Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Second Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order; and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 33399-33405 [2012-13599]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Notices
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Upon
completion of this administrative
review, pursuant to section 351.212(b)
of the Department’s regulations, the
Department will calculate an assessment
rate on all appropriate entries. Noksel
has reported entered values for all of its
sales of subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR.
Therefore, in accordance with section
351.212(b)(1) of the Department’s
regulations, we will calculate importerspecific duty assessment rates on the
basis of the ratio of the total amount of
dumping calculated for the examined
sales to the total entered value of the
examined sales of that importer. If
Noksel’s weighted-average dumping
margin remains zero (or below de
minimis) for the final results of this
administrative review, we shall direct
CBP to liquidate entries subject to this
administrative review without regard to
antidumping duties. See Antidumping
Proceedings: Calculation of the
Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain
Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14,
2012).
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the POR
produced by the respondent for which
it did not know its merchandise was
destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate un-reviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company involved in the
transaction. Id.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Cash Deposit Requirements
Furthermore, the following cash
deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of
this administrative review for all
shipments of light-walled rectangular
pipe and tube from Turkey entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date of the final results of this
administrative review, as provided by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash
deposit rate for Noksel will be the rate
established in the final results of review;
(2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not
participating in this review, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review or the
less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation, but the manufacturer is,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
established for the most recent period
for the manufacturer of the
merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous review
conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be the all-others rate of
27.04 percent ad valorem from the
LTFV investigation. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order: Light-Walled
Rectangular Pipe and Tube From
Turkey, 73 FR 31065 (May 30, 2008).
These cash 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) 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 the antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–13707 Filed 6–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–937]
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts
From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the Second
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order; and Partial
Rescission of Administrative Review
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 citric acid
and certain citrate salts (‘‘citric acid’’)
from the People’s Republic of China
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33399
(‘‘PRC’’), covering the period May 1,
2010, through April 30, 2011. The
Department has preliminarily
determined that during the period of
review (‘‘POR’’) the respondent in this
proceeding did not make sales of subject
merchandise at less than 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 POR. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
We will issue final results no later than
120 days from the date of publication of
this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’).
DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Krisha Hill or Maisha Cryor, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–4037 or (202) 482–
5831, respectively.
Background
On May 29, 2009, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on citric acid
from the PRC.1 On June 28, 2011, the
Department published the initiation of
the second administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on citric acid
from the PRC,2 and initiated review on
two exporters: (1) Huangshi Xinghua
Biochemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xinghua’’) and
(2) RZBC Co., Ltd., RZBC Imp. & Exp.
Co., Ltd., RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd.
(collectively ‘‘RZBC’’). On May 20,
2011, and May 31, 2011, RZBC and
Xinghua each requested to be selected
as a mandatory respondent in this
review, respectively.3 On July 8, 2011,
Archer Daniels Midland Company,
Cargill, Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle
Ingredients Americas LLC
(‘‘Petitioners’’) submitted comments on
1 See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
Canada and the People’s Republic of China:
Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 25703 (May 29,
2009).
2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Request for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 37781, 37785
(June 28, 2011) (‘‘Initiation’’).
3 See Letter from RZBC to the Department,
regarding ‘‘Citric Acid and Citrate Salt from
People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review Request,’’ dated May 20,
2011; see also Letter from Xinghua to the
Department, regarding ‘‘Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China:
Request for AD Administrative Review (05/01/10–
04/30/2011),’’ dated May 31, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
33400
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
mandatory respondent selection and
requested that the Department identify
both RZBC and Xinghua as mandatory
respondents in this review. On July 27,
2011, Xinghua withdrew its review
request. Between August 16, 2011, and
April 4, 2012, the Department sent the
original antidumping questionnaire and
supplemental questionnaires to RZBC.
RZBC submitted timely questionnaire
responses between October 17, 2011,
and April 30, 2012.
On December 6, 2011, the Department
issued a letter to all interested parties
soliciting comments on selecting a
surrogate country and surrogate values
(‘‘SVs’’).4 On December 20, 2011, we
received comments on surrogate country
selection from Petitioners.5 On January
3, 2012, we received rebuttal surrogate
country comments from both RZBC and
Petitioners.6 On January 6, 2012, we
received SV comments from both RZBC
and Petitioners.7 We received rebuttal
SV comments from both RZBC and
Petitioners on January 11, 2012.8
On January 10, 2012, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the time limit for the
preliminary results of review by 90 days
to April 30, 2012, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.9 Additionally,
4 See the Department’s letter to Interested Parties
entitled, ‘‘Second Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China:
Surrogate Country List,’’ (December 6, 2011).
5 See RZBC’s letter to the Department entitled,
‘‘Citric Acid and Citrate Salt from People’s Republic
of China: Surrogate Country Comments,’’ (December
20, 2011); see also Petitioners’ letter to the
Department entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China:
Petitioners’ Comments Concerning Surrogate
Country Selection,’’ (December 20, 2011).
6 See RZBC’s letter to the Department entitled,
‘‘Citric Acid and Citrate Salt from People’s Republic
of China: Rebuttal Surrogate Country Comments,’’
(January 3, 2012); see also Petitioners’ letter to the
Department entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China:
Petitioners’ Rebuttal Comments Concerning
Surrogate Country Selection,’’ (January 3, 2012).
7 See RZBC’s letter to the Department entitled,
‘‘Citric Acid and Citrate Salt from People’s Republic
of China: Surrogate Value Comments,’’ (January 6,
2012); see also Petitioners’ letter to the Department
entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
the People’s Republic of China: Petitioners’
Surrogate Value Comments,’’ (January 6, 2012).
8 See RZBC’s letter to the Department entitled,
‘‘Citric Acid and Citrate Salt from People’s Republic
of China: Rebuttal Surrogate Value Comments,’’
(January 11, 2012); see also Petitioners’ letter to the
Department entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China:
Petitioners’ Surrogate Value Rebuttal Comments,’’
(January 11, 2012).
9 See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time
Limit for the Preliminary Results of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
on April 16, 2012, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register fully extending the deadline for
the preliminary results by 30 days to
May 30, 2012.10
Period of Review
The POR is May 1, 2010, through
April 30, 2011.
Scope of the Order
The scope of the order includes all
grades and granulation sizes of citric
acid, sodium citrate, and potassium
citrate in their unblended forms,
whether dry or in solution, and
regardless of packaging type. The scope
also includes blends of citric acid,
sodium citrate, and potassium citrate; as
well as blends with other ingredients,
such as sugar, where the unblended
form(s) of citric acid, sodium citrate,
and potassium citrate constitute 40
percent or more, by weight, of the blend.
