Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review, Intent To Rescind, and Rescission, in Part, 27022-27029 [2012-11089]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
27022
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2012 / Notices
2009); 75 FR 71069–71070, 11/22/2010).
The ASF is an option for grantees for the
establishment or reorganization of
general-purpose zones and can permit
significantly greater flexibility in the
designation of new ‘‘usage-driven’’ FTZ
sites for operators/users located within
a grantee’s ‘‘service area’’ in the context
of the Board’s standard 2,000-acre
activation limit for a general-purpose
zone project. The application was
submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade
Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–
81u), and the regulations of the Board
(15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed
on May 1, 2012.
FTZ 129 was approved by the Board
on September 4, 1986 (Board Order 335,
51 FR 32238, 09/10/1986) and expanded
on November 16, 1992 (Board Order
608, 57 FR 56902, 12/01/1992).
The current zone project includes the
following sites: Site 1 (300 acres)—
Airport Industrial Development Area, 3
parcels as follows: Parcel A, Noranda
Industrial Site, Curtis Road at the
Burlington Northern Rail Line,
Bellingham (20 acres); Parcel B, Airport
Industrial Park at Bellingham
International Airport and additional
acreage located at 300 and 365 Harris
Avenue, Bellingham (120 acres); Parcel
C, Washington State Department of
Natural Resources site, located
immediately adjacent to the eastern
boundary of Parcel A, Bellingham (160
acres); and, Site 3 (270 acres)—Cherry
Point Industrial Park, Kickerville Road,
Henry Road and Gulf Road, Ferndale.
The grantee’s proposed service area
under the ASF would be Whatcom
County, Washington, as described in the
application. If approved, the grantee
would be able to serve sites throughout
the service area based on companies’
needs for FTZ designation. The
proposed service area is within and
adjacent to the Blaine, Washington U.S.
Customs and Border Protection port of
entry.
The Port of Bellingham is also the
grantee of FTZ 130, located in Blaine,
Washington, and FTZ 131, located in
Sumas, Washington, both of which are
located within Whatcom County. As
part of the ASF reorganization process,
the grantee is requesting authority to
merge the FTZ 130 and FTZ 131 zone
projects under FTZ 129. FTZ 130 was
approved by the Board on September 4,
1986 (51 FR 32238, 09/10/1986) and
expanded on January 11, 1993 (Board
Order 627, 58 FR 5356, 01/21/1993).
FTZ 131 was approved by the Board on
September 4, 1986 (51 FR 32238, 09/10/
1986).
The applicant is requesting authority
to reorganize its existing zone projects
to include a portion of existing Site 1
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:33 May 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
and all of Site 3 of FTZ 129, existing
Site 1 of FTZ 130, and existing Sites 1
and 2 of FTZ 131 as ‘‘magnet’’ sites of
FTZ 129. As part of the reorganization,
existing Site 1 of FTZ 130 will be
renumbered as Site 4 of FTZ 129 and
existing Sites 1 and 2 of FTZ 131 will
be renumbered as Sites 5 and 6 of FTZ
129, respectively. Additionally, as part
of the reorganization, portions of
existing Site 1 of FTZ 129 and all of
existing Site 2 of FTZ 130 will be
removed from the merged zone project
due to changed circumstances. The ASF
allows for the possible exemption of one
magnet site from the ‘‘sunset’’ time
limits that generally apply to sites under
the ASF, and the applicant requests that
proposed Site 1 be so exempted. No
usage-driven sites are being requested at
this time. Because the ASF only pertains
to establishing or reorganizing a generalpurpose zone, the application would
have no impact on FTZ 129’s authorized
subzones.
In accordance with the Board’s
regulations, Christopher Kemp of the
FTZ Staff is designated examiner to
evaluate and analyze the facts and
information presented in the application
and case record and to report findings
and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from
interested parties. Submissions (original
and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the
Board’s Executive Secretary at the
address below. The closing period for
their receipt is July 9, 2012. Rebuttal
comments in response to material
submitted during the foregoing period
may be submitted during the subsequent
15-day period to July 23, 2012.
A copy of the application will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Executive Secretary,
Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading
Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site,
which is accessible via www.trade.gov/
ftz. For further information, contact
Christopher Kemp at
Christopher.Kemp@trade.gov or (202)
482–0862.
Dated: May 1, 2012.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–11049 Filed 5–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–932]
Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the
Administrative Review, Intent To
Rescind, and Rescission, in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) is conducting the
second administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain steel
threaded rod (‘‘steel threaded rod’’) from
the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)
for the period of review (‘‘POR’’) April
1, 2010, through March 31, 2011. As
discussed below, we preliminarily
determine that sales have been made
below normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of review, we 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.
AGENCY:
DATES:
Effective Date: May 8, 2012.
Tim
Lord, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–7425.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 14, 2009, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on steel
threaded rod from the PRC.1 On April 1,
2011, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of
the Order for the period April 1, 2010
through March 31, 2011.2 Between April
29, 2011, and May 2, 2011, we received
requests to conduct administrative
reviews from Vulcan Threaded Products
Inc. (‘‘Petitioner’’) and other interested
parties. On May 27, 2011, the
Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of initiation of this
1 See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of Antidumping
Duty Order, 74 FR 17154 (April 14, 2009) (‘‘Order’’).
2 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 18153
(April 1, 2011).
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2012 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
administrative review.3 On December
12, 2011, and March 29, 2012, the
Department published in the Federal
Register notices extending by 90 days
and 30 days, respectively, the time
period for issuing the preliminary
results.4
Of the 191 companies for which we
initiated an administrative review, two
companies submitted separate rate
certifications, no companies submitted
separate rate applications, and five
companies stated that they did not
export subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR. On June
29, 2011, Petitioner submitted a
withdrawal of its request for
administrative review of 184 of the 191
companies upon which reviews were
initiated.
Because of the large number of
exporters involved in this review, the
Department limited the number of
respondents individually examined
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), and selected exporters IFI &
Morgan Limited and RMB Fasteners
Ltd., along with their affiliated
producer, Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co.,
Ltd. (collectively, the ‘‘RMB/IFI Group’’)
as a mandatory respondent.5 The
Department sent antidumping duty
questionnaires to the RMB/IFI Group on
October 18, 2011. The RMB/IFI Group
submitted its Sections A, C, and D
Questionnaire Responses on November
22, December 9, and December 16, 2011,
respectively. The Department issued
supplemental questionnaires to the
RMB/IFI Group between December 29,
2011, and March 15, 2012, to which the
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR
30912 (May 27, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
4 See Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the
People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit
for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 77205 (December 12,
2011), and Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the
People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit
for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 77 FR 19003 (March 29,
2012).
5 See Memorandum to James Doyle from Toni
Dach: 2010–2011 Administrative Review of Certain
Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of
China: Selection of Mandatory Respondent and
Response to Petitioner’s Comments, dated October
14, 2011. The Department determined that IFI &
Morgan Limited and RMB Fasteners Ltd.
constituted a single entity in the antidumping duty
investigation on steel threaded rod from the PRC.
See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 58931
(October 8, 2008), unchanged in Certain Steel
Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 74 FR 8907 (February 27, 2009) (‘‘Steel
Threaded Rod from PRC LTFV Final’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:33 May 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
RMB/IFI Group responded in a timely
manner.
