Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission, in Part, 2010/12, 96-101 [2013-31408]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
96
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2014 / Notices
Assessment Rates
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The Department will determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered
by this review. The Department intends
to issue assessment instructions to CBP
15 days after the publication date of
these final results of this review. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
we are calculating importer- (or
customer-) specific assessment rates for
the merchandise subject to this review.
For any individually examined
respondent whose weighted-average
dumping margin is above de minimis
(i.e., 0.50 percent), the Department will
calculate importer-specific assessment
rates on the basis of the ratio of the total
amount of dumping calculated for the
importer’s examined sales and the total
entered value of sales.12 We will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered
by this review when the importerspecific assessment rate is above de
minimis. Where either the respondent’s
weighted-average dumping margin is
zero or de minimis, or an importerspecific assessment rate is zero or de
minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate the appropriate entries
without regard to antidumping duties.
The Department recently announced a
refinement to its assessment practice in
NME cases.13 Pursuant to this
refinement in practice, for entries that
were not reported in the U.S. sales
databases submitted by companies
individually examined during this
review, the Department will instruct
CBP to liquidate such entries at the
NME-wide rate. In addition, if the
Department determines that an exporter
under review had no shipments of the
subject merchandise, any suspended
entries that entered under that
exporter’s case number (i.e., at that
exporter’s rate) will be liquidated at the
NME-wide rate. For a full discussion of
this practice, see NME Antidumping
Proceedings.
11 For these final results, the Department has
collapsed Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd.
and Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co., Ltd. As a result
of this collapsing, the cash deposit rate for
shipments of pure magnesium from the People’s
Republic of China exported by Tianjin Magnesium
International Co., Ltd. also applies to exports of this
merchandise by Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co., Ltd.
12 See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of
the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101
(February 14, 2012).
13 See Non-Market Economy Antidumping
Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76
FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (‘‘NME Antidumping
Proceedings’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Dec 31, 2013
Jkt 232001
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided for by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
TMM/TMI, the cash deposit rate will be
zero; (2) for previously investigated or
reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters
not listed above that have separate rates,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the exporter-specific rate published for
the most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 111.73 percent;
and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporter that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this POR.
Failure to comply with this requirement
could result in the Department’s
presumption that reimbursement of the
antidumping duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under the APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment
of the proceeding. Timely written
notification of the return/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.
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
We are issuing and publishing the
final results and notice in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: December 26, 2013.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
Appendix
Comment 1: Surrogate Country
Comment 2: Surrogate Value for Input
Magnesium Scrap
Comment 3: Surrogate Financial
Statements
Comment 4: Whether Alleged Translation
Errors and Omissions Warrant an
Adverse Inference
Comment 5: Whether the Department
Should Collapse TMM and TMI and
therefore Assign a Single AD Rate to the
Collapsed Entity
Comment 6: Whether To Identify the
Collapsed Affiliate in Customs
Instructions
Comment 7: Updating the PRC-Wide Rate
[FR Doc. 2013–31412 Filed 12–31–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–967]
Aluminum Extrusions From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Rescission,
in Part, 2010/12
Enforcement and Compliance,
formerly Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on aluminum
extrusions from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’). The period of review
(‘‘POR’’) is November 12, 2010, through
April 30, 2012. These final results cover
62 companies for which an
administrative review was initiated,1
and for which this administrative
review was not rescinded in the
Preliminary Results.2 For these final
AGENCY:
1 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Request for Revocation in Part, 77 FR 40565 (July
10, 2012) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). In the Initiation
Notice, 67 companies are listed. However, there
were entries for Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminum
Extrusion Co., Ltd. and Taishan City Kam Kiu
Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd. which appear to be
the same entity, with the result that the Department
considers the Initiation Notice to cover 66
companies.
2 See Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2014 / Notices
results, the Department examined two
mandatory respondents which include
three companies for which this review
was initiated. The first mandatory
respondent is Kromet International, Inc.
(‘‘Kromet’’) for which the Department
finds for these final results did not make
sales of subject merchandise at less than
normal value. The second mandatory
respondent the Department has
continued to find is a single entity,
collectively Zhongya/Guang Ya Group/
Xinya, comprised of Zhaoqing New
Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. a.k.a.
Guangdong Zhongya Aluminum
Company Limited (‘‘Zhongya’’);
Guangya Aluminum Industrial Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Guang Ya’’), Foshan Guangcheng
Aluminum Co., Ltd. (‘‘Guangcheng’’) 3
(collectively ‘‘Guang Ya Group’’); and
Foshan Nanhai Xinya Aluminum &
Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Xinya’’).4 The Department finds for
these final results that the Zhongya/
Guang Ya Group/Xinya entity failed to
demonstrate that it was eligible for a
separate rate and thus it is part of the
PRC-wide entity. Furthermore, the
Department finds that ten (including
Kromet) of the other companies under
review have established their eligibility
for a separate rate. The Department
finds that the remaining companies
under review either failed to establish
their eligibility for a separate rate or
were not responsive, and, therefore,
these companies are part of the PRCwide entity.
DATES: Effective Date: January 2, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Stolz or Demitrios Kalogeropoulos, AD/
CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement
and Compliance, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4474 or (202) 482–
2623, respectively.
Background
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
On June 11, 2013, the Department
published the Preliminary Results of
this administrative review. At that time,
we invited interested parties to
comment on the Preliminary Results.5
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Rescission, in Part, 2010/12, 78 FR 34986 (June 11,
2013) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’) (where the
Department rescinded this administrative review
for four companies: Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd.,
Changshu Changsheng Aluminum Products Co.,
Ltd., Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd., and
Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminum Extrusion Co.,
Ltd.).
3 No review was initiated for Guangcheng,
however, this company did provide a Q&V
response.
4 No review was initiated for Xinya, however, this
company did provide a Q&V response.
5 See Preliminary Results at 34988.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Dec 31, 2013
Jkt 232001
On August 26, 2013 we received case
briefs from the Aluminum Extrusions
Fair Trade Committee (‘‘Petitioner’’); 6
Zhongya; the Government of China
(‘‘GOC’’); Shenzhen Hudson Technology
Development Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shenzhen
Hudson’’); Skyline Exhibit Systems
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Skyline’’); Newell
Rubbermaid Inc. (‘‘Newell’’); Zhongshan
Gold Mountain Aluminum Factory Ltd.
(‘‘ZGM’’) and Gold Mountain
International Development Limited
(‘‘GMID’’); Dongguan Golden Tiger
Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘Golden
Tiger’’), Guangdong Whirlpool Electrical
Appliances Co. Ltd. (‘‘Guangdong
Whirlpool’’), Hanyung Alcobis Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Hanyung Alcobis’’), Henan New
Kelong Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd.
(‘‘New Kelong’’), and Shanghai Tongtai
Precise Aluminum Alloy Manufacturing
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tongtai’’); Xin Wei
Aluminum Company Limited, Guang
Dong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co.,
Ltd. and Xin Wei Aluminum Co., Ltd.
(collectively ‘‘Xin Wei’’); and Electrolux
North America, Inc., Electrolux Home
Products, Inc. and Electrolux Major
Appliances (collectively ‘‘Electrolux’’).7
6 The individual members of the Committee are
Aerolite Extrusion Company; Alexandria Extrusion
Company; Benada Aluminum of Florida, Inc.;
William L. Bonnell Company, Inc.; Frontier
Aluminum Corporation; Futural Industries
Corporation; Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc.;
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation; Profile Extrusion
Company; Sapa Extrusions, Inc.; and Western
Extrusions Corporation.
