Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75992-75997 [2012-30950]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
75992
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Notices
Exporter/manufacturer
Weighted-average margin
percentage
Return or Destruction of Proprietary
Information
This notice will serve as the only
reminder to parties subject to
Daewoo Electronics Corporation ....................................
82.41 administrative protective order (APO) of
LG Electronics, Inc. ..............
13.02 their responsibility concerning the
Samsung Electronics Co.,
destruction of proprietary information
Ltd. ....................................
9.29 disclosed under APO in accordance
All Others ..............................
11.86
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of return/
In accordance with section
destruction of APO materials or
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the ‘‘All Others’’ conversion to judicial protective order is
rate is derived exclusive of all de
hereby requested. Failure to comply
minimis or zero margins and margins
with the regulations and the terms of an
based entirely on AFA. We have based
APO is a sanctionable violation.
our calculation of the ‘‘All Others’’ rate
We are issuing and publishing this
on the weighted-average of the margins
determination and notice in accordance
calculated for LG and Samsung using
with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the
publicly-ranged data. Because we
Act.
cannot apply our normal methodology
Dated: December 18, 2012.
of calculating a weighted-average
Paul Piquado,
margin due to requests to protect
Assistant Secretary for Import
business-proprietary information, we
Administration.
find this rate to be the best proxy of the
actual weighted-average margin
Appendix—Issues in Decision
determined for these respondents.19 For Memorandum
further discussion of this calculation,
General Issues
see memorandum entitled ‘‘Calculation
1. Scope Exclusion of Smaller Top-Load
of the All Others Rate for the Final
Washers
Determination of the Antidumping Duty
2. Request to Exclude Larger-Width Washers
Investigation of Large Residential
from the Scope
Washers from Korea,’’ dated
3. Targeted Dumping
concurrently with this notice.
4. Zeroing in the Average-to-Transaction
Method
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations
performed within five days of the date
of publication of this notice to parties in
this proceeding in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
ITC Notification
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
In accordance with section 735(d) of
the Act, we have notified the ITC of our
final determination. As our final
determination is affirmative, the ITC
will determine within 45 days whether
imports of the subject merchandise are
causing material injury, or threat of
material injury, to an industry in the
United States. If the ITC determines that
material injury or threat of injury does
not exist, the proceeding will be
terminated and all securities posted will
be refunded or canceled. If the ITC
determines that such injury does exist,
the Department will issue an
antidumping duty order directing CBP
to assess antidumping duties on all
imports of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the effective
date of the suspension of liquidation.
19 See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission, and
Final No Shipment Determination, 76 FR 41203,
41205 (July 13, 2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
07:31 Dec 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
Company-Specific Issues
LG
5. Rebates
6. Conducting the Sales-Below-Cost Test
Based on Level of Trade
7. General and Administrative Expenses
8. Alleged Affiliation of LG and its Input
Suppliers
9. Request to Exclude a Certain Home Market
Model
10. Unreported Early Payment Discounts
11. Calculation of Profit Rate for Affiliated
Logistics Services Provider
12. Treatment of Certain Selling Expenses
and Rebates
13. Treatment of Affiliated Retailer’s
Operating Expenses
14. Adjustment of Marine Insurance
Premium Ratio
Samsung
15. Fraud Allegation Against Samsung
16. Request to Apply Adverse Facts Available
to Samsung for Its Affiliate’s Conduct
17. Alleged Unforeseen Event
18. U.S. Sales Transactions Affected by the
Alleged Unforeseen Event
19. Date of Sale for Samsung’s Direct
Shipment Sales
20. Duty Drawback
21. Adjustment to the Selling, General &
Administrative Expenses of Affiliated
Suppliers
22. Product Characteristic Coding
[FR Doc. 2012–31104 Filed 12–21–12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–981]
Utility Scale Wind Towers From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: December 24,
2012.
SUMMARY: On August 2, 2012, the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) published its
preliminary determination of sales at
less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) and
postponement of final determination in
the antidumping investigation of utility
scale wind towers (‘‘wind towers’’) from
the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’).1 Based on an analysis of the
comments received, the Department has
made changes from the Preliminary
Determination. The Department has
determined that wind towers from the
PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold
in the United States at LTFV, as
provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’). The
final weighted-average dumping
margins for this investigation are listed
in the ‘‘Final Determination’’ section
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit
Astvatsatrian, Shawn Higgins, Thomas
Martin, or Trisha Tran, 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) 482–6412, (202) 482–
0679, (202) 482–3936, or (202) 482–
4852, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
The Department published its
Preliminary Determination on August 2,
2012.2 Between August 13, 2012, and
August 24, 2012, the Department
conducted verifications of the
mandatory respondents (i.e., Chengxi
Shipyard Co., Ltd. (‘‘CXS’’) and Titan
Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Titan’’)).3 Between September 14,
2012, and September 24, 2012, CXS,
1 See Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement
of Final Determination, 77 FR 46034 (August 2,
2012) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’).
2 Id.
3 See the ‘‘Verification’’ section below.
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Notices
Titan and the Wind Tower Trade
Coalition (‘‘Petitioner’’)4 submitted
surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) and rebuttal SV
comments.
On October 2, 2012, CXS, Titan and
Petitioner submitted case briefs. On
October 9, 2012, CXS, Titan, and
Petitioner submitted rebuttal briefs.
On November 2, 2012, the Department
held a hearing, which was requested by
Petitioner on September 4, 2012.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
April 1, 2011, through September 30,
2011. This period corresponds to the
two most recent fiscal quarters prior to
the month of the filing of the petition,
which was December 2012.5
Extension of Final Determination Due
to Government Closure During
Hurricane Sandy
On October 31, 2012, the
Department’s Import Administration
determined that the impact of the recent
government closure during Hurricane
Sandy would be best minimized by
uniformly tolling all Import
Administration deadlines for two days.6
This determination applies to every
proceeding before the Import
Administration, including this
investigation. The Department notes,
however, that because the deadline of
the final determination of this
investigation was originally on
December 15, 2012, which falls on a
weekend, this deadline would have
been automatically extended by two
days until the following working day,
Monday, December 17, 2012. Therefore,
the two day extension of the deadlines
due to government closure during
Hurricane Sandy does not impact the
deadline for the final determination of
this investigation.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs and
rebuttal briefs by parties in this
investigation are addressed in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum.7 A list of
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
4 The
Wind Tower Trade Coalition is comprised
of Broadwind Towers, Inc., DMI Industries, Katana
Summit LLC, and Trinity Structural Towers, Inc.
