Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 47363-47369 [2012-19299]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Notices
Protection 15 days after publication of
this notice.
Notification to Importer
This notice serves as a final 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 Department’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
This notice is published in
accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19
CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: August 2, 2012.
Gary Taverman,
Senior Advisor for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012–19447 Filed 8–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–952]
Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven
Selvedge From the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on narrow
woven ribbons with woven selvedge
(‘‘Ribbons’’) from the People’s Republic
of China (‘‘PRC’’). The period of review
(‘‘POR’’) is September 1, 2010, through
August 31, 2011.
As discussed below, the Department
preliminarily determines that the PRCwide entity made sales in the United
States at prices below normal value
(‘‘NV’’). If the preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of
administrative review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries. Interested
parties are invited to comment on the
preliminary results.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit comments are
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:11 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
requested to submit with each argument
a summary of the argument. We intend
to issue the final results no later than
120 days from the date of publication of
this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’).
DATES: Effective Date: August 8, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karine Gziryan or Robert Bolling, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4081 and (202)
482–3434 respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 1, 2010, the
Department published in the Federal
Register an antidumping duty order on
NWR from the PRC.1 On September 23,
2011, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on NWR
from the PRC for the period September
1, 2010, through August 31, 2011.2 On
September 21, 29th, and 30th, 2011, the
Department received timely requests in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2)
for an administrative review from
Weifang Dongfang Ribbon Weaving Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Weifang Dongfang’’), Stribbons
(Guangzhou) Ltd. (‘‘Stribbons
Guangzhou’’), Stribbons (Nanyang)
MNC, Ltd. (‘‘Stribbons MNC’’),
Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Col,
Ltd. (‘‘Bestpak’’), and Precious Planet
Ribbons & Bows Co., Ltd. (‘‘Precious
Planet’’). On September 30, 2011, the
Department also received a timely
request from Berwick Offray LLC and its
wholly-owned subsidiary Lion Ribbon
Company, Inc. (collectively,
‘‘Petitioners’’), in accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(b)(1), for an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on NWR from the PRC for ten
companies: Yama Ribbons and Bows
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yama Ribbons’’),
Hubschercorp (Canada), Apex Ribbon
(Canada), Pacific Imports (Canada),
Supreme Laces Inc. (Canada),
Multicolor Inc. (Canada), Apex
1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Narrow
Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan
and the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping
Duty Orders, 75 FR 53632 (September 1, 2010), as
amended in Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven
Selvedge From Taiwan and the People’s Republic
of China: Amended Antidumping Duty Orders, 75
FR 56982 (September 17, 2010) (‘‘Orders’’).
2 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 54735
(September 2, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47363
Trimmings (Canada), Papillon Ribbon &
Bow (Canada), FinerRibbon.com
(Canada), and Intercontinental Skyline
(Canada).
On October 31, 2011, the Department
published a notice of initiation of an
antidumping duty administrative review
on NWR from the PRC, in which it
initiated a review of Hubschercorp,
Apex Ribbon, Pacific Imports, Supreme
Laces Inc., Multicolor Inc., Apex
Trimmings, Papillon Ribbon & Bow
(Canada), FinerRibbon.com.,
Intercontinental Skyline, Weifang
Dongfang, Stribbons Guangzhou,
Stribbons MNC, Bestpak, Precious
Planet, and Yama Ribbons.3
On November 16, 2011, the
Department placed on the record CBP
import data for certain Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings. On November
23, 2011, the Department received
comments from Stribbons (Guangzhou)
Ltd., Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC, Ltd.,
Bestpak and Petitioners. After
examining the CBP data and the
comments from the interested parties,
the Department concluded that the
import data was reported using
inconsistent units of measurement. The
Department was, therefore, unable to
select mandatory respondents based
soley on this data.
On December 6, 2011, to clarify the
import data on the record, the
Department issued quantity and value
(‘‘Q&V’’) questionnaires to exporters
who allegedly had imports of NWR
during the POR according to the CBP
import data on the record. The
Department requested that the
companies report the Q&V of their POR
exports and/or shipments of NWR to the
United States using specified units of
measurement. The Department also
received Q&V submissions from
Hubscher Ribbon Corp., Ltd.
(‘‘Hubschercorp’’) and Precious Planet
on December 20, 2011.4
Because the PRC is a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’), companies wishing
to receive a separate antidumping rate
for purposes of this administrative
review were required to file a timely
separate rate application or separate rate
certification. The separate rate
application and/or certification in this
case were due within 60 days from the
initiation of the antidumping
administrative review,5 no later than
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 67133
(October 31, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
4 See Shanghai Dayspring Gifts Corp. Ltd. did not
respond to the Department’s Q&V questionnaire.
5 See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 67133–134
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
47364
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Notices
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
December 30, 2011. On November 26,
2011, December 22, 2011, December 29,
2011, and December 30, 2011, the
Department received timely separate
rate applications and/or certifications
from Weifang Dongfang, Bestpak,
Hubschercorp and Precious Planet in
that respective order.
On January 4, 2012, five days after the
due date had passed, Stribbons
(Guangzhou) Ltd., Stribbons (Nanyang)
MNC, Ltd. (collectively ‘‘MNC
Stribbons’’) submitted an untimely
request for a two-week extension to file
a separate rate certification. Then, on
January 9, 2012, ten days after the
deadline for submitting the separate rate
certification had passed, without
receiving a response from the
Department to its untimely extension
request, MNC Stribbons attempted to
file a separate rate certification for
Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd. and
Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC, Ltd. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(d)(2),
on Janauary 13, 2012, the Department
rejected MNC Stribbons’ filings of
January 4, 2012, and January 9, 2012 as
untimely and returned those
submissions to the company.6
On January 11, 2012, the Department
exercised its authority to limit the
number of respondents selected for
individual examination pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act.7 The
Department selected the two largest
exporters by volume as our mandatory
respondents for this review,
Hubschercorp and Precious Planet.8 On
January 12, 2012, Bestpak timely
withdrew its requests to the Department
to conduct an administrative review of
its sales.
On January 13, 2012, the Department
issued the antidumping questionnaire to
Hubschercorp and Precious Planet. On
January 24, 2012, Precious Planet timely
withdrew its request for an
administrative review of its sales.9
6 See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4 to Mr. James
Cannon, Williams Mullen, representing Stribbons
(Guangzhou) Ltd. and Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC
Ltd., dated January 13, 2012 (‘‘Rejection Letter’’).
7 See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, from
Jonathan Hill, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4,
‘‘Respondent Selection in the First Administrative
Review of Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven
Selvedge from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated January 11, 2012 (‘‘Respondent Selection
Memo’’).
8 See Respondent Selection Memo. Also,
Hubschercorp and Precios Planet are collectively
referred to as the ‘‘mandatory respondents.’’
9 On January 31, 2012, MNC Stribbons filed a
request to the Department to select MNC Stribbons
as a mandatory respondent in the antidumping duty
administrative review of Ribbons, however, for the
reasons stated below under the PRC-wide Entity
section, the Department did not grant that request.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:11 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
Between January 13, 2012 and March
16, 2012, Hubschercorp responded to
the Department’s questionnaires. In its
February 24, 2012, section D
questionnaire response to the
Department, Hubschercorp explained
that it was not able to obtain the factors
of production (‘‘FOP’’) information from
its Chineese producer of NWR, Yama
Ribbons. On March 1, 2012, the
Department issued a section D
questionnaire to Yama Ribbons, a
producer of NWR for Hubschercorp
during the POR. On March 16, 2012,
Yama Ribbons provided its answer to
the Department’s section D
questionnaire response explaining that
it would not provide a response to the
section D questionnaire.10 On May 7,
2012, the Department issued sections A
and C supplemental questionnaires to
Hubschercorp. Between January and
May 2012, Petitioners provided
comments on Hubschercorp’s
questionnaire responses.
On May 25, 2012, the Department
extended the time period for completion
of the preliminary results of this review
by 30 days until July 1, 2012.11 On May
29, 2012, Hubschercorp indicated that it
would no longer participate in this
administrative review. On June 27,
2012, the Department extended the time
period for completion of the preliminary
results of this review by a further 30
days until July 31, 2012.12
Period of Review
The POR is September 1, 2010
through August 31, 2011.13
10 See Yama Ribbons’ section D questionnaire
response to the Department, dated March 16, 2012.
