Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 85516-85520 [2016-28502]

Download as PDF 85516 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Notices suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending a final and conclusive court decision. Amended Final Results of Review Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the Final Results by accepting Baoding Mantong’s untimely withdrawal request, and rescinding the review with respect to Baoding Mantong. In the event the Court’s ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the rescission of the review with respect to Baoding Mantong. Cash Deposit Requirements Since the Final Results, the Department established a new cash deposit rate for Baoding Mantong. Therefore, the cash deposit rate for Baoding Mantong will remain the company-specific rate established for the subsequent and most recent period for a completed administrative review during which Baoding Mantong was reviewed.6 Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 22, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2016–28504 Filed 11–25–16; 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: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014–2015 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). The period of review mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: 6 See Glycine From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013– 2014, 80 FR 62026, 62028 (Oct. 15, 2015). VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:15 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 (POR) is May 1, 2014 through April 30, 2015. These final results cover 46 companies for which an administrative review was initiated and not rescinded. 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) 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). The Department finds that Jangho, Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya, and 23 other companies subject to this review did not demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate, and, accordingly, are to be considered part of the PRC-wide entity. We also determine for these final results that two companies, Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited and Permasteelisa Hong Kong Limited, had no shipments during the POR. Finally, we find that eight companies, including JMA (HK) Company Limited (JMA), continue to be eligible for a separate rate. DATES: Effective November 28, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott or Mark Flessner, 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 or (202) 482–6312, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department initiated this review on July 1, 2015.1 On June 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review.2 At that time, we invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On July 6, 2016, JMA submitted a letter stating that it was officially withdrawing from participation in this 1 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 37588 (July 1, 2015) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Review in Part; 2014–2015, 81 FR 38664 (June 14, 2016) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying preliminary decision memorandum (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 review and requesting that the Department remove all of JMA’s submissions from the record.3 On July 14, 2016, we received a case brief from the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (Petitioner).4 On July 19, 2016, we received a rebuttal brief from Jangho.5 On October 3, 2016, the Department extended the deadline for the final results of this administrative review until November 21, 2016.6 These final results cover 46 companies for which an administrative review was initiated and not rescinded.7 Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the Order 8 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).9 Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 8481.90.9060, 8481.90.9085, 9031.90.9195, 8424.90.9080, 9405.99.4020, 9031.90.90.95, 7616.10.90.90, 7609.00.00, 7610.10.00, 7610.90.00, 7615.10.30, 7615.10.71, 7615.10.91, 7615.19.10, 7615.19.30, 3 See Letter from JMA to the Department, ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from China; Withdrawal from Participation,’’ dated July 6, 2016. 4 See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Case Brief,’’ dated July 14, 2016 (Petitioner’s Case Brief). 5 See Letter from Jangho to the Department, ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Rebuttal Brief,’’ dated July 19, 2016 (Jangho’s Rebuttal Brief). 6 See Memorandum from Chelsey Simonovich to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,’’ dated October 3, 2016. 7 This administrative review initially covered 175 companies. See Initiation Notice. However, the Department rescinded this review with respect to 129 companies for which all administrative review requests were timely withdrawn. See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 38665. 8 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011) (Order). 9 For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2014–2015 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM 28NON1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Notices 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, 8414.59.60.90, 8415.90.80.45, 8418.99.80.05, 8418.99.80.50, 8418.99.80.60, 8419.90.10.00, 8422.90.06.40, 8473.30.20.00, 8473.30.51.00, 8479.90.85.00, 8486.90.00.00, 8487.90.00.80, 8503.00.95.20, 8508.70.00.00, 8515.90.20.00, 8516.90.50.00, 8516.90.80.50, 8517.70.00.00, 8529.90.73.00, 8529.90.97.60, 8536.90.80.85, 8538.10.00.00, 8543.90.88.80, 8708.29.50.60, 8708.80.65.90, 8803.30.00.60, 9013.90.50.00, 9013.90.90.00, 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, 9403.90.80.41, 9403.90.80.51, 9403.90.80.61, 9506.11.40.80, 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:15 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 written description of the scope of this Order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is incorporated herein by reference. A list of the issues which parties raised, and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, follows in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https:// access.trade.gov and is available to all parties 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 http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results The Department reconsidered the necessity of applying adverse facts available (AFA), pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), in the Preliminary Results with respect to Jangho and Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya 10 in light of the Department’s policy concerning the conditional review of the PRC-wide entity.11 For additional explanation, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at 10 In prior segments of this proceeding, the Department found that 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); 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); and Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013– 2014, 80 FR 75060 (December 1, 2015) (2013–2014 Final Results). See also Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminium Co., Ltd. v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1298 (CIT May 27, 2015) and Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1301, 1310 (CIT 2012). 