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
<![CDATA[
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 https://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 https://
enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.
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 https://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 https://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 https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. 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