7 See letters from (1) Petitioner, ‘‘Aluminum
Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China:
Case Brief’’ (‘‘Petitioner’s Case Brief’’); (2) Zhongya,
‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from China’’ (‘‘Zhongya’s
Case Brief’’), (3) Electrolux, ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions
from the People’s Republic of China: Case Brief’’
(‘‘Electrolux’s Case Brief’’), (4) The GOC,
‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from China; 1st AD
Administrative Review GOC Case Brief’’ (‘‘GOC’s
Case Brief’’), (5) Xin Wei, ‘‘Administrative Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum
Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China:
Case Brief’’ (‘‘Xin Wei’s Case Brief’’), (6) Golden
Tiger et al., ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from The
People’s Republic of China (First Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review): Case Brief of
Dongguan Golden Tiger Hardware Industrial Co.,
Ltd., Guangdong Whirlpool Electrical Appliances
Co. Ltd., Hanyung Alcobis Co., Ltd., Henan New
Kelong Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd., and
Shanghai Tongtai Precise Aluminum Alloy
Manufacturing Co., Ltd.’’ (‘‘Golden Tiger et al.’s
Case Brief’’), (7) ZGM and GMID, ‘‘Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic
of China: Case Brief for Consideration Prior to the
Final Results’’ (‘‘ZGM and GMID’s Case Brief’’), (8)
Newell, ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s
Republic of China: Case Brief’’ (‘‘Newell’s Case
Brief’’), (9) Skyline, ‘‘Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions
from the People’s Republic of China: Case Brief of
Skyline’’ (‘‘Skyline’s Case Brief’’), (10) Shenzhen
Hudson, ‘‘Shenzhen Hudson Administrative Case
Brief in the First Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions
from the People’s Republic of China’’ (‘‘Shenzhen
Hudson’s Case Brief’’), all dated August 26, 2013.
IDEX Health & Science LLC and BAND–IT–IDEX,
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
97
On September 12, 2013 we received
rebuttal briefs from the Petitioner;
Kromet; Zhongya; the GOC; and ZGM
and GMID.8 On September 26, 2013, the
Department extended the deadline for
the final results until December 9,
2013.9 On October 18, 2013, the
Department tolled this deadline by 16
days until December 25, which is a
federal holiday.10 Therefore, the
extended deadline is the next business
day, which is Thursday, December 26,
2013.11 At Zhongya’s request, we held a
hearing on November 20, 2013.12
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the
Order 13 is aluminum extrusions which
are shapes and forms, produced by an
extrusion process, made from aluminum
alloys having metallic elements
corresponding to the alloy series
designations published by The
Aluminum Association commencing
with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or
proprietary equivalents or other
certifying body equivalents).14
Inc. submitted its case brief on August 2, 2013,
‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from China: IDEX
Antidumping Case Brief,’’ (‘‘IDEX Case Brief’’).
Jiuyuan and UQM Technology Inc. submitted their
case brief on July 29, 2013, ‘‘Administrative Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum
Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China:
Case Brief of Shenzhen Jiuyuan Co., Ltd. and UQM
Technology, Inc.’’ (‘‘Jiuyuan and UQM Case Brief’’).
8 See letters from (1) Petitioner, ‘‘Aluminum
Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China:
Rebuttal Brief,’’ (‘‘Petitioner’s Rebuttal Brief’’); (2)
Kromet, ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s
Republic of China (First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review): Rebuttal Brief of
Respondent Kromet International Inc.,’’ (‘‘Kromet’s
Rebuttal Brief’’); (3) Zhongya, ‘‘Aluminum
Extrusions from China—Zhongya Rebuttal Brief,’’
(‘‘Zhongya’s Rebuttal Brief’’); (4) the GOC,
‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from China; 1st AD
Administrative Review GOC Rebuttal Brief,’’ (‘‘The
GOC’s Rebuttal Brief’’); and (5) ZGM and GMID,
‘‘Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s
Republic of China: Rebuttal Brief for Consideration
Prior to the Final Results,’’ (‘‘ZGM and GMID’s
Rebuttal Brief’’), all dated September 12, 2013.
9 See ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s
Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review,’’ dated September 26, 2013.
10 See the memorandum for the record ‘‘Deadlines
Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal
Government,’’ dated October 18, 2013.
11 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, 2008).
12 See hearing transcript, ‘‘In the Matter of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions
from the PRC (A–570–967) (November 12, 2010
through April 30, 2012),’’ filed December 2, 2013;
see also ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from China:
Request for Hearing; Extension Request,’’ submitted
by Zhongya on July 11, 2013.
13 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s
Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR
30650 (May 26, 2011) (‘‘Order’’).
14 See ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
Continued
02JAN1
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
98
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2014 / Notices
Imports of the subject merchandise
are provided for under the following
categories of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’): 7610.10.00, 7610.90.00,
7615.10.30, 7615.10.71, 7615.10.91,
7615.19.10, 7615.19.30, 7615.19.50,
7615.19.70, 7615.19.90, 7615.20.00,
7616.99.10, 7616.99.50, 8479.89.98,
8479.90.94, 8513.90.20, 9403.10.00,
9403.20.00, 7604.21.00.00,
7604.29.10.00, 7604.29.30.10,
7604.29.30.50, 7604.29.50.30,
7604.29.50.60, 7608.20.00.30,
7608.20.00.90, 8302.10.30.00,
8302.10.60.30, 8302.10.60.60,
8302.10.60.90, 8302.20.00.00,
8302.30.30.10, 8302.30.30.60,
8302.41.30.00, 8302.41.60.15,
8302.41.60.45, 8302.41.60.50,
8302.41.60.80, 8302.42.30.10,
8302.42.30.15, 8302.42.30.65,
8302.49.60.35, 8302.49.60.45,
8302.49.60.55, 8302.49.60.85,
8302.50.00.00, 8302.60.90.00,
8305.10.00.50, 8306.30.00.00,
8418.99.80.05, 8418.99.80.50,
8418.99.80.60, 8419.90.10.00,
8422.90.06.40, 8479.90.85.00,
8486.90.00.00, 8487.90.00.80,
8503.00.95.20, 8516.90.50.00,
8516.90.80.50, 8708.80.65.90,
9401.90.50.81, 9403.90.10.40,
9403.90.10.50, 9403.90.10.85,
9403.90.25.40, 9403.90.25.80,
9403.90.40.05, 9403.90.40.10,
9403.90.40.60, 9403.90.50.05,
9403.90.50.10, 9403.90.50.80,
9403.90.60.05, 9403.90.60.10,
9403.90.60.80, 9403.90.70.05,
9403.90.70.10, 9403.90.70.80,
9403.90.80.10, 9403.90.80.15,
9403.90.80.20, 9403.90.80.30,
9403.90.80.41, 9403.90.80.51,
9403.90.80.61, 9506.51.40.00,
9506.51.60.00, 9506.59.40.40,
9506.70.20.90, 9506.91.00.10,
9506.91.00.20, 9506.91.00.30,
9506.99.05.10, 9506.99.05.20,
9506.99.05.30, 9506.99.15.00,
9506.99.20.00, 9506.99.25.80,
9506.99.28.00, 9506.99.55.00,
9506.99.60.80, 9507.30.20.00,
9507.30.40.00, 9507.30.60.00,
9507.90.60.00, and 9603.90.80.50.
