Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2010-2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind in Part, 45576-45580 [2012-18831]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
45576
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Notices
record and to report findings and
recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from
interested parties. Submissions shall be
addressed to the Board’s Executive
Secretary at the address below. The
closing period for their receipt is
October 1, 2012. Rebuttal comments in
response to material submitted during
the foregoing period may be submitted
during the subsequent 15-day period to
October 15, 2012.
A copy of the application will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Executive Secretary,
Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading
Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site,
which is accessible via www.trade.gov/
ftz.
For further information, contact Diane
Finver at Diane.Finver@trade.gov or
(202) 482–1367.
Office 9, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington DC 20230; telephone (202)
482–0116.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
[FR Doc. 2012–18806 Filed 7–31–12; 8:45 am]
On November 29, 2001, the
Department published in the Federal
Register an antidumping duty order on
hot-rolled steel from the PRC.1 On
December 30, 2011, the Department
published a notice of initiation of an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on hot-rolled
steel from the PRC covering the period
November 1, 2010, through October 31,
2011, for 18 companies.2 Of the 18
companies on which the Department
initiated an administrative review, four
companies stated that they did not
export subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR and 14
companies did not certify or apply for
a separate rate. The Department
addresses the review status of each
company below.
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Respondent Selection
Dated: July 26, 2012.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–865]
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of 2010–
2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Intent To Rescind in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the ‘‘Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain hotrolled carbon steel flat products (‘‘hotrolled steel’’) from the People’s Republic
of China (‘‘PRC’’), covering the period of
review (‘‘POR’’) November 1, 2010
through October 31, 2011. As discussed
below, the Department preliminarily
determines that the PRC-wide entity
made sales in the United States at prices
below normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of review, the Department
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the POR.
DATES: Effective Date: August 1, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Hampton, AD/CVD Operations,
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:53 Jul 31, 2012
Jkt 226001
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’) directs
the Department to calculate individual
weighted-average dumping margins for
each known exporter or producer of the
subject merchandise. However, section
777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the
Department discretion to limit its
examination to a reasonable number of
exporters or producers if it is not
practicable to examine all exporters or
producers involved in the review.
On January 18, 2012, the Department
released CBP data for entries of the
subject merchandise during the POR
under administrative protective order
(‘‘APO’’) to all interested parties having
access to materials released under an
APO, and invited comments regarding
1 See Notice of the Antidumping Duty Order:
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 59561
(November 29, 2001) (‘‘Order’’).
2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Request for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 82268
(December 30, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). Those
companies are: Angang Group International;
Baosteel Group Corporation; Baoshan Iron & Steel
Co., Ltd.; Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd.; Benxi Iron
and Steel Group Co., Ltd.; Daye Special Steel Co.,
Ltd.; Dongbei Special Steel Group; Dongguang Bo
Yunte Metal Co., Ltd.; Dongyang Global Strip Steel
Co., Ltd.; Haverer Group Ltd.; Hebei Iron and Steel
Int’l; Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel; Jinan Iron
& Steel Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Baosteel International
Economic & Trading Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Zhaoheng
Specialty Steel Co.; Union Steel China; Xinyu Iron
& Steel Co., Ltd.; and Zhejiang Shenghua Steel Co.,
Ltd.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the CBP data and respondent selection.3
The Department did not receive any
comments regarding the CBP data or
respondent selection. On January 24,
2012 the Department received a no-sales
certification from Baosteel.4 On
February 28, 2012, the Department
received a no-shipment certification
from Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel
(‘‘Hunan Valin’’).5 On February 29, 2012
the Department selected Angang
International Group (‘‘Angang’’) as a
mandatory respondent because this
company is the only company for which
a review was requested that appears in
the CBP data as having exported subject
merchandise during this POR.6 On
March 1, 2012, the Department sent an
antidumping duty questionnaire to
Angang.7 The Department did not
receive a response or extension request
from Angang. On March 23, 2012, the
Department stated on the record that the
deadline for Angang to submit a
response to the Department’s
questionnaire expired on March 22,
2012 and that the Department did not
receive a response or extension request
from Angang.8 Additionally, the
Department confirmed delivery of this
questionnaire.9
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are
certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat
products of a rectangular shape, of a
width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither
3 See the Department’s Letter to All Interested
Parties regarding 2010–2011 Administrative Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order of Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People’s
Republic of China dated February 29, 2012.
4 See Letter from Baosteel Group Corporation,
Shanghai Baosteel International Economic &
Trading Co., Ltd., and Baoshan Iron & Steel Co.,
Ltd., (collectively ‘‘Baosteel’’) to the Secretary of
Commerce, regarding Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from the People’s Republic of
China: No Sales Certification, dated January 24,
2012.
