Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Intent To Rescind in Part, 47030-47036 [2012-19297]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
47030
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–964]
Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and
Tube From the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of the First
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, and Intent To Rescind in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) is conducting the first
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on seamless
refined copper pipe and tube (‘‘copper
pipe and tube’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) for the
period November 22, 2010, through
October 31, 2011. The Department has
preliminarily determined that sales have
been made below normal value (‘‘NV’’)
by the mandatory respondent examined
in this administrative review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of this review, the
Department will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise during
the period of review (‘‘POR’’).
DATES: Effective Date: August 7, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev
Primor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4114.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
The Department received timely
requests from Petitioners 1 and certain
PRC exporters, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(b), during the anniversary
month of November to conduct a review
of copper pipe and tube exporters from
the PRC. On December 30, 2011, the
Department initiated this review with
respect to all requested companies.2
On February 6, 2012, Petitioners
withdrew their request for an
administrative review for Golden
Dragon Holding (Hong Kong)
International Co., Ltd., Golden Dragon
Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc., Hong
1 Cerro Flow Products, LLC, Wieland Copper
Products, LLC, Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc.,
and Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc.
(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’).
2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Request for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 82268,
82273–74 (December 30, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Aug 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
Kong GD Trading Co., Ltd., Luvata
Alltop (Zhongshan) Ltd., Luvata Tube
(Zhongshan) Ltd., Ningbo Jintian
Copper Tube Co., Ltd., Sinochem
Ningbo Import & Export Co., Ltd.,
Sinochem Ningbo Ltd., Zhejiang Jiahe
Pipes Inc., and Zhejiang Naile Copper
Co., Ltd. However, Golden Dragon
Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc.
(‘‘Golden Dragon’’) requested a review
of itself and did not withdraw its
request.
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.3 However, section
777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the
Department discretion to limit its
examination to a reasonable number of
exporters or producers because of their
large number, if it is not practicable to
examine all exporters or producers for
which the review is initiated.
On January 17, 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 APO
and invited comments regarding the
CBP data and respondent selection. The
Department received comments
regarding respondent selection on
January 23, 2012. On February 24, 2012,
the Department selected Golden Dragon
as the sole mandatory respondent for
individual examination in this review.4
Questionnaires
On February 27, 2012, the Department
issued its initial non-market economy
(‘‘NME’’) antidumping duty
questionnaire to the mandatory
respondent Golden Dragon. Golden
Dragon timely responded to the
Department’s initial and subsequent
supplemental questionnaires between
March 2012 and June 2012.
Period of Review
The POR is November 22, 2010,
through October 31, 2011.
Scope of the Order
For the purpose of the order, the
products covered are all seamless
3 See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding
respondent selection, in general.
4 See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, from Patrick O’Conner,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 4,
regarding ‘‘Respondent Selection in the 1st
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated February 24,
2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
circular refined copper pipes and tubes,
including redraw hollows, greater than
or equal to 6 inches (152.4 millimeters
‘‘mm’’) in length and measuring less
than 12.130 inches (308.102 mm)
(actual) in outside diameter (‘‘OD’’),
regardless of wall thickness, bore (e.g.,
smooth, enhanced with inner grooves or
ridges), manufacturing process (e.g., hot
finished, cold-drawn, annealed), outer
surface (e.g., plain or enhanced with
grooves, ridges, fins, or gills), end finish
(e.g., plain end, swaged end, flared end,
expanded end, crimped end, threaded),
coating (e.g., plastic, paint), insulation,
attachments (e.g., plain, capped,
plugged, with compression or other
fitting), or physical configuration (e.g.,
straight, coiled, bent, wound on spools).
The scope of the order covers, but is
not limited to, seamless refined copper
pipe and tube produced or comparable
to the American Society for Testing and
Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) ASTM–B42,
ASTM–B68, ASTM–B75, ASTM–B88,
ASTM–B88M, ASTM–B188, ASTM–
B251, ASTM–B251M, ASTM–B280,
ASTM–B302, ASTM–B306, ASTM–359,
ASTM–B743, ASTM–B819, and ASTM–
B903 specifications and meeting the
physical parameters described therein.
Also included within the scope of the
order are all sets of covered products,
including ‘‘line sets’’ of seamless refined
copper tubes (with or without fittings or
insulation) suitable for connecting an
outdoor air conditioner or heat pump to
an indoor evaporator unit. The phrase
‘‘all sets of covered products’’ denotes
any combination of items put up for sale
that is comprised of merchandise
subject to the scope.
‘‘Refined copper’’ is defined as: (1)
Metal containing at least 99.85 percent
by weight of copper; or (2) metal
containing at least 97.5 percent by
weight of copper, provided that the
content by weight of any other element
does not exceed the following limits:
Element
Ag—Silver ...............................
As—Arsenic ............................
Cd—Cadmium ........................
Cr—Chromium ........................
Mg—Magnesium .....................
Pb—Lead ................................
S—Sulfur ................................
Sn—Tin ...................................
Te—Tellurium .........................
Zn—Zinc .................................
Zr—Zirconium .........................
Other elements (each) ............
Limiting
content
percent
by weight
0.25
0.5
1.3
1.4
0.8
1.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.3
0.3
Excluded from the scope of the order
are all seamless circular hollows of
E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM
07AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Notices
refined copper less than 12 inches in
length whose OD (actual) exceeds its
length. The products subject to the order
are currently classifiable under
subheadings 7411.10.1030 and
7411.10.1090 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Products subject to the
order may also enter under HTSUS
subheadings 7407.10.1500,
7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and
8415.90.8085. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
Intent To Rescind the Review in Part
Petitioners timely requested an
administrative review for Golden
Dragon Holding (Hong Kong)
International Co., Ltd., Hong Kong GD
Trading Co., Ltd., Luvata Alltop
(Zhongshan) Ltd., Luvata Tube
(Zhongshan) Ltd., Ningbo Jintian
Copper Tube Co., Ltd., Sinochem
Ningbo Import & Export Co., Ltd.,
Sinochem Ningbo Ltd., Zhejiang Jiahe
Pipes Inc., and Zhejiang Naile Copper
Co., Ltd., companies which do not have
a separate rate, and then timely
withdrew their requests for review of
the above-mentioned companies.5
Because these companies have not
established their eligibility for a
separate rate, they will continue to be
considered part of the PRC-wide entity.
Although the PRC-wide entity is not
under review for these preliminary
results, the possibility exists that the
PRC-wide entity could be under review
for the final results of this
administrative review. Therefore, we are
not rescinding this review with respect
to these companies at this time, but we
intend to rescind this review with
respect to these companies in the final
results if the PRC-wide entity is not
reviewed.
Non-Market Economy Status
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In the original investigation, the
Department treated the PRC as an
NME.6 Moreover, in accordance with
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the
designation of a country as an NME
remains in effect until it is revoked by
the Department. As such, the
5 See Petitioners’ letter entitled, ‘‘Seamless
Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People’s
Republic of China: Withdrawal of Request for
Antidumping Administrative Reviews, dated
February 6, 2012.
