Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part; 2012-2013, 69638-69640 [2015-28664]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
69638
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices
comments from HYSCO on the
petitioners’ ministerial error allegation.7
Based on our analysis of the
allegations submitted by HYSCO and
the petitioners, we determined that,
with respect to the conversion cost
adjustment and the toll processing cost
adjustment, we did not make ministerial
errors, as defined by section 735(e) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act) and 19 CFR 351.224(f).8 However,
we determined that we did make
ministerial errors within the meaning of
section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.224(f) with respect to the revisions
to date of sale and the application of the
G&A and financial expense ratios.9 We
revised the margin calculation for
HYSCO accordingly, and assigned a
new All Others rate, as discussed
below.10
Scope of the Investigation
The scope of the investigation appears
in Appendix I of the Final
Determination.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Ministerial Error
Section 735(e) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.224(f) define a ‘‘ministerial error’’ as
an error ‘‘in addition, subtraction, or
other arithmetic function, clerical error
resulting from inaccurate copying,
duplication, or the like, and any similar
type of unintentional error which the
Secretary considers ministerial.’’
We analyzed the ministerial error
allegations and determined, in
accordance with section 735(e) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we
made ministerial errors with respect to
the revisions to date of sale and the
application of the G&A and financial
expense ratios. In implementing the
date of sale methodology to use the
earlier of invoice date or shipment date,
we inadvertently failed to update
HYSCO’s reported date of sale variable
to account for invoice and shipment
date revisions. Therefore, we corrected
this error. In addition, we revised
HYSCO’s calculation of the G&A and
financial expense ratios cost of goods
sold denominator to reflect the major
input rule and transactions disregarded
rule adjustments, in order to keep the
calculation of the ratios on the same
basis as the cost of manufacturing to
7 See Letter from HYSCO, ‘‘Welded Line Pipe
from Korea: Response to Petitioners’ Ministerial
Error Allegation,’’ dated October 19, 2015.
8 See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Allegations of
Ministerial Errors in the Final Determination,’’
dated concurrently with this determination and
hereby adopted by this notice.
9 Id.
10 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Nov 09, 2015
Jkt 238001
which they are applied.11 Therefore, we
are amending the final determination
with respect to HYSCO, in accordance
with section 735(e) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.224(e).12
Amended Final Determination
As a result of correcting these
ministerial errors, we determine that the
following weighted-average margins
exist for the period October 1, 2013,
through September 30, 2014:
Manufacturer/exporter
Hyundai HYSCO ...................
SeAH Steel Corporation .......
All Others ..............................
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
6.23
2.53
4.38
Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of this notice for all
shipments of subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication of this amended final
determination, as provided by section
735(c)(1)(B) of the Act: (1) The cash
deposit rate for HYSCO will be the rate
we determined in this amended final
determination (i.e., 6.23 percent); (2) the
cash deposit rate for SeAH will continue
to be that identified in the Final
Determination (i.e., 2.53 percent); (3) if
the exporter is not a firm identified in
this investigation but the producer is,
the rate will be the rate established for
the producer of the subject
merchandise; and (4) the rate for all
other producers or exporters will be
4.38 percent, as indicated above. These
suspension of liquidation instructions
will remain in effect until further notice.
reason of imports or sales (or the
likelihood of sales) for importation of
the subject merchandise. If the ITC
determines that such injury exists, the
Department will issue an antidumping
duty order directing CBP to assess, upon
further instruction by the Department,
antidumping duties on all imports of the
subject merchandise entered or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the effective
date of the suspension of liquidation.
This amended final determination
notice is published in accordance with
section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.224(e).
Dated: November 4, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–28667 Filed 11–9–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–984]
Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review and Rescission
in Part; 2012–2013
U.S. International Trade Commission
In accordance with section 735(d) of
the Act, we notified the U.S.
International Trade Commission (ITC) of
the Final Determination and our
amended final determination. As the
Final Determination was affirmative, in
accordance with section 735(b)(3) of the
Act, the ITC will determine within 45
days of the Final Determination whether
the domestic industry in the United
States is materially injured, or
threatened with material injury, by
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) has conducted an
administrative review of the
countervailing duty (CVD) order on
drawn stainless steel sinks (sinks) from
the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
The period of review (POR) is August 6,
2012, through December 31, 2013. On
May 7, 2015, we published the
preliminary results of this
administrative review.1 We invited
interested parties to comment on the
Preliminary Results. After reviewing the
comments received, we have made no
changes to the Preliminary Results. As
such, we continue to find that
Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware
Industrial Co., Ltd. (Dongyuan) received
countervailable subsidies during the
POR. We also find that Shunde Native
Produce Import and Export Co., Ltd. of
Guangdong (Native Produce) did not
11 We note that the correction of this error did not
change HYSCO’s G&A and financial expense ratios
from those in the Final Determination.
