Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry, 37873-37877 [2012-15439]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Notices
J. Payment for TRQ Certificates.
Promptly after being notified of a TRQ
award and within the time specified in
the Notice, the bidder shall pay the full
amount of the bid, either by wire
transfer or by certified check, to an
account designated by the
Administrator. If the bidder fails to
make payment within five (5) days, the
Administrator shall revoke the award
and award the tonnage to the next
highest bidder(s).
K. Delivery of TRQ Certificates. The
Administrator shall establish an account
for each successful bidder in the amount
of tonnage available for TRQ
Certificates. Upon request, the
Administrator will issue TRQ
Certificates in the tonnage designated by
the bidder, consistent with the balance
in that account.
L. Transferability. TRQ Certificates
shall be freely transferable except that
(i) any TRQ Certificate holder who
intends to sell, transfer or assign any
rights under that Certificate shall
publish such intention on a Web site
maintained by the Administrator at least
three (3) business days prior to any sale,
transfer or assignment; and (ii) any TRQ
holder that sells, transfers or assigns its
rights under a TRQ Certificate shall
provide the Administrator with notice
and a copy of the sale, transfer or
assignment within three (3) business
days.
M. Deposit of Proceeds: The
Administrator shall cause all proceeds
of the open tender process to be
deposited in interest-bearing accounts
in a financial institution approved by
the COL–RICE Board of Directors.
N. Disposition of Proceeds. The
proceeds of the open tender process
shall be applied and distributed as
follows:
i. The Administrator shall pay from
tender proceeds, as they become
available, all operating expenses of
COL–RICE, including legal, accounting
and administrative costs of establishing
and operating the TRQ System, as
authorized by the Board of Directors.
ii. The legal, accounting and
administrative expenses of the USA
Rice Federation, the US Rice Producers
Association, and FEDEARROZ directly
related to establishing COL-RICE, shall
be reimbursed from the proceeds of the
COL-RICE as they become available and
subject to the review of the Board.
iii. Of the proceeds remaining at the
end of each year of operations and after
all costs described in (i) and (ii) above
have been paid—1. In years one (1)
through ten (10), fifty percent (50%)
shall be distributed to each of the six (6)
state chartered rice research boards
named as members above on a pro rata
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
basis, that share being each state’s pro
rata share of the average of the
immediately preceding three (3) years
U.S. rice production, to fund rice
research projects as defined by each of
the six (6) state chartered research
boards to benefit the United States rice
industry. The funds are to be used for
direct research projects and not to be
used for general administrative
purposes.
2. In years eleven (11) through
eighteen (18), fifty percent (50%) shall
be distributed to each of the six (6) state
chartered rice research boards named as
members above on a pro rata basis, that
share being each state’s pro rata share of
the average of the immediately
preceding three (3) years U.S. rice
production, to fund research and
promotion projects as defined by each of
the six (6) state chartered research
boards to benefit the United States rice
industry as may be within the purview
of each board. These funds are to be
used for direct projects and are not to
be used for general administrative
purposes.
3. In all years, fifty percent (50%) of
the proceeds shall be distributed to the
Colombian Member to fund market
development and/or competitiveness
projects for the benefit of the rice
production sector of the Republic of
Colombia, as established by paragraph 6
of Article 5 of Decree No. 0728 of 2012,
issued by the Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural Development of Colombia.
O. Arbitration of Disputes. Any
dispute, controversy or claim arising out
of or relating to the TRQ System or the
breach thereof shall be settled by
arbitration administered by the
American Arbitration Association in
accordance with its Commercial
Arbitration Rules, and judgment on the
award rendered by the arbitrator may be
entered in any court having jurisdiction
thereof.
P. Confidential Information. The
Administrator shall maintain as
confidential all export documentation or
other business sensitive information
submitted in connection with
application for COL–RICE membership,
bidding in the open tender process or
requests for distribution of proceeds,
where such documents or information
has been marked ‘‘Confidential’’ by the
person making the submission. The
Administrator shall disclose such
information only to another neutral
third party or authorized government
official of the Government of the United
States of America or an official of the
Government of the Republic of
Colombia; and only where necessary to
ensure the effective operation of the
TRQ System or where required by law
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37873
(including appropriate disclosure in
connection with the arbitration of a
dispute).
Q. Annual Reports. COL–RICE shall
publish an annual report including a
statement of its operating expenses and
data on the distribution of proceeds, as
reflected in the audited financial
statement of the COL–RICE TRQ
System. A copy of the certificate will be
kept in the International Trade
Administration’s Freedom of
Information Records Inspection Facility,
Room 4100, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Dated: June 19, 2012.
Joseph E. Flynn,
Director, Office of Competition and Economic
Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2012–15388 Filed 6–22–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–929]
Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes
From the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from
SGL Carbon LLC and Superior Graphite
Co. (the petitioners), the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is initiating
an anticircumvention inquiry pursuant
to section 781(c) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), to
determine under the minor alterations
provision whether graphite electrodes
with diameters larger than 16 inches but
less than 18 inches are products that are
‘‘altered in form or appearance in minor
respects’’ from in-scope merchandise
such that they may be considered
subject to the antidumping duty order
on small diameter graphite electrodes
(SDGEs) from the People’s Republic of
China (PRC).1
In addition, in response to a request
from the petitioners, the Department is
also initiating an anticircumvention
inquiry pursuant to section 781(d) of the
Act to determine whether graphite
electrodes with diameters larger than 16
inches but less than 18 inches may be
considered subject to the SDGE Order
under the later-developed merchandise
provision.
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).
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
37874
DATES:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Notices
Effective Date: June 25, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–0410.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 5, 2012, the petitioners
alleged that Chinese producers of
graphite electrodes are engaged in
circumvention of the SDGE Order by
exporting graphite electrodes that have
diameters that are larger than 16 inches
but less than 18 inches (alleged SDGEs)
to the United States.2 The petitioners
requested that the Department initiate
an anticircumvention proceeding,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(i), to
determine whether the importation from
the PRC of alleged SDGEs constitutes
circumvention of the SDGE Order, as
defined in section 781(c) of the Act. The
petitioners additionally requested that
the Department initiate an
anticircumvention proceeding, pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.225(j), to determine
whether the importation of alleged
SDGEs from the PRC constitutes
circumvention of the SDGE Order, as
defined in section 781(d) of the Act.