6 See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube
From the People’ s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
(‘‘LTFV Final Determination’’), 75 FR 60725, 60727
(October 1, 2010).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Aug 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
Department continues to treat the PRC
as an NME in this proceeding.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the
Department to base NV, in most cases,
on the NME producer’s factors of
production (‘‘FOP’’) valued in a
surrogate market-economy (‘‘ME’’)
country or countries considered
appropriate by the Department. The
Department will value FOPs, in
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the
Act, by using ‘‘to the extent possible, the
prices or costs of factors of production
in one or more market economy
countries that are—(A) at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the nonmarket economy country,
and (B) significant producers of
comparable merchandise.’’ Further,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the
Department will normally value FOPs in
a single surrogate country.
Economic Comparability
The Department identified Colombia,
Indonesia, Peru, the Philippines, South
Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine as
countries equally comparable to the PRC
in terms of economic development.7
Consistent with its practice, as reflected
in the Policy Bulletin, the Department
found that Colombia, Indonesia, Peru,
the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand,
and Ukraine are countries that are at a
level of economic development
comparable to that of the PRC and,
therefore, satisfy the first criterion of
section 773(c)(4) of the Act.8
Significant Producer of Comparable
Merchandise
In order to identify which countries
export merchandise comparable to the
merchandise under consideration, we
reviewed export data submitted by
Golden Dragon and Petitioners, along
with Global Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’) data
generated by the Department. After
reviewing this export data, we have
determined that Thailand is a
significant producer of subject
merchandise in significant quantities.
7 See Memorandum regarding ‘‘Request for a List
of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube (‘‘CPT’’)
From the People’s Republic of China (‘‘China’’),
dated April 2, 2012.
8 See Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: NonMarket Economy Surrogate Country Selection
Process (March 1, 2004) (‘‘Policy Bulletin’’);
Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, International
Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, ‘‘First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Seamless Refined Copper
Pipe and Tube From the People’s Republic of
China: Selection of a Surrogate Country’’ (August 1,
2012) (‘‘Surrogate Country Memorandum’’) at 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47031
Data Availability
When evaluating surrogate value
(‘‘SV’’) data, the Department considers
several factors, including whether the
SVs are publicly available,
contemporaneous with the POR,
representative of a broad market
average, tax and duty-exclusive, and
specific to the inputs being valued.9 The
record of this proceeding includes Thai
SV data for copper cathodes, which is
the primary raw material component in
the production of subject
merchandise.10 In addition, the record
contains two Thai financial statements,
i.e., Kobelco & Materials Copper Tube
(Thailand) Co., Ltd (‘‘Kobelco’’) and
Furukawa Metal (Thailand) Public
Company Limited (‘‘Furukawa’’).
However, given that Kobelco’s financial
statements were not fully translated, the
Department has decided to use the
Furukawa’s audited financial
statements, a producer of identical
merchandise from Thailand. After
thoroughly reviewing these data, the
Department has determined that the
Thai import data are more complete,
with respect to the primary direct raw
material input as well as to all other
inputs. Therefore, based on the above
data considerations, we consider
Thailand to have the best available
information for use as the primary
surrogate country in this administrative
review. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of
this administrative review, interested
parties may submit publicly available
information to value the FOPs within 20
days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, it is the Department’s practice
to begin with a rebuttable presumption
that all companies within the NME
country are subject to government
control and thus should be assessed a
single antidumping duty rate.11 In the
Initiation Notice, the Department
notified parties of the application
process by which exporters and
producers may obtain separate rate
status in NME reviews.12 It is the
Department’s policy to assign all
9 See Policy Bulletin; Surrogate Country
Memorandum at 6.
10 See Section D Response at 2; see also Golden
Dragon’s SV Comments and Petitioners’
Supplemental SV Comments.
11 See, e.g., 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).
12 See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 88269.
E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM
07AUN1
47032
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Notices
exporters of merchandise subject to
investigation in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
affirmatively demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate.13 Exporters
can demonstrate this independence
through the absence of both de jure and
de facto government control over export
activities.14 The Department analyzes
each entity’s export independence
under a test first articulated in Sparklers
and as further developed in Silicon
Carbide.15 However, if the Department
determines that a company is wholly
foreign-owned or located in an ME, then
a separate rate analysis is not necessary
to determine whether it is independent
from government control.16
The Department received a separate
rate certification from Hong Kong
Hailiang Metal Trading Limited,
Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd., and
Shanghai Hailiang Copper Co., Ltd.
(collectively ‘‘Hailiang’’).17
Additionally, the Department received
completed responses to the Section A
portion of the NME questionnaire from
Golden Dragon which contained
information pertaining to Golden
Dragon’s eligibility for a separate rate.18
Separate Rate Recipients
1. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and
Foreign Companies or Wholly ChineseOwned Companies
Golden Dragon and Hailiang, the
separate rate applicants in this
administrative review, stated that they
are either joint ventures between
Chinese and foreign companies or are
wholly Chinese-owned companies.19 In
accordance with its practice, the
Department has analyzed whether the
separate-rate applicants have
demonstrated the absence of de jure and
de facto governmental control over their
respective export activities.
13 See
id.
id.
15 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s Republic of
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’);
and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People’s
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994)
(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’).
16 See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles
From the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 52355,
52356 (September 13, 2007).
17 See Separate Rate Certification of Hong Kong
Hailiang Metal Trading Limited, dated March 6,
2012 (‘‘Hailiang SRC Response’’).
18 See Golden Dragon’s Section A Questionnaire
Response, dated March 28, 2012.
19 See Golden Dragon’s Section A Questionnaire
Response at A–1—A–2 and Hailiang SRC Response
at 4.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Aug 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) any other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.20
The evidence provided by Golden
Dragon and Hailiang supports a
preliminary finding of an absence of de
jure government control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with the
individual exporter’s business and
export licenses; (2) there are applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing
control of the companies; and (3) there
are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.21
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
government control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses.22 The Department has
determined that an analysis of de facto
control is critical in determining
whether respondents are, in fact, subject
to a degree of government control which
would preclude the Department from
assigning separate rates. The evidence
provided by Golden Dragon and
Hailiang supports a preliminary finding
of an absence of de facto government
control based on the following: (1) The
companies set their own export prices
independent of the government and
without the approval of a government
authority; (2) the companies have
authority to negotiate and sign contracts
and other agreements; (3) the companies
20 See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
21 See Golden Dragon’s Section A Questionnaire
Response at A–4—A–6 and Hailiang SRC Response
at 7–8.
22 See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see
also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545
(May 8, 1995).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
have autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4) there
is no restriction on any of the
companies’ use of export revenue.23
Therefore, the Department preliminarily
finds that Golden Dragon and Hailiang
have established that they qualify for a
separate rate under the criteria
established by Silicon Carbide and
Sparklers.
Rate for Respondents Not Individually
Examined
The statute and the Department’s
regulations do not address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to
individual respondents not selected for
examination when the Department
limits its examination in an
administrative review pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally,
the Department looks to section
735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides
instructions for calculating the allothers rate in an investigation, for
guidance when calculating the rate for
respondents which we did not examine
in an administrative review. Section
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act articulates a
preference that we are not to calculate
an all-others rate using rates which are
zero, de minimis or based entirely on
facts available. Accordingly, the
Department’s usual practice has been to
average the weighted-average dumping
margins for the selected companies,
excluding rates that are zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on facts
available.24 Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the
Act also provides that, where all rates
are zero, de minimis, or based entirely
on facts available, we may use ‘‘any
reasonable method’’ for assigning the
all-others rate, including ‘‘averaging the
estimated weighted-average dumping
margins determined for the exporters
and producers individually
investigated.’’