11 See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, from Karine
Gziryan, International Trade Compliance Analyst,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4: ‘‘Narrow Woven
Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the People’s
Republic of China Extension of Deadline for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review,’’ dated May 25, 2012.
12 See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, from Karine
Gziryan, International Trade Compliance Analyst,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4: ‘‘Narrow Woven
Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the People’s
Republic of China Extension of Deadline for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review,’’ dated June 27, 2012.
13 The ITC made an affirmative determination in
the Narrow Woven Ribbons investigation based on
a threat of injury. See Narrow Woven Ribbons with
Woven Selvedge from China and Taiwan, 75 FR
53711 (September 1, 2010). Under section 736(b)(2)
of the Act, all subject merchandse entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse on or after September
1, 2010, the date the ITC published its affirmative
determination of threat of material injury in the
Federal Register, are suspended and covered by the
POR for the first administrative review. Entries
before that date were liquidated without regard to
antidumping duties.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Scope of Order
The scope of the order covers narrow
woven ribbons with woven selvedge, in
any length, but with a width (measured
at the narrowest span of the ribbon) less
than or equal to 12 centimeters,
composed of, in whole or in part, manmade fibers (whether artificial or
synthetic, including but not limited to
nylon, polyester, rayon, polypropylene,
and polyethylene teraphthalate), metal
threads and/or metalized yarns, or any
combination thereof. Narrow woven
ribbons subject to the order may:
• Also include natural or other nonman-made fibers;
• Be of any color, style, pattern, or
weave construction, including but not
limited to single-faced satin, doublefaced satin, grosgrain, sheer, taffeta,
twill, jacquard, or a combination of two
or more colors, styles, patterns, and/or
weave constructions;
• Have been subjected to, or
composed of materials that have been
subjected to, various treatments,
including but not limited to dyeing,
printing, foil stamping, embossing,
flocking, coating, and/or sizing;
• Have embellishments, including but
´
not limited to applique, fringes,
embroidery, buttons, glitter, sequins,
laminates, and/or adhesive backing;
• Have wire and/or monofilament in,
on, or along the longitudinal edges of
the ribbon;
• Have ends of any shape or
dimension, including but not limited to
straight ends that are perpendicular to
the longitudinal edges of the ribbon,
tapered ends, flared ends or shaped
ends, and the ends of such woven
ribbons may or may not be hemmed;
• Have longitudinal edges that are
straight or of any shape, and the
longitudinal edges of such woven
ribbon may or may not be parallel to
each other;
• Consist of such ribbons affixed to
like ribbon and/or cut-edge woven
ribbon, a configuration also known as an
‘‘ornamental trimming;’’
• Be wound on spools; attached to a
card; hanked (i.e., coiled or bundled);
packaged in boxes, trays or bags; or
configured as skeins, balls, bateaus or
folds; and/or
• Be included within a kit or set such
as when packaged with other products,
including but not limited to gift bags,
gift boxes and/or other types of ribbon.
Narrow woven ribbons subject to the
order include all narrow woven fabrics,
tapes, and labels that fall within this
written description of the scope of the
antidumping duty order.
Excluded from the scope of the order
are the following:
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Notices
(1) Formed bows composed of narrow
woven ribbons with woven selvedge;
(2) ‘‘Pull-bows’’ (i.e., an assemblage of
ribbons connected to one another,
folded flat and equipped with a means
to form such ribbons into the shape of
a bow by pulling on a length of material
affixed to such assemblage) composed of
narrow woven ribbons;
(3) Narrow woven ribbons comprised
at least 20 percent by weight of
elastomeric yarn (i.e., filament yarn,
including monofilament, of synthetic
textile material, other than textured
yarn, which does not break on being
extended to three times its original
length and which returns, after being
extended to twice its original length,
within a period of five minutes, to a
length not greater than one and a half
times its original length as defined in
the (HTSUS, Section XI, Note 13) or
rubber thread;
(4) Narrow woven ribbons of a kind
used for the manufacture of typewriter
or printer ribbons;
(5) Narrow woven labels and apparel
tapes, cut-to-length or cut-to-shape,
having a length (when measured across
the longest edge-to-edge span) not
exceeding eight centimeters;
(6) Narrow woven ribbons with
woven selvedge attached to and forming
the handle of a gift bag;
(7) Cut-edge narrow woven ribbons
formed by cutting broad woven fabric
into strips of ribbon, with or without
treatments to prevent the longitudinal
edges of the ribbon from fraying (such
as by merrowing, lamination, sonobonding, fusing, gumming or waxing),
and with or without wire running
lengthwise along the longitudinal edges
of the ribbon;
(8) Narrow woven ribbons comprised
at least 85 percent by weight of threads
having a denier of 225 or higher;
(9) Narrow woven ribbons constructed
from pile fabrics (i.e., fabrics with a
surface effect formed by tufts or loops of
yarn that stand up from the body of the
fabric);
(10) Narrow woven ribbon affixed
(including by tying) as a decorative
detail to non-subject merchandise, such
as a gift bag, gift box, gift tin, greeting
card or plush toy, or affixed (including
by tying) as a decorative detail to
packaging containing non-subject
merchandise;
(11) Narrow woven ribbon that is (a)
affixed to non-subject merchandise as a
working component of such non-subject
merchandise, such as where narrow
woven ribbon comprises an apparel
trimming, book marker, bag cinch, or
part of an identity card holder, or (b)
affixed (including by tying) to nonsubject merchandise as a working
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:11 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
component that holds or packages such
non-subject merchandise or attaches
packaging or labeling to such nonsubject merchandise, such as a ‘‘belly
band’’ around a pair of pajamas, a pair
of socks or a blanket;
(12) Narrow woven ribbon(s)
comprising a belt attached to and
imported with an item of wearing
apparel, whether or not such belt is
removable from such item of wearing
apparel; and
(13) Narrow woven ribbon(s) included
with non-subject merchandise in kits,
such as a holiday ornament craft kit or
a scrapbook kit, in which the individual
lengths of narrow woven ribbon(s)
included in the kit are each no greater
than eight inches, the aggregate amount
of narrow woven ribbon(s) included in
the kit does not exceed 48 linear inches,
none of the narrow woven ribbon(s)
included in the kit is on a spool, and the
narrow woven ribbon(s) is only one of
multiple items included in the kit.
The merchandise subject to the order
is classifiable under the HTSUS
statistical categories 5806.32.1020;
5806.32.1030; 5806.32.1050 and
5806.32.1060. Subject merchandise also
may enter under subheadings
5806.31.00; 5806.32.20; 5806.39.20;
5806.39.30; 5808.90.00; 5810.91.00;
5810.99.90; 5903.90.10; 5903.90.25;
5907.00.60; and 5907.00.80 and under
statistical categories 5806.32.1080;
5810.92.9080; 5903.90.3090; and
6307.90.9889. The HTSUS statistical
categories and subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes;
however, the written description of the
merchandise covered by the order is
dispositive.
Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Department will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in
part, if a party that requested a review
withdraws the request within 90 days of
the date of publication of the notice of
initiation of the requested review, or
withdraws its request at a later date if
the Department determines that it is
reasonable to extend the time limit for
withdrawing the request. As indicated
above, on January 12, 2012, and January
24, 2012, respectively, Bestpak and
Precious Planet withdrew their requests
for a review, which was within the 90day deadline.
No other party has requested a review
for Bestpak or Precious Planet, and no
party has opposed their withdrawal
requests. Additionally, Bestpak had a
separate rate granted in a previously
completed segment of this proceeding
that was in effect during the instant
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47365
review period.14 Therefore, we are
rescinding this administrative review
with respect to Bestpak in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). However,
Precious Planet has not established its
eligibility for a separate rate; therefore,
it will continue to be considered part of
the PRC-wide entity. Because in this
administrative review the PRC-wide
entity is under review for these
preliminary results, we are not
rescinding this review with respect to
Precious Planet.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
The Department has treated the PRC
as a NME country in all past
antidumping duty investigations and
administrative reviews and continues to
do so in this case.15 In accordance with
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect
until revoked by the administering
authority.16
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate.17 It is the Department’s policy
to assign all exporters of subject
merchandise in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate
this independence through the absence
of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export
activities. The Department analyzes
each entity exporting the subject
merchandise under a test set out in the
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from
the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR
20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as
further developed in 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’’).
