Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 32347-32352 [2015-13967]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Notices Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences’’ in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Finally, as discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum under ‘‘Programs for Which Additional Information is Required,’’ we require additional information to allow us to analyze whether the following programs are countervailable: ‘‘Environmental Tax Offset’’ and ‘‘National Support Fund for 2011 Energy Saving Project, Circulation Economy and Resource Conservation Project and Pollution Abatement Project.’’ For a full description of the methodology underlying the Department’s conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Preliminary Results of the Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine a net countervailable subsidy rate of 33.31 percent ad valorem for Taihe, for the period January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. Disclosure and Public Comment The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.3 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than 30 days after the day on which these preliminary results are published in the Federal Register.4 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.5 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.6 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.7 Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department’s electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.8 Requests 3 See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 5 See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 6 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 7 See 19 CFR 351.303. 8 See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 4 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 should contain: (1) The party’s name, address, and telephone number: (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing, which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined.9 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing. Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. Cash Deposit Instructions The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount shown above. For all nonreviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213. Dated: June 1, 2015. Ronald K Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences 5. Subsidies Valuation Information 6. Analysis of Programs 9 See PO 00000 7. Conclusion [FR Doc. 2015–13949 Filed 6–5–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–967] Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013– 2014 Enforcement and Compliance, 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).1 The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2013 through April 30, 2014. These preliminary results cover 39 companies for which an administrative review was initiated and not rescinded.2 The Department selected the following companies as mandatory respondents: Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co., Ltd. and Jangho Curtain Wall Hong Kong Ltd. (collectively, Jangho), Union Industry (Asia) Co., Ltd. (Union), and Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd., Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd., Kong Ah International Company Limited, and Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd. (collectively, Guang Ya Group); Guangdong Zhongya Aluminium Company Limited, Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited, and Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd. (collectively, Zhongya); and Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. (Xinya) (collectively, Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya).3 The AGENCY: 1 The Department initiated this review on June 27, 2014. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 36462 (June 27, 2014) (Initiation Notice). 2 This administrative review initially covered 155 companies. See Initiation Notice. However, on January 29, 2015, the Department rescinded this review with respect to 116 companies. See Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 80 FR 4868 (January 29, 2015). 3 In prior segments of this proceeding the Department found that the Guang Ya Group, Zhongya, and Xinya were affiliated with each other and should be treated as a single entity. See, e.g., Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission, in Part, 2010/12, 79 FR 96 (January 2, 2014) (2010–2012 Final Results) and Aluminum Extrusions From the 19 CFR 351.310. Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 32347 Continued Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1 32348 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Notices Department preliminarily finds that Union did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. In addition, the Department preliminarily determines that Jangho and Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their abilities to fully comply with the Department’s requests for information, warranting the application of facts otherwise available with adverse inferences, pursuant to sections 776(a) and 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We also preliminarily determine that one company, Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited (Xin Wei), had no shipments. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott, Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2657, (202) 482–6312 or (202) 482–0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the Order 4 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).5 Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following categories of the Harmonized Tariff People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012– 2013, 79 FR 78784 (December 31, 2014) (2012–2013 Final Results). 4 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011) (Order). 5 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China; 2013–2014,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum) for a complete description of the scope of the Order. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 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, 8515.90.20.00, 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. The Department is conducting two scope inquiries concerning aluminum extrusions made from 5 series PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 aluminum alloy. Petitioner (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee) advocates that the Department impose a certification requirement related to these products, which the Department is considering in the context of these scope proceedings. Parties that wish to file comments on this potential certification requirement must do so on the record of these scope proceedings.6 The final scope rulings, including our decision with respect to the certification issue, are currently due July 7, 2015. Separate Rates In the Initiation Notice, we informed parties of the opportunity to request a separate rate.7 In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the NME country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single weighted-average dumping margin. It is the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review involving an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Companies that wanted to be considered for a separate rate in this review were required to timely file a separate-rate application or a separate-rate certification to demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate. Separaterate applications and separate-rate certifications were due to the Department within 60 calendar days of the publication of the Initiation Notice. In this review, 14 companies for which a review was requested and which remain under review did not submit separate-rate information to rebut the presumption that they are subject to government control.8 These 6 See Letter from Trending Imports LLC to the Department, ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Trending Imports LLC Request for Scope Ruling Concerning 5050 Alloy Extrusions,’’ dated December 12, 2013, and Letter from Kota International, LTD to the Department, ‘‘Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders on Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Scope Ruling Request,’’ dated October 21, 2013. 