The scope of the order also includes all
forms of crude calcium citrate,
including dicalcium citrate
monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate
tetrahydrate, which are intermediate
products in the production of citric
acid, sodium citrate, and potassium
citrate. The scope of the order does not
include calcium citrate that satisfies the
standards set forth in the United States
Pharmacopeia and has been mixed with
a functional excipient, such as dextrose
or starch, where the excipient
constitutes at least 2 percent, by weight,
of the product. The scope of the order
includes the hydrous and anhydrous
forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and
anhydrous forms of sodium citrate,
otherwise known as citric acid sodium
salt, and the monohydrate and
monopotassium forms of potassium
citrate. Sodium citrate also includes
both trisodium citrate and monosodium
citrate, which are also known as citric
acid trisodium salt and citric acid
monosodium salt, respectively. Citric
acid and sodium citrate are classifiable
under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), respectively.
Potassium citrate and crude calcium
citrate are classifiable under
2918.15.5000 and 3824.90.9290 of the
HTSUS, respectively. Blends that
include citric acid, sodium citrate, and
potassium citrate are classifiable under
3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR
1455 (January 10, 2012).
10 See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time
Limit for the Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR
22560 (April 16, 2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Partial Rescission of the Administrative
Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review, in whole or in part, if a party
that requested the review withdraws the
request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the initiation notice of
the requested review. Further, pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department
is permitted to extend this time if it is
reasonable to do so.
On July 27, 2011, Xinghua timely
withdrew its request for an
administrative review of its exports to
the United States. Because no other
parties requested a review of Xinghua’s
exports to the United States, the
Department hereby rescinds the
administrative review of citric acid with
respect to Xinghua in accordance with
19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Non-Market-Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non-marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) country.11 In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. Accordingly,
the Department has calculated NV in
accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act, which applies to NME countries.
Surrogate Country
In antidumping proceedings involving
NME countries, pursuant to section
773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department
generally bases NV on the value of the
NME producer’s factors of production
(‘‘FOP’’). In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOP,
the Department uses to the extent
possible the prices or costs of the FOP
in one or more market economy
countries that are (1) at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the NME country and (2)
significant producers of merchandise
comparable to the subject merchandise.
Moreover, as we stated in Policy
Bulletin No. 04.1,12 it is the
11 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).
12 See the Department’s Policy Bulletin No. 04.1,
regarding, ‘‘Non-Market Economy Surrogate
Country Selection Process,’’ (March 1, 2004)
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Department’s practice to select an
appropriate surrogate country based on
the availability and reliability of data
from these countries.
In the instant review, the Department
has identified Colombia, Indonesia,
Peru, the Philippines, South Africa,
Thailand, and Ukraine as countries that
are at a level of economic development
comparable to the PRC.13 The
Department uses per capita gross
national income (‘‘GNI’’) as the primary
basis for determining economic
comparability.14 Once the countries that
are economically comparable to the PRC
have been identified, the Department
selects an appropriate surrogate country
by determining whether an
economically comparable country is a
significant producer of comparable
merchandise and whether data for
valuing FOPs are both available and
reliable.
With respect to interested parties’
surrogate country comments, Petitioners
argued that Thailand is the most
appropriate surrogate country from
which to derive surrogate factor values
for the PRC because Thailand: (a) Has a
per capita GNI which is economically
most comparable to that of the PRC
when compared with the other
considered countries; (b) is also a
significant producer of citric acid; (c)
provides robust data sources, and in
certain instances more specific, to value
RZBC’s FOPs; and (d) the potential Thai
surrogate company is most
representative of RZBC when compared
with the potential Indonesian surrogate
company.15 RZBC recommended that
the Department select Indonesia,
consistent with the Department’s
determination in the original
investigation and the first
administrative review that Indonesia is
economically comparable to the PRC
and is a significant producer of identical
and comparable merchandise.16
The Department has determined that
it is appropriate to use Indonesia as a
surrogate country, pursuant to section
(‘‘Policy Bulletin 04.1’’), available on the
Department’s Web site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
policy/bull04-1.html.
13 See the Department’s letter to Interested Parties
entitled, ‘‘Second Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China:
Surrogate Country List,’’ (December 6, 2011).
14 See Policy Bulletin No. 04.1.
15 See Petitioners’ letter to the Department
entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
the People’s Republic of China: Petitioners’
Comments Concerning Surrogate Country
Selection,’’ (December 20, 2011).
16 See RZBC’s letter to the Department entitled,
‘‘Citric Acid and Citrate Salt from People’s Republic
of China: Surrogate Country Comments,’’ (December
20, 2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
773(c)(4) of the Act, based on the
following: (1) It is at a comparable level
of economic development to the PRC;
(2) it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise, and (3) the
Department has reliable data from
Indonesia that it can use to value the
FOPs.17 Additionally, the Indonesian
surrogate company offers greater detail
and more reliable financial ratios when
compared with the Thai surrogate
company. Accordingly, we have
calculated NV using Indonesian prices
when available and appropriate to value
each respondent’s FOPs.18 In certain
instances where Indonesian SVs were
not deemed the best available data, we
have relied on Thai SVs in the
alternative. Thailand is at a similar level
of economic development to the PRC
and is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise.19
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of
an administrative review, interested
parties may submit publicly available
information to value the FOPs within 20
days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results.20
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus
should be assigned a single
antidumping duty rate.21 It is the
17 See Memorandum from Krisha Hill to Abdelali
Elouaradia regarding ‘‘Second Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China:
Selection of a Surrogate Country,’’ dated May 30,
2012 (‘‘Surrogate Country Memorandum’’).
18 See Memorandum from Krisha Hill and Maisha
Cryor to Robert Bolling, regarding ‘‘Preliminary
Results of the Second Administrative Review of
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the
People’s Republic of China: Surrogate Value
Memorandum,’’ dated May 30, 2012 (‘‘Surrogate
Value Memorandum’’); see also ‘‘Factor Valuations’’
section, below.
19 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2.
20 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for
the final results of this administrative review,
interested parties may submit factual information to
rebut, clarify, or correct factual information
submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for
submission of such factual information. However,
the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1)
permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on
the record. The Department generally will not
accept the submission of additional, previously
absent-from-the-record, alternative SV information
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). 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.
21 See, e.g., Certain Coated Paper Suitable for
High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33401
Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to
review in an NME country this single
rate unless an exporter can demonstrate
that it is sufficiently independent so as
to be entitled to a separate rate.
Exporters can demonstrate this
independence through the absence of
both de jure and de facto government
control over export activities. The
Department analyzes each entity
exporting the subject merchandise
under a test arising from Sparklers as
further developed in Silicon Carbide.22
However, if the Department determines
that a company is wholly foreign-owned
or located in a market economy, then a
separate-rate analysis is not necessary to
determine whether it is independent
from government control.