On April 24, 2012, the Department
requested additional information from
the petitioners.3 On May 4, 2012, we
received the petitioners’ response.4 On
May 10, 2012, the petitioners submitted
further evidence in support of their
claims.5
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order
includes all small diameter graphite
electrodes of any length, whether or not
finished, of a kind used in furnaces,
with a nominal or actual diameter of
400 millimeters (16 inches) or less, and
whether or not attached to a graphite
pin joining system or any other type of
joining system or hardware. The
merchandise covered by the order also
includes graphite pin joining systems
for small diameter graphite electrodes,
of any length, whether or not finished,
2 See Letter from the petitioners entitled, ‘‘Small
Diameter Graphite Electrodes: Request for Scope/
Circumvention Ruling,’’ dated April 5, 2012
(Initiation Request). As indicated in the ‘‘Scope of
the Order’’ section, below, the maximum diameter
specific in the scope of the SDGE Order is 16
inches.
3 See the Department’s Letter to the petitioners
dated April 24, 2012.
4 See Letter from the petitioners dated May 4,
2012 (SQR).
5 See Letter from the petitioners dated May 10,
2012 (SQR2).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
of a kind used in furnaces, and whether
or not the graphite pin joining system is
attached to, sold with, or sold separately
from, the small diameter graphite
electrode. Small diameter graphite
electrodes and graphite pin joining
systems for small diameter graphite
electrodes are most commonly used in
primary melting, ladle metallurgy, and
specialty furnace applications in
industries including foundries, smelters,
and steel refining operations. Small
diameter graphite electrodes and
graphite pin joining systems for small
diameter graphite electrodes that are
subject to the order are currently
classified under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheading 8545.11.0010.6 The HTSUS
number is provided for convenience and
customs purposes, but the written
description of the scope is dispositive.
Initiation of Minor Alterations
Anticircumvention Proceeding
Statutory Criteria for Initiation of
Anticircumvention Proceeding Under
Section 781(c) of the Act
Section 781(c) of the Act provides that
the Department may find circumvention
of an antidumping duty (AD) order
when products which are of the class or
kind of merchandise subject to an AD
order have been ‘‘altered in form or
appearance in minor respects * * *
whether or not included in the same
tariff classification.’’ While the statute is
silent as to what factors to consider in
determining whether alterations are
properly considered ‘‘minor,’’ the
legislative history of this provision
indicates that there are certain factors
which should be considered before
reaching a circumvention
determination. In conducting a
circumvention inquiry under section
781(c) of the Act, the Department has
generally relied upon ‘‘such criteria as
the overall physical characteristics of
the merchandise, the expectations of the
ultimate users, the use of the
merchandise, the channels of marketing
and the cost of any modification relative
to the total value of the imported
products.’’ See S. Rep. No.71, 100th
Cong., 1st Sess. 100 (1987) (‘‘In applying
this provision, the Commerce
Department should apply practical
measurements regarding minor
alterations, so that circumvention can be
6 The scope described in the SDGE Order refers
to the HTSUS subheading 8545.11.0000. In their
Initiation Request, the petitioners have informed
the Department that, starting in 2010, imports of
SDGEs are classified in the HTSUS under
subheading 8545.11.0010 and imports of large
diameter graphite electrodes are classified under
subheading 8545.11.0020. See Initiation Request
at 5.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
dealt with effectively, even where such
alterations to an article technically
transform it into a differently designated
article.’’).
The Petitioners’ Request for Initiation of
an Anticircumvention Proceeding Under
Section 781(c) of the Act
The petitioners claim that prior to
imposition of the SDGE Order, no U.S.
or Chinese producer manufactured 17inch SDGEs or other non-even sizes
(e.g., 161⁄2 inch); rather, standard sizes
of SDGEs above 10 inches were
produced only in even inch sizes (i.e.,
10, 12, 14, 16). Thus, according to the
petitioners, SDGEs with a nominal or
actual diameter of 16 inches or less
represented the complete range of all
SDGE production in both the United
States and the PRC at the time of the
imposition of the SDGE Order. The
petitioners assert that certain Chinese
producers are now exporting to the
United States SDGEs with diameters
that are slightly larger in diameter than
the 16-inch maximum specified in the
scope of the SDGE Order in order to
evade payment of ADs.7 The petitioners
provide import data to support their
claim that the alleged SDGEs from the
PRC spiked significantly during
calendar years 2010 and 2011 after
imposition of the SDGE Order.8
According to the petitioners, there is no
significant commercial or technological
reason for this alteration by the Chinese
producers other than to circumvent
ADs. The petitioners provide
declarations from members of the U.S.
SDGE industry to support these
allegations.9
Concerning the allegation of minor
alteration under section 781(c) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i), the
Department examines such factors as:
(1) Overall physical characteristics; (2)
expectations of ultimate users; (3) use of
merchandise; (4) channels of marketing;
and (5) cost of any modification relative
to the value of the imported products.10
7 Specifically, the petitioners identified Sinosteel
Jilin Carbon Co., Ltd. and its exporting affiliate Jilin
Carbon Import and Export Company (collectively,
Jilin Carbon), as companies engaging in this
practice. See SQR at 2. The petitioners also asserted
that Beijing Fangda Carbon-Tech Co., Ltd., Fangda
Carbon New Material Co., Ltd., and Fushun Jinly
Petrochemical Carbon may be exporting alleged
SDGEs to the United States. Id. at 3–4.
8 See Initiation Request at Exhibit 2 and SQR at
Exhibit 6.
9 See Initiation Request at Exhibit 1, SQR at
Exhibit 2, and SQR2 at Exhibit 1.