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value
Data
On November 18, 2011, the
Department invited interested parties to
comment on surrogate country selection
and surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) data.6 On
December 7, 2011, the Department
extended the comment period for
surrogate country selection from
December 9, 2011, to no later than
February 3, 2012. On February 16, 2012,
the Department extended the comment
period for SV selection from December
16, 2011, to March 2, 2012. On February
3, 2012, the Department received
comments on surrogate country
selection from Petitioner and the RMB/
IFI Group. On March 2, 2012, the
Department received comments on SV
data from Petitioner and the RMB/IFI
Group. On March 12, 2012, the
Department received a rebuttal response
to Petitioner’s SV submission from the
RMB/IFI Group. The SVs placed on the
record from the RMB/IFI Group were
obtained from sources in India, whereas
the SVs placed on the record by
Petitioner were from sources in
Thailand.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order
is steel threaded rod. Steel threaded rod
is certain threaded rod, bar, or studs, of
carbon quality steel, having a solid,
circular cross section, of any diameter,
in any straight length, that have been
forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled,
machine straightened, or otherwise
cold-finished, and into which threaded
grooves have been applied. In addition,
the steel threaded rod, bar, or studs
subject to the order are non-headed and
threaded along greater than 25 percent
of their total length. A variety of finishes
or coatings, such as plain oil finish as
a temporary rust protectant, zinc coating
(i.e., galvanized, whether by
electroplating or hot-dipping), paint,
and other similar finishes and coatings,
may be applied to the merchandise.
Included in the scope of the order are
steel threaded rod, bar, or studs, in
which: (1) Iron predominates, by
weight, over each of the other contained
elements; (2) the carbon content is 2
percent or less, by weight; and (3) none
of the elements listed below exceeds the
quantity, by weight, respectively
indicated:
• 1.80 percent of manganese, or
6 See the Department’s Letter to All Interested
Parties: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
of Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s
Republic of China, dated November 18, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27023
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1.50 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.012 percent of boron, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.41 percent of titanium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
Steel threaded rod is currently
classifiable under subheading
7318.15.5050, 7318.15.5090, and
7318.15.2095 of the United States
Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the merchandise is
dispositive.
Excluded from the scope of the order
are: (a) Threaded rod, bar, or studs
which are threaded only on one or both
ends and the threading covers 25
percent or less of the total length; and
(b) threaded rod, bar, or studs made to
American Society for Testing and
Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) A193 Grade B7,
ASTM A193 Grade B7M, ASTM A193
Grade B16, or ASTM A320 Grade L7.
Partial Rescission of Administrative
Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Department will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in
part, if the party that requested the
review withdraws its request within 90
days of the date of publication of the
notice of initiation of the requested
review. On June 29, 2011, the
Department received a timely
withdrawal of the requests for review
for 184 companies. Of these companies,
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd., Shanghai
Prime Machinery Co. Ltd., Certified
Products International Inc., Jiashan
Zhongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd,
Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd., and
Jiaxing Xinyue Standard Part Co., Ltd.
have a separate rate from a prior
segment of this proceeding; accordingly,
we are rescinding this review with
respect to them.7
7 We note that there are additional companies for
which all review requests were withdrawn within
the 90 day period. See Petitioner’s withdrawal of
review requests regarding specific companies, dated
June 29, 2011. These additional companies for
which all review requests were withdrawn do not
have a separate rate from a prior segment of this
proceeding. These companies thus are not separate
from the PRC-wide entity and the administrative
review will continue for them.
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
27024
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2012 / Notices
Intent To Partially Rescind
Administrative Review
As noted above, the Department
received no shipment claims from five
companies. In order to examine these
claims, we sent an inquiry to CBP
requesting that any CBP office that had
any information contrary to the no
shipments claims alert the Department
accordingly. We have received no such
response from CBP.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we
preliminarily determine that Haiyan
Julong made no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR, and we
intend to rescind the review with
respect to Haiyan Julong.
With respect to Gem Year, Hubbell
Power Systems, Inc. (‘‘Hubbell’’), in
requesting an administrative review of
Gem Year, stated that the steel threaded
rod it imported from Gem Year ‘‘may be
determined to fall within the scope of
the antidumping duty order’’ and that it
was ‘‘not presently aware that any entry
falls within the scope of the
antidumping duty order in this
proceeding.’’ 8 Given that entry data
obtained from CBP showed that Gem
Year had no entries subject to
antidumping duties during the POR, we
preliminarily determine that Gem Year
had no reviewable entries of subject
merchandise during the POR. As
such,we intend to rescind the review
with respect to Gem Year.9
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a nonmarket
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority.10 None of the
8 See Letter from Hubbell to the Department:
Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s
Republic of China; Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.’s
Request for an Administrative Review, dated April
28, 2011. Petitioner subsequently requested an anticircumvention inquiry related to merchandise
produced by Gem Year, which the Department
initiated on January 5, 2012. See Certain Steel
Threaded Rod From the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry, 77 FR 473
(January 5, 2012).
9 See, e.g., Certain Tissue Paper Products from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 18497, 18500 (April
4, 2008) (preliminarily rescinding review because of
lack of reviewable entries), unchanged in Certain
Tissue Paper Products from the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in
Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
73 FR 58113 (October 6, 2008).
10 See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the
People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:33 May 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
parties to this proceeding have
contested such treatment. Accordingly,
we calculated the NV in accordance
with section 773(c) of the Act, which
applies to NME countries.
Separate Rates
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.11 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.12 Exporters
can demonstrate this independence
through the absence of both de jure and
de facto government control over export
activities.13 The Department analyzes
each entity exporting the subject
merchandise under a test arising from
the Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the
People’s Republic of China, 56 FR
20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991)
(‘‘Sparklers’’), as further developed in
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide
From the People’s Republic of China, 59
FR 22585, 22586–87 (May 2, 1994)
(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). 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 free of
government control. In this review, one
company, the RMB/IFI Group, provided
evidence that it was wholly owned by
individuals or companies located in
MEs in its separate rate application.
Therefore, because the RMB/IFI Group
is wholly foreign-owned and there is no
record evidence indicating that it is
under the control of the government of
(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet
Paper from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR
60632 (October 25, 2007).
11 See, e.g., Separate Rates and Combination
Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving NonMarket Economy Countries, 70 FR 17233 (April 5,
2005)(as corrected in 70 FR 19841 (April 14, 2005));
see also 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, 53082 (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) (‘‘Diamond
Sawblades’’).
12 See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307.
13 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the PRC, a separate rates analysis is not
necessary to determine whether the
RMB/IFI Group is free of government
control.14 Accordingly, the Department
has preliminarily granted a separate rate
to the RMB/IFI Group.
The Department received no separate
rate applications, and received separate
rate certifications from the RMB/IFI
Group and Jiaxing Xinyue Standard Part
Co. Ltd (‘‘Jiaxing Xinyue’’). However,
because Jiaxing Xinyue was one of the
companies for which the request for
administrative review was timely
withdrawn, the Department is not
assessing Jiaxing Xinyue’s eligibility for
a separate rate in the context of this
review.
Finally, one company subject to
review, New Pole Power Systems Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘New Pole’’), submitted neither a
separate rate application nor
certification. Therefore, because New
Pole did not demonstrate its eligibility
for separate rate status, we preliminarily
find that it is not separate from the PRCwide entity. There are, therefore, no
respondents for which to calculate a
separate rate in this administrative
review.
PRC-Wide Entity
Upon initiation of the administrative
review, we provided an opportunity for
all companies for which the review was
initiated to complete either the separate
rate application or certification. The
separate rate certification and separate
rate application were available at:
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-seprate.html.
