Certain Aluminum Foil From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 15691-15697 [2017-06389]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 60 / Thursday, March 30, 2017 / Notices
information to value factors under 19
CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR
351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on
the record by the Department; and (v)
evidence other than factual information
described in (i)–(iv). The regulation
requires any party, when submitting
factual information, to specify under
which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being
submitted and, if the information is
submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information already on the
record, to provide an explanation
identifying the information already on
the record that the factual information
seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time
limits for the submission of factual
information are addressed in 19 CFR
351.301, which provides specific time
limits based on the type of factual
information being submitted. Parties
should review the regulations prior to
submitting factual information in this
investigation.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Extension of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of
time limits before the expiration of a
time limit established under 19 CFR
351.301, or as otherwise specified by the
Secretary. In general, an extension
request will be considered untimely if it
is filed after the expiration of the time
limit established under 19 CFR 351.301
expires. For submissions that are due
from multiple parties simultaneously,
an extension request will be considered
untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET
on the due date. Under certain
circumstances, we may elect to specify
a different time limit by which
extension requests will be considered
untimely for submissions which are due
from multiple parties simultaneously. In
such a case, we will inform parties in
the letter or memorandum setting forth
the deadline (including a specified time)
by which extension requests must be
filed to be considered timely. An
extension request must be made in a
separate, stand-alone submission; under
limited circumstances we will grant
untimely-filed requests for the extension
of time limits. Review Extension of
Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790
(September 20, 2013), available at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201309-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to
submitting factual information in this
investigation.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:09 Mar 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
and completeness of that information.30
Parties are hereby reminded that revised
certification requirements are in effect
for company/government officials, as
well as their representatives.
Investigations initiated on the basis of
petitions filed on or after August 16,
2013, and other segments of any AD or
CVD proceedings initiated on or after
August 16, 2013, should use the formats
for the revised certifications provided at
the end of the Final Rule.31 The
Department intends to reject factual
submissions if the submitting party does
not comply with the applicable revised
certification requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, the Department
published Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures;
APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate
in this investigation should ensure that
they meet the requirements of these
procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of
appearance as discussed at 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: March 28, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation is aluminum foil having a
thickness of 0.2 mm or less, in reels
exceeding 25 pounds, regardless of width.
Aluminum foil is made from an aluminum
alloy that contains more than 92 percent
aluminum. Aluminum foil may be made to
ASTM specification ASTM B479, but can
also be made to other specifications.
Regardless of specification, however, all
aluminum foil meeting the scope description
is included in the scope.
Excluded from the scope of this
investigation is aluminum foil that is backed
with paper, paperboard, plastics, or similar
backing materials on only one side of the
aluminum foil, as well as etched capacitor
foil and aluminum foil that is cut to shape.
Where the nominal and actual
measurements vary, a product is within the
scope if application of either the nominal or
30 See
section 782(b) of the Act.
Certification of Factual Information to
Import Administration During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked
questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
31 See
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15691
actual measurement would place it within
the scope based on the definitions set forth
above. The products under investigation are
currently classifiable under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings 7607.11.3000, 7607.11.6000,
7607.11.9030, 7607.11.9060, 7607.11.9090,
and 7607.19.6000. Further, merchandise that
falls within the scope of this proceeding may
also be entered into the United States under
HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3060,
7606.11.6000, 7606.12.3045, 7606.12.3055,
7606.12.3090, 7606.12.6000, 7606.91.3090,
7606.91.6080, 7606.92.3090, and
7606.92.6080. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of this proceeding is
dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017–06390 Filed 3–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–053]
Certain Aluminum Foil From the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation
of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
DATES:
Effective March 28, 2017.
Tom
Bellhouse at (202) 482–2057 or Steve
Bezirganian at (202) 482–1131, AD/CVD
Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Petition
On March 9, 2017, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) received an
antidumping duty (AD) petition
concerning imports of certain aluminum
foil (aluminum foil) from the People’s
Republic of China (PRC), filed in proper
form on behalf of The Aluminum
Association Trade Enforcement Working
Group (the petitioner).1 The AD petition
was accompanied by a countervailing
duty (CVD) petition for aluminum foil
from the PRC.2 The petitioner is a
producer of aluminum foil.3
On March 14, 2017, the Department
requested additional information and
clarification of certain areas of the
1 See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duties, dated March 9, 2017
(the Petition), at Volumes I and II.
2 Id., at Volume III.
3 Id., at Volume I.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
15692
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 60 / Thursday, March 30, 2017 / Notices
Petition.4 The petitioner filed responses
to these requests on March 16, 2017,
March 17, 2017, and March 22, 2017.5
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), the petitioner alleges that imports
of aluminum foil from the PRC are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value
within the meaning of section 731 of the
Act, and that imports of aluminum foil
from the PRC are materially injuring, or
threaten material injury to, the domestic
industry producing aluminum foil in
the United States. Also, consistent with
section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition
is accompanied by information
reasonably available to the petitioner
supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that the
petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of
the domestic industry because the
petitioner is an interested party as
defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act.
The Department also finds that the
petitioner demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
initiation of the AD investigation that
the petitioner is requesting.6
Period of Investigation
Because the Petition was filed on
March 9, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.204(b)(1), the period of
investigation (POI) is July 1, 2016,
through December 31, 2016.
Scope of the Investigation
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The product covered by this
investigation is aluminum foil from the
PRC. For a full description of the scope
of this investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of
the Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this
notice.
4 See Letters from the Department to the
petitioner entitled, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports
of Certain Aluminum Foil from the People’s
Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated
March 14, 2017 (General Issues Supplemental
Questionnaire); see also ‘‘Petition for the Imposition
of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain
Aluminum Foil from the People’s Republic of
China: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated March 14,
2017 (AD Supplemental Questionnaire), and Letter
from the petitioner, ‘‘Re: Certain Aluminum Foil
from the People’s Republic of China—Petitioners’
Second Amendment to Petition to Modify Scope
Definition,’’ dated March 22, 2017 (Scope Revision).
5 See Letter from the petitioner to the Department
entitled, ‘‘Petitioners’ Responses to Department’s
Questions on General and Injury Volume of Petition
and Amendment to Petition to Modify Scope
Language,’’ dated March 16, 2017 (General Issues
Supplement); see also Letter from the petitioner to
the Department entitled, ‘‘Petitioners’ Response to
the Department’s Supplemental Questionnaire
Relating to Antidumping Duty Petition,’’ dated
March 17, 2017 (AD Supplemental Response).