10 See, e.g., Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Circumvention of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length
Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of China, 74
FR 33991, 33992 (July 14, 2009) (CTL Plate from the
PRC) (unchanged in Affirmative Final
Determination of Circumvention of the
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Notices
Each case is highly dependent on the
facts on the record, and must be
analyzed in light of those specific facts.
Thus, although not specified in the Act,
the Department has also included
additional factors in its analysis, such as
commercial availability of the product
at issue prior to the issuance of the
order as well as the circumstances
under which the products at issue
entered the United States, the timing
and quantity of said entries during the
circumvention review period, and the
input of consumers in the design phase
of the product at issue. See, e.g., CTL
Plate from the PRC, 74 FR at 33992–
33993.
In the Initiation Request, the
petitioners presented the following
evidence with respect to each of the
aforementioned criteria:
A. Overall Physical Characteristics
The petitioners contend that alleged
SDGEs exported to the United States
have the same physical characteristics
as those subject to the SDGE Order with
the exception of the diameter.
According to the petitioners, alleged
SDGEs are produced in the same
process as subject SDGEs and the slight
increase of the diameter does not
significantly change the SDGE’s bulk
density, specific electrical resistance,
coefficient of thermal expansion, or
flexural strength.11 Moreover, the
petitioners contend that alleged SDGEs
are sold and purchased as SDGEs as
direct substitutes for, and are
interchangeable with, 16-inch SDGEs.12
In support, the petitioners provide
declarations from members of the U.S.
industry and a sales call report.13
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
B. Expectations of the Ultimate Users
The petitioners assert that the
ultimate purchasers of alleged SDGEs
and in-scope 16-inch SDGEs expect that
they are interchangeable. In support, the
petitioners provide declarations from
members of the U.S. SDGE industry
stating that they are unaware of any
instances in which customers expected
any significantly different
characteristics or uses by purchasing
alleged SDGEs other than to avoid
payment of ADs.14 The petitioners claim
that, to the best of their knowledge, the
customers purchasing alleged SDGEs all
used 16-inch SDGEs before the
introduction of alleged SDGEs and that
the diameter increase provides no
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate From the People’s Republic of
China; 74 FR 40565 (August 12, 2009)).
11 See Initiation Request at 7.
12 Id.
13 Id. at Exhibit 1.
14 Id. at 10 and Exhibit 1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
significant added commercial or
industrial improvement.15
C. Use of the Merchandise
The petitioners assert that the alleged
SDGEs are sold to the same customers
for the same end uses as the subject
merchandise (i.e., to be used as
conductors of electricity in furnaces that
heat or melt scrap metal or other
material used to produce steel) and that
the alleged SDGEs are a direct substitute
for in-scope SDGEs that were previously
purchased by the same end-users. In
support, the petitioners provide
declarations to this effect from members
of the U.S. industry.16
D. Channels of Marketing
The petitioners assert that both
alleged SDGEs and in-scope SDGEs are
sold directly to foundries and steel
producers, and that they are aware of at
least one U.S. customer that was
previously purchasing the subject
merchandise who has simply
substituted the alleged SDGEs for inscope 16-inch SDGEs. In support, the
petitioners provide declarations to this
effect from members of the U.S.
industry.17
E. Cost of Modification Relative to Total
Value
The petitioners assert that the cost of
modifying SDGEs to a diameter above
the 16-inch maximum is minimal. In
support, the petitioners provide
declarations from members of the U.S.
industry describing the cost of
modifying SDGEs to a diameter above
the 16-inch maximum.18
Analysis
As described above, the petitioners
included declarations from members of
the U.S. industry addressing the five
factors the Department typically
examines as part of a minor alterations
inquiry under section 781(c) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.225(i). These
declarations attest that graphite
electrodes with diameters that are larger
than 16 inches but less than 18 inches
do not differ in any meaningful way
from and are substitutable with SDGEs
covered by the scope of the SDGE
Order.19 Specifically, the declarations
attest that: (1) With the exception of
diameter, the overall physical
characteristics of the alleged SDGEs and
subject SDGEs are the same; (2) the
expectations of ultimate users of the
alleged SDGEs and subject SDGEs are
15 Id.
at 10–11 and Exhibit 1.
at 11–12 and Exhibit 1.
18 Id. at 12 and Exhibit 1.
19 Id. at Exhibit 1.
the same; (3) the uses of the alleged
SDGEs and subject SDGEs are the same;
(4) the channels of marketing the alleged
SDGEs and subject SDGEs are the same;
and (5) the relative cost to modify
graphite electrodes to a diameter larger
than 16 inches but less than 18 inches
is minimal.20 We have examined the
declarations and found that the persons
making them are in a position to have
knowledge about the facts described in
the declarations with respect to each of
the aforementioned factors. Because
these declarations are largely business
proprietary and cannot be further
discussed in a public notice, see the
Memorandum to the File dated
concurrently with this notice for a
discussion of our analysis with respect
to these declarations.
In addition to the information
described above, the petitioners
provided data to support their claim
that imports of the alleged SDGEs from
the PRC spiked significantly during
calendar years 2010 and 2011 after
imposition of the SDGE Order.21
Although the import data does not
segregate the alleged SDGEs from
graphite electrodes with diameters of 18
inches or larger, the import data does
show that imports of subject SDGEs
decreased substantially (from a monthly
average of over 500 metric tons in the
first quarter of 2010 to a monthly
average of less than 110 metric tons
thereafter) while imports of non-subject
graphite electrodes (i.e., with diameters
exceeding the specified maximum)
increased substantially (from a monthly
average of less than 600 metric tons in
the first quarter of 2010 to a monthly
average of more than 1,600 metric tons
thereafter).22
We have determined that the evidence
submitted by the petitioners concerning
a surge in imports of the allegedly
circumventing merchandise in
combination with affidavits that this
merchandise is now being used instead
of subject merchandise is sufficient for
purposes of initiating an
anticircumvention inquiry under
section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.225(i). We will consider and
address the information and arguments
raised by all parties, including the
respondents, in the context of this
inquiry.