7 See Initiation Notice, 79 FR at 36463–36464. 8 One company, Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. (New Zhongya), was determined to have been succeeded by Guangdong Zhongya Aluminum Company Limited (Guangdong Zhongya) in a changed circumstances review. See Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 77 FR 54900 (September 6, 2012). Thus, despite the fact that a review was initiated of New Zhongya, it is not being included among these 14 companies because its successor in interest, Guangdong Zhongya, is part of the Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya single entity. E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES companies are: Aluminicaste Fundicion de Mexico; China Zhongwang Holdings, Ltd.; Classic & Contemporary Inc.; Dongguan Golden Tiger; Dongguan Golden Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.; Gold Mountain International Development, Ltd.; Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc.; Metaltek Metal Industry Co., Ltd.; Nidec Sankyo Singapore Pte. Ltd.; Press Metal International Ltd.; tenKsolar, Inc.; Tianjin Jinmao Import & Export Corp., Ltd.; WTI Building Products, Ltd.; and Zahoqing China Square Industry Limited/Zhaoqing China Square Industry Limited. As further discussed in the Preliminarily Decision Memorandum, we preliminarily determine that these entities have not demonstrated that they operate free from government control and thus are not eligible for a separate rate. One additional company under review, Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium Industry Engineering Co., Ltd. (Yuanda), submitted a separate-rate application, but, as further discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we preliminarily determine not to grant this company a separate rate because its separate-rate application did not contain evidence of a suspended entry of subject merchandise during the POR. In addition to Union, 11 companies still under review submitted separaterate applications or separate-rate certifications and responses to supplemental questionnaires which provide sufficient information to preliminarily determine that they are entitled to a separate rate. These eleven companies are: Allied Maker Limited; Changzhou Changzheng Evaporator Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Aoda Aluminum Co., Ltd.; Justhere Co., Ltd.; Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd; Kromet International Inc. (Kromet); Metaltek Group Co., Ltd.; Permasteelisa South China Factory; Permasteelisa Hong Kong Ltd.; Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd.; and tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. A full discussion of the basis for granting these companies a separate rate can be found in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Rate for Non-Examined Companies Which Are Eligible for a Separate Rate The statute and the Department’s regulations do not address the establishment of the rate applied to individual respondents not selected for individual examination when the Department limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all- VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for separate-rate respondents which we did not examine individually in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act notes a preference that we are not to calculate an all-others rate using rates for individually-examined respondents which are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. 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. For these preliminary results, the rates we determined for the mandatory respondents were either zero, de minimis, or based on entirely on facts available. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the application of the rate from the investigation in this proceeding to the non-examined separate-rate companies is consistent with precedent 9 and the most appropriate method to determine the separate rate in the instant review.10 Pursuant to this method, we are preliminarily assigning the margin of 32.79 percent, the most recent margin calculated for the non-examined separate-rate respondents,11 to the nonexamined separate-rate respondents in the instant review. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments One company remaining under review, Xin Wei, timely submitted a certification indicating that it had no sales, shipments, or entries of subject merchandise during the POR.12 Consistent with our practice, the 9 See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 8338, 8342 (February 14, 2011), unchanged in Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 51940 (August 19, 2011); see also Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 49460, 49463 (August 13, 2010). 10 This is also consistent with the Department’s determination in prior segments of this proceeding. See 2010–2012 Final Results, 79 FR at 99 and 2012– 2013 Final Results, 79 FR at 78786. 11 This margin is from the 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, 18530 (April 4, 2011). 12 See Letter from Xin Wei to the Department, ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Certification of No Sales, Shipments, or Entries,’’ dated August 26, 2014. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 32349 Department requested that CBP conduct a query on potential shipments made by Xin Wei during the POR; CBP provided no evidence that contradicted Xin Wei’s claim of no shipments. Based on Xin Wei’s no-shipment certification and our analysis of the CBP information, we preliminarily determine that Xin Wei had no shipments during the POR. In addition, consistent with our practice in NME cases, the Department is not rescinding this review, in part, but intends to complete the review with respect to Xin Wei and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.13 Application of Adverse Facts Available Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act, the Department preliminarily finds that the use of facts otherwise available is warranted with respect to Jangho because Jangho failed to provide information in the form and manner requested by the Department, and therefore significantly impeded the proceeding.14 Furthermore, for the information which Jangho did provide, a large amount of that information would not be verifiable.15 We also find that the use of facts otherwise available is warranted with respect to Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, because Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/ Xinya withheld information that was requested and, by not providing requested information, significantly impeded the proceeding. Further, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department preliminarily determines that both Jangho and Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their abilities to comply with the Department’s requests for information, and, thus, an adverse inference is warranted. Because the Department preliminarily determines that Jangho and Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their abilities to comply with requests for information, we have determined that they are not eligible for a separate rate.16 Regarding Jangho, the 13 See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694, 65695 (October 24, 2011). 