ``net
exporter,''\32\ and it does not preclude reliance on additional or
alternative metrics. In this case, because production data of identical
or comparable merchandise from the countries on the surrogate country
list are not available, we analyzed which of the six countries are
exporters of identical or comparable merchandise as a proxy for
production data. We obtained export data using the Global Trade Atlas
(``GTA'') for Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') 3802.10: Activated
Carbon, which is identical to the merchandise under consideration. The
GTA data demonstrates that Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand
were significant net exporters of identical merchandise in 2010.\33\
Accordingly, because Colombia, South Africa and Ukraine are not
significant net exporters of activated carbon under HTS 3802.10, these
countries will not be considered for primary surrogate country
selection purposes at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Conference Report accompanying H.R. 3, the 1988 Omnibus
Trade & Competitiveness Act, H. Rep. No. 100-576, at 590 (1988)
(``Conference Report'').
\33\ GTA subtracts a country's imports from its exports to
arrive at net exports. See Memorandum to the File through Catherine
Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Katie
Marksberry and Josh Startup, International Trade Specialists, Office
9, re: ``Fourth Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon
from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the
Preliminary Results,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``Prelim
SV Memo'') at Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since only Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand of the potential
surrogate countries have not been disqualified through the above
analysis, the Department looks to the availability of surrogate value
(``SV'') data to determine the most appropriate surrogate country.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Availability
When evaluating SV data, the Department considers several factors
including whether the SV is publicly available, contemporaneous with
the POR, represents a broad-market average, from an approved surrogate
country, tax and duty-exclusive, and specific to the input.\35\ There
is no hierarchy among these criteria.\36\ It is the Department's
practice to carefully consider the available evidence in light of the
particular facts of each industry when undertaking its analysis.\37\
With respect to Indonesia, although Petitioners placed certain
surrogate value data on the record, surrogate financial statements from
Indonesia are unavailable, whereas there are surrogate financial
statements from both the Philippines and Thailand on the record;
therefore, we will not consider Indonesia for primary surrogate country
selection purposes at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See id.
\36\ See id.
\37\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Colombia, Indonesia, South Africa, and Ukraine disqualified,
the Department is left with the Philippines and Thailand as potential
surrogate countries. Again, we looked to data considerations in
selecting the appropriate surrogate country and found that there are no
usable import statistics for Philippine bituminous coal on the record.
Specifically, all of the
[[Page 26500]]
Philippine imports of bituminous coal under HTS 2701.12 are from
Indonesia, which are excluded from the Department's calculation of
surrogate values.\38\ One respondent, Datong Juqiang, reported that it
used bituminous coal with a calorific value over 5,833 kcal/kg, which
indicates that the best surrogate value data to apply to its bituminous
coal input is for HTS 2701.12. Therefore, we do not have a bituminous
coal surrogate value from the Philippines that is specific to the input
used by Datong Juqiang. The specificity of the inputs is one of the
Department's SV selection criteria and the GTA has been consistently
used as a reliable source of import statistics \39\ that fulfill the
other SV selection criteria. In addition, we have Thai SV data for all
other inputs (with the exception of steam, which is also missing from
the Philippines SV data) and a Thai financial statement to calculate
surrogate financial ratios. Therefore, we have selected Thailand as the
primary surrogate country over the Philippines. A detailed explanation
of the SVs is provided below in the ``Normal Value'' section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See China Nat'l Mach. Import & Export Corp. v. United
States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1336 (CIT 2003), aff'd 104 Fed. Appx.
183 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 12651 (March 15,
2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment
4.
\39\ See, e.g., 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) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2) of the Act provide that, if
necessary information is not available on the record, or if an
interested party: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by
the Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely
manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1)
and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the
antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching
the applicable determination.
Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time} for
information, notifies {the Department{time} that such party is unable
to submit the information in the requested form and manner, together
with a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in which such
party is able to submit the information,'' the Department may modify
the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that
party.
Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section
782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established
deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching
the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated
that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information
and meeting the requirements established by the Department; and (5) the
information can be used without undue difficulties.
However, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department
``finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting
to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information
from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering
authority or the Commission * * *, in reaching the applicable
determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to
the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise
available.''\40\ Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that
the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.''\41\ An adverse inference
may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the
final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any
other information placed on the record.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at
870 (1994) (``SAA''), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99.
\41\ See id.
\42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobi's Excluded Producers
On July 22, 2011, Jacobi requested to be excused from reporting FOP
data for certain Chinese producers. On August 1, 2011, Petitioners
submitted comments on Jacobi's request. On August 12, 2011, the
Department notified Jacobi that due to the large number of producers
that supplied Jacobi during the POR, Jacobi would be excused from
reporting certain FOP data.\43\ Specifically, the Department did not
require Jacobi to report FOP data for its eleven smallest
producers.\44\ Additionally, the Department notified Jacobi that it was
not required to report FOP data for products that were purchased by
Jacobi's suppliers, as indicated in Jacobi's July 22, 2011 letter.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See the Department's Letter to Jacobi dated August 12,
2011.
\44\ See id.
\45\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guanghua Cherishmet's Excluded Producers
On September 9, 2011, Guanghua Cherishmet requested to be excused
from reporting FOP data for a Chinese producer because of the limited
quantity it produced. On September 19, 2011, the Department notified
Guanghua Cherishmet that, because the quantity produced by one of its
suppliers is limited and Guanghua Cherishmet produces comparable
products during the POR, Guanghua Cherishmet would be excused from
reporting certain FOP data.\46\ Specifically, the Department did not
require Guanghua Cherishmet to report FOP data for its smallest
producer as indicated in its September 9, 2011, submission.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See the Department's letter to Guanghua Cherishmet dated
September 19, 2010.
\47\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, the Department is
applying facts available to determine the NV for the sales
corresponding to the FOP data that Jacobi and Guanghua Cherishmet were
excused from reporting. As facts available, the Department is applying
the calculated average normal value of Jacobi and Guanghua Cherishmet's
reported sales to the sales produced by their excluded producers,
respectively. These issues are addressed in separate company-specific
memoranda where a detailed explanation of the facts available
calculation is provided.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, from Joshua Startup, Case Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9: Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for
Jacobi Carbons AB in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, dated
concurrently with this notice (``Jacobi Prelim Analysis Memo''); see
also Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, from Bob Palmer, Case Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9: Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. in the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon
from the People's Republic of China, dated concurrently with this
notice (``Guanghua Cherishmet Prelim Analysis Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26501]]
Separate Rates
The designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it
is revoked by the Department.\49\ In proceedings involving NME
countries, it is the Department's practice to begin with a rebuttable
presumption that all companies within the country are subject to
government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act.
\50\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain
Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR
53079, 53080 (September 8, 2006); Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, 29307 (May 22, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain
separate rate status in NME reviews.\51\ It is the Department's policy
to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an
NME country this single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively
demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to
a separate rate.\52\ Exporters can demonstrate this independence
through the absence of both de jure and de facto government control
over export activities.\53\ The Department analyzes each entity's
export independence under a test first articulated in Sparklers and as
further developed in Silicon Carbide.\54\ However, if the Department
determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a
market economy (``ME''), then a separate rate analysis is not necessary
to determine whether it is independent from government control.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 30912-30913.
\52\ See id.
\53\ See id.
\54\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991) (``Sparklers''); see also Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide'')
\55\ See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China,
72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department received separate rate applications or
certifications from the following companies: Adsorbent Carbons Pvt.
Ltd.; Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd.; Datong
Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Jilin Bright Future
Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited; Shanxi DMD
Corporation; Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Industry
Technology Trading Co., Ltd.; Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.
(``Tangshan''); Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.; and United
Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. (``UMI'').
Additionally, the Department received completed responses to the
Section A portion of the NME questionnaire from the mandatory
respondents Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi, which
contained information pertaining to the companies' eligibility for a
separate rate. However, Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation
and Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd.,
companies upon which the Department initiated administrative reviews
that have not been rescinded, did not submit either a separate-rate
application or certification.
Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate
On July 27, 2011, Adsorbent, an Indian activated carbon company,
submitted a separate rate application as it claims it had sales of the
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.\56\ On
December 2, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to
Adsorbent regarding its claim.\57\ On December 22, 2011, Adsorbent
responded to a supplemental questionnaire regarding its separate rate
application, claiming that it had purchased activated carbon from
unaffiliated PRC suppliers,\58\ and reprocessed and repackaged the
activated carbon in India for resale to its U.S. customer.\59\ However,
the CBP data used for respondent selection indicates no entries of the
subject merchandise were made by Adsorbent.\60\ Additionally, the CBP
7501 Forms provided by Adsorbent's importer indicate that the entries
of the merchandise Adsorbent claims were subject PRC-origin were in
fact made as non-subject ``Type 1'' entries.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See Letter from Adsorbent, dated July 27, 2011.
\57\ See Letter from the Department dated December 2, 2011.
\58\ See Letter from Adsorbent, dated July 27, 2011 at 12.
\59\ See Letter from Adsorbent, dated December 11, 2011 at 3.
\60\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, from Jamie Blair-Walker, International Trade Compliance
Analysts, Office 9; Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Activated Carbon from the PRC: Selection of Respondents for
Individual Review, dated May 31, 2011 at Attachment I.
\61\ See Adsorbent's supplemental response, dated December 11,
2011, at Exhibit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP data reviewed by the Department do not show any reviewable
entries of subject merchandise made by the third-country exporter
Adsorbent during the POR. There is no information on the record of this
proceeding indicating that Adsorbent made entries of subject
merchandise during the POR.\62\ Additionally, we intend to refer this
matter to CBP to investigate whether Adsorbent's entries were entered
properly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See Saccharin from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Intent to Rescind in Part, 77 FR 21966, 21967 (April 12, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 22, 2011, the Department received a timely separate rate
application from UMI, a company currently considered part of the PRC
wide entity.\63\ On November 21, 2011, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire to UMI requesting clarification on certain
deficiencies in its separate rate application.\64\ However, UMI did not
submit a response or request an extension to the Department's
supplemental questionnaire by the deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 70208, 70210 (November 17, 2010).
\64\ See the Department's Letter to UMI, dated November 21,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, because Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation,
Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd., and UMI
did not demonstrate their eligibility for separate rate status, we have
preliminarily determined to consider these companies as part of the
PRC-wide entity.
Separate Rate Recipients
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
Jacobi reported that it is wholly-owned by a company located in an
ME country, Sweden.\65\ Therefore, there is no PRC ownership of Jacobi
and, because the Department has no evidence indicating that Jacobi is
under the control of the PRC, a separate rates analysis is not
necessary to determine whether it is independent from
[[Page 26502]]
government control.\66\ Additionally, one of the exporters under review
not selected for individual review, Tangshan, demonstrated in its
separate-rate certification that it is 100 percent ME foreign
owned.\67\ Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily granted
separate rate status to Jacobi and Tangshan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See Jacobi's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated August
11, 2011, at 2.
\66\ See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth New Shipper
Review and Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8, 2001), unchanged in Brake
Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of
Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 27063 (May 16,
2001); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of China, 64
FR 71104 (December 20, 1999).
\67\ See Tangshan Solid Carbon Co. Ltd.'s Separate Rate
Certification dated July 26, 2011, at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly
Chinese-Owned Companies
Datong Juqiang,\68\ Guanghua Cherishmet,\69\ and eight \70\ of the
separate rate applicants in this administrative review stated that they
are either joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies or are
wholly Chinese-owned companies. In accordance with our practice, the
Department has analyzed whether the separate-rate applicants have
demonstrated the absence of de jure and de facto governmental control
over their respective export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See Datong Juqiang's Section A Questionnaire Response,
dated August 18, 2011, at 2-6.
\69\ See Guanghua Cherishmet's Section A Questionnaire Response,
dated August 18, 2011, at 2-8.
