Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 72567-72568 [2016-25430]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 203 / Thursday, October 20, 2016 / Notices
Dated: October 17, 2016.
Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016–25390 Filed 10–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–836]
Glycine From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2014–
2015
AGENCY:
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 15, 2016, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on glycine
from the People’s Republic of China
(PRC).1 The review covers five
companies, Baoding Mantong Fine
Chemistry Co., Ltd. (Baoding Mantong),
Kumar Industries (Kumar), Nutracare
International (Nutracare), Ravi
Industries (Ravi), and Rudraa
International (Rudraa). The period of
review (POR) is March 1, 2014, through
February 28, 2015. As a result of our
analysis of the comments and
information received, these final results
do not differ from the Preliminary
Results.
DATES: Effective October 20, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dena Crossland or Brian Davis, AD/CVD
Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–3362 or (202) 482–7924,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
On April 15, 2016, the Department
published the Preliminary Results. In
accordance with 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to
comment on our Preliminary Results.2
On May 16, 2016, GEO submitted a case
brief and requested a hearing.3 On
1 See Glycine From the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 2014–2015, 81 FR 22212
(April 15, 2016) (Preliminary Results).
2 See Preliminary Results at 22212–22213.
3 See Letter to the Department of Commerce from
GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. regarding ‘‘Glycine
from the People’s Republic of China: GEO Specialty
Chemicals’ Case Brief,’’ dated May 16, 2016.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Oct 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
August 10, 2016, the Department issued
a memorandum extending the time
period for issuing the final results of
this administrative review from August
15, 2016, to October 12, 2016.4 On
September 21, 2016, GEO withdrew its
request for a public hearing. As no other
party had requested a hearing, no public
hearing was held. The Department
conducted on-site verifications of
Kumar and Salvi Chemical Industries
Ltd., Nutracare’s affiliate and glycine
producer, from August 1, 2016, through
August 5, 2016.5 On September 2, 2016,
GEO and respondents submitted postverification comments.6 On September
7, 2016, GEO and respondents
submitted post-verification rebuttal
comments.7
4 See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, from Madeline
Heeren, International Trade Compliance Analyst,
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
Office VI, through Scot Fullerton, Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, Office VI, on the
subject of ‘‘Glycine from the People’s Republic of
China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of
Antidumping; 2014/2015,’’ dated August 10, 2016.
5 See Memorandum to The File from Marcus A.
Kraker, Import Policy Analyst, Office of Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Policy & Negotiations, and
Elisabeth Urfer, Senior International Trade
Compliance Analyst, Customs Liaison Unit, through
Brian Davis, Program Manager, Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, Office VI, on the
subject of ‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire
Responses of Kumar Industries in the Antidumping
Duty Review of Glycine from the People’s Republic
of China,’’ dated August 19, 2016, and
Memorandum to The File from Marcus A. Kraker,
Import Policy Analyst, Office of Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Policy & Negotiations, and Elisabeth
Urfer, Senior International Trade Compliance
Analyst, Customs Liaison Unit, through Brian
Davis, Program Manager, Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, Office VI, on the
subject of ‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire
Responses of Salvi Chemical Industries Ltd. in the
Antidumping Duty Review of Glycine from the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated August 19,
2016.
6 See Letter to the Department of Commerce from
GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. regarding ‘‘Glycine
from the People’s Republic of China: Comments on
Verification Reports,’’ dated September 2, 2016, and
Letter to the Department of Commerce from
Nutracare International, Ravi Industries, Kumar
Industries, and Rudraa International regarding
‘‘Glycine from the People’s Republic of China:
Comments on the Preliminary Determination,’’
dated September 2, 2016. In its September 2, 2016,
letter, Nutracare, Kumar, Ravi, and Rudraa alleged
that GEO submitted untimely, new factual
information in its post-verification comments. On
September 12, 2016, GEO, submitted a letter in
response to respondents’ new factual information
allegation. We have rejected GEO’s submission and
requested that they resubmit their comments
without the new factual information. GEO
resubmitted their comments on October 7, 2016 (see
Letter to the Department of Commerce from GEO
Specialty Chemicals, Inc. regarding, ‘‘Glycine from
the People’s Republic of China: Removal of
Information from September 2, 2016 and September
7, 2016 Submissions,’’ dated October 7, 2016).
