Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 21st Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 27230-27233 [2017-12302]

Download as PDF 27230 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 2017 / Notices Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average dumping margins (percent) ULMA Forja, S.Coop .... All Others ...................... 24.43 18.81 Notifications to Interested Parties This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to finished carbon steel flanges from Spain pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ stats/iastats1.html. This order is published in accordance with section and 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b). Dated: June 9, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES Appendix—Scope of the Order The scope of this order covers finished carbon steel flanges. Finished carbon steel flanges differ from unfinished carbon steel flanges (also known as carbon steel flange forgings) in that they have undergone further processing after forging, including, but not limited to, beveling, bore threading, center or step boring, face machining, taper boring, machining ends or surfaces, drilling bolt holes, and/or de-burring or shot blasting. Any one of these post-forging processes suffices to render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of this order. However, mere heat treatment of a carbon steel flange forging (without any other further processing after forging) does not render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of this order. While these finished carbon steel flanges are generally manufactured to specification ASME B16.5 or ASME B16.47 series A or series B, the scope is not limited to flanges produced under those specifications. All types of finished carbon steel flanges are included in the scope regardless of pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure class (usually, but not necessarily, expressed in pounds of pressure, e.g., 150, 300, 400, 600, 900, 1500, 2500, etc.), type of face (e.g., flat face, full face, raised face, etc.), configuration (e.g., weld neck, slip on, socket weld, lap joint, threaded, etc.), wall thickness (usually, but not necessarily, expressed in inches), normalization, or whether or not heat treated. These carbon steel flanges either meet or exceed the requirements of the ASTM A105, ASTM A694, ASTM A181, ASTM A350 and ASTM A707 standards (or comparable foreign specifications). The scope includes any flanges produced to the above-referenced ASTM standards as currently stated or as may be amended. The term ‘‘carbon steel’’ under this scope is steel in which: (a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements: (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jun 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated: (i) 0.87 percent of aluminum; (ii) 0.0105 percent of boron; (iii) 10.10 percent of chromium; (iv) 1.55 percent of columbium; (v) 3.10 percent of copper; (vi) 0.38 percent of lead; (vii) 3.04 percent of manganese; (viii) 2.05 percent of molybdenum; (ix) 20.15 percent of nickel; (x) 1.55 percent of niobium; (xi) 0.20 percent of nitrogen; (xii) 0.21 percent of phosphorus; (xiii) 3.10 percent of silicon; (xiv) 0.21 percent of sulfur; (xv) 1.05 percent of titanium; (xvi) 4.06 percent of tungsten; (xvii) 0.53 percent of vanadium; or (xviii) 0.015 percent of zirconium. Finished carbon steel flanges are currently classified under subheadings 7307.91.5010 and 7307.91.5050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). They may also be entered under HTSUS subheadings 7307.91.5030 and 7307.91.5070. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2017–12404 Filed 6–13–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–831] Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 21st Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014–2015 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results of the 21st administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on December 9, 2016. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2014, and October 31, 2015. The mandatory respondents in this review are: Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. (Harmoni) and Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd. (QTF). Based upon our analysis of the comments and information received, we made no changes to the margin calculated for voluntary respondent, Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. (Xinboda). As discussed below, the Department continues to find that QTF withheld requested information, AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 significantly impeded the administrative review, and did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Accordingly, we continue to use adverse facts available. However, in a change from the Preliminary Results, we find that QTF is not eligible for separate rate status, and thus, is a part of the PRCwide entity. The Department is also rescinding the review with respect to Harmoni and Jinxiang Jinma Fruits Vegetables Products Co., Ltd. (Jinxiang Jinma), as discussed below. These determinations and the final dumping margins are discussed below in the ‘‘Final Results’’ section of this notice. DATES: Effective June 14, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Wallace or Alexander Cipolla, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202–482–6251 or 202–482–4956, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department published the Preliminary Results on December 9, 2016, in which it preliminarily determined that QTF and Harmoni each failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. As a result, the Department preliminarily found that Harmoni had not rebutted the presumption that it is part of the PRCwide entity, and we preliminarily based QTF’s dumping margin on adverse facts available. The Department also preliminarily found that Xinboda sold merchandise to the United States at less than normal value. Finally, we preliminarily granted a separate rate to five companies which demonstrated their eligibility for separate rate status, but were not selected for individual examination.1 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309, we invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. The petitioners,2 the New Mexico Garlic Growers Coalition (NMGGC),3 Xinboda, QTF, Harmoni, and Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd. (Hejia) timely filed case briefs, pursuant to our regulations.4 1 See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 21st Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014–2015, 81 FR 89050 (December 9, 2016) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (PDM). 