12 The weighted-average dumping margin for
SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH) in the Final
Determination has not changed. It remains at 2.53
percent.
1 See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,
Rescission in Part, and Intent to Rescind the Review
in Part; 2012±2013, 80 FR 26226 (May 7, 2015)
(Preliminary Results) and accompanying
Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM
10NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices
have any reviewable entries during the
POR.
DATES: Effective date: November 10,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Meek, AD/CVD Operations,
Office I, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–2778.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Scope of the Order
Drawn stainless steel sinks are sinks
with single or multiple drawn bowls,
with or without drain boards, whether
finished or unfinished, regardless of
type of finish, gauge, or grade of sinks.
The products covered by this order are
currently classified in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) under statistical reporting
number 7324.10.0000. Although the
HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
A full description of the scope of the
order is contained in the memorandum
from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, to Paul Piquado, Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, ‘‘Decision Memorandum
for the Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review: Drawn
Stainless Steel Sinks from the People’s
Republic of China’’ dated concurrently
with this notice (Issues and Decision
Memorandum), which is hereby
adopted by this notice. A list of topics
discussed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is provided as Appendix
I to this Notice.
The Issues and Decision
Memorandum is a public document and
is on file electronically via Enforcement
and Compliance’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
ACCESS is available to registered users
at https://access.trade.gov and in the
Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of
the main Department of Commerce
building. In addition, a complete
version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the internet at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.
The signed Issues and Decision
Memorandum and the electronic
version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs
submitted by parties are addressed in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Nov 09, 2015
Jkt 238001
the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
A list of the issues which parties raised
and to which we respond in the Issues
and Decisions Memorandum is attached
to this notice as Appendix I. The
Department conducted this review in
accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act). For each program found
countervailable, we determine that there
is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided
financial contribution that gives rise to
a benefit to the recipient, and that the
subsidy is specific.2
In making these findings, we relied, in
part, on facts available and, because we
determine that the Government of the
PRC did not act to the best of its ability
to respond to the Department’s requests
for information, we applied an adverse
inference in selecting from among the
facts otherwise available.3 For a full
description of the methodology
underlying our conclusions, see the
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Final Determination of No Shipments
and Rescission of the Review in Part
Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP)
information and information provided
by Native Produce, we determine that
Native Produce did not have any
reviewable entries during the POR. No
evidence of shipments was placed on
the record, therefore, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding
the administrative review of this
company. For additional information
regarding this determination, see the
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Final Results of the Review
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(b)(5), we calculated an
individual subsidy rate for for 2012 and
2013, respectively, as set forth below.
Company
Subsidy
rate
(percent)
2013
Subsidy
rate
(percent)
2012
69639
date of publication of these final results.
The Department will instruct CBP to
liquidate shipments of subject
merchandise produced and/or exported
by Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware
Industrial Co., Ltd. entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption for the periods on or after
August 6, 2012 through December 3,
2012, and on or after April 10, 2013,
through December 31, 2013. For entries
made during the gap period 4 (i.e, on or
after December 4, 2012 through April 9,
2013), we will instruct CBP to liquidate
the entries without regard to
countervailing duties pursuant to
section 703(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act).
For the rescinded company,
countervailing duties shall be assessed
at rates equal to the cash deposit of
estimated countervailing duties required
at the time of entry, or withdrawal from
warehouse, for consumption, during the
period on or after August 6, 2012,
through December 3, 2012, and on or
after April 10, 2013, through December
31, 2013, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(c)(1)(i).
Cash Deposit Requirements
In accordance with section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department
intends to instruct CBP to collect cash
deposits of estimated countervailing
duties in the amount shown above for
Dongyuan, as determined for 2013, on
shipments of subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results of this
review. For all non-reviewed firms, we
will instruct CBP to continue to collect
cash deposits at the most-recent
company-specific or all-others rate
applicable to the company, as
appropriate. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice serves as a final reminder
to parties subject to administrative
Guangdong
Dongyuan Kitchenprotective order (APO) of their
ware Industrial Co.,
responsibilities concerning the
Ltd .........................
9.83
3.91 disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
Assessment Rates
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), written notification of return or
destruction of APO materials or
we intend to issue assessment
instructions to CBP fifteen days after the conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
2 See sections 771(5)(B)and (D) of the Act
regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E)
of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of
the Act regarding specificity.
3 See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. For
further information, see ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise
Available and Adverse Inferences’’ in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4 The gap period represents the period of time
after the expiration of the 120-day provisional
measures period during the investigation, to the day
prior to the publication in the Federal Register of
the U.S. International Trade Commission’s Final
Determination. In this administrative review, the
gap period is December 4, 2012, to April 9, 2013.
E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM
10NON1
69640
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213.
AGENCY:
MacLean-Fogg Remand Order.2
Consistent with the clarification in the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision in
Diamond Sawblades,3 we are amending
the Final Determination.