7 See Letter to the Department of Commerce from
GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. regarding ‘‘Glycine
from the People’s Republic of China: GEO’s
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
72567
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the
antidumping duty order is glycine,
which is a free-flowing crystalline
material, like salt or sugar.8 The subject
merchandise is currently classifiable
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS)
subheading 2922.49.4020. The HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes only; the written
product description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.9
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
administrative review are addressed in
the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.10 A list of the issues that
parties raised and to which we
responded is attached to this notice as
an Appendix. The Issues and Decision
Memorandum is a public document and
is on-file electronically via 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.ita.doc.gov/frn/.
The signed Issues and Decision
Memorandum and the electronic
version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of the Review
Based on a review of the record and
comments received from interested
parties regarding our Preliminary
Results, we determine that that Baoding
Mantong, Kumar, Nutracare, Ravi, and
Rudraa did not have reviewable
transactions of subject merchandise
during the POR.
Rebuttal to the Preliminary Determination and
Verification Report Comments of Nutracare, Ravi,
Kumar and Rudraa,’’ dated September 7, 2016, and
Letter to the Department of Commerce from
Nutracare International, Ravi Industries, Kumar
Industries, and Rudraa International regarding
‘‘Glycine from the People’s Republic of China:
Rebuttal Comments to Petitioner’s Case Brief,’’
dated September 7, 2016.
8 See ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Glycine from the People’s
Republic of China; 2014–2015’’ from Christian
Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K.
Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently
with this notice (Issues and Decision
Memorandum), for a complete description of the
scope of the order.
9 See Glycine from the People’s Republic of
China: Antidumping Duty Order, 60 FR 16116
(March 29, 1995).
10 Id.
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
72568
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 203 / Thursday, October 20, 2016 / Notices
Duty Assessment
The Department shall determine and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) shall assess antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries. We intend to
issue assessment instructions directly to
CBP 15 days after publication of the
final results of this review. Given that
the Department continues to determine
that the exporters under review had no
shipments of the subject merchandise,
any suspended entries that entered
under the exporter’s case number (i.e., at
that exporter’s rate) will be liquidated at
the PRC-wide rate, in accordance with
our practice.11
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Cash Deposit Requirements
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 these final results, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the
Act: (1) For Baoding Mantong, Nutracare
International, Ravi Industries, Kumar
Industries, and Rudraa International,
which all claimed no shipments, the
cash deposit rate will remain unchanged
from rates assigned to these companies
in the most recently completed reviews
of these companies; (2) for previously
investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters who are not under review
in this segment of the proceeding but
who have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise that
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 453.79 percent;
and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporter(s) that supplied the nonPRC exporter. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers Regarding the
Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping and/or
countervailing duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during the POR. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
11 See Non-Market Economy Antidumping
Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76
FR 65694 (October 23, 2011).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Oct 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
Department’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping and/or
countervailing duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of doubled
antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment
of the proceeding. Timely written
notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials, or conversion to judicial
protective order, is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of an APO is a
sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213(h).
Dated: October 12, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Appendix
List of Topics Discussed in the Final Issues
and Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. List of Issues
III. Background
IV. Scope of the Order
V. Discussion of Interested Party Comments
A. Kumar-Specific Issue
Comment 1: Whether Kumar, Ravi, or
Rudraa Had Shipments of Subject
Merchandise During the Period of
Review
B. Salvi/Nutracare-Specific Issue
Comment 2: Whether Nutracare/Salvi Had
Shipments of Subject Merchandise
During the Period of Review
VI. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2016–25430 Filed 10–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–938]
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts
From the People’s Republic of China:
Rescission of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review; 2015
AGENCY:
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is rescinding the administrative review
of the countervailing duty order on
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
citric acid and certain citrate salts from
the People’s Republic of China (PRC) for
the period of review January 1, 2015,
through December 31, 2015, based on
the timely withdrawal of the only
request for review.