14 See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, ‘‘2013–2014 Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China; Application of Adverse Facts Available for Jangho,’’ dated June 1, 2015 (Jangho AFA Memorandum); see also Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 15 Id. 16 See section 776(b) of the Act. E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1 32350 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Notices Department preliminarily finds that Jangho’s original questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses were grossly deficient, and therefore the record does not contain the information necessary to make a separate rate determination.17 Guang Ya Group/ Zhongya/Xinya, on the other hand, failed to provide a response to the Department’s questionnaire at all. As such, separate rates are not warranted for Jangho or Guang Ya Group/Zhonya/ Xinya. PRC-Wide Entity As the Department preliminarily determines, based on AFA, that Jangho and Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya are not eligible for a separate rate, we determine that both companies are part of the PRC-wide entity. In addition, 14 companies still subject to these preliminary results are not eligible for separate-rate status because they did not submit separate-rate applications or certifications, and one company still under review, Yuanda, submitted a separate-rate application that did not demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate. As a result, the Department preliminarily finds these 15 companies are also part of the PRC-wide entity. The Department’s change in policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this administrative review.18 Under this policy, the PRC-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department selfinitiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the PRC- wide entity in this review, the entity is not under review and the entity’s rate from the previous administrative review (i.e., 33.28 percent) is not subject to change.19 Methodology The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We calculated export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is an NME country within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, the Department calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with these results and hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, parties can obtain a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum on the Internet at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Adjustments for Countervailable Subsidies Because no mandatory respondent established eligibility for an adjustment under section 777A(f) of the Act for countervailable domestic subsidies, the Department, for these preliminary results, did not make an adjustment pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act for countervailable domestic subsidies for Union or the separate-rate recipients.20 Pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, the Department made an adjustment for countervailable export subsidies. For Union, we made an adjustment to its reported U.S. price.21 For the companies eligible for a separate rate, because all of these companies participated in the second countervailing duty administrative review,22 an adjustment has been made based on the countervailable export subsidy found for the non-selected companies in the final results of the second countervailing duty administrative review (or its own calculated rate, in the case of Kromet).23 For the PRC-wide entity, since the entity is not currently under review, its rate is not subject to change.24 Preliminary Results of Review The Department preliminarily determines that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist for the POR: Weightedaverage dumping margin (percent) Exporter mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Allied Maker Limited ................................................................................................................................................ Changzhou Changzheng Evaporator Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................ Dongguan Aoda Aluminum Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................ Justhere Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................................... Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd 25 ............................................................................................................... Kromet International Inc .......................................................................................................................................... Metaltek Group Co., Ltd .......................................................................................................................................... Permasteelisa Hong Kong Ltd 26 ............................................................................................................................. tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................. Union Industry (Asia) Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................. 17 See Jangho AFA Memorandum. Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65970 (November 4, 2013). 19 See 2012–2013 Final Results, 79 FR at 78787. 20 See Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 18 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 21 See Memorandum from Mark Flessner to the File, ‘‘2013–2014 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Results Margin Calculation for Union Industry (Asia) Co., Ltd.,’’ dated June 1, 2015. 22 See Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 32.79 0.00 Margin adjusted for liquidation and cash deposit purposes (percent) 32.51 32.51 32.51 32.51 32.51 32.44 32.51 32.51 32.51 0.00 Duty Administrative Review; 2012, 79 FR 78788, 78789–90 (December 31, 2014). 23 See Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 24 See 2012–2013 Final Results, 79 FR at 78787. As the rate for the PRC-wide entity is not subject to change in the instant review, the margin from the 2012–2013 Final Results that we are applying to the PRC-wide entity in the instant review is net of countervailable domestic and export subsidies. E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Notices Additionally, the Department preliminarily determines that the following companies are part of the PRC-wide entity: Jangho (which includes Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co., Ltd. and Jangho Curtain Wall Hong Kong Ltd.); Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya (which includes Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd.; Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Kong Ah International Company Limited; Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd.; Guangdong Zhongya Aluminium Company Limited; Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited; Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd.; and Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd.); Aluminicaste Fundicion de Mexico; China Zhongwang Holdings, Ltd.; Classic & Contemporary Inc.; Dongguan Golden Tiger; Dongguan Golden Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.; Gold Mountain International Development, Ltd.; Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc.; Metaltek Metal Industry Co., Ltd.; Nidec Sankyo Singapore Pte. Ltd.; Press Metal International Ltd.; Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium Industry Engineering Co., Ltd.; tenKsolar, Inc.; Tianjin Jinmao Import & Export Corp., Ltd.; WTI Building Products, Ltd.; and Zahoqing China Square Industry Limited/Zhaoqing China Square Industry Limited. The rate previously established for the PRC-wide entity in the previous administrative review is 33.28 percent.27 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Disclosure and Public Comment The Department intends to disclose to the parties the calculations performed for these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.28 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 25 Although the Department initiated a review for both Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd. and Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd, it is apparent from the company’s separate-rate application that Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd is the exporter and Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd. is a producer only; thus, Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd is the appropriate party to grant the separate rate status. 