[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34048-34053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14363]
[[Page 34048]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-937]
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order; and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the first
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric acid and
certain citrate salts (``citric acid'') from the People's Republic of
China (``PRC''), covering the period November 20, 2008, through April
30, 2010. The Department has preliminarily determined that during the
period of review (``POR'') respondents in this proceeding have made
sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV''). If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise
during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. We will issue final results no later than 120 days
from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').
DATES: Effective Date: June 10, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krisha Hill or Lilit Asvatsatrian, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4037
or (202) 482-6412, respectively.
Background
On May 29, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on citric acid from the PRC.\1\ On June 30,
2010, the Department initiated an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on citric acid from the PRC.\2\ On October 7,
2010, the Department issued the respondent selection memorandum in
which it selected RZBC Co., Ltd., RZCB Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., and RZBC
(Juxian) Co., Ltd. (collectively ``RZBC'') and Yixing Union Biochemical
Co., Ltd. (``Yixing Union'') as respondents for individual review.\3\
Between October 12, 2010, and January 24, 2011, the Department sent the
original antidumping questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires to
RZBC and Yixing Union. RZBC and Yixing Union submitted timely
questionnaire responses between November 10, 2010, and March 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and
the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 25703
(May 29, 2009).
\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR
37759 (June 30, 2010) (``Initiation''). In the Initiation, the firm
names for the non-mandatory respondents were listed as follows:
Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd. (``Laiwu Taihe''); Anhui BBCA
Biochemical Co., Ltd. and Anhui BBCA International Co., Ltd.
(collectively, ``BBCA''); Anhui Worldbest Bio-Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd., Shanghai Worldbest Group Company, Shanghai Worldbest Co.,
Ltd., Shanghai Worldbest Anui, Thai Worldbest Biochemical Co., Ltd.,
and Worldbest Biochemicals (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (collectively,
``Worldbest''); and Pioneers Pharmavet S.L. (``Pioneers'').
\3\ See the Department's memorandum regarding, ``Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Citric Acid and Citrate
Salts from the People's Republic of China: Respondent Selection,''
dated October 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 17, 2010, Petitioners,\4\ RZBC, and Yixing Union
commented on surrogate country selection. On November 30, 2010, Yixing
Union submitted rebuttal comments on surrogate country selection. On
December 8, 2010, Petitioners, RZBC, and Yixing Union submitted
surrogate value comments. On December 20, 2010, Petitioners submitted
rebuttal comments on surrogate country and surrogate value selections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated and
Tate & Lyle Americas LLC (collectively, ``Petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 25, 2011, the Department published a notice in the
Federal Register extending the time limit for the preliminary results
of review by 60 days allowed under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act to
April 1, 2011.\5\ On March 31, 2011, the Department further extended
the preliminary results of review by 60 additional days to a maximum
120 days allowed under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act to May 31,
2011.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
76 FR 4288 (January 25, 2011).
\6\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 17835
(March 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is November 20, 2008, through April 30, 2010.
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order includes all grades and granulation sizes
of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their
unblended forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of
packaging type. The scope also includes blends of citric acid, sodium
citrate, and potassium citrate; as well as blends with other
ingredients, such as sugar, where the unblended form(s) of citric acid,
sodium citrate, and potassium citrate constitute 40 percent or more, by
weight, of the blend. The scope of this order also includes all forms
of crude calcium citrate, including dicalcium citrate monohydrate, and
tricalcium citrate tetrahydrate, which are intermediate products in the
production of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate. The
scope of this order does not include calcium citrate that satisfies the
standards set forth in the United States Pharmacopeia and has been
mixed with a functional excipient, such as dextrose or starch, where
the excipient constitutes at least 2%, by weight, of the product. The
scope of this order includes the hydrous and anhydrous forms of citric
acid, the dihydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium citrate, otherwise
known as citric acid sodium salt, and the monohydrate and monopotassium
forms of potassium citrate. Sodium citrate also includes both trisodium
citrate and monosodium citrate, which are also known as citric acid
trisodium salt and citric acid monosodium salt, respectively. Citric
acid and sodium citrate are classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and
2918.15.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS), respectively. Potassium citrate and crude calcium citrate are
classifiable under 2918.15.5000 and 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS,
respectively. Blends that include citric acid, sodium citrate, and
potassium citrate are classifiable under 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested
the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the initiation notice of the requested review. Further,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department is permitted to extend
this time if it is reasonable to do so.