DATES: Effective October 20, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alice Maldonado, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–4682.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 2, 2016, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review’’ of the
countervailing duty order on citric acid
and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from
the PRC for the period January 1, 2015,
through December 31, 2015.1 In May
2016, the Department received a timely
request, in accordance with section
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR
351.213(b), for an administrative review
of this countervailing duty order from
the Archer Daniels Midland Company,
Cargill, Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle
Ingredients Americas LLC (collectively,
the petitioners).2 On July 7, 2016, the
Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of initiation with
respect to 18 individually-named
companies or company groups.3
On October 5, 2016, the petitioners
timely withdrew their administrative
review request.4
Rescission of Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Department will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in
part, if a party that requested a review
withdraws the request within 90 days of
the date of publication of notice of
initiation of the requested review. The
petitioners withdrew their requests for
review by the 90-day deadline. No other
parties requested an administrative
review of the order. Therefore, we are
rescinding the administrative review of
the countervailing duty order on citric
acid from the PRC covering the period
1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 81 FR 26206
(May 2, 2016).
2 See letter requesting an administrative review
from the petitioners, dated May 31, 2016.
3 See Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 44260 (July 7, 2016).
4 See the letter withdrawing request for an
administrative review from the petitioners, dated
October 5, 2016.
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72567-72568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25430]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-836]
Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 15, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China
(PRC).\1\ The review covers five companies, Baoding Mantong Fine
Chemistry Co., Ltd. (Baoding Mantong), Kumar Industries (Kumar),
Nutracare International (Nutracare), Ravi Industries (Ravi), and Rudraa
International (Rudraa). The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2014,
through February 28, 2015. As a result of our analysis of the comments
and information received, these final results do not differ from the
Preliminary Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR
22212 (April 15, 2016) (Preliminary Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective October 20, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland or Brian Davis, AD/CVD
Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3362 or (202) 482-7924,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 15, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary
Results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited
parties to comment on our Preliminary Results.\2\ On May 16, 2016, GEO
submitted a case brief and requested a hearing.\3\ On August 10, 2016,
the Department issued a memorandum extending the time period for
issuing the final results of this administrative review from August 15,
2016, to October 12, 2016.\4\ On September 21, 2016, GEO withdrew its
request for a public hearing. As no other party had requested a
hearing, no public hearing was held. The Department conducted on-site
verifications of Kumar and Salvi Chemical Industries Ltd., Nutracare's
affiliate and glycine producer, from August 1, 2016, through August 5,
2016.\5\ On September 2, 2016, GEO and respondents submitted post-
verification comments.\6\ On September 7, 2016, GEO and respondents
submitted post-verification rebuttal comments.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Preliminary Results at 22212-22213.
\3\ See Letter to the Department of Commerce from GEO Specialty
Chemicals, Inc. regarding ``Glycine from the People's Republic of
China: GEO Specialty Chemicals' Case Brief,'' dated May 16, 2016.
\4\ See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from
Madeline Heeren, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations, Office VI, through Scot
Fullerton, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Office
VI, on the subject of ``Glycine from the People's Republic of China:
Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping; 2014/2015,''
dated August 10, 2016.
\5\ See Memorandum to The File from Marcus A. Kraker, Import
Policy Analyst, Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy &
Negotiations, and Elisabeth Urfer, Senior International Trade
Compliance Analyst, Customs Liaison Unit, through Brian Davis,
Program Manager, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
Office VI, on the subject of ``Verification of the Questionnaire
Responses of Kumar Industries in the Antidumping Duty Review of
Glycine from the People's Republic of China,'' dated August 19,
2016, and Memorandum to The File from Marcus A. Kraker, Import
Policy Analyst, Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy &
Negotiations, and Elisabeth Urfer, Senior International Trade
Compliance Analyst, Customs Liaison Unit, through Brian Davis,
Program Manager, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
Office VI, on the subject of ``Verification of the Questionnaire
Responses of Salvi Chemical Industries Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty
Review of Glycine from the People's Republic of China,'' dated
August 19, 2016.