2 The petitioners are the Fresh Garlic Producers Association (FGPA) and its individual members: Christopher Ranch LLC, The Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, Inc. 3 The NMGGC, at the time of initiation, consisted of Avrum Katz of Boxcar Farm and Stanley Crawford of El Bosque Farm. 4 See NMGGC’s Case Brief, ‘‘Case Brief Filed on Behalf of the New Mexico Garlic Growers Coalition E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 2017 / Notices Partial Rescission of Administrative Review As discussed in the IDM,8 the Department is rescinding the review with respect to Harmoni and Jinxiang Jinma based on the Department’s determination that the NMGGC’s request for review was not credible. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the order includes all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves. Fresh garlic that are subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 0703.20.0000, 0703.20.0005, 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0015, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, 2005.90.9500, 2005.90.9700, 2005.99.9700. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive. For a full description of the scope of this order, please see ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.7 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES Additionally, the petitioners, the NMGGC, Xinboda, and Harmoni timely filed rebuttal briefs.5 The deadline for the final results of this review was April 10, 2017. On March 15, 2017, the Department extended the deadline in this proceeding by 60 days to June 7, 2017.6 Analysis of Comments Received We addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this review in the IDM. Appendix I provides a list of the issues which parties raised. The IDM is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the IDM can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ frn/index.html. The signed IDM and the electronic versions of the IDM are identical in content. and El Bosque Farm in the 21st Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China’’ (March 24, 2017); see also Xinboda’s First Case Brief, ‘‘Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China—Case Brief’’ (March 24, 2017); see also QTF’s Case Brief, ‘‘Case Brief of Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd.,’’ (March 24, 2017); see also Petitioners’ First Case Brief, ‘‘Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China—Petitioners’ Case Brief,’’ (March 24, 2017); see also Harmoni’s Case Brief, ‘‘Harmoni Administrative Case Brief: 21st Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China (A–570–831),’’ (March 24, 2017); see also Xinboda’s Second Case Brief, ‘‘Case Brief of Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co. Ltd. (‘‘Xinboda’’) Re: Data Issues’’ (April 11, 2017); see also Hejia’s Case Brief, ‘‘Case Brief Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd.’’ (April 11, 2017); see also Petitioners’ Second Case Brief, ‘‘Petitioners’ Case Brief Concerning Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd’’ (April 11, 2017). 5 See NMGGC’s Rebuttal Brief, ‘‘Rebuttal Brief— Filed on Behalf of the New Mexico Garlic Growers Coalition and El Bosque Farm in the 21st Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China,’’ (March 31, 2017); see also Xinboda’s First Rebuttal Brief, ‘‘Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China—Letter Rebuttal Brief’’ (March 31, 2017); see also Petitioners’ First Rebuttal Brief, ‘‘Petitioners’ Rebuttal Brief’’ (March 31, 2017); see also Harmoni’s Rebuttal Brief, ‘‘Harmoni’s Rebuttal Brief: 21st Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China (A–570–831)’’ (March 31, 2017); see also Xinboda Second Rebuttal Brief), ‘‘Rebuttal Brief of Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xinboda’’) Re: Data Issues’’ (April 18, 2017); see also Petitioners’ Second Rebuttal Brief, ‘‘Petitioners’ Second Case Rebuttal Brief’’ (April 18, 2017). 6 See Memorandum, ‘‘Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China—21st Administrative Review (2014–2015): Extension of Deadline for the Final Results of the Review’’ (March 15, 2017). 7 See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, and for the reasons explained in the IDM, including the application of facts available with an adverse inference, we revised our decision regarding QTF’s eligibility for a separate rate, and further collapsed the QTFentity to include Hebei Golden Bird Trading Co., Ltd. and Huamei Consulting.9 For the final results of this review, the Department has also updated the list of companies subject to this review that are found to be part of the PRC-wide entity. For a list of all issues addressed in these final results, please refer to Appendix I accompanying this notice. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jun 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 Final Determination of No Shipments In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily determined Compliance, from Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China; 2014–2015,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (IDM). 8 See IDM at Comment 1. 