In order to demonstrate separate-rate
status eligibility, the Department
normally requires entities, for whom a
review was requested, and who were
assigned a separate rate in a previous
segment of this proceeding, to submit a
separate-rate certification stating that
they continue to meet the criteria for
obtaining a separate rate.23 For entities
that were not assigned a separate rate in
the previous segment of a proceeding, to
demonstrate eligibility, the Department
requires a separate-rate application.24 In
this instance, the Department received a
completed response to the Section A
portion of the NME antidumping
questionnaire from RZBC, which
contains information pertaining to the
company’s eligibility for a separate
rate.25
a. Absence of de Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) any legislative
Presses From the People’s Republic of China: Notice
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 75 FR 24892, 24899 (May 6, 2010),
unchanged in Certain Coated Paper Suitable for
High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed
Presses From the People’s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75
FR 59217 (September 27, 2010).
22 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as
further developed in the Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May
2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’).
23 See Initiation.
24 Id.
25 See Letter from RZBC to the Department,
regarding ‘‘Citric Acid and Citrate Salt from the
People’s Republic of China: Section A, C and D
Questionnaire Response,’’ dated October 17, 2011
(‘‘Original Response’’) at A–2 to A–13.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
33402
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.26
The evidence provided by RZBC
supports a preliminary finding of de
jure absence of government control
based on the following: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) there are
applicable legislative enactments
decentralizing control of the companies;
and (3) there are formal measures by the
government decentralizing control of
the companies.27
b. Absence of de Facto Control
Typically the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
government control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses.28
The Department has determined that
an analysis of de facto control is critical
in determining whether respondents
are, in fact, subject to a degree of
government control over export
activities that would preclude the
Department from assigning separate
rates. For RZBC, we determine that the
evidence on the record supports a
preliminary finding of an absence of de
facto government control based on
record statements and supporting
documentation showing the following:
(1) RZBC sets its own export prices
independent of the government and
without the approval of a government
authority; (2) RZBC retains the proceeds
from its sales and makes independent
decisions regarding disposition of
profits or financing of losses; (3) RZBC
has the authority to negotiate and sign
contracts and other agreements; and (4)
RZBC has autonomy from the
government regarding the selection of
management.29 Additionally, RZBC’s
26 See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
Original Response at A–2 to A–13.
28 See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see
also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545
(May 8, 1995).
29 See Original Response at A–2 to A–13.
27 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
questionnaire responses indicate that
their pricing during the POR does not
involve coordination among exporters.
The evidence placed on the record of
this review by RZBC demonstrates an
absence of de jure and de facto
government control with respect to
RZBC’s exports of subject merchandise,
in accordance with the criteria
identified in Sparklers and Silicon
Carbide. Therefore, we are preliminarily
granting RZBC a separate rate.
Targeted Dumping
On March 8, 2012, Petitioners alleged
targeted dumping by RZBC and stated
that there are patterns of export prices
for comparable merchandise that differ
significantly among time periods and
regions.30 Petitioners noted that they
conducted their own targeted dumping
analysis of RZBC’s U.S. sales using the
Department’s targeted dumping
methodology as applied in Steel Nails
and modified in Wood Flooring.31 Based
on their own analysis, Petitioners
recommended that the Department
apply average-to-transaction method to
calculate RZBC’s dumping margin, as
the patterns of pricing differences
cannot be taken into account using the
average-to-average margin calculation
methodology.32
For purposes of these preliminary
results, the Department did not conduct
a targeted dumping analysis. In
calculating the preliminary weightedaverage dumping margin, the
Department applied the calculation
methodology adopted in Final
Modification for Reviews.33 In
particular, the Department compared
monthly weighted-average export prices
30 See Letter from Petitioners to the Department,
regarding ‘‘Citric Acid And Certain Citrate Salts
From The People’s Republic Of China: Targeted
Dumping Allegation,’’ dated March 8, 2012.
31 See Certain Steel Nails from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR
33977 (June 16, 2008) and Certain Steel Nails from
the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value,
73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008) (‘‘Steel Nails’’); see also
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318 (October 18,
2011) (‘‘Wood Flooring’’).
32 RZBC submitted untimely comments
concerning targeted dumping which were not taken
into consideration for the preliminary results,
however the Department shall consider these
comments for the final results. See Memorandum to
the File, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager,
from, Krisha Hill, Analyst, Regarding ‘‘RZBC’s PrePreliminary Results Comments,’’ dated May 14,
2012.
33 See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of
the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty
Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101
(February 14, 2012) (‘‘Final Modification for
Reviews’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(or constructed export prices) with
monthly weighted-average normal
values and granted offsets for nondumped comparisons in the calculation
of the weighted-average dumping
margin. Application of this
methodology in these preliminary
results affords parties an opportunity to
meaningfully comment on the
Department’s implementation of this
recently adopted methodology in the
context of this administrative review.
The Department intends to continue to
consider, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.414(3)(c), whether another method
is appropriate in this administrative
review in light of both parties’ prepreliminary comments and any
comments on the issue that parties may
include in their case briefs.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether RZBC’s sales of
subject merchandise were made at less
than NV, we compared export price
(‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described in the
‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
sections below.34 See section
773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act; 19 CFR
351.414(c)(1) and (d).
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, EP is ‘‘the price at which
subject merchandise is first sold (or
agreed to be sold) before the date of
importation by the producer or exporter
of the subject merchandise outside of
the United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States or to an
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to
the United States,’’ as adjusted under
section 772(c) of the Act. We used EP
methodology, in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act, for sales in
which the subject merchandise was first
sold prior to importation by the exporter
outside the United States directly to an
unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States and for sales in which
constructed export price was not
otherwise indicated.
We based EP on the price to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. In accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, where
appropriate, we made deductions from
the starting price (gross unit price) for
foreign inland freight, marine insurance,
and domestic and market-economy
brokerage and handling. We valued
34 In these preliminary results, the Department
applied the weighted-average dumping margin
calculation method adopted in Final Modification
for Reviews. In particular, the Department
compared monthly weighted-average EPs (or
constructed EPs) with monthly weighted-average
NVs and granted offsets for non-dumped
comparisons in the calculation of the weightedaverage dumping margin.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Notices
brokerage and handling using a price
list of export procedures necessary to
export a standardized cargo of goods in
Indonesia. 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 India as reported in ‘‘Doing
Business 2011: Indonesia’’ published by
the World Bank.35
Normal Value
We compared NV to individual EP
transactions in accordance with section
777A(d)(2) of the Act, as appropriate.