However, if the Department determines
that a company is wholly foreign-owned
or located in an ME, then a separate rate
14 See
Orders.
section 771(18)(C) of the Act; see, e.g.,
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results
of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 9753 (February 22, 2011).
16 See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.
17 See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates
Practice and Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market
Economy Countries, available at http://ia.ita.doc.
gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
15 See
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
47366
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Notices
analysis is not necessary to determine
whether it is independent from
government control.18
In its separate rate certification,
Weifang Dongfang reported that it was
wholly owned by a domestic entity
located in the PRC.19 Therefore, the
Department must analyze whether
Weifang Dongfang can demonstrate the
absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export
activities.
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) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.20
The evidence provided by Weifang
Dongfang supports a preliminary
finding of de jure absence of
governmental control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with the
individual exporters’ 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
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
governmental control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a governmental 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
18 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From
the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104,
71104–05 (December 20, 1999) (where the
respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus,
qualified for a separate rate).
19 See Weifang Dongfang’s Separate Rate
Certification, dated November 26, 2011.
20 See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
21 See Weifang Dongfang’s Separate Rate
Certification at questions 10–14.
22 See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see
also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:11 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
For Weifang Dongfang, we determine
that the evidence on the record supports
a preliminary finding of de facto
absence of government control based on
record statements and supporting
documentation showing the following:
(1) Weifang Dongfang sets its own
export prices independent of the
government authority; (2) Weifang
Dongfang retains the proceeds from its
sales and makes independent decisions
regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses; (3) Weifang
Dongfang has the authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; and (4) Weifang Dongfang
has autonomy from the government
regarding the selection of
management.23
The evidence placed on the record of
this review by Weifang Dongfang
demonstrates an absence of de jure and
de facto government control with
respect to its exports of the merchandise
under review, in accordance with the
criteria identified in Sparklers and
Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we are
preliminarily granting Weifang
Dongfang separate-rate status.
Calculation of Separate Rate
In accordance with section
777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department
employed a limited examination
methodology, as it did not have the
resources to examine all companies for
which a review request was made. In
addition to the mandatory respondent,
only Weifang Dongfang submitted
timely information as requested by the
Department and remains subject to the
review as a cooperative separate rate
respondent.
We note that the Act and the
Department’s regulations do not directly
address the establishment of a rate to be
applied to individual companies not
selected for examination where the
Department limited its examination in
an administrative review pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The
Department’s practice in cases involving
limited selection based on exporters
accounting for the largest volumes of
trade has been to look to section
735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides
instructions for calculating the allothers rate in an investigation, for
guidance. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the
Act instructs that we are not to calculate
an all-others rate using any zero or de
minimis margins or any margins based
entirely on facts available. Section
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also provides
Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545
(May 8, 1995).
23 See Weifang Dongfang’s Separate Rate
Certification at questions 15–20.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that, where all margins are zero rates, de
minimis rates, or rates based entirely on
facts available, we may use ‘‘any
reasonable method’’ for assigning the
rate to non-selected respondents. In this
instance, we based the rate for the sole
mandatory respondent, Hubscercorp,
entirely on facts available.
In exercising this discretion to
determine a non-examined rate, the
Department considers relevant the fact
that section 735(c)(5) of the Act: (a) Is
explicitly applicable to the
determination of an all-others rate in an
investigation; and (b) articulates a
preference that the Department avoid
zero, de minimis rates or rates based
entirely on facts available when it
determines the all others rate. The Act’s
statement that averaging of zero/de
minimis margins and margins based
entirely on facts available may be a
reasonable method, and the Statement
of Administrative Action’s (‘‘SAA’’)
indication that such averaging may be
the expected method, should be read in
the context of an investigation.24 First,
if there are only zero or de minimis
margins determined in the investigation
(and there is no other entity to which a
facts available margin has been applied),
the investigation would terminate and
no order would be issued. Thus, the
provision necessarily only applies to
circumstances in which there are either
both zero/de minimis and total facts
available margins, or only total facts
available margins. Second, when such
rates are the only rates determined in an
investigation, there is little information
on which to rely to determine an
appropriate all-others rate. In this
context, therefore, the SAA’s stated
expected method is reasonable: the
zero/de minimis and facts available
margins may be the only or best data the
Department has available to apply to
non-selected companies. We note that
the Department has sought other
reasonable means to assign separate-rate
margins to non-reviewed companies in
instances with calculated zero rates, de
minimis rates, or rates based entirely on
facts available for the mandatory
respondents.25
In Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final, the
Department assigned to those separate
rate companies with no history of an
individually calculated rate the margin
calculated for cooperative separate rate
24 See SAA accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316 at 872
(1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4200.
25 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and
Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 47191, 47194
(September 15, 2009) (‘‘Vietnam Shrimp AR3
Final’’).
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Notices
respondents in the underlying
investigation. However, for those
separate rate respondents that had
received a calculated rate in a prior
segment, concurrent with or more recent
than the calculated rate in the
underlying investigation, the
Department assigned that calculated rate
as the company’s separate rate in the
review at hand.
Thus, we find that a reasonable
method in the instant review is to assign
to the separate rate company Weifang
Dongfang with no history of an
individually calculated rate, the margin
calculated for cooperative separate rate
respondents in the underlying
investigation. Pursuant to this method,
we are preliminarily assigning a rate of
123.83 percent to Weifang Dongfang, the
margin calculated for cooperative
separate rate respondents in the
underlying investigation.26 In assigning
this separate rate, the Department did
not impute the actions of any other
companies to the behavior of the nonindividually examined company, but
based this determination on record
evidence that may be deemed
reasonably reflective of the potential
dumping margin for the nonindividually examined company,
Weifang Dongfang, in this
administrative review.
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The PRC-Wide Entity
In addition to the separate-rate
certification discussed above, there were
two companies, Stribbons Guangzhou
and Stribbons MNC (collectively ‘‘MNC
Stribbons’’ 27) for which we initiated a
review in this proceeding and which
previously had a separate rate. In
accordance with the Department’s
established NME methodology, a party’s
separate rate status must be established
in each segment of the proceeding in
which the party is involved.28 Because
these companies did not file a timely
(i.e., within 60 calendar days after
publication of Initiation Notice 29)
separate rate certification to
demonstrate eligibility for a separate
rate in this administrative review, or
26 See 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).
27 MNC Stribbons filed their Separate Rate
Certification on behalf of two companies under
collective name MNC Stribbons, however, the
Department initiated our administrative review on
two companies Stribbons Guangzhou and Stribbons
MNC, and we will continue to treat these two
companies as two separate entities.
28 See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d
1401, 1405–06 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming the
Department’s presumption of State control over
exporters in non-market economy cases).
29 See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 67134.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:11 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
certify that they had no shipments,30 we
preliminarily determine that these
companies are part of the PRC-wide
entity.
We note that MNC Stribbons filed a
request to be selected as a mandatory
respondent after one of the selected
mandatory respondents withdrew from
the proceeding. However, MNC
Stribbons made this request after it had
missed the 60-day deadline to
demonstrate its eligibility for a separate
rate (i.e., failed to provide a timely
separate rate certification) and the
Department returned its submissions in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(d). The
Department has not selected MNC
Stribbons as a mandatory respondent
because it failed to provide a timely
separate rate certification in this
administrative review.31 Granting such
a request to be a mandatory respondent
after the company failed to provide a
timely separate rate certification would
seriously undermine our separate rate
60-day deadline. Moreover, companies,
such as MNC Stribbons, which failed to
provide a timely separate rate
certification, and, therefore, lost their
separate rate status would be subject to
the review as the PRC-wide entity.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available and
AFA
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that
the Department shall apply ‘‘facts
otherwise available’’ if: (1) Necessary
information is not on the record; or (2)
an interested party or any other person
(A) withholds information that has been
requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines
established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding, or (D) provides information
that cannot be verified as provided by
section 782(i) of the Act.