5 See Letter from Hunan Valin to the Secretary of
Commerce, regarding Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from the People’s Republic of
China: No Shipment Letter, dated February 28,
2012.
6 See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director,
Office 9, Import Administration from Steven
Hampton, International Trade Compliance Analyst,
Office 9, Import Administration regarding 2010–
2011 Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from the People’s Republic of China dated
February 29, 2012.
7 See Department’s letter to Angang regarding
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
the People’s Republic of China, dated March 1,
2012.
8 See Memorandum to Scot Fullerton, Program
Manager, Office 9, from Steven Hampton,
International Trade Compliance Analyst regarding
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
the People’s Republic of China: Documentation to
Confirm Receipt of Questionnaire dated March 23,
2012.
9 Id.
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Notices
clad, plated, nor coated with metal and
whether or not painted, varnished, or
coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, in coils (whether or
not in successively superimposed
layers), regardless of thickness, and in
straight lengths of a thickness of less
than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring
at least 10 times the thickness.
Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled
products rolled on four faces or in a
closed box pass, of a width exceeding
150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm,
and of a thickness of not less than 4.0
mm, not in coils and without patterns
in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0
mm is not included within the scope of
the order. Specifically included within
the scope of the order are vacuum
degassed, fully stabilized (commonly
referred to as interstitial-free (‘‘IF’’))
steels, high strength low alloy (‘‘HSLA’’)
steels, and the substrate for motor
lamination steels. IF steels are
recognized as low carbon steels with
micro-alloying levels of elements such
as titanium or niobium (also commonly
referred to as columbium), or both,
added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen
elements. HSLA steels are recognized as
steels with micro-alloying levels of
elements such as chromium, copper,
niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum.
The substrate for motor lamination
steels contains micro-alloying levels of
elements such as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products included in the scope
of the order, regardless of definitions in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products
in which: i) iron predominates, by
weight, over each of the other contained
elements; ii) the carbon content is 2
percent or less, by weight; and, iii) none
of the elements listed below exceeds the
quantity, by weight, respectively
indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical
and chemical description provided
above are within the scope of the order
unless otherwise excluded. The
following products, for example, are
outside or specifically excluded from
the scope of the order:
• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in
which at least one of the chemical
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:53 Jul 31, 2012
Jkt 226001
elements exceeds those listed above
(including, e.g., American Society for
Testing and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’)
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517,
A506).
• Society of Automotive Engineers
(‘‘SAE’’)/American Iron & Steel Institute
(‘‘AISI’’) grades of series 2300 and
higher.
• Ball bearing steels, as defined in the
HTSUS.
• Tool steels, as defined in the
HTSUS.
• Silico-manganese (as defined in the
HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with
a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
• ASTM specifications A710 and
A736.
• USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS
AR 400, USS AR 500).
• All products (proprietary or
otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM
specification (sample specifications:
ASTM A506, A507).
• Non-rectangular shapes, not in
coils, which are the result of having
been processed by cutting or stamping
and which have assumed the character
of articles or products classified outside
chapter 72 of the HTSUS.
The merchandise subject to the order
is classified in the HTSUS at
subheadings: 7208.10.15.00,
7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00,
7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60,
7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60,
7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15,
7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60,
7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00,
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90,
7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00,
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00,
7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30,
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90.
Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat
products covered by the order,
including: vacuum degassed fully
stabilized; high strength low alloy; and
the substrate for motor lamination steel
may also enter under the following tariff
numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00,
7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00,
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90,
7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30,
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00,
7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00,
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and
7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise
may also enter under 7210.70.30.00,
7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30,
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and
7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45577
written description of the merchandise
subject to the order is dispositive.
Intent To Rescind, in Part, of
Administrative Review
The Department has preliminarily
determined that Baosteel and Hunan
Valin did not have shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR of this
administrative review. The Department
received no-shipment certifications
from Baosteel and Hunan Valin on
January 24, 2012, and February 28,
2012, respectively. To confirm the facts
behind these assertions, the Department
issued a no-shipment inquiry to CBP
requesting that it provide any
information that contradicted the noshipment claims. The Department did
not receive any response from CBP, thus
indicating that there were no entries of
subject merchandise into the United
States manufactured and/or shipped by
Baosteel or Hunan Valin. Because the
evidence on the record indicates that
neither Baosteel nor Hunan Valin
exported subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR, we
preliminarily determine that these
respondents had no reviewable
transactions during this period. With
respect to Baosteel, which currently has
a separate rate, the Department intends
to rescind the review. With respect to
Hunan Valin however, we note that it
does not have a separate rate. Therefore,
Hunan Valin is under review as part of
the PRC-wide entity and we will make
a determination with respect to the PRCwide entity at these preliminary results
and the final results.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a nonmarket
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority.10
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, it is the Department’s practice
to begin with a rebuttable presumption
that all companies within the country
are subject to government control and
thus should be assessed a single
10 See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the
People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760
(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet
Paper from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR
60632 (October 25, 2007).
