Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 73426-73428 [2012-29787]

Download as PDF 73426 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–836] Glycine From the People’s Republic of China: Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) continues to determine that glycine processed by Salvi Chemical Industries Limited (Salvi) and AICO Laboratories India Ltd. (AICO) and exported to the United States from India is circumventing the antidumping duty order on glycine from the People’s Republic of China (China), as provided in section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).1 With respect to Paras Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. (Paras), the Department continues to find that Paras is not circumventing the Order because it is producing glycine from raw materials of Indian origin and exporting such merchandise to the United States. DATES: Effective Date: December 10, 2012. AGENCY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cordell, Dena Crossland, or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0408, (202) 482– 3362, or (202) 482–3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with On April 10, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register the affirmative preliminary determination that glycine processed by Salvi and AICO and exported to the United States from India was circumventing the Order as provided in section 781(b) of the Act.2 In the same preliminary determination, the Department found that Paras was not circumventing the Order because it produced glycine from raw materials of Indian origin and exported such merchandise to the 1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Glycine From the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 16116 (March 29, 1995) (Order). 2 See Glycine From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Partial Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order and Initiation of Scope Inquiry, 77 FR 21532 (April 10, 2012) (Preliminary Determination). VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:30 Dec 07, 2012 Jkt 229001 United States. Pursuant to section 781(e) of the Act, on April 3, 2012, the Department notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary partial affirmative determination of circumvention, in accordance with section 781(e) of the Act, and informed the ITC of its ability to request consultations with the Department regarding the possible inclusion of the products in question within the Order pursuant to section 781(e)(2) of the Act. The Department received no request for consultations from the ITC. On April 30, 2012, GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. and Chattem Chemicals, Inc., (domestic interested parties) filed comments on the Department’s Preliminary Determination. On April 30, 2012, AICO filed comments which were accidently misfiled in Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS), and which subsequently were filed correctly on May 21, 2012. On May 1, 2012, Salvi submitted its final version of its comments. On May 10, 2012, the Department received rebuttal comments from Paras, the Domestic Interested Parties, and joint rebuttal comments from AICO and Salvi. We held individual meetings with counsel to all parties on June 7 and June 13, 2012, and memoranda to the file recording those meetings were placed on the record of the proceeding.3 On October 31, 2012, the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 29 through October 30, 2012.4 Thus, the deadline for this inquiry was extended by two days. Accordingly, the deadline for the final results of this anticircumvention inquiry was extended from November 30, 2012, to December 2, 2012. Because December 2, 2012, falls on a weekend, the deadline for the final determination of this inquiry is December 3, 2012.5 Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is glycine, which is a free-flowing 3 See Memorandum to the File, dated June 12, 2012, with respect to the meeting with domestic interested parties on June 7, 2012, and the two Memoranda to the File, dated June 25, 2012, with respect to the two meetings with respondents on June 13, 2012. 4 See Memorandum to the Record from Paul Piquado, As for Import Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Hurricane,’’ dated October 31, 2012. 5 See Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. This order covers glycine of all purity levels. Glycine is currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).6 Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. Scope of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry The product covered by this inquiry is glycine, as described in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section, above, which is exported from India, but processed using Chinese-origin inputs (e.g., crude or technical-grade glycine). This inquiry covers glycine produced by AICO, Paras, and Salvi. Salvi and Paras have stated on the record that they also selfproduce glycine from Indian-origin inputs. The focus of this proceeding is to determine whether glycine is: (1) Manufactured in China; (2) processed by AICO, Paras, or Salvi in India; and (3) then exported to the United States as Indian-origin glycine constitutes circumvention of the Order under section 781(b) of the Act. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the postpreliminary comments by parties in this proceeding are addressed in the Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Senior Advisor for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the AntiCircumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated December 3, 2012 (Decision Memorandum) and hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which the parties raised and to which the Department responds in the Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via IA ACCESS. Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central 6 In a separate scope ruling, the Department determined that D(-) Phenylglycine Ethyl Dane Salt is outside the scope of the order. See Notice of Scope Rulings and Anticircumvention Inquiries, 62 FR 62288 (November 21, 1997). E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM 10DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Notices Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http:// www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Determination of Circumvention For the final determination, we continue to rely on the statutory criteria that we considered in making our Preliminary Determination.7 Based on our review of the record evidence and our analysis of the comments received, the Department continues to find that glycine exported from India, but processed using Chinese-origin inputs (e.g., crude or technical-grade glycine) by Salvi and AICO, is circumventing the antidumping duty order on glycine from China. The Department also continues to find Paras is not circumventing the antidumping duty order on glycine from the PRC because its exports of glycine to the United States were produced from India-origin inputs. For a complete discussion of the Department’s analysis, see the accompanying Decision Memorandum. Scope Ruling The Department self-initiated a scope ruling in its Preliminary Determination.8 On September 13, 2012, the Department issued its preliminary scope ruling.9 The Department preliminarily determined that the processing of Chinese-origin technical grade or crude glycine, including but not limited to AAA–97TE, ACAA97TE,10 sodium glycinate and glycine slurry, is not substantially transformed into glycine of Indian origin and therefore such glycine remains within the scope of the Order. The Department also adopted a certification requirement to ensure that merchandise meeting this scope 7 See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 21533– 34. 8 Id. at 21535. Memorandum from David Cordell and Dena Crossland, International Trade Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, and Richard Weible, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, to Gary Taverman, Senior Advisor for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Preliminary Scope Ruling concerning the Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine from the People’s Republic of China (PRC),’’ dated September 13, 2012 (Preliminary Scope Ruling). 10 The Department notes that in the recommendation section of its Preliminary Scope Ruling and in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) instructions at paragraph 6, the Department inadvertently referred to this product as ACA–97TE. The correct reference to the product is ACAA–97TE. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 9 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:30 Dec 07, 2012 Jkt 229001 clarification is properly identified as subject merchandise, and applied this certification to all imports of glycine from India, with the exception of AICO and Salvi, who were subject to the Preliminary Determination, in which glycine produced by AICO and Salvi was determined to be circumventing the Order, and therefore subject to the rates established for glycine from China. In the Final Scope Ruling, which is being issued concurrently with this final determination, we are affirming the decisions and actions outlined in the Preliminary Scope Ruling, which are addressed in the Final Scope Ruling. Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation The Department determines, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act, that glycine processed by AICO and Salvi from Chinese-produced glycine covered under the narrative description of the scope of the Order constitutes subject merchandise and is therefore subject to cash deposit requirements. Accordingly, we are instructing CBP to continue to suspend liquidation and collect cash deposits on all unliquidated entries of glycine processed by AICO and Salvi and exported to the United States from India at the rate applicable to the relevant PRC-manufacturer, including the current PRC-wide entity if applicable.11 In requiring that CBP collect cash deposits on AICO’s or Salvi’s exports of glycine found to be in circumvention of the antidumping order as appropriate, the Department is making no final determination of AICO’s or Salvi’s dumping duty liability at this time. Accordingly, the Department will continue to direct CBP to suspend liquidation and to require a cash deposit of estimated duties at the applicable rate on unliquidated entries of glycine produced and/or exported by AICO or Salvi that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 22, 2010, the date of initiation of the anti-circumvention inquiry. The action we are taking with respect to the merchandise at issue does not constitute a determination of the final liability for payment of antidumping duties. The United States operates a retrospective system of duty assessment and under such a system the cash 11 See, e.g., Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People’s Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 47551 (August 5, 2011), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 4 and 5. For a full discussion of this issue, see the accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 73427 deposit is only an estimate. Final duties are not assessed at the time the subject merchandise is imported into the United States. Should AICO or Salvi wish to seek a determination of whether it is dumping, it can request a review of its exports so that the Department may determine the final dumping liability through the standard administrative process. As such, the Department is requiring that CBP collect cash deposits on AICO’s or Salvi’s exports of glycine found to be in circumvention of an antidumping order as appropriate, but is making no final determination of dumping herein. The Department also notes that AICO or Salvi may also request a changed circumstance review if they can show their exports of glycine to the United States are not processed from PRC-origin glycine. Certifications Requirements The Department has broadened its analysis and determined in its Final Scope Ruling that Chinese-origin glycine processed in India and exported to the United States is subject merchandise. In its Final Scope Ruling, the Department has instituted a countrywide certification mechanism, for all imports of glycine from India, to ensure that subject merchandise does not enter the United States as glycine from India. See Preliminary Scope Ruling and Final Scope Ruling for more details. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This final affirmative circumvention determination is published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225 Dated: December 3, 2012. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Discussion of the Issues Issue 1: Whether to Include AICO’s and Salvi’s Affiliates in Any AntiCircumvention Remedy Issue 2: Whether to Apply a Country-Wide Remedy Issue 3: Whether to Require Importer and/or E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM 10DEN1 73428 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Notices Exporter Certification(s) Issue 4: Whether Salvi’s Value Added was Calculated Incorrectly Issue 5: Whether the Production in India is Minor or Insignificant Issue 6: Whether AICO Acted to the Best of its Ability in this Anti-Circumvention Inquiry DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P December 23, 2012. However, it is the Department’s long-standing practice to make a determination on the next business day when the statutory deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday, or any other day when the Department is closed.3 Accordingly, the preliminary determination is currently Monday, December 24, 2012. AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Postponement of Due Date for the Preliminary Determination [FR Doc. 2012–29787 Filed 12–7–12; 8:45 am] International Trade Administration [C–570–987] Hardwood and Decorative Plywood From the People’s Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Lindgren, Lingjun Wang or Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3870, (202) 482–2316 and (202) 482–1398, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On October 17, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of hardwood and decorative plywood, from the People’s Republic of China.1 Currently, the preliminary determination for this investigation is due no later than December 24, 2012. The Department originally extended the deadline for this preliminary determination from December 21, 2012 until December 23, 2012. As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 29, through October 30, 2012 2 Therefore, the due date for the preliminary determination was extended to Sunday, Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act permits the Department to postpone making the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which it initiated the investigation if the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension. In the instant investigation, the Coalition for Fair Trade of Hardwood Plywood and its individual members (Petitioners), made a timely request on November 28, 2012 that we postpone the preliminary CVD determination.4 The Department finds no compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we are extending the due date for the preliminary determination to no later than 130 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated, i.e., to February 24, 2013. However, as discussed above, the Department is tolling all deadlines an additional two days due to the closing of the Federal Government in late October. Thus, the new deadline for the preliminary determination in this case will be February 26, 2013. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). Dated: December 4, 2012. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2012–29761 Filed 12–7–12; 8:45 am] mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 1 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:30 Dec 07, 2012 Jkt 229001 3 See Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 4 See Petitioners’ November 28, 2012 letter requesting postponement of the preliminary determination. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 [A–570–924] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Administrative Review; 2010–2011 Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the ’’Department’’) is conducting the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (‘‘PET film’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), covering the period November 1, 2010, through October 31, 2011. The Department has preliminarily determined that during the period of review (‘‘POR’’) respondents in this proceeding have made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (‘‘NV’’). DATES: Effective Date: December 10, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin or Jonathan Hill, 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) 482–3936 and (202) 482–3518 respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of Order The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or coextruded.1 PET film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Methodology BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Hardwood and Decorative Plywood From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 77 FR 64955 (October 24, 2012). 2 See Memorandum to the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure During Hurricane Sandy,’’ dated October 31, 2012. International Trade Administration The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 1 See Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Senior Advisor for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration ‘‘Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated December 3, 2012 (‘‘Preliminary Decision Memorandum’’) for a full description of the Scope of the Order. E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM 10DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 237 (Monday, December 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73426-73428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29787]



