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
<![CDATA[
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 https://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 https://access.trade.gov and in the
CRU. In addition, a complete version of
the IDM can be accessed directly on the
internet at https://enforcement.trade.gov/
frn/. 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 https://access.trade.gov and in the CRU. In
addition, a complete version of the IDM can be accessed directly on the
internet at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. 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