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
45578
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Notices
antidumping duty rate.11 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 affirmatively
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate.12 Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through
demonstrating the absence of both de
jure and de facto government control
over export activities.13 The Department
analyzes each entity exporting the
subject merchandise under a test arising
from the Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From
the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR
20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991)
(‘‘Sparklers’’), as amplified by Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From
the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR
22585, 22586–87 (May 2, 1994)
(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). However, if the
Department determines that a company
is wholly foreign-owned or located in a
market economy (‘‘ME’’), then a separate
rate analysis is not necessary to
determine whether it is free of
government control.
The only mandatory respondent in
this review, Angang, did not submit a
separate rate application or certification.
Moreover, Angang did not submit a full
response to the Department’s
questionnaire, including sections
related to its separate rate eligibility.
Therefore, because Angang did not
demonstrate its eligibility for separate
rate status, the Department
preliminarily finds that it is not separate
from the PRC-wide entity. The
remaining companies included in the
Initiation Notice did not submit separate
rate applications or certifications. There
are, therefore, no respondents for which
to calculate a separate rate in this
administrative review.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
PRC-Wide Entity
Upon initiation of the administrative
review, the Department provided the
opportunity for all companies upon
which the review was initiated to
complete either the separate-rates
application or certification.14
11 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical
Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper
Products From the People’s Republic of China, 71
FR 53079, 53082 (September 8, 2006); Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts
Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR
29303, 29307 (May 22, 2006) (‘‘Diamond
Sawblades’’).
12 See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307.
13 Id.
14 See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 82269.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:53 Jul 31, 2012
Jkt 226001
As stated above in the ‘‘Separate
Rates’’ section of this notice, the
Department has preliminarily
determined that Angang failed to
demonstrate its eligibility for a separate
rate and is thus properly considered not
to be separate from PRC-wide entity. As
explained above in the ‘‘Separate Rates’’
section, all companies within the PRC
are considered to be subject to
government control unless they are able
to demonstrate an absence of
government control with respect to their
export activities. Accordingly, such
companies are assigned a single
antidumping duty rate distinct from the
separate rate(s) determined for
companies that are found to be free of
government control with respect to their
export activities. In this regard, we note
that no party has submitted evidence in
this proceeding to demonstrate that
such government influence is no longer
present or that our treatment of the PRCwide entity is otherwise incorrect.
Facts Otherwise Available
Section 776(a) of the Act mandates
that the Department use facts otherwise
available if necessary information is not
otherwise available on the record of the
antidumping proceeding. Specifically,
section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that where an interested party: (A)
Withholds information that has been
requested by the Department; (B) fails to
provide requested information by the
requested date or in the form and
manner requested; (C) significantly
impedes an antidumping proceeding; or
(D) provides such information but the
information cannot be verified, the
Department shall use facts otherwise
available in reaching its determination.
Angang did not respond to the
antidumping questionnaire issued by
the Department on March 1, 2012. As
such, because the PRC-wide entity,
which includes Angang, provided the
Department with no data from which it
could calculate a margin, the
Department finds that necessary
information to calculate a margin is not
available on the record of this
proceeding. The Department finds that
because Angang, as part of the PRCwide entity, failed to submit any
response to the Department’s
questionnaire, the PRC-wide entity
withheld requested information, failed
to provide the information in a timely
manner and in the form requested, and
significantly impeded this proceeding,
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B),
and (C) of the Act. On this basis, the
Department finds that it must rely on
the facts otherwise available to
determine a margin for the PRC-wide
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
entity in accordance with section 776(a)
of the Act.15
Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(b) of the Act states that if
the Department ‘‘finds that an interested
party has failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with a request for information from the
administering authority * * * the
administering authority * * * may use
an inference that is adverse to the
interests of the party in selecting from
among the facts otherwise available.’’16
Adverse inferences are appropriate to
‘‘ensure that the party does not obtain
a more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.’’ 17 In selecting an adverse
inference, the Department may rely on
information derived from the petition,
the final determination in the
investigation, any previous review, or
any other information placed on the
record.18
The Department determines that by
failing to respond to the Department’s
questionnaire, the PRC-wide entity,
which includes Angang, has failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability in
providing the requested information.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and section
776(b) of the Act, we find it appropriate
to apply a margin to the PRC-wide
entity based entirely on the facts
available, and to apply an adverse
inference.19 By doing so, we ensure that
the PRC-wide entity, which includes
Angang, will not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate
than had it cooperated fully in this
review. Therefore, we are assigning the
PRC-wide entity, which includes
Angang, a rate of 90.83 percent, the
highest-rate and the only rate ever
determined for the PRC-wide entity on
the record of this proceeding.20
15 See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
69546 (December 1, 2006), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
16 See also Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Doc. 103–316 at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’).