9 As discussed in the IDM, the QTF-entity includes Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd. (QTF); Qingdao Tianhefeng Foods Co., Ltd. (QTHF); Qingdao Beixing Trading Co., Ltd. (QBT); Qingdao Lianghe International Trade Co., Ltd. (Lianghe); and Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods Co., Ltd. (QXF); Hebei Golden Bird Trading Co., Ltd. (Golden Bird); Huamei Consulting (collectively, the QTF-entity). PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27231 that the companies listed in Appendix III timely filed ‘‘no shipment’’ certifications and did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. Consistent with the Department’s assessment practice in non-market economy (NME) cases, we completed the review with respect to the companies listed in Appendix III. For the companies listed in Appendix III, CBP provided no evidence to contradict the claims of these companies of no shipments. Based on this information, we continue to determine that the companies listed in Appendix III did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. See Appendix III. As discussed in the IDM, in the Preliminary Results, CBP indicated that although Shenzhen Yuting Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (Yuting) had certified no shipments, in fact, it had shipments during the POR.10 Following the Preliminary Results, Yuting sufficiently clarified the discrepancy with the Department.11 As noted in the ‘‘Assessment Rates’’ section below, the Department intends to issue appropriate instructions to CBP for the companies listed below based on the final results of this review. PRC-Wide Entity As discussed in the Preliminary Results, the Department’s policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this administrative review.12 Under this policy, the PRC-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department selfinitiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the PRCwide entity, the entity is not under review and the entity’s rate (i.e., $4.71/ kg) is not subject to change. Aside from the no shipment companies discussed above, the Department considers all other companies for which a review was requested, and which did not qualify for a separate rate, to be part of the PRCwide entity. See Appendix II. 10 See IDM at ‘‘Final Determination of No Shipments.’’ 11 As noted in the IDM, in the preliminary results, the Department considered Yuting to be a part of the PRC-wide entity because CBP data indicated that it did have a shipment during the POR. However, based on Yuting’s clarification, the Department finds that Yuting is no longer considered to be a part of the PRC-wide entity, and accordingly, we intend to liquidate the entry at the rate established in the prior administrative review. 12 See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013). E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1 27232 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 2017 / Notices directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this administrative review. Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer).15 Where the Department calculated a weightedaverage dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, the Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates.16 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or perunit rate is greater than de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation.17 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or perunit rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.18 We Final Results of Administrative Review intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise The weighted-average dumping exported by the PRC-wide entity at the margins for the administrative review PRC-wide rate. are as follows: Pursuant to the Department’s assessment practice, for entries that Weightedwere not reported in the U.S. sales average databases submitted by companies Exporter margins (dollars per individually examined during this kilogram) review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial PRC-wide entity rate. Additionally, if Co., Ltd ............................. $2.27 the Department determines that an Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd ..................................... 2.27 exporter had no shipments of the Jining Alpha Food Co., Ltd ... 2.27 subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that Shandong Jinxiang exporter’s case number (i.e., at that Zhengyang Import & Export Co., Ltd ...................... 2.27 exporter’s rate) will be liquidated at the Shenzhen Bainong Co., Ltd. 2.27 PRC-wide entity rate.19 Separate Rates In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that non-selected companies Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd., Jining Alpha Food Co., Ltd., Shandong Jinxiang Zhengyang Import & Export Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Bainong Co., Ltd., and Weifang Hongqiao International Logistics Co., Ltd., demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate.13 We continue to find that those five companies are eligible for a separate rate. As discussed in the IDM, the Department granted QTF separate status in the Preliminary Results. However, we now find that the QTFentity did not rebut the presumption of government control.14 As such, it did not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate. QTF has commented on our preliminary decision, and we have addressed its comments in the IDM. In the Preliminary Results, we assigned the non-selected separate rate companies the dumping margin calculated for Xinboda. No parties commented on this. We continue to use Xinboda’s margin as the margin for the non-selected separate rate companies in these final results. Weifang Hongqiao International Logistics Co., Ltd PRC-Wide Rate .................... 2.27 4.71 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES Assessment Rates Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter listed above, the cash deposit 15 See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011). 19 See 13 See 14 See Preliminary Results at Appendix II. IDM at 6 and Comment 4. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jun 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 rate will be the rate established in the final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of $4.71 per kilogram; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. The deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Disclosure We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. Notification to Interested Parties We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213. E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 2017 / Notices Dated: June 7, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Issues and Decision Memorandum 1. Whether the Department Should Rescind the Review of Harmoni and Jinxiang Jinma 2. Whether Hejia is Eligible for a Separate Rate 3. Yuting’s No Shipment Status 4. Whether the Application of AFA to QTFEntity was Warranted, and Whether the QTF-Entity is Eligible for a Separate Rate 5. The Department’s Application of the $4.71 per kilogram AFA Rate 6. Whether the Department Properly Calculated Xinboda’s EP 7. Whether the Department Should Rely on Total AFA in Assigning a Dumping Margin to Xinboda 8. Whether the Department Correctly Selected Romania as the Surrogate Country and Whether Mexico has the Highest Quality of Data Available Appendix II—List of Companies Under Review Subject to the PRC-Wide Rate 1. Jining Yongjia Trade Co., Ltd. 2. Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd. 3. The QTF-entity 4. Shandong Zhifeng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. 5. Zhong Lian Farming Product (Qingdao) Co., Ltd. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Appendix III—Companies That Have Certified No Shipments 1. Jining Yifa Garlic Produce Co., Ltd. 2. Jining Shengtai Fruits & Vegetables Co., Ltd. 3. Jining Shunchang Import & Export Co., Ltd. 4. Jinxiang Guihua Food Co., Ltd. 5. Jinxiang Richfar Fruits & Vegetables Co., Ltd. 6. Qingdao Maycarrier Import & Export Co., Ltd. 7. Qingdao Sea-Line International Trading Co., Ltd. 8. Shandong Chenhe International Trading Co., Ltd. 9. Shijiazhuang Goodman Trading Co., Ltd. 10. Yantai Jinyan Trading, Inc. [FR Doc. 2017–12302 Filed 6–13–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES [A–201–844] Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014– 2015 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. AGENCY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jun 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 On December 9, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico (rebar). The period of review (POR) is April 24, 2014, through October 31, 2015. The review covers two mandatory respondents, Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. (Deacero) and Grupo Simec S.A.B. de C.V. (Grupo Simec). For these final results, we find that Deacero made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value, while Grupo Simec did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. See the ‘‘Final Results of the Review’’ section below. DATES: Effective June 14, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore (for Deacero) or Patricia Tran (for Grupo Simec), AD/ CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3692 or (202) 482–1503, respectively. SUMMARY: On December 9, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results.1 On January 31, 2017, the petitioner,2 Grupo Simec, and Deacero timely submitted their case briefs.3 On January 9, 2017, the petitioner and Grupo Simec submitted requests for a hearing.4 On February 7, 2017, the petitioner, Grupo Simec, and Deacero submitted their rebuttal briefs.5 On February 8, 2017, 1 See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014–2015, 81 FR 89053 (December 9, 2016) (Preliminary Results). 2 The petitioner is the Rebar Trade Action Coalition, whose individual members are Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., Commercial Metals Company, Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., and Byer Steel Corporation. 3 See the petitioner’s letter titled, ‘‘Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico—Case Brief,’’ dated January 31, 2017; see also Deacero’s letter titled, ‘‘Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico—Case Brief,’’ dated January 31, 2017; Grupo Simec’s letter titled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico— Case Brief,’’ dated January 31, 2017. 4 See letter from the petitioner titled, ‘‘Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Request for Hearing,’’ dated January 9, 2017. See also letter from Grupo Simec titled, ‘‘Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Hearing Request,’’ dated January 9, 2017. 5 See the petitioner’s letter titled, ‘‘Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico—Rebuttal Brief,’’ dated February 7, 2017; see also Deacero’s letter titled, ‘‘Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico—Rebuttal Brief,’’ dated February 7, 2017; Grupo Simec’s letter titled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel Concrete PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27233 Grupo Simec withdrew its request for a hearing.6 Both Grupo Simec and the petitioner agreed to meetings with the Department in lieu of a hearing. Department officials met with Grupo Simec and the petitioner on May 3, and 10, 2017, respectively.7 On May 4, 2017, the Department postponed the final results until June 7, 2017.8 Scope of the Order Imports covered by the order are shipments of steel concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil form (rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The subject merchandise may also enter under other Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6085, 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.9 Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). Reinforcing Bar from Mexico—Rebuttal Case Brief,’’ dated February 7, 2017. 6 See letter from Grupo Simec titled ‘‘Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Withdrawal of Hearing Request,’’ dated February 8, 2017. 7 See Memorandum to the File from Stephanie Moore, Case Analyst titled, ‘‘Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Meeting with Respondents,’’ dated May 10, 2017. See also Memorandum to the File from Stephanie Moore, Case Analyst titled, ‘‘Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Meeting with Petitioner,’’ dated May 16, 2017. 8 See Memorandum titled ‘‘Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,’’ dated May 4, 2017. 9 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico; 2014–2015,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27230-27233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12302]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-831]


Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of the 21st Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2014-2015

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) published the 
Preliminary Results of the 21st administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of 
China (PRC) on December 9, 2016. We gave interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. The period of review 
(POR) is November 1, 2014, and October 31, 2015. The mandatory 
respondents in this review are: Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. 
(Harmoni) and Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd. (QTF).
    Based upon our analysis of the comments and information received, 
we made no changes to the margin calculated for voluntary respondent, 
Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. (Xinboda). As discussed below, 
the Department continues to find that QTF withheld requested 
information, significantly impeded the administrative review, and did 
not cooperate to the best of its ability. Accordingly, we continue to 
use adverse facts available. However, in a change from the Preliminary 
Results, we find that QTF is not eligible for separate rate status, and 
thus, is a part of the PRC-wide entity. The Department is also 
rescinding the review with respect to Harmoni and Jinxiang Jinma Fruits 
Vegetables Products Co., Ltd. (Jinxiang Jinma), as discussed below.
    These determinations and the final dumping margins are discussed 
below in the ``Final Results'' section of this notice.

DATES: Effective June 14, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Wallace or Alexander Cipolla, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202-482-6251 
or 202-482-4956, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department published the Preliminary 
Results on December 9, 2016, in which it preliminarily determined that 
QTF and Harmoni each failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. As 
a result, the Department preliminarily found that Harmoni had not 
rebutted the presumption that it is part of the PRC-wide entity, and we 
preliminarily based QTF's dumping margin on adverse facts available. 
The Department also preliminarily found that Xinboda sold merchandise 
to the United States at less than normal value. Finally, we 
preliminarily granted a separate rate to five companies which 
demonstrated their eligibility for separate rate status, but were not 
selected for individual examination.\1\ In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.309, we invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. The 
petitioners,\2\ the New Mexico Garlic Growers Coalition (NMGGC),\3\ 
Xinboda, QTF, Harmoni, and Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd. (Hejia) timely 
filed case briefs, pursuant to our regulations.\4\