The subject merchandise entered as
parts of other aluminum products may
be classifiable under the following
additional Chapter 76 subheadings:
7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and
7616.99 as well as under other HTSUS
Review: Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s
Republic of China,’’ from Melissa G. Skinner,
Director, Office III to Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, dated concurrently
with this notice (‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum’’) for a complete description of the
scope of the Order.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Dec 31, 2013
Jkt 232001
chapters. In addition, fin evaporator
coils may be classifiable under HTSUS
numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and
8418.99.80.60. While HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this
Order is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this
review are addressed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum, which is dated
concurrently with, and hereby adopted
by, this notice.15 A list of the issues that
parties raised and to which we
responded in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum follows as an appendix to
this notice. The Issues and Decision
Memorandum is a public document and
is on file electronically via Enforcement
and Compliance’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). IA ACCESS is available to
registered users at https://
iaaccess.trade.gov, and it is available to
all parties in the Central Records Unit,
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 https://
www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The
signed Issues and Decision
Memorandum and the electronic
version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on an analysis of the comments
received from interested parties and a
review of the record, the Department
has made the following changes for
these final results of review:
• We are correcting the weightedaverage dumping margin for the PRCwide entity. The Preliminary Results
misstated this rate as 32.79 percent. The
correct weighted-average dumping
margin applicable to the PRC-wide
entity is 33.28 percent, and was noted
in the decision memorandum for the
Preliminary Results.16
• We excluded from the margin
calculation a small portion of sales
which Kromet initially reported as its
own, but which were actually sold by its
PRC supplier.17
15 See
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
‘‘Decision Memorandum for Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s
Republic of China, 2010/12,’’ dated June 3, 2013,
(‘‘PDM’’) at page 15.
17 See Comment 2 of the accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum.
16 See
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• We included an additional portion
of sales that, based on the commercial
invoicing date, occurred within the
POR.18
• We changed the export subsidy
adjustment applied to Kromet’s
weighted-average dumping margin to
account for the final subsidy rates
determined in the companion
countervailing duty investigation.19
• We determined that five additional
separate rate applicants have
demonstrated eligibility for a separate
rate in this administrative review.20
• We made an adjustment under
section 777A(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (‘‘the Act’’) to the
antidumping duty rate assigned to
separate rate respondents in the final
results.21
Companies Eligible for a Separate Rate
In our Preliminary Results, we
determined that four companies are
eligible for a separate rate: GMID;
Shenzhen Jiuyuan Co., Ltd. (a.k.a.
Jiuyuan Co., Ltd. or Shenzhen Jiuyuan
Import and Export Co., Ltd.)
(‘‘Jiuyuan’’); Sincere Profit Limited
(‘‘Sincere Profit’’); and Skyline.22 We
have received no information since the
issuance of the Preliminary Results that
provides a basis for reconsideration of
this determination. Therefore, the
Department continues to find that these
four companies are eligible for a
separate rate.
Subsequent to the Preliminary
Results, we received information that
provides a basis for finding five
additional companies eligible for a
separate rate. These companies are
Changzhou Tenglong Auto Parts Co.,
Ltd.; Dynamic Technologies China Ltd.;
Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited;
Zhejiang Xinlong Industry Co., Ltd.; and
ZGM.23
Rate for Non-Examined Companies
Which Are Eligible for a Separate Rate
The Department has assigned to nonexamined, separate rate companies the
18 See ‘‘First Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions
from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the
Final Results Margin Calculation for Kromet
International’’ dated concurrently with this notice
(‘‘Final Analysis Memorandum’’).
19 Id. and Aluminum Extrusions From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination and Notice of
Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination, 77 FR 74466 (December 14,
2012)(‘‘CVD Amended Final’’).
20 See Comment 8 of the accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum.
21 See Comment 10 of the accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum.
22 See Preliminary Results at 34986.
23 See Comment 8 of the accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum.
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2014 / Notices
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
weighted-average dumping margin
assigned to non-examined, separate rate
companies in the final determination of
the antidumping investigation. Neither
the Act nor the Department’s regulations
address the establishment of the rate
applied to individual companies not
selected for examination where the
Department limited its examination in
an administrative review pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The
Department’s practice in cases involving
limited selection based on exporters
accounting for the largest volumes of
trade has been to look to section
735(c)(5) of the Act for guidance, which
provides instructions for calculating the
all-others rate in an investigation.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs
the Department to avoid calculating an
all-others rate using any rates that are
zero, de minimis, or based entirely on
facts available in investigations. Section
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that,
where all rates are zero, de minimis, or
based entirely on facts available, the
Department may use ‘‘any reasonable
method’’ for assigning a rate to nonexamined respondents.
We determine that the application of
the rate from the investigation to the
non-examined separate rate respondents
is consistent with precedent and the
most appropriate method to determine
the separate rate in the instant review.
Pursuant to this method, we are
assigning the rate of 32.79 percent, the
most recent rate (from the less than fair
value investigation) calculated for the
non-examined separate rate
respondents, to the non-examined
separate rate respondents in the instant
review.
Adjustment Under Section 777A(f) of
the Act
Pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act,
the Department has made an adjustment
for countervailable domestic subsidies
which have been found to have
impacted the U.S. prices. For the nonexamined companies which are eligible
for a separate rate, as noted above, their
weighted-average dumping margin is
based on the weighted-average dumping
margin for non-examined, separate rate
companies in the antidumping
investigation. This rate was based on the
average petition rates, which were based
on prices for sales of subject
merchandise to the United States. In the
companion countervailing duty
investigation, the Department did not
individually examine the PRC
exporter(s) underlying the prices and,
therefore, they would be part of the allother exporters in the amended final
determination for the CVD investigation.
Accordingly, the adjustment to account
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Dec 31, 2013
Jkt 232001
for domestic subsidies is based on the
countervailing duties found for all-other
exporters. The amount of these
countervailing duties which are passed
through to the U.S. prices is found to be
the rate determined for Kromet in these
final results, which is based on data
from Bloomberg.24 For Kromet, no such
adjustment is necessary because
Kromet’s weighted-average dumping
margin is zero.
Pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(C) of the
Act, the Department has also made an
adjustment for countervailable export
subsidies. For Kromet, an adjustment
has been made to its U.S. price as
reported in its U.S. sales database.25 For
the companies eligible for a separate
rate, an adjustment has been made
based on the countervailable export
subsidy found for all-other exporters in
the amended final determination for the
countervailing duty investigation.26
PRC-Wide Entity
In the Preliminary Results, the
Department determined that the
mandatory respondent Zhongya/Guang
Ya Group/Xinya was not eligible for a
separate rate, and, accordingly, was
found to be part of the PRC-wide entity.
The Department has received no
information since the issuance of the
Preliminary Results that provides a basis
for reconsideration of this
determination. Therefore, the
Department continues to find that
Zhongya/Guang Ya Group/Xinya is not
eligible for a separate rate and is part of
the PRC-wide entity.
In the Preliminary Results, the
Department also found the following 25
companies to be part of the PRC-wide
entity: Foshan City Nanhai Hongjia
Aluminum Alloy Co., Ltd.; Foshan
Shunde Aoneng Electrical Appliances
Co., Ltd.; Guangdong Nanhai Foodstuffs
Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; Isource Asia
Limited and affiliates; Kunshan Giant
Light Metal Technology Co., Ltd.; Midea
Air-Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd.;
Nidec Sankyo Singapore Pte. Ltd.; Nidec
Sankyo (Zhejang) Corporation; Ningbo
Coaster International Co., Ltd.; Shanghai
Dongsheng Metal; Shanghai Shen Hang
Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; Sihui Shi Guo Yao
Aluminum Co., Ltd.; Suzhou JRP Import
& Export Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Gangly
Nonferrous Metal Materials Co., Ltd.;
Activa International Incorporated;
Changzhou Changfa Power Machinery
Co., Ltd.; Foshan Yong Li Jian Alu. Ltd.