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine NV
using an FOP methodology if: (1) The
merchandise is exported from an NME
country; and (2) 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. When
determining NV in an NME context, the
Department will base NV on FOPs
because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of these
economies renders price comparisons
and the calculation of production costs
invalid under our normal
methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3)
of the Act, FOPs include but are not
limited to: (1) Hours of labor required;
(2) quantities of raw materials
employed; and (3) representative capital
costs. The Department used FOPs
reported by RZBC for materials, labor,
packing and by-products.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on
FOPs reported by RZBC for the POR. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1),
the Department will normally use
publicly available information to find an
appropriate SV to value FOPs, but when
a producer sources an input from a
market economy and pays for it in
market economy currency, the
Department normally will value the
factor using the actual price paid for the
input.36 To calculate NV, we multiplied
the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available
SVs (except as discussed below). In
selecting SVs, we considered the
quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data.37 As
35 See
Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6.
19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof
Assembly Components Div of Ill Tool Works v.
United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382–1383 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (affirming the Department’s use of marketbased prices to value certain FOPs).
37 See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 (December
36 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to import SVs surrogate freight cost
using the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to
the factory or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory, where
appropriate. This adjustment is in
accordance with the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit’s decision in
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d
1401, 1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
For the preliminary results, except
where noted below, we used data from
the Indonesian and Thai import
statistics in the Global Trade Atlas
(‘‘GTA’’) and other publicly available
Indonesian and Thai sources in order to
calculate SVs for RZBC’s FOPs (i.e.,
direct materials, energy, and packing
materials) and certain movement
expenses. As Indonesia is the primary
surrogate country, we used Indonesian
data and applied Thai data where there
were no usable Indonesian data. In
selecting the best available information
for valuing FOPs in accordance with
section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the
Department’s practice is to select, to the
extent practicable, SVs which are nonexport average values, most
contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.38
The record shows that Indonesian and
Thai import statistics obtained through
GTA are contemporaneous with the
POR, product-specific, and taxexclusive.39 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 Indonesian Wholesale
Price Index, as published by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development.
In accordance with legislative history,
the Department continues to apply its
long-standing practice of disregarding
SVs if it has a reason to believe or
suspect the source data may be
4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final Results of
First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China,
66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
38 See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative
Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
39 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 3.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33403
subsidized.40 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.41 Based on the existence of
these subsidy programs that were
generally available to all exporters and
producers in these countries at the time
of the POR, the Department finds that it
is reasonable to infer that all exporters
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and
Thailand may have benefitted from
these subsidies. Therefore, the
Department has not used prices from
India, Indonesia, South Korea and
Thailand in calculating the importbased SVs.
Additionally, we disregarded prices
from NME countries.42 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 generally
available export subsidies.43
We valued truck freight expenses
using a price list for domestic shipments
from the Indonesian shipping company,
PT Mantap Abiah Abadi.
To calculate the labor input, we based
our calculation provided by the
Department in Labor Methodologies,
which recommends using singlecountry labor cost and compensation
40 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.
41 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.
42 See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5, 2009),
unchanged in Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009) and Certain
Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the
People’s Republic of China: Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 46971
(September 14, 2009).
43 See id.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
33404
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
data from Chapter 6A of the
International Labor Organization
(‘‘ILO’’).44 However, in this case, the
Department notes that Chapter 6A does
not contain recent Indonesian labor data
from the ILO Yearbook. Therefore, for
the preliminary results of this
administrative review, the Department
is valuing labor using an Indonesian
industry-specific wage rate based on
labor cost and compensation data from
Chapter 5B of the ILO. The Department
calculated an Indonesian industryspecific wage rate of 8423.6133 Rupiah
per hour for the preliminary results.
Specifically, the Department has
calculated the wage rate using data
provided to the ILO under SubClassification 24 of the ISIC–Revision 3–
D standard, and inflated this wage rate
using the Indonesian Consumer Price
Index as published in the IMF’s
International Financial Statistics. The
Department finds the description under
Sub-Classification 24 of the ISIC–
Revision 3–D (‘‘Manufacture of
Chemicals and Chemical Products’’) to
be the best available wage rate SV
source on the record because it is
specific and derived from industries
that produce merchandise comparable
to the subject merchandise. A full
description of the industry-specific
wage rate calculation methodology is
provided in the Surrogate Value
Memorandum.45
We were unable to segregate and,
therefore, were unable to exclude energy
costs from the calculation of the
surrogate financial ratios. Accordingly,
for the preliminary results, we have
disregarded the respondents’ energy
inputs (electricity, coal and steam) in
the calculation of NV, in order to avoid
double-counting energy costs that have
necessarily been captured in the
surrogate financial ratios.46
To value factory overhead, selling,
general, and administrative expenses,
and profit, we used audited financial
statements for the year ending December
2010 of PT Budi Acid Jaya TBK, a
producer of comparable merchandise
from Indonesia.47 The Department may
44 See Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies:
Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (‘‘Labor Methodologies’’).
45 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5.
46 See 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 (April 13, 2009) and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 2.
47 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 4; see
also Memorandum from Maisha Cryor and Krisha
Hill to Robert Bolling, regarding ‘‘Second
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
consider other publicly available
financial statements for the final results,
as appropriate.
RZBC reported that it has recovered
by-products in their production of
subject merchandise and successfully
demonstrated that all of them have
commercial value; therefore, we have
granted a by-product offset for the
quantities of each respondent’s reported
by-products, valued using Indonesian
GTA data.
Export Subsidy Adjustment
Section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act states
that U.S. price ‘‘shall be increased by
the amount of any countervailing duty
imposed on the subject merchandise
* * * to offset an export subsidy.’’ 48
The Department determined in its
preliminary results of the companion
countervailing duty administrative
review that RZBC’s merchandise
benefited from export subsidies.49
Therefore, we have increased RZBC’s
U.S. price for countervailing duties
imposed attributable to export
subsidies, where appropriate.50
Currency Conversion
Where appropriate, we made currency
conversions into U.S. dollars, in
accordance with section 773A(a) of the
Act, based on the exchange rates in
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
The weighted-average dumping
margin for RZBC is as follows:
Exporter
Margin
RZBC Co., Ltd./RZBC Imp. &
Exp. Co., Ltd./RZBC (Juxian)
Co., Ltd .....................................
0.00
Disclosure
The Department intends to disclose
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within
10 days of the date of the public
announcement of the results of this
review in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
Preliminary Results Margin Calculation for RZBC
Co., Ltd., RZBC Import & Export Co., Ltd., and
RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd.,’’ dated May 30, 2012
(‘‘Preliminary Analysis Memo’’).
48 See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from
India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 38076, 38077 (July 1,
2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1.
49 See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,
dated May 30, 2012 (not yet published).