26 Although the Department initiated a review for Permasteelisa South China Factory and Permasteelisa Hong Kong Ltd., it is apparent from the company’s separate-rate application that Permasteelisa Hong Kong Ltd. is the exporter and Permasteelisa South China Factory is a producer only; thus, Permasteelisa Hong Kong Ltd. is the appropriate party to grant the separate rate status. 27 See 2012–2013 Final Results, 79 FR at 78787. 28 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:00 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 five days after the case briefs are filed.29 Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (a) a statement of the issue, (b) a brief summary of the argument, and (c) a table of authorities.30 Parties submitting briefs should do so pursuant to the Department’s electronic filing requirements. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.31 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party’s name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.32 Unless extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.33 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. For each individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent) in the final results of this review, the Department will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer’s examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review where an importer- (or customer) specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. Where either the respondent’s weighted-average dumping 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1)–(2). 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 31 See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 32 See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 33 See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 32351 margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate. For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. Additionally, 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 will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.34 The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements for estimated antidumping duties, when imposed, will apply to all shipments of subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) If the companies preliminarily determined to be eligible for a separate rate receive a separate rate in the final results of this administrative review, their cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, as adjusted for domestic and export subsidies (except, if that rate is de minimis, then the cash deposit rate will be zero); (2) for any previously investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters that are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but that received a separate rate in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding, 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 that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRCwide entity, which is 33.18 percent;35 29 See 30 See PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 34 See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011). 35 See 2012–2013 Final Results, 79 FR at 78787. E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1 32352 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Notices 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 cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties We are issuing and publishing notice of these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: June 1, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Respondent Selection 4. Scope of the Order 5. Affiliation and Collapsing 6. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments 7. Non-Market Economy Country 8. Separate Rates 9. Separate-Rate Recipients 10. Rate for Separate-Rate Recipients 11. The PRC-Wide Entity 12. Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inference 13. Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data 14. Surrogate Country 15. Economic Comparability 16. Significant Producers of Identical or Comparable Merchandise 17. Data Availability 18. Date of Sale 19. Comparisons to Normal Value A. Determination of Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis 20. Export Price 21. Value-Added Tax 22. Normal Value 23. Factor Valuations 24. Adjustments for Countervailable Subsidies 25. Currency Conversion VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:00 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 26. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2015–13967 Filed 6–5–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–851] Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2013–2014 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2015. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results of the 2013/2014 new shipper review on January 22, 2015.1 This review covers one company, Dezhou Kaihang Agricultural Science Technology Co., Ltd. (Dezhou Kaihang). We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. Based upon our analysis of the comments received, we made changes to the margin calculations for these final results. As a result of these changes, we find that Dezhou Kaihang did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2013 through February 28, 2014.2 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482–0649, respectively. AGENCY: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published the Preliminary Results on January 22, 2015.3 On March 13, 2015, the Department extended the deadline for issuing the final results by 60 days.4 On 1 See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2013/ 2014, 80 FR 3216 (January 22, 2015) (Preliminary Results). 2 As noted in the Preliminary Results, the Department extended the review period for this new shipper review to capture the entry associated with the sale made by Dezhou Kaihang during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii). 3 See Preliminary Results. 4 See Memorandum dated March 13, 2015 from Michael J. Heaney to Christian Marsh Re: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 February 23, 2015, Dezhou Kaihang submitted its case brief.5 On March 19, 2015, petitioner Monterey Mushrooms submitted a rebuttal brief.6 Scope of the Order The products covered by this antidumping order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.7 Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/ index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our review of the comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we have revised the margin calculation for of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: 2013– 2014. 5 See February 23, 2015 letter from Dezhou Kaihang to Secretary of Commerce Re: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China; Submission of Case Brief. 6 See March 19, 2015 letter from Monterey Mushrooms to Secretary of Commerce from Monterey Mushrooms. 7 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see ‘‘Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the 2013/ 2014 New Shipper Review’’ dated June 1, 2015 (Issues and Decision Memorandum). E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32347-32352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13967]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-967]


Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-
2014

AGENCY:  Enforcement and Compliance, 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).\1\ The period of 
review (POR) is May 1, 2013 through April 30, 2014. These preliminary 
results cover 39 companies for which an administrative review was 
initiated and not rescinded.\2\ The Department selected the following 
companies as mandatory respondents: Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall 
System Engineering Co., Ltd. and Jangho Curtain Wall Hong Kong Ltd. 
(collectively, Jangho), Union Industry (Asia) Co., Ltd. (Union), and 
Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd., Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium 
Co., Ltd., Kong Ah International Company Limited, and Guang Ya 
Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd. (collectively, Guang Ya Group); 
Guangdong Zhongya Aluminium Company Limited, Zhongya Shaped Aluminium 
(HK) Holding Limited, and Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd. (collectively, 
Zhongya); and Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. 
(Xinya) (collectively, Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya).\3\ The

[[Page 32348]]

Department preliminarily finds that Union did not make sales of subject 
merchandise at less than normal value. In addition, the Department 
preliminarily determines that Jangho and Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their abilities to 
fully comply with the Department's requests for information, warranting 
the application of facts otherwise available with adverse inferences, 
pursuant to sections 776(a) and 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act). We also preliminarily determine that one company, 
Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited (Xin Wei), had no shipments. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department initiated this review on June 27, 2014. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 79 FR 36462 (June 27, 2014) (Initiation Notice).
    \2\ This administrative review initially covered 155 companies. 
See Initiation Notice. However, on January 29, 2015, the Department 
rescinded this review with respect to 116 companies. See Aluminum 
Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 80 FR 4868 (January 29, 
2015).
    \3\ In prior segments of this proceeding the Department found 
that the Guang Ya Group, Zhongya, and Xinya were affiliated with 
each other and should be treated as a single entity. See, e.g., 
Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission, in 
Part, 2010/12, 79 FR 96 (January 2, 2014) (2010-2012 Final Results) 
and Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 
78784 (December 31, 2014) (2012-2013 Final Results).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott, Mark Flessner or Robert 
James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, 
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2657, (202) 482-6312 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the Order \4\ 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).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: 
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011) (Order).
    \5\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to 
Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 
Compliance, ``Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Aluminum Extrusions from the 
People's Republic of China; 2013-2014,'' dated concurrently with 
this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum) for a complete 
description of the scope of the Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 8515.90.20.00, 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.
    The Department is conducting two scope inquiries concerning 
aluminum extrusions made from 5 series aluminum alloy. Petitioner 
(Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee) advocates that the 
Department impose a certification requirement related to these 
products, which the Department is considering in the context of these 
scope proceedings. Parties that wish to file comments on this potential 
certification requirement must do so on the record of these scope 
proceedings.\6\ The final scope rulings, including our decision with 
respect to the certification issue, are currently due July 7, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Letter from Trending Imports LLC to the Department, 
``Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Trending 
Imports LLC Request for Scope Ruling Concerning 5050 Alloy 
Extrusions,'' dated December 12, 2013, and Letter from Kota 
International, LTD to the Department, ``Antidumping Duty and 
Countervailing Duty Orders on Aluminum Extrusions from the People's 
Republic of China: Scope Ruling Request,'' dated October 21, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, we informed parties of the opportunity to 
request a separate rate.\7\ In proceedings involving non-market economy 
(NME) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption 
that all companies within the NME country are subject to government 
control and, thus, should be assigned a single weighted-average dumping 
margin. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of 
merchandise subject to an administrative review involving an NME 
country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. 
Companies that wanted to be considered for a separate rate in this 
review were required to timely file a separate-rate application or a 
separate-rate certification to demonstrate their eligibility for a 
separate rate. Separate-rate applications and separate-rate 
certifications were due to the Department within 60 calendar days of 
the publication of the Initiation Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Initiation Notice, 79 FR at 36463-36464.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this review, 14 companies for which a review was requested and 
which remain under review did not submit separate-rate information to 
rebut the presumption that they are subject to government control.\8\ 
These

[[Page 32349]]