5 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
6 See Memorandum For the Record from Paul
Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, ‘‘Tolling of Administrative
Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure
During Hurricane Sandy’’ (October 31, 2012).
7 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final
Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Utility Scale Wind Towers from the
People’s Republic of China’’ (December 17, 2012)
(‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
06:31 Dec 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
the issues which the parties raised and
to which the Department responded in
the Issues and Decision Memorandum is
attached to this notice as Appendix I.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum
is a public document and is on file
electronically via Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). Access to IA ACCESS is
available to registered users at https://
iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all
parties in the Central Records Unit,
which is in room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum can
be accessed directly on the internet at
www.trade.gov/ia. The signed Issues
and Decision Memorandum and the
electronic versions of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
Changes Since the Preliminary
Determination
Changes Applicable to Both Mandatory
Respondents
• The Department recalculated SVs
and surrogate financial ratios based on
data from Thailand, which was selected
as the surrogate country for the final
determination.8
• The Department used the
unadjusted per-kg brokerage and
handling rate for a 20-foot container to
value brokerage and handling.9
Changes Applicable to Only CXS
• The Department used Thai tariff
sub-category 8544.60 to value CXS’s bus
bars.10
• The Department used Ukrainian
tariff sub-category 6306.12 to value
CXS’s tarpaulin.11
• The Department excluded stainless
steel round bars from CXS’s normal
value.12
• The Department used the
unadjusted per-kg international freight
8 Id. at Comment 1; Memorandum from Lilit
Astvatsatrian and Trisha Tran, International Trade
Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office
4, to the File, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Surrogate Value
Memorandum’’ (December 17, 2012) (‘‘Final SV
Memorandum’’).
9 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 3; Final SV Memorandum at 3–4,
Attachment 8.
10 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 9; Final SV Memorandum at Attachment
1.
11 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 10; Final SV Memorandum at Attachment
1.
12 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 12.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75993
rate for a 40-foot container to value
international freight.13
• The Department has not valued
CXS’s river water using the SV for
municipal water.14
• The Department revised the
distances reported by CXS to reflect the
distances measured by the Department
at verification.15
• The Department made changes
based on the minor corrections
presented at verification.16
Changes Applicable to Only Titan
• The Department applied Titan’s
reported market economy purchase
price for winches.17
• The Department accepted the
allocated surcharge for shipping fixtures
in Titan’s gross unit price calculation.18
• The Department made changes
based on the minor corrections
presented at verification.19
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation are certain wind towers,
whether or not tapered, and sections
thereof. Certain wind towers are
designed to support the nacelle and
13 See
Final SV Memorandum at 4, Attachment
10.
14 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 11; Final SV Memorandum at 3,
Attachment 4.
15 See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins and
Trisha Tran, International Trade Compliance
Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File,
‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Utility Scale
Wind Towers from the People’s Republic of China:
Verification of the Antidumping Duty
Questionnaire Responses of Chengxi Shipyard Co.,
Ltd.’’ (September 21, 2012) (‘‘CXS’s Verification
Report’’) at 54–56; Memorandum from Shawn
Higgins, International Trade Compliance Analyst,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Robert Bolling,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4
‘‘Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People’s
Republic of China: Analysis of the Final
Determination Margin Calculation for Chengxi
Shipyard Co., Ltd.’’ (December 17, 2012) (‘‘CXS’s
Final Determination Analysis Memorandum’’) at 3,
Attachments 3–7.
16 Id. at 2, Exhibit 1.
17 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 15; Memorandum from Thomas Martin
and Lilit Astvatsatrian, Senior International Trade
Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD, Office 4, to Robert
Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4 ‘‘Utility Scale Wind Towers from the
People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the Final
Determination Margin Calculation for Titan Wind
Energy (Suzhou) Ltd.’’ (December 17, 2012)
(‘‘Titan’s Final Determination Analysis
Memorandum’’) at 5–6, Attachment I.
18 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 16; Titan’s Final Determination Analysis
Memorandum at Attachment I.
19 See Memorandum from Thomas Martin and
Lilit Astvatsatrian, Senior International Trade
Compliance Analysts, Office 4, to the File,
‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors Responses of
Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. in the
Antidumping Investigation of Utility Scale Wind
Towers from the People’s Republic of China’’
(September 21, 2012) (‘‘Titan’s Verification Report’’)
at 2–3, Exhibit 1.
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
75994
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Notices
rotor blades in a wind turbine with a
minimum rated electrical power
generation capacity in excess of 100
kilowatts (‘‘kW’’) and with a minimum
height of 50 meters measured from the
base of the tower to the bottom of the
nacelle (i.e., where the top of the tower
and nacelle are joined) when fully
assembled.
A wind tower section consists of, at
a minimum, multiple steel plates rolled
into cylindrical or conical shapes and
welded together (or otherwise attached)
to form a steel shell, regardless of
coating, end-finish, painting, treatment,
or method of manufacture, and with or
without flanges, doors, or internal or
external components (e.g., flooring/
decking, ladders, lifts, electrical buss
boxes, electrical cabling, conduit, cable
harness for nacelle generator, interior
lighting, tool and storage lockers)
attached to the wind tower section.
Several wind tower sections are
normally required to form a completed
wind tower.
Wind towers and sections thereof are
included within the scope whether or
not they are joined with nonsubject
merchandise, such as nacelles or rotor
blades, and whether or not they have
internal or external components
attached to the subject merchandise.
Specifically excluded from the scope
are nacelles and rotor blades, regardless
of whether they are attached to the wind
tower. Also excluded are any internal or
external components which are not
attached to the wind towers or sections
thereof.
Merchandise covered by the
investigation is currently classified in
the Harmonized Tariff System of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under
subheadings 7308.20.0020 20 or
8502.31.0000.21 Prior to 2011,
merchandise covered by the
investigation was classified in the
HTSUS under subheading 7308.20.0000
and may continue to be to some degree.