6 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition’’ section below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:09 Mar 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
Comments on Scope of the Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we
issued questions to, and received
responses from, the petitioner
pertaining to the proposed scope to
ensure that the scope language in the
Petition would be an accurate reflection
of the products for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief.7 As a result of
the responses submitted by the
petitioner, we have revised the original
scope.8
As discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations,9 we are
setting aside a period for interested
parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage (scope). The Department will
consider all comments received from
parties and, if necessary, will consult
with parties prior to the issuance of the
preliminary determination. If scope
comments include factual information
(see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such
factual information should be limited to
public information. In order to facilitate
preparation of its questionnaires, the
Department requests all interested
parties to submit such comments by
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on
Tuesday, April 18, 2017. Any rebuttal
comments, which may include factual
information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m.
ET on Tuesday, April 28, 2017.
The Department requests that any
factual information the parties consider
relevant to the scope of the investigation
be submitted during this time period.
However, if a party subsequently finds
that additional factual information
pertaining to the scope of the
investigation may be relevant, the party
may contact the Department and request
permission to submit the additional
information. All such comments must
also be filed on the record of the
concurrent CVD investigation.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department
must be filed electronically using
Enforcement & Compliance’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System
(ACCESS).10 An electronically filed
7 See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire;
see also General Issues Supplement at 3–6 and
Exhibit GEN-Supp. 1, and Scope Revision.
8 See Appendix I.
9 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
10 See 19 CFR 351.303 (describing general filing
requirements); see also Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing
Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) and
Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic
Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20,
2014) for details of the Department’s electronic
filing requirements, which went into effect on
August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the time and date when
it is due. Documents excepted from the
electronic submission requirements
must be filed manually (i.e., in paper
form) with Enforcement & Compliance’s
APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230, and stamped with the date
and time of receipt by the applicable
deadlines.
Comments on Product Characteristics
for AD Questionnaires
The Department requests comments
from interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of
aluminum foil to be reported in
response to the Department’s AD
questionnaires. This information will be
used to identify the key physical
characteristics of the subject
merchandise in order to report the
relevant factors and costs of production
accurately as well as to develop
appropriate product-comparison
criteria.
Interested parties may provide any
information or comments that they feel
are relevant to the development of an
accurate list of physical characteristics.
Specifically, they may provide
comments as to which characteristics
are appropriate to use as: (1) General
product characteristics and (2) productcomparison criteria. We note that it is
not always appropriate to use all
product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. We base productcomparison criteria on meaningful
commercial differences among products.
In other words, although there may be
some physical product characteristics
utilized by manufacturers to describe
aluminum foil, it may be that only a
select few product characteristics take
into account commercially meaningful
physical characteristics. In addition,
interested parties may comment on the
order in which the physical
characteristics should be used in
matching products. Generally, the
Department attempts to list the most
important physical characteristics first
and the least important characteristics
last.
In order to consider the suggestions of
interested parties in developing and
issuing the AD questionnaire, all
comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET
on Wednesday, April 12, 2017. Any
rebuttal comments, which may include
factual information, must be filed by
can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx
and a handbook can be found at https://
access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20
Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 60 / Thursday, March 30, 2017 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
5:00 p.m. ET on Wednesday, April 19,
2017. All comments and submissions to
the Department must be filed
electronically using ACCESS, as
explained above, on the record of this
less-than-fair-value investigation.
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
petition account for: (i) At least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product; and (ii) more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
the Department shall: (i) Poll the
industry or rely on other information in
order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically
valid sampling method to poll the
‘‘industry.’’
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a
whole of a domestic like product. Thus,
to determine whether a petition has the
requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to
producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International
Trade Commission (ITC), which is
responsible for determining whether
‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been
injured, must also determine what
constitutes a domestic like product in
order to define the industry. While both
the Department and the ITC must apply
the same statutory definition regarding
the domestic like product,11 they do so
for different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department’s
determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this
may result in different definitions of the
like product, such differences do not
render the decision of either agency
contrary to law.12
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the
domestic like product as ‘‘a product
11 See
section 771(10) of the Act.
USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd.
v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988),
aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
12 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:09 Mar 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
which is like, or in the absence of like,
most similar in characteristics and uses
with, the article subject to an
investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the
reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is
‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’
(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to
be investigated, which normally will be
the scope as defined in the Petition).
With regard to the domestic like
product, the petitioner does not offer a
definition of the domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigation. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that
aluminum foil, as defined in the scope,
constitutes a single domestic like
product and we have analyzed industry
support in terms of that domestic like
product.13
In determining whether the petitioner
has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A)
of the Act, we considered the industry
support data contained in the Petition
with reference to the domestic like
product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this
notice. The petitioner provided 2016
domestic like product production data
for U.S. producers that are known to
support the Petition. The petitioner also
estimated total 2016 production of the
domestic like product for the remaining
producers in the U.S. industry. To
establish industry support, the
petitioner compared the production of
companies supporting the Petition to
the total 2016 production of the
domestic like product for the entire
domestic industry.14 We relied on data
the petitioner provided for purposes of
measuring industry support.15
Our review of the data provided in the
Petition and other information readily
available to the Department indicates
that the petitioner has established
industry support for the Petition.16 First,
the Petition established support from
domestic producers (or workers)
13 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain
Aluminum Foil from the People’s Republic of China
(PRC AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II,
Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain
Aluminum Foil from the People’s Republic of
China, (Attachment II). This checklist is dated
concurrently with this notice and on file
electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents
filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central
Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department
of Commerce building.
14 See Volume I of the Petition, at 4–6 and
Exhibits GEN–1A and GEN–8.
15 Id. For further discussion, see PRC AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
16 See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment
II.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15693
accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like
product and, as such, the Department is
not required to take further action in
order to evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling).17 Second, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product.18 Finally, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition
account for more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Petition.19 Accordingly, the
Department determines that the Petition
was filed on behalf of the domestic
industry within the meaning of section
732(b)(1) of the Act.
The Department finds that the
petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of
the domestic industry because it is an
interested party as defined in section
771(9)(E) of the Act and it has
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the AD
investigation that it is requesting that
the Department initiate.20
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The petitioner alleges that the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product is being materially injured, or is
threatened with material injury, by
reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at less than normal
value (NV). In addition, the petitioner
alleges that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.21
The petitioner contends that the
industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share;
underselling and price suppression or
depression; lost sales and revenues;
decreasing U.S. shipment and
production trends, as well as low
capacity utilization rates; declines in
production-related workers and wages
paid; and deterioration in financial
17 See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also
PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
18 See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment
II.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 See Volume I of the Petition, at 11 and Exhibit
GEN–7.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
15694
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 60 / Thursday, March 30, 2017 / Notices
performance.22 We have assessed the
allegations and supporting evidence
regarding material injury, threat of
material injury, and causation, and we
have determined that these allegations
are properly supported by adequate
evidence, and meet the statutory
requirements for initiation.23
Allegation of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value
The following is a description of the
allegation of sales at less than fair value
upon which the Department based its
decision to initiate an investigation of
imports of aluminum foil from the PRC.