As noted in the ‘‘Background’’ section
above, Hubschercorp did not respond to
the Department’s Section D
questionnaire, Sections A and C
supplemental questionnaires in this
administrative review and informed the
Department that it would no longer
participate in this review.32 As a result,
Hubschercorp failed to provide
requested information that is necessary
for the Department to calculate an
antidumping duty rate for Hubschercorp
in this administrative review. By only
responding to certain parts of the
Department’s questionnaires and failing
to respond to the Department’s section
30 See
id.
Rejection Letter.
32 See Hubschercorp’s May 29, 2012, submission.
31 See
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47367
D antidumping questionnaire and
sections A and C supplemental
questionnaires, Hubschercorp did not
provide the Department with the
information, such as, for example,
complete product characteristics related
to control numbers of products sold in
the United States, FOPs, consumption
rates of FOPs, and production processes
data. Without this information, it is not
possible for the Department to
determine or calculate an antidumping
margin.
Hubschercorp withheld requested
information, significantly impeded this
proceeding and did not provide the
Department with sufficient information
to calculate an antidumping duty
margin. Therefore, pursuant to section
776(a)(1) and (2)(A) and (C) of the Act,
the Department preliminarily finds that
the use of total facts available is
appropriate.
Section 776(b) of the Act further
provides that the Department may use
an adverse inference in applying the
facts otherwise available when a party
has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information.33 Adverse
inferences are appropriate ‘‘to ensure
that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate
than if it had cooperated fully.’’ 34
Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of
bad faith on the part of a respondent is
not required before the Department may
make an adverse inference.’’ 35 We
preliminarily find that Hubschercorp
did not act to the best of its ability in
this administrative review, within the
meaning of section 776(b) of the Act,
because it failed to respond to the
Department’s requests for information
and failed to provide timely
information. Therefore, an adverse
inference is warranted in selecting from
the facts otherwise available with
respect to this company.36
Selection of the AFA Rate
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that the Department may use as AFA
information derived from: (1) The
petition; (2) the final determination in
33 See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar
from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025–26 (September 13,
2005); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–96
(August 30, 2002).
34 See SAA at 870.
35 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19,
1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States,
337 F.3d 1373, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(‘‘Nippon’’).
36 See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382–83.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
47368
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Notices
the investigation; (3) any previous
review; or (4) any other information
placed on the record.
The Department’s practice, when
selecting an AFA rate from among the
possible sources of information, has
been to select the highest rate on the
record of the proceeding and to ensure
that the margin is sufficiently adverse
‘‘as to effectuate the statutory purposes
of the adverse facts available rule to
induce respondents to provide the
Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner.’’ 37
As a result, we have preliminarily
assigned to Hubschercorp a rate of
247.65 percent, which is the highest rate
alleged in the petition, as noted in the
initiation of the less-than-fair-value
(‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, adjusted with
the surrogate value for labor rate used in
the final determination.38
Corroboration of Secondary
Information
Information from prior segments of
the proceeding constitutes secondary
information and section 776(c) of the
Act provides that the Department shall,
to the extent practicable, corroborate
that secondary information from
independent sources reasonably at its
disposal. The Department’s regulations
provide that ‘‘corroborate’’ means that
the Department will satisfy itself that
the secondary information to be used
has probative value.39 To be considered
corroborated, the Department must find
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
37 See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars from Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part,
71 FR 65082, 65084 (November 7, 2006).
38 See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven
Selvedge from the People’s Republic of China and
Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 74 FR 39291 (August 6, 2009)
(‘‘LTFV Initiation’’) and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from
the People’s Republic of China, 75 FR 41808 (July
19, 2010) (‘‘Narrow Woven Ribbons Final
Determination’’) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
39 See 19 CFR 351.308(d); see also SAA at 870.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:11 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
the secondary information is both
reliable and relevant.40
To determine whether the information
is reliable, we placed information from
the investigation on the record of this
segment of the proceeding, and
reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of
the information in the petition during
our pre-initiation analysis for purposes
of these preliminary results.41 We
examined evidence supporting the
calculations in the petition to determine
the probative value of the margins
alleged in the petition for use as AFA
for purposes of these preliminary
results. Based on our examination of the
information, as discussed in detail in
LTFV Initiation, we consider
petitioner’s calculation of the export
price and normal value to be reliable.
Therefore, because we confirmed the
accuracy and validity of the information
underlying the calculation of margins in
the petition by examining source
documents as well as publicly available
information, we preliminarily determine
that the margins in the petition are
reliable for the purposes of this
administrative review.
To determine the relevance of the
petition margin, we placed the modelspecific rates calculated for the
respondents in the LTFV investigation
on the record of this segment of the
proceeding and compared the 247.65
percent rate with those model-specific
rates. We find that this margin is
relevant because this is the first review
under this order (i.e., only one segment
40 See, e.g., SAA at 870; Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From
Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof,
From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial
Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR
57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered
Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825
(March 13, 1997).
41 See LTFV Initiation, 74 FR at 39294–39296.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
removed from the LTFV investigation),
and the petition rate fell within the
range of model-specific margins
calculated for the mandatory respondent
in the LTFV investigation.42
Further, the Department will consider
information reasonably at its disposal as
to whether there are circumstances that
would render a margin inappropriate.
Where circumstances indicate that the
selected margin is not appropriate as
AFA, the Department may disregard the
margin and determine an appropriate
margin.43 Therefore, we examined
whether any information on the record
would discredit the selected rate as
reasonable facts available. We were
unable to find any information that
would discredit the selected AFA rate.
Based on the above, for these
preliminary results, the Department
finds the highest rate derived from the
petition (i.e., 247.65 percent) is,
therefore, corroborated to the extent
practicable, pursuant to Section 776(c)
of the Act. Thus, we have assigned
Hubschercorp this rate as AFA in this
administrative review. For further
discussion of the corroboration of this
rate, see the Corroboration Memo.
42 See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From Thailand: Preliminary Results and
Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 12088, 12092 (March
6, 2008), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp From Thailand: Final Results and Final
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 50933 (August 29,
2008). See also the Memorandum to the File from
Karine Gziryan, Analyst, entitled, ‘‘Placement of
Proprietary Model-Specific Margins from the LessThan-Fair-Value Investigation on the Record and
Corroboration of Adverse Facts Available Rate for
the Preliminary Results in the 2010–2011
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from
the PRC,’’ dated July 31, 2012 (‘‘Corroboration
Memo’’).
43 See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996)
(where the Department disregarded the highest
calculated margin as AFA because the margin was
based on a company’s uncharacteristic business
expense resulting in an unusually high margin).
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Notices
final results of this review and 19 CFR
351.212(b). In this case, because we
The preliminary weighted-average
have no calculated rate, we are applying
dumping margin is as follows:
as the assessment rate for the separate
Weighted- rate respondent, Weifang Dongfang
Ribbon Weaving Co., Ltd., the rate from
average
Exporter
margin
the previous period, and for Hubscher
(percentRibbon Corp., Ltd., the AFA rate of
age)
247.65 percent. Accordingly, we are
adjusting the Weifang Dongfang Ribbon
Hubscher Ribbon Corp., Ltd. (d/
b/a Hubschercorp) 44 ...............
247.65 Weaving Co., Ltd. and Hubscher Ribbon
Corp., Ltd. assessment rates for export
Weifang Dongfang Ribbon
Weaving Co., Ltd. ...................
123.83 subsidy in the same manner that we
PRC-wide Entity 45 ......................
247.65 adjusted each company’s cash deposit
rate. (See Cash Deposit section below).