While the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of the investigation is dispositive.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Scope Comments
The Department received comments
regarding the scope of the investigation
from Petitioner, CXS, and Titan. After
analyzing the comments, the
Department has made no changes to the
scope of this investigation. For a
20 Wind towers are classified under HTSUS
7308.20.0020 when imported as a tower or tower
section(s) alone.
21 Wind towers may also be classified under
HTSUS 8502.31.0000 when imported as part of a
wind turbine (i.e., accompanying nacelles and/or
rotor blades).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
06:31 Dec 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
complete discussion of this issue, see
the Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 4.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, the Department verified the
information submitted by CXS and
Titan for use in the final
determination.22 The Department used
standard verification procedures,
including examination of relevant
accounting and production records and
original source documents provided by
these respondents.
Non-Market Economy Country
The PRC has been treated as a nonmarket economy (‘‘NME’’) in every
proceeding conducted by the
Department. In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is
an NME shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority.
The Department has not revoked the
PRC’s status as an NME and no party
has challenged the designation of the
PRC as an NME in this investigation.
Therefore, the Department continues to
treat the PRC as an NME for purposes
of this final determination and,
accordingly, applied the NME
methodology.
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department found that Colombia,
Indonesia, Peru, South Africa, Thailand,
and Ukraine are (1) at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the PRC and (2) significant
producers of merchandise comparable
to the merchandise under
consideration.23 From among these
countries, the Department preliminarily
selected Ukraine as the surrogate
country because, in addition to being
both economically comparable to the
PRC and a significant producer of
comparable merchandise, Ukraine
provided SV information that was most
specific to many factors of production
(‘‘FOPs’’), including the most significant
FOP reported by each respondent (i.e.,
steel plate).24 After the Preliminary
Determination, interested parties
submitted financial statements from a
Thai producer of identical merchandise
as well as comprehensive, detailed SV
information from Thailand. For the final
determination, the Department has
selected Thailand as the surrogate
country because Thailand is: (1) At a
22 See CXS’s Verification Report at 1; Titan’s
Verification Report at 1.
23 See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46036.
24 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
level of economic development
comparable to that of the PRC; (2) a
significant producer of merchandise
comparable to the merchandise under
consideration; and (3) the country that
provides the best available information
to value FOPs using data that are
specific, reliable, broad market averages,
contemporaneous with the POI, and
publicly available from a single
surrogate country.25 Specifically, the
Department has found that Thai import
data allows the Department to value
each respondent’s steel plate, which
accounts for the largest portion of each
company’s normal value, more
accurately than either the Ukrainian or
South African data on the record of this
investigation because the Thai data is
most specific to the size and chemistry
of the respondents’ steel plate.26 Also,
Thailand provides a complete set of SVs
(with only minor exceptions), including
financial ratios from a surrogate
company that produces identical
merchandise.27 Therefore, the
Department has determined that
Thailand, in addition to being at a level
of economic development comparable to
that of the PRC and a significant
producer of merchandise comparable to
wind towers, offers the best available SV
information on the record of this
investigation.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NMEs, the
Department maintains a rebuttable
presumption that all companies within
the NME are subject to government
control and, therefore, should be
assessed a single weighted-average
dumping margin.28 The Department’s
policy is to assign all exporters of
merchandise under consideration that
are in an NME this single rate unless an
exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate.29 The
Department analyzes whether each
entity exporting the merchandise under
consideration is sufficiently
independent under a test established in
Sparklers 30 and further developed in
25 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24,
2008).
29 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s Republic of
China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991)
(‘‘Sparklers’’).
30 Id.
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Notices
Silicon Carbide.31 According to this
separate rate test, the Department will
assign a separate rate in NME
proceedings if a respondent can
demonstrate the absence of both de jure
and de facto government control over its
export activities. If, however, the
Department determines that a company
is wholly foreign owned, then a separate
rate analysis is not necessary to
determine whether that company is
independent from government control
and eligible for a separate rate.
Companies Receiving a Separate Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department found that Sinovel Wind
Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Sinovel’’),32 Guodian
United Power Technology Baoding Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Guodian’’), CS Wind China Co.,
Ltd. and CS Wind Corporation
(collectively, ‘‘CS Wind’’), and the
mandatory respondents demonstrated
their eligibility for separate-rate status.33
For the final determination, the
Department continues to find that the
evidence placed on the record of this
investigation by Sinovel, Guodian, and
the mandatory respondents demonstrate
both a de jure and de facto absence of
government control and, therefore, are
eligible for separate-rate status. For
further discussion of the separate rate
analysis for CXS, see the Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
The Department also continues to find
that the evidence placed on the record
of this investigation by CS Wind
demonstrates that it is wholly-owned by
individuals and companies located in
market economy countries. Therefore,
the Department has granted CS Wind a
separate rate in the final determination.
Companies Not Receiving a Separate
Rate
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department did not grant a separate rate
to AVIC International Renewable Energy
Co. Ltd. (‘‘AVIC’’) because the company
failed to submit a timely response to the
Department’s supplemental separate
rate questionnaire and withdrew its
participation in this AD investigation.34
Consistent with the Preliminary
31 See 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’’).
32 In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department inadvertently omitted the producer of
the merchandise under consideration sold by
Sinovel from the exporter/producer combinations
listed in the rate table. The producer, Hebei
Qiangsheng Wind Equipment Co., Ltd., has been
included in the rate table for the final
determination.
33 See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at
46037–39.
34 Id.,77 FR at 46039.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
06:31 Dec 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
Determination, the Department did not
grant AVIC a separate rate in this final
determination.
Margin for the Separate Rate Companies
Normally, the Department’s practice
is to assign to separate rate entities that
were not individually examined a rate
equal to the average of the rates
calculated for the individually
examined respondents, excluding any
rates that are zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on adverse facts available
(‘‘AFA’’).35 Consistent with this
practice, the Department has assigned
Sinovel, Guodian, and CS Wind a rate
of 46.38 percent, which is equal to an
average of the rates calculated for the
mandatory respondents.36
The PRC-wide Entity
The record indicates that, in addition
to AVIC, there are other PRC exporters
and/or producers of the merchandise
under consideration during the POI that
did not respond to the Department’s
requests for information. Specifically,
the Department did not receive
responses to its quantity and value
questionnaire from over 30 PRC
exporters and/or producers of
merchandise under consideration that
were named in the petition and to
whom the Department issued the
questionnaire. Because AVIC and these
non-responsive PRC companies have
not demonstrated that they are eligible
for separate rate status, the Department
considers them part of the PRC-wide
entity.