Guangzhou Mingcan Die-Casting
Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Jiaxing
Taixin Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
24 See
PDM at Attachment 2.
Final Analysis Memorandum.
26 See CVD Amended Final.
25 See
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
99
Metaltek Metal Industry Ltd.; Zhejuang
Zhengte Group Co., Ltd.; Clear Sky Inc.;
Zhuhai Runxingtai Electrical Equipment
Co., Ltd.; Shandong Huasheng Pesticide
Machinery Co.; and North China
Aluminum Co., Ltd. The Department
has received no information since the
issuance of the Preliminary Results that
provides a basis for reconsideration of
this determination. Therefore, the
Department continues to find that these
25 companies are not eligible for a
separate rate and are part of the PRCwide entity.
In the Preliminary Results, the
Department identified 29 companies 27
for which it was seeking additional
information regarding each company’s
eligibility for a separate rate. As noted
above, four of these companies provided
additional information to substantiate
their eligibility for a separate rate. One
company, Allied Maker Limited, had
submitted a Q&V response as well as a
SRA but was never under review;
therefore, the Department is not
considering this company as part of
these final results. For the remaining 24
companies, each did not provide the
requested information to substantiate a
suspended AD/CVD entry for eligibility
for a separate rate, and, therefore, for
these final results, are found to be part
of the PRC-wide entity. These
companies are Acro Import and Export
Corp.; Changzhou Changzheng
Evaporator Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Aoda
Aluminum Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Golden
Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.;
Global PMX (Dongguan) Co., Ltd.; Gree
Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai;
Guangdong Whirlpool Electrical
Appliances Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Xingyi
Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Hanyung
Alcobis Co., Ltd.; Henan New Kelong
Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd.; IDEX
Dinglee Technology (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.;
Jiangsu Changfa Refrigeration Co., Ltd.;
Jiaxing Jackson Travel Products Co.,
Ltd.; Justhere Co., Ltd.; Metaltek Group
Co., Ltd.; Midea International Trading
Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Tongtai Precise
Aluminum Alloy Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd; Shenzhen Hudson Technology
Development Co., Ltd.; Suzhou New
Hongji Precision Part Co., Ltd.; Taizhou
Lifeng Manufacturing Corp.; Tianjin
Jinmao Import & Export Corp., Ltd.;
Union Industry (Asia) Co., Limited;
27 In the Preliminary Results, the Department
considered Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited,
Guang Dong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd.,
and Xin Wei Aluminum Co., Ltd. as one company
where as they are three separate entities. For these
final results, these three separate entities have been
considered individually. As a result, the 27
companies referenced in footnote 8 of the
Preliminary Results encompass 29 companies for
which a review was initiated.
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
100
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2014 / Notices
Guang Dong Xin Wei Aluminum
Products Co., Ltd.; and Xin Wei
Aluminum Co., Ltd.
One other company for which a
review was initiated has submitted
neither a Q&V response nor a separate
rate application and is considered part
of the PRC-wide entity. This company is
Zhaoquing Asia Aluminum Factory.
Rate for the PRC-Wide Entity
For the PRC-wide entity, the
Department in the Preliminary Results
assigned the rate of 33.28 28 percent, the
only rate ever determined for the PRCwide entity in this proceeding. Because
this rate is the same as the rate for the
PRC-wide entity from previously
completed segments in this proceeding
and nothing on the record of the instant
review calls into question the reliability
of this rate, we find it appropriate to
continue to apply the rate of 33.28
percent to the PRC-wide entity.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, we
determine that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist for the
period November 12, 2010, through
April 30, 2012:
Exporter
Weightedaverage
dumping margin
(percent)
Kromet International, Inc.
Sincere Profit Limited .......
Skyline Exhibit Systems
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd .......
Gold Mountain International Development
Limited ...........................
Shenzhen Jiuyuan Co.,
Ltd .................................
Dynamic Technologies
China Ltd .......................
Zhejiang Xinlong Industry
Co., Ltd ..........................
Changzhou Tenglong Auto
Parts Co., Ltd ................
Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited ..................
Zhongshan Gold Mountain
Aluminum Factory Ltd ...
PRC-wide Entity ................
0.00
32.79
32.79
32.79
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).
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results of
this administrative review, as provided
by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)
For the exporters listed above, the cash
deposit rate will be equal to the
weighted-average dumping margin
identified in ‘‘Final Results of the
Review,’’ and adjusted for applicable
export and domestic subsidies; (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters that are not
under review in this segment of the
proceeding but that received a separate
rate in a previous segment, the cash
28 The PRC-wide Entity cash deposit rate was
misstated in the Preliminary Results as 32.79
percent. The correct cash deposit rate applicable to
the PRC-wide Entity for these final results is 33.28
percent. See the PDM at page 15.
29 See Antidumping Proceeding: Calculation of
the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty
Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8103
(February 14, 2012).
32.79
32.79
32.79
32.79
32.79
32.79
33.28
Disclosure
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries covered by this
review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b).29 The
Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the
date of publication of these final results
of review.
For Kromet, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate all appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties because
Kromet’s weighted-average dumping
margin is zero percent. For the nine
non-examined, separate rate companies,
we will instruct CBP to liquidate all
appropriate entries at a rate based on
32.79 percent and adjusted for both
export and domestic subsidies as
described above. For the PRC-wide
entity, we will instruct CBP to liquidate
all appropriate entries at a rate equal to
33.28 percent.
The Department recently announced a
refinement to its assessment practice in
NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement
in practice, for entries that were not
reported in the U.S. sales databases
submitted by companies individually
examined during this review, the
Department will instruct CBP to
liquidate such entries at the NME-wide
rate. In addition, if the Department
determines that an exporter under
review had no shipments of subject
merchandise, any suspended entries
that entered under that exporter’s case
number (i.e., at that exporter’s rate) will
be liquidated at the NME-wide rate. For
a full discussion of this practice, see
NME Antidumping Proceedings, supra.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Dec 31, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate published for the
most recently completed segment of this
proceeding; (3) for all PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not
been found to be entitled to a separate
rate, the cash deposit rate will continue
to be the PRC-wide rate of 33.28
percent; 30 and (4) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not received their own rate, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that
supplied that non-PRC exporter. The
cash deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of the antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.305(a)(3), this notice serves as a
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
of their responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under the APO. 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 sanctionable violation.
These final results of review and
notice are published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
30 This rate was established in the final results of
the original less than fair value investigation. See
Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value,
76 FR 18524 (April 4, 2011). This includes
Zhongya/Guang Ya Group/Xinya.
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2014 / Notices
Dated: December 26, 2013.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary For Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
Appendix I
Issues for the Final Results
Issues Relating to Kromet
Comment 1: Whether To Continue To Use the
Philippines as the Surrogate Country
Comment 2: Whether to Continue To Treat
Kromet as the Exporter
Comment 3: Whether To Adjust Kromet’s
Sales Prices To Account for Taxes Paid
Issues Relating to Zhongya
Comment 4: Whether to Collapse Zhongya,
the Guang Ya Group, and Xinya
Comment 5: Whether the Guang Ya Group
and Xinya Should Be Treated as Part of the
PRC-Wide Entity
Comment 6: Whether AFA Should Be
Applied to Zhongya
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should
Request Certain Additional Information
From Zhongya
Issues Relating to Separate Rate Applicants
Comment 8: Whether Absence of a
Suspended Entry Is a Basis for Denying a
Separate Rate
Comment 9: Calculation of the AD Margin
Assigned to the Separate Rate Respondents
Comment 10: How To Adjust the Separate
Rate for Double Counting Under Section
777A(f) of the Act
Comment 11: Whether the Margin Assigned
to the Separate Rate Respondents in the
Preliminary Results was an AFA Rate
Comment 12: Whether GMID and Zhongshan
Gold Mountain Aluminium Factory Ltd.