17 Id.
18 See section 776(b) of the Act.
19 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary
Results of the First Administrative Review and New
Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 (March 9,
2007) (decision to apply total AFA to the NME-wide
entity), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and First New Shipper
Review, 72 FR 52052 (September 12, 2007).
20 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From the People’s Republic of China, 66
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Notices
Corroboration
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Section 776(c) of the Act requires that,
where the Department relies on
secondary information in selecting
adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’), the
Department corroborate such
information to the extent practicable. To
be considered corroborated, the
Department must find the information
has probative value, meaning that the
information must be both reliable and
relevant.21
The Department considers the AFA
rate calculated for the current review as
both reliable and relevant. On the issue
of reliability, the Department calculated
the rate for a mandatory respondent
(i.e., for Benxi Iron & Steel Group Co.,
Ltd.) in the less than fair value
(‘‘LTFV’’) investigation.22 No
information has been presented in the
current review that calls into question
the reliability of this information. With
respect to the relevance, the Department
will consider information reasonably at
its disposal to determine whether a
margin continues to have relevance.
Where circumstances indicate that the
selected margin is not appropriate as
AFA, the Department will disregard the
margin and determine an appropriate
margin. For example, in Fresh Cut
Flowers from Mexico the Department
disregarded the highest margin in that
case as best information available (the
predecessor to AFA) because the margin
was based on another company’s
uncharacteristic business expense
resulting in an unusually high margin.23
The information used in calculating this
margin was based on sales and
production data submitted by a
mandatory respondent, Benxi Iron &
Steel Group Co., Ltd., in the LTFV
investigation, together with the most
appropriate surrogate value information
available on the record in the LTFV
FR 49632 (September 28, 2001) (‘‘Hot-Rolled Steel
Final Determination’’)
21 See SAA at 870; Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From
Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof,
From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial
Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR
57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered
Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825
(March 13, 1997).
22 See Hot-Rolled Steel Final Determination, 66
FR at 49633.
23 See Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996)
(‘‘Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:53 Jul 31, 2012
Jkt 226001
investigation.24 Finally, there is no
information on the record of this review
that demonstrates that this rate is not
appropriate for use as AFA. For all these
reasons, we determine that this rate
continues to have relevance with
respect to the PRC-wide entity,
including Angang.
As the 90.83 percent AFA rate is both
reliable and relevant, we determine that
it has probative value and is
corroborated to the extent practicable, in
accordance with section 776(c) of the
Act. Therefore, we have assigned this
AFA rate of 90.83%, as established in
the investigation, to exports of the
subject merchandise by PRC-wide
entity, including Angang.25
Public Comment
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 hearing request
must be received successfully in its
entirety by the Department’s electronic
records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m.
Eastern Time within 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice.26
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, the Department
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.27 Parties
should confirm by telephone the date,
time, and location of the hearing.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on the preliminary results of
this review within 30 days after the date
of publication of this notice in the
24 See Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People’s
Republic of China, 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 2001),
unchanged in Hot-Rolled Steel Final Determination,
66 FR at 49633.
25 The PRC-wide entity includes, Angang;
Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd.; Benxi Iron and Steel
Group Co., Ltd.; Daye Special Steel Co., Ltd.;
Dongbei Special Steel Group; Dongguang Bo Yunte
Metal Co., Ltd.; Dongyang Global Strip Steel Co.,
Ltd.; Haverer Group Ltd.; Hebei Iron and Steel Int’l;
Hunan Valin; Jinan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen
Zhaoheng Specialty Steel Co.; Union Steel China;
Xinyu Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang
Shenghua Steel Co., Ltd.
26 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
27 See 19 CFR 351.310.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45579
Federal Register.28 Interested parties
may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues
raised in the case briefs not later than
five days after the time limit for filing
case briefs.29 Parties who submit
arguments are requested to submit with
each argument a statement of the issue,
a brief summary of the argument, and a
table of authorities cited. The
Department intends to issue the final
results of this administrative review,
including the results of our analysis of
issues raised in the written comments,
within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results in the Federal
Register.30
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.31 The Department intends to
issue assessment instructions to CBP 15
days after the publication date of the
final results of this review. We will
instruct CBP to assess duties at the ad
valorem margin rate published above.