[[Page 34049]]
On September 24, 2010, Nutralliance, Inc., a U.S. importer of
subject merchandise produced and exported by Laiwu Taihe, timely
withdrew its request for an administrative review of Laiwu Taihe's
exports to the United States. On October 15, 2010, Petitioners timely
withdrew their review requests for BBCA, Worldbest, and Pioneers.
Because no other parties requested a review of Laiwu Taihe's, BBCA's,
Worldbest's or Pioneers' exports to the United States, the Department
hereby rescinds the administrative review of citric acid with respect
to these entities in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Non-Market-Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country.\7\ In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked
by the administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding
has contested such treatment. Accordingly, the Department has
calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which
applies to NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free
Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760
(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic
of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
When the Department conducts an antidumping duty administrative
review of imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act
directs the Department to base NV, in most cases, on the NME producer's
factors of production (``FOP''), valued in a surrogate market-economy
(``ME'') country or countries considered appropriate by the Department.
In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department will
value FOPs using ``to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the
FOPs in one or more market-economy countries that are: (A) At a level
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (B)
significant producers of comparable merchandise.''
With respect to the Department's selection of surrogate country,
both Petitioners and RZBC submitted comments arguing that Indonesia is
the most appropriate surrogate country from which to derive surrogate
factor values for the PRC because Indonesia: (a) Has a per capita gross
national income (``GNI'') which is economically comparable to that of
the PRC, (b) is also a significant producer of citric acid, and (c)
provides reliable data to value respondents' factors of production.\8\
On November 17, 2010, Yixing Union identified both Indonesia and India
to be appropriate for selection as the primary surrogate country.\9\ On
November 30, 2010, Yixing Union submitted rebuttal comments regarding
Petitioners' argument that India is inappropriate for surrogate country
selection.\10\ In this submission, Yixing Union agreed that Indonesia
is the most appropriate primary surrogate country, but also argued that
India be considered a viable surrogate country in the instance that
surrogate values from Indonesia are not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See RZBC's submission regarding, ``Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Country
Comments,'' dated November 17, 2010 (``RZBC's Surrogate Country
Comments'') and Petitioner's submission regarding, ``Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts
from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Country Selection,''
dated November 17, 2010 (``Petitioner's Surrogate Country
Comments'').
\9\ See Yixing Union's submission regarding, ``Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
the People's Republic of China--Response of Yixing Union Biochemical
Co., Ltd. to Request for Comments Regarding Surrogate Country
Selection,'' dated November 17, 2010 (``Yixing Union's Surrogate
Country Comments'').
\10\ See Yixing Union's submission regarding, ``Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China (A-570-
937)--Surrogate Value Rebuttal Letter of Yixing Union Biochemical
Co., Ltd.,'' dated December 20, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the instant review, the Department has identified India,
Indonesia, the Philippines, Ukraine, Thailand, and Peru as countries
that are at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC.\11\
The Department uses per capita GNI as the primary basis for determining
economic comparability.\12\ Once the countries that are economically
comparable to the PRC have been identified, the Department selects an
appropriate surrogate country by determining whether an economically
comparable country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise
and whether data for valuing FOPs are both available and reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See the Department's Memorandum regarding ``Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Request
for Comments on Surrogate Country Selection,'' dated October 12,
2010. The Department notes that these six countries are part of a
non-exhaustive list of countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC.
\12\ See the Department's Policy Bulletin No. 04.1, regarding,
``Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process,'' (March
1, 2004) (``Policy Bulletin 04.1''), available on the Department's
Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has determined that it is appropriate to use
Indonesia as a surrogate country, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the
Act, based on the following: (1) It is at a similar level of economic
development to the PRC; (2) it is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise, and (3) the Department has reliable data from Indonesia
that it can use to value the FOPs.\13\ Accordingly, we have calculated
NV using Indonesian prices when available and appropriate to value each
respondent's FOPs.\14\ In certain instances where Indonesian SVs were
not deemed to be the best available data, we have relied on Indian and
Thai SVs in the alternative. Both India and Thailand are at a similar
level of economic development to the PRC and are significant producers
of comparable merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See RZBC's Surrogate Country Comments, Yixing Union's
Surrogate Country Comments, Petitioner's Surrogate Country Comments
; see also the Department's Memorandum regarding ``Preliminary
Results of the Administrative Review of Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value
Memorandum,'' dated May 31, 2011 (``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
\14\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum; see also ``Factor
Valuations'' section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
of an administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value the FOPs within 20 days after the date
of publication of these preliminary results.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record.