Are Both Eligible for Separate Rate Status
Comment 13: Whether Suppliers for
Electrolux and Newell Should Be
Subsumed Within Their Exporter’s Rate
Comment 14: Whether AD Duties Should
Only Be Assessed on IDEX After the Date
of the Department’s Initiation of a Formal
Scope Inquiry
[FR Doc. 2013–31408 Filed 12–31–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–937]
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts
From the People’s Republic of China;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 2011–2012
Enforcement and Compliance,
formerly Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) published its
Preliminary Results of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on citric acid
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Dec 31, 2013
Jkt 232001
and certain citrate salts from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) on
June 10, 2013.1 The period of review
(‘‘POR’’) is May 1, 2011, through April
30, 2012. We gave interested parties an
opportunity to comment on the
Preliminary Results. Based upon our
analysis of the comments received, we
have made no changes to the margin
calculations for these final results. We
continue to find that the respondent,
RZBC Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. (‘‘RZBC
I&E’’) 2 has not sold subject merchandise
at less than normal value (‘‘NV’’), and
that Yixing Union Biochemical Ltd.
(‘‘Yixing Union’’) had no shipments of
subject merchandise during the POR.
The final dumping margins are listed
below in the ‘‘Final Results of the
Review’’ section of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: January 2, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maisha Cryor or Krisha Hill, AD/CVD
Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5831 or (202) 482–
4037, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 10, 2013, the Department
published the Preliminary Results of
this administrative review.3 The
Department conducted a verification of
RZBC between September 9 and
September 13, 2013.4 The Department
extended the deadline for submission of
case briefs until one week after the
verification report release date and the
deadline for rebuttal briefs until five
days after the submission of case briefs.5
On July 10, 2013, RZBC and Petitioners
submitted hearing requests to address
1 See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From
the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2011–2012, 78 FR 34642 (June 10, 2013)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’).
2 The Department initiated the third
administrative review on RZBC Co., Ltd. (‘‘RZBC
Co.’’), RZBC I&E, and RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd.
(collectively ‘‘RZBC’’). Only RZBC I&E exported
subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR.
3 See id.
4 See Memorandum to the File, from Edward
Yang, Director, Office 9, Taija Slaughter, Program
Manager, Office of Accounting, and Krisha Hill,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 4,
‘‘Verification Report of the Sales and Factors
Responses of RZBC Co., Ltd., RZBC Import & Export
Co., Ltd., and RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd. in the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Citric
Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People’s
Republic of China’’ (October 30, 2013).
5 See Memorandum To The File, ‘‘Schedule for
submission of Briefs and Rebuttal Briefs: Citric Acid
and Certain Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic
of China’’ (October 31, 2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
101
issues raised in their case and rebuttal
case briefs. Petitioners and RZBC
withdrew their hearing requests on
November 18, 2013, and November 21,
2013, respectively. On November 7,
2013, RZBC submitted a case brief.6 On
November 12, 2013, Petitioners
submitted a rebuttal brief.7
On August 6, 2013, the Department
extended the deadline in this
proceeding by 60 days.8 As explained in
the memorandum from the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, the Department has
exercised its discretion to toll deadlines
for the duration of the closure of the
Federal Government from October 1,
2013, through October 16, 2013.9
Therefore, all deadlines in this segment
of the proceeding were extended by 16
days. Further, because the new deadline
in the instant review falls on a nonbusiness day, in accordance with the
Department’s practice, the deadline will
become the next business day.10
Therefore, the revised deadline for the
final results of this review is December
26, 2013.
Scope of the Order
The scope of the order includes the
hydrous and anhydrous forms of citric
acid, the dihydrate and anhydrous
forms of sodium citrate, otherwise
known as citric acid sodium salt, and
the monohydrate and monopotassium
forms of potassium citrate.11 Sodium
citrate also includes both trisodium
citrate and monosodium citrate, which
are also known as citric acid trisodium
salt and citric acid monosodium salt,
respectively. Citric acid and sodium
6 See RZBC’s ‘‘Citric Acid and Citrate Salt from
the People’s Republic of China: RZBC Case Brief,’’
(November 7, 2013).
7 See Petitioners’ ‘‘Citric Acid and Certain Citrate
Salts From the People’s Republic of China:
Petitioners’ Rebuttal Brief,’’ (November 12, 2013).
8 See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, ‘‘Citric
Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People’s
Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review’’ (August 6, 2013).
9 See Memorandum for the Record from Paul
Piquado, Assistant Secretary for the Enforcement
and Compliance, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the
Shutdown of the Federal Government’’ (October 18,
2013).
10 See e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate From the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results and Final No Shipments Determination of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011–
2012, 78 FR 76279 (December 17, 2013).
11 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance ‘‘Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts
from the People’s Republic of China: Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the
2011–2012 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review’’, issued concurrently with this notice
(‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’) for a
complete description of the scope of the Order.
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 96-101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31408]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-967]
Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission, in
Part, 2010/12
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum
extrusions from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of
review (``POR'') is November 12, 2010, through April 30, 2012. These
final results cover 62 companies for which an administrative review was
initiated,\1\ and for which this administrative review was not
rescinded in the Preliminary Results.\2\ For these final
[[Page 97]]
results, the Department examined two mandatory respondents which
include three companies for which this review was initiated. The first
mandatory respondent is Kromet International, Inc. (``Kromet'') for
which the Department finds for these final results did not make sales
of subject merchandise at less than normal value. The second mandatory
respondent the Department has continued to find is a single entity,
collectively Zhongya/Guang Ya Group/Xinya, comprised of Zhaoqing New
Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. a.k.a. Guangdong Zhongya Aluminum Company
Limited (``Zhongya''); Guangya Aluminum Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Guang
Ya''), Foshan Guangcheng Aluminum Co., Ltd. (``Guangcheng'') \3\
(collectively ``Guang Ya Group''); and Foshan Nanhai Xinya Aluminum &
Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd. (``Xinya'').\4\ The Department finds
for these final results that the Zhongya/Guang Ya Group/Xinya entity
failed to demonstrate that it was eligible for a separate rate and thus
it is part of the PRC-wide entity. Furthermore, the Department finds
that ten (including Kromet) of the other companies under review have
established their eligibility for a separate rate. The Department finds
that the remaining companies under review either failed to establish
their eligibility for a separate rate or were not responsive, and,
therefore, these companies are part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 77 FR
40565 (July 10, 2012) (``Initiation Notice''). In the Initiation
Notice, 67 companies are listed. However, there were entries for
Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminum Extrusion Co., Ltd. and Taishan City
Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd. which appear to be the same
entity, with the result that the Department considers the Initiation
Notice to cover 66 companies.
\2\ See Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Rescission, in Part, 2010/12, 78 FR 34986 (June 11, 2013)
(``Preliminary Results'') (where the Department rescinded this
administrative review for four companies: Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd.,
Changshu Changsheng Aluminum Products Co., Ltd., Pingguo Asia
Aluminum Co., Ltd., and Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminum Extrusion Co.,
Ltd.).
\3\ No review was initiated for Guangcheng, however, this
company did provide a Q&V response.
\4\ No review was initiated for Xinya, however, this company did
provide a Q&V response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: January 2, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Demitrios
Kalogeropoulos, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4474 or (202)
482-2623, respectively.