In previous administrative reviews,
the Department has determined that a
‘‘reasonable method’’ to use when the
rates for the respondents selected for
individual examination are zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on facts
available, is to apply to those
respondents not selected for individual
examination (and eligible for a separate
rate in an NME review) the average of
the most recently-determined weighted23 Golden Dragon’s Section A Questionnaire
Response at A–6—A–10 and Hailiang SRC
Response at 8–10.
24 See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United
Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews
in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 16.
E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM
07AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Notices
average dumping margins that are not
zero, de minimis, or based entirely on
facts available. These rates may be from
the investigation, a prior administrative
review, or a new shipper review.25 If
any such non-selected respondent had
its own calculated rate that is
contemporaneous with or more recent
than such prior determined rates,
however, the Department has applied
such individual rate to the non-selected
respondent in the instant review,
including when that rate is zero, de
minimis.26
In this administrative review, there is
one non-selected respondent, Hailiang,
which is under review and is eligible for
a separate rate. Hailiang received its
own calculated rate that is
contemporaneous with or more recent
than the most recent rates determined
for other respondents that are not zero,
de minimis, or based entirely on facts
available. Accordingly, we have
concluded in this administrative review
that a reasonable method for
determining the rate for Hailiang is to
apply its most recent, individuallycalculated, rate. Pursuant to this
method, we have assigned a rate of
60.85 percent to Hailiang, its weightedaverage dumping margin in the
antidumping investigation.27 In
assigning this separate rate, we did not
impute the actions of other respondents
to the behavior of Hailiang, but based
this determination on record evidence
that may be deemed reasonably
reflective of the potential margin of
dumping for Hailiang in this
administrative review.
Date of Sale
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Golden Dragon reported the invoice
date as the date of sale because it claims
that for its U.S. sales of subject
merchandise made during the POR, the
material terms of sale were established
25 See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Fifth
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
8338, 8342 (February 14, 2011), unchanged in
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
51940 (August 19, 2011); see also Administrative
Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 49460, 49463 (August
13, 2010), and Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v.
United States, 774 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (CIT 2011).
26 See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Rescission of Review in Part, 77 FR 21529, 21530–
31 (April 10, 2012).
27 See LTFV Final Determination, 75 FR at 60729.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Aug 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
on the invoice date.28 After evaluating
Golden Dragon’s claim in light of record
evidence, the Department, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) and
its long-standing practice of determining
the date of sale,29 preliminarily
determines that the invoice date is the
most appropriate date to use as Golden
Dragon’s date of sale.
Fair Value Comparisons
Pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.414(c)(1) and (d), the
Department compared weighted-average
export price or weighted-average
constructed export price to the
weighted-average NV, as described in
the ‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
sections below.30
U.S. Price
Export Price
We considered the U.S. prices of
certain sales by Golden Dragon to be
export price (‘‘EP’’) sales in accordance
with section 772(a) of the Act, because
these were the prices at which the
subject merchandise was first sold
before the date of importation by the
exporter of the subject merchandise
outside of the United States to an
unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for
exportation to the United States.
We calculated EP based on the price
to unaffiliated purchaser(s) in the
United States. We deducted movement
expenses from the gross unit U.S. sales
price in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These movement
expenses include foreign inland freight
from the plant to the port of exportation.
For a detailed description of all
adjustments, see Golden Dragon’s
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.31
28 See Golden Dragon’s Section C Questionnaire
Response at C–18.
29 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 10.
30 In these preliminary results, the Department
applied the weighted-average dumping margin
calculation method adopted in Antidumping
Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average
Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain
Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77
FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (‘‘Final Modification
for Reviews’’). In particular, the Department
compared monthly weighted-average export prices
(or constructed export prices) with monthly
weighted-average normal values and granted offsets
for non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of
the weighted average dumping margin.
31 See Memorandum from Zev Primor, Analyst, to
Robert Bolling, Program Manager, Regarding Golden
Dragon’s Preliminary Results Analysis
Memorandum, dated August 1, 2012 (‘‘Golden
Dragon Preliminary Analysis Memo’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47033
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of
the Act, constructed export price
(‘‘CEP’’) is the price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
sold) in the United States before or after
the date of importation by or for the
account of the producer or exporter of
such merchandise or by a seller
affiliated with the producer or exporter,
to a purchaser not affiliated with the
producer or exporter, as adjusted under
sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act. We
considered sales made by Golden
Dragon’s U.S. affiliate in the United
States to be CEP sales. We calculated
CEP based on prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. In
accordance with sections 772(c)(2)(A)
and 772(d)(1) and of the Act, where
applicable, we made deductions from
the starting price for movement
expenses, and commissions, credit
expenses, inventory carrying costs,
warranty expenses, and indirect selling
expenses which relate to commercial
activity in the United States. Movement
expenses included, where applicable,
foreign inland freight from the plant to
the port of exportation, foreign
brokerage and handling, international
freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland
freight from the port to the warehouse,
U.S. freight from the warehouse to the
customer, U.S. customs duty and U.S.
warehousing expenses. In addition, we
deducted CEP profit from U.S. price in
accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and
772(f) of the Act. As a CEP adjustment
and in accordance with section 773(a) of
the Act, we calculated Golden Dragon’s
credit expenses and inventory carrying
costs based on short-term interest rates.
Because Golden Dragon did not incur
short-term U.S. dollar borrowings
during the POR, we based its interest
rate on the short-term interest rate from
the Federal Reserve. For those expenses
that were provided by an ME provider
and paid for in an ME currency, the
Department used the reported expense.
Due to the proprietary nature of certain
adjustments to U.S. price, see Golden
Dragon’s Preliminary Analysis Memo,
for a detailed description of all
adjustments.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine NV
using an FOP methodology if: (1) The
merchandise is exported from an NME
country; and (2) the information does
not permit the calculation of NV using
home market prices, third country
prices, or constructed value under
section 773(a) of the Act. When
determining NV in an NME context, the
E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM
07AUN1
47034
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Notices
Department will base NV on FOPs
because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of these
economies renders price comparisons
and the calculation of production costs
invalid under our normal
methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3)
of the Act, FOPs include but are not
limited to: (1) Hours of labor required;
(2) quantities of raw materials
employed; and (3) representative capital
costs. The Department used FOPs
reported by Golden Dragon for
materials, labor, packing and byproducts.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on
FOPs reported by Golden Dragon for the
POR. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available
information to find an appropriate SV to
value each FOP, but when a producer
sources an input from an ME and pays
for it in an ME currency, the Department
normally will value the factor using the
actual price paid for the input.32 To
calculate NV, the Department
multiplied the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available
SVs (except as discussed below). In
selecting SVs, the Department
considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data.33 As
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to import SVs surrogate freight cost
using the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to
the factory or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory, where
appropriate. This adjustment is in
accordance with the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit’s decision in
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d
1401, 1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
For the preliminary results, except
where noted below, we used data from
the Thai import statistics in the GTA
and other publicly available Thai
sources in order to calculate SVs for
Golden Dragon’s FOPs (i.e., direct
materials, energy, and packing
32 See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof
Assembly Components Div of Ill Tool Works v.
United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (affirming the Department’s use of marketbased prices to value certain FOPs).