[[Page 27231]]

Additionally, the petitioners, the NMGGC, Xinboda, and Harmoni timely 
filed rebuttal briefs.\5\ The deadline for the final results of this 
review was April 10, 2017. On March 15, 2017, the Department extended 
the deadline in this proceeding by 60 days to June 7, 2017.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 21st Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 89050 (December 9, 
2016) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (PDM).
    \2\ The petitioners are the Fresh Garlic Producers Association 
(FGPA) and its individual members: Christopher Ranch LLC, The Garlic 
Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, Inc.
    \3\ The NMGGC, at the time of initiation, consisted of Avrum 
Katz of Boxcar Farm and Stanley Crawford of El Bosque Farm.
    \4\ See NMGGC's Case Brief, ``Case Brief Filed on Behalf of the 
New Mexico Garlic Growers Coalition and El Bosque Farm in the 21st 
Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of 
China'' (March 24, 2017); see also Xinboda's First Case Brief, 
``Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China--Case Brief'' 
(March 24, 2017); see also QTF's Case Brief, ``Case Brief of Qingdao 
Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd.,'' (March 24, 2017); see also 
Petitioners' First Case Brief, ``Fresh Garlic from the People's 
Republic of China--Petitioners' Case Brief,'' (March 24, 2017); see 
also Harmoni's Case Brief, ``Harmoni Administrative Case Brief: 21st 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh Garlic 
from the People's Republic of China (A-570-831),'' (March 24, 2017); 
see also Xinboda's Second Case Brief, ``Case Brief of Shenzhen 
Xinboda Industrial Co. Ltd. (``Xinboda'') Re: Data Issues'' (April 
11, 2017); see also Hejia's Case Brief, ``Case Brief Jinxiang Hejia 
Co., Ltd.'' (April 11, 2017); see also Petitioners' Second Case 
Brief, ``Petitioners' Case Brief Concerning Shenzhen Xinboda 
Industrial Co., Ltd'' (April 11, 2017).
    \5\ See NMGGC's Rebuttal Brief, ``Rebuttal Brief--Filed on 
Behalf of the New Mexico Garlic Growers Coalition and El Bosque Farm 
in the 21st Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's 
Republic of China,'' (March 31, 2017); see also Xinboda's First 
Rebuttal Brief, ``Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China--
Letter Rebuttal Brief'' (March 31, 2017); see also Petitioners' 
First Rebuttal Brief, ``Petitioners' Rebuttal Brief'' (March 31, 
2017); see also Harmoni's Rebuttal Brief, ``Harmoni's Rebuttal 
Brief: 21st Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China (A-570-831)'' 
(March 31, 2017); see also Xinboda Second Rebuttal Brief), 
``Rebuttal Brief of Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. 
(``Xinboda'') Re: Data Issues'' (April 18, 2017); see also 
Petitioners' Second Rebuttal Brief, ``Petitioners' Second Case 
Rebuttal Brief'' (April 18, 2017).
    \6\ See Memorandum, ``Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of 
China--21st Administrative Review (2014-2015): Extension of Deadline 
for the Final Results of the Review'' (March 15, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order includes all grades of garlic, 
whole or separated into constituent cloves. Fresh garlic that are 
subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 0703.20.0000, 
0703.20.0005, 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0015, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 
0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, 2005.90.9500, 
2005.90.9700, 2005.99.9700. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written product description 
remains dispositive. For a full description of the scope of this order, 
please see ``Scope of the Order'' in the accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Gary Taverman, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Garlic from the 
People's Republic of China; 2014-2015,'' dated concurrently with 
this notice (IDM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    As discussed in the IDM,\8\ the Department is rescinding the review 
with respect to Harmoni and Jinxiang Jinma based on the Department's 
determination that the NMGGC's request for review was not credible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See IDM at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    We addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by 
parties in this review in the IDM. Appendix I provides a list of the 
issues which parties raised. The IDM is a public document and is on 
file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B8024 of the main 
Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically via 
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to 
registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the CRU. In 
addition, a complete version of the IDM can be accessed directly on the 
internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed IDM 
and the electronic versions of the IDM are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from 
interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, and for the 
reasons explained in the IDM, including the application of facts 
available with an adverse inference, we revised our decision regarding 
QTF's eligibility for a separate rate, and further collapsed the QTF-
entity to include Hebei Golden Bird Trading Co., Ltd. and Huamei 
Consulting.\9\ For the final results of this review, the Department has 
also updated the list of companies subject to this review that are 
found to be part of the PRC-wide entity. For a list of all issues 
addressed in these final results, please refer to Appendix I 
accompanying this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As discussed in the IDM, the QTF-entity includes Qingdao 
Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd. (QTF); Qingdao Tianhefeng Foods Co., 
Ltd. (QTHF); Qingdao Beixing Trading Co., Ltd. (QBT); Qingdao 
Lianghe International Trade Co., Ltd. (Lianghe); and Qingdao 
Xintianfeng Foods Co., Ltd. (QXF); Hebei Golden Bird Trading Co., 
Ltd. (Golden Bird); Huamei Consulting (collectively, the QTF-
entity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination of No Shipments