50 See Preliminary Analysis Memo.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Comments
Interested parties may submit written
comments no later than 30 days after the
date of publication of these preliminary
results of review.51 Rebuttal comments
must be limited to the issues raised in
the written comments and may be filed
no later than five days after the time
limit for filing the case briefs.52
Interested parties, who wish to request
a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, filed electronically using
Import Administration’s Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the Department’s
electronic records system, IA ACCESS,
by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within
30 days after the date of publication of
this notice.53 Requests should contain
the party’s name, address, and
telephone number, the number of
participants, and a list of the issues to
be discussed. If a request for a hearing
is made, we will inform parties of the
scheduled date for the hearing which
will be held at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at
a time and location to be determined.54
Parties should confirm by telephone the
date, time, and location of the hearing.
The Department intends to issue the
final results of the administrative
review, which will include the results of
its analysis of issues raised in the briefs,
within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, in accordance with
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless
the time limit is extended.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review.55 The Department intends to
issue assessment instructions to CBP 15
days after the publication date of the
final results of this review. For any
individually examined respondent
whose weighted-average dumping
margin is above de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent) in the final results of
this review, we will calculate an
importer-specific assessment rate on the
basis of the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the
51 See
19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
19 CFR 351.309(d).
53 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
54 See 19 CFR 351.310.
55 See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
52 See
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Notices
importer’s examined sales and the total
entered value of sales, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).56 Where we
calculate a margin by dividing the total
dumping margins for reviewed sales to
that party by the total sales quantity
associated with those transactions, in
this and future reviews, we will direct
CBP to assess importer-specific
assessment rates based on the resulting
per-unit (i.e., per-kilogram) rates by the
weight in kilograms of each entry of the
subject merchandise during the POR.
Where an importer (or customer)specific per-unit rate is greater than de
minimis, we will apply the assessment
rate to the entered value of the
importer’s/customer’s entries during the
POR.57 Where an importer (or
customer)-specific per-unit rate is zero
or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties.58 We
intend to instruct CBP to liquidate
entries containing subject merchandise
exported by the PRC-wide entity at the
PRC-wide rate we determine in the final
results of this review.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 RZBC the
cash deposit rate will be its respective
rate 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 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 PRCwide rate of 156.87 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 those non-PRC
exporters. These deposit requirements,
56 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.
57 See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
58 See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this
notice are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and (3) and 777(i) of the Act,
and 19 CFR 351.213.
Dated: May 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–13599 Filed 6–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–929]
Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes
From the People’s Republic of China:
Affirmative Preliminary Determination
of Circumvention of the Antidumping
Duty Order and Extension of Final
Determination
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) preliminarily
determines that certain small diameter
graphite electrodes (‘‘SDGE’’) are being
exported from the United Kingdom
(‘‘U.K.’’) to the United States by UK
Carbon and Graphite Co., Ltd. (‘‘UKCG’’)
in circumvention of the antidumping
duty order on SDGE from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’),1 as provided
in section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’).
DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brendan Quinn, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5848.
AGENCY:
1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Small Diameter
Graphite Electrodes from the People’s Republic of
China, 74 FR 8775 (February 26, 2009) (‘‘SDGE
Order’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33405
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 12, 2010, SGL Carbon LLC
and Superior Graphite Co.
(‘‘Petitioners’’) filed a submission
alleging that UKCG, a company located
in the United Kingdom, is engaged in
circumvention of the SDGE Order by
importing artificial graphite rods/
unfinished SDGE components 2 from the
PRC to the United Kingdom, performing
minor completion and assembly on
these items, and exporting finished
subject merchandise to the United
States as SDGE of U.K. origin.3 In this
submission, Petitioners requested that
the Department initiate a scope inquiry
to clarify whether the unfinished
graphitized SDGE components imported
by UKCG from the PRC are included in
the SDGE Order. In the alternative,
should the Department find it
appropriate based on the available
information, Petitioners requested that
the Department initiate an
anticircumvention proceeding, pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.225(h), to determine
whether the importation of the PRCorigin SDGE components by UKCG for
finishing in the United Kingdom and
subsequent sale to the United States
constitutes circumvention of the SDGE
Order, as defined in section 781(b) of
the Act.
On March 18, 2011, the Department
initiated an anticircumvention inquiry
on imports of SDGE exported by
UKCG.4 This inquiry covers the period
July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010.
Questionnaires
Subsequent to the initiation of this
proceeding, the Department issued
questionnaires to UKCG regarding the
nature of its sales of SDGE to the United
States and sourcing of inputs from the
2 According to Petitioners, the unfinished
merchandise in question is defined in UKCG’s
submissions as, e.g., ‘‘graphite electrodes,’’ ‘‘rods,’’
‘‘graphite billets,’’ graphite shapes,’’ ‘‘synthetic
graphite electrode rod,’’ and ‘‘re-machined graphite
electrode.’’ Petitioners characterize these inputs as
‘‘unfinished SDGE,’’ whereas UKCG refers to them
as ‘‘blanks’’ or ‘‘artificial graphite.’’ For customs
purposes, these materials are, generally, classified
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) subheading 3801.10.00, defined as ‘‘Artificial Graphite;
Colloidal or Semi-Colloidal Graphite; Preparations
Based on Graphite or Other Carbon in the Form of
Pastes, Blocks, Plates or Other Semi-Finished
Goods.’’ For ease of reference, these materials are
referred to as ‘‘unfinished SDGE components’’ or
‘‘artificial graphite rods’’ throughout this notice.
3 See Letter from Petitioners to the Department
entitled, ‘‘Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from
the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated October 12,
2010 (‘‘Petitioners’ Initiation Request’’).
4 See Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from
the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of
Anticircumvention Inquiry, 76 FR 14910, 14912,
14916–17 (March 18, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33399-33405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13599]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-937]
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of the Second Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order; and Partial Rescission of Administrative
Review
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 citric
acid and certain citrate salts (``citric acid'') from the People's
Republic of China (``PRC''), covering the period May 1, 2010, through
April 30, 2011. The Department has preliminarily determined that during
the period of review (``POR'') the respondent in this proceeding did
not make sales of subject merchandise at less than 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 POR. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results. We will issue final results no
later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice,
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act'').
DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krisha Hill or Maisha Cryor, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4037
or (202) 482-5831, respectively.
Background
On May 29, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on citric acid from the PRC.\1\ On June 28,
2011, the Department published the initiation of the second
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric acid from
the PRC,\2\ and initiated review on two exporters: (1) Huangshi Xinghua
Biochemical Co., Ltd. (``Xinghua'') and (2) RZBC Co., Ltd., RZBC Imp. &
Exp. Co., Ltd., RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd. (collectively ``RZBC''). On May
20, 2011, and May 31, 2011, RZBC and Xinghua each requested to be
selected as a mandatory respondent in this review, respectively.\3\ On
July 8, 2011, Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated,
and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas LLC (``Petitioners'') submitted
comments on
[[Page 33400]]
mandatory respondent selection and requested that the Department
identify both RZBC and Xinghua as mandatory respondents in this review.