Merchandise Subject to the Minor
Alterations Anticircumvention
Proceeding
This minor alterations
anticircumvention inquiry covers
16 Id.
17 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37875
20 Id.
21 See
22
SQR at Exhibit 6.
Id.
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
37876
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Notices
graphite electrodes from the PRC that
have diameters larger than 16 inches but
less than 18 inches. Based upon
information submitted by the
petitioners, our inquiry will cover the
following producers: Jilin Carbon,
Beijing Fangda Carbon-Tech Co., Ltd.,
Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd.,
and Fushun Jinly Petrochemical
Carbon.23 If the Department receives a
formal request from an interested party
regarding potential circumvention of the
SDGE Order by other companies in the
PRC under section 781(c) of the Act
within sufficient time, we will consider
conducting additional inquiries
concurrently.
Initiation of Later-Developed
Merchandise Anticircumvention
Proceeding
Statutory Criteria for Initiation of
Anticircumvention Proceeding Under
Section 781(d) of the Act
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Section 781(d) of the Act provides
that the Department may find
circumvention of an AD order with
respect to ‘‘merchandise developed after
an investigation is initiated.’’ Section
781(d)(1) of the Act provides that the
Department ‘‘shall consider whether:
(A) The later-developed merchandise
has the same general physical
characteristics as the merchandise with
respect to which the order was
originally issued (hereafter in this
paragraph referred to as the ‘earlier
product’),
(B) The expectations of the ultimate
purchasers of the later-developed
merchandise are the same as for the
earlier product,
(C) The ultimate use of the earlier
product and the later-developed
merchandise are the same,
(D) The later-developed merchandise
is sold through the same channels of
trade as the earlier product, and
(E) The later-developed merchandise
is advertised and displayed in a manner
similar to the earlier product.’’
Section 781(d)(1) of the Act further
provides that the Department ‘‘shall take
into account any advice provided by the
Commission under subsection (e) {of
section 781 of the Act} before making a
determination under this
subparagraph.’’
The Petitioners’ Request for Initiation of
an Anticircumvention Proceeding Under
Section 781(d) of the Act
The petitioners requested that, if the
Department does not find that alleged
SDGEs are within the scope of the SDGE
Order on the basis of section 781(c) of
23 See
SQR at 2–4.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
the Act, the Department initiate an
anticircumvention inquiry under the
later-developed merchandise provision
(i.e., section 781(d) of the Act).
As described in the ‘‘Initiation of
Minor Alterations Anticircumvention
Proceeding’’ section, above, the
petitioners claim that prior to
imposition of the SDGE Order, no U.S.
or Chinese producer manufactured 17inch SDGEs or other non-even sizes
(e.g., 161⁄2 inch). According to the
petitioners, neither the National
Electrical Manufacturers Association,
the International Electrotechnical
Commission, nor the Japanese Industrial
Standard acknowledges that 17-inch
SDGEs were offered in the
marketplace.24 The petitioners further
assert that no U.S. or Chinese producer
manufactured 17-inch SDGEs prior to
imposition of the SDGE Order.25
Concerning the allegation of laterdeveloped merchandise under section
781(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(j),
the Department examines the aboveenumerated factors in section 781(d)(1)
of the Act. Each case is highly
dependent on the facts on the record,
and must be analyzed in light of those
specific facts. As indicated above, the
Department has also considered
additional factors in its
anticircumvention analysis, such as
commercial availability of the product
at issue prior to the issuance of the
order as well as the circumstances
under which the products at issue
entered the United States, the timing
and quantity of said entries during the
circumvention review period, and the
input of consumers in the design phase
of the product at issue. See, e.g., CTL
Plate from the PRC, 74 FR at 33992–
33993.
In the Initiation Request, the
petitioners presented evidence with
respect to each of the aforementioned
criteria. The evidence the petitioners
provided with respect to overall
physical characteristics, expectations of
the ultimate users, use of the
merchandise, and channels of trade is
described in the ‘‘Initiation of Minor
Alterations Anticircumvention
Proceeding’’ section, above. With
respect to the final criterion,
advertising, the petitioners argue that,
given that the Chinese producers are
selling the alleged SDGEs to the same
customers and for the same purposes as
16-inch SDGEs, there are no significant
differences in the manner in which the
product is advertised.26 The petitioners
contend that, in fact, none of the
Chinese producers appears to be
advertising this product at all.27 The
petitioners assert that the fact that the
Chinese producers do not advertise
alleged SDGEs to their home market
customers is evidence that they are not
selling them in the home market and
that this fact evinces that the purpose of
producing alleged SDGEs is not to meet
customer demand for that particular size
but to circumvent the SDGE Order.28
The petitioners provide printouts of
Chinese producers’ Web pages to
support these assertions.29
Analysis
Based in part on our analysis of the
petitioners’ minor alterations
anticircumvention inquiry request,
summarized above, the Department
determines that the petitioners have also
satisfied the criteria to warrant an
initiation of a formal anticircumvention
inquiry pursuant to section 781(d) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.225(j).
The first four statutory criteria are (1)
the later-developed merchandise has the
same general physical characteristics as
the merchandise with respect to which
the order was originally issued
(hereafter in this paragraph referred to
as the ‘‘earlier product,’’ (2) the
expectations of the ultimate purchasers
of the later-developed merchandise are
the same as for the earlier product, (3)
the ultimate use of the earlier product
and the later-developed merchandise
are the same, and (4) the later-developed
merchandise is sold through the same
channels of trade as the earlier product.
These are the same as the first four
criteria we examined with respect to the
minor alteration allegation and our
analysis with respect to these criteria is
described in the ‘‘Initiation of Minor
Alterations Anticircumvention
Proceeding’’ section, above.
Concerning the fifth factor,
advertising, the Web page printouts
submitted by the petitioners indicate
that Chinese producers minimally
advertise graphite electrodes with
diameters larger than 16 inches but less
than 18 inches, if at all.30 This suggests
that the purpose of producing alleged
SDGEs is not to meet customer demand
for that particular size but may be to
circumvent the SDGE Order.
