High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 26739-26742 [2012-10952]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Notices
Return or Destruction of Proprietary
Information
was investigated, that company’s rate
also serves as the All Others rate.
We determine the total net
countervailable subsidy rates to be:
In the event that the ITC issues a final
negative injury determination, this
notice will serve as the only reminder
Net
Exporter/Manufacturer
subsidy to parties subject to an administrative
rate
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd.;
destruction of proprietary information
Tianjin Tianhai High Pressure
disclosed under APO in accordance
Container Co., Ltd.; Langfang
Tianhai High Pressure Container
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
Co., Ltd .......................................
15.81 written notification of the return/
All Others ........................................
15.81 destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
As a result of our Preliminary
hereby requested. Failure to comply
Determination and pursuant to section
with the regulations and terms of an
703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S.
APO is a violation which is subject to
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to sanction.
suspend liquidation of all entries of
This determination is published
subject merchandise from the PRC
pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of
which were entered or withdrawn from
the Act.
warehouse, for consumption on or after
October 18, 2011, the date of the
Dated: April 30, 2012.
publication of the Preliminary
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Determination in the Federal Register.
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
In accordance with section 703(d) of the
Administration.
Act, we later issued instructions to CBP
to discontinue the suspension of
Appendix
liquidation for countervailing duty
List of Comments and Issues in the Decision
purposes for subject merchandise
Memorandum
entered or withdrawn from warehouse,
Comment 1 Application of the CVD Law to
on or after February 15, 2012, but to
the People’s Republic of China
continue the suspension of liquidation
Comment 2 Double Counting/Overlapping
of all entries from October 18, 2011,
Remedies
through February 14, 2012.
Comment 3 Whether the Department
We will issue a countervailing duty
Should Have Selected Jindun as a
order and reinstate the suspension of
Mandatory or Voluntary Respondent
liquidation under section 706(a) of the
Comment 4 Whether a Certain Producer of
Act if the U.S. International Trade
Seamless Tube Steel Partially-Owned by
Commission (ITC) issues a final
SOEs is a Government Authority
affirmative injury determination, and
Comment 5 Whether a Certain Producer of
will require a cash deposit of estimated
Seamless Tube Steel Owned by
countervailing duties for such entries in
Individuals is a Government Authority
the amounts indicated above. If the ITC
Comment 6 Countervailability of Seamless
determines that material injury, or
Tube Steel Produced by One of BTIC’s
threat of material injury, does not exist,
Affiliates
this proceeding will be terminated and
Comment 7 Countervailability of Inputs
all estimated deposits or securities
Purchased from Domestic Trading
posted as a result of the suspension of
Companies
liquidation will be refunded or
Comment 8 Whether to Limit the
canceled.
Benchmark for Seamless Tube Steel to
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of
the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
determination. In addition, we are
making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary
information related to this investigation.
We will allow the ITC access to all
privileged and business proprietary
information in our files, provided the
ITC confirms that it will not disclose
such information, either publicly or
under an APO, without the written
consent of the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:11 May 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
Certain Countries or Diameters
Comment 9 Whether to Incorporate VAT
and Import Duties into Input
Benchmarks
Comment 10 Application of Adverse Facts
Available to the Electricity Benchmark
Comment 11 Alleged Errors in the
Department’s Calculations for the
Provision of Electricity for LTAR
[FR Doc. 2012–10954 Filed 5–4–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
PO 00000
26739
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–977]
High Pressure Steel Cylinders From
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: May 7, 2012.
SUMMARY: On December 15, 2011, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published the
Preliminary Determination of sales at
less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the
antidumping investigation of high
pressure steel cylinders from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1
The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
October 1, 2010, through March 31,
2011. Based on its analysis of the
comments received, the Department has
made changes to its Preliminary
Determination. The Department
continues to find that high pressure
steel cylinders from the PRC are being,
or are likely to be, sold in the United
States at LTFV, as provided in section
735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘Act’’). The estimated
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in
the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’
section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alan Ray or Emeka Chukwudebe, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5403 or 482–0219,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
Since the Preliminary Determination,
the Department conducted sales and
factors of production (‘‘FOP’’)
verifications for Beijing Tianhai
Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘BTIC’’), the
mandatory respondent, from January 9
through January 17, 2012, and a sales
verification for American Fortune
Company (‘‘AFC’’), BTIC’s U.S. affiliate,
on February 9 and 10, 2012.2 See the
1 See High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 76
FR 77964 (December 15, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary
Determination’’).