\70\ These companies are: Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon
Products Co., Ltd.; Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co.,
Ltd.; Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral &
Chemical Limited; Shanxi DMD Corporation; Shanxi Sincere Industrial
Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd.; and Tianjin
Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of
companies.\71\ The evidence provided by Datong Juqiang, Guanghua
Cherishmet, and the eight separate rate applicants supports a
preliminary finding of de jure absence of government control based on
the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
\72\ See, e.g., Guanghua Cherishmet's Section A Questionnaire
Response, dated August 18, 2011, at 5, Exhibit A-3, and Exhibit A-4;
and Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.'s Separate Rate
Certification dated July 26, 2011, at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses.\73\ The Department has determined that an analysis
of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are,
in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude
the Department from assigning separate rates. The evidence provided by
Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and the eight separate rate
applicants supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of
government control based on the following: (1) The companies set their
own export prices independent of the government and without the
approval of a government authority; (2) the companies have authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) the companies
have autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4) there is no restriction on any of the
companies' use of export revenue.\74\ Therefore, the Department
preliminarily finds that Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and eight
separate-rate applicants have established that they qualify for a
separate rate under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and
Sparklers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May
8, 1995).
\74\ See, e.g., Datong Juqiang 's Section A Questionnaire
Response, dated August 18, 2011, at 2-8 and Exhibit A-4; and Shanxi
Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd. Separate Rate Application, dated
November 25, 2011, at 17-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate for Non-Selected Companies
The eight companies which are not mandatory respondents and which
submitted timely information as requested by the Department remain
subject to this review as separate rate respondents.
The Department has preliminarily calculated a de minimis margin for
Datong Juqiang. Furthermore, because using the weighted-average margin
based on the calculated net U.S. sales quantities for Guanghua
Cherishmet and Jacobi would allow these two respondents to deduce each
other's business-proprietary information and thus cause an unwarranted
release of such information, we cannot assign to the separate rate
companies the weighted-average margin based on the calculated net U.S.
sales values from these two respondents.
For these preliminary results and consistent with our practice,\75\
we determine that using the ranged total sales quantities reported by
Guanghua Cherishemet and Jacobi from the public versions of their
submissions is more appropriate than applying a simple average.\76\
These publicly available figures provide the basis on which we can
calculate a margin which is the best proxy for the weighted-average
margin based on the calculated net U.S. sales values of Guanghua
Cherishmet and Jacobi. We find that this approach is more consistent
with the intent of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act and our use of
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act as guidance when we establish the rate
for respondents not examined individually in an administrative
review.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 56158, 56160
(September 12, 2011) (``Vietnam Shrimp''); see also Galvanized Steel
Wire From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 77 FR 68407, 68415 (November 4, 2011) (``Galvanized
Wire LTFV'').
\76\ See Jacobi Section A questionnaire response (Public
Version) dated September 13, 2011, at Exhibit 4; see also Guanghua
Cherishmet Public Version of Exhibit SA-1 for the Section A
Response, dated August 19, 2011.
\77\ See Vietnam Shrimp at 56160; see also Galvanized Wire LTFV
at 68415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the calculated net U.S. sales values for Guanghua
Cherishmet and Jacobi are business-proprietary figures, we find that
1.34 U.S. Dollars/kilogram (``USD/kg''), which we calculated using the
publicly available figures of U.S.
[[Page 26503]]
sales quantities for these two firms, is the best reasonable proxy for
the weighted-average margin based on the calculated U.S. sales
quantities of Guanghua Cherishmet and Jacobi.\78\ For the PRC-wide
entity, we have assigned the entity's 2.42 USD/kg, which is the current
and only rate ever determined for the entity in this proceeding.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See ``Memorandum to the File from Bob Palmer, International
Trade Specialist, Office 9 Re: Calculation of Separate Rate,'' dated
concurrently with this notice.
\79\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR
9508 (March 2, 2007) and Notice of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon From the
People's Republic of China, 72 FR 15099 (March 30, 2007); see also
Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 70208 (November 17, 2010) (``AR2
Carbon'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Sale
Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi reported the
invoice date as the date of sale because they claim that for their U.S.
sales of subject merchandise made during the POR, the material terms of
sale were established on the invoice date. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.401(i) and the Department's long-standing practice of determining
the date of sale,\80\ and in the absence of any information to the
contrary, the Department preliminarily determines that the invoice date
is the most appropriate date to use as Datong Juqiang's, Guanghua
Cherishmet's, and Jacobi's date of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of certain activated carbon to the
United States by Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi were
made at less than normal value, the Department compared constructed
export price (``CEP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price,'' and
``Normal Value'' sections below.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the
weighted-average dumping margin calculation method adopted in
Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping
Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (``Final Modification
for Reviews''). In particular, the Department compared monthly
weighted-average export prices (or constructed export prices) with
monthly weighted-average NVs and granted offsets for non-dumped
comparisons in the calculation of the weighted average dumping
margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Price
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department
calculated the EP for Datong Juqiang's sales to the United State
because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the
date of importation, and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted.