11 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) (Conditional Review of NME Entity Notice). PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 85517 ‘‘Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inference.’’ In addition, one company, JMA, withdrew from participation in this administrative review after the Preliminary Results. Companies Eligible for a Separate Rate In our Preliminary Results, we determined that nine companies were eligible for a separate rate.12 These companies are: Allied Maker Limited; Birchwoods (Lin’an) Leisure Products Co., Ltd.; Changzhou Changzheng Evaporator Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Aoda Aluminum Co., Ltd.; JMA (HK) Company Limited (JMA); Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn. Bhd.; Metaltek Group Co., Ltd.; Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd.; and Tianjin Jinmao Import & Export Corp., Ltd. We received no information since the issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides a basis for reconsideration of this determination. Therefore, the Department continues to find that these nine companies are eligible for a separate rate. For further discussion with respect to the application of a separate rate to JMA, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Rate for Non-Examined Companies Which Are Eligible for a Separate Rate The separate rate for non-selected companies is normally the amount equal to the weighted average of the calculated weighted-average dumping margins established for mandatory respondents, excluding any margins that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on adverse facts available.13 In the Preliminary Results,14 consistent with the Department’s practice when addressing such a factual scenario,15 we 12 See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 38666. the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) nor the Department’s regulations address the establishment of the rate applied to individual separate rate companies not selected for examination where the Department limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The Department’s practice in administrative reviews involving limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes of exports has been to look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for guidance, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an antidumping investigation. 14 See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 38666. 15 See Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013– 2014, 81 FR 22578 (April 18, 2016) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see also Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16. This is also 13 Neither E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM Continued 28NON1 85518 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Notices assigned the non-examined, separaterate companies a rate that was not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. Specifically, we assigned the non-examined, separate-rate companies a margin of 86.01 percent, the sole margin calculated in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the mandatory respondent and applied to the non-examined separaterate respondents in that segment of the proceeding.16 No parties commented on the methodology for calculating this separate rate.17 For the final results, we continue to apply this approach in accordance with section 735(c)(5) of the Act.18 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Determination of No Shipments In the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited and Permasteelisa Hong Kong Limited had no shipments during the POR.19 No consistent with the Department’s determination in prior segments of this proceeding. See 2010–2012 Final Results, 79 FR at 99; 2012–2013 Final Results, 79 FR at 78786; and 2013–2014 Final Results, 80 FR at 75062. See also Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co., Ltd. v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (recognizing and affirmatively discussing the Department’s normal methodology for calculating a separate rate). 16 See 2013–2014 Final Results, 80 FR at 75062– 75063. 17 We note that, while Petitioner commented on the rate to assign to one company found to be eligible for a separate rate, JMA, Petitioner’s comments were specific to circumstances involving JMA, not the Department’s overall methodology for determining the rate to assign to non-examined separate-rate companies. For further discussion with respect to the application of a separate rate to JMA, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 18 As explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum in the section ‘‘Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inference,’’ the Department finds for these final results that the application of AFA to the two mandatory respondents in this review, Jangho and Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya, is not necessary in light of the Department’s recent change in practice concerning the conditional review of the PRC-wide entity. 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. See Conditional Review of NME Entity Notice, 78 FR at 65970. 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 most-recently completed administrative review (i.e., 33.28 percent) is not subject to change. See 2013–2014 Final Results, 80 FR at 75063. While we no longer find it necessary to apply AFA to Jangho and Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya, we note that the 33.28 percent rate applicable to the PRC-wide entity (which includes to Jangho, Guang Ya Group/ Zhongya/Xinya, and 23 other companies subject to this review) was determined on the basis of AFA. See Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 18524, 18529 (April 4, 2011). 