companies are: Aluminicaste Fundicion de Mexico; China Zhongwang 
Holdings, Ltd.; Classic & Contemporary Inc.; Dongguan Golden Tiger; 
Dongguan Golden Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.; Gold Mountain 
International Development, Ltd.; Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube 
Group, Inc.; Metaltek Metal Industry Co., Ltd.; Nidec Sankyo Singapore 
Pte. Ltd.; Press Metal International Ltd.; tenKsolar, Inc.; Tianjin 
Jinmao Import & Export Corp., Ltd.; WTI Building Products, Ltd.; and 
Zahoqing China Square Industry Limited/Zhaoqing China Square Industry 
Limited. As further discussed in the Preliminarily Decision Memorandum, 
we preliminarily determine that these entities have not demonstrated 
that they operate free from government control and thus are not 
eligible for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ One company, Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. (New 
Zhongya), was determined to have been succeeded by Guangdong Zhongya 
Aluminum Company Limited (Guangdong Zhongya) in a changed 
circumstances review. See Aluminum Extrusions From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 77 
FR 54900 (September 6, 2012). Thus, despite the fact that a review 
was initiated of New Zhongya, it is not being included among these 
14 companies because its successor in interest, Guangdong Zhongya, 
is part of the Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya single entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One additional company under review, Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium 
Industry Engineering Co., Ltd. (Yuanda), submitted a separate-rate 
application, but, as further discussed in the Preliminary Decision 
Memorandum, we preliminarily determine not to grant this company a 
separate rate because its separate-rate application did not contain 
evidence of a suspended entry of subject merchandise during the POR.
    In addition to Union, 11 companies still under review submitted 
separate-rate applications or separate-rate certifications and 
responses to supplemental questionnaires which provide sufficient 
information to preliminarily determine that they are entitled to a 
separate rate. These eleven companies are: Allied Maker Limited; 
Changzhou Changzheng Evaporator Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Aoda Aluminum Co., 
Ltd.; Justhere Co., Ltd.; Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd; Kromet 
International Inc. (Kromet); Metaltek Group Co., Ltd.; Permasteelisa 
South China Factory; Permasteelisa Hong Kong Ltd.; Taishan City Kam Kiu 
Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd.; and tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. A 
full discussion of the basis for granting these companies a separate 
rate can be found in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Rate for Non-Examined Companies Which Are Eligible for a Separate Rate

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the 
establishment of the rate applied to individual respondents not 
selected for individual examination when the Department limits its 
examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) 
of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the 
Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in 
an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for separate-
rate respondents which we did not examine individually in an 
administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act notes a 
preference that we are not to calculate an all-others rate using rates 
for individually-examined respondents which are zero, de minimis, or 
based entirely on facts available. 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.
    For these preliminary results, the rates we determined for the 
mandatory respondents were either zero, de minimis, or based on 
entirely on facts available. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that 
the application of the rate from the investigation in this proceeding 
to the non-examined separate-rate companies is consistent with 
precedent \9\ and the most appropriate method to determine the separate 
rate in the instant review.\10\ Pursuant to this method, we are 
preliminarily assigning the margin of 32.79 percent, the most recent 
margin calculated for the non-examined separate-rate respondents,\11\ 
to the non-examined separate-rate respondents in the instant review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial 
Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 
8338, 8342 (February 14, 2011), unchanged in Administrative Review 
of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 51940 (August 19, 2011); see also 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 49460, 49463 (August 
13, 2010).
    \10\ This is also consistent with the Department's determination 
in prior segments of this proceeding. See 2010-2012 Final Results, 
79 FR at 99 and 2012-2013 Final Results, 79 FR at 78786.
    \11\ This margin is from the 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, 18530 
(April 4, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    One company remaining under review, Xin Wei, timely submitted a 
certification indicating that it had no sales, shipments, or entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR.\12\ Consistent with our practice, 
the Department requested that CBP conduct a query on potential 
shipments made by Xin Wei during the POR; CBP provided no evidence that 
contradicted Xin Wei's claim of no shipments. Based on Xin Wei's no-
shipment certification and our analysis of the CBP information, we 
preliminarily determine that Xin Wei had no shipments during the POR. 
In addition, consistent with our practice in NME cases, the Department 
is not rescinding this review, in part, but intends to complete the 
review with respect to Xin Wei and issue appropriate instructions to 
CBP based on the final results of the review.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Letter from Xin Wei to the Department, ``Aluminum 
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Certification of No 
Sales, Shipments, or Entries,'' dated August 26, 2014.
    \13\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694, 65695 (October 24, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Adverse Facts Available

    Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act, the 
Department preliminarily finds that the use of facts otherwise 
available is warranted with respect to Jangho because Jangho failed to 
provide information in the form and manner requested by the Department, 
and therefore significantly impeded the proceeding.\14\ Furthermore, 
for the information which Jangho did provide, a large amount of that 
information would not be verifiable.\15\ We also find that the use of 
facts otherwise available is warranted with respect to Guang Ya Group/
Zhongya/Xinya in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the 
Act, because Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya withheld information that was 
requested and, by not providing requested information, significantly 
impeded the proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, ``2013-2014 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China; Application 
of Adverse Facts Available for Jangho,'' dated June 1, 2015 (Jangho 
AFA Memorandum); see also Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department 
preliminarily determines that both Jangho and Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/
Xinya failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their abilities 
to comply with the Department's requests for information, and, thus, an 
adverse inference is warranted.
    Because the Department preliminarily determines that Jangho and 
Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of their abilities to comply with requests for information, we 
have determined that they are not eligible for a separate rate.\16\ 
Regarding Jangho, the