The Department calculated EP based on the price to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c) of
the Act, as appropriate, the Department deducted from the starting
price (gross unit price) to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland
freight and brokerage and handling. Each of these services was either
provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency. Thus, the
Department based the deduction of these movement charges on surrogate
values.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See Prelim SV Memo for details regarding the surrogate
values for movement expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constructed Export Price
For all of Guanghua Cherishmet and Jacobi's sales, the Department
based U.S. price on CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act
because sales of Chinese-origin merchandise were made on behalf of the
companies located in the PRC by a U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. For these sales, the Department based
CEP on prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States.
Where appropriate, the Department made deductions from the starting
price (gross unit price) for foreign movement expenses, international
movement expenses, U.S. movement expenses, and appropriate selling
adjustments, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department
also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic
activities occurring in the United States. The Department deducted,
where appropriate, commissions, inventory carrying costs, interest
revenue, credit expenses, warranty expenses, and indirect selling
expenses. For those expenses that were provided by an ME provider and
paid for in an ME currency, the Department used the reported expense.
Due to the proprietary nature of certain adjustments to U.S. price, for
a detailed description of all adjustments made to U.S. price for each
company, see the company specific analysis memoranda, dated
concurrently with this notice.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is
exported from an NME and the information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases
NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on various
aspects of non-market economies renders price comparisons and the
calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal
methodologies.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available information to value the FOPs, but when
a producer sources an input from an ME country and pays for it in an ME
currency, the Department may value the factor using the actual price
paid for the input.\83\ During the POR, Jacobi reported that it
purchased certain inputs from an ME supplier and paid for the inputs in
an ME currency.\84\ The Department has a rebuttable presumption that ME
input prices are the best available information for valuing an input
when the total volume of the input purchased from all ME sources during
the period of investigation or review exceeds 33 percent of the total
volume of the input purchased from all sources during the period.\85\
In these cases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to
rebut the Department's presumption, the Department will use the
weighted-average ME purchase price to value the input. Alternatively,
when the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input from ME
suppliers during the period is below 33 percent of its total volume of
purchases of the input during the period, but where these purchases are
otherwise valid and there is no reason to disregard the prices, the
Department will weight-average the ME purchase price with an
appropriate surrogate value according to their respective shares of the
total volume of purchases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate
grounds to rebut the
[[Page 26504]]
presumption.\86\ When a firm has made ME input purchases that may have
been dumped or subsidized, are not bona fide, or are otherwise not
acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, the Department will
exclude them from the numerator of the ratio to ensure a fair
determination of whether valid ME purchases meet the 33-percent
threshold.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See Lasko Metal Products, Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d
1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming the Department's use of
market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
\84\ See Jacobi's Section D Questionnaire Response dated
September 1, 2011, at page D-9, and Exhibit JT-2.
\85\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717-18 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping
Methodologies'').
\86\ See id.
\87\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department used Thai Import Statistics to value the raw
material and packing material inputs that Datong Juqiang, Guanghua
Cherishmet, and Jacobi used to produce the subject merchandise under
review during the POR, except where listed below. In accordance with
the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the Department continues to apply
its long-standing practice of disregarding surrogate values if it has a
reason to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.\88\ In
this regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate
to disregard such prices from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and
Thailand because we have determined that these countries maintain
broadly available, non-industry specific export subsidies.\89\ Based on
the existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available
to all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the
POR, the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all
exporters from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have
benefitted from these subsidies. Therefore, the Department has not used
prices from these countries in calculating the Thai import-based
surrogate values. Additionally, the Department disregarded prices from
NME countries. Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from
an ``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, as the
Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME
country or a country with general export subsidies.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, H.R.