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily determined 
that the companies listed in Appendix III timely filed ``no shipment'' 
certifications and did not have any reviewable transactions during the 
POR. Consistent with the Department's assessment practice in non-market 
economy (NME) cases, we completed the review with respect to the 
companies listed in Appendix III. For the companies listed in Appendix 
III, CBP provided no evidence to contradict the claims of these 
companies of no shipments. Based on this information, we continue to 
determine that the companies listed in Appendix III did not have any 
reviewable transactions during the POR. See Appendix III.
    As discussed in the IDM, in the Preliminary Results, CBP indicated 
that although Shenzhen Yuting Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (Yuting) had 
certified no shipments, in fact, it had shipments during the POR.\10\ 
Following the Preliminary Results, Yuting sufficiently clarified the 
discrepancy with the Department.\11\ As noted in the ``Assessment 
Rates'' section below, the Department intends to issue appropriate 
instructions to CBP for the companies listed below based on the final 
results of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See IDM at ``Final Determination of No Shipments.''
    \11\ As noted in the IDM, in the preliminary results, the 
Department considered Yuting to be a part of the PRC-wide entity 
because CBP data indicated that it did have a shipment during the 
POR. However, based on Yuting's clarification, the Department finds 
that Yuting is no longer considered to be a part of the PRC-wide 
entity, and accordingly, we intend to liquidate the entry at the 
rate established in the prior administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRC-Wide Entity

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, the Department's policy 
regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this 
administrative review.\12\ Under this policy, the PRC-wide entity will 
not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the 
Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party 
requested a review of the PRC-wide entity, the entity is not under 
review and the entity's rate (i.e., $4.71/kg) is not subject to change. 
Aside from the no shipment companies discussed above, the Department 
considers all other companies for which a review was requested, and 
which did not qualify for a separate rate, to be part of the PRC-wide 
entity. See Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in 
Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty 
Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity 
in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).