As noted above in the ‘‘Separate
Rates’’ section of this notice, we have
preliminarily determined that one
company, New Pole, failed to
demonstrate its eligibility for a separate
rate and is thus properly considered not
to be separate from PRC-wide entity. In
NME proceedings, ‘‘‘rates’ may consist
of a single dumping margin applicable
to all exporters and producers.’’ 15 As
explained above in the ‘‘Separate Rates’’
section, all companies within the PRC
are considered to be subject to
government control unless they are able
to demonstrate an absence of
government control with respect to their
export activities. Accordingly, such
14 See, e.g., Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven
Selvedge from the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 75 FR 7244, 7249 (February 18,
2010) (determining that the respondent was wholly
foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for a separate
rate), unchanged in Narrow Woven Ribbons With
Woven Selvedge From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 75 FR 41808 (July 19, 2010).
15 See 19 CFR 351.107(d).
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2012 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
companies are assigned a single
antidumping duty rate distinct from the
separate rate(s) determined for
companies that are found to be free of
government control with respect to their
export activities. We consider that the
overall influence that the PRC has been
found to have over its economy
warrants determining separate rates for
the entity that are distinct from the rates
found for companies that have provided
sufficient evidence to establish that they
operate freely with respect to their
export activities.16 In this regard, we
note that no party has submitted
evidence in this proceeding to
demonstrate that such government
influence is no longer present or that
our treatment of the PRC-wide entity is
otherwise incorrect. Therefore, we are
assigning the PRC-wide entity a rate of
206.00 percent, the only rate ever
determined for the PRC-wide entity in
this proceeding.17
Surrogate Country
When the Department conducts an
antidumping administrative review of
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV,
in most circumstances, on the NME
producer’s factors of production
(‘‘FOPs’’), valued in a surrogate ME
country or countries considered to be
appropriate by the Department. In
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the
Act, in valuing the FOPs, the
Department shall utilize, to the extent
possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in
one or more ME countries that are: (1)
At a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country;
and (2) significant producers of
comparable merchandise. Once the
Department has identified the countries
that are economically comparable to the
PRC, it identifies those countries which
are significant producers of comparable
merchandise. From the countries which
are both economically comparable and
significant producers the Department
will then select a primary surrogate
country based upon whether the data for
valuing FOPs are both available and
reliable.
Pursuant to its practice, the
Department received a list of potential
surrogate countries from Import
Administration’s Office of Policy (‘‘OP’’)
within which it was determined that
Colombia, Indonesia, Peru, the
Philippines, South Africa, Thailand,
16 See, e.g., Notice of Final Antidumping Duty
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen
Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,
68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
17 See, e.g., Steel Threaded Rod from PRC LTFV
Final, 74 FR at 8910.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:33 May 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
and Ukraine are at a comparable level of
economic development to the PRC.18
The Department considers the seven
countries identified by the OP in its
Surrogate Country List as ‘‘equally
comparable in terms of economic
development,’’ 19 and thus, all at an
economic level of development equally
comparable to that of the PRC.20
The Department also considers
whether a country is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise in
surrogate country selection.21 The
Department retrieved data from the
Global Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’), showing
that all of the countries on the Surrogate
Country List exported significant
quantities of steel threaded rod exports
during the POR,22 and thus can each be
considered significant producers of
comparable merchandise.
Moreover, it is the Department’s
practice to select an appropriate
surrogate country based on the
availability and reliability of data from
these countries.23 Petitioner provided
data for Thailand from GTA to value
certain material inputs, and a financial
statement from a Thai producer of
comparable merchandise to calculate
surrogate financial ratios. The RMB/IFI
Group provided GTA data for India, as
well as various Indian government, nongovernmental organization, and
industry publications to value material
inputs, energy, and movement expenses.
In addition, the RMB/IFI Group
submitted Indian financial statements to
calculate surrogate financial ratios.
However, the Department has stated that
‘‘unless we find that all of the countries
determined to be equally economically
comparable are not significant
producers of comparable merchandise,
do not provide a reliable source of
publicly available surrogate data or are
unsuitable for use for other reasons, we
will rely on data from one of these
countries.’’ 24 Because the Department
18 See Memorandum from Carole Showers,
Director, Office of Policy, to Scot T. Fullerton,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9:
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Steel Threaded
Rod from the People’s Republic of China, dated
November 18, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’).
19 Id.
20 See section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act.
21 See section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act.
22 See Surrogate Value Memo at Attachment 12.
23 See Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market
Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process,
dated March 1, 2004.
24 See Certain Steel Wheels From the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of
Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final
Determination, 76 FR 67703, 67708 (November 2,
2011), unchanged in Certain Steel Wheels From the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27025
finds that one of the countries from the
Surrogate Country List meets the
selection criteria, as explained in these
preliminary results, the Department is
not considering India, a country not
included in the OP memorandum, as the
primary surrogate country.
The data on the record for Thailand
to value material inputs meet the
Department’s criteria for selecting the
best available information because we
find that the data are available and
reliable. Specifically, we preliminarily
find that the information on the record
for Thailand is complete and allows us
to value material inputs, energy,
movement expenses, and financial
ratios.
Based on publicly available
information placed on the record, the
Department determines that Thailand is
a reliable source for surrogate values
because Thailand is at a comparable
level of economic development, is a
significant producer of comparable
merchandise, and has publicly available
and reliable data. Accordingly, the
Department has selected Thailand as the
surrogate country for purposes of
valuing the FOPs because it meets the
Department’s criteria for surrogate
country selection.
Date of Sale
The RMB/IFI Group reported the
invoice date as the date of sale because
it claims that, for its U.S. sales of subject
merchandise made during the POR, the
material terms of sale were established
on the invoice date. The Department
preliminarily determines that the
invoice date is the most appropriate
date to use as the RMB/IFI Group’s date
of sale in accordance with 19 CFR
351.401(i).25
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of steel
threaded rod to the United States by the
RMB/IFI Group were made at less than
NV, the Department compared the
export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described
in the ‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
sections below.26
People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Partial Affirmative Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances, 77 FR 17021 (March 23, 2012).
25 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.
26 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
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
Continued
08MYN1
27026
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2012 / Notices
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, the Department calculated the
EP for sales to the United States from
the RMB/IFI Group’s sales, because the
first sale to an unaffiliated party was
made before the date of importation.
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,
we deducted foreign inland freight and
brokerage and handling from the
starting price to unaffiliated purchasers.
Each of these services was either
provided by an NME vendor or paid for
using an NME currency. Thus, we based
the deduction of these movement
charges on SVs.27 Additionally, for
international freight provided by an ME
provider and paid in an ME currency,
we used the actual cost per kilogram of
the freight.
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 NMEs renders price comparisons and
the calculation of production costs
invalid under the Department’s normal
methodologies.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on
FOPs reported by the respondents for
the POR, except as noted above. To
calculate NV, we multiplied the
reported per-unit factor-consumption
rates by publicly available Thai SVs. In
selecting the SVs, we considered the
quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data.28 As
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
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 normal values and granted offsets
for non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of
the weighted average dumping margin.
27 See Memorandum to the File through Paul
Walker, Acting Program Manager, Office 9 from Tim
Lord, International Trade Analyst, Office 9: 2010–
2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of
China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results,
dated April 30, 2012 (‘‘Surrogate Value Memo’’).