2 We conducted verifications of BTIC and one of
its affiliated producers, Langfang Tianhai High
Pressure Contain Co., Ltd. (‘‘Langfang Tianhai’’),
which produced the merchandise under
Continued
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
26740
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Notices
‘‘Verification’’ section below for
additional information. On January 31,
2012, and February 10, 2012, we
received surrogate value (‘‘SV’’)
comments from both BTIC and
Petitioner and rebuttal SV comments
from BTIC. On March 2, 2011, we issued
a post-preliminary supplemental
questionnaire.
Upon the February 23, 2012, release
of the verification reports, we invited
interested parties to comment on the
Preliminary Determination. On March 6,
2012, we received case briefs from
Petitioner,3 BTIC, and Zhejiang Jindun
Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jindun’’). On
March 26, 2012, we received rebuttal
briefs from Petitioner and BTIC. On
March 16, 2012, we released a new labor
calculation and requested that
interested parties submit comments.4
On March 26, 2012, BTIC submitted
comments regarding the revised labor
calculation. The Department held a
public hearing on April 4, 2012,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d).
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
investigation are addressed in the
‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of
High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the
People’s Republic of China: Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final
Determination’’ (‘‘Decision
Memorandum’’), dated concurrently
with this notice and which is hereby
adopted by this notice. A list of the
issues which parties raised, and to
which we respond to in the Decision
Memorandum, is attached to this notice
as Appendix I. The Decision
investigation that BTIC sold to the United States,
and BTIC’s U.S. affiliate which sold merchandise
under investigation in the United States. See Memo
to the File, through Matthew Renkey, Acting
Program Manager, Office 9, from Alan Ray and
Emeka Chukwudebe, International Trade Analysts,
‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors of Production
Response of Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd.
(‘‘BTIC’’) in the Investigation of High Pressure Steel
Cylinders from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated February 23, 2012 (‘‘BTIC Verification
Report’’); Memo to the File, through Matthew
Renkey, Acting Program Manager, Office 9, from
Alan Ray and Ricardo Martinez Rivera,
International Trade Analysts,, ‘‘Verification of the
Constructed Export Price Sales of American Fortune
Company (‘‘AFC’’) in the Investigation of High
Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People’s Republic
of China,’’ dated February 23, 2012 (‘‘AFC
Verification Report’’).
3 Norris Cylinder Company.
4 See ‘‘Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary, for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, through Matthew
Renkey, Acting Program Manager, Office 9, from
Emeka Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, Office 9:
Antidumping Duty Investigation of High Pressure
Steel Cylinders from the People’s Republic of
China: Post-Preliminary Analysis Regarding
Surrogate Labor Value,’’ dated March 16, 2012
(‘‘Surrogate Labor Value Memo’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:11 May 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
Memorandum is a public document and
is on file electronically via Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). Access to IA ACCESS is
available in the Central Records Unit
(‘‘CRU’’), room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the internet at https://
www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Decision
Memorandum and the electronic
versions of the Decision Memorandum
are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary
Determination
Based on our analysis of information
on the record of this investigation, we
have made changes regarding BTIC and
the separate rate companies 5 for the
final determination.
• Subsequent to the Preliminary
Determination, at the Department’s
request, BTIC provided a revised FOP
and sales database.
• We have changed the source used
for valuing truck freight.
• We have changed the surrogate
financial statements upon which we are
relying to calculate financial ratios from
Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. to Thai
Metal Drum Manufacturing Public
Company Limited.
• We have excluded water and all of
the other energy FOPs from the buildup for normal value as the Thai Metal
Drum Manufacturing Public Company
Limited financial statement does not
provide sufficient detail for the
Department to allocate those factors
appropriately.