DATES: Effective date: November 2,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–
482–4793.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Final Determination, the Department
assigned a total adverse facts available
(AFA) rate of 374.14 percent to the three
non-cooperating mandatory respondents
and calculated company-specific net
subsidy rates for two participating
voluntary respondents. The Department
averaged the rates calculated for the
mandatory respondents and applied that
rate as the all-others rate, calculated
pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act).4
In MacLean-Fogg I, the CIT held that
the statute was ambiguous concerning
whether the Department is required to
base the all-others rate on rates
calculated for mandatory respondents
and therefore the Department was
permitted to use the mandatory
respondents’ rates in calculating the allothers rate provided it did so in a
reasonable manner.5 Nonetheless, the
CIT remanded the all-others rate to the
Department for reconsideration because
the Department failed to articulate a
connection between the mandatory
respondent rates, based on AFA, and the
all-others companies.6
In MacLean-Fogg II, the CIT held that
the Department’s preliminary all-others
rate in the Preliminary Determination 7
was also subject to review under the
same reasonableness standard because it
had legal effect on the entries made
1 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination, 76 FR 18521 (April 4, 2011)
and Aluminum Extrusions from the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony With Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination and Notice of Amended Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 77
FR 74466 (December 14, 2012) (collectively, Final
Determination).
2 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 11–00209, Slip Op. 15–85 (CIT August
2015) (MacLean-Fogg Remand Order).
3 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades).
4 See Final Determination, 76 FR at 18523, and
accompanying Issues and Decision at Comment 9.
5 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 836 F.
Supp. 2d 1367, 1373–1374 (CIT 2012) (MacLeanFogg I).
6 Id., at 1376.
7 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 FR 54302
(September 7, 2010) (Preliminary Determination).
Dated: November 3, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in
the Issues and Decision Memorandum
Summary
A. Background
B. Scope of the Order
C. Partial Rescission of the Administrative
Review
D. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and
Adverse Inferences
E. Subsidy Valuation Information
F. Analysis of Programs
G. Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: Whether Dongyuan’s Stainless
Steel Supplier is an Authority
Comment 2: The Department’s Refusal to
Meet With Counsel for Dongyuan
Comment 3: The Department’s Refusal to
Permit the GOC to Submit Factual
Information After the Preliminary
Results
Comment 4: Whether the Stainless Steel Coil
Industry in China is Distorted by
Government Presence in the Market
Comment 5: Whether Working Capital Loans
are a Part of the Policy Lending Program
H. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2015–28664 Filed 11–9–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–968]
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Aluminum Extrusions From the
People’s Republic of China: Amended
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination Pursuant to Court
Decision
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 23, 2015, the
United States Court of International
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of
Commerce’s (the Department’s) results
of redetermination pursuant to court
remand, which recalculated the allothers subsidy rate in the countervailing
duty (CVD) investigation of aluminum
extrusions from the People’s Republic of
China (the PRC),1 pursuant to the CIT’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Nov 09, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
during the interim time period between
the issuance of the preliminary and final
CVD rates, both as a cash deposit rate
and, if an annual review was sought, as
a cap on the final rate for those
particular entries.8 Thus, in MacLeanFogg II, the Court held that it would
consider the reasonableness of the
preliminary rate when it reviewed the
Department’s remand determination.9
In MacLean-Fogg III, the CIT
considered the Department’s remand
results.10 On remand, the Department
did not recalculate the all-others rate,
but rather, provided data indicating that
the rate calculated for the mandatory
respondents was logically connected to
the all-others companies because the
mandatory respondents comprised a
significant portion of the PRC extruded
aluminum producers and exporters, and
thus were representative of the PRC
extruded aluminum industry as a
whole.11 The CIT held that ‘‘nothing in
the statute requires that the mandatory
respondents’ rates, even when based on
AFA, may only be used to develop rates
for uncooperative respondents.’’ 12
However, in MacLean-Fogg III, the CIT
also concluded that the Department
failed to explain how the calculated allothers rate was remedial and not
punitive when it assumed use of all
subsidy programs identified in the
investigation.13 Therefore, the CIT
remanded again to the Department for
re-consideration of the issue.14
In the second results of
redetermination pursuant to remand
issued in this litigation, the Department
designated the all-others rate as equal to
the preliminary rate it calculated for the
mandatory respondents, i.e., 137.65
percent.15 In MacLean-Fogg IV, the CIT
affirmed the Department’s remand
results, holding that the Department’s
selection of this all-others rate was
reasonable.16
The CIT’s holdings were appealed to
the CAFC. On June 3, 2014, the CAFC
held that section 351.204(d)(3) of the
Department’s regulations, which directs
the Department to exclude voluntary
respondents’ rates from its calculation
of the all-others rate, was inconsistent
8 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 853 F.