19 See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 38666. We note that we did not make a preliminary determination of no shipments with regard to Permasteelisa South China Factory because VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:15 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 party commented on that determination and we have received no information to contradict this determination. Therefore, the Department continues to determine that Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited and Permasteelisa Hong Kong Limited had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, and will issue appropriate liquidation instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that are consistent with our ‘‘automatic assessment’’ clarification, for these final results.20 PRC-Wide Entity For purposes of these final results, the Department finds that Jangho and Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya are not eligible for a separate rate and are part of the PRC-wide entity. For a full explanation, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at 5–6. In addition, the Department found in the Preliminary Results that 21 companies subject to this review were not eligible for separate-rate status because they did not submit separaterate applications or certifications; those companies are: Belton (Asia) Development Ltd.; Classic & Contemporary Inc.; Danfoss Micro Channel Heat Exchanger (Jia Xing) Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Golden Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.; Ever Extend Ent. Ltd.; Fenghua Metal Product Factory; FookShing Metal & Plastic Co. Ltd.; Foshan Golden Source Aluminum Products Co., Ltd.; Global Point Technology (Far East) Limited; Gold Mountain International Development Limited; Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc.; Hebei Xusen Wire Mesh Products Co., Ltd.; Jackson Travel Products Co., Ltd.; New Zhongya Aluminum Factory; Shanghai Automobile Air-Conditioner Accessories Co., Ltd.; Southwest Aluminum (Group) Co., Ltd.; Suzhou NewHongJi Precision Part Co., Ltd.; Union Aluminum (SIP) Co.; Whirlpool Canada L.P.; Whirlpool Microwave Products Development Ltd.; and Xin Wei Aluminum Co.21 The Department Permasteelisa South China Factory was not granted separate rate status in a prior segment of this proceeding. See, e.g., 2013–2014 Final Results, 80 FR at 75063, footnote 30. Our determination concerning Permasteelisa South China Factory remains unchanged for these final results. 20 See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694, 65695 (October 24, 2011) (Assessment Practice Refinement). 21 Id., 81 FR at 38665. We note that 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 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 also found in the Preliminary Results that two companies subject to this review, Atlas Integrated Manufacturing Ltd. and Genimex Shanghai, Ltd., submitted separate-rate applications that did not demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate.22 As a result, the Department found in the Preliminary Results that these 23 companies are also part of the PRC-wide entity.23 For purposes of these final results, the Department continues to find that these 23 companies are not eligible for a separate rate and are part of the PRCwide entity. Under the Department’s policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity, the PRC-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review of the entity.24 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.25 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 final results, did not make an adjustment pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act for countervailable domestic subsidies for the separate-rate recipients.26 Pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, the Department made an adjustment for countervailable export subsidies for the separate-rate recipients. Specifically, we adjusted the assigned separate rate by deducting the simple average of the countervailable export subsidies determined for the individually examined respondents in the 2013 countervailing duty administrative review.27 (September 6, 2012). Thus, despite the fact that a review was initiated of New Zhongya, it is not being included among these 21 companies because its successor in interest, Guangdong Zhongya, is part of the Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya single entity. 22 See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 38665. 23 Id., 81 FR at 38667. 24 See Conditional Review of NME Entity Notice, 78 FR at 65970. 25 See 2013–2014 Final Results, 80 FR at 75063. 26 See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 20. 27 See Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results, and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013, 80 FR 77325 (December 14, 2015) and Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013, 81 FR 15238 (March 22, 2016), as corrected in Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM 28NON1 85519 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Notices For the PRC-wide entity, since the entity is not currently under review, no adjustments were warranted to its rate, as it is not subject to change.28 Final Results of Review The Department determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the 2014–2015 POR: WeightedAverage dumping margin (percent) Exporter Allied Maker Limited ................................................................................................................................................ Birchwoods (Lin’an) Leisure Products Co., Ltd ....................................................................................................... Changzhou Changzheng Evaporator Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................ Dongguan Aoda Aluminum Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................ JMA (HK) Company Limited .................................................................................................................................... Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd 29 ............................................................................................................... Metaltek Group Co., Ltd .......................................................................................................................................... Tianjin Jinmao Import & Export Corp., Ltd .............................................................................................................. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Additionally,29 the Department determines for these final results 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.); Atlas Integrated Manufacturing Ltd.; Belton (Asia) Development Ltd.; Classic & Contemporary Inc.; Danfoss Micro Channel Heat Exchanger (Jia Xing) Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Golden Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.; Ever Extend Ent. Ltd.; Fenghua Metal Product Factory; FookShing Metal & Plastic Co. Ltd.; Foshan Golden Source Aluminum Products Co., Ltd.; Genimex Shanghai, Ltd.; Global Point Technology (Far East) Limited; Gold Mountain International Development Limited; Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc.; Hebei Xusen Wire Mesh Products Co., Ltd.; Jackson Travel Products Co., Ltd.; New Zhongya Aluminum Factory; Shanghai Automobile Air-Conditioner Notice of Correction to Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013, 81 FR 31227 (May 18, 2016). See also Preliminary Decision Memorandum at Attachment 1 for the calculation of the countervailable export subsidies deducted from the assigned separate rate. 28 See Conditional Review of NME Entity Notice, 78 FR at 65970. As the rate for the PRC-wide entity is not subject to change in the instant review, the adjusted margin we are applying to the PRC-wide VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:15 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 Accessories Co., Ltd.; Southwest Aluminum (Group) Co., Ltd.; Suzhou NewHongJi Precision Part Co., Ltd.; Union Aluminum (SIP) Co.; Whirlpool Canada L.P.; Whirlpool Microwave Products Development Ltd.; and Xin Wei Aluminum Co. The rate established for the PRC-wide entity in the previous administrative review is 33.28 percent.30 86.01 86.01 86.01 86.01 86.01 86.01 86.01 86.01 Margin adjusted for liquidation and cash deposit purposes (percent) 85.94 85.94 85.94 85.94 85.94 85.94 85.94 85.94 above in the section ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ Cash Deposit Requirements Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review in the Federal Register. Consistent with the Department’s assessment practice in NME cases, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of 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.31 For the companies eligible for a separate rate, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on the company’s entries of subject merchandise at the rates listed The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies eligible for a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will that listed above in the section ‘‘Final Results of Review;’’ (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior 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 in which the exporter was reviewed; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the PRC-wide entity, which is 33.28 percent; 32 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 with the subject merchandise. entity in the instant review, 33.18 percent, is net of the countervailable domestic and export subsidies determined in the 2012–2013 Final Results. See 2012–2013 Final Results, 79 FR at 78787; see also 2013–2014 Final Results, 80 FR at 75063, footnote 27. 29 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 certification 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 which to grant the separate rate status. 30 See 2013–2014 Final Results, 80 FR at 75063– 75064. 31 See Assessment Practice Refinement, 76 FR at 65694. 32 See 2013–2014 Final Results, 80 FR at 75063. Assessment PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM 28NON1 85520 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Notices These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Notification to Importers [C–122–854] This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Supercalendered Paper From Canada: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Expedited Review International Trade Administration Notification to Interested Parties Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition 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 or 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: November 21, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inference Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Rate to Assign to Jangho Comment 2: Rate to Assign to JMA Conclusion [FR Doc. 2016–28502 Filed 11–25–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:15 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an expedited review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on supercalendered paper (SC paper) from Canada. The period of expedited review (POR) is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. We preliminarily determine that Irving Paper Limited received countervailable subsidies during the POR. We also preliminarily determine that Catalyst Paper received de minimis countervailable subsidies. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. DATES: Effective November 28, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Czajkowski or Toby Vandall, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1395 and (202) 482–1664, respectively. AGENCY: Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is SC paper. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.1 Methodology On December 10, 2015, the Department issued a countervailing duty order on SC paper from Canada.2 The Department is conducting this CVD expedited review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(k). For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an Appendix to this notice. 1 See Memorandum from James Maeder, Senior Director, Office I, for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Preliminary Results of Expedited Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Supercalendered Paper from Canada,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 2 See Supercalendered Paper From Canada: Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 76668 (December 10, 2015). PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/ index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. We calculated a CVD rate for each producer/exporter of the subject merchandise that requested an expedited review. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate Catalyst Paper Corporation (Catalyst). Irving Paper Limited (Irving). 0.79 percent (de minimis) 7.99 percent Disclosure and Public Comment The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days publication of this notice.3 Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results and rebuttal briefs no later than five days after the deadline for filing case briefs.4 Rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs.5 Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and, (3) a table of authorities.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. Requests should contain the 3 See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and (d)(1). 5 See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). 6 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 4 See E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM 28NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85516-85520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28502]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-967]


Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015

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). The period of 
review (POR) is May 1, 2014 through April 30, 2015. These final results 
cover 46 companies for which an administrative review was initiated and 
not rescinded. 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) 
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). The 
Department finds that Jangho, Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya, and 23 
other companies subject to this review did not demonstrate eligibility 
for a separate rate, and, accordingly, are to be considered part of the 
PRC-wide entity. We also determine for these final results that two 
companies, Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited and Permasteelisa Hong Kong 
Limited, had no shipments during the POR. Finally, we find that eight 
companies, including JMA (HK) Company Limited (JMA), continue to be 
eligible for a separate rate.

DATES: Effective November 28, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott or Mark Flessner, 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 or (202) 482-6312, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Department initiated this review on July 1, 2015.\1\ On June 
14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results of this 
administrative review.\2\ At that time, we invited interested parties 
to comment on the Preliminary Results. On July 6, 2016, JMA submitted a 
letter stating that it was officially withdrawing from participation in 
this review and requesting that the Department remove all of JMA's 
submissions from the record.\3\ On July 14, 2016, we received a case 
brief from the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee 
(Petitioner).\4\ On July 19, 2016, we received a rebuttal brief from 
Jangho.\5\ On October 3, 2016, the Department extended the deadline for 
the final results of this administrative review until November 21, 
2016.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 37588 (July 1, 2015) (Initiation 
Notice).
    \2\ See Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Rescission of Review in Part; 2014-2015, 81 FR 38664 (June 14, 2016) 
(Preliminary Results), and accompanying preliminary decision 
memorandum (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).
    \3\ See Letter from JMA to the Department, ``Aluminum Extrusions 
from China; Withdrawal from Participation,'' dated July 6, 2016.
    \4\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, ``Aluminum 
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Case Brief,'' dated 
July 14, 2016 (Petitioner's Case Brief).
    \5\ See Letter from Jangho to the Department, ``Aluminum 
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Rebuttal Brief,'' 
dated July 19, 2016 (Jangho's Rebuttal Brief).
    \6\ See Memorandum from Chelsey Simonovich to Christian Marsh, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, ``Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of 
China: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review,'' dated October 3, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These final results cover 46 companies for which an administrative 
review was initiated and not rescinded.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This administrative review initially covered 175 companies. 
See Initiation Notice. However, the Department rescinded this review 
with respect to 129 companies for which all administrative review 
requests were timely withdrawn. See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 
38665.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the Order \8\ 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).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: 
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011) (Order).
    \9\ For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see 
Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2014-2015 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum 
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China,'' dated concurrently 
with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the 
following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS): 8481.90.9060, 8481.90.9085, 9031.90.9195, 8424.90.9080, 
9405.99.4020, 9031.90.90.95, 7616.10.90.90, 7609.00.00, 7610.10.00, 
7610.90.00, 7615.10.30, 7615.10.71, 7615.10.91, 7615.19.10, 7615.19.30,

[[Page 85517]]

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, 8414.59.60.90, 
8415.90.80.45, 8418.99.80.05, 8418.99.80.50, 8418.99.80.60, 
8419.90.10.00, 8422.90.06.40, 8473.30.20.00, 8473.30.51.00, 
8479.90.85.00, 8486.90.00.00, 8487.90.00.80, 8503.00.95.20, 
8508.70.00.00, 8515.90.20.00, 8516.90.50.00, 8516.90.80.50, 
8517.70.00.00, 8529.90.73.00, 8529.90.97.60, 8536.90.80.85, 
8538.10.00.00, 8543.90.88.80, 8708.29.50.60, 8708.80.65.90, 
8803.30.00.60, 9013.90.50.00, 9013.90.90.00, 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, 
9403.90.80.41, 9403.90.80.51, 9403.90.80.61, 9506.11.40.80, 
9506.51.40.00, 9506.51.60.00, 9506.59.40.40, 9506.70.20.90, 
9506.91.00.10, 9506.91.00.20, 9506.91.00.30, 9506.99.05.10, 
9506.99.05.20, 9506.99.05.30, 9506.99.15.00, 9506.99.20.00, 
9506.99.25.80, 9506.99.28.00, 9506.99.55.00, 9506.99.60.80, 
9507.30.20.00, 9507.30.40.00, 9507.30.60.00, 9507.90.60.00, and 
9603.90.80.50.
    The subject merchandise entered as parts of other aluminum products 
may be classifiable under the following additional Chapter 76 
subheadings: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99, as well 
as under other HTSUS chapters. In addition, fin evaporator coils may be 
classifiable under HTSUS numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and 8418.99.80.60. 
While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope of this Order is 
dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties 
in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, 
which is incorporated herein by reference. A list of the issues which 
parties raised, and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, follows in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and 
Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically 
via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to 
registered users at https://access.trade.gov and is available to all 
parties 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 http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision 
Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    The Department reconsidered the necessity of applying adverse facts 
available (AFA), pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 (the Act), in the Preliminary Results with respect to Jangho 
and Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya \10\ in light of the Department's 
policy concerning the conditional review of the PRC-wide entity.\11\ 
For additional explanation, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
``Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inference.'' In 
addition, one company, JMA, withdrew from participation in this 
administrative review after the Preliminary Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In prior segments of this proceeding, the Department found 
that 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); 
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); and Aluminum 
Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 75060 
(December 1, 2015) (2013-2014 Final Results). See also Zhaoqing New 
Zhongya Aluminium Co., Ltd. v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1298 
(CIT May 27, 2015) and Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. et 
al. v. United States, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1301, 1310 (CIT 2012).
    \11\ 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) (Conditional Review of NME Entity Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Companies Eligible for a Separate Rate