As described in the ‘‘Initiation of
Minor Alterations Anticircumvention
Proceeding’’ section, above, the
petitioners additionally provided data to
support their claim that imports of the
alleged SDGEs from the PRC spiked
27 Id.
24 See
Initiation request at 15 and Exhibit 3.
25 Id. at 15.
26 Id. at 17.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
at 17 and Exhibit 4.
at 17.
29 Id. at Exhibit 4.
30 Id. at Exhibit 4.
28 Id.
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
37877
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Notices
significantly during calendar years 2010
and 2011 after imposition of the SDGE
Order.31
We have determined that the evidence
submitted by the petitioners concerning
a surge in imports of the allegedly
circumventing merchandise in
combination with affidavits that this
merchandise is now being used instead
of subject merchandise is sufficient for
purposes of initiating an
anticircumvention inquiry under
section 781(d) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.225(j). We will consider and
address the information and arguments
raised by all parties, including the
respondents, in the context of this
inquiry.
The Department will not order the
suspension of liquidation of entries of
any additional merchandise at this time.
However, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a
preliminary affirmative determination,
we will then instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection to suspend
liquidation and require a cash deposit of
estimated duties on the merchandise.
Following consultation with
interested parties, the Department will
establish a schedule for questionnaires
and comments on the issues. In
accordance with section 781(e)(1) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f)(7)(i)(C), we
intend to notify the International Trade
Commission in the event of an
affirmative preliminary determination of
circumvention under section 781(d) of
the Act. The Department intends to
issue its final determinations within 300
days of the date of publication of this
initiation.
This notice is published in
accordance with sections 781(c) and
781(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i)
and (j).
Dated: June 18, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–15439 Filed 6–22–12; 8:45 am]
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
31 See
SQR at Exhibit 6.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
companies should have been listed in
the preliminary determination notice as
follows:
[A–570–979]
Exporter
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells,
Whether or Not Assembled Into
Modules, From the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Determination
Correction
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: June 25, 2012.
SUMMARY: On May 25, 2012, the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) published its notice of
preliminary determination in the
antidumping duty investigation of
crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells,
whether or not assembled into modules
(‘‘solar cells’’), from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The
Department received comments from
Delsolar Co., Ltd. and DelSolar
(Wujiang) Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘DelSolar’’)
and JinkoSolar International Limited
(‘‘Jinko’’) on May 22 and 25, 2012,
respectively, concerning errors that the
Department made with respect to the
names of these companies in the table
in the ‘‘Preliminary Determination’’
section in the solar cells from the PRC
preliminary determination notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Howard Smith, Jeffrey Pedersen, Krisha
Hill, or Drew Jackson, 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) 482–5193, (202) 482–
2769, (202) 482–4037, or (202) 482–
4406, respectively.
AGENCY:
Correction
In the Federal Register notice
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells,
Whether or Not Assembled Into
Modules, From the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination
and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical
Circumstances, 77 FR 31309 (May 25,
2012), under the section entitled
‘‘Preliminary Determination,’’ we
incorrectly identified the producer
‘‘DelSolar (Wujiang) Ltd.’’ as ‘‘Delsolar
Co., Ltd.’’ Additionally, the Department
incorrectly placed a space between
‘‘Jinko’’ and ‘‘Solar’’ in the exporter
name ‘‘JinkoSolar International
Limited.’’ The exporter-producer
combinations involving these
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Delsolar Co., Ltd .......
JinkoSolar International Limited.
Producer
DelSolar (Wujiang)
Ltd.
Jinko Solar Co., Ltd.
We will revise the cash deposit
instructions that were issued to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection for the
preliminary determination accordingly.
This correction notice is published in
accordance with section 777(i) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Dated: June 19, 2012.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012–15434 Filed 6–22–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XC059
Endangered Species; File No. 17022
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; receipt of application.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries
Science Center (PIFSC; Samuel Pooley,
Ph.D., Responsible Party), has applied
in due form for a permit to take green
(Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill
(Eretmochelys imbricata) sea turtles for
purposes of scientific research.
DATES: Written, telefaxed, or email
comments must be received on or July
25, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The application and related
documents are available for review by
selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public
Comment’’ from the Features box on the
Applications and Permits for Protected
Species (APPS) home page, https://
apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting
File No. 17022 from the list of available
applications.
These documents are also available
upon written request or by appointment
in the following offices:
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705,
Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)
427–8401; fax (301) 713–0376; and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37873-37877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15439]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-929]
Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of
China: Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from SGL Carbon LLC and Superior
Graphite Co. (the petitioners), the Department of Commerce (the
Department) is initiating an anticircumvention inquiry pursuant to
section 781(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), to
determine under the minor alterations provision whether graphite
electrodes with diameters larger than 16 inches but less than 18 inches
are products that are ``altered in form or appearance in minor
respects'' from in-scope merchandise such that they may be considered
subject to the antidumping duty order on small diameter graphite
electrodes (SDGEs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Small Diameter Graphite
Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 8775 (February
26, 2009) (SDGE Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in response to a request from the petitioners, the
Department is also initiating an anticircumvention inquiry pursuant to
section 781(d) of the Act to determine whether graphite electrodes with
diameters larger than 16 inches but less than 18 inches may be
considered subject to the SDGE Order under the later-developed
merchandise provision.
[[Page 37874]]
DATES: Effective Date: June 25, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 5, 2012, the petitioners alleged that Chinese producers of
graphite electrodes are engaged in circumvention of the SDGE Order by
exporting graphite electrodes that have diameters that are larger than
16 inches but less than 18 inches (alleged SDGEs) to the United
States.\2\ The petitioners requested that the Department initiate an
anticircumvention proceeding, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(i), to
determine whether the importation from the PRC of alleged SDGEs
constitutes circumvention of the SDGE Order, as defined in section
781(c) of the Act. The petitioners additionally requested that the
Department initiate an anticircumvention proceeding, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.225(j), to determine whether the importation of alleged SDGEs from
the PRC constitutes circumvention of the SDGE Order, as defined in
section 781(d) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Letter from the petitioners entitled, ``Small Diameter
Graphite Electrodes: Request for Scope/Circumvention Ruling,'' dated
April 5, 2012 (Initiation Request). As indicated in the ``Scope of
the Order'' section, below, the maximum diameter specific in the
scope of the SDGE Order is 16 inches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 24, 2012, the Department requested additional information
from the petitioners.\3\ On May 4, 2012, we received the petitioners'
response.\4\ On May 10, 2012, the petitioners submitted further
evidence in support of their claims.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See the Department's Letter to the petitioners dated April
24, 2012.