33 See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 (December
4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final Results of
First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China,
66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Aug 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
materials) and certain movement
expenses. In selecting the best available
information for valuing FOPs in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the
Act, the Department’s practice is to
select, to the extent practicable, SVs
which are non-export average values,
most contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.34
The record shows that Thai import
statistics obtained through GTA are
contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.35 In
those instances where we could not
obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous to the POR with
which to value factors, we adjusted the
SVs using, where appropriate, the Thai
Producer Price Index (‘‘PPI’’) or
Consumer Price Index (‘‘CPI’’), as
published in the International Monetary
Fund’s International Financial
Statistics.36
In accordance with legislative history,
the Department continues to apply its
long-standing practice of disregarding
SVs if it has a reason to believe or
suspect the source data may be
subsidized.37 In this regard, the
Department has previously found that it
is appropriate to disregard such import
statistics from India, Indonesia, South
Korea and Thailand because we have
determined that these countries
maintain broadly available, nonindustry specific export subsidies.38
34 See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative
Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warm
water Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
35 See Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
of Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the
People’s Republic of China: Surrogate Value
Memorandum (‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’) at
2.
36 See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 74 FR 9600 (March 5, 2009),
unchanged in Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009).
37 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep.
No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) at 590.
38 See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From
India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-year
(Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order,
75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4–5; Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From
Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset
Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
4; Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Based on the existence of these subsidy
programs that were generally available
to all exporters and producers in these
countries at the time of the POR, the
Department finds that it is reasonable to
infer that all exporters from India,
Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand
may have benefitted from these
subsidies. Therefore, we have not used
prices from India, Indonesia, South
Korea and Thailand in calculating the
import-based SVs.
Additionally, we disregarded prices
from NME countries.39 Finally, imports
that were labeled as originating from an
‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded
from the average value, because we
could not be certain that they were not
from either an NME country or a
country with generally available export
subsidies.40
We valued truck freight expenses
using a price list for domestic shipments
from the Thailand Board of Investment.
The rates were in effect prior to the
POR, so we adjusted them to be
contemporaneous with the POR, using
PPI.41
On June 21, 2011, the Department
revised its methodology for valuing the
labor input in NME antidumping duty
proceedings.42 In Labor Methodologies,
the Department determined that the best
methodology to value the labor input is
to use industry-specific labor rates from
the primary surrogate country.
Additionally, the Department
determined that the best data source for
industry-specific labor rates is Chapter
6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from
the International Labor Organization
(‘‘ILO’’) Yearbook of Labor Statistics
(‘‘Yearbook’’).
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
2512 (January 15, 2009), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19–20; Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination:
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
23.
39 See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5, 2009),
unchanged in Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009) and Certain
Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the
People’s Republic of China: Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 46971
(September 14, 2009).
40 See id.
41 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6 and
Exhibits 1 and 7.
42 See Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies:
Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (‘‘Labor Methodologies’’).
E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM
07AUN1
47035
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The Department valued labor using
the methodology described in Labor
Methodologies. Specifically, to value the
respondents’ labor the Department
relied on data reported by Thailand to
the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook
for the total manufacturing wage data.
Although the Department found that the
two-digit description under ISIC–
Revision 3.1 (‘‘Manufacture of
Machinery and Equipment NEC’’) is the
best available information on the record
with which to value labor because it is
specific to the industry being examined,
and is, therefore, derived from
industries that produce comparable
merchandise, Thailand has not reported
data specific to the two-digit description
since 2000. However, Thailand did
report total manufacturing wage data in
2005. Accordingly, relying on Chapter
6A of the Yearbook, the Department
calculated the labor value using total
labor data reported by Thailand to the
ILO in 2005, in accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act.43 Because these
rates were in effect before the POR, we
are adjusting the average value for
inflation using CPI. A more detailed
description of the wage rate calculation
methodology is provided in the
Surrogate Value Memorandum. The ILO
data from Chapter 6A of the Yearbook,
which was used to value labor, reflects
all costs related to labor, including
wages, and indirect labor costs such as
benefits, housing, and training. The
financial statements used to calculate
the surrogate financial ratios do not
include itemized details regarding the
indirect labor costs incurred. Therefore,
the Department has not made
adjustments to the surrogate financial
ratios.44
Because water was used by Golden
Dragon in the production of seamless
copper pipe and tube, the Department
considers water to be a direct material
input rather than overhead.45 We valued
water using data from the Metropolitan
Waterworks Authority. We did not
43 See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36094, n.11;
see also Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From
the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results
and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 77
FR 13284, 13292–93 (March 6, 2012) (relying upon
national data reported by ILO Chapter 6A in the
absence of Chapter 6A industry-specific data),
unchanged in Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes
from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results
of Administrative Review, 77 FR 40854 (July 11,
2012).
44 See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36094.
45 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People’s
Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 2003),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 11.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Aug 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
inflate this rate since it is
contemporaneous with the POR.46
We valued brokerage and handling
using a price list of export procedures
necessary to export a standardized cargo
of goods in Thailand. The price list is
compiled based on a survey case study
of the procedural requirements for
trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in Thailand as reported
in ‘‘Doing Business 2012: Thailand’’
published by the World Bank.47
We valued marine insurance using a
marine insurance rate offered by RJG
Consultants. The rate is a percentage of
the value of the shipment; thus we did
not inflate or deflate the rate.48
We were unable to segregate and,
therefore, were unable to exclude energy
costs from the calculation of the
surrogate financial ratios. Accordingly,
for the preliminary results, we have
disregarded the respondents’ energy
inputs (electricity) in the calculation of
NV, in order to avoid double-counting
energy costs that have necessarily been
captured in the surrogate financial
ratios.49
To value factory overhead, selling,
general, and administrative expenses,
and profit, we used audited financial
statements for the year ending December
2011 of Furukawa Metal (Thailand)
Public Company Limited, a producer of
identical merchandise from Thailand.50
The Department has not used for these
preliminary results the financial
statement from Kobelco & Materials
Copper Tube (Thailand) Co., Ltd., that is
on the record because that financial
statement is incomplete and not fully
translated.51 The Department may
consider other publicly available
financial statements for the final results,
as appropriate.
Golden Dragon reported that it
recycles copper scrap and sells a small
amount of copper slag and copper ash;
therefore, the Department has granted a
by-product offset for the quantities of
Golden Dragon’s reported by-products,
valued using Thai GTA data.52
46 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5 and
Exhibit 3.
47 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6 and
Exhibit 6.
48 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6 and
Exhibit 8.
49 See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74
FR 16838 (April 13, 2009), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
50 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5 and
Exhibit 5 and 1.
51 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5.
52 See Golden Dragon’s Preliminary Analysis
Memo at 8.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Currency Conversion
Where appropriate, the Department
made currency conversions into U.S.
dollars, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department preliminarily
determines that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist:
Exporter
Golden Dragon .............
Hailiang ........................
Rate
0.00 (de minimis)
60.85
Disclosure
The Department intends to disclose
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within
10 days of the date of the public
announcement of the results of this
review in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
Comments
Interested parties may submit written
comments no later than 30 days after the
date of publication of these preliminary
results of review.53 Rebuttal comments
must be limited to the issues raised in
the written comments and may be filed
no later than five days after the time
limit for filing the case briefs.54
Interested parties, who wish to request
a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, filed electronically using
Import Administration’s Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the Department’s
electronic records system, IA ACCESS,
by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within
30 days after the date of publication of
this notice.55 Requests should contain
the party’s name, address, and
telephone number, the number of
participants, and a list of the issues to
be discussed. If a request for a hearing
is made, we will inform parties of the
scheduled date for the hearing which
will be held at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at
a time and location to be determined.56
53 See
19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
19 CFR 351.309(d).
55 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
56 See 19 CFR 351.310.
54 See
E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM
07AUN1
47036
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Parties should confirm by telephone the
date, time, and location of the hearing.