28 For a detailed discussion of SVs and the
resulting calculations, see Surrogate Value Memo.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:33 May 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to Thai import SVs a surrogate freight
cost using the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to
the factory of production or the distance
from the nearest seaport to the factory
of production where appropriate. This
adjustment is in accordance with the
Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit’s (‘‘Federal Circuit’’) decision in
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d
1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).29
The Department’s practice when
selecting the best available information
for valuing FOPs, in accordance with
section 773(c)(1) of the Act, is to select,
to the extent practicable, SVs which are
product-specific, representative of a
broad-market average, publicly
available, contemporaneous with the
POR and exclusive of taxes and duties.30
As a general matter, the Department
prefers to use publicly available data
representing a broad-market average to
value SVs.31
The Department used Thai import
statistics from GTA to value the raw
material and packing material inputs
that the RMB/IFI Group used to produce
subject merchandise during the POR,
except where listed below.32 The record
shows that data in the Thai import
statistics, as well as those from the other
Thai sources, are contemporaneous with
the POR, product-specific, and taxexclusive. In those instances where we
could not obtain publicly available
information contemporaneous to the
POR with which to value factors, we
adjusted the SVs using, where
appropriate, the Thai Consumer Price
Index (‘‘CPI’’) as published in the
International Financial Statistics of the
International Monetary Fund.
In accordance with the legislative
history of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988, the
Department continues to apply its longstanding practice of disregarding SVs if
it has reason to believe or suspect the
source data may be subsidized.33 In this
regard, the Department has previously
29 See Policy Bulletin No. 10.2: Inclusion of
International Freight Costs When Import Prices
Constitute Normal Value, dated November 1, 2010.
30 See, e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of the Eleventh Administrative Review
and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22,
2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2A.
31 Id.
32 Published by Global Trade Information
Services, Inc. GTA reports import statistics, such as
those from Thailand, India and Indonesia, in the
original reporting currency and, thus, these data
correspond to the original currency value reported
by each country.
33 See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep.
No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) at 590.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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, nonindustry specific export subsidies.34
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
likely benefitted from these subsidies.
Additionally, we disregarded prices
from NME countries.35 Finally, imports
that were labeled as originating from an
‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded
from the average value, because the
Department could not be certain that
they were not from either an NME
country or a country with general export
subsidies. Therefore, based on the
information currently available, we have
not used prices from these countries in
calculating the Thai import-based SVs.
On June 21, 2011, the Department
announced its new methodology to
value the cost of labor in NME
countries.36 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
34 See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from
India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-year
(Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order,
75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4–5; Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from
Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset
Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
4; Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19–20; Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination:
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
23.
35 See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 1998–
1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of
Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in
Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1.
36 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 decision in Dorbest Ltd. v.
United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010),
in which the Federal Circuit invalidated the
Department’s regression-based methodology for
calculating wage rates under 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2012 / Notices
the International Labor Organization’s
Yearbook of Labor Statistics.37
To calculate the labor value in these
preliminary results, the Department has
relied on total manufacturing labor cost
data in Thailand reported under ILO
Chapter 6A. Although the Department’s
preference, as in indicated in Labor
Methodologies, is for industry-specific
data from Chapter 6A, the Department
notes that the most recent industryspecific data for Thailand under SubClassification 24 of the ISIC–Revision 3
are more than ten years prior to the start
of the POR. Consistent with Citric Acid
from China, the Department has not
relied on labor data when there is a
significant lag between the reporting
date and the period of review.38
Therefore, the Department has selected
total manufacturing labor cost data from
Thailand, which were reported in 2005,
as the surrogate labor value for this
review.39 We further inflated the labor
value using the consumer price index
(‘‘CPI’’) for Thailand to be
contemporaneous with the POR. For the
preliminary results the calculated wage
rate is 135.93 Baht/hour.40
Pursuant to Labor Methodologies, the
Department considered whether
financial ratios required adjustment to
account for any labor expenses that
might also be included in the financial
ratios. However, because record
evidence did not indicate that any labor
expenses were included in the financial
ratios, no adjustments were necessary.
To value truck freight expenses, we
used the World Bank’s Doing Business
2012: Thailand, which we find to be
specific to the cost of shipping goods in
Thailand, and representative of a broad
market average.41 Because this value
was not contemporaneous to the POR,
we deflated it using the Thai CPI. This
report gathers information concerning
the cost to transport a 20-foot container
of dry goods from the largest city to the
nearest seaport. Because there is no Thai
value for inland freight charges by boat
on the record, we valued inland freight
charges by boat using Indonesian freight
rates that were published by the
Indonesian freight forwarder, PT.
Mantap Abiah Abadi.42 Rates were
given on a per cubic meter basis, by city,
37 See
Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093–94.
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the
First Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order, 76 FR 77772 (December 14, 2011) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 7.
39 See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36094, n.11.
40 See Surrogate Value Memo at Exhibit 4.
41 See Surrogate Value Memo at 7–8, and Exhibit
6 (relying on information found at https://
www.doingbusiness.org).
42 Id. at 8, and Exhibit 6.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
38 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:33 May 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
which we converted to a metric ton
basis. Because this value is not
contemporaneous with the POR, we
deflated it using the Indonesian CPI. In
addition, we valued brokerage and
handling using a price list of export
procedures necessary to export a
standardized cargo of goods in Thailand
published in the World Bank’s Doing
Business 2012: Thailand.43 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. Because
this value was not contemporaneous to
the POR, we deflated it using the Thai
CPI.
To value factory overhead, selling,
general, & administrative expenses, and
profit, we used the 2010 annual report
of Capital Engineering Network Public
Company Limited (‘‘CEN’’), a Thai
manufacturer of pre-stressed concrete
and welding wires. When the
Department is unable to segregate and,
therefore, exclude energy costs from the
calculation of the surrogate financial
ratio, it is the Department’s practice to
disregard the respondent’s energy
inputs in the calculation of NV in order
to avoid double-counting energy costs
which have necessarily been captured
in the surrogate financial ratios.44
Because CEN’s annual report does not
identify energy expenses, we
disregarded the RMB/IFI Group’s energy
inputs in the NV calculation.
To value marine insurance, the
Department used rates from RJG
Consultants. These rates are for sea
freight from the Far East Region.
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, 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. We relied on the daily
exchange rates posted on the Import
Administration Web site (https://
www.trade.gov/ia/).
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
43 Id. at Exhibit 3 (relying on information found
at https://www.doingbusiness.org).
44 See, e.g., Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts
from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 74 FR 16838, 16839 (April 13, 2009) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27027
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
requested 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.
On December 16, 2011, the RMB/IFI
Group requested that it be excused from
reporting FOP data for two models, as
these models were produced prior to the
POR. The RMB/IFI Group suggested that
the Department instead use the input
consumption for the most similar
models produced during the POR due to
the associated burdens for the RMB/IFI
Group to report (and for the Department
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
27028
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2012 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
to verify) the data for the two models
produced outside of the POR.
The Department intends to have the
RMB/IFI group report the FOP data for
these two models for the final results.
However, because the model-specific
data currently is not on the record, for
the preliminary results, in accordance
with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, the
Department is applying facts available
(‘‘FA’’) to determine the NV for the sales
corresponding to the FOP data for these
two models. As FA, the Department is
applying the FOPs for the most similar
models to the unreported models. Due
to the proprietary nature of the factual
information concerning the FOPs
applied for these models, these issues
are addressed in a separate business
proprietary memorandum where a
detailed explanation of the FA
calculation is provided.45
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 SV
information pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1).46
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, Room 1117,
within 30 days of the date of publication
of this notice. 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
Preliminary Results of Review
respective case briefs. Case briefs from
The Department preliminarily
interested parties may be submitted not
determines that the following weighted- later than 30 days of the date of
average dumping margins exist:
publication of this notice, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs,
Weightedlimited to issues raised in the case
average
Exporter
briefs, will be due five days later,
margin
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties
(percent)
who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs
RMB Fasteners Ltd., and IFI &
in this proceeding are requested to
Morgan Ltd. (‘‘RMB/IFI
submit with each argument: (1) A
Group’’) .................................