We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate
entries of subject merchandise exported
Disclosure and Public Comment
by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide
The Department intends to disclose
rate we determine in the final results of
calculations performed for these
this review. The Department intends to
preliminary results to the parties within issue appropriate assessment
five days of the date of publication of
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
after publication of the final results of
351.224(b). Any interested party may
this review.
request a hearing within 30 days of
Cash Deposit Requirements
publication of these preliminary
While the Department did not
results.46 If a hearing is requested, the
conduct a companion countervailing
Department will announce the hearing
duty (‘‘CVD’’) administrative review, in
schedule at a later date. Interested
the final determination of the CVD
parties may submit case briefs and/or
written comments no later than 30 days investigation on narrow woven ribbons
from the PRC, the Department
after the date of publication of the
preliminary results of review.47 Rebuttal determined that the product under
investigation benefitted from an export
briefs and rebuttals to written
subsidy.50 Accordingly, we will instruct
comments, limited to issues raised in
CBP to require an antidumping cash
such briefs or comments, may be filed
deposit equal to the weighted-average
no later than five days after the time
amount by which the NV exceeds the
limit for filing the case briefs.48 Parties
export price, as indicated above,
submitting hearing requests or written
reduced by an amount, as appropriate,
argument should do so pursuant to the
determined to constitute an export
Department’s electronic filing system,
subsidy in the final determination from
IA ACCESS.49 The Department intends
the investigation, the most recently
to issue the final results of this
completed segment from the CVD
administrative review, which will
proceeding. Therefore, for Hubscher
include the results of its analysis of
Ribbon Corp., Ltd., and the separate rate
issues raised in all comments, and at a
respondent, Weifang Dongfang Ribbon
hearing, within 120 days of publication
of these preliminary results, pursuant to Weaving Co., Ltd., we will instruct CBP
to require an antidumping duty cash
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
deposit—for each entry equal to the
Assessment Rates
weighted-average margin indicated
above adjusted for the export subsidy
The Department will determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on rate determined in the CVD final
determination. The adjusted cash
all appropriate entries of subject
deposit rate for the separate rate
merchandise in accordance with the
respondent Weifang Dongfang Ribbon
Weaving Co., Ltd., is 123.44 percent and
44 We note that Hubscher Ribbon Corp., Ltd. (d/
for Hubscher Ribbon Corp., Ltd., is
b/a Hubschercorp) is not a separate rate company;
it only appears in this table because this company
247.26 percent.
is a third-country reseller from Canada.
The following cash deposit
45 For the reasons stated above, the Department
requirements will be effective upon
has concluded that the PRC-wide Entity includes
publication of the final results of this
Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd. and Stribbons
administrative review for shipments of
(Nanyang) MNC Ltd.
46 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
the subject merchandise from the PRC
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Weighted-Average Dumping Margin
47 See 19 CFR 351.309(c); Parties submitting
written comments must submit them pursuant to
the Department’s e-filing regulations.
48 See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
49 See 19 CFR 351.303; https://iaaccess.trade.gov/
help/IA%20ACCESS%20User%20Guide.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:11 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
50 See Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination: Narrow Woven Ribbons with
Woven Selvedge from the People’s Republic of
China, 75 FR 41801 (July 19, 2010) (‘‘CVD final
determination’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
47369
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 Weifang
Dongfang Ribbon Weaving Co., Ltd.
which has a separate rate, the cash
deposit rate will be that established in
the final results of this review; (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters not listed above
that received a separate rate in a prior
segment of this proceeding, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise that
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 247.65
percent 51; and (4) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not received their own rate, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter that
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice
are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213(d).
Dated: July 31, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–19299 Filed 8–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
51 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Narrow Woven Ribbons with
Woven Selvedge from the People’s Republic of
China, 75 FR 41808 (July 19, 2010).
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47363-47369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19299]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-952]
Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on narrow woven
ribbons with woven selvedge (``Ribbons'') from the People's Republic of
China (``PRC''). The period of review (``POR'') is September 1, 2010,
through August 31, 2011.
As discussed below, the Department preliminarily determines that
the PRC-wide entity made sales in the United States at prices below
normal value (``NV''). If the preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the
preliminary results.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each
argument a summary of the argument. We intend to issue the final
results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this
notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act'').
DATES: Effective Date: August 8, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan or Robert Bolling, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4081 and (202) 482-3434 respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 1, 2010, the Department published in the Federal
Register an antidumping duty order on NWR from the PRC.\1\ On September
23, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on NWR from the PRC for the period September 1, 2010, through
August 31, 2011.\2\ On September 21, 29th, and 30th, 2011, the
Department received timely requests in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(2) for an administrative review from Weifang Dongfang Ribbon
Weaving Co., Ltd. (``Weifang Dongfang''), Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd.
(``Stribbons Guangzhou''), Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC, Ltd. (``Stribbons
MNC''), Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Col, Ltd. (``Bestpak''), and
Precious Planet Ribbons & Bows Co., Ltd. (``Precious Planet''). On
September 30, 2011, the Department also received a timely request from
Berwick Offray LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary Lion Ribbon Company,
Inc. (collectively, ``Petitioners''), in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(1), for an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on NWR from the PRC for ten companies: Yama Ribbons and Bows Co.,
Ltd. (``Yama Ribbons''), Hubschercorp (Canada), Apex Ribbon (Canada),
Pacific Imports (Canada), Supreme Laces Inc. (Canada), Multicolor Inc.
(Canada), Apex Trimmings (Canada), Papillon Ribbon & Bow (Canada),
FinerRibbon.com (Canada), and Intercontinental Skyline (Canada).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Narrow Woven Ribbons
With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan and the People's Republic of China:
Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 FR 53632 (September 1, 2010), as amended
in Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan and the
People's Republic of China: Amended Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 FR
56982 (September 17, 2010) (``Orders'').
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 76 FR 54735 (September 2, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 31, 2011, the Department published a notice of
initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review on NWR from the
PRC, in which it initiated a review of Hubschercorp, Apex Ribbon,
Pacific Imports, Supreme Laces Inc., Multicolor Inc., Apex Trimmings,
Papillon Ribbon & Bow (Canada), FinerRibbon.com., Intercontinental
Skyline, Weifang Dongfang, Stribbons Guangzhou, Stribbons MNC, Bestpak,
Precious Planet, and Yama Ribbons.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR
67133 (October 31, 2011) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 16, 2011, the Department placed on the record CBP
import data for certain Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'') subheadings. On November 23, 2011, the Department received
comments from Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd., Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC,
Ltd., Bestpak and Petitioners. After examining the CBP data and the
comments from the interested parties, the Department concluded that the
import data was reported using inconsistent units of measurement. The
Department was, therefore, unable to select mandatory respondents based
soley on this data.
On December 6, 2011, to clarify the import data on the record, the
Department issued quantity and value (``Q&V'') questionnaires to
exporters who allegedly had imports of NWR during the POR according to
the CBP import data on the record. The Department requested that the
companies report the Q&V of their POR exports and/or shipments of NWR
to the United States using specified units of measurement. The
Department also received Q&V submissions from Hubscher Ribbon Corp.,
Ltd. (``Hubschercorp'') and Precious Planet on December 20, 2011.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Shanghai Dayspring Gifts Corp. Ltd. did not respond to
the Department's Q&V questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the PRC is a non-market economy (``NME''), companies
wishing to receive a separate antidumping rate for purposes of this
administrative review were required to file a timely separate rate
application or separate rate certification. The separate rate
application and/or certification in this case were due within 60 days
from the initiation of the antidumping administrative review,\5\ no
later than
[[Page 47364]]
December 30, 2011. On November 26, 2011, December 22, 2011, December
29, 2011, and December 30, 2011, the Department received timely
separate rate applications and/or certifications from Weifang Dongfang,
Bestpak, Hubschercorp and Precious Planet in that respective order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 67133-134
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 4, 2012, five days after the due date had passed,
Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd., Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC, Ltd. (collectively
``MNC Stribbons'') submitted an untimely request for a two-week
extension to file a separate rate certification. Then, on January 9,
2012, ten days after the deadline for submitting the separate rate
certification had passed, without receiving a response from the
Department to its untimely extension request, MNC Stribbons attempted
to file a separate rate certification for Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd.
and Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC, Ltd. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.302(d)(2), on Janauary 13, 2012, the Department rejected MNC
Stribbons' filings of January 4, 2012, and January 9, 2012 as untimely
and returned those submissions to the company.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4 to Mr. James Cannon, Williams Mullen,
representing Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd. and Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC
Ltd., dated January 13, 2012 (``Rejection Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 11, 2012, the Department exercised its authority to
limit the number of respondents selected for individual examination
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act.\7\ The Department
selected the two largest exporters by volume as our mandatory
respondents for this review, Hubschercorp and Precious Planet.\8\ On
January 12, 2012, Bestpak timely withdrew its requests to the
Department to conduct an administrative review of its sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, from Jonathan Hill, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, ``Respondent
Selection in the First Administrative Review of Narrow Woven Ribbons
with Woven Selvedge from the People's Republic of China,'' dated
January 11, 2012 (``Respondent Selection Memo'').