On July 27, 2011, Xinghua withdrew its review request. Between August
16, 2011, and April 4, 2012, the Department sent the original
antidumping questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires to RZBC. RZBC
submitted timely questionnaire responses between October 17, 2011, and
April 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and
the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 25703
(May 29, 2009).
\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 76 FR
37781, 37785 (June 28, 2011) (``Initiation'').
\3\ See Letter from RZBC to the Department, regarding ``Citric
Acid and Citrate Salt from People's Republic of China: Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review Request,'' dated May 20, 2011; see also
Letter from Xinghua to the Department, regarding ``Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Request
for AD Administrative Review (05/01/10-04/30/2011),'' dated May 31,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 6, 2011, the Department issued a letter to all
interested parties soliciting comments on selecting a surrogate country
and surrogate values (``SVs'').\4\ On December 20, 2011, we received
comments on surrogate country selection from Petitioners.\5\ On January
3, 2012, we received rebuttal surrogate country comments from both RZBC
and Petitioners.\6\ On January 6, 2012, we received SV comments from
both RZBC and Petitioners.\7\ We received rebuttal SV comments from
both RZBC and Petitioners on January 11, 2012.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the Department's letter to Interested Parties entitled,
``Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate
Country List,'' (December 6, 2011).
\5\ See RZBC's letter to the Department entitled, ``Citric Acid
and Citrate Salt from People's Republic of China: Surrogate Country
Comments,'' (December 20, 2011); see also Petitioners' letter to the
Department entitled, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of
China: Petitioners' Comments Concerning Surrogate Country
Selection,'' (December 20, 2011).
\6\ See RZBC's letter to the Department entitled, ``Citric Acid
and Citrate Salt from People's Republic of China: Rebuttal Surrogate
Country Comments,'' (January 3, 2012); see also Petitioners' letter
to the Department entitled, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic
of China: Petitioners' Rebuttal Comments Concerning Surrogate
Country Selection,'' (January 3, 2012).
\7\ See RZBC's letter to the Department entitled, ``Citric Acid
and Citrate Salt from People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value
Comments,'' (January 6, 2012); see also Petitioners' letter to the
Department entitled, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of
China: Petitioners' Surrogate Value Comments,'' (January 6, 2012).
\8\ See RZBC's letter to the Department entitled, ``Citric Acid
and Citrate Salt from People's Republic of China: Rebuttal Surrogate
Value Comments,'' (January 11, 2012); see also Petitioners' letter
to the Department entitled, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic
of China: Petitioners' Surrogate Value Rebuttal Comments,'' (January
11, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 10, 2012, the Department published a notice in the
Federal Register extending the time limit for the preliminary results
of review by 90 days to April 30, 2012, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.\9\ Additionally, on April 16, 2012, the
Department published a notice in the Federal Register fully extending
the deadline for the preliminary results by 30 days to May 30,
2012.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 1455
(January 10, 2012).
\10\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 22560
(April 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011.
Scope of the Order
The scope of the order includes all grades and granulation sizes of
citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their unblended
forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of packaging type.
The scope also includes blends of citric acid, sodium citrate, and
potassium citrate; as well as blends with other ingredients, such as
sugar, where the unblended form(s) of citric acid, sodium citrate, and
potassium citrate constitute 40 percent or more, by weight, of the
blend. The scope of the order also includes all forms of crude calcium
citrate, including dicalcium citrate monohydrate, and tricalcium
citrate tetrahydrate, which are intermediate products in the production
of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate. The scope of the
order does not include calcium citrate that satisfies the standards set
forth in the United States Pharmacopeia and has been mixed with a
functional excipient, such as dextrose or starch, where the excipient
constitutes at least 2 percent, by weight, of the product. The scope of
the order includes the hydrous and anhydrous forms of citric acid, the
dihydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium citrate, otherwise known as
citric acid sodium salt, and the monohydrate and monopotassium forms of
potassium citrate. Sodium citrate also includes both trisodium citrate
and monosodium citrate, which are also known as citric acid trisodium
salt and citric acid monosodium salt, respectively. Citric acid and
sodium citrate are classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''),
respectively. Potassium citrate and crude calcium citrate are
classifiable under 2918.15.5000 and 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS,
respectively. Blends that include citric acid, sodium citrate, and
potassium citrate are classifiable under 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested
the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the initiation notice of the requested review. Further,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department is permitted to extend
this time if it is reasonable to do so.
On July 27, 2011, Xinghua timely withdrew its request for an
administrative review of its exports to the United States. Because no
other parties requested a review of Xinghua's exports to the United
States, the Department hereby rescinds the administrative review of
citric acid with respect to Xinghua in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1).
Non-Market-Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market-economy (``NME'') country.\11\ In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked
by the administering authority. Accordingly, the Department has
calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which
applies to NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
In antidumping proceedings involving NME countries, pursuant to
section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department generally bases NV on the
value of the NME producer's factors of production (``FOP''). In
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOP, the
Department uses to the extent possible the prices or costs of the FOP
in one or more market economy countries that are (1) at a level of
economic development comparable to that of the NME country and (2)
significant producers of merchandise comparable to the subject
merchandise. Moreover, as we stated in Policy Bulletin No. 04.1,\12\ it
is the
[[Page 33401]]
Department's practice to select an appropriate surrogate country based
on the availability and reliability of data from these countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See the Department's Policy Bulletin No. 04.1, regarding,
``Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process,'' (March
1, 2004) (``Policy Bulletin 04.1''), available on the Department's
Web site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the instant review, the Department has identified Colombia,
Indonesia, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine
as countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to
the PRC.\13\ The Department uses per capita gross national income
(``GNI'') as the primary basis for determining economic
comparability.\14\ Once the countries that are economically comparable
to the PRC have been identified, the Department selects an appropriate
surrogate country by determining whether an economically comparable
country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise and whether
data for valuing FOPs are both available and reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See the Department's letter to Interested Parties entitled,
``Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate
Country List,'' (December 6, 2011).
\14\ See Policy Bulletin No. 04.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to interested parties' surrogate country comments,
Petitioners argued that Thailand is the most appropriate surrogate
country from which to derive surrogate factor values for the PRC
because Thailand: (a) Has a per capita GNI which is economically most
comparable to that of the PRC when compared with the other considered
countries; (b) is also a significant producer of citric acid; (c)
provides robust data sources, and in certain instances more specific,
to value RZBC's FOPs; and (d) the potential Thai surrogate company is
most representative of RZBC when compared with the potential Indonesian
surrogate company.\15\ RZBC recommended that the Department select
Indonesia, consistent with the Department's determination in the
original investigation and the first administrative review that
Indonesia is economically comparable to the PRC and is a significant
producer of identical and comparable merchandise.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Petitioners' letter to the Department entitled,
``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Petitioners'
Comments Concerning Surrogate Country Selection,'' (December 20,
2011).