56.07 statement of the issue; (2) a brief
PRC-wide Entity .......................
206.00
summary of the argument; and (3) a
table of authorities. The Department
The Department will disclose to
will issue the final results of this
parties the calculations performed in
administrative review, including the
connection with these preliminary
results of its analysis of the issues raised
results within five days of the date of
in any written briefs, not later than 120
publication of this notice pursuant to 19
days after the date of publication of this
CFR 351.224(b). As noted above, in
notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A)
accordance with 19 CFR
of the Act.
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of
this administrative review, interested
Assessment Rates
parties may submit publicly available
The Department will instruct CBP to
information to value the FOPs within 20 assess antidumping duties on all
days after the date of publication of the
appropriate entries. Suntec Industries
preliminary results. Interested parties
Co., Ltd., Shanghai Prime Machinery
must provide the Department with
Co. Ltd., Jiaxing Xinyue, Certified
supporting documentation for the
Products International Inc., Jiashan
publicly available information to value
Zhongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd,
each FOP. Additionally, in accordance
Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd., and
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
Haiyan Julong have a separate rate from
results of this administrative review,
a prior segment of this proceeding;
interested parties may submit factual
therefore, antidumping duties shall be
information to rebut, clarify, or correct
assessed at rates equal to the cash
factual information submitted by an
deposit of estimated antidumping duties
interested party no less than ten days
required at the time of entry, or
before, on, or after, the applicable
withdrawal from warehouse, for
deadline for submission of such factual
consumption, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(c)(2). The Department
45
See Memorandum to Paul Walker, Acting
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
from Tim Lord, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9: Preliminary Results Analysis
Memorandum for The RMB IFI Group in the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s
Republic of China, dated April 30, 2012.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:33 May 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
46 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after publication of this notice. For
those companies not assigned a separate
rate from a prior segment of the
proceeding, the Department has stated
that they are not separate from the PRCwide entity and that the administrative
review will continue for these
companies. See Initiation Notice. The
Department intends to issue liquidation
instructions for the PRC-wide entity 15
days after publication of the final results
of this review.
For any individually examined
respondent whose weighted-average
dumping margin is above de minimis,
we calculated exporter and/or importer
(or customer)-specific assessment rates
for the merchandise subject to this
review in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1).47 Where the respondent
has reported reliable entered values, we
calculated importer (or customer)specific ad valorem rates by aggregating
the dumping margins calculated for all
U.S. sales to each importer (or customer)
and dividing this amount by the total
entered value of the sales to each
importer (or customer).48 Where an
importer (or customer)-specific ad
valorem rate is greater than de minimis,
we will apply the assessment rate to the
entered value of the importers’/
customers’ entries during the POR.49
Where an importer (or customer)specific ad valorem rate is zero or de
minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties in
accordance with 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 all shipments
of the subject merchandise from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the RMB/
IFI Group, the cash deposit rate will be
their respective rates established in the
final results of this review, except if the
rate is zero or de minimis no cash
deposit will be required; (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters not listed above
that have separate rates, the cash
47 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.
48 See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
49 Id.
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2012 / Notices
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 206.00 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 exporters that supplied that nonPRC 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 30, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–11089 Filed 5–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–942]
Certain Kitchen Shelving and Racks
From the People’s Republic of China:
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Meek or Mary Kolberg, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–2778 or (202) 482–
1875, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:33 May 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
Background
On October 31, 2011, the Department
of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published notice of initiation of the
administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on certain
kitchen appliance shelving and racks
from the People’s Republic of China,
covering the review period January 1,
2010, through December 31, 2010. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 76 FR 67133, 67141 (October
31, 2011).
The current deadline for the
preliminary results of this
administrative review is June 1, 2012.
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
requires the Department to issue the
preliminary results of an administrative
review within 245 days after the last day
of the anniversary month of an order for
which a review is requested and the
final results of review within 120 days
after the date on which the preliminary
results are published. If it is not
practicable to complete the review
within the time period, section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the
Department to extend these deadlines to
a maximum of 365 days and 180 days,
respectively.
We require additional time to
adequately analyze all questionnaire
responses and to solicit and receive
supplemental information before the
current preliminary results due date.
Consequently, we have determined that
it is not practicable to complete the
preliminary results of this review within
the original time limit (i.e., by June 1,
2012). Therefore, the Department is
extending the time limit for completion
of the preliminary results by 120 days
to not later than September 29, 2012, in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).
Department practice dictates that, where
a deadline falls on a weekend or federal
holiday, the appropriate deadline is 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 (May 10, 2005). Because
September 29, 2012, is a Saturday, the
Department will therefore issue the
preliminary results in this
administrative review no later than
October 1, 2012.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27029
Dated: May 1, 2012.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012–11050 Filed 5–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
The Manufacturing Council:
Teleconference Meeting of the
Manufacturing Council
International Trade
Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of an Open
Teleconference Meeting.
AGENCY:
This notice sets forth the
schedule and agenda for an open
teleconference meeting of the
Manufacturing Council (Council). The
agenda may change to accommodate
Council business. The final agenda will
be posted on the Department of
Commerce Web site for the Council at
https://trade.gov/manufacturingcouncil,
at least one week in advance of the
teleconference.
DATES: May 23, 2012, 11:00 a.m.–12:00
p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) All
guests are requested to register in
advance. Requests for auxiliary aids, or
pre-registration, should be submitted no
later than May 16, 2012, to Jennifer
Pilat, the Manufacturing Council, Room
4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, telephone 202–
482–4501, OACIE@trade.gov. Last
minute requests will be accepted, but
may be impossible to fill.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Pilat, the Manufacturing
Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230,
telephone: 202–482–4501, email:
OACIE@trade.gov.
Contact Jennifer Pilat at
oacie@trade.gov to register to listen to
the teleconference meeting and receive
the call-in number. Meeting materials
will be available on the Council’s Web
site: www.trade.gov/
manufacturingcouncil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The Council was rechartered on April 5, 2012 to advise the
Secretary of Commerce on matters
relating to the U.S. manufacturing
industry.
Topics to be considered: The Council
will likely deliberate recommendations
regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Agreement negotiations and energy
policy. While members of the public are
welcome to call in and listen to the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27022-27029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11089]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-932]
Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review, Intent To Rescind,
and Rescission, in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the
second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain
steel threaded rod (``steel threaded rod'') from the People's Republic
of China (``PRC'') for the period of review (``POR'') April 1, 2010,
through March 31, 2011. As discussed below, we preliminarily determine
that sales have been made below normal value (``NV''). If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we 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 8, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Lord, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-7425.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 14, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on steel threaded rod from the PRC.\1\ On
April 1, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order
for the period April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011.\2\ Between April
29, 2011, and May 2, 2011, we received requests to conduct
administrative reviews from Vulcan Threaded Products Inc.
(``Petitioner'') and other interested parties. On May 27, 2011, the
Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of
this
[[Page 27023]]
administrative review.\3\ On December 12, 2011, and March 29, 2012, the
Department published in the Federal Register notices extending by 90
days and 30 days, respectively, the time period for issuing the
preliminary results.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 17154 (April 14,
2009) (``Order'').
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 76 FR 18153 (April 1, 2011).
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 30912 (May 27, 2011) (``Initiation
Notice'').