\8\ See Respondent Selection Memo. Also, Hubschercorp and
Precios Planet are collectively referred to as the ``mandatory
respondents.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 13, 2012, the Department issued the antidumping
questionnaire to Hubschercorp and Precious Planet. On January 24, 2012,
Precious Planet timely withdrew its request for an administrative
review of its sales.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ On January 31, 2012, MNC Stribbons filed a request to the
Department to select MNC Stribbons as a mandatory respondent in the
antidumping duty administrative review of Ribbons, however, for the
reasons stated below under the PRC-wide Entity section, the
Department did not grant that request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between January 13, 2012 and March 16, 2012, Hubschercorp responded
to the Department's questionnaires. In its February 24, 2012, section D
questionnaire response to the Department, Hubschercorp explained that
it was not able to obtain the factors of production (``FOP'')
information from its Chineese producer of NWR, Yama Ribbons. On March
1, 2012, the Department issued a section D questionnaire to Yama
Ribbons, a producer of NWR for Hubschercorp during the POR. On March
16, 2012, Yama Ribbons provided its answer to the Department's section
D questionnaire response explaining that it would not provide a
response to the section D questionnaire.\10\ On May 7, 2012, the
Department issued sections A and C supplemental questionnaires to
Hubschercorp. Between January and May 2012, Petitioners provided
comments on Hubschercorp's questionnaire responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Yama Ribbons' section D questionnaire response to the
Department, dated March 16, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 25, 2012, the Department extended the time period for
completion of the preliminary results of this review by 30 days until
July 1, 2012.\11\ On May 29, 2012, Hubschercorp indicated that it would
no longer participate in this administrative review. On June 27, 2012,
the Department extended the time period for completion of the
preliminary results of this review by a further 30 days until July 31,
2012.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, from Karine Gziryan, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4: ``Narrow Woven
Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the People's Republic of China
Extension of Deadline for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review,'' dated May 25, 2012.
\12\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, from Karine Gziryan, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4: ``Narrow Woven
Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the People's Republic of China
Extension of Deadline for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review,'' dated June 27, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is September 1, 2010 through August 31, 2011.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The ITC made an affirmative determination in the Narrow
Woven Ribbons investigation based on a threat of injury. See Narrow
Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from China and Taiwan, 75 FR 53711
(September 1, 2010). Under section 736(b)(2) of the Act, all subject
merchandse entered, or withdrawn from warehouse on or after
September 1, 2010, the date the ITC published its affirmative
determination of threat of material injury in the Federal Register,
are suspended and covered by the POR for the first administrative
review. Entries before that date were liquidated without regard to
antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of Order
The scope of the order covers narrow woven ribbons with woven
selvedge, in any length, but with a width (measured at the narrowest
span of the ribbon) less than or equal to 12 centimeters, composed of,
in whole or in part, man-made fibers (whether artificial or synthetic,
including but not limited to nylon, polyester, rayon, polypropylene,
and polyethylene teraphthalate), metal threads and/or metalized yarns,
or any combination thereof. Narrow woven ribbons subject to the order
may:
Also include natural or other non-man-made fibers;
Be of any color, style, pattern, or weave construction,
including but not limited to single-faced satin, double-faced satin,
grosgrain, sheer, taffeta, twill, jacquard, or a combination of two or
more colors, styles, patterns, and/or weave constructions;
Have been subjected to, or composed of materials that have
been subjected to, various treatments, including but not limited to
dyeing, printing, foil stamping, embossing, flocking, coating, and/or
sizing;
Have embellishments, including but not limited to
appliqu[eacute], fringes, embroidery, buttons, glitter, sequins,
laminates, and/or adhesive backing;
Have wire and/or monofilament in, on, or along the
longitudinal edges of the ribbon;
Have ends of any shape or dimension, including but not
limited to straight ends that are perpendicular to the longitudinal
edges of the ribbon, tapered ends, flared ends or shaped ends, and the
ends of such woven ribbons may or may not be hemmed;
Have longitudinal edges that are straight or of any shape,
and the longitudinal edges of such woven ribbon may or may not be
parallel to each other;
Consist of such ribbons affixed to like ribbon and/or cut-
edge woven ribbon, a configuration also known as an ``ornamental
trimming;''
Be wound on spools; attached to a card; hanked (i.e.,
coiled or bundled); packaged in boxes, trays or bags; or configured as
skeins, balls, bateaus or folds; and/or
Be included within a kit or set such as when packaged with
other products, including but not limited to gift bags, gift boxes and/
or other types of ribbon.
Narrow woven ribbons subject to the order include all narrow woven
fabrics, tapes, and labels that fall within this written description of
the scope of the antidumping duty order.
Excluded from the scope of the order are the following:
[[Page 47365]]
(1) Formed bows composed of narrow woven ribbons with woven
selvedge;
(2) ``Pull-bows'' (i.e., an assemblage of ribbons connected to one
another, folded flat and equipped with a means to form such ribbons
into the shape of a bow by pulling on a length of material affixed to
such assemblage) composed of narrow woven ribbons;
(3) Narrow woven ribbons comprised at least 20 percent by weight of
elastomeric yarn (i.e., filament yarn, including monofilament, of
synthetic textile material, other than textured yarn, which does not
break on being extended to three times its original length and which
returns, after being extended to twice its original length, within a
period of five minutes, to a length not greater than one and a half
times its original length as defined in the (HTSUS, Section XI, Note
13) or rubber thread;
(4) Narrow woven ribbons of a kind used for the manufacture of
typewriter or printer ribbons;
(5) Narrow woven labels and apparel tapes, cut-to-length or cut-to-
shape, having a length (when measured across the longest edge-to-edge
span) not exceeding eight centimeters;
(6) Narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge attached to and
forming the handle of a gift bag;
(7) Cut-edge narrow woven ribbons formed by cutting broad woven
fabric into strips of ribbon, with or without treatments to prevent the
longitudinal edges of the ribbon from fraying (such as by merrowing,
lamination, sono-bonding, fusing, gumming or waxing), and with or
without wire running lengthwise along the longitudinal edges of the
ribbon;
(8) Narrow woven ribbons comprised at least 85 percent by weight of
threads having a denier of 225 or higher;
(9) Narrow woven ribbons constructed from pile fabrics (i.e.,
fabrics with a surface effect formed by tufts or loops of yarn that
stand up from the body of the fabric);
(10) Narrow woven ribbon affixed (including by tying) as a
decorative detail to non-subject merchandise, such as a gift bag, gift
box, gift tin, greeting card or plush toy, or affixed (including by
tying) as a decorative detail to packaging containing non-subject
merchandise;
(11) Narrow woven ribbon that is (a) affixed to non-subject
merchandise as a working component of such non-subject merchandise,
such as where narrow woven ribbon comprises an apparel trimming, book
marker, bag cinch, or part of an identity card holder, or (b) affixed
(including by tying) to non-subject merchandise as a working component
that holds or packages such non-subject merchandise or attaches
packaging or labeling to such non-subject merchandise, such as a
``belly band'' around a pair of pajamas, a pair of socks or a blanket;
(12) Narrow woven ribbon(s) comprising a belt attached to and
imported with an item of wearing apparel, whether or not such belt is
removable from such item of wearing apparel; and
(13) Narrow woven ribbon(s) included with non-subject merchandise
in kits, such as a holiday ornament craft kit or a scrapbook kit, in
which the individual lengths of narrow woven ribbon(s) included in the
kit are each no greater than eight inches, the aggregate amount of
narrow woven ribbon(s) included in the kit does not exceed 48 linear
inches, none of the narrow woven ribbon(s) included in the kit is on a
spool, and the narrow woven ribbon(s) is only one of multiple items
included in the kit.