We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries covered by this review if any
assessment rate calculated in the final
results of this review is above de
minimis. The final results of this review
shall be the basis for the assessment of
antidumping duties on entries of
merchandise covered by the final results
of this review and for future deposits of
estimated duties, where applicable.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for shipments of
the subject merchandise from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by
sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
Angang, the cash deposit rate will be
that established in the final results of
this review (except, if the rate is zero or
de minimis, then zero cash deposit will
be required); (2) for previously
investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters not listed above that
received a separate rate in a prior
segment of this proceeding, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all
PRC exporters of subject merchandise
that have not been found to be entitled
to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate
28 See
19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
19 CFR 351.309(d).
30 See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
31 See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
29 See
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
45580
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Notices
will be the PRC-wide rate of 90.83
percent; and (4) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not received their own rate, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter that
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Department’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: July 26, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–18831 Filed 7–31–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD
Operations, Customs Unit, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230,
telephone: (202) 482–4735.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Background
Each year during the anniversary
month of the publication of an
antidumping or countervailing duty
order, finding, or suspended
investigation, an interested party, as
defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
may request, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213, that the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) conduct
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:53 Jul 31, 2012
Jkt 226001
an administrative review of that
antidumping or countervailing duty
order, finding, or suspended
investigation.
All deadlines for the submission of
comments or actions by the Department
discussed below refer to the number of
calendar days from the applicable
starting date.
Respondent Selection
In the event the Department limits the
number of respondents for individual
examination for administrative reviews
initiated pursuant to requests made for
the orders identified below, the
Department intends to select
respondents based on U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data for U.S.
imports during the period of review. We
intend to release the CBP data under
Administrative Protective Order
(‘‘APO’’) to all parties having an APO
within five days of publication of the
initiation notice and to make our
decision regarding respondent selection
within 21 days of publication of the
initiation Federal Register notice.
Therefore, we encourage all parties
interested in commenting on respondent
selection to submit their APO
applications on the date of publication
of the initiation notice, or as soon
thereafter as possible. The Department
invites comments regarding the CBP
data and respondent selection within
five days of placement of the CBP data
on the record of the review.
In the event the Department decides
it is necessary to limit individual
examination of respondents and
conduct respondent selection under
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department has found
that determinations concerning whether
particular companies should be
‘‘collapsed’’ (i.e., treated as a single
entity for purposes of calculating
antidumping duty rates) require a
substantial amount of detailed
information and analysis, which often
require follow-up questions and
analysis. Accordingly, the Department
will not conduct collapsing analyses at
the respondent selection phase of this
review and will not collapse companies
at the respondent selection phase unless
there has been a determination to
collapse certain companies in a
previous segment of this antidumping
proceeding (i.e., investigation,
administrative review, new shipper
review or changed circumstances
review). For any company subject to this
review, if the Department determined,
or continued to treat, that company as
collapsed with others, the Department
will assume that such companies
continue to operate in the same manner
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and will collapse them for respondent
selection purposes. Otherwise, the
Department will not collapse companies
for purposes of respondent selection.
Parties are requested to (a) identify
which companies subject to review
previously were collapsed, and (b)
provide a citation to the proceeding in
which they were collapsed. Further, if
companies are requested to complete
the Quantity and Value Questionnaire
for purposes of respondent selection, in
general each company must report
volume and value data separately for
itself. Parties should not include data
for any other party, even if they believe
they should be treated as a single entity
with that other party. If a company was
collapsed with another company or
companies in the most recently
completed segment of this proceeding
where the Department considered
collapsing that entity, complete quantity
and value data for that collapsed entity
must be submitted.
Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for
Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a
party that has requested a review may
withdraw that request within 90 days of
the date of publication of the notice of
initiation of the requested review. The
regulation provides that the Department
may extend this time if it is reasonable
to do so. In order to provide parties
additional certainty with respect to
when the Department will exercise its
discretion to extend this 90-day
deadline, interested parties are advised
that, with regard to reviews requested
on the basis of anniversary months on
or after August 2012, the Department
does not intend to extend the 90-day
deadline unless the requestor
demonstrates that an extraordinary
circumstance has prevented it from
submitting a timely withdrawal request.
Determinations by the Department to
extend the 90-day deadline will be
made on a case-by-case basis.
The Department is providing this
notice on its Web site, as well as in its
‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review’’ notices, so that interested
parties will be aware of the manner in
which the Department intends to
exercise its discretion in the future.
Opportunity To Request a Review: Not
later than the last day of August 2012,1
interested parties may request
administrative review of the following
orders, findings, or suspended
investigations, with anniversary dates in
August for the following periods:
1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls
on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day
when the Department is closed.