    In our Preliminary Results, we determined that nine companies were 
eligible for a separate rate.\12\ These companies are: Allied Maker 
Limited; Birchwoods (Lin'an) Leisure Products Co., Ltd.; Changzhou 
Changzheng Evaporator Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Aoda Aluminum Co., Ltd.; JMA 
(HK) Company Limited (JMA); Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn. Bhd.; 
Metaltek Group Co., Ltd.; Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., 
Ltd.; and Tianjin Jinmao Import & Export Corp., Ltd. We received no 
information since the issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides 
a basis for reconsideration of this determination. Therefore, the 
Department continues to find that these nine companies are eligible for 
a separate rate. For further discussion with respect to the application 
of a separate rate to JMA, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 38666.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The separate rate for non-selected companies is normally the amount 
equal to the weighted average of the calculated weighted-average 
dumping margins established for mandatory respondents, excluding any 
margins that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on adverse facts 
available.\13\ In the Preliminary Results,\14\ consistent with the 
Department's practice when addressing such a factual scenario,\15\ we

[[Page 85518]]

assigned the non-examined, separate-rate companies a rate that was not 
zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. Specifically, 
we assigned the non-examined, separate-rate companies a margin of 86.01 
percent, the sole margin calculated in the most recently completed 
segment of this proceeding for the mandatory respondent and applied to 
the non-examined separate-rate respondents in that segment of the 
proceeding.\16\ No parties commented on the methodology for calculating 
this separate rate.\17\ For the final results, we continue to apply 
this approach in accordance with section 735(c)(5) of the Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Neither the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) nor 
the Department's regulations address the establishment of the rate 
applied to individual separate rate companies not selected for 
examination where the Department limited its examination in an 
administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The 
Department's practice in administrative reviews involving limited 
selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes of 
exports has been to look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for 
guidance, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others 
rate in an antidumping investigation.
    \14\ See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 38666.
    \15\ See Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 
81 FR 22578 (April 18, 2016) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1; see also Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 
From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of 
Reviews in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16. This is 
also consistent with the Department's determination in prior 
segments of this proceeding. See 2010-2012 Final Results, 79 FR at 
99; 2012-2013 Final Results, 79 FR at 78786; and 2013-2014 Final 
Results, 80 FR at 75062. See also Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts 
Co., Ltd. v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2013) 
(recognizing and affirmatively discussing the Department's normal 
methodology for calculating a separate rate).
    \16\ See 2013-2014 Final Results, 80 FR at 75062-75063.
    \17\ We note that, while Petitioner commented on the rate to 
assign to one company found to be eligible for a separate rate, JMA, 
Petitioner's comments were specific to circumstances involving JMA, 
not the Department's overall methodology for determining the rate to 
assign to non-examined separate-rate companies. For further 
discussion with respect to the application of a separate rate to 
JMA, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    \18\ As explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum in the 
section ``Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse 
Inference,'' the Department finds for these final results that the 
application of AFA to the two mandatory respondents in this review, 
Jangho and Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya, is not necessary in light 
of the Department's recent change in practice concerning the 
conditional review of the PRC-wide entity. 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. 
See Conditional Review of NME Entity Notice, 78 FR at 65970. 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 most-
recently completed administrative review (i.e., 33.28 percent) is 
not subject to change. See 2013-2014 Final Results, 80 FR at 75063. 
While we no longer find it necessary to apply AFA to Jangho and 
Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya, we note that the 33.28 percent rate 
applicable to the PRC-wide entity (which includes to Jangho, Guang 
Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya, and 23 other companies subject to this 
review) was determined on the basis of AFA. See Aluminum Extrusions 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 18524, 18529 (April 4, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of No Shipments