The merchandise subject to the order is classifiable under the
HTSUS statistical categories 5806.32.1020; 5806.32.1030; 5806.32.1050
and 5806.32.1060. Subject merchandise also may enter under subheadings
5806.31.00; 5806.32.20; 5806.39.20; 5806.39.30; 5808.90.00; 5810.91.00;
5810.99.90; 5903.90.10; 5903.90.25; 5907.00.60; and 5907.00.80 and
under statistical categories 5806.32.1080; 5810.92.9080; 5903.90.3090;
and 6307.90.9889. The HTSUS statistical categories and subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written
description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive.
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a
review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication
of the notice of initiation of the requested review, or withdraws its
request at a later date if the Department determines that it is
reasonable to extend the time limit for withdrawing the request. As
indicated above, on January 12, 2012, and January 24, 2012,
respectively, Bestpak and Precious Planet withdrew their requests for a
review, which was within the 90-day deadline.
No other party has requested a review for Bestpak or Precious
Planet, and no party has opposed their withdrawal requests.
Additionally, Bestpak had a separate rate granted in a previously
completed segment of this proceeding that was in effect during the
instant review period.\14\ Therefore, we are rescinding this
administrative review with respect to Bestpak in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1). However, Precious Planet has not established its
eligibility for a separate rate; therefore, it will continue to be
considered part of the PRC-wide entity. Because in this administrative
review the PRC-wide entity is under review for these preliminary
results, we are not rescinding this review with respect to Precious
Planet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Country Status
The Department has treated the PRC as a NME country in all past
antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews and
continues to do so in this case.\15\ In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See section 771(18)(C) of the Act; see, e.g., Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 9753 (February 22, 2011).
\16\ See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate.\17\ It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of subject merchandise in an NME country this single rate
unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent
so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export activities. The Department analyzes
each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test set out in
the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in 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''). However, if the Department determines that a company is
wholly foreign-owned or located in an ME, then a separate rate
[[Page 47366]]
analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from
government control.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations
involving Non-Market Economy Countries, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
\18\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of
China, 64 FR 71104, 71104-05 (December 20, 1999) (where the
respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for a
separate rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its separate rate certification, Weifang Dongfang reported that
it was wholly owned by a domestic entity located in the PRC.\19\
Therefore, the Department must analyze whether Weifang Dongfang can
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental
control over export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Weifang Dongfang's Separate Rate Certification, dated
November 26, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by Weifang Dongfang supports a preliminary
finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with
the individual exporters' 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Weifang Dongfang's Separate Rate Certification at
questions 10-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a governmental 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Weifang Dongfang, we determine that the evidence on the record
supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of government
control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing
the following: (1) Weifang Dongfang sets its own export prices
independent of the government authority; (2) Weifang Dongfang retains
the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) Weifang Dongfang has
the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and
(4) Weifang Dongfang has autonomy from the government regarding the
selection of management.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Weifang Dongfang's Separate Rate Certification at
questions 15-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence placed on the record of this review by Weifang
Dongfang demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government
control with respect to its exports of the merchandise under review, in
accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon
Carbide. Therefore, we are preliminarily granting Weifang Dongfang
separate-rate status.
Calculation of Separate Rate
In accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department
employed a limited examination methodology, as it did not have the
resources to examine all companies for which a review request was made.
In addition to the mandatory respondent, only Weifang Dongfang
submitted timely information as requested by the Department and remains
subject to the review as a cooperative separate rate respondent.
We note that the Act and the Department's regulations do not
directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to
individual companies not selected for examination where the Department
limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section
777A(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in cases involving
limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes
of trade has been to look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an
investigation, for guidance. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs
that we are not to calculate an all-others rate using any zero or de
minimis margins or any margins based entirely on facts available.
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also provides that, where all margins
are zero rates, de minimis rates, or rates based entirely on facts
available, we may use ``any reasonable method'' for assigning the rate
to non-selected respondents. In this instance, we based the rate for
the sole mandatory respondent, Hubscercorp, entirely on facts
available.
In exercising this discretion to determine a non-examined rate, the
Department considers relevant the fact that section 735(c)(5) of the
Act: (a) Is explicitly applicable to the determination of an all-others
rate in an investigation; and (b) articulates a preference that the
Department avoid zero, de minimis rates or rates based entirely on
facts available when it determines the all others rate. The Act's
statement that averaging of zero/de minimis margins and margins based
entirely on facts available may be a reasonable method, and the
Statement of Administrative Action's (``SAA'') indication that such
averaging may be the expected method, should be read in the context of
an investigation.\24\ First, if there are only zero or de minimis
margins determined in the investigation (and there is no other entity
to which a facts available margin has been applied), the investigation
would terminate and no order would be issued. Thus, the provision
necessarily only applies to circumstances in which there are either
both zero/de minimis and total facts available margins, or only total
facts available margins. Second, when such rates are the only rates
determined in an investigation, there is little information on which to
rely to determine an appropriate all-others rate. In this context,
therefore, the SAA's stated expected method is reasonable: the zero/de
minimis and facts available margins may be the only or best data the
Department has available to apply to non-selected companies. We note
that the Department has sought other reasonable means to assign
separate-rate margins to non-reviewed companies in instances with
calculated zero rates, de minimis rates, or rates based entirely on
facts available for the mandatory respondents.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See SAA accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R.
Doc. No. 103-316 at 872 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040,
4200.
\25\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 47191, 47194
(September 15, 2009) (``Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final, the Department assigned to those
separate rate companies with no history of an individually calculated
rate the margin calculated for cooperative separate rate
[[Page 47367]]
respondents in the underlying investigation. However, for those
separate rate respondents that had received a calculated rate in a
prior segment, concurrent with or more recent than the calculated rate
in the underlying investigation, the Department assigned that
calculated rate as the company's separate rate in the review at hand.
Thus, we find that a reasonable method in the instant review is to
assign to the separate rate company Weifang Dongfang with no history of
an individually calculated rate, the margin calculated for cooperative
separate rate respondents in the underlying investigation. Pursuant to
this method, we are preliminarily assigning a rate of 123.83 percent to
Weifang Dongfang, the margin calculated for cooperative separate rate
respondents in the underlying investigation.\26\ In assigning this
separate rate, the Department did not impute the actions of any other
companies to the behavior of the non-individually examined company, but
based this determination on record evidence that may be deemed
reasonably reflective of the potential dumping margin for the non-
individually examined company, Weifang Dongfang, in this administrative
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-Wide Entity
In addition to the separate-rate certification discussed above,
there were two companies, Stribbons Guangzhou and Stribbons MNC
(collectively ``MNC Stribbons'' \27\) for which we initiated a review
in this proceeding and which previously had a separate rate. In
accordance with the Department's established NME methodology, a party's
separate rate status must be established in each segment of the
proceeding in which the party is involved.\28\ Because these companies
did not file a timely (i.e., within 60 calendar days after publication
of Initiation Notice \29\) separate rate certification to demonstrate
eligibility for a separate rate in this administrative review, or
certify that they had no shipments,\30\ we preliminarily determine that
these companies are part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ MNC Stribbons filed their Separate Rate Certification on
behalf of two companies under collective name MNC Stribbons,
however, the Department initiated our administrative review on two
companies Stribbons Guangzhou and Stribbons MNC, and we will
continue to treat these two companies as two separate entities.
\28\ See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405-06
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming the Department's presumption of State
control over exporters in non-market economy cases).
\29\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 67134.
\30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that MNC Stribbons filed a request to be selected as a
mandatory respondent after one of the selected mandatory respondents
withdrew from the proceeding. However, MNC Stribbons made this request
after it had missed the 60-day deadline to demonstrate its eligibility
for a separate rate (i.e., failed to provide a timely separate rate
certification) and the Department returned its submissions in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(d). The Department has not selected MNC
Stribbons as a mandatory respondent because it failed to provide a
timely separate rate certification in this administrative review.\31\
Granting such a request to be a mandatory respondent after the company
failed to provide a timely separate rate certification would seriously
undermine our separate rate 60-day deadline. Moreover, companies, such
as MNC Stribbons, which failed to provide a timely separate rate
certification, and, therefore, lost their separate rate status would be
subject to the review as the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Rejection Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Facts Otherwise Available and AFA
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply
``facts otherwise available'' if: (1) Necessary information is not on
the record; or (2) an interested party or any other person (A)
withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D)
provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section
782(i) of the Act.