Background
On June 11, 2013, the Department published the Preliminary Results
of this administrative review. At that time, we invited interested
parties to comment on the Preliminary Results.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Preliminary Results at 34988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 26, 2013 we received case briefs from the Aluminum
Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (``Petitioner''); \6\ Zhongya; the
Government of China (``GOC''); Shenzhen Hudson Technology Development
Co., Ltd. (``Shenzhen Hudson''); Skyline Exhibit Systems (Shanghai)
Co., Ltd. (``Skyline''); Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (``Newell''); Zhongshan
Gold Mountain Aluminum Factory Ltd. (``ZGM'') and Gold Mountain
International Development Limited (``GMID''); Dongguan Golden Tiger
Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Golden Tiger''), Guangdong Whirlpool
Electrical Appliances Co. Ltd. (``Guangdong Whirlpool''), Hanyung
Alcobis Co., Ltd. (``Hanyung Alcobis''), Henan New Kelong Electrical
Appliances Co., Ltd. (``New Kelong''), and Shanghai Tongtai Precise
Aluminum Alloy Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (``Tongtai''); Xin Wei Aluminum
Company Limited, Guang Dong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd. and Xin
Wei Aluminum Co., Ltd. (collectively ``Xin Wei''); and Electrolux North
America, Inc., Electrolux Home Products, Inc. and Electrolux Major
Appliances (collectively ``Electrolux'').\7\ On September 12, 2013 we
received rebuttal briefs from the Petitioner; Kromet; Zhongya; the GOC;
and ZGM and GMID.\8\ On September 26, 2013, the Department extended the
deadline for the final results until December 9, 2013.\9\ On October
18, 2013, the Department tolled this deadline by 16 days until December
25, which is a federal holiday.\10\ Therefore, the extended deadline is
the next business day, which is Thursday, December 26, 2013.\11\ At
Zhongya's request, we held a hearing on November 20, 2013.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The individual members of the Committee are Aerolite
Extrusion Company; Alexandria Extrusion Company; Benada Aluminum of
Florida, Inc.; William L. Bonnell Company, Inc.; Frontier Aluminum
Corporation; Futural Industries Corporation; Hydro Aluminum North
America, Inc.; Kaiser Aluminum Corporation; Profile Extrusion
Company; Sapa Extrusions, Inc.; and Western Extrusions Corporation.
\7\ See letters from (1) Petitioner, ``Aluminum Extrusions from
the People's Republic of China: Case Brief'' (``Petitioner's Case
Brief''); (2) Zhongya, ``Aluminum Extrusions from China''
(``Zhongya's Case Brief''), (3) Electrolux, ``Aluminum Extrusions
from the People's Republic of China: Case Brief'' (``Electrolux's
Case Brief''), (4) The GOC, ``Aluminum Extrusions from China; 1st AD
Administrative Review GOC Case Brief'' (``GOC's Case Brief''), (5)
Xin Wei, ``Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Case
Brief'' (``Xin Wei's Case Brief''), (6) Golden Tiger et al.,
``Aluminum Extrusions from The People's Republic of China (First
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review): Case Brief of Dongguan
Golden Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd., Guangdong Whirlpool
Electrical Appliances Co. Ltd., Hanyung Alcobis Co., Ltd., Henan New
Kelong Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Tongtai Precise
Aluminum Alloy Manufacturing Co., Ltd.'' (``Golden Tiger et al.'s
Case Brief''), (7) ZGM and GMID, ``Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the People's
Republic of China: Case Brief for Consideration Prior to the Final
Results'' (``ZGM and GMID's Case Brief''), (8) Newell, ``Aluminum
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Case Brief''
(``Newell's Case Brief''), (9) Skyline, ``Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the People's
Republic of China: Case Brief of Skyline'' (``Skyline's Case
Brief''), (10) Shenzhen Hudson, ``Shenzhen Hudson Administrative
Case Brief in the First Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of
China'' (``Shenzhen Hudson's Case Brief''), all dated August 26,
2013. IDEX Health & Science LLC and BAND-IT-IDEX, Inc. submitted its
case brief on August 2, 2013, ``Aluminum Extrusions from China: IDEX
Antidumping Case Brief,'' (``IDEX Case Brief''). Jiuyuan and UQM
Technology Inc. submitted their case brief on July 29, 2013,
``Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Case Brief of
Shenzhen Jiuyuan Co., Ltd. and UQM Technology, Inc.'' (``Jiuyuan and
UQM Case Brief'').
\8\ See letters from (1) Petitioner, ``Aluminum Extrusions from
the People's Republic of China: Rebuttal Brief,'' (``Petitioner's
Rebuttal Brief''); (2) Kromet, ``Aluminum Extrusions from the
People's Republic of China (First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review): Rebuttal Brief of Respondent Kromet International Inc.,''
(``Kromet's Rebuttal Brief''); (3) Zhongya, ``Aluminum Extrusions
from China--Zhongya Rebuttal Brief,'' (``Zhongya's Rebuttal
Brief''); (4) the GOC, ``Aluminum Extrusions from China; 1st AD
Administrative Review GOC Rebuttal Brief,'' (``The GOC's Rebuttal
Brief''); and (5) ZGM and GMID, ``Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the People's
Republic of China: Rebuttal Brief for Consideration Prior to the
Final Results,'' (``ZGM and GMID's Rebuttal Brief''), all dated
September 12, 2013.
\9\ See ``Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of
China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review,'' dated September 26, 2013.
\10\ See the memorandum for the record ``Deadlines Affected by
the Shutdown of the Federal Government,'' dated October 18, 2013.
\11\ 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, 2008).
\12\ See hearing transcript, ``In the Matter of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the PRC (A-570-967) (November
12, 2010 through April 30, 2012),'' filed December 2, 2013; see also
``Aluminum Extrusions from China: Request for Hearing; Extension
Request,'' submitted by Zhongya on July 11, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the Order \13\ is aluminum extrusions
which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from
aluminum alloys having metallic elements corresponding to the alloy
series designations published by The Aluminum Association commencing
with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or proprietary equivalents or other
certifying body equivalents).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of
China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011)
(``Order'').
\14\ See ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Aluminum Extrusions from
the People's Republic of China,'' from Melissa G. Skinner, Director,
Office III to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, dated concurrently
with this notice (``Issues and Decision Memorandum'') for a complete
description of the scope of the Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 98]]
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the
following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS''): 7610.10.00, 7610.90.00, 7615.10.30, 7615.10.71,
7615.10.91, 7615.19.10, 7615.19.30, 7615.19.50, 7615.19.70, 7615.19.90,
7615.20.00, 7616.99.10, 7616.99.50, 8479.89.98, 8479.90.94, 8513.90.20,
9403.10.00, 9403.20.00, 7604.21.00.00, 7604.29.10.00, 7604.29.30.10,
7604.29.30.50, 7604.29.50.30, 7604.29.50.60, 7608.20.00.30,
7608.20.00.90, 8302.10.30.00, 8302.10.60.30, 8302.10.60.60,
8302.10.60.90, 8302.20.00.00, 8302.30.30.10, 8302.30.30.60,
8302.41.30.00, 8302.41.60.15, 8302.41.60.45, 8302.41.60.50,
8302.41.60.80, 8302.42.30.10, 8302.42.30.15, 8302.42.30.65,
8302.49.60.35, 8302.49.60.45, 8302.49.60.55, 8302.49.60.85,
8302.50.00.00, 8302.60.90.00, 8305.10.00.50, 8306.30.00.00,
8418.99.80.05, 8418.99.80.50, 8418.99.80.60, 8419.90.10.00,
8422.90.06.40, 8479.90.85.00, 8486.90.00.00, 8487.90.00.80,
8503.00.95.20, 8516.90.50.00, 8516.90.80.50, 8708.80.65.90,
9401.90.50.81, 9403.90.10.40, 9403.90.10.50, 9403.90.10.85,
9403.90.25.40, 9403.90.25.80, 9403.90.40.05, 9403.90.40.10,
9403.90.40.60, 9403.90.50.05, 9403.90.50.10, 9403.90.50.80,
9403.90.60.05, 9403.90.60.10, 9403.90.60.80, 9403.90.70.05,
9403.90.70.10, 9403.90.70.80, 9403.90.80.10, 9403.90.80.15,
9403.90.80.20, 9403.90.80.30, 9403.90.80.41, 9403.90.80.51,
9403.90.80.61, 9506.51.40.00, 9506.51.60.00, 9506.59.40.40,
9506.70.20.90, 9506.91.00.10, 9506.91.00.20, 9506.91.00.30,
9506.99.05.10, 9506.99.05.20, 9506.99.05.30, 9506.99.15.00,
9506.99.20.00, 9506.99.25.80, 9506.99.28.00, 9506.99.55.00,
9506.99.60.80, 9507.30.20.00, 9507.30.40.00, 9507.30.60.00,
9507.90.60.00, and 9603.90.80.50.