• We are changing the date of sale for
constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) sales
to reflect the correct date of sale in the
‘‘Targeted Dumping’’ section of the
margin calculation program.
• We are using the revised labor
valuation methodology discussed in our
March 16, 2012, memorandum.6
• In the Preliminary Determination,
we assigned the PRC-wide rate of 26.23
percent, the highest transaction-specific
rate preliminarily calculated for BTIC.
For this final determination, we
continue to use BTIC’s highest
transaction-specific rate, which now is
31.42 percent.
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by the
scope of the investigation is seamless
5 Jindun, Shanghai J.S.X. International Trading
Corporation (‘‘Shanghai J.S.X.’’), and Shijiazhuang
Enric Gas Equipment Co., Ltd. (‘‘Enric’’) (‘‘Separate
Rate Respondents’’).
6 See Surrogate Labor Value Memo.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
steel cylinders designed for storage or
transport of compressed or liquefied gas
(‘‘high pressure steel cylinders’’). High
pressure steel cylinders are fabricated of
chrome alloy steel including, but not
limited to, chromium-molybdenum steel
or chromium magnesium steel, and have
permanently impressed into the steel,
either before or after importation, the
symbol of a U.S. Department of
Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(‘‘DOT’’) approved high pressure steel
cylinder manufacturer, as well as an
approved DOT type marking of DOT 3A,
3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3B, 3E, 3HT, 3T, or
DOT–E (followed by a specific
exemption number) in accordance with
the requirements of sections 178.36
through 178.68 of Title 49 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, or any
subsequent amendments thereof. High
pressure steel cylinders covered by the
investigation have a water capacity up
to 450 liters, and a gas capacity ranging
from 8 to 702 cubic feet, regardless of
corresponding service pressure levels
and regardless of physical dimensions,
finish or coatings.
Excluded from the scope of the
investigation are high pressure steel
cylinders manufactured to UN–ISO–
9809–1 and 2 specifications and
permanently impressed with ISO or UN
symbols. Also excluded from the
investigation are acetylene cylinders,
with or without internal porous mass,
and permanently impressed with 8A or
8AL in accordance with DOT
regulations.
Merchandise covered by the
investigation is classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under
subheading 7311.00.00.30. Subject
merchandise may also enter under
HTSUS subheadings 7311.00.00.60 or
7311.00.00.90. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise
under the investigation is dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, we conducted verification of the
information submitted by BTIC for use
in our final determination. We used
standard verification procedures,
including examination of relevant
accounting and production records, as
well as original source documents
provided by BTIC.7
7 See BTIC Verification Report; AFC Verification
Report.
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Notices
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we
selected Ukraine as the primary
surrogate country in this investigation
because: (1) In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, we determined that
it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise and it is at a
level of economic development
comparable to the PRC; and (2) Ukraine
data satisfy several factors that the
Department considers in selecting a
primary surrogate country, including
whether the SV data are publicly
available, contemporaneous with the
POI, represent a broad-market average,
from an approved surrogate country, are
tax- and duty-exclusive, and specific to
the input.8 Interested parties submitted
comments regarding our preliminary
determinations concerning the selection
of surrogate country, which are
summarized in the accompanying
Decision Memo at Comment I. For this
final determination we continue to
select Ukraine as the primary surrogate
country.
Separate Rates
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In proceedings involving non-marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the
Department begins with a rebuttable
presumption that all companies within
the country are subject to government
control and, thus, should be assigned a
single antidumping duty deposit rate. It
is the Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to an
investigation in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate.9 In the Preliminary
Determination, we found that BTIC,
Enric, Jindun, and Shanghai J.S.X.,
(collectively, ‘‘Separate Rate
Companies’’) demonstrated their
eligibility for, and were hence assigned,
separate rate status.10
No parties commented on the above
companies’ eligibility for separate rate
status. Consequently, for the final
determination, we continue to find that
these companies demonstrated both a de
jure and de facto absence of government
control with respect to their exports of
the merchandise under investigation,
8 See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 77967–
77968.
9 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’’), as
amplified by 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’’), and 19 CFR 351.107(d).