[[Page 32350]]

Department preliminarily finds that Jangho's original questionnaire and 
supplemental questionnaire responses were grossly deficient, and 
therefore the record does not contain the information necessary to make 
a separate rate determination.\17\ Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya, on the 
other hand, failed to provide a response to the Department's 
questionnaire at all. As such, separate rates are not warranted for 
Jangho or Guang Ya Group/Zhonya/Xinya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See section 776(b) of the Act.
    \17\ See Jangho AFA Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRC-Wide Entity

    As the Department preliminarily determines, based on AFA, that 
Jangho and Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya are not eligible for a separate 
rate, we determine that both companies are part of the PRC-wide entity.
    In addition, 14 companies still subject to these preliminary 
results are not eligible for separate-rate status because they did not 
submit separate-rate applications or certifications, and one company 
still under review, Yuanda, submitted a separate-rate application that 
did not demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate. As a result, the 
Department preliminarily finds these 15 companies are also part of the 
PRC-wide entity.
    The Department's change in policy regarding conditional review of 
the PRC-wide entity applies to this administrative review.\18\ Under 
this policy, the PRC-wide entity will not be under review unless a 
party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review 
of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide 
entity in this review, the entity is not under review and the entity's 
rate from the previous administrative review (i.e., 33.28 percent) is 
not subject to change.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in 
Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty 
Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity 
in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65970 (November 4, 
2013).
    \19\ See 2012-2013 Final Results, 79 FR at 78787.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 
751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We calculated export prices in accordance with 
section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is an NME country within the 
meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, the Department calculated normal 
value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
    For a full description of the methodology underlying our 
preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, dated 
concurrently with these results and hereby adopted by this notice. A 
list of the topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is 
included as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision 
Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via 
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to 
registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the 
Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce 
building. In addition, parties can obtain a complete version of the 
Preliminary Decision Memorandum on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision 
Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Adjustments for Countervailable Subsidies

    Because no mandatory respondent established eligibility for an 
adjustment under section 777A(f) of the Act for countervailable 
domestic subsidies, the Department, for these preliminary results, did 
not make an adjustment pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act for 
countervailable domestic subsidies for Union or the separate-rate 
recipients.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, the Department made an 
adjustment for countervailable export subsidies. For Union, we made an 
adjustment to its reported U.S. price.\21\ For the companies eligible 
for a separate rate, because all of these companies participated in the 
second countervailing duty administrative review,\22\ an adjustment has 
been made based on the countervailable export subsidy found for the 
non-selected companies in the final results of the second 
countervailing duty administrative review (or its own calculated rate, 
in the case of Kromet).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Memorandum from Mark Flessner to the File, ``2013-2014 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum 
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the 
Preliminary Results Margin Calculation for Union Industry (Asia) 
Co., Ltd.,'' dated June 1, 2015.
    \22\ See Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 
2012, 79 FR 78788, 78789-90 (December 31, 2014).
    \23\ See Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the PRC-wide entity, since the entity is not currently under 
review, its rate is not subject to change.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 2012-2013 Final Results, 79 FR at 78787. As the rate 
for the PRC-wide entity is not subject to change in the instant 
review, the margin from the 2012-2013 Final Results that we are 
applying to the PRC-wide entity in the instant review is net of 
countervailable domestic and export subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following 
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                                                           adjusted for
                                             Weighted-      liquidation
                Exporter                      average        and cash
                                          dumping margin      deposit
                                             (percent)       purposes
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Maker Limited....................           32.79           32.51
Changzhou Changzheng Evaporator Co., Ltd           32.79           32.51
Dongguan Aoda Aluminum Co., Ltd.........           32.79           32.51
Justhere Co., Ltd.......................           32.79           32.51
Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd \25\.           32.79           32.51
Kromet International Inc................           32.79           32.44
Metaltek Group Co., Ltd.................           32.79           32.51
Permasteelisa Hong Kong Ltd \26\........           32.79           32.51
tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd...........           32.79           32.51
Union Industry (Asia) Co., Ltd..........            0.00            0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 32351]]