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that Xin Wei 
Aluminum Company Limited and Permasteelisa Hong Kong Limited had no 
shipments during the POR.\19\ No party commented on that determination 
and we have received no information to contradict this determination. 
Therefore, the Department continues to determine that Xin Wei Aluminum 
Company Limited and Permasteelisa Hong Kong Limited had no shipments of 
subject merchandise during the POR, and will issue appropriate 
liquidation instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
that are consistent with our ``automatic assessment'' clarification, 
for these final results.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 38666. We note that we 
did not make a preliminary determination of no shipments with regard 
to Permasteelisa South China Factory because Permasteelisa South 
China Factory was not granted separate rate status in a prior 
segment of this proceeding. See, e.g., 2013-2014 Final Results, 80 
FR at 75063, footnote 30. Our determination concerning Permasteelisa 
South China Factory remains unchanged for these final results.
    \20\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694, 65695 (October 24, 2011) 
(Assessment Practice Refinement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRC-Wide Entity

    For purposes of these final results, the Department finds that 
Jangho and Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya are not eligible for a separate 
rate and are part of the PRC-wide entity. For a full explanation, see 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum at 5-6.
    In addition, the Department found in the Preliminary Results that 
21 companies subject to this review were not eligible for separate-rate 
status because they did not submit separate-rate applications or 
certifications; those companies are: Belton (Asia) Development Ltd.; 
Classic & Contemporary Inc.; Danfoss Micro Channel Heat Exchanger (Jia 
Xing) Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Golden Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.; 
Ever Extend Ent. Ltd.; Fenghua Metal Product Factory; FookShing Metal & 
Plastic Co. Ltd.; Foshan Golden Source Aluminum Products Co., Ltd.; 
Global Point Technology (Far East) Limited; Gold Mountain International 
Development Limited; Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc.; 
Hebei Xusen Wire Mesh Products Co., Ltd.; Jackson Travel Products Co., 
Ltd.; New Zhongya Aluminum Factory; Shanghai Automobile Air-Conditioner 
Accessories Co., Ltd.; Southwest Aluminum (Group) Co., Ltd.; Suzhou 
NewHongJi Precision Part Co., Ltd.; Union Aluminum (SIP) Co.; Whirlpool 
Canada L.P.; Whirlpool Microwave Products Development Ltd.; and Xin Wei 
Aluminum Co.\21\ The Department also found in the Preliminary Results 
that two companies subject to this review, Atlas Integrated 
Manufacturing Ltd. and Genimex Shanghai, Ltd., submitted separate-rate 
applications that did not demonstrate eligibility for a separate 
rate.\22\ As a result, the Department found in the Preliminary Results 
that these 23 companies are also part of the PRC-wide entity.\23\ For 
purposes of these final results, the Department continues to find that 
these 23 companies are not eligible for a separate rate and are part of 
the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id., 81 FR at 38665. We note that 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 21 companies because its successor in 
interest, Guangdong Zhongya, is part of the Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/
Xinya single entity.
    \22\ See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 38665.
    \23\ Id., 81 FR at 38667.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Department's policy regarding conditional review of the 
PRC-wide entity, the PRC-wide entity will not be under review unless a 
party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review 
of the entity.\24\ 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.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Conditional Review of NME Entity Notice, 78 FR at 
65970.
    \25\ See 2013-2014 Final Results, 80 FR at 75063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 final results, did not 
make an adjustment pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act for 
countervailable domestic subsidies for the separate-rate 
recipients.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, the Department made an 
adjustment for countervailable export subsidies for the separate-rate 
recipients. Specifically, we adjusted the assigned separate rate by 
deducting the simple average of the countervailable export subsidies 
determined for the individually examined respondents in the 2013 
countervailing duty administrative review.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results, and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review; 2013, 80 FR 77325 (December 14, 2015) and 
Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Amended 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013, 81 
FR 15238 (March 22, 2016), as corrected in Aluminum Extrusions from 
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Correction to Amended 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013, 81 
FR 31227 (May 18, 2016). See also Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 
Attachment 1 for the calculation of the countervailable export 
subsidies deducted from the assigned separate rate.