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

[[Page 27232]]

Separate Rates

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that non-selected 
companies Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd., Jining Alpha Food Co., 
Ltd., Shandong Jinxiang Zhengyang Import & Export Co., Ltd., Shenzhen 
Bainong Co., Ltd., and Weifang Hongqiao International Logistics Co., 
Ltd., demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate.\13\ We 
continue to find that those five companies are eligible for a separate 
rate. As discussed in the IDM, the Department granted QTF separate 
status in the Preliminary Results. However, we now find that the QTF-
entity did not rebut the presumption of government control.\14\ As 
such, it did not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate. QTF 
has commented on our preliminary decision, and we have addressed its 
comments in the IDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Preliminary Results at Appendix II.
    \14\ See IDM at 6 and Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Results, we assigned the non-selected separate 
rate companies the dumping margin calculated for Xinboda. No parties 
commented on this. We continue to use Xinboda's margin as the margin 
for the non-selected separate rate companies in these final results.

Final Results of Administrative Review

    The weighted-average dumping margins for the administrative review 
are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
                        Exporter                              margins
                                                           (dollars per
                                                             kilogram)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd....................           $2.27
Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd.........................            2.27
Jining Alpha Food Co., Ltd..............................            2.27
Shandong Jinxiang Zhengyang Import & Export Co., Ltd....            2.27
Shenzhen Bainong Co., Ltd...............................            2.27
Weifang Hongqiao International Logistics Co., Ltd.......            2.27
PRC-Wide Rate...........................................            4.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended, (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has 
determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in 
accordance with the final results of this review. The Department 
intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 
days after publication of the final results of this administrative 
review.
    Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we 
calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by 
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each 
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered 
value of the sales to each importer (or customer).\15\ Where the 
Department calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the 
total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total 
sales quantity associated with those transactions, the Department will 
direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the 
resulting per-unit rates.\16\ Where an importer- (or customer-) 
specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, the 
Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the 
time of liquidation.\17\ Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad 
valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will 
instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to 
antidumping duties.\18\ We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries 
containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the 
PRC-wide rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Department's assessment practice, for entries that 
were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies 
individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct 
CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide entity rate. 
Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter had no 
shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that 
entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's 
rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide entity rate.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the 
final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, 
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be required 
for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and 
non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of $4.71 per 
kilogram; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC 
exporter. The deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Notification to Importers

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

Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 
continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of 
the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or 
destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective 
order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and 
terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative 
review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.213.


[[Page 27233]]


    Dated: June 7, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I--Issues and Decision Memorandum

1. Whether the Department Should Rescind the Review of Harmoni and 
Jinxiang Jinma
2. Whether Hejia is Eligible for a Separate Rate
3. Yuting's No Shipment Status
4. Whether the Application of AFA to QTF-Entity was Warranted, and 
Whether the QTF-Entity is Eligible for a Separate Rate
5. The Department's Application of the $4.71 per kilogram AFA Rate
6. Whether the Department Properly Calculated Xinboda's EP
7. Whether the Department Should Rely on Total AFA in Assigning a 
Dumping Margin to Xinboda
8. Whether the Department Correctly Selected Romania as the 
Surrogate Country and Whether Mexico has the Highest Quality of Data 
Available

Appendix II--List of Companies Under Review Subject to the PRC-Wide 
Rate

1. Jining Yongjia Trade Co., Ltd.
2. Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd.
3. The QTF-entity
4. Shandong Zhifeng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.
5. Zhong Lian Farming Product (Qingdao) Co., Ltd.

Appendix III--Companies That Have Certified No Shipments

1. Jining Yifa Garlic Produce Co., Ltd.
2. Jining Shengtai Fruits & Vegetables Co., Ltd.
3. Jining Shunchang Import & Export Co., Ltd.
4. Jinxiang Guihua Food Co., Ltd.
5. Jinxiang Richfar Fruits & Vegetables Co., Ltd.
6. Qingdao Maycarrier Import & Export Co., Ltd.
7. Qingdao Sea-Line International Trading Co., Ltd.
8. Shandong Chenhe International Trading Co., Ltd.
9. Shijiazhuang Goodman Trading Co., Ltd.
10. Yantai Jinyan Trading, Inc.

[FR Doc. 2017-12302 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P