The subject merchandise entered as parts of other aluminum products
may be classifiable under the following additional Chapter 76
subheadings: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99 as well as
under other HTSUS chapters. In addition, fin evaporator coils may be
classifiable under HTSUS numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and 8418.99.80.60.
While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the scope of this Order is
dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties
in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
which is dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this
notice.\15\ A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we
responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix
to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document
and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service
System (``IA ACCESS''). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
https://iaaccess.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the
Central Records Unit, 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 https://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum
and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on an analysis of the comments received from interested
parties and a review of the record, the Department has made the
following changes for these final results of review:
We are correcting the weighted-average dumping margin for
the PRC-wide entity. The Preliminary Results misstated this rate as
32.79 percent. The correct weighted-average dumping margin applicable
to the PRC-wide entity is 33.28 percent, and was noted in the decision
memorandum for the Preliminary Results.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See ``Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Aluminum Extrusions from the
People's Republic of China, 2010/12,'' dated June 3, 2013, (``PDM'')
at page 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We excluded from the margin calculation a small portion of
sales which Kromet initially reported as its own, but which were
actually sold by its PRC supplier.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Comment 2 of the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We included an additional portion of sales that, based on
the commercial invoicing date, occurred within the POR.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See ``First Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China:
Analysis of the Final Results Margin Calculation for Kromet
International'' dated concurrently with this notice (``Final
Analysis Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We changed the export subsidy adjustment applied to
Kromet's weighted-average dumping margin to account for the final
subsidy rates determined in the companion countervailing duty
investigation.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id. and Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Notice of Amended
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 77 FR 74466
(December 14, 2012)(``CVD Amended Final'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We determined that five additional separate rate
applicants have demonstrated eligibility for a separate rate in this
administrative review.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Comment 8 of the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We made an adjustment under section 777A(f) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'') to the antidumping duty rate
assigned to separate rate respondents in the final results.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Comment 10 of the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Companies Eligible for a Separate Rate
In our Preliminary Results, we determined that four companies are
eligible for a separate rate: GMID; Shenzhen Jiuyuan Co., Ltd. (a.k.a.
Jiuyuan Co., Ltd. or Shenzhen Jiuyuan Import and Export Co., Ltd.)
(``Jiuyuan''); Sincere Profit Limited (``Sincere Profit''); and
Skyline.\22\ We have received no information since the issuance of the
Preliminary Results that provides a basis for reconsideration of this
determination. Therefore, the Department continues to find that these
four companies are eligible for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Preliminary Results at 34986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, we received information that
provides a basis for finding five additional companies eligible for a
separate rate. These companies are Changzhou Tenglong Auto Parts Co.,
Ltd.; Dynamic Technologies China Ltd.; Xin Wei Aluminum Company
Limited; Zhejiang Xinlong Industry Co., Ltd.; and ZGM.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Comment 8 of the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate for Non-Examined Companies Which Are Eligible for a Separate Rate
The Department has assigned to non-examined, separate rate
companies the
[[Page 99]]
weighted-average dumping margin assigned to non-examined, separate rate
companies in the final determination of the antidumping investigation.
Neither the Act nor the Department's regulations address the
establishment of the rate applied to individual companies not selected
for examination where the Department limited its examination in an
administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The
Department's practice in cases involving limited selection based on
exporters accounting for the largest volumes of trade has been to look
to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for guidance, which provides
instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs the Department to avoid
calculating an all-others rate using any rates that are zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on facts available in investigations.
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where all rates are
zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, the Department
may use ``any reasonable method'' for assigning a rate to non-examined
respondents.
We determine that the application of the rate from the
investigation to the non-examined separate rate respondents is
consistent with precedent and the most appropriate method to determine
the separate rate in the instant review. Pursuant to this method, we
are assigning the rate of 32.79 percent, the most recent rate (from the
less than fair value investigation) calculated for the non-examined
separate rate respondents, to the non-examined separate rate
respondents in the instant review.
Adjustment Under Section 777A(f) of the Act
Pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act, the Department has made an
adjustment for countervailable domestic subsidies which have been found
to have impacted the U.S. prices. For the non-examined companies which
are eligible for a separate rate, as noted above, their weighted-
average dumping margin is based on the weighted-average dumping margin
for non-examined, separate rate companies in the antidumping
investigation. This rate was based on the average petition rates, which
were based on prices for sales of subject merchandise to the United
States. In the companion countervailing duty investigation, the
Department did not individually examine the PRC exporter(s) underlying
the prices and, therefore, they would be part of the all-other
exporters in the amended final determination for the CVD investigation.
Accordingly, the adjustment to account for domestic subsidies is based
on the countervailing duties found for all-other exporters. The amount
of these countervailing duties which are passed through to the U.S.
prices is found to be the rate determined for Kromet in these final
results, which is based on data from Bloomberg.\24\ For Kromet, no such
adjustment is necessary because Kromet's weighted-average dumping
margin is zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See PDM at Attachment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, the Department has
also made an adjustment for countervailable export subsidies. For
Kromet, an adjustment has been made to its U.S. price as reported in
its U.S. sales database.\25\ For the companies eligible for a separate
rate, an adjustment has been made based on the countervailable export
subsidy found for all-other exporters in the amended final
determination for the countervailing duty investigation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Final Analysis Memorandum.
\26\ See CVD Amended Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Entity
In the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that the
mandatory respondent Zhongya/Guang Ya Group/Xinya was not eligible for
a separate rate, and, accordingly, was found to be part of the PRC-wide
entity. The Department has received no information since the issuance
of the Preliminary Results that provides a basis for reconsideration of
this determination. Therefore, the Department continues to find that
Zhongya/Guang Ya Group/Xinya is not eligible for a separate rate and is
part of the PRC-wide entity.
In the Preliminary Results, the Department also found the following
25 companies to be part of the PRC-wide entity: Foshan City Nanhai
Hongjia Aluminum Alloy Co., Ltd.; Foshan Shunde Aoneng Electrical
Appliances Co., Ltd.; Guangdong Nanhai Foodstuffs Imp. & Exp. Co.,
Ltd.; Isource Asia Limited and affiliates; Kunshan Giant Light Metal
Technology Co., Ltd.; Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd.; Nidec
Sankyo Singapore Pte. Ltd.; Nidec Sankyo (Zhejang) Corporation; Ningbo
Coaster International Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Dongsheng Metal; Shanghai
Shen Hang Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; Sihui Shi Guo Yao Aluminum Co., Ltd.;
Suzhou JRP Import & Export Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Gangly Nonferrous Metal
Materials Co., Ltd.; Activa International Incorporated; Changzhou
Changfa Power Machinery Co., Ltd.; Foshan Yong Li Jian Alu. Ltd.