10 See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 77965
n.16 and 77969.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:11 May 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
and are eligible for separate rate status
for the final determination.
Calculation of the Margin for the
Separate Rate Companies
As in the Preliminary Determination,
we are basing the antidumping duty
margin for those companies receiving a
separate rate, but who were not
individually examined,11 on the margin
calculated for BTIC.12
The Department received comments
from Jindun regarding the Department’s
Preliminary Determination and its
decision not to examine Jindun as a
voluntary respondent, as requested. The
Department has addressed these
arguments in Comment VI of the
Decision Memorandum. For the final
determination, we continue not to
individually examine Jindun.
Accordingly, Jindun will continue to be
treated as and receive the rate assigned
to the non-selected, Separate Rate
Companies.13
The PRC-Wide Entity Rate
Because we begin with the
presumption that all companies within
a NME country are subject to
government control, and because only
the companies listed under the ‘‘Final
Determination Margins’’ section, below,
have overcome that presumption, we are
assigning a single weighted-average
dumping margin (i.e., the PRC-wide
rate) to all other exporters of the
merchandise under consideration.
These other companies did not
demonstrate entitlement to a separate
rate.14 The PRC-wide rate applies to all
entries of the merchandise under
consideration except for entries from the
Separate Rate Companies.
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department determined that there were
exporters/producers of the merchandise
subject to this investigation during the
POI from the PRC that did not respond
to the Department’s request for
information.15 Further, we treated these
PRC exporters/producers as part of the
PRC-wide entity because they did not
qualify for a separate rate. Therefore, we
find that the use of facts available
(‘‘FA’’) is necessary and appropriate to
determine the PRC-wide rate pursuant
to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.16
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department also determined that, in
11 Enric,
Jindun, and Shanghai J.S.X.
Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 77970.
13 See Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
14 See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People’s
Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707
(May 3, 2000).
15 See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 77970.
16 See id.
12 See
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26741
selecting from among the FA, an adverse
inference is appropriate because the
PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with requests for information.17
As adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’), we
preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide
entity a rate of 26.23 percent, the
highest transaction-specific rate
preliminarily calculated for BTIC.18
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that, if an interested party (A) withholds
information requested by the
Department, (B) fails to provide such
information by the deadline, or in the
form or manner requested, (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding, or
(D) provides information that cannot be
verified, the Department shall use,
subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts
otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination. Section
776(b) of the Act provides that, in
selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, the Department
may employ an adverse inference if an
interested party fails to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information.19 We find
that, because the PRC-wide entity did
not respond to our request for
information, it has failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability. Therefore, the
Department finds that, in selecting from
among the facts otherwise available, an
adverse inference is appropriate.
In deciding which facts to use as
AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the
Department may rely on information
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final
determination in the investigation, (3)
any previous review or determination,
or (4) any information placed on the
record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the
Department selects a rate that is
sufficiently adverse ‘‘so as to effectuate
the statutory purposes of the adverse
facts available rule to induce
respondents to provide the Department
with complete and accurate information
in a timely manner.’’ 20 It is also the
Department’s practice to select a rate
that ensures ‘‘that the party does not
obtain a more favorable result by failing
17 See
id.
id., at 77971.
19 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the
Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4,
2000). See also Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Doc. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’).
20 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access
Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909,
8932 (February 23, 1998).
18 See
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
26742
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Notices
to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.’’ 21
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department selected as AFA, a rate of
26.23 percent, the highest transactionspecific rate for BTIC.22 For the final
determination, the Department
continues to use the same methodology
to determine the AFA rate used in the
Preliminary Determination.23
Specifically, the Department continues
to use the highest transaction-specific
rate calculated for BTIC, which, because
of changes to the calculations since the
Preliminary Determination now is 31.42
percent. No parties commented on the
selection of AFA.
Final Determination Weighted-Average
Dumping Margins
We determine that the following
weighted-average dumping margins
exist for the following entities for the
POI:
WeightedAverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
Exporter
Producer
Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd. ..................................................
Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd. ..................................................
Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd. ..................................................