\16\ See RZBC's letter to the Department entitled, ``Citric Acid
and Citrate Salt from People's Republic of China: Surrogate Country
Comments,'' (December 20, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has determined that it is appropriate to use
Indonesia as a surrogate country, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the
Act, based on the following: (1) It is at a comparable level of
economic development to the PRC; (2) it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise, and (3) the Department has reliable data from
Indonesia that it can use to value the FOPs.\17\ Additionally, the
Indonesian surrogate company offers greater detail and more reliable
financial ratios when compared with the Thai surrogate company.
Accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indonesian prices when
available and appropriate to value each respondent's FOPs.\18\ In
certain instances where Indonesian SVs were not deemed the best
available data, we have relied on Thai SVs in the alternative. Thailand
is at a similar level of economic development to the PRC and is a
significant producer of comparable merchandise.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Memorandum from Krisha Hill to Abdelali Elouaradia
regarding ``Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Citric
Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China:
Selection of a Surrogate Country,'' dated May 30, 2012 (``Surrogate
Country Memorandum'').
\18\ See Memorandum from Krisha Hill and Maisha Cryor to Robert
Bolling, regarding ``Preliminary Results of the Second
Administrative Review of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,'' dated
May 30, 2012 (``Surrogate Value Memorandum''); see also ``Factor
Valuations'' section, below.
\19\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
of an administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value the FOPs within 20 days after the date
of publication of these preliminary results.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record.
The Department generally will not accept the submission of
additional, previously absent-from-the-record, alternative SV
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assigned a single
antidumping duty rate.\21\ It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and
de facto government control over export activities. The Department
analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test
arising from Sparklers as further developed in Silicon Carbide.\22\
However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-
owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-rate analysis is
not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, e.g., Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality
Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 24892,
24899 (May 6, 2010), unchanged in Certain Coated Paper Suitable for
High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 75 FR 59217 (September 27, 2010).
\22\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon
Carbide'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to demonstrate separate-rate status eligibility, the
Department normally requires entities, for whom a review was requested,
and who were assigned a separate rate in a previous segment of this
proceeding, to submit a separate-rate certification stating that they
continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate.\23\ For
entities that were not assigned a separate rate in the previous segment
of a proceeding, to demonstrate eligibility, the Department requires a
separate-rate application.\24\ In this instance, the Department
received a completed response to the Section A portion of the NME
antidumping questionnaire from RZBC, which contains information
pertaining to the company's eligibility for a separate rate.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Initiation.
\24\ Id.
\25\ See Letter from RZBC to the Department, regarding ``Citric
Acid and Citrate Salt from the People's Republic of China: Section
A, C and D Questionnaire Response,'' dated October 17, 2011
(``Original Response'') at A-2 to A-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Absence of de Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
[[Page 33402]]
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by RZBC supports a preliminary finding of de
jure absence of government control based on the following: (1) An
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there are applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3)
there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of
the companies.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Original Response at A-2 to A-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Absence of de Facto Control
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May
8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control
is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to
a degree of government control over export activities that would
preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. For RZBC, we
determine that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary
finding of an absence of de facto government control based on record
statements and supporting documentation showing the following: (1) RZBC
sets its own export prices independent of the government and without
the approval of a government authority; (2) RZBC retains the proceeds
from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of
profits or financing of losses; (3) RZBC has the authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) RZBC has autonomy from
the government regarding the selection of management.\29\ Additionally,
RZBC's questionnaire responses indicate that their pricing during the
POR does not involve coordination among exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Original Response at A-2 to A-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence placed on the record of this review by RZBC
demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with
respect to RZBC's exports of subject merchandise, in accordance with
the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we
are preliminarily granting RZBC a separate rate.
Targeted Dumping
On March 8, 2012, Petitioners alleged targeted dumping by RZBC and
stated that there are patterns of export prices for comparable
merchandise that differ significantly among time periods and
regions.\30\ Petitioners noted that they conducted their own targeted
dumping analysis of RZBC's U.S. sales using the Department's targeted
dumping methodology as applied in Steel Nails and modified in Wood
Flooring.\31\ Based on their own analysis, Petitioners recommended that
the Department apply average-to-transaction method to calculate RZBC's
dumping margin, as the patterns of pricing differences cannot be taken
into account using the average-to-average margin calculation
methodology.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Letter from Petitioners to the Department, regarding
``Citric Acid And Certain Citrate Salts From The People's Republic
Of China: Targeted Dumping Allegation,'' dated March 8, 2012.
\31\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR
33977 (June 16, 2008) and Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab
Emirates: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than
Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008) (``Steel Nails''); see also
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318
(October 18, 2011) (``Wood Flooring'').
\32\ RZBC submitted untimely comments concerning targeted
dumping which were not taken into consideration for the preliminary
results, however the Department shall consider these comments for
the final results. See Memorandum to the File, through Robert
Bolling, Program Manager, from, Krisha Hill, Analyst, Regarding
``RZBC's Pre-Preliminary Results Comments,'' dated May 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of these preliminary results, the Department did not
conduct a targeted dumping analysis. In calculating the preliminary
weighted-average dumping margin, the Department applied the calculation
methodology adopted in Final Modification for Reviews.\33\ 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. Application of this
methodology in these preliminary results affords parties an opportunity
to meaningfully comment on the Department's implementation of this
recently adopted methodology in the context of this administrative
review. The Department intends to continue to consider, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.414(3)(c), whether another method is appropriate in this
administrative review in light of both parties' pre-preliminary
comments and any comments on the issue that parties may include in
their case briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012)
(``Final Modification for Reviews'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether RZBC's sales of subject merchandise were made
at less than NV, we compared export price (``EP'') to NV, as described
in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections below.\34\ See
section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.414(c)(1) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the
weighted-average dumping margin calculation method adopted in Final
Modification for Reviews. In particular, the Department compared
monthly weighted-average EPs (or constructed EPs) with monthly
weighted-average NVs and granted offsets for non-dumped comparisons
in the calculation of the weighted-average dumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is ``the price at
which subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before
the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to
the United States,'' as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. We
used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, for
sales in which the subject merchandise was first sold prior to
importation by the exporter outside the United States directly to an
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States and for sales in which
constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
We based EP on the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, where
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit
price) for foreign inland freight, marine insurance, and domestic and
market-economy brokerage and handling. We valued
[[Page 33403]]
brokerage and handling using a price list of export procedures
necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in Indonesia. 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 India as reported in ``Doing Business 2011: Indonesia''
published by the World Bank.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
We compared NV to individual EP transactions in accordance with
section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, as appropriate. Section 773(c)(1) of the
Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP
methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME country;
and (2) 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. When determining NV in an NME context, the
Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of these economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our
normal methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include
but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of
raw materials employed; and (3) representative capital costs. The
Department used FOPs reported by RZBC for materials, labor, packing and
by-products.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by RZBC for the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly available
information to find an appropriate SV to value FOPs, but when a
producer sources an input from a market economy and pays for it in
market economy currency, the Department normally will value the factor
using the actual price paid for the input.\36\ To calculate NV, we
multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly
available SVs (except as discussed below). In selecting SVs, we
considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the
data.\37\ As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight
costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to import
SVs surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance
from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment is
in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's
decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly
Components Div of Ill Tool Works v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376,
1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department's use of
market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
\37\ See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR
72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final Results of First New Shipper
Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 31204
(June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the preliminary results, except where noted below, we used data
from the Indonesian and Thai import statistics in the Global Trade
Atlas (``GTA'') and other publicly available Indonesian and Thai
sources in order to calculate SVs for RZBC's FOPs (i.e., direct
materials, energy, and packing materials) and certain movement
expenses. As Indonesia is the primary surrogate country, we used
Indonesian data and applied Thai data where there were no usable
Indonesian data. In selecting the best available information for
valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the
Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs
which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\38\ The record shows that
Indonesian and Thai import statistics obtained through GTA are
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\39\
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 Indonesian Wholesale
Price Index, as published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
\39\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with legislative history, the Department continues to
apply its long-standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason
to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.\40\ 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.\41\ Based on the
existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available to
all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the POR,
the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have benefitted
from these subsidies. Therefore, the Department has not used prices
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand in calculating the
import-based SVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 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.