Supp. 2d 1253, 1256 (CIT 2012) (MacLean-Fogg II).
9 Id.
10 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 853 F.
Supp. 2d 1336, 1338 (2012) (MacLean-Fogg III).
11 Id.
12 Id., at 1341.
13 Id., at 1342–1343.
14 Id., at 1343.
15 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, dated September 13, 2012,
available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands.
16 See MacLean Fogg Co., et al. v. United States,
885 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (CIT 2012) (MacLean Fogg IV)
at 11–12.
E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM
10NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 217 (Tuesday, November 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69638-69640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28664]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-570-984]
Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and
Rescission in Part; 2012-2013
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an
administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on drawn
stainless steel sinks (sinks) from the People's Republic of China
(PRC). The period of review (POR) is August 6, 2012, through December
31, 2013. On May 7, 2015, we published the preliminary results of this
administrative review.\1\ We invited interested parties to comment on
the Preliminary Results. After reviewing the comments received, we have
made no changes to the Preliminary Results. As such, we continue to
find that Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd.
(Dongyuan) received countervailable subsidies during the POR. We also
find that Shunde Native Produce Import and Export Co., Ltd. of
Guangdong (Native Produce) did not
[[Page 69639]]
have any reviewable entries during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, Rescission in Part, and Intent to Rescind the Review in
Part; 2012-2013, 80 FR 26226 (May 7, 2015) (Preliminary Results) and
accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective date: November 10, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Meek, AD/CVD Operations,
Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2778.
Scope of the Order
Drawn stainless steel sinks are sinks with single or multiple drawn
bowls, with or without drain boards, whether finished or unfinished,
regardless of type of finish, gauge, or grade of sinks. The products
covered by this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under statistical reporting
number 7324.10.0000. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope
of the order is dispositive.
A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the
memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, ``Decision Memorandum for the Final Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Drawn Stainless Steel
Sinks from the People's Republic of China'' dated concurrently with
this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted
by this notice. A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is provided as Appendix I to this Notice.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on
file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and
in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of
Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision
Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs submitted by parties are
addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues
which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and
Decisions Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The
Department conducted this review in accordance with section
751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each
program found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy,
i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a
benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See sections 771(5)(B)and (D) of the Act regarding financial
contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and
section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In making these findings, we relied, in part, on facts available
and, because we determine that the Government of the PRC did not act to
the best of its ability to respond to the Department's requests for
information, we applied an adverse inference in selecting from among
the facts otherwise available.\3\ For a full description of the
methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. For further
information, see ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse
Inferences'' in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determination of No Shipments and Rescission of the Review in
Part
Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
information and information provided by Native Produce, we determine
that Native Produce did not have any reviewable entries during the POR.
No evidence of shipments was placed on the record, therefore, pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding the administrative review of
this company. For additional information regarding this determination,
see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Final Results of the Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an
individual subsidy rate for for 2012 and 2013, respectively, as set
forth below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy Subsidy
rate rate
Company (percent) (percent)
2013 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd 9.83 3.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), we intend to issue assessment
instructions to CBP fifteen days after the date of publication of these
final results. The Department will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments
of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Guangdong Dongyuan
Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd. entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption for the periods on or after August 6, 2012 through
December 3, 2012, and on or after April 10, 2013, through December 31,
2013. For entries made during the gap period \4\ (i.e, on or after
December 4, 2012 through April 9, 2013), we will instruct CBP to
liquidate the entries without regard to countervailing duties pursuant
to section 703(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The gap period represents the period of time after the
expiration of the 120-day provisional measures period during the
investigation, to the day prior to the publication in the Federal
Register of the U.S. International Trade Commission's Final
Determination. In this administrative review, the gap period is
December 4, 2012, to April 9, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the rescinded company, countervailing duties shall be assessed
at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties
required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption, during the period on or after August 6, 2012, through
December 3, 2012, and on or after April 10, 2013, through December 31,
2013, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).
Cash Deposit Requirements
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department
intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated
countervailing duties in the amount shown above for Dongyuan, as
determined for 2013, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed
firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the
most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the
company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further notice.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibilities
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply
[[Page 69640]]
with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Dated: November 3, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I--List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum
Summary
A. Background
B. Scope of the Order
C. Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review
D. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences
E. Subsidy Valuation Information
F. Analysis of Programs
G. Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: Whether Dongyuan's Stainless Steel Supplier is an
Authority
Comment 2: The Department's Refusal to Meet With Counsel for
Dongyuan
Comment 3: The Department's Refusal to Permit the GOC to Submit
Factual Information After the Preliminary Results
Comment 4: Whether the Stainless Steel Coil Industry in China is
Distorted by Government Presence in the Market
Comment 5: Whether Working Capital Loans are a Part of the Policy
Lending Program
H. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2015-28664 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