Shanghai J.S.X. International Trading Corporation .......................
Zhejiang Jindun Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd. ...................................
Shijiazhuang Enric Gas Equipment Co., Ltd. ................................
PRC-Wide Rate 24 ..........................................................................
Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd. ..................................................
Tianjin Tianhai High Pressure Container Co., Ltd. .......................
Langfang Tianhai High Pressure Container Co., Ltd. ..................
Shanghai High Pressure Special Gas Cylinder Co., Ltd. .............
Zhejiang Jindun Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd. ..................................
Shijiazhuang Enric Gas Equipment Co., Ltd. ...............................
........................................................................................................
Disclosure
ITC Notification
We will disclose the calculations
performed within five days of the date
of publication of this notice to parties in
this proceeding in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(d) of
the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)
of our final determination of sales at
LTFV. As our final determination is
affirmative, in accordance with section
735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will, within
45 days, determine whether the
domestic industry in the United States
is materially injured or threatened with
material injury, by reason of imports or
sales (or the likelihood of sales) for
importation of the subject merchandise.
If the ITC determines that material
injury or threat of material injury does
not exist, the proceeding will be
terminated and all securities posted will
be refunded or canceled. If the ITC
determines that such injury does exist,
the Department will issue an
antidumping duty order directing CBP
to collect cash deposits for antidumping
duties due on all imports of the subject
merchandise entered or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption on or after
the effective date of the suspension of
liquidation.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation
In accordance with section
735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue to
suspend liquidation of all imports of
merchandise subject to the investigation
entered or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption for the PRC-wide entity
and the Separate Rate Companies on or
after December 15, 2011. The
Department will instruct CBP to require
a cash deposit or the posting of a bond
equal to the weighted-average amount
by which the normal value exceeds U.S.
price, as follows: (1) The rate for the
exporter/producer combinations listed
in the chart above will be the rate we
have determined in this final
determination; (2) for all PRC exporters
of subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash-deposit
rate will be the PRC-wide rate; and (3)
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/producer combination that
supplied that non-PRC exporter. The
suspension of liquidation instructions
will remain in effect until further notice.
21 See
SAA at 870.
Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 77971.
23 See id.
22 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:47 May 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
This notice also serves as a reminder
to the parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely
notification of return or destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
24 The PRC-Wide entity includes: Shanghai High
Pressure Container Co., Ltd.; Heibei Baigong
Industrial Co., Ltd.; Nanjing Ocean High-Pressure
Vessel Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Baigong Industrial and
Trading Co., Ltd.; Shandong Huachen High Pressure
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of an APO is a
sanctionable violation.
This determination and notice are
issued and published in accordance
with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: April 30, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
General Issues
Comment I: Selection of Surrogate Country
Comment II: Surrogate Values
A. Selection of Surrogate Financial Ratios
B. Truck Freight
C. Labor
Comment III: Double Remedy
Comment IV: Targeted Dumping
Methodology
A. General Department Targeted Dumping
Methodology
B. Average to Transaction Methodology
C. Zeroing
Company-Specific Issues
Notification Regarding APO
PO 00000
6.62
6.62
6.62
6.62
6.62
6.62
31.21
Comment V: BTIC
A. Targeted Dumping—Clerical Error
Allegation
B. Cash Deposit Instructions
Comment VI: Jindun’s Voluntary Respondent
Status
[FR Doc. 2012–10952 Filed 5–4–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Vessel Co., Ltd.; Shandong Province Building High
Pressure Vessel Limited Company; Sichuan
Mingchuan Chengyu Co., Ltd.; and Zhuolu High
Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd.
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26739-26742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10952]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-977]
High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: May 7, 2012.