The sources of data for the deductions
and adjustments relating to U.S. price
and NV are discussed in greater detail
in the initiation checklist.
Export Price
The petitioner based U.S. price on
two offers by PRC producers for sales of
aluminum foil produced in the PRC.24
The petitioner made deductions from
U.S. price, as appropriate and consistent
with sale and delivery terms, for
unrebated value added tax, foreign
inland freight expenses, foreign
brokerage and handling expenses, ocean
freight expenses, marine insurance
expenses, U.S. duties, merchandise
processing fees, harbor maintenance
fees, and U.S inland freight expenses.25
effect for purposes of the initiation of
this investigation. Accordingly, the NV
of the product is appropriately based on
factors of production (FOPs) valued in
a surrogate market economy country, in
accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act.
The petitioner claims that South
Africa is an appropriate surrogate
country because it is a market economy
country that is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
PRC, it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise, and public
information from South Africa is
available to value all material input
factors.27
Based on the information provided by
the petitioner, we determine that it is
appropriate to use South Africa as a
surrogate country for initiation
purposes. Interested parties will have
the opportunity to submit comments
regarding surrogate country selection
and, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an
opportunity to submit publicly available
information to value FOPs within 30
days before the scheduled date of the
preliminary determination.
Factors of Production
The petitioner based the FOPs for
materials, labor, and energy on the
consumption rates of certain producers
of aluminum foil in the United States.28
The petitioner asserts that the
production process for aluminum foil is
similar regardless of whether the
product is produced in the United
States or in the PRC.29 The petitioner
valued the estimated factors of
production using surrogate values from
South Africa, as discussed below.30
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Normal Value
The petitioner stated that the
Department has identified the PRC as a
non-market economy (NME) country as
recently as the week before the
petitioner filed the petition, and the
Department has not since that time
published any determination
concluding the PRC is a market
economy.26 In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the
presumption of NME status remains in
effect until revoked by the Department.
The presumption of NME status for the
PRC has not been revoked by the
Department and, therefore, remains in
Valuation of Raw Materials
The petitioner valued the FOPs for
certain raw materials (i.e., aluminum
ingot and aluminum scrap) using public
import data for South Africa obtained
from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA)
applicable for the POI.31 The petitioner
22 Id., at 9–23 and Exhibits GEN–4 and GEN–7
through GEN–10.
23 See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment
III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain
Aluminum Foil from the People’s Republic of China
(Attachment III).
24 See Volume II of the Petition, at 3–4 and
Exhibit AD–1A, Exhibit AD–1B; see also AD
Supplemental Response at 2, 4–6, and Exhibit ADSupp. 1A, Exhibit AD-Supp. 7C.
25 See Volume II of the Petition, at 4–6 and
Exhibit AD–3A, Exhibit AD–3B, Exhibit AD–4,
Exhibit AD–5, Exhibit AD–6, Exhibit AD–7A; see
also AD Supplemental Response, at 2–4 and Exhibit
AD-Supp. 4, Exhibit AD-Supp. 5, Exhibit AD-Supp.
7B.
26 See Volume II of the Petition at 1.
27 See Volume II of the Petition at 1–2, 7 and
Exhibit AD–2A, Exhibit AD–2B.
28 See Volume II of the Petition at 1–2, 7–10, and
Exhibit AD–8A, Exhibit AD–8B, and AD
Supplemental Response, at 6–9 and Exhibit ADSupp. 9A, Exhibit AD-Supp. 9B.
29 See Volume II of the Petition, at 7 and Exhibit
AD–8A, Exhibit AD–8B.
30 Id. at 2 and 7. See also AD Supplemental
Response, at Exhibit AD-Supp. 9A, Exhibit ADSupp. 9B.
31 See Volume II of the Petition at 8–9 and AD
Supplemental Response, at Exhibit AD-Supp. 10.
The petitioner explained that the data for the
months June 2016 through November 2016 were
used for these inputs, rather than those of the actual
POI (i.e., July 2016 through December 2016), to
conform with industry practices regarding the
timing of the pricing of inputs used for production.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:09 Mar 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
excluded all import values from
countries previously determined by the
Department to maintain broadly
available, non-industry-specific export
subsidies and from countries previously
determined by the Department to be
NME countries.32 In addition, in
accordance with the Department’s
practice, the petitioner excluded
imports that were labeled as originating
from an unidentified country.33 For
aluminum ingots, the petitioner added
international freight charges (i.e., ocean
freight and other shipment charges) and
inland freight charges,34 but did not
make any such additions for aluminum
scrap.35 For one of the two sale offer
products, the petitioner added the cost
of additives used in the melting and
casting of aluminum.36 Finally, the
petitioner made offsets to cost for
estimated scrap generated by the
production process.37 The Department
determines that the surrogate values
used by the petitioner are reasonably
available and, thus, are acceptable for
purposes of initiation.
Valuation of Energy
The petitioner valued natural gas
using the average unit value of imports
of liquid natural gas into South Africa.38
The petitioner valued electricity using
electricity rates reported by Eskom,
South Africa’s electricity public
utility.39
Valuation of Labor
The petitioner valued labor using the
most-recently-available labor data
published by the International Labour
Organization (ILO).40 Specifically, the
petitioner relied on the most recently
available data pertaining to average
monthly earnings in the ‘‘manufacturing
industries’’ sector of the South African
See AD Supplemental Response, at 6–7, citing
Exhibit AD-Supp. 1A and Exhibit AD–1B of Volume
II of the Petition.
32 See AD Supplemental Response at Exhibit ADSupp. 10B, Exhibit AD-Supp. 10C.
33 Id.
34 See Volume II of the Petition at 8, and AD
Supplemental Response at 7–8 and Exhibit AD–
10B, Exhibit AD–10C.
35 See Volume II of the Petition at 9.
36 See Volume II of the Petition at 9, and AD
Supplemental Response at 9 and Exhibit AD-Supp.
9A. The petitioner did not make any addition for
cost of additives for the other sale offer product,
noting the cost of additives for that product was not
significant. See Volume II of the Petition at 9.