The Department intends to issue the
final results of the administrative
review, which will include the results of
its analysis of issues raised in the briefs,
within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, in accordance with
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless
the time limit is extended.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by the
review. The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the publication date of the final
results of the review. In accordance with
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated
exporter/importer (or customer)-specific
assessment rates for the merchandise
subject to the review.
Where the respondent reports reliable
entered values, we calculate importer
(or customer)-specific ad valorem rates
by aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to each
importer (or customer) and dividing this
amount by the total entered value of the
sales to each importer (or customer).57
Where an importer (or customer)specific ad valorem rate is greater than
de minimis, we will apply the
assessment rate to the entered value of
the importers’/customers’ entries during
the POR.58 Where we do not have
entered values for all U.S. sales, we
calculate a per-unit assessment rate by
aggregating the antidumping duties due
for all U.S. sales to each importer (or
customer) and dividing this amount by
the total quantity sold to that importer
(or customer). To determine whether the
duty assessment rates are above de
minimis, in accordance with the
requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer
(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios
based on the entered value. Where an
importer (or customer)-specific ad
valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate
appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties.59
The Department recently announced a
refinement to its assessment practice in
NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement
in practice, for entries that were not
reported in the U.S. sales databases
submitted by companies individually
examined during this review, the
Department will instruct CBP to
liquidate such entries at the NME-wide
57 See
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
58 See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
59 See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Aug 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
rate. In addition, if the Department
determines that an exporter under
review had no shipments of the subject
merchandise, any suspended entries
that entered under that exporter’s case
number (i.e., at that exporter’s rate) will
be liquidated at the NME-wide rate. For
a full discussion of this practice, see
Non-Market Economy Antidumping
Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694
(October 24, 2011).
Dated: July 31, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From
Finland; Notice of Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise from the PRC
entered or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption, on or after the
publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Golden
Dragon the cash deposit rate will be its
rate established in the final results of
this review; (2) for previously
investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters not listed above that have
separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the exporter-specific rate
published for the most recent segment;
(3) for all PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not been
found to be entitled to a separate rate,
the cash deposit rate will be that for the
PRC-wide entity; and (4) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not received their own rate, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporters that
supplied those non-PRC exporters.
These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this
notice are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and (3) and 777(i) of the Act,
and 19 CFR 351.213.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[FR Doc. 2012–19297 Filed 8–6–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–405–803]
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
Aqualon Company, a division of
Hercules Inc., (Petitioner) and
respondents CP Kelco Oy and CP Kelco
U.S., Inc. (collectively, CP Kelco), the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on purified
carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from
Finland. The review covers exports of
the subject merchandise to the United
States produced by CP Kelco. The
period of review (POR) is July 1, 2010,
through June 30, 2011.
We preliminarily find that CP Kelco
made sales at less than normal value
(NV) during the POR. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of this review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping
duties based on differences between the
export price (EP) or constructed export
price (CEP) and NV.
DATES: Effective Date: August 7, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1121 or (202) 482–
0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
The Department published the
antidumping duty order on CMC from
Finland on July 11, 2005.1 On July 1,
2011, the Department published the
notice of opportunity to request an
1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders:
Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland,
Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 70 FR 39734
(July 11, 2005).
E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM
07AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47030-47036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19297]
[[Page 47030]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-964]
Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of the First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, and Intent To Rescind in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the
first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless
refined copper pipe and tube (``copper pipe and tube'') from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') for the period November 22, 2010,
through October 31, 2011. The Department has preliminarily determined
that sales have been made below normal value (``NV'') by the mandatory
respondent examined in this administrative review. If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results of this review, the Department
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise
during the period of review (``POR'').
DATES: Effective Date: August 7, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor, AD/CVD Operations, Office
4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4114.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department received timely requests from Petitioners \1\ and
certain PRC exporters, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), during the
anniversary month of November to conduct a review of copper pipe and
tube exporters from the PRC. On December 30, 2011, the Department
initiated this review with respect to all requested companies.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cerro Flow Products, LLC, Wieland Copper Products, LLC,
Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc., and Mueller Copper Tube Company,
Inc. (collectively, ``Petitioners'').
\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 76 FR
82268, 82273-74 (December 30, 2011) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 6, 2012, Petitioners withdrew their request for an
administrative review for Golden Dragon Holding (Hong Kong)
International Co., Ltd., Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc.,
Hong Kong GD Trading Co., Ltd., Luvata Alltop (Zhongshan) Ltd., Luvata
Tube (Zhongshan) Ltd., Ningbo Jintian Copper Tube Co., Ltd., Sinochem
Ningbo Import & Export Co., Ltd., Sinochem Ningbo Ltd., Zhejiang Jiahe
Pipes Inc., and Zhejiang Naile Copper Co., Ltd. However, Golden Dragon
Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc. (``Golden Dragon'') requested a review
of itself and did not withdraw its request.
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.\3\ However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives
the Department discretion to limit its examination to a reasonable
number of exporters or producers because of their large number, if it
is not practicable to examine all exporters or producers for which the
review is initiated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding respondent selection,
in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 17, 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 APO and invited comments regarding the CBP
data and respondent selection. The Department received comments
regarding respondent selection on January 23, 2012. On February 24,
2012, the Department selected Golden Dragon as the sole mandatory
respondent for individual examination in this review.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, from Patrick O'Conner, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, Office 4, regarding ``Respondent Selection in the 1st
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Seamless Refined Copper
Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China,'' dated February
24, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questionnaires
On February 27, 2012, the Department issued its initial non-market
economy (``NME'') antidumping duty questionnaire to the mandatory
respondent Golden Dragon. Golden Dragon timely responded to the
Department's initial and subsequent supplemental questionnaires between
March 2012 and June 2012.
Period of Review
The POR is November 22, 2010, through October 31, 2011.
Scope of the Order
For the purpose of the order, the products covered are all seamless
circular refined copper pipes and tubes, including redraw hollows,
greater than or equal to 6 inches (152.4 millimeters ``mm'') in length
and measuring less than 12.130 inches (308.102 mm) (actual) in outside
diameter (``OD''), regardless of wall thickness, bore (e.g., smooth,
enhanced with inner grooves or ridges), manufacturing process (e.g.,
hot finished, cold-drawn, annealed), outer surface (e.g., plain or
enhanced with grooves, ridges, fins, or gills), end finish (e.g., plain
end, swaged end, flared end, expanded end, crimped end, threaded),
coating (e.g., plastic, paint), insulation, attachments (e.g., plain,
capped, plugged, with compression or other fitting), or physical
configuration (e.g., straight, coiled, bent, wound on spools).
The scope of the order covers, but is not limited to, seamless
refined copper pipe and tube produced or comparable to the American
Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') ASTM-B42, ASTM-B68, ASTM-
B75, ASTM-B88, ASTM-B88M, ASTM-B188, ASTM-B251, ASTM-B251M, ASTM-B280,
ASTM-B302, ASTM-B306, ASTM-359, ASTM-B743, ASTM-B819, and ASTM-B903
specifications and meeting the physical parameters described therein.