\4\ See Letter from the petitioners dated May 4, 2012 (SQR).
\5\ See Letter from the petitioners dated May 10, 2012 (SQR2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order includes all small diameter
graphite electrodes of any length, whether or not finished, of a kind
used in furnaces, with a nominal or actual diameter of 400 millimeters
(16 inches) or less, and whether or not attached to a graphite pin
joining system or any other type of joining system or hardware. The
merchandise covered by the order also includes graphite pin joining
systems for small diameter graphite electrodes, of any length, whether
or not finished, of a kind used in furnaces, and whether or not the
graphite pin joining system is attached to, sold with, or sold
separately from, the small diameter graphite electrode. Small diameter
graphite electrodes and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter
graphite electrodes are most commonly used in primary melting, ladle
metallurgy, and specialty furnace applications in industries including
foundries, smelters, and steel refining operations. Small diameter
graphite electrodes and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter
graphite electrodes that are subject to the order are currently
classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) subheading 8545.11.0010.\6\ The HTSUS number is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, but the written description of the
scope is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The scope described in the SDGE Order refers to the HTSUS
subheading 8545.11.0000. In their Initiation Request, the
petitioners have informed the Department that, starting in 2010,
imports of SDGEs are classified in the HTSUS under subheading
8545.11.0010 and imports of large diameter graphite electrodes are
classified under subheading 8545.11.0020. See Initiation Request at
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Minor Alterations Anticircumvention Proceeding
Statutory Criteria for Initiation of Anticircumvention Proceeding Under
Section 781(c) of the Act
Section 781(c) of the Act provides that the Department may find
circumvention of an antidumping duty (AD) order when products which are
of the class or kind of merchandise subject to an AD order have been
``altered in form or appearance in minor respects * * * whether or not
included in the same tariff classification.'' While the statute is
silent as to what factors to consider in determining whether
alterations are properly considered ``minor,'' the legislative history
of this provision indicates that there are certain factors which should
be considered before reaching a circumvention determination. In
conducting a circumvention inquiry under section 781(c) of the Act, the
Department has generally relied upon ``such criteria as the overall
physical characteristics of the merchandise, the expectations of the
ultimate users, the use of the merchandise, the channels of marketing
and the cost of any modification relative to the total value of the
imported products.'' See S. Rep. No.71, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 100
(1987) (``In applying this provision, the Commerce Department should
apply practical measurements regarding minor alterations, so that
circumvention can be dealt with effectively, even where such
alterations to an article technically transform it into a differently
designated article.'').
The Petitioners' Request for Initiation of an Anticircumvention
Proceeding Under Section 781(c) of the Act
The petitioners claim that prior to imposition of the SDGE Order,
no U.S. or Chinese producer manufactured 17-inch SDGEs or other non-
even sizes (e.g., 16\1/2\ inch); rather, standard sizes of SDGEs above
10 inches were produced only in even inch sizes (i.e., 10, 12, 14, 16).
Thus, according to the petitioners, SDGEs with a nominal or actual
diameter of 16 inches or less represented the complete range of all
SDGE production in both the United States and the PRC at the time of
the imposition of the SDGE Order. The petitioners assert that certain
Chinese producers are now exporting to the United States SDGEs with
diameters that are slightly larger in diameter than the 16-inch maximum
specified in the scope of the SDGE Order in order to evade payment of
ADs.\7\ The petitioners provide import data to support their claim that
the alleged SDGEs from the PRC spiked significantly during calendar
years 2010 and 2011 after imposition of the SDGE Order.\8\ According to
the petitioners, there is no significant commercial or technological
reason for this alteration by the Chinese producers other than to
circumvent ADs. The petitioners provide declarations from members of
the U.S. SDGE industry to support these allegations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Specifically, the petitioners identified Sinosteel Jilin
Carbon Co., Ltd. and its exporting affiliate Jilin Carbon Import and
Export Company (collectively, Jilin Carbon), as companies engaging
in this practice. See SQR at 2. The petitioners also asserted that
Beijing Fangda Carbon-Tech Co., Ltd., Fangda Carbon New Material
Co., Ltd., and Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon may be exporting
alleged SDGEs to the United States. Id. at 3-4.
\8\ See Initiation Request at Exhibit 2 and SQR at Exhibit 6.
\9\ See Initiation Request at Exhibit 1, SQR at Exhibit 2, and
SQR2 at Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the allegation of minor alteration under section 781(c)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i), the Department examines such factors
as: (1) Overall physical characteristics; (2) expectations of ultimate
users; (3) use of merchandise; (4) channels of marketing; and (5) cost
of any modification relative to the value of the imported products.\10\
[[Page 37875]]
Each case is highly dependent on the facts on the record, and must be
analyzed in light of those specific facts. Thus, although not specified
in the Act, the Department has also included additional factors in its
analysis, such as commercial availability of the product at issue prior
to the issuance of the order as well as the circumstances under which
the products at issue entered the United States, the timing and
quantity of said entries during the circumvention review period, and
the input of consumers in the design phase of the product at issue.