SUMMARY: On December 15, 2011, the Department of Commerce
(``Department'') published the Preliminary Determination of sales at
less than fair value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of
high pressure steel cylinders from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'').\1\ The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 2010,
through March 31, 2011. Based on its analysis of the comments received,
the Department has made changes to its Preliminary Determination. The
Department continues to find that high pressure steel cylinders from
the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at
LTFV, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the
``Final Determination Margins'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value, 76 FR 77964 (December 15, 2011) (``Preliminary
Determination'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Ray or Emeka Chukwudebe, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5403 or 482-0219, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Since the Preliminary Determination, the Department conducted sales
and factors of production (``FOP'') verifications for Beijing Tianhai
Industry Co., Ltd. (``BTIC''), the mandatory respondent, from January 9
through January 17, 2012, and a sales verification for American Fortune
Company (``AFC''), BTIC's U.S. affiliate, on February 9 and 10,
2012.\2\ See the
[[Page 26740]]
``Verification'' section below for additional information. On January
31, 2012, and February 10, 2012, we received surrogate value (``SV'')
comments from both BTIC and Petitioner and rebuttal SV comments from
BTIC. On March 2, 2011, we issued a post-preliminary supplemental
questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We conducted verifications of BTIC and one of its affiliated
producers, Langfang Tianhai High Pressure Contain Co., Ltd.
(``Langfang Tianhai''), which produced the merchandise under
investigation that BTIC sold to the United States, and BTIC's U.S.
affiliate which sold merchandise under investigation in the United
States. See Memo to the File, through Matthew Renkey, Acting Program
Manager, Office 9, from Alan Ray and Emeka Chukwudebe, International
Trade Analysts, ``Verification of the Sales and Factors of
Production Response of Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd. (``BTIC'')
in the Investigation of High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the
People's Republic of China,'' dated February 23, 2012 (``BTIC
Verification Report''); Memo to the File, through Matthew Renkey,
Acting Program Manager, Office 9, from Alan Ray and Ricardo Martinez
Rivera, International Trade Analysts,, ``Verification of the
Constructed Export Price Sales of American Fortune Company (``AFC'')
in the Investigation of High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the
People's Republic of China,'' dated February 23, 2012 (``AFC
Verification Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon the February 23, 2012, release of the verification reports, we
invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination.
On March 6, 2012, we received case briefs from Petitioner,\3\ BTIC, and
Zhejiang Jindun Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd. (``Jindun''). On March 26,
2012, we received rebuttal briefs from Petitioner and BTIC. On March
16, 2012, we released a new labor calculation and requested that
interested parties submit comments.\4\ On March 26, 2012, BTIC
submitted comments regarding the revised labor calculation. The
Department held a public hearing on April 4, 2012, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Norris Cylinder Company.
\4\ See ``Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
through Matthew Renkey, Acting Program Manager, Office 9, from Emeka
Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation
of High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of
China: Post-Preliminary Analysis Regarding Surrogate Labor Value,''
dated March 16, 2012 (``Surrogate Labor Value Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this investigation are addressed in the ``Antidumping Duty
Investigation of High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's
Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final
Determination'' (``Decision Memorandum''), dated concurrently with this
notice and which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues
which parties raised, and to which we respond to in the Decision
Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Decision
Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via
Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''). Access to IA ACCESS is
available in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at https://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic
versions of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Based on our analysis of information on the record of this
investigation, we have made changes regarding BTIC and the separate
rate companies \5\ for the final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Jindun, Shanghai J.S.X. International Trading Corporation
(``Shanghai J.S.X.''), and Shijiazhuang Enric Gas Equipment Co.,
Ltd. (``Enric'') (``Separate Rate Respondents'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to the Preliminary Determination, at the
Department's request, BTIC provided a revised FOP and sales database.
We have changed the source used for valuing truck freight.
We have changed the surrogate financial statements upon
which we are relying to calculate financial ratios from Everest Kanto
Cylinder Ltd. to Thai Metal Drum Manufacturing Public Company Limited.
We have excluded water and all of the other energy FOPs
from the build-up for normal value as the Thai Metal Drum Manufacturing
Public Company Limited financial statement does not provide sufficient
detail for the Department to allocate those factors appropriately.
We are changing the date of sale for constructed export
price (``CEP'') sales to reflect the correct date of sale in the
``Targeted Dumping'' section of the margin calculation program.