[[Page 73426]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-836]


Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Final Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty 
Order

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) continues to 
determine that glycine processed by Salvi Chemical Industries Limited 
(Salvi) and AICO Laboratories India Ltd. (AICO) and exported to the 
United States from India is circumventing the antidumping duty order on 
glycine from the People's Republic of China (China), as provided in 
section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).\1\ With 
respect to Paras Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. (Paras), the Department 
continues to find that Paras is not circumventing the Order because it 
is producing glycine from raw materials of Indian origin and exporting 
such merchandise to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Glycine From the People's 
Republic of China, 60 FR 16116 (March 29, 1995) (Order).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: December 10, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cordell, Dena Crossland, or 
Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0408, (202) 482-3362, or (202) 482-3019, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 10, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the affirmative preliminary determination that glycine processed by 
Salvi and AICO and exported to the United States from India was 
circumventing the Order as provided in section 781(b) of the Act.\2\ In 
the same preliminary determination, the Department found that Paras was 
not circumventing the Order because it produced glycine from raw 
materials of Indian origin and exported such merchandise to the United 
States. Pursuant to section 781(e) of the Act, on April 3, 2012, the 
Department notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of 
its preliminary partial affirmative determination of circumvention, in 
accordance with section 781(e) of the Act, and informed the ITC of its 
ability to request consultations with the Department regarding the 
possible inclusion of the products in question within the Order 
pursuant to section 781(e)(2) of the Act. The Department received no 
request for consultations from the ITC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Partial Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of the 
Antidumping Duty Order and Initiation of Scope Inquiry, 77 FR 21532 
(April 10, 2012) (Preliminary Determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 30, 2012, GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. and Chattem 
Chemicals, Inc., (domestic interested parties) filed comments on the 
Department's Preliminary Determination. On April 30, 2012, AICO filed 
comments which were accidently misfiled in Import Administration's 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service 
System (IA ACCESS), and which subsequently were filed correctly on May 
21, 2012. On May 1, 2012, Salvi submitted its final version of its 
comments. On May 10, 2012, the Department received rebuttal comments 
from Paras, the Domestic Interested Parties, and joint rebuttal 
comments from AICO and Salvi. We held individual meetings with counsel 
to all parties on June 7 and June 13, 2012, and memoranda to the file 
recording those meetings were placed on the record of the 
proceeding.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum to the File, dated June 12, 2012, with 
respect to the meeting with domestic interested parties on June 7, 
2012, and the two Memoranda to the File, dated June 25, 2012, with 
respect to the two meetings with respondents on June 13, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 31, 2012, the Department exercised its discretion to 
toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal 
Government from October 29 through October 30, 2012.\4\ Thus, the 
deadline for this inquiry was extended by two days. Accordingly, the 
deadline for the final results of this anti-circumvention inquiry was 
extended from November 30, 2012, to December 2, 2012. Because December 
2, 2012, falls on a weekend, the deadline for the final determination 
of this inquiry is December 3, 2012.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum to the Record from Paul Piquado, As for 
Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative 
Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent 
Hurricane,'' dated October 31, 2012.
    \5\ See Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next Business 
Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to 
the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is glycine, which is a free-
flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is produced 
at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, 
a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, and 
a metal complexing agent. This order covers glycine of all purity 
levels. Glycine is currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).\6\ 
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is 
dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In a separate scope ruling, the Department determined that 
D(-) Phenylglycine Ethyl Dane Salt is outside the scope of the 
order. See Notice of Scope Rulings and Anticircumvention Inquiries, 
62 FR 62288 (November 21, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry

    The product covered by this inquiry is glycine, as described in the 
``Scope of the Order'' section, above, which is exported from India, 
but processed using Chinese-origin inputs (e.g., crude or technical-
grade glycine). This inquiry covers glycine produced by AICO, Paras, 
and Salvi. Salvi and Paras have stated on the record that they also 
self-produce glycine from Indian-origin inputs. The focus of this 
proceeding is to determine whether glycine is: (1) Manufactured in 
China; (2) processed by AICO, Paras, or Salvi in India; and (3) then 
exported to the United States as Indian-origin glycine constitutes 
circumvention of the Order under section 781(b) of the Act.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in 
this proceeding are addressed in the Memorandum from Gary Taverman, 
Senior Advisor for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 
Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final 
Determination of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Glycine from the People's Republic of China,'' dated December 
3, 2012 (Decision Memorandum) and hereby adopted by this notice. A list 
of the issues which the parties raised and to which the Department 
responds in the Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as 
Appendix I. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file 
electronically via IA ACCESS. Access to IA ACCESS is available to 
registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central

[[Page 73427]]

Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In 
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed 
directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed 
Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Determination of Circumvention

    For the final determination, we continue to rely on the statutory 
criteria that we considered in making our Preliminary Determination.\7\ 
Based on our review of the record evidence and our analysis of the 
comments received, the Department continues to find that glycine 
exported from India, but processed using Chinese-origin inputs (e.g., 
crude or technical-grade glycine) by Salvi and AICO, is circumventing 
the antidumping duty order on glycine from China. The Department also 
continues to find Paras is not circumventing the antidumping duty order 
on glycine from the PRC because its exports of glycine to the United 
States were produced from India-origin inputs. For a complete 
discussion of the Department's analysis, see the accompanying Decision 
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 21533-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope Ruling