Guangzhou Mingcan Die-Casting Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Jiaxing
Taixin Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Metaltek Metal Industry Ltd.; Zhejuang
Zhengte Group Co., Ltd.; Clear Sky Inc.; Zhuhai Runxingtai Electrical
Equipment Co., Ltd.; Shandong Huasheng Pesticide Machinery Co.; and
North China Aluminum Co., Ltd. The Department has received no
information since the issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides
a basis for reconsideration of this determination. Therefore, the
Department continues to find that these 25 companies are not eligible
for a separate rate and are part of the PRC-wide entity.
In the Preliminary Results, the Department identified 29 companies
\27\ for which it was seeking additional information regarding each
company's eligibility for a separate rate. As noted above, four of
these companies provided additional information to substantiate their
eligibility for a separate rate. One company, Allied Maker Limited, had
submitted a Q&V response as well as a SRA but was never under review;
therefore, the Department is not considering this company as part of
these final results. For the remaining 24 companies, each did not
provide the requested information to substantiate a suspended AD/CVD
entry for eligibility for a separate rate, and, therefore, for these
final results, are found to be part of the PRC-wide entity. These
companies are Acro Import and Export Corp.; Changzhou Changzheng
Evaporator Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Aoda Aluminum Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Golden
Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.; Global PMX (Dongguan) Co., Ltd.;
Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai; Guangdong Whirlpool
Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Xingyi Metal Products Co.,
Ltd.; Hanyung Alcobis Co., Ltd.; Henan New Kelong Electrical Appliances
Co., Ltd.; IDEX Dinglee Technology (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Changfa
Refrigeration Co., Ltd.; Jiaxing Jackson Travel Products Co., Ltd.;
Justhere Co., Ltd.; Metaltek Group Co., Ltd.; Midea International
Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Tongtai Precise Aluminum Alloy
Manufacturing Co., Ltd; Shenzhen Hudson Technology Development Co.,
Ltd.; Suzhou New Hongji Precision Part Co., Ltd.; Taizhou Lifeng
Manufacturing Corp.; Tianjin Jinmao Import & Export Corp., Ltd.; Union
Industry (Asia) Co., Limited;
[[Page 100]]
Guang Dong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd.; and Xin Wei Aluminum
Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ In the Preliminary Results, the Department considered Xin
Wei Aluminum Company Limited, Guang Dong Xin Wei Aluminum Products
Co., Ltd., and Xin Wei Aluminum Co., Ltd. as one company where as
they are three separate entities. For these final results, these
three separate entities have been considered individually. As a
result, the 27 companies referenced in footnote 8 of the Preliminary
Results encompass 29 companies for which a review was initiated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One other company for which a review was initiated has submitted
neither a Q&V response nor a separate rate application and is
considered part of the PRC-wide entity. This company is Zhaoquing Asia
Aluminum Factory.
Rate for the PRC-Wide Entity
For the PRC-wide entity, the Department in the Preliminary Results
assigned the rate of 33.28 \28\ percent, the only rate ever determined
for the PRC-wide entity in this proceeding. Because this rate is the
same as the rate for the PRC-wide entity from previously completed
segments in this proceeding and nothing on the record of the instant
review calls into question the reliability of this rate, we find it
appropriate to continue to apply the rate of 33.28 percent to the PRC-
wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The PRC-wide Entity cash deposit rate was misstated in the
Preliminary Results as 32.79 percent. The correct cash deposit rate
applicable to the PRC-wide Entity for these final results is 33.28
percent. See the PDM at page 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, we determine that the following
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period November 12,
2010, through April 30, 2012:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter dumping margin
(percent)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kromet International, Inc............................. 0.00
Sincere Profit Limited................................ 32.79
Skyline Exhibit Systems (Shanghai) Co., Ltd........... 32.79
Gold Mountain International Development Limited....... 32.79
Shenzhen Jiuyuan Co., Ltd............................. 32.79
Dynamic Technologies China Ltd........................ 32.79
Zhejiang Xinlong Industry Co., Ltd.................... 32.79
Changzhou Tenglong Auto Parts Co., Ltd................ 32.79
Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited...................... 32.79
Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminum Factory Ltd.......... 32.79
PRC-wide Entity....................................... 33.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review pursuant to
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b).\29\ The
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these final results of review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Antidumping Proceeding: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8103 (February 14,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Kromet, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate
entries without regard to antidumping duties because Kromet's weighted-
average dumping margin is zero percent. For the nine non-examined,
separate rate companies, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all
appropriate entries at a rate based on 32.79 percent and adjusted for
both export and domestic subsidies as described above. For the PRC-wide
entity, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at a
rate equal to 33.28 percent.
The Department recently announced a refinement to its assessment
practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for
entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by
companies individually examined during this review, the Department will
instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. In
addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review
had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries that
entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's
rate) will be liquidated at the NME-wide rate. For a full discussion of
this practice, see NME Antidumping Proceedings, supra.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash
deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin
identified in ``Final Results of the Review,'' and adjusted for
applicable export and domestic subsidies; (2) for previously
investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that are not under
review in this segment of the proceeding but that received a separate
rate in a previous segment, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed
segment of this proceeding; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate
rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate of
33.28 percent; \30\ and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied
that non-PRC exporter. The cash deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ This rate was established in the final results of the
original less than fair value investigation. See Aluminum Extrusions
From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value,
76 FR 18524 (April 4, 2011). This includes Zhongya/Guang Ya
Group/Xinya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice serves as a
reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(``APO'') of their responsibility concerning the disposition of
proprietary information disclosed under the APO. 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 sanctionable
violation.
These final results of review and notice are published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 101]]
Dated: December 26, 2013.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary For Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
Appendix I
Issues for the Final Results
Issues Relating to Kromet
Comment 1: Whether To Continue To Use the Philippines as the
Surrogate Country
Comment 2: Whether to Continue To Treat Kromet as the Exporter
Comment 3: Whether To Adjust Kromet's Sales Prices To Account for
Taxes Paid
Issues Relating to Zhongya
Comment 4: Whether to Collapse Zhongya, the Guang Ya Group, and
Xinya
Comment 5: Whether the Guang Ya Group and Xinya Should Be Treated as
Part of the PRC-Wide Entity
Comment 6: Whether AFA Should Be Applied to Zhongya
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Request Certain Additional
Information From Zhongya
Issues Relating to Separate Rate Applicants
Comment 8: Whether Absence of a Suspended Entry Is a Basis for
Denying a Separate Rate
Comment 9: Calculation of the AD Margin Assigned to the Separate
Rate Respondents
Comment 10: How To Adjust the Separate Rate for Double Counting
Under Section 777A(f) of the Act
Comment 11: Whether the Margin Assigned to the Separate Rate
Respondents in the Preliminary Results was an AFA Rate
Comment 12: Whether GMID and Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminium
Factory Ltd. Are Both Eligible for Separate Rate Status
Comment 13: Whether Suppliers for Electrolux and Newell Should Be
Subsumed Within Their Exporter's Rate
Comment 14: Whether AD Duties Should Only Be Assessed on IDEX After
the Date of the Department's Initiation of a Formal Scope Inquiry
[FR Doc. 2013-31408 Filed 12-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