37 See Volume II of the Petition at 9 and AD
Supplemental Response at Exhibit AD-Supp. 9A,
Exhibit AD-Supp. 9B.
38 See Volume II of the Petition at 9 and Exhibit
AD–11, and AD Supplemental Response at 8 and
Exhibit AD-Supp. 11.
39 See Volume II of the Petition at 10 and Exhibit
AD–12.
40 See Volume II of the Petition at 10 and Exhibit
AD–13.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 60 / Thursday, March 30, 2017 / Notices
economy, indexed to the POI using
South African consumer price
information available from the
International Monetary Fund (IMF).41
Fair Value Comparisons
Valuation of Packing Materials
The petitioner determined the FOPs
for packing materials based on their
experience in packing their own
products as well as on their knowledge
of how PRC producers typically pack
aluminum foil for export to the United
States.42 For one sale offer product, the
petitioner indicated the packing
materials would be wooden crates and
wooden pallets, and valued them based
on South Africa import values.43 For the
other sale offer product, the petitioner
indicated that the packing material
would be steel racks, and valued them
based on South Africa import values.44
For both sale offer products, the
petitioner valued labor expenses for
packing based on the hourly rates
derived from the aforementioned ILO
earnings data.45
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling,
General and Administrative Expenses,
and Profit
The petitioner calculated ratios for
factory overhead, selling, general and
administrative expenses based on the
2015 consolidated financial statements
of Hulamin, Ltd. (Hulamin), a South
African producer of aluminum foil.46
Because Hulamin had net financial
income rather than net financial
expenses, the petitioner reported
financial expenses as zero, in
accordance with Department practice.47
The petitioner calculated a profit rate
for Hulamin, and multiplied that rate by
the cost of production of each of the two
sale offer products to obtain profit
values for each. Those profit values, in
turn, were added to the cost of
production of the respective sale offer
products to obtain cost of production
plus profit for each of the sale offer
products.48
41 Id.; see also AD Supplemental Response at 8
and Exhibit AD-Supp. 13.
42 See Volume II of the Petition at 10, and AD
Supplemental Response at 9 and Exhibit AD-Supp.
9A, Exhibit AD-Supp. 9B, Exhibit AD-Supp. 9C.
43 See Volume II of the Petition at 10 and AD
Supplemental Response at Exhibit AD-Supp. 9A.
See also AD Supplemental Response at 9 and
Exhibit AD-Supp. 9C.
44 See Volume II of the Petition at 10–11 and AD
Supplemental Response at 9 and Exhibit AD-Supp.
9B.
45 See AD Supplemental Response at Exhibit ADSupp. 9A, Exhibit AD-Supp. 9B.
46 See Volume II of the Petition at 11–12 and
Exhibit AD–14, Exhibit AD–15, Exhibit AD–16.
47 Id., at 11 and Exhibit AD–16.
48 Id., at 12 and Exhibit AD–16; see also AD
Supplemental Response at Exhibit AD-Supp. 9A,
Exhibit AD-Supp. 9B.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:09 Mar 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
Based on the data provided by the
petitioner, there is reason to believe that
imports of aluminum foil from the PRC
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less-than-fair value.
Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in
accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act, the estimated dumping margins for
aluminum foil from the PRC are 38.40
percent and 140.21 percent.49
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigation
Based upon the examination of the
AD Petition on aluminum foil from the
PRC, we find that the Petition meets the
requirements of section 732 of the Act.
Therefore, we are initiating an AD
investigation to determine whether
imports of aluminum foil from the PRC
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value. In
accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1),
unless postponed, we intend to make
our preliminary determination no later
than 140 days after the date of this
initiation.
Under the Trade Preferences
Extension Act of 2015, numerous
amendments to the AD and CVD laws
were made.50 The 2015 law does not
specify dates of application for those
amendments. On August 6, 2015, the
Department published an interpretative
rule, in which it announced the
applicability dates for each amendment
to the Act, except for amendments
contained in section 771(7) of the Act,
which relate to determinations of
material injury by the ITC.51 The
amendments to sections 771(15), 773,
776, and 782 of the Act are applicable
to all determinations made on or after
August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to
this AD investigation.52
Respondent Selection
In accordance with our standard
practice for respondent selection in AD
cases involving NME countries, we
intend to issue quantity and value
(Q&V) questionnaires to producers/
exporters of merchandise subject to the
investigation and base respondent
selection on the responses received. For
49 See AD Supplemental Response at Exhibit ADSupp. 17A, Exhibit AD-Supp. 17B; see also PRC AD
Initiation Checklist.
50 See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015,
Public Law 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
51 See Dates of Application of Amendments to the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made
by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80
FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice).
52 Id. at 46794–95. The 2015 amendments may be
found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15695
this investigation, the Department will
request Q&V information from known
exporters and producers identified, with
complete contact information, in the
Petition. In addition, the Department
will post the Q&V questionnaire along
with filing instructions on the
Enforcement and Compliance Web site
at https://www.trade.gov/enforcement/
news.asp.
Producers/exporters of aluminum foil
from the PRC that do not receive Q&V
questionnaires by mail may still submit
a response to the Q&V questionnaire
and can obtain a copy from the
Enforcement & Compliance Web site.
The Q&V response must be submitted
by the relevant PRC exporters/producers
no later than April 12, 2017. All Q&V
responses must be filed electronically
via ACCESS.
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status
in an NME investigation, exporters and
producers must submit a separate-rate
application.53 The specific requirements
for submitting a separate-rate
application in the PRC investigation are
outlined in detail in the application
itself, which is available on the
Department’s Web site at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-seprate.html. The separate-rate application
will be due 30 days after publication of
this initiation notice.54 Exporters and
producers who submit a separate-rate
application and have been selected as
mandatory respondents will be eligible
for consideration for separate-rate status
only if they respond to all parts of the
Department’s AD questionnaire as
mandatory respondents. The
Department requires that companies
from the PRC submit a response to both
the Q&V questionnaire and the separaterate application by the respective
deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status.
Companies not filing a timely Q&V
response will not receive separate rate
consideration.
Use of Combination Rates
The Department will calculate
combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in an NME investigation.
53 See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates
Practice and Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market
Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf
(Policy Bulletin 05.1).