Conf. Rep. No. 100-576, at 590 (1988) (``OTCA 1988''), reprinted in
1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24.
\89\ See e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007,
54011 (September 13, 2005), unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First
Administrative Review, 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006).
\90\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), unchanged
in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, for subject
merchandise produced by Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and
Jacobi, the Department calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by
Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi for the POR. The
Department used data from Thai Import Statistics and other publicly
available Thai sources in order to calculate surrogate values for
Datong Juqiang's, Guanghua Cherishmet's, and Jacobi's FOPs (direct
materials, energy, and packing materials) and certain movement
expenses. To calculate NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-
unit factor quantities by publicly available Thai surrogate values
(except as noted below). The Department's practice when selecting the
best available information for valuing FOPs is to select, to the extent
practicable, surrogate values which are product-specific,
representative of a broad-market average, publicly available,
contemporaneous with the POR, and exclusive of taxes and duties.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See, e.g., Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 73 FR 48195 (August 18, 2008) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including
freight costs to render the prices delivered prices. Specifically, the
Department added to Thai import surrogate values a surrogate freight
cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic
supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the
factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the
Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States.\92\ For a detailed
description of all surrogate values used for Datong Juqiang, Guanghua
Cherishmet, and Jacobi, see Prelim SV Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In those instances where the Department could not obtain publicly
available information contemporaneous to the POR with which to value
factors, the Department adjusted the surrogate values using, where
appropriate, the Thai Producer Price Index as published in the
International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund,
a printout of which is attached to the Prelim SV Memo at Attachment 6.
Where necessary, the Department adjusted surrogate values for
inflation, exchange rates, and taxes, and the Department converted all
applicable items to a per-kilogram or per-metric ton basis.
The Department valued electricity using data from the Electrical
Generating Authority of Thailand, Annual Report 2010: Key Statistical
Data. We calculated an average of the price of energy sales to various
customers.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See Prelim SV Memo at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because water was used by the respondents in the production process
of certain activated carbon, the Department considers water to be a
direct material input, and not as overhead, and valued water with a SV
according to our practice.\94\ The Department valued water using data
from Thailand's Board of Investment.\95\ This source provides water
rates for industrial users that are VAT exclusive. Although Petitioners
suggested that we value water using information from Thailand's
Metropolitan Waterworks Authority, we find that the information
provided is approximate and not explicitly tax-exclusive. Therefore,
the data provided by the Board of Investment provides a more specific
and accurate surrogate value.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings
From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 2003)
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11.
\95\ See Prelim SV Memo at 8.
\96\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department was unable to locate a suitable surrogate value for
purchased steam from Thailand or from any of the other countries on the
surrogate country list. As noted above, the Department prefers to use
surrogate values chosen from the primary surrogate country, however,
where no reliable data exists in the primary surrogate country, the
Department may look to additional countries for reliable surrogate
values.\97\ The Department has preliminarily determined to use the
2010-2011 financial statement of Hindalco Industries Limited from
India, which contains a surrogate value for steam,\98\ as it is the
only information currently on the record for valuing steam, and is a
source we have used in previous segments of this proceeding.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at n. 7.
\98\ See Jacobi's Surrogate Value Comments: Certain Activated
Carbon from China, dated November 16, 2011, at Exhibit SV-7.
\99\ See, e.g., Certain Activated Carbon From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Third Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, and Preliminary Rescission in Part, 76 FR
23978, 23988 (April 29, 2011), unchanged in Certain Activated Carbon
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
67142 (October 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26505]]
We used Thai transport information in order to value the freight-in
cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available
information for valuing truck freight to be from Siam Partners Group
Company Limited.\100\ We calculated the per-unit inland freight costs
using the distance from five different provinces in Thailand to
Thailand's largest city, Bangkok.\101\ We inflated the calculated a
per-metric ton, per-kilometer surrogate inland freight because this
source was from 2005.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ See Prelim SV Memo at 9.
\101\ See id.