Application of Facts Available and
AFA
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that, if an interested party (A) withholds
information that has been requested by
the Department, (B) fails to provide such
information in a timely manner or in the
form or manner requested, subject to
subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act,
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding
under the antidumping statute, or (D)
provides such information but the
information cannot be verified, the
Department shall, subject to subsection
35 See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of
China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic
of China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007).
36 See Memorandum from Thomas Martin,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘Utility Scale
Wind Towers from the People’s Republic of China:
Calculation of the Final Margin for Separate Rate
Recipients’’ (December 17, 2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75995
782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise
available in reaching the applicable
determination.
The Department has found that the
PRC-wide entity withheld information
requested by the Department, failed to
provide information in a timely manner,
and significantly impeded this
proceeding by not submitting the
requested information. The PRC-wide
entity neither filed documents
indicating it was having difficulty
providing the information nor requested
that it be allowed to submit the
information in an alternate form. As a
result, the Department has determined,
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(C) of
the Act and consistent with the
Preliminary Determination, that it may
use facts otherwise available to
determine the rate for the PRC-wide
entity.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that the Department, in selecting from
among the facts otherwise available,
may use an inference that is adverse to
the interests of a party if that party has
failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. The Department
has found that the PRC-wide entity’s
failure to provide the requested
information constitutes circumstances
under which it is reasonable to
conclude that less than full cooperation
has been shown.37 Therefore, the
Department has found, consistent with
the Preliminary Determination, that the
PRC-wide entity has failed to cooperate
to the best of its ability to comply with
requests for information and,
consequently, the Department may
employ an inference that is adverse to
the PRC-wide entity in selecting from
among the facts otherwise available.
Section 776(b) of the Act states that
the Department, when employing an
adverse inference, may rely upon
information derived from the petition,
the final determination from the LTFV
investigation, a previous administrative
review, or any other information placed
on the record. In selecting a rate based
on AFA, the Department selects a rate
that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that
the uncooperative party does not obtain
a more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than if it had fully
cooperated. The Department’s practice
is to select, as an AFA rate, the higher
37 See Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States,
337 F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that the
Department need not show intentional conduct
existed on the part of the respondent, but merely
that a ‘‘failure to cooperate to the best of a
respondent’s ability’’ existed (i.e., information was
not provided ‘‘under circumstances in which it is
reasonable to conclude that less than full
cooperation has been shown’’)).
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
75996
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Notices
of: (1) The highest dumping margin
alleged in the petition, or (2) the highest
calculated weighted-average dumping
margin of any respondent in the
investigation.38 In this investigation, the
petition dumping margin is 213.54
percent. This rate is higher than any of
the weighted-average dumping margins
calculated for the companies
individually examined.
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the
Department to corroborate, to the extent
practicable, secondary information used
as facts available. Secondary
information is defined as ‘‘information
derived from the petition that gave rise
to the investigation or review, the final
determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review
under section 751 of the Act concerning
the subject merchandise.’’ 39
The SAA clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’
means that the Department will satisfy
itself that the secondary information to
be used has probative value.40 The SAA
also states that independent sources
used to corroborate such evidence may
include, for example, published price
lists, official import statistics and
customs data, and information obtained
from interested parties during the
particular investigation.41 To
corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent
practicable, determine whether the
information used has probative value by
examining the reliability and relevance
of the information.
In order to determine the probative
value of the dumping margins in the
petition for use as AFA for purposes of
this final determination, the Department
examined information on the record and
found that it was unable to corroborate
the margin contained in the petition.
Therefore, for the final determination,
the Department has assigned to the PRC-
wide entity the rate of 70.63 percent,
which is the highest transaction-specific
dumping margin for a mandatory
respondent.42 It is unnecessary to
corroborate this rate because it was
obtained in the course of this
investigation and, therefore, is not
secondary information.43
Combination Rates
As announced in the Initiation
Notice,44 the Department has calculated
combination rates for the respondents
that are eligible for a separate rate in
this investigation. This practice is
described in Policy Bulletin 05.1.
Final Determination
The Department has determined that
the following weighted-average
dumping margins exist for the period
April 1, 2011, through September 30,
2011:
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
Exporter
Producer
Chengxi Shipyard Co., Ltd. .........................................................
Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd ........................................
Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. .......................................
CS Wind Corporation ..................................................................
Guodian United Power Technology Baoding Co., Ltd ...............
Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. .....................................................
PRC-Wide Entity .........................................................................
Chengxi Shipyard Co., Ltd. ........................................................
Titan (Lianyungang) Metal Product Co., Ltd. ............................
Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. ......................................
CS Wind China Co., Ltd. ...........................................................
Guodian United Power Technology Baoding Co., Ltd ..............
Qiangsheng Wind Equipment Co., Ltd. .....................................
47.59
44.99
44.99
46.38
46.38
46.38
70.63
consideration which have not received
their own separate rate, the cash-deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporter/producer combination
that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
These cash deposit instructions will
remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with section
735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue to
suspend liquidation of all entries of
wind towers from the PRC, as described
in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’
section, entered or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption on or after
the date of publication of this notice in
the Federal Register.
Further, the Department will instruct
CBP to require a cash deposit equal to
the weighted-average amount by which
normal value exceeds U.S. price,
adjusted where appropriate for export
subsidies, as follows: (1) The separate
rate for the exporter/producer
combinations listed in the table above
will be the rate the Department has
determined in this final determination;
(2) for all combinations of PRC
exporters/producers of merchandise
under consideration which have not
received their own separate rate, the
cash-deposit rate will be the rate for the
PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all non-PRC
exporters of merchandise under
38 See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening
Agents From the People’s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 77
FR 17436, 17438 (March 26, 2012).
39 See Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(‘‘SAA’’), H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session
at 870 (1994).
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 See CXS’s Final Determination Analysis
Memorandum at 6, Attachment 2; see also
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318, 64322 (October
18, 2011) (assigning as an AFA rate the highest
calculated transaction-specific rate among
mandatory respondents).