See, e.g., CTL Plate from the PRC, 74 FR at 33992-33993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Affirmative Preliminary Determination of
Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length
Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 33991, 33992
(July 14, 2009) (CTL Plate from the PRC) (unchanged in Affirmative
Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's
Republic of China; 74 FR 40565 (August 12, 2009)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Initiation Request, the petitioners presented the following
evidence with respect to each of the aforementioned criteria:
A. Overall Physical Characteristics
The petitioners contend that alleged SDGEs exported to the United
States have the same physical characteristics as those subject to the
SDGE Order with the exception of the diameter. According to the
petitioners, alleged SDGEs are produced in the same process as subject
SDGEs and the slight increase of the diameter does not significantly
change the SDGE's bulk density, specific electrical resistance,
coefficient of thermal expansion, or flexural strength.\11\ Moreover,
the petitioners contend that alleged SDGEs are sold and purchased as
SDGEs as direct substitutes for, and are interchangeable with, 16-inch
SDGEs.\12\ In support, the petitioners provide declarations from
members of the U.S. industry and a sales call report.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Initiation Request at 7.
\12\ Id.
\13\ Id. at Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Expectations of the Ultimate Users
The petitioners assert that the ultimate purchasers of alleged
SDGEs and in-scope 16-inch SDGEs expect that they are interchangeable.
In support, the petitioners provide declarations from members of the
U.S. SDGE industry stating that they are unaware of any instances in
which customers expected any significantly different characteristics or
uses by purchasing alleged SDGEs other than to avoid payment of
ADs.\14\ The petitioners claim that, to the best of their knowledge,
the customers purchasing alleged SDGEs all used 16-inch SDGEs before
the introduction of alleged SDGEs and that the diameter increase
provides no significant added commercial or industrial improvement.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id. at 10 and Exhibit 1.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Use of the Merchandise
The petitioners assert that the alleged SDGEs are sold to the same
customers for the same end uses as the subject merchandise (i.e., to be
used as conductors of electricity in furnaces that heat or melt scrap
metal or other material used to produce steel) and that the alleged
SDGEs are a direct substitute for in-scope SDGEs that were previously
purchased by the same end-users. In support, the petitioners provide
declarations to this effect from members of the U.S. industry.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id. at 10-11 and Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Channels of Marketing
The petitioners assert that both alleged SDGEs and in-scope SDGEs
are sold directly to foundries and steel producers, and that they are
aware of at least one U.S. customer that was previously purchasing the
subject merchandise who has simply substituted the alleged SDGEs for
in-scope 16-inch SDGEs. In support, the petitioners provide
declarations to this effect from members of the U.S. industry.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id. at 11-12 and Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Cost of Modification Relative to Total Value
The petitioners assert that the cost of modifying SDGEs to a
diameter above the 16-inch maximum is minimal. In support, the
petitioners provide declarations from members of the U.S. industry
describing the cost of modifying SDGEs to a diameter above the 16-inch
maximum.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id. at 12 and Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis
As described above, the petitioners included declarations from
members of the U.S. industry addressing the five factors the Department
typically examines as part of a minor alterations inquiry under section
781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i). These declarations attest that
graphite electrodes with diameters that are larger than 16 inches but
less than 18 inches do not differ in any meaningful way from and are
substitutable with SDGEs covered by the scope of the SDGE Order.\19\
Specifically, the declarations attest that: (1) With the exception of
diameter, the overall physical characteristics of the alleged SDGEs and
subject SDGEs are the same; (2) the expectations of ultimate users of
the alleged SDGEs and subject SDGEs are the same; (3) the uses of the
alleged SDGEs and subject SDGEs are the same; (4) the channels of
marketing the alleged SDGEs and subject SDGEs are the same; and (5) the
relative cost to modify graphite electrodes to a diameter larger than
16 inches but less than 18 inches is minimal.\20\ We have examined the
declarations and found that the persons making them are in a position
to have knowledge about the facts described in the declarations with
respect to each of the aforementioned factors. Because these
declarations are largely business proprietary and cannot be further
discussed in a public notice, see the Memorandum to the File dated
concurrently with this notice for a discussion of our analysis with
respect to these declarations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id. at Exhibit 1.
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the information described above, the petitioners
provided data to support their claim that imports of the alleged SDGEs
from the PRC spiked significantly during calendar years 2010 and 2011
after imposition of the SDGE Order.\21\ Although the import data does
not segregate the alleged SDGEs from graphite electrodes with diameters
of 18 inches or larger, the import data does show that imports of
subject SDGEs decreased substantially (from a monthly average of over
500 metric tons in the first quarter of 2010 to a monthly average of
less than 110 metric tons thereafter) while imports of non-subject
graphite electrodes (i.e., with diameters exceeding the specified
maximum) increased substantially (from a monthly average of less than
600 metric tons in the first quarter of 2010 to a monthly average of
more than 1,600 metric tons thereafter).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See SQR at Exhibit 6.
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have determined that the evidence submitted by the petitioners
concerning a surge in imports of the allegedly circumventing
merchandise in combination with affidavits that this merchandise is now
being used instead of subject merchandise is sufficient for purposes of
initiating an anticircumvention inquiry under section 781(c) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.225(i). We will consider and address the information and
arguments raised by all parties, including the respondents, in the
context of this inquiry.
Merchandise Subject to the Minor Alterations Anticircumvention
Proceeding
This minor alterations anticircumvention inquiry covers
[[Page 37876]]
graphite electrodes from the PRC that have diameters larger than 16
inches but less than 18 inches. Based upon information submitted by the
petitioners, our inquiry will cover the following producers: Jilin
Carbon, Beijing Fangda Carbon-Tech Co., Ltd., Fangda Carbon New
Material Co., Ltd., and Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon.\23\ If the
Department receives a formal request from an interested party regarding
potential circumvention of the SDGE Order by other companies in the PRC
under section 781(c) of the Act within sufficient time, we will
consider conducting additional inquiries concurrently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See SQR at 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Later-Developed Merchandise Anticircumvention Proceeding
Statutory Criteria for Initiation of Anticircumvention Proceeding Under
Section 781(d) of the Act
Section 781(d) of the Act provides that the Department may find
circumvention of an AD order with respect to ``merchandise developed
after an investigation is initiated.'' Section 781(d)(1) of the Act
provides that the Department ``shall consider whether:
(A) The later-developed merchandise has the same general physical
characteristics as the merchandise with respect to which the order was
originally issued (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as the
`earlier product'),
(B) The expectations of the ultimate purchasers of the later-
developed merchandise are the same as for the earlier product,
(C) The ultimate use of the earlier product and the later-developed
merchandise are the same,
(D) The later-developed merchandise is sold through the same
channels of trade as the earlier product, and
(E) The later-developed merchandise is advertised and displayed in
a manner similar to the earlier product.''