\102\ See id., at Exhibit 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export
procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in
Thailand. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of
the procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in Thailand that is published in Doing Business 2011:
Thailand, published by the World Bank.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See Prelim SV Memo at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, the Department used the 2010 audited
financial statement of Carbokarn Co., Ltd., the only Thai financial
statement available on the record of this review.\104\ Because the
Department has chosen Thailand as the primary surrogate country, the
discussion here is limited to financial statements placed on the record
from Thailand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See Petitioners November 28, 2011, Surrogate Value
Submission at Exhibits 5 & 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings.\105\ In Labor
Methodologies, the Department determined that the best methodology to
value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor rates from the
primary surrogate country. Additionally, the Department determined that
the best data source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A:
Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from the International Labor Organization
(ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics (``Yearbook'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving
Non-Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies''). This notice
followed the Federal Circuit decision in Dorbest Ltd. v. United
States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC 2010), which found that the
regression-based method for calculating wage rates as stipulated by
19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) uses data not permitted by the statutory
requirements laid out in section 773 of the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C.
1677b(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these preliminary results, the Department calculated the labor
input using the wage method described in Labor Methodologies. To value
the respondent's labor input, the Department relied on data reported by
Thailand to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. Although the
Department further finds the two-digit description Sub-Classification
24 under ISIC-Revision 3 (``Manufacture of Chemicals and Chemical
Products'') to be the best available information on the record because
it is specific to the industry being examined, and is therefore derived
from industries that produce comparable merchandise, Thailand has not
reported data specific to the two-digit description since 2000.
However, Thailand did report total manufacturing labor data in 2005.
Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the Department
calculated the labor input using total 2005 manufacturing labor data
reported by Thailand to the ILO, in accordance with section 773(c)(4)
of the Act. For the preliminary results, the calculated industry-
specific wage rate is 135.93 Baht/hour. A more detailed description of
the wage rate calculation methodology is provided in the Prelim SV
Memo.
As stated above, the Department used Thai ILO data reported in 2005
under Chapter 6A of the ILO Yearbook, which reflects all costs related
to labor, including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. Pursuant
to Labor Methodologies, the Department's practice is to consider
whether financial ratios reflect labor expenses that are included in
other elements of the respondent's factors of production (e.g., general
and administrative expenses).\106\ However, the financial statements
used to calculate financial ratios in this review were insufficiently
detailed to permit the Department to isolate whether any labor expenses
were included in other components of NV. Therefore, in this review, the
Department preliminary has made no adjustment to these financial
statements.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093-94.
\107\ See Prelim SV Memo at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment of Datong Juqiang's Packing Factors
For these preliminary results, we are applying partial adverse
facts available to Datong Juqiang for packing bags for certain
customers. In the initial Section D questionnaire, the Department
informs parties that if they receive any inputs used in the production
process for free, they must include the amount of that input used.\108\
In its Section D questionnaire response, Datong Juqiang reported the
amount of packing bags it used for its other customers.\109\ On March
15, 2012, in response to a supplemental questionnaire and request for
documentation, Datong Juqiang stated that its agreement with the
customers was over the phone, that it had no agreement in writing, and
that it could provide no evidence that packing bags were supplied by
those certain customers.\110\ Datong did not provide the Department
with any additional information. Therefore, because Datong Juqiang has
failed to cooperate at the Department's request to the best of its
ability in reporting the total amount packing bags used in the
production of subject merchandise, for these preliminary results the
Department is applying as partial adverse facts available the highest
single, per-unit consumption of packing bags reported by Datong Juqiang
as the packing bags used by Datong Juqiang in the packing stage for
those certain customers.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ See Ltr. From the Department to Datong Juqiang, re: ``NME
Questionnaire'', dated July 11, 2011 at D-6.
\109\ See Datong Juqiang's section D questionnaire response,
dated September 12, 2011 at page 15 and Exhibit D-10.
\110\ See Datong Juqiang's supplemental section D questionnaire
response, dated March 15, 2012, at 5-6; see also Datong Juqiang's
supplemental section A, C & D questionnaire response, dated November
29, 2011 at 23.
\111\ For further details, see Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Bob Palmer, Case
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary Results Analysis
Memorandum for Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. in the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon
from the People's Republic of China, dated concurrently with this
notice (``DJAC Prelim Analysis Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currency Conversion
Where appropriate, the Department made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on
the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department preliminarily determines that the following
weighted-average dumping margins exist:
[[Page 26506]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin (dollars
Exporter per kilogram) 112
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd............ * 0.00
Jacobi Carbons AB 113............................... 1.49
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., 1.07
Ltd114.............................................
Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 1.34
Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.......... 1.34
Ningxia Mineral and Chemical Limited................ 1.34
Shanxi DMD Corporation.............................. 1.34
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.................. 1.34
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd......... 1.34
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd...................... 1.34
Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.................. 1.34
PRC-Wide Rate 115................................... 2.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* De minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ In the second administrative review of this order, the
Department determined that it would calculate per-unit assessment
and cash deposit rates for all future reviews. See Certain Activated
Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
75 FR 70208, 70210 (November 17, 2010).
\113\ In Activated Carbon AR3, the Department found Jacobi
Carbons AB, Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd., and
Jacobi Carbons Industry (Tianjin) are a single entity and, because
there has been no changes to this determination since the first
administrative review, we continue to find these companies to be
part of a single entity. Therefore, we will assign this rate to the
companies in the single entity. See Certain Activated Carbon From
the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission
of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 67142
(October 31, 2011) (``Activated Carbon AR3'').
\114\ In Activated Carbon AR1, the Department found Beijing
Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd., Ningxia Guanghua
Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., and Ningxia Guanghua
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. are a single entity and, because there
has been no changes to this determination since the first
administrative review, we continue to find these companies to be
part of a single entity. Therefore, we will assign this rate to the
companies in the single entity. See Certain Activated Carbon From
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Extension of Time Limits
for the Final Results, 74 FR 21317 (May 7, 2009), unchanged in First
Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon From the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 57995 (November 10, 2009).
\115\ The PRC-Wide entity includes Hebei Foreign Trade and
Advertising Corporation; Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and
Commerce Co., Ltd.; and United Manufacturing International (Beijing)
Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the
date of publication of this notice.\116\ Interested parties may submit
case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the
date of publication of these preliminary results of review.\117\
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues
raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than five days
after the deadline for filing case briefs.\118\ Parties who submit case
briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit
with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary
of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
\117\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
\118\ See 19 CRR 351.309(d).
\119\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c), (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties must
provide the Department with supporting documentation for the publicly
available information to value each FOP. Additionally, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this administrative
review, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut,
clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested
party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline
for submission of such factual information. However, the Department
notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as
it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the
record. The Department generally cannot accept ``the submission of
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate
value or financial ratio information'' pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1).\120\ Additionally, for each piece of factual information
submitted with surrogate value rebuttal comments, the interested party
must provide a written explanation of what information that is already
on the record of the ongoing proceeding that the factual information is
rebutting, clarifying, or correcting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ See Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final
Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who
wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must
submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, within 30 days of the date of publication of this
notice and file the request via the Department's Import
Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS'').\121\ An electronically filed
document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5 p.m.
Eastern Time (ET). Requests should contain: (1) The party's name,
address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a
list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be
limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. The
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review,
including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication
of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act unless the
deadline is extended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final
results of this review. For any individually examined respondents whose
weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis, we calculated
exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for
[[Page 26507]]
the merchandise subject to this review in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1).\122\ In this and future reviews, we will direct CBP to
assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-
unit (i.e., per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each
entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. Where an importer (or
customer)-specific per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, we will
apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/
customer's entries during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an
importer (or customer)-specific per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the
assessment rate calculation method adopted in Final Modification for
Reviews, i.e. on the basis of monthly average-to-average comparisons
using only the transactions associated with that importer with
offsets being provided for non-dumped comparisons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected
for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the
rate we calculated for the mandatory respondent whose rate was not de
minimis, as discussed above. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate
entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity
(including Dapu) at the PRC-wide rate. Finally, for those companies for
which this review has been preliminarily rescinded, the Department
intends to assess antidumping duties at rates equal to the cash deposit
of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(c)(2), if the review is rescinded for these companies.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final
results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis,
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that
company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC
exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise
which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of $2.42 per kilogram \123\; and
(4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ See AR2 Carbon 70208, 70209 and accompanying Issues and
Decisions Memorandum at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: April 27, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-10838 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