Also included within the scope of the order are all sets of covered
products, including ``line sets'' of seamless refined copper tubes
(with or without fittings or insulation) suitable for connecting an
outdoor air conditioner or heat pump to an indoor evaporator unit. The
phrase ``all sets of covered products'' denotes any combination of
items put up for sale that is comprised of merchandise subject to the
scope.
``Refined copper'' is defined as: (1) Metal containing at least
99.85 percent by weight of copper; or (2) metal containing at least
97.5 percent by weight of copper, provided that the content by weight
of any other element does not exceed the following limits:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limiting
content
Element percent by
weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ag--Silver................................................ 0.25
As--Arsenic............................................... 0.5
Cd--Cadmium............................................... 1.3
Cr--Chromium.............................................. 1.4
Mg--Magnesium............................................. 0.8
Pb--Lead.................................................. 1.5
S--Sulfur................................................. 0.7
Sn--Tin................................................... 0.8
Te--Tellurium............................................. 0.8
Zn--Zinc.................................................. 1.0
Zr--Zirconium............................................. 0.3
Other elements (each)..................................... 0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluded from the scope of the order are all seamless circular
hollows of
[[Page 47031]]
refined copper less than 12 inches in length whose OD (actual) exceeds
its length. The products subject to the order are currently
classifiable under subheadings 7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Products
subject to the order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings
7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
Intent To Rescind the Review in Part
Petitioners timely requested an administrative review for Golden
Dragon Holding (Hong Kong) International Co., Ltd., Hong Kong GD
Trading Co., Ltd., Luvata Alltop (Zhongshan) Ltd., Luvata Tube
(Zhongshan) Ltd., Ningbo Jintian Copper Tube Co., Ltd., Sinochem Ningbo
Import & Export Co., Ltd., Sinochem Ningbo Ltd., Zhejiang Jiahe Pipes
Inc., and Zhejiang Naile Copper Co., Ltd., companies which do not have
a separate rate, and then timely withdrew their requests for review of
the above-mentioned companies.\5\ Because these companies have not
established their eligibility for a separate rate, they will continue
to be considered part of the PRC-wide entity. Although the PRC-wide
entity is not under review for these preliminary results, the
possibility exists that the PRC-wide entity could be under review for
the final results of this administrative review. Therefore, we are not
rescinding this review with respect to these companies at this time,
but we intend to rescind this review with respect to these companies in
the final results if the PRC-wide entity is not reviewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Petitioners' letter entitled, ``Seamless Refined Copper
Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of
Request for Antidumping Administrative Reviews, dated February 6,
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Status
In the original investigation, the Department treated the PRC as an
NME.\6\ Moreover, in accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act,
the designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department. As such, the Department continues to treat
the PRC as an NME in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People' s
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value (``LTFV Final Determination''), 75 FR 60725, 60727 (October 1,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV, in
most cases, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOP'')
valued in a surrogate market-economy (``ME'') country or countries
considered appropriate by the Department. The Department will value
FOPs, in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, by using ``to
the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in
one or more market economy countries that are--(A) at a level of
economic development comparable to that of the nonmarket economy
country, and (B) significant producers of comparable merchandise.''
Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the Department will normally
value FOPs in a single surrogate country.
Economic Comparability
The Department identified Colombia, Indonesia, Peru, the
Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine as countries equally
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.\7\ Consistent
with its practice, as reflected in the Policy Bulletin, the Department
found that Colombia, Indonesia, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa,
Thailand, and Ukraine are countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the PRC and, therefore, satisfy the
first criterion of section 773(c)(4) of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Memorandum regarding ``Request for a List of Surrogate
Countries for an Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube (``CPT'') From the People's
Republic of China (``China''), dated April 2, 2012.
\8\ See Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy
Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004) (``Policy
Bulletin''); Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Abdelali
Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, ``First
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Seamless Refined Copper
Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of China: Selection of a
Surrogate Country'' (August 1, 2012) (``Surrogate Country
Memorandum'') at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Producer of Comparable Merchandise
In order to identify which countries export merchandise comparable
to the merchandise under consideration, we reviewed export data
submitted by Golden Dragon and Petitioners, along with Global Trade
Atlas (``GTA'') data generated by the Department. After reviewing this
export data, we have determined that Thailand is a significant producer
of subject merchandise in significant quantities.
Data Availability
When evaluating surrogate value (``SV'') data, the Department
considers several factors, including whether the SVs are publicly
available, contemporaneous with the POR, representative of a broad
market average, tax and duty-exclusive, and specific to the inputs
being valued.\9\ The record of this proceeding includes Thai SV data
for copper cathodes, which is the primary raw material component in the
production of subject merchandise.\10\ In addition, the record contains
two Thai financial statements, i.e., Kobelco & Materials Copper Tube
(Thailand) Co., Ltd (``Kobelco'') and Furukawa Metal (Thailand) Public
Company Limited (``Furukawa''). However, given that Kobelco's financial
statements were not fully translated, the Department has decided to use
the Furukawa's audited financial statements, a producer of identical
merchandise from Thailand. After thoroughly reviewing these data, the
Department has determined that the Thai import data are more complete,
with respect to the primary direct raw material input as well as to all
other inputs. Therefore, based on the above data considerations, we
consider Thailand to have the best available information for use as the
primary surrogate country in this administrative review. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of this
administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available
information to value the FOPs within 20 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Policy Bulletin; Surrogate Country Memorandum at 6.
\10\ See Section D Response at 2; see also Golden Dragon's SV
Comments and Petitioners' Supplemental SV Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, it is the Department's
practice to begin with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the NME country are subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate.\11\ In the
Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the application
process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate rate
status in NME reviews.\12\ It is the Department's policy to assign all
[[Page 47032]]
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country
this single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate that
it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate
rate.\13\ Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export
activities.\14\ The Department analyzes each entity's export
independence under a test first articulated in Sparklers and as further
developed in Silicon Carbide.\15\ However, if the Department determines
that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in an ME, then a
separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is
independent from government control.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., 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).
\12\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 88269.
\13\ See id.
\14\ See id.
\15\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991) (``Sparklers''); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of
China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide'').
\16\ See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China,
72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department received a separate rate certification from Hong
Kong Hailiang Metal Trading Limited, Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd., and
Shanghai Hailiang Copper Co., Ltd. (collectively ``Hailiang'').\17\
Additionally, the Department received completed responses to the
Section A portion of the NME questionnaire from Golden Dragon which
contained information pertaining to Golden Dragon's eligibility for a
separate rate.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Separate Rate Certification of Hong Kong Hailiang Metal
Trading Limited, dated March 6, 2012 (``Hailiang SRC Response'').
\18\ See Golden Dragon's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated
March 28, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rate Recipients
1. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly
Chinese-Owned Companies
Golden Dragon and Hailiang, the separate rate applicants in this
administrative review, stated that they are either joint ventures
between Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly Chinese-owned
companies.\19\ In accordance with its practice, the Department has
analyzed whether the separate-rate applicants have demonstrated the
absence of de jure and de facto governmental control over their
respective export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Golden Dragon's Section A Questionnaire Response at A-
1--A-2 and Hailiang SRC Response at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of
companies.\20\ The evidence provided by Golden Dragon and Hailiang
supports a preliminary finding of an absence of de jure government
control based on the following: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and
export licenses; (2) there are applicable legislative enactments
decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) there are formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
\21\ See Golden Dragon's Section A Questionnaire Response at A-
4--A-6 and Hailiang SRC Response at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses.\22\ The Department has determined that an analysis
of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are,
in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude
the Department from assigning separate rates. The evidence provided by
Golden Dragon and Hailiang supports a preliminary finding of an absence
of de facto government control based on the following: (1) The
companies set their own export prices independent of the government and
without the approval of a government authority; (2) the companies have
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) the
companies have autonomy from the government in making decisions
regarding the selection of management; and (4) there is no restriction
on any of the companies' use of export revenue.\23\ Therefore, the
Department preliminarily finds that Golden Dragon and Hailiang have
established that they qualify for a separate rate under the criteria
established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May
8, 1995).