43 See section 776(c) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.308(c) and (d); Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part:
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the
People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 35652, 35653
(June 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
44 See Utility Scale Wind Towers From the
People’s Republic of China and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping
Duty Investigations, 77 FR 3440, 3445–46 (January
24, 2012) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
Disclosure
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b), the Department will disclose
the calculations performed in this
investigation to parties within five days
of the date of publication of this notice
in the Federal Register.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
06:31 Dec 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
International Trade Commission
Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of
the Act, the Department has notified the
International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)
of the final affirmative determination of
sales at LTFV. In accordance with
section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will
determine, within 45 days, whether the
domestic industry in the United States
is materially injured, or threatened with
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Notices
material injury, by reason of imports, or
sales (or the likelihood of sales) for
importation, of the merchandise under
consideration. If the ITC determines that
such injury does exist, the Department
will issue an antidumping duty order
directing CBP to assess, upon further
instruction by the Department,
antidumping duties on all imports of the
subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the effective
date of the suspension of liquidation.
Comment 15: Whether the Department
Should Use Titan’s Reported Market
Economy Purchase Price for Winches
Comment 16: Whether the Department
Should Exclude the Packing FOPs Used To
Make Shipping Fixtures
Comment 17: Whether the Department
Should Grant Titan a By-Product Offset
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Order
This notice also serves as a reminder
to the parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of propriety information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely
notification of 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 sanctionable
violation.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
International Trade Administration
Dated: December 17, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Appendix
Issues for Final Determination
Comment 1: Whether the Department Should
Continue to Use Ukraine as the Surrogate
Country
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should
Revise its Financial Ratio Calculations
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should
Revise the SV for Brokerage and Handling
Comment 4: Whether Base Rings Are
Included in the Scope of the Investigation
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should
Offset the Antidumping Cash Deposit Rate
for Export Subsidies
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should
Grant CXS a Separate Rate
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should
Apply AFA to CXS
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should
Revise the SV for CXS’s Expanded Metal
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should
Revise the SV for CXS’s Bus Bars
Comment 10: Whether the Department
Should Revise the SV for CXS’s Tarpaulin
Comment 11: Whether the Department
Should Value CXS’s River Water Using the
SV for Municipal Water
Comment 12: Whether the Department
Should Exclude Stainless Steel Round Bars
from CXS’s Normal Value
Comment 13: Whether the Department
Should Use CXS’s Reported Market
Economy Purchase Prices
Comment 14: Whether Titan Reported the
Correct Number of Flanges
VerDate Mar<15>2010
06:31 Dec 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
[FR Doc. 2012–30950 Filed 12–21–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Environmental Technologies Trade
Advisory Committee (ETTAC), Request
for Nominations from U.S. State
Officials
International Trade
Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Solicitation of nominations from
U.S. state officials for membership to
the Environmental Technologies Trade
Advisory Committee (ETTAC).
AGENCY:
This notice sets forth a
request for nominations from U.S. state
officials, or representatives from
associations that represent U.S. states, to
serve on the Environmental
Technologies Trade Advisory
Committee (ETTAC). One person will be
appointed under this notice increasing
the total number of members to 36.
The ETTAC was established pursuant
to provisions under Title IV of the Jobs
Through Trade Expansion Act, 22.
U.S.C. 2151, and under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.
App.2. ETTAC was first chartered on
May 31, 1994. ETTAC serves as an
advisory body to the Environmental
Trade Working Group of the Trade
Promotion Coordinating Committee
(TPCC), reporting directly to the
Secretary of Commerce in his/her
capacity as Chairman of the TPCC.
ETTAC advises on the development and
administration of policies and programs
to expand U.S. exports of environmental
technologies, goods, and services.
DATES: Nominations from officials
representing U.S. states for membership
must be received on or before December
31, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Please send nominations by
post, email, or fax to the attention of
Todd DeLelle, Office of Energy &
Environmental Industries, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room 4053, Washington, DC
20230; phone 202–482–4877; email
todd.delelle@trade.gov; fax 202–482–
5665. Electronic responses should be
submitted in Microsoft Word format.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75997
Nominations: The Secretary of
Commerce invites nominations to
ETTAC of officials who will represent
U.S. states interested in the trade of
environmental goods and services.
Members of the ETTAC must have
experience in the exportation of
environmental goods and services,
including:
(1) Air pollution control and
monitoring technologies ;
(2) Analytic devices and services;
(3) Environmental engineering and
consulting services;
(4) Financial services relevant to the
environmental sector;
(5) Process and pollution prevention
technologies;
(7) Solid and hazardous waste
management technologies;
(8) and/or water and wastewater
treatment technologies.
Nominees will be evaluated based
upon their ability to carry out the goals
of the ETTAC’s enabling legislation.
ETTAC’s current Charter is available on
the internet at https://
www.environment.ita.doc.gov under the
tab: Advisory Committee.
Nominees must be U.S. citizens. All
appointments are made without regard
to political affiliation. Members shall
serve at the pleasure of the Secretary
from the date of appointment to the
Committee to the date on which the
Committee’s charter terminates
(normally two years).
If you are interested in being
nominated to become a member of
ETTAC, please provide the following
information (2 pages maximum):
(1) Name
(2) Title
(3) Work phone; fax; and email
address
(4) Organization name and address,
including Web site address
(5) Short biography of nominee,
including credentials and proof of U.S.
citizenship (copy of birth certificate
and/or U.S. passport) and a list of
citizenships of foreign countries
(6) Brief description of the
organization and its business activities,
including
(7) Company size (number of
employees and annual sales)
(8) Exporting experience.
Please do not send company or trade
association brochures or any other
information.
Mr.
Todd DeLelle, Office of Energy &
Environmental Industries (OEEI),
International Trade Administration,
Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230. (Phone:
202–482–4877; Fax: 202–482–5665;
email: todd.delelle@trade.gov).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75992-75997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30950]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-981]
Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: December 24, 2012.