\6\ See Letter to the Department of Commerce from GEO Specialty
Chemicals, Inc. regarding ``Glycine from the People's Republic of
China: Comments on Verification Reports,'' dated September 2, 2016,
and Letter to the Department of Commerce from Nutracare
International, Ravi Industries, Kumar Industries, and Rudraa
International regarding ``Glycine from the People's Republic of
China: Comments on the Preliminary Determination,'' dated September
2, 2016. In its September 2, 2016, letter, Nutracare, Kumar, Ravi,
and Rudraa alleged that GEO submitted untimely, new factual
information in its post-verification comments. On September 12,
2016, GEO, submitted a letter in response to respondents' new
factual information allegation. We have rejected GEO's submission
and requested that they resubmit their comments without the new
factual information. GEO resubmitted their comments on October 7,
2016 (see Letter to the Department of Commerce from GEO Specialty
Chemicals, Inc. regarding, ``Glycine from the People's Republic of
China: Removal of Information from September 2, 2016 and September
7, 2016 Submissions,'' dated October 7, 2016).
\7\ See Letter to the Department of Commerce from GEO Specialty
Chemicals, Inc. regarding ``Glycine from the People's Republic of
China: GEO's Rebuttal to the Preliminary Determination and
Verification Report Comments of Nutracare, Ravi, Kumar and Rudraa,''
dated September 7, 2016, and Letter to the Department of Commerce
from Nutracare International, Ravi Industries, Kumar Industries, and
Rudraa International regarding ``Glycine from the People's Republic
of China: Rebuttal Comments to Petitioner's Case Brief,'' dated
September 7, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the antidumping duty order is glycine, which
is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar.\8\ The
subject merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2922.49.4020.
The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes
only; the written product description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Glycine from the
People's Republic of China; 2014-2015'' from Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with this notice
(Issues and Decision Memorandum), for a complete description of the
scope of the order.
\9\ See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping
Duty Order, 60 FR 16116 (March 29, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.\10\ A list of the issues that parties raised and to which
we responded is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and
Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically
via 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.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The signed
Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues
and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Results of the Review
Based on a review of the record and comments received from
interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we determine that
that Baoding Mantong, Kumar, Nutracare, Ravi, and Rudraa did not have
reviewable transactions of subject merchandise during the POR.
[[Page 72568]]
Duty Assessment
The Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15
days after publication of the final results of this review. Given that
the Department continues to determine that the exporters under review
had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that
entered under the exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's
rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate, in accordance with our
practice.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 23, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
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 these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C)
of the Act: (1) For Baoding Mantong, Nutracare International, Ravi
Industries, Kumar Industries, and Rudraa International, which all
claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from
rates assigned to these companies in the most recently completed
reviews of these companies; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed
PRC and non-PRC exporters who are not under review in this segment of
the proceeding but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not
been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate
will be the PRC-wide rate of 453.79 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporter(s) that supplied the non-PRC exporter. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and
the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of
the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction
of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Dated: October 12, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
List of Topics Discussed in the Final Issues and Decision
Memorandum
I. Summary
II. List of Issues
III. Background
IV. Scope of the Order
V. Discussion of Interested Party Comments
A. Kumar-Specific Issue
Comment 1: Whether Kumar, Ravi, or Rudraa Had Shipments of
Subject Merchandise During the Period of Review
B. Salvi/Nutracare-Specific Issue
Comment 2: Whether Nutracare/Salvi Had Shipments of Subject
Merchandise During the Period of Review
VI. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2016-25430 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P