54 Although in past investigations this deadline
was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a),
which states that ‘‘the Secretary may request any
person to submit factual information at any time
during a proceeding,’’ this deadline is now 30 days.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
15696
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 60 / Thursday, March 30, 2017 / Notices
The Separate Rates and Combination
Rates Bulletin states:
{w}hile continuing the practice of assigning
separate rates only to exporters, all separate
rates that the Department will now assign in
its NME Investigation will be specific to
those producers that supplied the exporter
during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the
exporter and all of the producers which
supplied subject merchandise to it during the
period of investigation. This practice applies
both to mandatory respondents receiving an
individually calculated separate rate as well
as the pool of non-investigated firms
receiving the weighted-average of the
individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of ‘‘combination
rates’’ because such rates apply to specific
combinations of exporters and one or more
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to
an exporter will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in question and
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter
during the period of investigation.55
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section
732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version
of the Petition has been provided to the
government of the PRC via ACCESS.
Because of the particularly large number
of producers/exporters identified in the
Petition, the Department considers the
service of the public version of the
Petition to the foreign producers/
exporters satisfied by delivery of the
public version to the government of the
PRC, consistent with 19 CFR
351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 732(d)
of the Act.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days after the date on which
the Petition was filed, whether there is
a reasonable indication that imports of
aluminum foil from the PRC are
materially injuring or threatening
material injury to a U.S. industry.56 A
negative ITC determination will result
in the investigation being terminated; 57
otherwise, this investigation will
proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
Submission of Factual Information
Factual information is defined in 19
CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence
submitted in response to questionnaires;
(ii) evidence submitted in support of
allegations; (iii) publicly available
55 See
56 See
Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).
section 733(a) of the Act.
57 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
information to value factors under 19
CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR
351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on
the record by the Department; and (v)
evidence other than factual information
described in (i)–(iv). Any party, when
submitting factual information, must
specify under which subsection of 19
CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is
being submitted 58 and, if the
information is submitted to rebut,
clarify, or correct factual information
already on the record, to provide an
explanation identifying the information
already on the record that the factual
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or
correct.59 Time limits for the
submission of factual information are
addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which
provides specific time limits based on
the type of factual information being
submitted. Please review the regulations
prior to submitting factual information
in this investigation.
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of
time limits before the expiration of a
time limit established under 19 CFR
351, or as otherwise specified by the
Secretary. In general, an extension
request will be considered untimely if it
is filed after the expiration of the time
limit established under 19 CFR 351
expires. For submissions that are due
from multiple parties simultaneously,
an extension request will be considered
untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET
on the due date. Under certain
circumstances, we may elect to specify
a different time limit by which
extension requests will be considered
untimely for submissions which are due
from multiple parties simultaneously. In
such a case, we will inform parties in
the letter or memorandum setting forth
the deadline (including a specified time)
by which extension requests must be
filed to be considered timely. An
extension request must be made in a
separate, stand-alone submission; under
limited circumstances we will grant
untimely-filed requests for the extension
of time limits. Review Extension of
Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790
(September 20, 2013), available at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR–
2013–09–20/html/2013–22853.htm,
prior to submitting factual information
in this investigation.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
58 See
59 See
19:09 Mar 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
19 CFR 351.301(b).
19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and completeness of that information.60
Parties are hereby reminded that revised
certification requirements are in effect
for company/government officials, as
well as their representatives.
Investigations initiated on the basis of
petition filed on or after August 16,
2013, and other segments of any AD or
CVD proceedings initiated on or after
August 16, 2013, should use the formats
for the revised certifications provided at
the end of the Final Rule.61 The
Department intends to reject factual
submissions if the submitting party does
not comply with applicable revised
certification requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under
administrative protective order (APO) in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, the Department
published Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures;
APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008).
Parties wishing to participate in this
investigation should ensure that they
meet the requirements of these
procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of
appearance as discussed in 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March 28, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation is aluminum foil having a
thickness of 0.2 mm or less, in reels
exceeding 25 pounds, regardless of width.
Aluminum foil is made from an aluminum
alloy that contains more than 92 percent
aluminum. Aluminum foil may be made to
ASTM specification ASTM B479, but can
also be made to other specifications.
Regardless of specification, however, all
aluminum foil meeting the scope description
is included in the scope.
Excluded from the scope of this
investigation is aluminum foil that is backed
with paper, paperboard, plastics, or similar
backing materials on only one side of the
aluminum foil, as well as etched capacitor
foil and aluminum foil that is cut to shape.
Where the nominal and actual
measurements vary, a product is within the
60 See
section 782(b) of the Act.
Certification of Factual Information to
Import Administration during Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked
questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
61 See
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 60 / Thursday, March 30, 2017 / Notices
scope if application of either the nominal or
actual measurement would place it within
the scope based on the definitions set forth
above. The products under investigation are
currently classifiable under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings 7607.11.3000, 7607.11.6000,
7607.11.9030, 7607.11.9060, 7607.11.9090,
and 7607.19.6000. Further, merchandise that
falls within the scope of this proceeding may
also be entered into the United States under
HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3060,
7606.11.6000, 7606.12.3045, 7606.12.3055,
7606.12.3090, 7606.12.6000, 7606.91.3090,
7606.91.6080, 7606.92.3090, and
7606.92.6080. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of this proceeding is
dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017–06389 Filed 3–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Background
For a complete description of the
events that followed the publication of
the Preliminary Rescission,1 see the
Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 A
list of topics included in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum is included as
an 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 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
at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.
The signed and electronic version of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
[A–570–863]
Scope of the Order
Honey From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Rescission of the New
Shipper Review of Shanghai
Sunbeauty Trading Co., Ltd.
The products covered by this order
are natural honey, artificial honey
containing more than 50 percent natural
honey by weight, preparations of natural
honey containing more than 50 percent
natural honey by weight and flavored
honey. The subject merchandise
includes all grades and colors of honey
whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut
comb, or chunk form, and whether
packaged for retail or in bulk form.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable under
subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90,
and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the Department’s written
description of the merchandise under
order is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 6, 2016, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published its Preliminary
Rescission for the new shipper review
(NSR) of the antidumping duty order on
honey from the People’s Republic of
China (PRC). The period of review is
December 1, 2014, through November
30, 2015. As discussed below, we
preliminarily determined to rescind this
review because we found the new
shipper sales of Shanghai Sunbeauty
Trading Co., Ltd. (Sunbeauty) to be nonbona fide. Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we make no
changes to the Preliminary Rescission.
Accordingly, we have determined to
rescind this NSR with respect to
Sunbeauty.
AGENCY:
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by
parties are addressed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum.3 A list of the
1 See
DATES:
Effective March 30, 2017.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kabir Archuletta or Carrie Bethea, AD/
CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement
and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–2593 or (202) 482–1491,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:09 Mar 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
Honey from the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Intent to Rescind New Shipper Review,
81 FR 87906, (December 6, 2016) (Preliminary
Rescission).