    Additionally, the Department preliminarily determines that the 
following companies are part of the PRC-wide entity: Jangho (which 
includes Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co., Ltd. and 
Jangho Curtain Wall Hong Kong Ltd.); Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya 
(which includes Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd.; Foshan 
Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Kong Ah International Company Limited; 
Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd.; Guangdong Zhongya 
Aluminium Company Limited; Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding 
Limited; Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd.; and Xinya Aluminum & Stainless 
Steel Product Co., Ltd.); Aluminicaste Fundicion de Mexico; China 
Zhongwang Holdings, Ltd.; Classic & Contemporary Inc.; Dongguan Golden 
Tiger; Dongguan Golden Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.; Gold 
Mountain International Development, Ltd.; Golden Dragon Precise Copper 
Tube Group, Inc.; Metaltek Metal Industry Co., Ltd.; Nidec Sankyo 
Singapore Pte. Ltd.; Press Metal International Ltd.; Shenyang Yuanda 
Aluminium Industry Engineering Co., Ltd.; tenKsolar, Inc.; Tianjin 
Jinmao Import & Export Corp., Ltd.; WTI Building Products, Ltd.; and 
Zahoqing China Square Industry Limited/Zhaoqing China Square Industry 
Limited. The rate previously established for the PRC-wide entity in the 
previous administrative review is 33.28 percent.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Although the Department initiated a review for both Taishan 
City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd. and Kam Kiu Aluminium 
Products Sdn Bhd, it is apparent from the company's separate-rate 
application that Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd is the exporter 
and Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd. is a producer 
only; thus, Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd is the appropriate 
party to grant the separate rate status.
    \26\ Although the Department initiated a review for 
Permasteelisa South China Factory and Permasteelisa Hong Kong Ltd., 
it is apparent from the company's separate-rate application that 
Permasteelisa Hong Kong Ltd. is the exporter and Permasteelisa South 
China Factory is a producer only; thus, Permasteelisa Hong Kong Ltd. 
is the appropriate party to grant the separate rate status.
    \27\ See 2012-2013 Final Results, 79 FR at 78787.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose to the parties the calculations 
performed for these preliminary results within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 
Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after 
the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.\28\ 
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be 
filed no later than five days after the case briefs are filed.\29\ 
Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument 
(a) a statement of the issue, (b) a brief summary of the argument, and 
(c) a table of authorities.\30\ Parties submitting briefs should do so 
pursuant to the Department's electronic filing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
    \29\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1)-(2).
    \30\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice.\31\ Hearing requests should contain the 
following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to 
be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in 
the case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, 
parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be 
held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    \32\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unless extended, the Department intends to issue the final results 
of this administrative review, which will include the results of our 
analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register, 
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department 
will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review.\33\ The Department intends 
to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of 
the final results of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each individually examined respondent whose weighted-average 
dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent) in the final 
results of this review, the Department will calculate importer-specific 
ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount 
of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total 
entered value of those same sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review where an importer- (or 
customer-) specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of 
this review is above de minimis. Where either the respondent's 
weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer- 
(or customer-) specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, the 
Department will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries 
without regard to antidumping duties. We intend to instruct CBP to 
liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-
wide entity at the PRC-wide rate.
    For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database 
submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, the 
Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide 
rate. Additionally, 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 will be 
liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final results of this review shall be the basis for the 
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by 
the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated 
duties, where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements for estimated antidumping 
duties, when imposed, will apply to all shipments of subject 
merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this 
administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 
(1) If the companies preliminarily determined to be eligible for a 
separate rate receive a separate rate in the final results of this 
administrative review, their cash deposit rate will be equal to the 
weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of 
this review, as adjusted for domestic and export subsidies (except, if 
that rate is de minimis, then the cash deposit rate will be zero); (2) 
for any 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 the most recently completed segment of this 
proceeding, 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 that have 
not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate 
will be that for the PRC-wide entity, which is 33.18 percent;\35\

[[Page 32352]]

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not 
received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See 2012-2013 Final Results, 79 FR at 78787.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing notice of these preliminary results 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: June 1, 2015.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum

1. Summary
2. Background
3. Respondent Selection
4. Scope of the Order
5. Affiliation and Collapsing
6. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments
7. Non-Market Economy Country
8. Separate Rates
9. Separate-Rate Recipients
10. Rate for Separate-Rate Recipients
11. The PRC-Wide Entity
12. Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inference
13. Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data
14. Surrogate Country
15. Economic Comparability
16. Significant Producers of Identical or Comparable Merchandise
17. Data Availability
18. Date of Sale
19. Comparisons to Normal Value
    A. Determination of Comparison Method
    B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis
20. Export Price
21. Value-Added Tax
22. Normal Value
23. Factor Valuations
24. Adjustments for Countervailable Subsidies
25. Currency Conversion
26. Recommendation

[FR Doc. 2015-13967 Filed 6-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P