Section 781(d)(1) of the Act further provides that the Department
``shall take into account any advice provided by the Commission under
subsection (e) {of section 781 of the Act{time} before making a
determination under this subparagraph.''
The Petitioners' Request for Initiation of an Anticircumvention
Proceeding Under Section 781(d) of the Act
The petitioners requested that, if the Department does not find
that alleged SDGEs are within the scope of the SDGE Order on the basis
of section 781(c) of the Act, the Department initiate an
anticircumvention inquiry under the later-developed merchandise
provision (i.e., section 781(d) of the Act).
As described in the ``Initiation of Minor Alterations
Anticircumvention Proceeding'' section, above, the petitioners claim
that prior to imposition of the SDGE Order, no U.S. or Chinese producer
manufactured 17-inch SDGEs or other non-even sizes (e.g., 16\1/2\
inch). According to the petitioners, neither the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, the International Electrotechnical
Commission, nor the Japanese Industrial Standard acknowledges that 17-
inch SDGEs were offered in the marketplace.\24\ The petitioners further
assert that no U.S. or Chinese producer manufactured 17-inch SDGEs
prior to imposition of the SDGE Order.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Initiation request at 15 and Exhibit 3.
\25\ Id. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the allegation of later-developed merchandise under
section 781(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(j), the Department
examines the above-enumerated factors in section 781(d)(1) of the Act.
Each case is highly dependent on the facts on the record, and must be
analyzed in light of those specific facts. As indicated above, the
Department has also considered additional factors in its
anticircumvention analysis, such as commercial availability of the
product at issue prior to the issuance of the order as well as the
circumstances under which the products at issue entered the United
States, the timing and quantity of said entries during the
circumvention review period, and the input of consumers in the design
phase of the product at issue. See, e.g., CTL Plate from the PRC, 74 FR
at 33992-33993.
In the Initiation Request, the petitioners presented evidence with
respect to each of the aforementioned criteria. The evidence the
petitioners provided with respect to overall physical characteristics,
expectations of the ultimate users, use of the merchandise, and
channels of trade is described in the ``Initiation of Minor Alterations
Anticircumvention Proceeding'' section, above. With respect to the
final criterion, advertising, the petitioners argue that, given that
the Chinese producers are selling the alleged SDGEs to the same
customers and for the same purposes as 16-inch SDGEs, there are no
significant differences in the manner in which the product is
advertised.\26\ The petitioners contend that, in fact, none of the
Chinese producers appears to be advertising this product at all.\27\
The petitioners assert that the fact that the Chinese producers do not
advertise alleged SDGEs to their home market customers is evidence that
they are not selling them in the home market and that this fact evinces
that the purpose of producing alleged SDGEs is not to meet customer
demand for that particular size but to circumvent the SDGE Order.\28\
The petitioners provide printouts of Chinese producers' Web pages to
support these assertions.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id. at 17.
\27\ Id. at 17 and Exhibit 4.
\28\ Id. at 17.
\29\ Id. at Exhibit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis
Based in part on our analysis of the petitioners' minor alterations
anticircumvention inquiry request, summarized above, the Department
determines that the petitioners have also satisfied the criteria to
warrant an initiation of a formal anticircumvention inquiry pursuant to
section 781(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(j).
The first four statutory criteria are (1) the later-developed
merchandise has the same general physical characteristics as the
merchandise with respect to which the order was originally issued
(hereafter in this paragraph referred to as the ``earlier product,''
(2) the expectations of the ultimate purchasers of the later-developed
merchandise are the same as for the earlier product, (3) the ultimate
use of the earlier product and the later-developed merchandise are the
same, and (4) the later-developed merchandise is sold through the same
channels of trade as the earlier product. These are the same as the
first four criteria we examined with respect to the minor alteration
allegation and our analysis with respect to these criteria is described
in the ``Initiation of Minor Alterations Anticircumvention Proceeding''
section, above.
Concerning the fifth factor, advertising, the Web page printouts
submitted by the petitioners indicate that Chinese producers minimally
advertise graphite electrodes with diameters larger than 16 inches but
less than 18 inches, if at all.\30\ This suggests that the purpose of
producing alleged SDGEs is not to meet customer demand for that
particular size but may be to circumvent the SDGE Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id. at Exhibit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in the ``Initiation of Minor Alterations
Anticircumvention Proceeding'' section, above, the petitioners
additionally provided data to support their claim that imports of the
alleged SDGEs from the PRC spiked
[[Page 37877]]
significantly during calendar years 2010 and 2011 after imposition of
the SDGE Order.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See SQR at Exhibit 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have determined that the evidence submitted by the petitioners
concerning a surge in imports of the allegedly circumventing
merchandise in combination with affidavits that this merchandise is now
being used instead of subject merchandise is sufficient for purposes of
initiating an anticircumvention inquiry under section 781(d) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.225(j). We will consider and address the information and
arguments raised by all parties, including the respondents, in the
context of this inquiry.
The Department will not order the suspension of liquidation of
entries of any additional merchandise at this time. However, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a
preliminary affirmative determination, we will then instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation and require a cash
deposit of estimated duties on the merchandise.
Following consultation with interested parties, the Department will
establish a schedule for questionnaires and comments on the issues. In
accordance with section 781(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.225(f)(7)(i)(C), we intend to notify the International Trade
Commission in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination of
circumvention under section 781(d) of the Act. The Department intends
to issue its final determinations within 300 days of the date of
publication of this initiation.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 781(c) and
781(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i) and (j).
Dated: June 18, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-15439 Filed 6-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