2 See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, from James Doyle,
Director, Office V, Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Operations, entitled, ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Rescission of the
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Honey
from the People’s Republic of China: Shanghai
Sunbeauty Trading Co. Ltd.,’’ dated concurrently
with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and
Decision Memorandum).
3 See Issues and Decision Memorandum.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15697
issues which parties raised is attached
to this notice as an Appendix.
Final Rescission of Sunbeauty’s New
Shipper Review
In the Preliminary Rescission, we
announced our preliminary intent to
rescind this review, because we found
that Sunbeauty’s sales are non-bona fide
and could not be relied upon to
calculate a dumping margin. Based on
the Department’s complete analysis of
all the information and comments on
the record of this review, we make no
changes to the Preliminary Rescission.
Accordingly, we have determined to
rescind this NSR with respect to
Sunbeauty. For a complete discussion,
see the Preliminary Bona Fides Memo,4
the Final Business Proprietary Memo,5
and the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
Assessment
As the Department is rescinding this
NSR, we have not calculated a
company-specific dumping margin for
Sunbeauty. Sunbeauty’s entries covered
by this NSR will be assessed at the cash
deposit rate required at the time of
entry, which is the PRC-wide rate (i.e.,
$2.63 per kilogram).
Cash Deposit Requirements
Effective upon publication of this
notice of the final rescission of the NSR
of Sunbeauty, the Department will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to discontinue the option of
posting a bond or security in lieu of a
cash deposit for entries of subject
merchandise from Sunbeauty. The
following cash deposit requirements
will be effective upon publication of
these final results for all shipments of
subject merchandise from Sunbeauty
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided for by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For
subject merchandise produced and
exported by Sunbeauty, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the PRC-wide
4 See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director,
Office V from Carrie Bethea, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, Office V, entitled, ‘‘Bona Fides
Analysis of Honey from the People’s Republic of
China for Shanghai Sunbeauty Trading Co., Ltd.,’’
dated November 30, 2016 (Preliminary Bona Fides
Memo).
5 Memorandum to the File, entitled, ‘‘Business
Proprietary Information Memo for Shanghai
Sunbeauty Trading Co., Ltd.,’’ dated concurrently
with the Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen from
Gary Taverman, entitled, ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Rescission of the
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Honey
from the People’s Republic of China: Shanghai
Sunbeauty Trading Co., Ltd.’’ (Final Business
Proprietary Information Memo).
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 60 (Thursday, March 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15691-15697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06389]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-053]
Certain Aluminum Foil From the People's Republic of China:
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective March 28, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Bellhouse at (202) 482-2057 or
Steve Bezirganian at (202) 482-1131, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On March 9, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of
certain aluminum foil (aluminum foil) from the People's Republic of
China (PRC), filed in proper form on behalf of The Aluminum Association
Trade Enforcement Working Group (the petitioner).\1\ The AD petition
was accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) petition for aluminum
foil from the PRC.\2\ The petitioner is a producer of aluminum foil.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties, dated March 9, 2017 (the Petition), at
Volumes I and II.
\2\ Id., at Volume III.
\3\ Id., at Volume I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 14, 2017, the Department requested additional information
and clarification of certain areas of the
[[Page 15692]]
Petition.\4\ The petitioner filed responses to these requests on March
16, 2017, March 17, 2017, and March 22, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Letters from the Department to the petitioner entitled,
``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's
Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,'' dated March 14, 2017
(General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); see also ``Petition for
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Aluminum
Foil from the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,''
dated March 14, 2017 (AD Supplemental Questionnaire), and Letter
from the petitioner, ``Re: Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's
Republic of China--Petitioners' Second Amendment to Petition to
Modify Scope Definition,'' dated March 22, 2017 (Scope Revision).
\5\ See Letter from the petitioner to the Department entitled,
``Petitioners' Responses to Department's Questions on General and
Injury Volume of Petition and Amendment to Petition to Modify Scope
Language,'' dated March 16, 2017 (General Issues Supplement); see
also Letter from the petitioner to the Department entitled,
``Petitioners' Response to the Department's Supplemental
Questionnaire Relating to Antidumping Duty Petition,'' dated March
17, 2017 (AD Supplemental Response).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of aluminum foil
from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States
at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act,
and that imports of aluminum foil from the PRC are materially injuring,
or threaten material injury to, the domestic industry producing
aluminum foil in the United States. Also, consistent with section
732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information
reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed this Petition on
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested
party as defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act. The Department also
finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with
respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that the petitioner
is requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petition'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
Because the Petition was filed on March 9, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2016,
through December 31, 2016.
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is aluminum foil from the
PRC. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the
``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we issued questions to, and
received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed
scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an
accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is
seeking relief.\7\ As a result of the responses submitted by the
petitioner, we have revised the original scope.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also
General Issues Supplement at 3-6 and Exhibit GEN-Supp. 1, and Scope
Revision.
\8\ See Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\9\ we
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all
comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with
parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If
scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)),
all such factual information should be limited to public information.
In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the
Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, April 18, 2017. Any rebuttal
comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00
p.m. ET on Tuesday, April 28, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department requests that any factual information the parties
consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during
this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the
investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and
request permission to submit the additional information. All such
comments must also be filed on the record of the concurrent CVD
investigation.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\10\ An electronically
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the
time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form)
with Enforcement & Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable
deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 19 CFR 351.303 (describing general filing
requirements); see also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective
Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) and Enforcement and
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046
(November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic
filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011.
Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires
The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding
the appropriate physical characteristics of aluminum foil to be
reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics
of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and
costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate
product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product
characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful
commercial differences among products. In other words, although there
may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers
to describe aluminum foil, it may be that only a select few product
characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical
characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the
order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching
products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important
physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics
last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in
developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all comments must be filed
by 5:00 p.m. ET on Wednesday, April 12, 2017. Any rebuttal comments,
which may include factual information, must be filed by
[[Page 15693]]
5:00 p.m. ET on Wednesday, April 19, 2017. All comments and submissions
to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as
explained above, on the record of this less-than-fair-value
investigation.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic
like product,\11\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's
determination is subject to limitations of time and information.
Although this may result in different definitions of the like product,
such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary
to law.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\12\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F.