We are using the revised labor valuation methodology
discussed in our March 16, 2012, memorandum.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Surrogate Labor Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, we assigned the PRC-wide
rate of 26.23 percent, the highest transaction-specific rate
preliminarily calculated for BTIC. For this final determination, we
continue to use BTIC's highest transaction-specific rate, which now is
31.42 percent.
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by the scope of the investigation is
seamless steel cylinders designed for storage or transport of
compressed or liquefied gas (``high pressure steel cylinders''). High
pressure steel cylinders are fabricated of chrome alloy steel
including, but not limited to, chromium-molybdenum steel or chromium
magnesium steel, and have permanently impressed into the steel, either
before or after importation, the symbol of a U.S. Department of
Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(``DOT'') approved high pressure steel cylinder manufacturer, as well
as an approved DOT type marking of DOT 3A, 3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3B, 3E, 3HT,
3T, or DOT-E (followed by a specific exemption number) in accordance
with the requirements of sections 178.36 through 178.68 of Title 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, or any subsequent amendments thereof.
High pressure steel cylinders covered by the investigation have a water
capacity up to 450 liters, and a gas capacity ranging from 8 to 702
cubic feet, regardless of corresponding service pressure levels and
regardless of physical dimensions, finish or coatings.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are high pressure
steel cylinders manufactured to UN-ISO-9809-1 and 2 specifications and
permanently impressed with ISO or UN symbols. Also excluded from the
investigation are acetylene cylinders, with or without internal porous
mass, and permanently impressed with 8A or 8AL in accordance with DOT
regulations.
Merchandise covered by the investigation is classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under
subheading 7311.00.00.30. Subject merchandise may also enter under
HTSUS subheadings 7311.00.00.60 or 7311.00.00.90. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise under the investigation is
dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification
of the information submitted by BTIC for use in our final
determination. We used standard verification procedures, including
examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as
original source documents provided by BTIC.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See BTIC Verification Report; AFC Verification Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26741]]
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we selected Ukraine as the
primary surrogate country in this investigation because: (1) In
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, we determined that it is
a significant producer of comparable merchandise and it is at a level
of economic development comparable to the PRC; and (2) Ukraine data
satisfy several factors that the Department considers in selecting a
primary surrogate country, including whether the SV data are publicly
available, contemporaneous with the POI, represent a broad-market
average, from an approved surrogate country, are tax- and duty-
exclusive, and specific to the input.\8\ Interested parties submitted
comments regarding our preliminary determinations concerning the
selection of surrogate country, which are summarized in the
accompanying Decision Memo at Comment I. For this final determination
we continue to select Ukraine as the primary surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 77967-77968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non-market-economy (``NME'') countries,
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to
an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter
can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate.\9\ In the Preliminary Determination, we
found that BTIC, Enric, Jindun, and Shanghai J.S.X., (collectively,
``Separate Rate Companies'') demonstrated their eligibility for, and
were hence assigned, separate rate status.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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''), as amplified by 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''),
and 19 CFR 351.107(d).
\10\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 77965 n.16 and
77969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No parties commented on the above companies' eligibility for
separate rate status. Consequently, for the final determination, we
continue to find that these companies demonstrated both a de jure and
de facto absence of government control with respect to their exports of
the merchandise under investigation, and are eligible for separate rate
status for the final determination.
Calculation of the Margin for the Separate Rate Companies
As in the Preliminary Determination, we are basing the antidumping
duty margin for those companies receiving a separate rate, but who were
not individually examined,\11\ on the margin calculated for BTIC.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Enric, Jindun, and Shanghai J.S.X.
\12\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 77970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department received comments from Jindun regarding the
Department's Preliminary Determination and its decision not to examine
Jindun as a voluntary respondent, as requested. The Department has
addressed these arguments in Comment VI of the Decision Memorandum. For
the final determination, we continue not to individually examine
Jindun. Accordingly, Jindun will continue to be treated as and receive
the rate assigned to the non-selected, Separate Rate Companies.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-Wide Entity Rate
Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a
NME country are subject to government control, and because only the
companies listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section,
below, have overcome that presumption, we are assigning a single
weighted-average dumping margin (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to all other
exporters of the merchandise under consideration. These other companies
did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate.\14\ The PRC-wide
rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under consideration
except for entries from the Separate Rate Companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of
China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that
there were exporters/producers of the merchandise subject to this
investigation during the POI from the PRC that did not respond to the
Department's request for information.\15\ Further, we treated these PRC
exporters/producers as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not
qualify for a separate rate. Therefore, we find that the use of facts
available (``FA'') is necessary and appropriate to determine the PRC-
wide rate pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 77970.