\41\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.\42\
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 generally available export subsidies.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5, 2009), unchanged in
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009) and Certain Kitchen Appliance
Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China: Amended
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 46971 (September 14, 2009).
\43\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued truck freight expenses using a price list for domestic
shipments from the Indonesian shipping company, PT Mantap Abiah Abadi.
To calculate the labor input, we based our calculation provided by
the Department in Labor Methodologies, which recommends using single-
country labor cost and compensation
[[Page 33404]]
data from Chapter 6A of the International Labor Organization
(``ILO'').\44\ However, in this case, the Department notes that Chapter
6A does not contain recent Indonesian labor data from the ILO Yearbook.
Therefore, for the preliminary results of this administrative review,
the Department is valuing labor using an Indonesian industry-specific
wage rate based on labor cost and compensation data from Chapter 5B of
the ILO. The Department calculated an Indonesian industry-specific wage
rate of 8423.6133 Rupiah per hour for the preliminary results.
Specifically, the Department has calculated the wage rate using data
provided to the ILO under Sub-Classification 24 of the ISIC-Revision 3-
D standard, and inflated this wage rate using the Indonesian Consumer
Price Index as published in the IMF's International Financial
Statistics. The Department finds the description under Sub-
Classification 24 of the ISIC-Revision 3-D (``Manufacture of Chemicals
and Chemical Products'') to be the best available wage rate SV source
on the record because it is specific and derived from industries that
produce merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise. A full
description of the industry-specific wage rate calculation methodology
is provided in the Surrogate Value Memorandum.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
\45\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were unable to segregate and, therefore, were unable to exclude
energy costs from the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios.
Accordingly, for the preliminary results, we have disregarded the
respondents' energy inputs (electricity, coal and steam) in the
calculation of NV, in order to avoid double-counting energy costs that
have necessarily been captured in the surrogate financial ratios.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See 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 (April 13, 2009) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
expenses, and profit, we used audited financial statements for the year
ending December 2010 of PT Budi Acid Jaya TBK, a producer of comparable
merchandise from Indonesia.\47\ The Department may consider other
publicly available financial statements for the final results, as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 4; see also Memorandum
from Maisha Cryor and Krisha Hill to Robert Bolling, regarding
``Second Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of
China: Analysis of the Preliminary Results Margin Calculation for
RZBC Co., Ltd., RZBC Import & Export Co., Ltd., and RZBC (Juxian)
Co., Ltd.,'' dated May 30, 2012 (``Preliminary Analysis Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RZBC reported that it has recovered by-products in their production
of subject merchandise and successfully demonstrated that all of them
have commercial value; therefore, we have granted a by-product offset
for the quantities of each respondent's reported by-products, valued
using Indonesian GTA data.
Export Subsidy Adjustment
Section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act states that U.S. price ``shall be
increased by the amount of any countervailing duty imposed on the
subject merchandise * * * to offset an export subsidy.'' \48\ The
Department determined in its preliminary results of the companion
countervailing duty administrative review that RZBC's merchandise
benefited from export subsidies.\49\ Therefore, we have increased
RZBC's U.S. price for countervailing duties imposed attributable to
export subsidies, where appropriate.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 38076,
38077 (July 1, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 1.
\49\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, dated May 30, 2012 (not yet published).
\50\ See Preliminary Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currency Conversion
Where appropriate, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars,
in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
The weighted-average dumping margin for RZBC is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RZBC Co., Ltd./RZBC Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd./RZBC (Juxian) Co., 0.00
Ltd.........................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within 10 days of the date of the
public announcement of the results of this review in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
Comments
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of
review.\51\ Rebuttal comments must be limited to the issues raised in
the written comments and may be filed no later than five days after the
time limit for filing the case briefs.\52\ Interested parties, who wish
to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must
submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using
Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''). An electronically filed
document must be received successfully in its entirety by the
Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice.\53\ Requests should contain the party's name, address, and
telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues
to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform
parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined.\54\
Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the
hearing. The Department intends to issue the final results of the
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in the briefs, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act, unless the time limit is extended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
\52\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
\53\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\54\ See 19 CFR 351.310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review.\55\ The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final
results of this review. For any individually examined respondent whose
weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., less than
0.50 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate an
importer-specific assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the
[[Page 33405]]
importer's examined sales and the total entered value of sales, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).\56\ Where we calculate a margin
by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party
by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, in this
and future reviews, we will direct CBP to assess importer-specific
assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per-kilogram)
rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject
merchandise during the POR. Where an importer (or customer)-specific
per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, we will apply the assessment
rate to the entered value of the importer's/customer's entries during
the POR.\57\ Where an importer (or customer)-specific per-unit rate is
zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate
entries without regard to antidumping duties.\58\ We intend to instruct
CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the
PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate we determine in the final results
of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
\56\ 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.
\57\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\58\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for 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 RZBC the cash
deposit rate will be its respective rate 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 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
156.87 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
those non-PRC exporters. These deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and (3) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213.
Dated: May 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-13599 Filed 6-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