SUMMARY: On August 2, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the
``Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at
less than fair value (``LTFV'') and postponement of final determination
in the antidumping investigation of utility scale wind towers (``wind
towers'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\ Based on an
analysis of the comments received, the Department has made changes from
the Preliminary Determination. The Department has determined that wind
towers from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United
States at LTFV, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the ``Act''). The final weighted-average dumping margins
for this investigation are listed in the ``Final Determination''
section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Postponement of Final Determination, 77 FR 46034 (August 2,
2012) (``Preliminary Determination'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian, Shawn Higgins,
Thomas Martin, or Trisha Tran, 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) 482-6412, (202) 482-0679, (202) 482-3936, or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(202) 482-4852, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published its Preliminary Determination on August 2,
2012.\2\ Between August 13, 2012, and August 24, 2012, the Department
conducted verifications of the mandatory respondents (i.e., Chengxi
Shipyard Co., Ltd. (``CXS'') and Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
(``Titan'')).\3\ Between September 14, 2012, and September 24, 2012,
CXS,
[[Page 75993]]
Titan and the Wind Tower Trade Coalition (``Petitioner'')\4\ submitted
surrogate value (``SV'') and rebuttal SV comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id.
\3\ See the ``Verification'' section below.
\4\ The Wind Tower Trade Coalition is comprised of Broadwind
Towers, Inc., DMI Industries, Katana Summit LLC, and Trinity
Structural Towers, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 2, 2012, CXS, Titan and Petitioner submitted case
briefs. On October 9, 2012, CXS, Titan, and Petitioner submitted
rebuttal briefs.
On November 2, 2012, the Department held a hearing, which was
requested by Petitioner on September 4, 2012.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2011, through
September 30, 2011. This period corresponds to the two most recent
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which
was December 2012.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension of Final Determination Due to Government Closure During
Hurricane Sandy
On October 31, 2012, the Department's Import Administration
determined that the impact of the recent government closure during
Hurricane Sandy would be best minimized by uniformly tolling all Import
Administration deadlines for two days.\6\ This determination applies to
every proceeding before the Import Administration, including this
investigation. The Department notes, however, that because the deadline
of the final determination of this investigation was originally on
December 15, 2012, which falls on a weekend, this deadline would have
been automatically extended by two days until the following working
day, Monday, December 17, 2012. Therefore, the two day extension of the
deadlines due to government closure during Hurricane Sandy does not
impact the deadline for the final determination of this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Memorandum For the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, ``Tolling of Administrative
Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure During Hurricane
Sandy'' (October 31, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs and rebuttal briefs by parties
in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.\7\ A list of the issues which the parties raised and to
which the Department responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is
attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision
Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via
Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''). Access to IA ACCESS is
available to registered users at https://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is
available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, which is in room
7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the internet at www.trade.gov/ia. The signed Issues and
Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to
Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Utility Scale Wind Towers from the
People's Republic of China'' (December 17, 2012) (``Issues and
Decision Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Changes Applicable to Both Mandatory Respondents
The Department recalculated SVs and surrogate financial
ratios based on data from Thailand, which was selected as the surrogate
country for the final determination.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. at Comment 1; Memorandum from Lilit Astvatsatrian and
Trisha Tran, International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, to the File, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation
of Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China:
Final Surrogate Value Memorandum'' (December 17, 2012) (``Final SV
Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department used the unadjusted per-kg brokerage and
handling rate for a 20-foot container to value brokerage and
handling.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; Final SV
Memorandum at 3-4, Attachment 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Applicable to Only CXS
The Department used Thai tariff sub-category 8544.60 to
value CXS's bus bars.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9; Final SV
Memorandum at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department used Ukrainian tariff sub-category 6306.12
to value CXS's tarpaulin.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10; Final SV
Memorandum at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department excluded stainless steel round bars from
CXS's normal value.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department used the unadjusted per-kg international
freight rate for a 40-foot container to value international
freight.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Final SV Memorandum at 4, Attachment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has not valued CXS's river water using the
SV for municipal water.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11; Final SV
Memorandum at 3, Attachment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department revised the distances reported by CXS to
reflect the distances measured by the Department at verification.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins and Trisha Tran,
International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office
4, to the File, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Utility Scale
Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China: Verification of the
Antidumping Duty Questionnaire Responses of Chengxi Shipyard Co.,
Ltd.'' (September 21, 2012) (``CXS's Verification Report'') at 54-
56; Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Robert Bolling, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4 ``Utility Scale Wind Towers
from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Final
Determination Margin Calculation for Chengxi Shipyard Co., Ltd.''
(December 17, 2012) (``CXS's Final Determination Analysis
Memorandum'') at 3, Attachments 3-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department made changes based on the minor corrections
presented at verification.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id. at 2, Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Applicable to Only Titan
The Department applied Titan's reported market economy
purchase price for winches.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 15;
Memorandum from Thomas Martin and Lilit Astvatsatrian, Senior
International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD, Office 4, to Robert
Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4 ``Utility
Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of
the Final Determination Margin Calculation for Titan Wind Energy
(Suzhou) Ltd.'' (December 17, 2012) (``Titan's Final Determination
Analysis Memorandum'') at 5-6, Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department accepted the allocated surcharge for
shipping fixtures in Titan's gross unit price calculation.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16; Titan's
Final Determination Analysis Memorandum at Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department made changes based on the minor corrections
presented at verification.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Memorandum from Thomas Martin and Lilit Astvatsatrian,
Senior International Trade Compliance Analysts, Office 4, to the
File, ``Verification of the Sales and Factors Responses of Titan
Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Investigation of
Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China''
(September 21, 2012) (``Titan's Verification Report'') at 2-3,
Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation are certain wind
towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Certain wind
towers are designed to support the nacelle and
[[Page 75994]]
rotor blades in a wind turbine with a minimum rated electrical power
generation capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts (``kW'') and with a
minimum height of 50 meters measured from the base of the tower to the
bottom of the nacelle (i.e., where the top of the tower and nacelle are
joined) when fully assembled.
A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel
plates rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together
(or otherwise attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of coating,
end-finish, painting, treatment, or method of manufacture, and with or
without flanges, doors, or internal or external components (e.g.,
flooring/decking, ladders, lifts, electrical buss boxes, electrical
cabling, conduit, cable harness for nacelle generator, interior
lighting, tool and storage lockers) attached to the wind tower section.
Several wind tower sections are normally required to form a completed
wind tower.
Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope
whether or not they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, such as
nacelles or rotor blades, and whether or not they have internal or
external components attached to the subject merchandise.
Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor blades,
regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower. Also
excluded are any internal or external components which are not attached
to the wind towers or sections thereof.
Merchandise covered by the investigation is currently classified in
the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (``HTSUS'') under
subheadings 7308.20.0020 \20\ or 8502.31.0000.\21\ Prior to 2011,
merchandise covered by the investigation was classified in the HTSUS
under subheading 7308.20.0000 and may continue to be to some degree.
While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is
dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Wind towers are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 when
imported as a tower or tower section(s) alone.
\21\ Wind towers may also be classified under HTSUS 8502.31.0000
when imported as part of a wind turbine (i.e., accompanying nacelles
and/or rotor blades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope Comments
The Department received comments regarding the scope of the
investigation from Petitioner, CXS, and Titan. After analyzing the
comments, the Department has made no changes to the scope of this
investigation. For a complete discussion of this issue, see the Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department verified
the information submitted by CXS and Titan for use in the final
determination.\22\ The Department used standard verification
procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production
records and original source documents provided by these respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See CXS's Verification Report at 1; Titan's Verification
Report at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Country
The PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') in every
proceeding conducted by the Department. In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is
an NME shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering
authority. The Department has not revoked the PRC's status as an NME
and no party has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME in
this investigation. Therefore, the Department continues to treat the
PRC as an NME for purposes of this final determination and,
accordingly, applied the NME methodology.
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that
Colombia, Indonesia, Peru, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine are (1)
at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and
(2) significant producers of merchandise comparable to the merchandise
under consideration.\23\ From among these countries, the Department
preliminarily selected Ukraine as the surrogate country because, in
addition to being both economically comparable to the PRC and a
significant producer of comparable merchandise, Ukraine provided SV
information that was most specific to many factors of production
(``FOPs''), including the most significant FOP reported by each
respondent (i.e., steel plate).\24\ After the Preliminary
Determination, interested parties submitted financial statements from a
Thai producer of identical merchandise as well as comprehensive,
detailed SV information from Thailand. For the final determination, the
Department has selected Thailand as the surrogate country because
Thailand is: (1) At a level of economic development comparable to that
of the PRC; (2) a significant producer of merchandise comparable to the
merchandise under consideration; and (3) the country that provides the
best available information to value FOPs using data that are specific,
reliable, broad market averages, contemporaneous with the POI, and
publicly available from a single surrogate country.\25\ Specifically,
the Department has found that Thai import data allows the Department to
value each respondent's steel plate, which accounts for the largest
portion of each company's normal value, more accurately than either the
Ukrainian or South African data on the record of this investigation
because the Thai data is most specific to the size and chemistry of the
respondents' steel plate.\26\ Also, Thailand provides a complete set of
SVs (with only minor exceptions), including financial ratios from a
surrogate company that produces identical merchandise.\27\ Therefore,
the Department has determined that Thailand, in addition to being at a
level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and a
significant producer of merchandise comparable to wind towers, offers
the best available SV information on the record of this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46036.
\24\ Id.
\25\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NMEs, the Department maintains a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the NME are subject to
government control and, therefore, should be assessed a single
weighted-average dumping margin.\28\ The Department's policy is to
assign all exporters of merchandise under consideration that are in an
NME this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.\29\
The Department analyzes whether each entity exporting the merchandise
under consideration is sufficiently independent under a test
established in Sparklers \30\ and further developed in
[[Page 75995]]
Silicon Carbide.\31\ According to this separate rate test, the
Department will assign a separate rate in NME proceedings if a
respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over its export activities. If, however, the
Department determines that a company is wholly foreign owned, then a
separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether that
company is independent from government control and eligible for a
separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24,
2008).
\29\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589
(May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers'').
\30\ Id.
\31\ See 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Companies Receiving a Separate Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that Sinovel
Wind Group Co., Ltd. (``Sinovel''),\32\ Guodian United Power Technology
Baoding Co., Ltd. (``Guodian''), CS Wind China Co., Ltd. and CS Wind
Corporation (collectively, ``CS Wind''), and the mandatory respondents
demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status.\33\ For the
final determination, the Department continues to find that the evidence
placed on the record of this investigation by Sinovel, Guodian, and the
mandatory respondents demonstrate both a de jure and de facto absence
of government control and, therefore, are eligible for separate-rate
status. For further discussion of the separate rate analysis for CXS,
see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. The Department
also continues to find that the evidence placed on the record of this
investigation by CS Wind demonstrates that it is wholly-owned by
individuals and companies located in market economy countries.
Therefore, the Department has granted CS Wind a separate rate in the
final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ In the Preliminary Determination, the Department
inadvertently omitted the producer of the merchandise under
consideration sold by Sinovel from the exporter/producer
combinations listed in the rate table. The producer, Hebei
Qiangsheng Wind Equipment Co., Ltd., has been included in the rate
table for the final determination.
\33\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46037-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department did not grant a
separate rate to AVIC International Renewable Energy Co. Ltd.
(``AVIC'') because the company failed to submit a timely response to
the Department's supplemental separate rate questionnaire and withdrew
its participation in this AD investigation.\34\ Consistent with the
Preliminary Determination, the Department did not grant AVIC a separate
rate in this final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id.,77 FR at 46039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin for the Separate Rate Companies
Normally, the Department's practice is to assign to separate rate
entities that were not individually examined a rate equal to the
average of the rates calculated for the individually examined
respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on adverse facts available (``AFA'').\35\ Consistent with this
practice, the Department has assigned Sinovel, Guodian, and CS Wind a
rate of 46.38 percent, which is equal to an average of the rates
calculated for the mandatory respondents.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR
19690 (April 19, 2007).
\36\ See Memorandum from Thomas Martin, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File,
``Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China:
Calculation of the Final Margin for Separate Rate Recipients''
(December 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-wide Entity
The record indicates that, in addition to AVIC, there are other PRC
exporters and/or producers of the merchandise under consideration
during the POI that did not respond to the Department's requests for
information. Specifically, the Department did not receive responses to
its quantity and value questionnaire from over 30 PRC exporters and/or
producers of merchandise under consideration that were named in the
petition and to whom the Department issued the questionnaire. Because
AVIC and these non-responsive PRC companies have not demonstrated that
they are eligible for separate rate status, the Department considers
them part of the PRC-wide entity.