\4\ See Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of
China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 77205 (December 12,
2011), and Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of
China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 19003 (March 29,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 191 companies for which we initiated an administrative
review, two companies submitted separate rate certifications, no
companies submitted separate rate applications, and five companies
stated that they did not export subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR. On June 29, 2011, Petitioner submitted a
withdrawal of its request for administrative review of 184 of the 191
companies upon which reviews were initiated.
Because of the large number of exporters involved in this review,
the Department limited the number of respondents individually examined
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act''), and selected exporters IFI & Morgan Limited and RMB
Fasteners Ltd., along with their affiliated producer, Jiaxing Brother
Fastener Co., Ltd. (collectively, the ``RMB/IFI Group'') as a mandatory
respondent.\5\ The Department sent antidumping duty questionnaires to
the RMB/IFI Group on October 18, 2011. The RMB/IFI Group submitted its
Sections A, C, and D Questionnaire Responses on November 22, December
9, and December 16, 2011, respectively. The Department issued
supplemental questionnaires to the RMB/IFI Group between December 29,
2011, and March 15, 2012, to which the RMB/IFI Group responded in a
timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memorandum to James Doyle from Toni Dach: 2010-2011
Administrative Review of Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the
People's Republic of China: Selection of Mandatory Respondent and
Response to Petitioner's Comments, dated October 14, 2011. The
Department determined that IFI & Morgan Limited and RMB Fasteners
Ltd. constituted a single entity in the antidumping duty
investigation on steel threaded rod from the PRC. See Certain Steel
Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 58931 (October
8, 2008), unchanged in Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 74 FR 8907 (February 27, 2009) (``Steel Threaded Rod from PRC
LTFV Final'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data
On November 18, 2011, the Department invited interested parties to
comment on surrogate country selection and surrogate value (``SV'')
data.\6\ On December 7, 2011, the Department extended the comment
period for surrogate country selection from December 9, 2011, to no
later than February 3, 2012. On February 16, 2012, the Department
extended the comment period for SV selection from December 16, 2011, to
March 2, 2012. On February 3, 2012, the Department received comments on
surrogate country selection from Petitioner and the RMB/IFI Group. On
March 2, 2012, the Department received comments on SV data from
Petitioner and the RMB/IFI Group. On March 12, 2012, the Department
received a rebuttal response to Petitioner's SV submission from the
RMB/IFI Group. The SVs placed on the record from the RMB/IFI Group were
obtained from sources in India, whereas the SVs placed on the record by
Petitioner were from sources in Thailand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties:
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Threaded Rod
from the People's Republic of China, dated November 18, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order is steel threaded rod. Steel
threaded rod is certain threaded rod, bar, or studs, of carbon quality
steel, having a solid, circular cross section, of any diameter, in any
straight length, that have been forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-
rolled, machine straightened, or otherwise cold-finished, and into
which threaded grooves have been applied. In addition, the steel
threaded rod, bar, or studs subject to the order are non-headed and
threaded along greater than 25 percent of their total length. A variety
of finishes or coatings, such as plain oil finish as a temporary rust
protectant, zinc coating (i.e., galvanized, whether by electroplating
or hot-dipping), paint, and other similar finishes and coatings, may be
applied to the merchandise.
Included in the scope of the order are steel threaded rod, bar, or
studs, in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the
other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less,
by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the
quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
1.50 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.012 percent of boron, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.41 percent of titanium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
Steel threaded rod is currently classifiable under subheading
7318.15.5050, 7318.15.5090, and 7318.15.2095 of the United States
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading
is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Excluded from the scope of the order are: (a) Threaded rod, bar, or
studs which are threaded only on one or both ends and the threading
covers 25 percent or less of the total length; and (b) threaded rod,
bar, or studs made to American Society for Testing and Materials
(``ASTM'') A193 Grade B7, ASTM A193 Grade B7M, ASTM A193 Grade B16, or
ASTM A320 Grade L7.
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested
the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. On
June 29, 2011, the Department received a timely withdrawal of the
requests for review for 184 companies. Of these companies, Suntec
Industries Co., Ltd., Shanghai Prime Machinery Co. Ltd., Certified
Products International Inc., Jiashan Zhongsheng Metal Products Co.,
Ltd, Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd., and Jiaxing Xinyue Standard Part
Co., Ltd. have a separate rate from a prior segment of this proceeding;
accordingly, we are rescinding this review with respect to them.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ We note that there are additional companies for which all
review requests were withdrawn within the 90 day period. See
Petitioner's withdrawal of review requests regarding specific
companies, dated June 29, 2011. These additional companies for which
all review requests were withdrawn do not have a separate rate from
a prior segment of this proceeding. These companies thus are not
separate from the PRC-wide entity and the administrative review will
continue for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27024]]
Intent To Partially Rescind Administrative Review
As noted above, the Department received no shipment claims from
five companies. In order to examine these claims, we sent an inquiry to
CBP requesting that any CBP office that had any information contrary to
the no shipments claims alert the Department accordingly. We have
received no such response from CBP.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we preliminarily determine that
Haiyan Julong made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR,
and we intend to rescind the review with respect to Haiyan Julong.
With respect to Gem Year, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
(``Hubbell''), in requesting an administrative review of Gem Year,
stated that the steel threaded rod it imported from Gem Year ``may be
determined to fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order'' and
that it was ``not presently aware that any entry falls within the scope
of the antidumping duty order in this proceeding.'' \8\ Given that
entry data obtained from CBP showed that Gem Year had no entries
subject to antidumping duties during the POR, we preliminarily
determine that Gem Year had no reviewable entries of subject
merchandise during the POR. As such,we intend to rescind the review
with respect to Gem Year.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Letter from Hubbell to the Department: Certain Steel
Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China; Hubbell Power
Systems, Inc.'s Request for an Administrative Review, dated April
28, 2011. Petitioner subsequently requested an anti-circumvention
inquiry related to merchandise produced by Gem Year, which the
Department initiated on January 5, 2012. See Certain Steel Threaded
Rod From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Anti-
Circumvention Inquiry, 77 FR 473 (January 5, 2012).
\9\ See, e.g., Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 18497, 18500 (April 4,
2008) (preliminarily rescinding review because of lack of reviewable
entries), unchanged in Certain Tissue Paper Products from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in
Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 58113
(October 6, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a nonmarket economy (``NME'') country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority.\10\ None of the parties to this
proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated
the NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to
NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free
Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760
(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic
of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
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.\11\ 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.\12\ Exporters can demonstrate this independence
through the absence of both de jure and de facto government control
over export activities.\13\ The Department analyzes each entity
exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991)
(``Sparklers''), as further developed in Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-87 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon
Carbide''). 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 free
of government control. In this review, one company, the RMB/IFI Group,
provided evidence that it was wholly owned by individuals or companies
located in MEs in its separate rate application. Therefore, because the
RMB/IFI Group is wholly foreign-owned and there is no record evidence
indicating that it is under the control of the government of the PRC, a
separate rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether the RMB/
IFI Group is free of government control.\14\ Accordingly, the
Department has preliminarily granted a separate rate to the RMB/IFI
Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., Separate Rates and Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries,
70 FR 17233 (April 5, 2005)(as corrected in 70 FR 19841 (April 14,
2005)); see also 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, 53082 (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)
(``Diamond Sawblades'').
\12\ See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307.
\13\ Id.