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45576-45580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18831]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-865]
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2010-2011 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') is conducting
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-
rolled carbon steel flat products (``hot-rolled steel'') from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC''), covering the period of review
(``POR'') November 1, 2010 through October 31, 2011. As discussed
below, the Department preliminarily determines that the PRC-wide entity
made sales in the United States at prices below normal value (``NV'').
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the POR.
DATES: Effective Date: August 1, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Hampton, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0116.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 29, 2001, the Department published in the Federal
Register an antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from the PRC.\1\
On December 30, 2011, the Department published a notice of initiation
of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled
steel from the PRC covering the period November 1, 2010, through
October 31, 2011, for 18 companies.\2\ Of the 18 companies on which the
Department initiated an administrative review, four companies stated
that they did not export subject merchandise to the United States
during the POR and 14 companies did not certify or apply for a separate
rate. The Department addresses the review status of each company below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Notice of the Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China, 66
FR 59561 (November 29, 2001) (``Order'').
\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 76 FR
82268 (December 30, 2011) (``Initiation Notice''). Those companies
are: Angang Group International; Baosteel Group Corporation; Baoshan
Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.; Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd.; Benxi Iron
and Steel Group Co., Ltd.; Daye Special Steel Co., Ltd.; Dongbei
Special Steel Group; Dongguang Bo Yunte Metal Co., Ltd.; Dongyang
Global Strip Steel Co., Ltd.; Haverer Group Ltd.; Hebei Iron and
Steel Int'l; Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel; Jinan Iron & Steel
Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Baosteel International Economic & Trading Co.,
Ltd.; Shenzhen Zhaoheng Specialty Steel Co.; Union Steel China;
Xinyu Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.; and Zhejiang Shenghua Steel Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent Selection
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act'') directs the Department to calculate individual weighted-average
dumping margins for each known exporter or producer of the subject
merchandise. However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the
Department discretion to limit its examination to a reasonable number
of exporters or producers if it is not practicable to examine all
exporters or producers involved in the review.
On January 18, 2012, the Department released CBP data for entries
of the subject merchandise during the POR under administrative
protective order (``APO'') to all interested parties having access to
materials released under an APO, and invited comments regarding the CBP
data and respondent selection.\3\ The Department did not receive any
comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection. On January 24,
2012 the Department received a no-sales certification from Baosteel.\4\
On February 28, 2012, the Department received a no-shipment
certification from Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel (``Hunan
Valin'').\5\ On February 29, 2012 the Department selected Angang
International Group (``Angang'') as a mandatory respondent because this
company is the only company for which a review was requested that
appears in the CBP data as having exported subject merchandise during
this POR.\6\ On March 1, 2012, the Department sent an antidumping duty
questionnaire to Angang.\7\ The Department did not receive a response
or extension request from Angang. On March 23, 2012, the Department
stated on the record that the deadline for Angang to submit a response
to the Department's questionnaire expired on March 22, 2012 and that
the Department did not receive a response or extension request from
Angang.\8\ Additionally, the Department confirmed delivery of this
questionnaire.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties
regarding 2010-2011 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the
People's Republic of China dated February 29, 2012.
\4\ See Letter from Baosteel Group Corporation, Shanghai
Baosteel International Economic & Trading Co., Ltd., and Baoshan
Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., (collectively ``Baosteel'') to the Secretary
of Commerce, regarding Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the People's Republic of China: No Sales Certification, dated
January 24, 2012.
\5\ See Letter from Hunan Valin to the Secretary of Commerce,
regarding Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the
People's Republic of China: No Shipment Letter, dated February 28,
2012.
\6\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, Office 9, Import
Administration from Steven Hampton, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration regarding 2010-2011
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of
China dated February 29, 2012.
\7\ See Department's letter to Angang regarding Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of
China, dated March 1, 2012.
\8\ See Memorandum to Scot Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9,
from Steven Hampton, International Trade Compliance Analyst
regarding Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the
People's Republic of China: Documentation to Confirm Receipt of
Questionnaire dated March 23, 2012.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are certain hot-rolled carbon
steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or
greater, neither
[[Page 45577]]
clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted,
varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in
coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless
of thickness, and in straight lengths of a thickness of less than 4.75
mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal
mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a
closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250
mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and
without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not
included within the scope of the order. Specifically included within
the scope of the order are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly
referred to as interstitial-free (``IF'')) steels, high strength low
alloy (``HSLA'') steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels.
IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying
levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred
to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen
elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying
levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and
molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-
alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products included in the scope of the order, regardless of
definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight,
over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2
percent or less, by weight; and, iii) none of the elements listed below
exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical and chemical description
provided above are within the scope of the order unless otherwise
excluded. The following products, for example, are outside or
specifically excluded from the scope of the order:
Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g.,
American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') specifications
A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).