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
Petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope
of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have determined that aluminum foil, as
defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we
have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like
product.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's Republic of China (PRC AD
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry
Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's Republic of China,
(Attachment II). This checklist is dated concurrently with this
notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents
filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room
B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this
notice. The petitioner provided 2016 domestic like product production
data for U.S. producers that are known to support the Petition. The
petitioner also estimated total 2016 production of the domestic like
product for the remaining producers in the U.S. industry. To establish
industry support, the petitioner compared the production of companies
supporting the Petition to the total 2016 production of the domestic
like product for the entire domestic industry.\14\ We relied on data
the petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 4-6 and Exhibits GEN-1A
and GEN-8.
\15\ Id. For further discussion, see PRC AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other
information readily available to the Department indicates that the
petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.\16\
First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or
workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of
the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required
to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling).\17\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i)
of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the
Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the
domestic like product.\18\ Finally, the domestic producers (or workers)
have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section
732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers)
who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.\19\
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1)
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\17\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\18\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as
defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act and it has demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that
it is requesting that the Department initiate.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the
petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 11 and Exhibit GEN-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression
or depression; lost sales and revenues; decreasing U.S. shipment and
production trends, as well as low capacity utilization rates; declines
in production-related workers and wages paid; and deterioration in
financial
[[Page 15694]]
performance.\22\ We have assessed the allegations and supporting
evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and
causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly
supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for
initiation.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id., at 9-23 and Exhibits GEN-4 and GEN-7 through GEN-10.
\23\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's Republic of China
(Attachment III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegation of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to
initiate an investigation of imports of aluminum foil from the PRC. The
sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S.
price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the initiation
checklist.
Export Price
The petitioner based U.S. price on two offers by PRC producers for
sales of aluminum foil produced in the PRC.\24\ The petitioner made
deductions from U.S. price, as appropriate and consistent with sale and
delivery terms, for unrebated value added tax, foreign inland freight
expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight
expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S. duties, merchandise
processing fees, harbor maintenance fees, and U.S inland freight
expenses.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 3-4 and Exhibit AD-1A,
Exhibit AD-1B; see also AD Supplemental Response at 2, 4-6, and
Exhibit AD-Supp. 1A, Exhibit AD-Supp. 7C.
\25\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 4-6 and Exhibit AD-3A,
Exhibit AD-3B, Exhibit AD-4, Exhibit AD-5, Exhibit AD-6, Exhibit AD-
7A; see also AD Supplemental Response, at 2-4 and Exhibit AD-Supp.
4, Exhibit AD-Supp. 5, Exhibit AD-Supp. 7B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
The petitioner stated that the Department has identified the PRC as
a non-market economy (NME) country as recently as the week before the
petitioner filed the petition, and the Department has not since that
time published any determination concluding the PRC is a market
economy.\26\ In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the
presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the
Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been
revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for
purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV
of the product is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs)
valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Volume II of the Petition at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner claims that South Africa is an appropriate surrogate
country because it is a market economy country that is at a level of
economic development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise, and public information from South
Africa is available to value all material input factors.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Volume II of the Petition at 1-2, 7 and Exhibit AD-2A,
Exhibit AD-2B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we determine
that it is appropriate to use South Africa as a surrogate country for
initiation purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to
submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit
publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the
scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
Factors of Production
The petitioner based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on
the consumption rates of certain producers of aluminum foil in the
United States.\28\ The petitioner asserts that the production process
for aluminum foil is similar regardless of whether the product is
produced in the United States or in the PRC.\29\ The petitioner valued
the estimated factors of production using surrogate values from South
Africa, as discussed below.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Volume II of the Petition at 1-2, 7-10, and Exhibit AD-
8A, Exhibit AD-8B, and AD Supplemental Response, at 6-9 and Exhibit
AD-Supp. 9A, Exhibit AD-Supp. 9B.
\29\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 7 and Exhibit AD-8A,
Exhibit AD-8B.
\30\ Id. at 2 and 7. See also AD Supplemental Response, at
Exhibit AD-Supp. 9A, Exhibit AD-Supp. 9B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Raw Materials
The petitioner valued the FOPs for certain raw materials (i.e.,
aluminum ingot and aluminum scrap) using public import data for South
Africa obtained from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) applicable for the
POI.\31\ The petitioner excluded all import values from countries
previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available,
non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously
determined by the Department to be NME countries.\32\ In addition, in
accordance with the Department's practice, the petitioner excluded
imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified
country.\33\ For aluminum ingots, the petitioner added international
freight charges (i.e., ocean freight and other shipment charges) and
inland freight charges,\34\ but did not make any such additions for
aluminum scrap.\35\ For one of the two sale offer products, the
petitioner added the cost of additives used in the melting and casting
of aluminum.\36\ Finally, the petitioner made offsets to cost for
estimated scrap generated by the production process.\37\ The Department
determines that the surrogate values used by the petitioner are
reasonably available and, thus, are acceptable for purposes of
initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Volume II of the Petition at 8-9 and AD Supplemental
Response, at Exhibit AD-Supp. 10. The petitioner explained that the
data for the months June 2016 through November 2016 were used for
these inputs, rather than those of the actual POI (i.e., July 2016
through December 2016), to conform with industry practices regarding
the timing of the pricing of inputs used for production. See AD
Supplemental Response, at 6-7, citing Exhibit AD-Supp. 1A and
Exhibit AD-1B of Volume II of the Petition.
\32\ See AD Supplemental Response at Exhibit AD-Supp. 10B,
Exhibit AD-Supp. 10C.
\33\ Id.
\34\ See Volume II of the Petition at 8, and AD Supplemental
Response at 7-8 and Exhibit AD-10B, Exhibit AD-10C.
\35\ See Volume II of the Petition at 9.
\36\ See Volume II of the Petition at 9, and AD Supplemental
Response at 9 and Exhibit AD-Supp. 9A. The petitioner did not make
any addition for cost of additives for the other sale offer product,
noting the cost of additives for that product was not significant.
See Volume II of the Petition at 9.
\37\ See Volume II of the Petition at 9 and AD Supplemental
Response at Exhibit AD-Supp. 9A, Exhibit AD-Supp. 9B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Energy
The petitioner valued natural gas using the average unit value of
imports of liquid natural gas into South Africa.\38\ The petitioner
valued electricity using electricity rates reported by Eskom, South
Africa's electricity public utility.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Volume II of the Petition at 9 and Exhibit AD-11, and
AD Supplemental Response at 8 and Exhibit AD-Supp. 11.