    The Department self-initiated a scope ruling in its Preliminary 
Determination.\8\ On September 13, 2012, the Department issued its 
preliminary scope ruling.\9\ The Department preliminarily determined 
that the processing of Chinese-origin technical grade or crude glycine, 
including but not limited to AAA-97TE, ACAA- 97TE,\10\ sodium glycinate 
and glycine slurry, is not substantially transformed into glycine of 
Indian origin and therefore such glycine remains within the scope of 
the Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 21535.
    \9\ See Memorandum from David Cordell and Dena Crossland, 
International Trade Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, through 
Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, and 
Richard Weible, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, to Gary 
Taverman, Senior Advisor for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, ``Preliminary Scope Ruling concerning the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Glycine from the People's Republic of China (PRC),'' 
dated September 13, 2012 (Preliminary Scope Ruling).
    \10\ The Department notes that in the recommendation section of 
its Preliminary Scope Ruling and in the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) instructions at paragraph 6, the Department 
inadvertently referred to this product as ACA-97TE. The correct 
reference to the product is ACAA-97TE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also adopted a certification requirement to ensure 
that merchandise meeting this scope clarification is properly 
identified as subject merchandise, and applied this certification to 
all imports of glycine from India, with the exception of AICO and 
Salvi, who were subject to the Preliminary Determination, in which 
glycine produced by AICO and Salvi was determined to be circumventing 
the Order, and therefore subject to the rates established for glycine 
from China. In the Final Scope Ruling, which is being issued 
concurrently with this final determination, we are affirming the 
decisions and actions outlined in the Preliminary Scope Ruling, which 
are addressed in the Final Scope Ruling.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    The Department determines, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act, 
that glycine processed by AICO and Salvi from Chinese-produced glycine 
covered under the narrative description of the scope of the Order 
constitutes subject merchandise and is therefore subject to cash 
deposit requirements. Accordingly, we are instructing CBP to continue 
to suspend liquidation and collect cash deposits on all unliquidated 
entries of glycine processed by AICO and Salvi and exported to the 
United States from India at the rate applicable to the relevant PRC-
manufacturer, including the current PRC-wide entity if applicable.\11\ 
In requiring that CBP collect cash deposits on AICO's or Salvi's 
exports of glycine found to be in circumvention of the antidumping 
order as appropriate, the Department is making no final determination 
of AICO's or Salvi's dumping duty liability at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's 
Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention 
of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 47551 (August 5, 2011), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 4 and 5. For 
a full discussion of this issue, see the accompanying Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Department will continue to direct CBP to suspend 
liquidation and to require a cash deposit of estimated duties at the 
applicable rate on unliquidated entries of glycine produced and/or 
exported by AICO or Salvi that were entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after October 22, 2010, the date of 
initiation of the anti-circumvention inquiry.
    The action we are taking with respect to the merchandise at issue 
does not constitute a determination of the final liability for payment 
of antidumping duties. The United States operates a retrospective 
system of duty assessment and under such a system the cash deposit is 
only an estimate. Final duties are not assessed at the time the subject 
merchandise is imported into the United States. Should AICO or Salvi 
wish to seek a determination of whether it is dumping, it can request a 
review of its exports so that the Department may determine the final 
dumping liability through the standard administrative process. As such, 
the Department is requiring that CBP collect cash deposits on AICO's or 
Salvi's exports of glycine found to be in circumvention of an 
antidumping order as appropriate, but is making no final determination 
of dumping herein. The Department also notes that AICO or Salvi may 
also request a changed circumstance review if they can show their 
exports of glycine to the United States are not processed from PRC-
origin glycine.

Certifications Requirements

    The Department has broadened its analysis and determined in its 
Final Scope Ruling that Chinese-origin glycine processed in India and 
exported to the United States is subject merchandise. In its Final 
Scope Ruling, the Department has instituted a country-wide 
certification mechanism, for all imports of glycine from India, to 
ensure that subject merchandise does not enter the United States as 
glycine from India. See Preliminary Scope Ruling and Final Scope Ruling 
for more details.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to the 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 
notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is 
subject to sanction.
    This final affirmative circumvention determination is published in 
accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225

     Dated: December 3, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Discussion of the Issues

Issue 1: Whether to Include AICO's and Salvi's Affiliates in Any 
Anti-Circumvention Remedy
Issue 2: Whether to Apply a Country-Wide Remedy
Issue 3: Whether to Require Importer and/or

[[Page 73428]]

Exporter Certification(s)
Issue 4: Whether Salvi's Value Added was Calculated Incorrectly
Issue 5: Whether the Production in India is Minor or Insignificant
Issue 6: Whether AICO Acted to the Best of its Ability in this Anti-
Circumvention Inquiry

[FR Doc. 2012-29787 Filed 12-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P