Society of Automotive Engineers (``SAE'')/American Iron &
Steel Institute (``AISI'') grades of series 2300 and higher.
Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of
the HTSUS.
The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the HTSUS at
subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00,
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00,
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30,
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat
products covered by the order, including: vacuum degassed fully
stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor
lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers:
7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00,
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30,
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00,
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise
may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30,
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise subject to the order is
dispositive.
Intent To Rescind, in Part, of Administrative Review
The Department has preliminarily determined that Baosteel and Hunan
Valin did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the POR of
this administrative review. The Department received no-shipment
certifications from Baosteel and Hunan Valin on January 24, 2012, and
February 28, 2012, respectively. To confirm the facts behind these
assertions, the Department issued a no-shipment inquiry to CBP
requesting that it provide any information that contradicted the no-
shipment claims. The Department did not receive any response from CBP,
thus indicating that there were no entries of subject merchandise into
the United States manufactured and/or shipped by Baosteel or Hunan
Valin. Because the evidence on the record indicates that neither
Baosteel nor Hunan Valin exported subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR, we preliminarily determine that these
respondents had no reviewable transactions during this period. With
respect to Baosteel, which currently has a separate rate, the
Department intends to rescind the review. With respect to Hunan Valin
however, we note that it does not have a separate rate. Therefore,
Hunan Valin is under review as part of the PRC-wide entity and we will
make a determination with respect to the PRC-wide entity at these
preliminary results and the final results.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a nonmarket economy (``NME'') country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free
Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760
(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic
of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, it is the Department's
practice to begin with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the country are subject to government control and thus should be
assessed a single
[[Page 45578]]
antidumping duty rate.\11\ 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 affirmatively demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.\12\
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through demonstrating the
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export
activities.\13\ The Department analyzes each entity exporting the
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic
of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as
amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR
22585, 22586-87 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). However, if the
Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located
in a market economy (``ME''), then a separate rate analysis is not
necessary to determine whether it is free of government control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71
FR 53079, 53082 (September 8, 2006); Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, 29307 (May 22, 2006)
(``Diamond Sawblades'').
\12\ See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307.
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only mandatory respondent in this review, Angang, did not
submit a separate rate application or certification. Moreover, Angang
did not submit a full response to the Department's questionnaire,
including sections related to its separate rate eligibility. Therefore,
because Angang did not demonstrate its eligibility for separate rate
status, the Department preliminarily finds that it is not separate from
the PRC-wide entity. The remaining companies included in the Initiation
Notice did not submit separate rate applications or certifications.
There are, therefore, no respondents for which to calculate a separate
rate in this administrative review.
PRC-Wide Entity
Upon initiation of the administrative review, the Department
provided the opportunity for all companies upon which the review was
initiated to complete either the separate-rates application or
certification.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 82269.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above in the ``Separate Rates'' section of this notice,
the Department has preliminarily determined that Angang failed to
demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate and is thus properly
considered not to be separate from PRC-wide entity. As explained above
in the ``Separate Rates'' section, all companies within the PRC are
considered to be subject to government control unless they are able to
demonstrate an absence of government control with respect to their
export activities. Accordingly, such companies are assigned a single
antidumping duty rate distinct from the separate rate(s) determined for
companies that are found to be free of government control with respect
to their export activities. In this regard, we note that no party has
submitted evidence in this proceeding to demonstrate that such
government influence is no longer present or that our treatment of the
PRC-wide entity is otherwise incorrect.
Facts Otherwise Available
Section 776(a) of the Act mandates that the Department use facts
otherwise available if necessary information is not otherwise available
on the record of the antidumping proceeding. Specifically, section
776(a)(2) of the Act provides that where an interested party: (A)
Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B)
fails to provide requested information by the requested date or in the
form and manner requested; (C) significantly impedes an antidumping
proceeding; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot
be verified, the Department shall use facts otherwise available in
reaching its determination.
Angang did not respond to the antidumping questionnaire issued by
the Department on March 1, 2012. As such, because the PRC-wide entity,
which includes Angang, provided the Department with no data from which
it could calculate a margin, the Department finds that necessary
information to calculate a margin is not available on the record of
this proceeding. The Department finds that because Angang, as part of
the PRC-wide entity, failed to submit any response to the Department's
questionnaire, the PRC-wide entity withheld requested information,
failed to provide the information in a timely manner and in the form
requested, and significantly impeded this proceeding, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act. On this basis, the
Department finds that it must rely on the facts otherwise available to
determine a margin for the PRC-wide entity in accordance with section
776(a) of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 69546 (December 1, 2006), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department ``finds
that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the
administering authority * * * the administering authority * * * may use
an inference that is adverse to the interests of the party in selecting
from among the facts otherwise available.''\16\ Adverse inferences are
appropriate to ``ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' \17\
In selecting an adverse inference, the Department may rely on
information derived from the petition, the final determination in the
investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on
the record.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316 at 870 (1994)
(``SAA'').