\39\ See Volume II of the Petition at 10 and Exhibit AD-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Labor
The petitioner valued labor using the most-recently-available labor
data published by the International Labour Organization (ILO).\40\
Specifically, the petitioner relied on the most recently available data
pertaining to average monthly earnings in the ``manufacturing
industries'' sector of the South African
[[Page 15695]]
economy, indexed to the POI using South African consumer price
information available from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Volume II of the Petition at 10 and Exhibit AD-13.
\41\ Id.; see also AD Supplemental Response at 8 and Exhibit AD-
Supp. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Packing Materials
The petitioner determined the FOPs for packing materials based on
their experience in packing their own products as well as on their
knowledge of how PRC producers typically pack aluminum foil for export
to the United States.\42\ For one sale offer product, the petitioner
indicated the packing materials would be wooden crates and wooden
pallets, and valued them based on South Africa import values.\43\ For
the other sale offer product, the petitioner indicated that the packing
material would be steel racks, and valued them based on South Africa
import values.\44\ For both sale offer products, the petitioner valued
labor expenses for packing based on the hourly rates derived from the
aforementioned ILO earnings data.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Volume II of the Petition at 10, and AD Supplemental
Response at 9 and Exhibit AD-Supp. 9A, Exhibit AD-Supp. 9B, Exhibit
AD-Supp. 9C.
\43\ See Volume II of the Petition at 10 and AD Supplemental
Response at Exhibit AD-Supp. 9A. See also AD Supplemental Response
at 9 and Exhibit AD-Supp. 9C.
\44\ See Volume II of the Petition at 10-11 and AD Supplemental
Response at 9 and Exhibit AD-Supp. 9B.
\45\ See AD Supplemental Response at Exhibit AD-Supp. 9A,
Exhibit AD-Supp. 9B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative
Expenses, and Profit
The petitioner calculated ratios for factory overhead, selling,
general and administrative expenses based on the 2015 consolidated
financial statements of Hulamin, Ltd. (Hulamin), a South African
producer of aluminum foil.\46\ Because Hulamin had net financial income
rather than net financial expenses, the petitioner reported financial
expenses as zero, in accordance with Department practice.\47\ The
petitioner calculated a profit rate for Hulamin, and multiplied that
rate by the cost of production of each of the two sale offer products
to obtain profit values for each. Those profit values, in turn, were
added to the cost of production of the respective sale offer products
to obtain cost of production plus profit for each of the sale offer
products.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See Volume II of the Petition at 11-12 and Exhibit AD-14,
Exhibit AD-15, Exhibit AD-16.
\47\ Id., at 11 and Exhibit AD-16.
\48\ Id., at 12 and Exhibit AD-16; see also AD Supplemental
Response at Exhibit AD-Supp. 9A, Exhibit AD-Supp. 9B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to
believe that imports of aluminum foil from the PRC are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based
on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act, the estimated dumping margins for aluminum foil from the PRC are
38.40 percent and 140.21 percent.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See AD Supplemental Response at Exhibit AD-Supp. 17A,
Exhibit AD-Supp. 17B; see also PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation
Based upon the examination of the AD Petition on aluminum foil from
the PRC, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section
732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to
determine whether imports of aluminum foil from the PRC are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In
accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we intend to make our preliminary
determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous
amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.\50\ The 2015 law does not
specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015,
the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced
the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for
amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to
determinations of material injury by the ITC.\51\ The amendments to
sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all
determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply
to this AD investigation.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
\51\ See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension
Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice).
\52\ Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent Selection
In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection
in AD cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and
value (Q&V) questionnaires to producers/exporters of merchandise
subject to the investigation and base respondent selection on the
responses received. For this investigation, the Department will request
Q&V information from known exporters and producers identified, with
complete contact information, in the Petition. In addition, the
Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing
instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at https://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
Producers/exporters of aluminum foil from the PRC that do not
receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the
Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement &
Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by the relevant
PRC exporters/producers no later than April 12, 2017. All Q&V responses
must be filed electronically via ACCESS.
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation,
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.\53\
The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in
the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself,
which is available on the Department's Web site at https://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate
application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation
notice.\54\ Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate
application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be
eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they
respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory
respondents. The Department requires that companies from the PRC submit
a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate
application by the respective deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status. Companies not filing a timely
Q&V response will not receive separate rate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin
05.1).
\54\ Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days,
consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that ``the Secretary
may request any person to submit factual information at any time
during a proceeding,'' this deadline is now 30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Combination Rates
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME
investigation.
[[Page 15696]]
The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
{w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now
assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period
of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory
respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as
well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-
average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of
investigation.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been
provided to the government of the PRC via ACCESS. Because of the
particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the
Petition, the Department considers the service of the public version of
the Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by delivery
of the public version to the government of the PRC, consistent with 19
CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of aluminum foil from the PRC are materially
injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.\56\ A
negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being
terminated; \57\ otherwise, this investigation will proceed according
to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
\57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Factual Information
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i)
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than
factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting
factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted \58\ and, if the
information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information already on the record, to provide an explanation
identifying the information already on the record that the factual
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.\59\ Time limits for
the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301,
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual
information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to
submitting factual information in this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\59\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351, or as
otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the
time limit established under 19 CFR 351 expires. For submissions that
are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will
be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due
date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different
time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such
a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting
forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension
requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request
must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited
circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension
of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR
57790 (September 20, 2013), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual
information in this investigation.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\60\
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petition
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final
Rule.\61\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\61\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO
Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008).
Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure
that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing
of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: March 28, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is aluminum foil
having a thickness of 0.2 mm or less, in reels exceeding 25 pounds,
regardless of width. Aluminum foil is made from an aluminum alloy
that contains more than 92 percent aluminum. Aluminum foil may be
made to ASTM specification ASTM B479, but can also be made to other
specifications. Regardless of specification, however, all aluminum
foil meeting the scope description is included in the scope.
Excluded from the scope of this investigation is aluminum foil
that is backed with paper, paperboard, plastics, or similar backing
materials on only one side of the aluminum foil, as well as etched
capacitor foil and aluminum foil that is cut to shape.
Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is
within the
[[Page 15697]]
scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement
would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth
above. The products under investigation are currently classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings 7607.11.3000, 7607.11.6000, 7607.11.9030, 7607.11.9060,
7607.11.9090, and 7607.19.6000. Further, merchandise that falls
within the scope of this proceeding may also be entered into the
United States under HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3060, 7606.11.6000,
7606.12.3045, 7606.12.3055, 7606.12.3090, 7606.12.6000,
7606.91.3090, 7606.91.6080, 7606.92.3090, and 7606.92.6080. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is
dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017-06389 Filed 3-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P