\14\ See, e.g., Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75
FR 7244, 7249 (February 18, 2010) (determining that the respondent
was wholly foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for a separate rate),
unchanged in Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 75 FR 41808 (July 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department received no separate rate applications, and received
separate rate certifications from the RMB/IFI Group and Jiaxing Xinyue
Standard Part Co. Ltd (``Jiaxing Xinyue''). However, because Jiaxing
Xinyue was one of the companies for which the request for
administrative review was timely withdrawn, the Department is not
assessing Jiaxing Xinyue's eligibility for a separate rate in the
context of this review.
Finally, one company subject to review, New Pole Power Systems Co.,
Ltd. (``New Pole''), submitted neither a separate rate application nor
certification. Therefore, because New Pole did not demonstrate its
eligibility for separate rate status, we preliminarily find that it is
not separate from the PRC-wide entity. There are, therefore, no
respondents for which to calculate a separate rate in this
administrative review.
PRC-Wide Entity
Upon initiation of the administrative review, we provided an
opportunity for all companies for which the review was initiated to
complete either the separate rate application or certification. The
separate rate certification and separate rate application were
available at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html.
As noted above in the ``Separate Rates'' section of this notice, we
have preliminarily determined that one company, New Pole, failed to
demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate and is thus properly
considered not to be separate from PRC-wide entity. In NME proceedings,
```rates' may consist of a single dumping margin applicable to all
exporters and producers.'' \15\ As explained above in the ``Separate
Rates'' section, all companies within the PRC are considered to be
subject to government control unless they are able to demonstrate an
absence of government control with respect to their export activities.
Accordingly, such
[[Page 27025]]
companies are assigned a single antidumping duty rate distinct from the
separate rate(s) determined for companies that are found to be free of
government control with respect to their export activities. We consider
that the overall influence that the PRC has been found to have over its
economy warrants determining separate rates for the entity that are
distinct from the rates found for companies that have provided
sufficient evidence to establish that they operate freely with respect
to their export activities.\16\ In this regard, we note that no party
has submitted evidence in this proceeding to demonstrate that such
government influence is no longer present or that our treatment of the
PRC-wide entity is otherwise incorrect. Therefore, we are assigning the
PRC-wide entity a rate of 206.00 percent, the only rate ever determined
for the PRC-wide entity in this proceeding.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 19 CFR 351.107(d).
\16\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
\17\ See, e.g., Steel Threaded Rod from PRC LTFV Final, 74 FR at
8910.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
When the Department conducts an antidumping administrative review
of imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it
to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of
production (``FOPs''), valued in a surrogate ME country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with
section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or
more ME countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of
comparable merchandise. Once the Department has identified the
countries that are economically comparable to the PRC, it identifies
those countries which are significant producers of comparable
merchandise. From the countries which are both economically comparable
and significant producers the Department will then select a primary
surrogate country based upon whether the data for valuing FOPs are both
available and reliable.
Pursuant to its practice, the Department received a list of
potential surrogate countries from Import Administration's Office of
Policy (``OP'') within which it was determined that Colombia,
Indonesia, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine
are at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC.\18\ The
Department considers the seven countries identified by the OP in its
Surrogate Country List as ``equally comparable in terms of economic
development,'' \19\ and thus, all at an economic level of development
equally comparable to that of the PRC.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Director, Office of
Policy, to Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China,
dated November 18, 2011 (``Surrogate Country List'').
\19\ Id.
\20\ See section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also considers whether a country is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise in surrogate country selection.\21\
The Department retrieved data from the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA''),
showing that all of the countries on the Surrogate Country List
exported significant quantities of steel threaded rod exports during
the POR,\22\ and thus can each be considered significant producers of
comparable merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act.
\22\ See Surrogate Value Memo at Attachment 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, it is the Department's practice to select an appropriate
surrogate country based on the availability and reliability of data
from these countries.\23\ Petitioner provided data for Thailand from
GTA to value certain material inputs, and a financial statement from a
Thai producer of comparable merchandise to calculate surrogate
financial ratios. The RMB/IFI Group provided GTA data for India, as
well as various Indian government, non-governmental organization, and
industry publications to value material inputs, energy, and movement
expenses. In addition, the RMB/IFI Group submitted Indian financial
statements to calculate surrogate financial ratios. However, the
Department has stated that ``unless we find that all of the countries
determined to be equally economically comparable are not significant
producers of comparable merchandise, do not provide a reliable source
of publicly available surrogate data or are unsuitable for use for
other reasons, we will rely on data from one of these countries.'' \24\
Because the Department finds that one of the countries from the
Surrogate Country List meets the selection criteria, as explained in
these preliminary results, the Department is not considering India, a
country not included in the OP memorandum, as the primary surrogate
country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate
Country Selection Process, dated March 1, 2004.
\24\ See Certain Steel Wheels From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of
Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 76
FR 67703, 67708 (November 2, 2011), unchanged in Certain Steel
Wheels From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial
Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, 77 FR
17021 (March 23, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data on the record for Thailand to value material inputs meet
the Department's criteria for selecting the best available information
because we find that the data are available and reliable. Specifically,
we preliminarily find that the information on the record for Thailand
is complete and allows us to value material inputs, energy, movement
expenses, and financial ratios.
Based on publicly available information placed on the record, the
Department determines that Thailand is a reliable source for surrogate
values because Thailand is at a comparable level of economic
development, is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and
has publicly available and reliable data. Accordingly, the Department
has selected Thailand as the surrogate country for purposes of valuing
the FOPs because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate
country selection.
Date of Sale
The RMB/IFI Group reported the invoice date as the date of sale
because it claims that, for its U.S. sales of subject merchandise made
during the POR, the material terms of sale were established on the
invoice date. The Department preliminarily determines that the invoice
date is the most appropriate date to use as the RMB/IFI Group's date of
sale in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 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 steel threaded rod to the United
States by the RMB/IFI Group were made at less than NV, the Department
compared the export price (``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S.
Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections below.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 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 normal values and granted offsets for non-
dumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted average
dumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27026]]
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department
calculated the EP for sales to the United States from the RMB/IFI
Group's sales, because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made
before the date of importation. 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, we deducted
foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling from the starting
price to unaffiliated purchasers. Each of these services was either
provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency. Thus, we
based the deduction of these movement charges on SVs.\27\ Additionally,
for international freight provided by an ME provider and paid in an ME
currency, we used the actual cost per kilogram of the freight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Memorandum to the File through Paul Walker, Acting
Program Manager, Office 9 from Tim Lord, International Trade
Analyst, Office 9: 2010-2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
of Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate
Values for the Preliminary Results, dated April 30, 2012
(``Surrogate Value Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by the respondents for the POR, except as noted
above. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-
consumption rates by publicly available Thai SVs. In selecting the SVs,
we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the
data.\28\ As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight
costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Thai
import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to the factory of production or the
distance from the nearest seaport to the factory of production where
appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit's (``Federal Circuit'') decision in Sigma Corp.
v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ For a detailed discussion of SVs and the resulting
calculations, see Surrogate Value Memo.
\29\ See Policy Bulletin No. 10.2: Inclusion of International
Freight Costs When Import Prices Constitute Normal Value, dated
November 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's practice when selecting the best available
information for valuing FOPs, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of
the Act, is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are
product-specific, representative of a broad-market average, publicly
available, contemporaneous with the POR and exclusive of taxes and
duties.\30\ As a general matter, the Department prefers to use publicly
available data representing a broad-market average to value SVs.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See, e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Eleventh
Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22,
2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2A.