\16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department also determined
that, in selecting from among the FA, an adverse inference is
appropriate because the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for
information.\17\ As adverse facts available (``AFA''), we preliminarily
assigned to the PRC-wide entity a rate of 26.23 percent, the highest
transaction-specific rate preliminarily calculated for BTIC.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See id.
\18\ See id., at 77971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to
provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner
requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides
information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject
to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may
employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for
information.\19\ We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not
respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department finds that, in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse
inference is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel
Products from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4,
2000). See also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, vol. 1, at 870
(1994) (``SAA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``so as to
effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule
to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and
accurate information in a timely manner.'' \20\ It is also the
Department's practice to select a rate that ensures ``that the party
does not obtain a more favorable result by failing
[[Page 26742]]
to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan,
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
\21\ See SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department selected as AFA, a
rate of 26.23 percent, the highest transaction-specific rate for
BTIC.\22\ For the final determination, the Department continues to use
the same methodology to determine the AFA rate used in the Preliminary
Determination.\23\ Specifically, the Department continues to use the
highest transaction-specific rate calculated for BTIC, which, because
of changes to the calculations since the Preliminary Determination now
is 31.42 percent. No parties commented on the selection of AFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 77971.
\23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determination Weighted-Average Dumping Margins
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins
exist for the following entities for the POI:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Average
Exporter Producer dumping
margin
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd................ Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd................ 6.62
Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd................ Tianjin Tianhai High Pressure Container Co., Ltd. 6.62
Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd................ Langfang Tianhai High Pressure Container Co., 6.62
Ltd..
Shanghai J.S.X. International Trading Corporation Shanghai High Pressure Special Gas Cylinder Co., 6.62
Ltd..
Zhejiang Jindun Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd......... Zhejiang Jindun Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd......... 6.62
Shijiazhuang Enric Gas Equipment Co., Ltd........ Shijiazhuang Enric Gas Equipment Co., Ltd........ 6.62
PRC-Wide Rate \24\............................... ................................................. 31.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The PRC-Wide entity includes: Shanghai High Pressure
Container Co., Ltd.; Heibei Baigong Industrial Co., Ltd.; Nanjing
Ocean High-Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Baigong Industrial and
Trading Co., Ltd.; Shandong Huachen High Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd.;
Shandong Province Building High Pressure Vessel Limited Company;
Sichuan Mingchuan Chengyu Co., Ltd.; and Zhuolu High Pressure Vessel
Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue
to suspend liquidation of all imports of merchandise subject to the
investigation entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption for
the PRC-wide entity and the Separate Rate Companies on or after
December 15, 2011. The Department will instruct CBP to require a cash
deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount
by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The rate
for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above will
be the rate we have determined in this final determination; (2) for all
PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own
rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) 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/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. The
suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until
further notice.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will, within 45 days,
determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is
materially injured or threatened with material injury, by reason of
imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the
subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or
threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be
terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will
issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to collect cash deposits
for antidumping duties due on all imports of the subject merchandise
entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the
effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination and notice are issued and published in
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 30, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
General Issues
Comment I: Selection of Surrogate Country
Comment II: Surrogate Values
A. Selection of Surrogate Financial Ratios
B. Truck Freight
C. Labor
Comment III: Double Remedy
Comment IV: Targeted Dumping Methodology
A. General Department Targeted Dumping Methodology
B. Average to Transaction Methodology
C. Zeroing
Company-Specific Issues
Comment V: BTIC
A. Targeted Dumping--Clerical Error Allegation
B. Cash Deposit Instructions
Comment VI: Jindun's Voluntary Respondent Status
[FR Doc. 2012-10952 Filed 5-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