\23\ Golden Dragon's Section A Questionnaire Response at A-6--A-
10 and Hailiang SRC Response at 8-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate for Respondents Not Individually Examined
The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to individual respondents not
selected for examination when the Department limits its examination in
an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act.
Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an
investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents
which we did not examine in an administrative review. Section
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act articulates a preference that we are not to
calculate an all-others rate using rates which are zero, de minimis or
based entirely on facts available. Accordingly, the Department's usual
practice has been to average the weighted-average dumping margins for
the selected companies, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or
based entirely on facts available.\24\ Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act
also provides that, where all rates are zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on facts available, we may use ``any reasonable method'' for
assigning the all-others rate, including ``averaging the estimated
weighted-average dumping margins determined for the exporters and
producers individually investigated.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in Part, 73 FR
52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In previous administrative reviews, the Department has determined
that a ``reasonable method'' to use when the rates for the respondents
selected for individual examination are zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on facts available, is to apply to those respondents not
selected for individual examination (and eligible for a separate rate
in an NME review) the average of the most recently-determined weighted-
[[Page 47033]]
average dumping margins that are not zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on facts available. These rates may be from the investigation,
a prior administrative review, or a new shipper review.\25\ If any such
non-selected respondent had its own calculated rate that is
contemporaneous with or more recent than such prior determined rates,
however, the Department has applied such individual rate to the non-
selected respondent in the instant review, including when that rate is
zero, de minimis.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary
Partial Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
76 FR 8338, 8342 (February 14, 2011), unchanged in Administrative
Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic
of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 51940 (August 19, 2011); see also
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 49460, 49463 (August
13, 2010), and Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 774 F.
Supp. 2d 1286 (CIT 2011).
\26\ See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Rescission of Review in Part, 77 FR 21529, 21530-31
(April 10, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this administrative review, there is one non-selected
respondent, Hailiang, which is under review and is eligible for a
separate rate. Hailiang received its own calculated rate that is
contemporaneous with or more recent than the most recent rates
determined for other respondents that are not zero, de minimis, or
based entirely on facts available. Accordingly, we have concluded in
this administrative review that a reasonable method for determining the
rate for Hailiang is to apply its most recent, individually-calculated,
rate. Pursuant to this method, we have assigned a rate of 60.85 percent
to Hailiang, its weighted-average dumping margin in the antidumping
investigation.\27\ In assigning this separate rate, we did not impute
the actions of other respondents to the behavior of Hailiang, but based
this determination on record evidence that may be deemed reasonably
reflective of the potential margin of dumping for Hailiang in this
administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See LTFV Final Determination, 75 FR at 60729.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Sale
Golden Dragon reported the invoice date as the date of sale because
it claims that for its U.S. sales of subject merchandise made during
the POR, the material terms of sale were established on the invoice
date.\28\ After evaluating Golden Dragon's claim in light of record
evidence, the Department, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) and its
long-standing practice of determining the date of sale,\29\
preliminarily determines that the invoice date is the most appropriate
date to use as Golden Dragon's date of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Golden Dragon's Section C Questionnaire Response at C-
18.
\29\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.414(c)(1) and
(d), the Department compared weighted-average export price or weighted-
average constructed export price to the weighted-average NV, as
described in the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections
below.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the
weighted-average dumping margin calculation method adopted in
Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping
Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (``Final Modification
for Reviews''). In particular, the Department compared monthly
weighted-average export prices (or constructed export prices) with
monthly weighted-average normal values and granted offsets for non-
dumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted average
dumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Price
Export Price
We considered the U.S. prices of certain sales by Golden Dragon to
be export price (``EP'') sales in accordance with section 772(a) of the
Act, because these were the prices at which the subject merchandise was
first sold before the date of importation by the exporter of the
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for
exportation to the United States.
We calculated EP based on the price to unaffiliated purchaser(s) in
the United States. We deducted movement expenses from the gross unit
U.S. sales price in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
These movement expenses include foreign inland freight from the plant
to the port of exportation. For a detailed description of all
adjustments, see Golden Dragon's Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Memorandum from Zev Primor, Analyst, to Robert Bolling,
Program Manager, Regarding Golden Dragon's Preliminary Results
Analysis Memorandum, dated August 1, 2012 (``Golden Dragon
Preliminary Analysis Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, constructed export
price (``CEP'') is the price at which the subject merchandise is first
sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the
date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter
of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or
exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter,
as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act. We considered
sales made by Golden Dragon's U.S. affiliate in the United States to be
CEP sales. We calculated CEP based on prices to unaffiliated purchasers
in the United States. In accordance with sections 772(c)(2)(A) and
772(d)(1) and of the Act, where applicable, we made deductions from the
starting price for movement expenses, and commissions, credit expenses,
inventory carrying costs, warranty expenses, and indirect selling
expenses which relate to commercial activity in the United States.
Movement expenses included, where applicable, foreign inland freight
from the plant to the port of exportation, foreign brokerage and
handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight
from the port to the warehouse, U.S. freight from the warehouse to the
customer, U.S. customs duty and U.S. warehousing expenses. In addition,
we deducted CEP profit from U.S. price in accordance with sections
772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. As a CEP adjustment and in accordance
with section 773(a) of the Act, we calculated Golden Dragon's credit
expenses and inventory carrying costs based on short-term interest
rates. Because Golden Dragon did not incur short-term U.S. dollar
borrowings during the POR, we based its interest rate on the short-term
interest rate from the Federal Reserve. For those expenses that were
provided by an ME provider and paid for in an ME currency, the
Department used the reported expense. Due to the proprietary nature of
certain adjustments to U.S. price, see Golden Dragon's Preliminary
Analysis Memo, for a detailed description of all adjustments.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using an FOP methodology if: (1) The merchandise is
exported from an NME country; and (2) the information does not permit
the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices,
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining
NV in an NME context, the
[[Page 47034]]
Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of these economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our
normal methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include
but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of
raw materials employed; and (3) representative capital costs. The
Department used FOPs reported by Golden Dragon for materials, labor,
packing and by-products.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by Golden Dragon for the POR. In accordance with
19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly
available information to find an appropriate SV to value each FOP, but
when a producer sources an input from an ME and pays for it in an ME
currency, the Department normally will value the factor using the
actual price paid for the input.\32\ To calculate NV, the Department
multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly
available SVs (except as discussed below). In selecting SVs, the
Department considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of
the data.\33\ As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including
freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to
import SVs surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from
the nearest seaport to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment
is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's
decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly
Components Div of Ill Tool Works v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376,
1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department's use of market-
based prices to value certain FOPs).