Application of Facts Available and AFA
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department,
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping
statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable
determination.
The Department has found that the PRC-wide entity withheld
information requested by the Department, failed to provide information
in a timely manner, and significantly impeded this proceeding by not
submitting the requested information. The PRC-wide entity neither filed
documents indicating it was having difficulty providing the information
nor requested that it be allowed to submit the information in an
alternate form. As a result, the Department has determined, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act and consistent with the
Preliminary Determination, that it may use facts otherwise available to
determine the rate for the PRC-wide entity.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department, in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, may use an
inference that is adverse to the interests of a party if that party has
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply
with a request for information. The Department has found that the PRC-
wide entity's failure to provide the requested information constitutes
circumstances under which it is reasonable to conclude that less than
full cooperation has been shown.\37\ Therefore, the Department has
found, consistent with the Preliminary Determination, that the PRC-wide
entity has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information and, consequently, the Department may
employ an inference that is adverse to the PRC-wide entity in selecting
from among the facts otherwise available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, 337 F.3d
1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that the Department need not
show intentional conduct existed on the part of the respondent, but
merely that a ``failure to cooperate to the best of a respondent's
ability'' existed (i.e., information was not provided ``under
circumstances in which it is reasonable to conclude that less than
full cooperation has been shown'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(b) of the Act states that the Department, when
employing an adverse inference, may rely upon information derived from
the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a
previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the
record. In selecting a rate based on AFA, the Department selects a rate
that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party
does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if
it had fully cooperated. The Department's practice is to select, as an
AFA rate, the higher
[[Page 75996]]
of: (1) The highest dumping margin alleged in the petition, or (2) the
highest calculated weighted-average dumping margin of any respondent in
the investigation.\38\ In this investigation, the petition dumping
margin is 213.54 percent. This rate is higher than any of the weighted-
average dumping margins calculated for the companies individually
examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 77 FR 17436, 17438 (March 26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate,
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts
available. Secondary information is defined as ``information derived
from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the
final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous
review under section 751 of the Act concerning the subject
merchandise.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``SAA''), H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong.,
2d Session at 870 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the Department
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has
probative value.\40\ The SAA also states that independent sources used
to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information
obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation.\41\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, determine whether the information used
has probative value by examining the reliability and relevance of the
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Id.
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to determine the probative value of the dumping margins in
the petition for use as AFA for purposes of this final determination,
the Department examined information on the record and found that it was
unable to corroborate the margin contained in the petition. Therefore,
for the final determination, the Department has assigned to the PRC-
wide entity the rate of 70.63 percent, which is the highest
transaction-specific dumping margin for a mandatory respondent.\42\ It
is unnecessary to corroborate this rate because it was obtained in the
course of this investigation and, therefore, is not secondary
information.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See CXS's Final Determination Analysis Memorandum at 6,
Attachment 2; see also Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 76 FR 64318, 64322 (October 18, 2011) (assigning as an AFA
rate the highest calculated transaction-specific rate among
mandatory respondents).
\43\ See section 776(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c) and
(d); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: Light-
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of
China, 73 FR 35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combination Rates
As announced in the Initiation Notice,\44\ the Department has
calculated combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for
a separate rate in this investigation. This practice is described in
Policy Bulletin 05.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of
China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 77 FR 3440, 3445-46 (January 24,
2012) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determination
The Department has determined that the following weighted-average
dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2011, through September
30, 2011:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter Producer dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chengxi Shipyard Co., Ltd...... Chengxi Shipyard Co., 47.59
Ltd..
Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Titan (Lianyungang) 44.99
Ltd. Metal Product Co.,
Ltd..
Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Titan Wind Energy 44.99
Ltd.. (Suzhou) Co., Ltd..
CS Wind Corporation............ CS Wind China Co., Ltd. 46.38
Guodian United Power Technology Guodian United Power 46.38
Baoding Co., Ltd. Technology Baoding
Co., Ltd.
Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd.... Qiangsheng Wind 46.38
Equipment Co., Ltd..
PRC-Wide Entity................ 70.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose
the calculations performed in this investigation to parties within five
days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue
to suspend liquidation of all entries of wind towers from the PRC, as
described in the ``Scope of the Investigation'' section, entered or
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S.
price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies, as follows: (1)
The separate rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the
table above will be the rate the Department has determined in this
final determination; (2) for all combinations of PRC exporters/
producers of merchandise under consideration which have not received
their own separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate for the
PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of merchandise under
consideration which have not received their own separate rate, the
cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/
producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These cash
deposit instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the Department has
notified the International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of the final
affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. In accordance with section
735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether
the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or
threatened with
[[Page 75997]]
material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of
sales) for importation, of the merchandise under consideration. If the
ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue
an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further
instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of
liquidation.
Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order
This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of propriety information disclosed under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of 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 sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 17, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
Issues for Final Determination
Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Continue to Use Ukraine as
the Surrogate Country
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Revise its Financial Ratio
Calculations
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Revise the SV for Brokerage
and Handling
Comment 4: Whether Base Rings Are Included in the Scope of the
Investigation
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Offset the Antidumping Cash
Deposit Rate for Export Subsidies
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Grant CXS a Separate Rate
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Apply AFA to CXS
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Revise the SV for CXS's
Expanded Metal
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Revise the SV for CXS's Bus
Bars
Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Revise the SV for CXS's
Tarpaulin
Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Value CXS's River Water
Using the SV for Municipal Water
Comment 12: Whether the Department Should Exclude Stainless Steel
Round Bars from CXS's Normal Value
Comment 13: Whether the Department Should Use CXS's Reported Market
Economy Purchase Prices
Comment 14: Whether Titan Reported the Correct Number of Flanges
Comment 15: Whether the Department Should Use Titan's Reported
Market Economy Purchase Price for Winches
Comment 16: Whether the Department Should Exclude the Packing FOPs
Used To Make Shipping Fixtures
Comment 17: Whether the Department Should Grant Titan a By-Product
Offset
[FR Doc. 2012-30950 Filed 12-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