\17\ Id.
\18\ See section 776(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department determines that by failing to respond to the
Department's questionnaire, the PRC-wide entity, which includes Angang,
has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in providing the
requested information. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),
(B), and (C) and section 776(b) of the Act, we find it appropriate to
apply a margin to the PRC-wide entity based entirely on the facts
available, and to apply an adverse inference.\19\ By doing so, we
ensure that the PRC-wide entity, which includes Angang, will not obtain
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had it cooperated
fully in this review. Therefore, we are assigning the PRC-wide entity,
which includes Angang, a rate of 90.83 percent, the highest-rate and
the only rate ever determined for the PRC-wide entity on the record of
this proceeding.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative
Review and New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 (March 9, 2007)
(decision to apply total AFA to the NME-wide entity), unchanged in
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and First New Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 (September 12,
2007).
\20\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's
Republic of China, 66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001) (``Hot-Rolled
Steel Final Determination'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 45579]]
Corroboration
Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, where the Department
relies on secondary information in selecting adverse facts available
(``AFA''), the Department corroborate such information to the extent
practicable. To be considered corroborated, the Department must find
the information has probative value, meaning that the information must
be both reliable and relevant.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See SAA at 870; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings,
Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof,
From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR
57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825
(March 13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department considers the AFA rate calculated for the current
review as both reliable and relevant. On the issue of reliability, the
Department calculated the rate for a mandatory respondent (i.e., for
Benxi Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd.) in the less than fair value
(``LTFV'') investigation.\22\ No information has been presented in the
current review that calls into question the reliability of this
information. With respect to the relevance, the Department will
consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a
margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that
the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will
disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example,
in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico the Department disregarded the highest
margin in that case as best information available (the predecessor to
AFA) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin.\23\ The
information used in calculating this margin was based on sales and
production data submitted by a mandatory respondent, Benxi Iron & Steel
Group Co., Ltd., in the LTFV investigation, together with the most
appropriate surrogate value information available on the record in the
LTFV investigation.\24\ Finally, there is no information on the record
of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriate for
use as AFA. For all these reasons, we determine that this rate
continues to have relevance with respect to the PRC-wide entity,
including Angang.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Hot-Rolled Steel Final Determination, 66 FR at 49633.
\23\ See Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February
22, 1996) (``Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico'').
\24\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 2001), unchanged
in Hot-Rolled Steel Final Determination, 66 FR at 49633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the 90.83 percent AFA rate is both reliable and relevant, we
determine that it has probative value and is corroborated to the extent
practicable, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act. Therefore,
we have assigned this AFA rate of 90.83%, as established in the
investigation, to exports of the subject merchandise by PRC-wide
entity, including Angang.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The PRC-wide entity includes, Angang; Bengang Steel Plates
Co., Ltd.; Benxi Iron and Steel Group Co., Ltd.; Daye Special Steel
Co., Ltd.; Dongbei Special Steel Group; Dongguang Bo Yunte Metal
Co., Ltd.; Dongyang Global Strip Steel Co., Ltd.; Haverer Group
Ltd.; Hebei Iron and Steel Int'l; Hunan Valin; Jinan Iron & Steel
Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Zhaoheng Specialty Steel Co.; Union Steel China;
Xinyu Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Shenghua Steel Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comment
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 hearing request must be received successfully
in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA
ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice.\26\ 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,
the Department 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.\27\ Parties should confirm by telephone the
date, time, and location of the hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\27\ See 19 CFR 351.310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results of this review within 30 days after the date of publication of
this notice in the Federal Register.\28\ Interested parties may file
rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs not later
than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.\29\ Parties
who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a
statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of
authorities cited. The Department intends to issue the final results of
this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of
issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication
of these preliminary results in the Federal Register.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
\29\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
\30\ See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\31\ The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final
results of this review. We will instruct CBP to assess duties at the ad
valorem margin rate published above. We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if
any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is
above de minimis. The final results of this review shall be the basis
for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise
covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of
estimated duties, where applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Angang, the cash
deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this
review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then zero cash
deposit will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed
PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate
rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be
entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate
[[Page 45580]]
will be the PRC-wide rate of 90.83 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: July 26, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-18831 Filed 7-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