As noted in the ``Background'' section above, Hubschercorp did not
respond to the Department's Section D questionnaire, Sections A and C
supplemental questionnaires in this administrative review and informed
the Department that it would no longer participate in this review.\32\
As a result, Hubschercorp failed to provide requested information that
is necessary for the Department to calculate an antidumping duty rate
for Hubschercorp in this administrative review. By only responding to
certain parts of the Department's questionnaires and failing to respond
to the Department's section D antidumping questionnaire and sections A
and C supplemental questionnaires, Hubschercorp did not provide the
Department with the information, such as, for example, complete product
characteristics related to control numbers of products sold in the
United States, FOPs, consumption rates of FOPs, and production
processes data. Without this information, it is not possible for the
Department to determine or calculate an antidumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Hubschercorp's May 29, 2012, submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hubschercorp withheld requested information, significantly impeded
this proceeding and did not provide the Department with sufficient
information to calculate an antidumping duty margin. Therefore,
pursuant to section 776(a)(1) and (2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the
Department preliminarily finds that the use of total facts available is
appropriate.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information.\33\ Adverse
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' \34\ Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the
part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an
adverse inference.'' \35\ We preliminarily find that Hubschercorp did
not act to the best of its ability in this administrative review,
within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because it failed to
respond to the Department's requests for information and failed to
provide timely information. Therefore, an adverse inference is
warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise available with respect
to this company.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023,
54025-26 (September 13, 2005); Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil,
67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002).
\34\ See SAA at 870.
\35\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule,
62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v.
United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon'').
\36\ See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of the AFA Rate
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as
AFA information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final
determination in
[[Page 47368]]
the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any other
information placed on the record.
The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among
the possible sources of information, has been to select the highest
rate on the record of the proceeding and to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the
adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.''
\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from
Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 (November 7,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, we have preliminarily assigned to Hubschercorp a rate
of 247.65 percent, which is the highest rate alleged in the petition,
as noted in the initiation of the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'')
investigation, adjusted with the surrogate value for labor rate used in
the final determination.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the
People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping
Duty Investigations, 74 FR 39291 (August 6, 2009) (``LTFV
Initiation'') and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the
People's Republic of China, 75 FR 41808 (July 19, 2010) (``Narrow
Woven Ribbons Final Determination'') and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of Secondary Information
Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes
secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The
Department's regulations provide that ``corroborate'' means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value.\39\ To be considered corroborated, the
Department must find the secondary information is both reliable and
relevant.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See 19 CFR 351.308(d); see also SAA at 870.
\40\ See, e.g., SAA at 870; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From
Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62
FR 11825 (March 13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether the information is reliable, we placed
information from the investigation on the record of this segment of the
proceeding, and reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information
in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis for purposes of
these preliminary results.\41\ We examined evidence supporting the
calculations in the petition to determine the probative value of the
margins alleged in the petition for use as AFA for purposes of these
preliminary results. Based on our examination of the information, as
discussed in detail in LTFV Initiation, we consider petitioner's
calculation of the export price and normal value to be reliable.
Therefore, because we confirmed the accuracy and validity of the
information underlying the calculation of margins in the petition by
examining source documents as well as publicly available information,
we preliminarily determine that the margins in the petition are
reliable for the purposes of this administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See LTFV Initiation, 74 FR at 39294-39296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the relevance of the petition margin, we placed the
model-specific rates calculated for the respondents in the LTFV
investigation on the record of this segment of the proceeding and
compared the 247.65 percent rate with those model-specific rates. We
find that this margin is relevant because this is the first review
under this order (i.e., only one segment removed from the LTFV
investigation), and the petition rate fell within the range of model-
specific margins calculated for the mandatory respondent in the LTFV
investigation.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 12088, 12092 (March 6,
2008), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand:
Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 50933 (August 29, 2008). See also the
Memorandum to the File from Karine Gziryan, Analyst, entitled,
``Placement of Proprietary Model-Specific Margins from the Less-
Than-Fair-Value Investigation on the Record and Corroboration of
Adverse Facts Available Rate for the Preliminary Results in the
2010-2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Narrow Woven
Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the PRC,'' dated July 31, 2012
(``Corroboration Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Department will consider information reasonably at its
disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a
margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected
margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department may disregard the
margin and determine an appropriate margin.\43\ Therefore, we examined
whether any information on the record would discredit the selected rate
as reasonable facts available. We were unable to find any information
that would discredit the selected AFA rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February
22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest calculated
margin as AFA because the margin was based on a company's
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high
margin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the above, for these preliminary results, the Department
finds the highest rate derived from the petition (i.e., 247.65 percent)
is, therefore, corroborated to the extent practicable, pursuant to
Section 776(c) of the Act. Thus, we have assigned Hubschercorp this
rate as AFA in this administrative review. For further discussion of
the corroboration of this rate, see the Corroboration Memo.
[[Page 47369]]
Weighted-Average Dumping Margin
The preliminary weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter margin
(percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hubscher Ribbon Corp., Ltd. (d/b/a Hubschercorp) \44\..... 247.65
Weifang Dongfang Ribbon Weaving Co., Ltd.................. 123.83
PRC-wide Entity \45\...................................... 247.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ We note that Hubscher Ribbon Corp., Ltd. (d/b/a
Hubschercorp) is not a separate rate company; it only appears in
this table because this company is a third-country reseller from
Canada.
\45\ For the reasons stated above, the Department has concluded
that the PRC-wide Entity includes Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd. and
Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of
these preliminary results.\46\ If a hearing is requested, the
Department will announce the hearing schedule at a later date.
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no
later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary
results of review.\47\ Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written
comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be
filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case
briefs.\48\ Parties submitting hearing requests or written argument
should do so pursuant to the Department's electronic filing system, IA
ACCESS.\49\ The Department intends to issue the final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in all comments, and at a hearing, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\47\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c); Parties submitting written comments
must submit them pursuant to the Department's e-filing regulations.
\48\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
\49\ See 19 CFR 351.303; https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/IA%20ACCESS%20User%20Guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance
with the final results of this review and 19 CFR 351.212(b). In this
case, because we have no calculated rate, we are applying as the
assessment rate for the separate rate respondent, Weifang Dongfang
Ribbon Weaving Co., Ltd., the rate from the previous period, and for
Hubscher Ribbon Corp., Ltd., the AFA rate of 247.65 percent.
Accordingly, we are adjusting the Weifang Dongfang Ribbon Weaving Co.,
Ltd. and Hubscher Ribbon Corp., Ltd. assessment rates for export
subsidy in the same manner that we adjusted each company's cash deposit
rate. (See Cash Deposit section below).
We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject
merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate we
determine in the final results of this review. The Department intends
to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after publication of the final results of this review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
While the Department did not conduct a companion countervailing
duty (``CVD'') administrative review, in the final determination of the
CVD investigation on narrow woven ribbons from the PRC, the Department
determined that the product under investigation benefitted from an
export subsidy.\50\ Accordingly, we will instruct CBP to require an
antidumping cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which
the NV exceeds the export price, as indicated above, reduced by an
amount, as appropriate, determined to constitute an export subsidy in
the final determination from the investigation, the most recently
completed segment from the CVD proceeding. Therefore, for Hubscher
Ribbon Corp., Ltd., and the separate rate respondent, Weifang Dongfang
Ribbon Weaving Co., Ltd., we will instruct CBP to require an
antidumping duty cash deposit--for each entry equal to the weighted-
average margin indicated above adjusted for the export subsidy rate
determined in the CVD final determination. The adjusted cash deposit
rate for the separate rate respondent Weifang Dongfang Ribbon Weaving
Co., Ltd., is 123.44 percent and for Hubscher Ribbon Corp., Ltd., is
247.26 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the
People's Republic of China, 75 FR 41801 (July 19, 2010) (``CVD final
determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Weifang Dongfang
Ribbon Weaving Co., Ltd. which has a separate rate, the cash deposit
rate will be that established in the final results of this review; (2)
for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not
listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this
proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-
specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that
have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 247.65 percent \51\; and (4) for all
non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their
own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the
People's Republic of China, 75 FR 41808 (July 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d).
Dated: July 31, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-19299 Filed 8-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