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department used Thai import statistics from GTA to value the
raw material and packing material inputs that the RMB/IFI Group used to
produce subject merchandise during the POR, except where listed
below.\32\ The record shows that data in the Thai import statistics, as
well as those from the other Thai sources, are contemporaneous with the
POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. In those instances where we
could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the
POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the SVs using, where
appropriate, the Thai Consumer Price Index (``CPI'') as published in
the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary
Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Published by Global Trade Information Services, Inc. GTA
reports import statistics, such as those from Thailand, India and
Indonesia, in the original reporting currency and, thus, these data
correspond to the original currency value reported by each country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the legislative history of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988, the Department continues to apply its
long-standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has reason to believe
or suspect the source data may be subsidized.\33\ 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.\34\ 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 likely benefitted from these
subsidies. Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.\35\
Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an
``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, because
the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an
NME country or a country with general export subsidies. Therefore,
based on the information currently available, we have not used prices
from these countries in calculating the Thai import-based SVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf.
Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd
Sess. (1988) at 590.
\34\ See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final
Results of the Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4-5; Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia: Final Results of
Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4; Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea:
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 17, 19-20; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at 23.
\35\ See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of
Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953
(January 10, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2011, the Department announced its new methodology to
value the cost of labor in NME countries.\36\ 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
[[Page 27027]]
the International Labor Organization's Yearbook of Labor
Statistics.\37\
To calculate the labor value in these preliminary results, the
Department has relied on total manufacturing labor cost data in
Thailand reported under ILO Chapter 6A. Although the Department's
preference, as in indicated in Labor Methodologies, is for industry-
specific data from Chapter 6A, the Department notes that the most
recent industry-specific data for Thailand under Sub-Classification 24
of the ISIC-Revision 3 are more than ten years prior to the start of
the POR. Consistent with Citric Acid from China, the Department has not
relied on labor data when there is a significant lag between the
reporting date and the period of review.\38\ Therefore, the Department
has selected total manufacturing labor cost data from Thailand, which
were reported in 2005, as the surrogate labor value for this
review.\39\ We further inflated the labor value using the consumer
price index (``CPI'') for Thailand to be contemporaneous with the POR.
For the preliminary results the calculated wage rate is 135.93 Baht/
hour.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 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 decision in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d
1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010), in which the Federal Circuit
invalidated the Department's regression-based methodology for
calculating wage rates under 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
\37\ See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093-94.
\38\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of the First Administrative Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 77772 (December 14, 2011) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
\39\ See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36094, n.11.
\40\ See Surrogate Value Memo at Exhibit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Labor Methodologies, the Department considered whether
financial ratios required adjustment to account for any labor expenses
that might also be included in the financial ratios. However, because
record evidence did not indicate that any labor expenses were included
in the financial ratios, no adjustments were necessary.
To value truck freight expenses, we used the World Bank's Doing
Business 2012: Thailand, which we find to be specific to the cost of
shipping goods in Thailand, and representative of a broad market
average.\41\ Because this value was not contemporaneous to the POR, we
deflated it using the Thai CPI. This report gathers information
concerning the cost to transport a 20-foot container of dry goods from
the largest city to the nearest seaport. Because there is no Thai value
for inland freight charges by boat on the record, we valued inland
freight charges by boat using Indonesian freight rates that were
published by the Indonesian freight forwarder, PT. Mantap Abiah
Abadi.\42\ Rates were given on a per cubic meter basis, by city, which
we converted to a metric ton basis. Because this value is not
contemporaneous with the POR, we deflated it using the Indonesian CPI.
In addition, we valued brokerage and handling using a price list of
export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in
Thailand published in the World Bank's Doing Business 2012:
Thailand.\43\ 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. Because this value was not
contemporaneous to the POR, we deflated it using the Thai CPI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Surrogate Value Memo at 7-8, and Exhibit 6 (relying on
information found at https://www.doingbusiness.org).
\42\ Id. at 8, and Exhibit 6.
\43\ Id. at Exhibit 3 (relying on information found at https://www.doingbusiness.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value factory overhead, selling, general, & administrative
expenses, and profit, we used the 2010 annual report of Capital
Engineering Network Public Company Limited (``CEN''), a Thai
manufacturer of pre-stressed concrete and welding wires. When the
Department is unable to segregate and, therefore, exclude energy costs
from the calculation of the surrogate financial ratio, it is the
Department's practice to disregard the respondent's energy inputs in
the calculation of NV in order to avoid double-counting energy costs
which have necessarily been captured in the surrogate financial
ratios.\44\ Because CEN's annual report does not identify energy
expenses, we disregarded the RMB/IFI Group's energy inputs in the NV
calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See, e.g., Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 16838, 16839 (April 13, 2009) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value marine insurance, the Department used rates from RJG
Consultants. These rates are for sea freight from the Far East Region.
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, 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. We relied on the daily exchange rates
posted on the Import Administration Web site (https://www.trade.gov/ia/
).
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 requested 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.
On December 16, 2011, the RMB/IFI Group requested that it be
excused from reporting FOP data for two models, as these models were
produced prior to the POR. The RMB/IFI Group suggested that the
Department instead use the input consumption for the most similar
models produced during the POR due to the associated burdens for the
RMB/IFI Group to report (and for the Department
[[Page 27028]]
to verify) the data for the two models produced outside of the POR.
The Department intends to have the RMB/IFI group report the FOP
data for these two models for the final results. However, because the
model-specific data currently is not on the record, for the preliminary
results, in accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, the
Department is applying facts available (``FA'') to determine the NV for
the sales corresponding to the FOP data for these two models. As FA,
the Department is applying the FOPs for the most similar models to the
unreported models. Due to the proprietary nature of the factual
information concerning the FOPs applied for these models, these issues
are addressed in a separate business proprietary memorandum where a
detailed explanation of the FA calculation is provided.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Memorandum to Paul Walker, Acting Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, from Tim Lord, Case Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9: Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for
The RMB IFI Group in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China,
dated April 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department preliminarily determines that the following
weighted-average dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RMB Fasteners Ltd., and IFI & Morgan Ltd. (``RMB/IFI 56.07
Group'')..................................................
PRC-wide Entity............................................ 206.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b). As
noted above, 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 the FOPs within 20 days after
the date of publication of the 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 no 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 SV information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
Room 1117, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
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 briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may
be submitted not later than 30 days of the date of publication of this
notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to
issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.309(d). 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. 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.
Assessment Rates
The Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Suntec Industries Co., Ltd., Shanghai Prime
Machinery Co. Ltd., Jiaxing Xinyue, Certified Products International
Inc., Jiashan Zhongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd, Haiyan Dayu Fasteners
Co., Ltd., and Haiyan Julong have a separate rate from a prior segment
of this proceeding; therefore, antidumping duties shall be assessed 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). The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15
days after publication of this notice. For those companies not assigned
a separate rate from a prior segment of the proceeding, the Department
has stated that they are not separate from the PRC-wide entity and that
the administrative review will continue for these companies. See
Initiation Notice. The Department intends to issue liquidation
instructions for the PRC-wide entity 15 days after publication of the
final results of this review.
For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average
dumping margin is above de minimis, we calculated exporter and/or
importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for the merchandise
subject to this review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).\47\
Where the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we
calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered
value of the sales to each importer (or customer).\48\ Where an
importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de
minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the
importers'/customers' entries during the POR.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 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.
\48\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero or
de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries
without regard to antidumping duties in accordance with 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 all
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the RMB/IFI Group,
the cash deposit rate will be their respective rates established in the
final results of this review, except if the rate is zero or de minimis
no cash deposit will be required; (2) for previously investigated or
reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate
rates, the cash
[[Page 27029]]
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 206.00
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 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 30, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-11089 Filed 5-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