\33\ See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR
72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final Results of First New Shipper
Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 31204
(June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the preliminary results, except where noted below, we used data
from the Thai import statistics in the GTA and other publicly available
Thai sources in order to calculate SVs for Golden Dragon's FOPs (i.e.,
direct materials, energy, and packing materials) and certain movement
expenses. In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs
in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's
practice is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are non-
export average values, most contemporaneous with the POR, product-
specific, and tax-exclusive.\34\ The record shows that Thai import
statistics obtained through GTA are contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\35\ In those instances where we
could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the
POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the SVs using, where
appropriate, the Thai Producer Price Index (``PPI'') or Consumer Price
Index (``CPI''), as published in the International Monetary Fund's
International Financial Statistics.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warm water Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
\35\ See Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Seamless
Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China:
Surrogate Value Memorandum (``Surrogate Value Memorandum'') at 2.
\36\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 74 FR 9600 (March 5, 2009), unchanged in Certain
Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 74 FR
36656 (July 24, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with legislative history, the Department continues to
apply its long-standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason
to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.\37\ In this
regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate to
disregard such import statistics from India, Indonesia, South Korea and
Thailand because we have determined that these countries maintain
broadly available, non-industry specific export subsidies.\38\ Based on
the existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available
to all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the
POR, the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all
exporters from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have
benefitted from these subsidies. Therefore, we have not used prices
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand in calculating the
import-based SVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess.
(1988) at 590.
\38\ See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India: Final
Results of the Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4-5; Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From Indonesia: Final Results of
Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4; Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea:
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
2512 (January 15, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 17, 19-20; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.\39\
Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an
``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, because
we could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country
or a country with generally available export subsidies.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5, 2009), unchanged in
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009) and Certain Kitchen Appliance
Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China: Amended
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 46971 (September 14, 2009).
\40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued truck freight expenses using a price list for domestic
shipments from the Thailand Board of Investment. The rates were in
effect prior to the POR, so we adjusted them to be contemporaneous with
the POR, using PPI.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6 and Exhibits 1 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping duty proceedings.\42\ In
Labor Methodologies, the Department determined that the best
methodology to value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor
rates from the primary surrogate country. Additionally, the Department
determined that the best data source for industry-specific labor rates
is Chapter 6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from the International
Labor Organization (``ILO'') Yearbook of Labor Statistics
(``Yearbook'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47035]]
The Department valued labor using the methodology described in
Labor Methodologies. Specifically, to value the respondents' labor the
Department relied on data reported by Thailand to the ILO in Chapter 6A
of the Yearbook for the total manufacturing wage data. Although the
Department found that the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 3.1
(``Manufacture of Machinery and Equipment NEC'') is the best available
information on the record with which to value labor because it is
specific to the industry being examined, and is, therefore, derived
from industries that produce comparable merchandise, Thailand has not
reported data specific to the two-digit description since 2000.
However, Thailand did report total manufacturing wage data in 2005.
Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the Department
calculated the labor value using total labor data reported by Thailand
to the ILO in 2005, in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the
Act.\43\ Because these rates were in effect before the POR, we are
adjusting the average value for inflation using CPI. A more detailed
description of the wage rate calculation methodology is provided in the
Surrogate Value Memorandum. The ILO data from Chapter 6A of the
Yearbook, which was used to value labor, reflects all costs related to
labor, including wages, and indirect labor costs such as benefits,
housing, and training. The financial statements used to calculate the
surrogate financial ratios do not include itemized details regarding
the indirect labor costs incurred. Therefore, the Department has not
made adjustments to the surrogate financial ratios.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36094, n.11; see also
Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Administrative
Review, 77 FR 13284, 13292-93 (March 6, 2012) (relying upon national
data reported by ILO Chapter 6A in the absence of Chapter 6A
industry-specific data), unchanged in Small Diameter Graphite
Electrodes from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Administrative Review, 77 FR 40854 (July 11, 2012).
\44\ See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because water was used by Golden Dragon in the production of
seamless copper pipe and tube, the Department considers water to be a
direct material input rather than overhead.\45\ We valued water using
data from the Metropolitan Waterworks Authority. We did not inflate
this rate since it is contemporaneous with the POR.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings
From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 2003),
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11.
\46\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5 and Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export
procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in
Thailand. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of
the procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in Thailand as reported in ``Doing Business 2012:
Thailand'' published by the World Bank.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6 and Exhibit 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued marine insurance using a marine insurance rate offered by
RJG Consultants. The rate is a percentage of the value of the shipment;
thus we did not inflate or deflate the rate.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6 and Exhibit 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were unable to segregate and, therefore, were unable to exclude
energy costs from the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios.
Accordingly, for the preliminary results, we have disregarded the
respondents' energy inputs (electricity) in the calculation of NV, in
order to avoid double-counting energy costs that have necessarily been
captured in the surrogate financial ratios.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 74 FR 16838 (April 13, 2009), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
expenses, and profit, we used audited financial statements for the year
ending December 2011 of Furukawa Metal (Thailand) Public Company
Limited, a producer of identical merchandise from Thailand.\50\ The
Department has not used for these preliminary results the financial
statement from Kobelco & Materials Copper Tube (Thailand) Co., Ltd.,
that is on the record because that financial statement is incomplete
and not fully translated.\51\ The Department may consider other
publicly available financial statements for the final results, as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5 and Exhibit 5 and 1.
\51\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Dragon reported that it recycles copper scrap and sells a
small amount of copper slag and copper ash; therefore, the Department
has granted a by-product offset for the quantities of Golden Dragon's
reported by-products, valued using Thai GTA data.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See Golden Dragon's Preliminary Analysis Memo at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currency Conversion
Where appropriate, the Department made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on
the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department preliminarily determines that the following
weighted-average dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Dragon........................ 0.00 (de minimis)
Hailiang............................. 60.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within 10 days of the date of the
public announcement of the results of this review in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
Comments
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of
review.\53\ Rebuttal comments must be limited to the issues raised in
the written comments and may be filed no later than five days after the
time limit for filing the case briefs.\54\ Interested parties, who wish
to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must
submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using
Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''). An electronically filed
document must be received successfully in its entirety by the
Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice.\55\ Requests should contain the party's name, address, and
telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues
to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform
parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined.\56\
[[Page 47036]]
Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the
hearing. The Department intends to issue the final results of the
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in the briefs, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act, unless the time limit is extended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
\54\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
\55\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\56\ See 19 CFR 351.310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by the review. The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final
results of the review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we
calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates
for the merchandise subject to the review.
Where the respondent reports reliable entered values, we calculate
importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the
dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or
customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the
sales to each importer (or customer).\57\ Where an importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we will
apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importers'/
customers' entries during the POR.\58\ Where we do not have entered
values for all U.S. sales, we calculate a per-unit assessment rate by
aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity
sold to that importer (or customer). To determine whether the duty
assessment rates are above de minimis, in accordance with the
requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer
(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios based on the entered value.
Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de
minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\58\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\59\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department recently announced a refinement to its assessment
practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for
entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by
companies individually examined during this review, the Department will
instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. In
addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review
had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that
entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's
rate) will be liquidated at the NME-wide rate. For a full discussion of
this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Golden Dragon the
cash deposit rate will be its rate established in the final results of
this review; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-
PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published
for the most recent segment; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate
rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity; and
(4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied those non-PRC exporters.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and (3) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213.
Dated: July 31, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-19297 Filed 8-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