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

[[Page 85519]]

    For the PRC-wide entity, since the entity is not currently under 
review, no adjustments were warranted to its rate, as it is not subject 
to change.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Conditional Review of NME Entity Notice, 78 FR at 
65970. As the rate for the PRC-wide entity is not subject to change 
in the instant review, the adjusted margin we are applying to the 
PRC-wide entity in the instant review, 33.18 percent, is net of the 
countervailable domestic and export subsidies determined in the 
2012-2013 Final Results. See 2012-2013 Final Results, 79 FR at 
78787; see also 2013-2014 Final Results, 80 FR at 75063, footnote 
27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of Review

    The Department determines that the following weighted-average 
dumping margins exist for the 2014-2015 POR:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                                             Weighted-     adjusted for
                                              Average       liquidation
                Exporter                      dumping        and cash
                                              margin          deposit
                                             (percent)       purposes
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Maker Limited....................           86.01           85.94
Birchwoods (Lin'an) Leisure Products               86.01           85.94
 Co., Ltd...............................
Changzhou Changzheng Evaporator Co., Ltd           86.01           85.94
Dongguan Aoda Aluminum Co., Ltd.........           86.01           85.94
JMA (HK) Company Limited................           86.01           85.94
Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd \29\.           86.01           85.94
Metaltek Group Co., Ltd.................           86.01           85.94
Tianjin Jinmao Import & Export Corp.,              86.01           85.94
 Ltd....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally,\29\ the Department determines for these final results 
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.); Atlas Integrated Manufacturing Ltd.; Belton 
(Asia) Development Ltd.; Classic & Contemporary Inc.; Danfoss Micro 
Channel Heat Exchanger (Jia Xing) Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Golden Tiger 
Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.; Ever Extend Ent. Ltd.; Fenghua Metal 
Product Factory; FookShing Metal & Plastic Co. Ltd.; Foshan Golden 
Source Aluminum Products Co., Ltd.; Genimex Shanghai, Ltd.; Global 
Point Technology (Far East) Limited; Gold Mountain International 
Development Limited; Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc.; 
Hebei Xusen Wire Mesh Products Co., Ltd.; Jackson Travel Products Co., 
Ltd.; New Zhongya Aluminum Factory; Shanghai Automobile Air-Conditioner 
Accessories Co., Ltd.; Southwest Aluminum (Group) Co., Ltd.; Suzhou 
NewHongJi Precision Part Co., Ltd.; Union Aluminum (SIP) Co.; Whirlpool 
Canada L.P.; Whirlpool Microwave Products Development Ltd.; and Xin Wei 
Aluminum Co. The rate established for the PRC-wide entity in the 
previous administrative review is 33.28 percent.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 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 
certification 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 which to grant the separate rate status.
    \30\ See 2013-2014 Final Results, 80 FR at 75063-75064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), 
the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties 
on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with 
the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of review in the Federal Register. Consistent with 
the Department's assessment practice in NME cases, if the Department 
determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of 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.\31\ For the companies eligible for a separate rate, the 
Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on the 
company's entries of subject merchandise at the rates listed above in 
the section ``Final Results of Review.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Assessment Practice Refinement, 76 FR at 65694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies 
eligible for a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will that listed 
above in the section ``Final Results of Review;'' (2) for previously 
investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above 
that received a separate rate in a prior 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 in 
which the exporter was reviewed; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the PRC-wide 
entity, which is 33.28 percent; \32\ 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 with the subject merchandise.

[[Page 85520]]

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

    \32\ See 2013-2014 Final Results, 80 FR at 75063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Importers

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

Notification to Interested Parties Regarding Administrative Protective 
Order

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition 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 or 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: November 21, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

Summary
Background
Scope of the Order
Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inference
Discussion of the Issues
    Comment 1: Rate to Assign to Jangho
    Comment 2: Rate to Assign to JMA
Conclusion

[FR Doc. 2016-28502 Filed 11-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P