The Department generally will not accept the submission of
additional, previously absent-from-the-record, alternative surrogate
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assigned a single
antidumping duty rate.\16\ It is the
[[Page 34050]]
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to
review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to
a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this independence through
the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export
activities. The Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject
merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,
56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in the
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide
from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994)
(``Silicon Carbide''). However, if the Department determines that a
company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a
separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is
independent from government control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See, e.g., Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality
Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 24892,
24899 (May 6, 2010), unchanged in Certain Coated Paper Suitable for
High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 75 FR 59217 (September 27, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to demonstrate separate-rate status eligibility, the
Department normally requires entities, for whom a review was requested,
and who were assigned a separate rate in a previous segment of this
proceeding, to submit a separate-rate certification stating that they
continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate.\17\ For
entities that were not assigned a separate rate in the previous segment
of a proceeding, to demonstrate eligibility for such, the Department
requires a separate-rate application.\18\ On August 25 and 31, 2010,
RZBC and Yixing Union, respectively, each submitted separate rate
certifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Initiation.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by RZBC and Yixing Union supports a
preliminary finding of de jure absence of government control based on
the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of the companies.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Letter from Yixing Union to the Department entitled,
``Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic
of China (A-570-937)--Section A Questionnaire Response of Yixing
Union Biochemical Co., Ltd.,'' dated November 10, 2010 (``Yixing
Union's Section A Response''); see also Letter from RZBC to the
Department entitled, ``Citric Acid and Citrate Salt from the
People's Republic of China: Section A Response'' dated November 12,
2010 (``RZBC's Section A Response'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May
8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control
is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to
a degree of government control over export activities that would
preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. For RZBC and
Yixing Union, we determine that the evidence on the record supports a
preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based on
record statements and supporting documentation showing the following:
(1) Each respondent sets its own export prices independent of the
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) each
respondent retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3)
each respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and
other agreements; and (4) each respondent has autonomy from the
government regarding the selection of management.\22\ Additionally,
each of these companies' questionnaire responses indicates that their
pricing during the POR does not involve coordination among exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Yixing Union's Section A Response and RZBC's Section A
Response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence placed on the record of this review by RZBC and Yixing
Union demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government
control with respect each company's respective exports of the
merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria identified in
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we are preliminarily granting
RZBC and Yixing Union a separate rate.
Fair-Value Comparisons
To determine whether RZBC's and Yixing Union's sales of subject
merchandise were made at less than NV, we compared the NV to individual
export price (``EP'') transactions in accordance with section
777A(d)(2) of the Act. See ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value''
sections of this notice, below.
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is ``the price at
which subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before
the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to
the United States,'' as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. For
each respondent, we used EP methodology, in accordance with section
772(a) of the Act, for sales in which the subject merchandise was first
sold prior to importation by the exporter outside the United States
directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States and for
sales in which constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
We based EP on the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, where
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit
price) for foreign inland freight, marine insurance, domestic and
market-economy brokerage and handling, and international freight. We
valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export procedures
necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in Indonesia. The
price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the
[[Page 34051]]
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in India as reported in ``Doing Business 2010:
Indonesia'' published by the World Bank.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
We compared NV to individual EP transactions in accordance with
section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, as appropriate. Section 773(c)(1) of the
Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP
methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME country;
and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using
home market prices, third country prices, or constructed value under
section 773(a) of the Act. When determining NV in an NME context, the
Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of these economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our
normal methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include
but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of
raw materials employed; and (3) representative capital costs. The
Department used FOPs reported by the respondents for materials, labor,
packing and by-products.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. In accordance with
19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly
available information to find an appropriate surrogate value (``SV'')
to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market
economy and pays for it in market economy currency, the Department
normally will value the factor using the actual price paid for the
input.\24\ To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-
consumption rates by publicly available SVs (except as discussed
below). In selecting SVs, we considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data.\25\ As appropriate, we adjusted input
prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices.
Specifically, we added to import SVs surrogate freight cost using the
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the
factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, where
appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117
F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly
Components Div of Ill Tool Works v. United States, 268 F. 3d 1376,
1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department's use of
market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
\25\ See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR
72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final Results of First New Shipper
Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 31204
(June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the preliminary results, except where noted below, we used data
from the Indonesian and Thai import Statistics in the Global Trade
Atlas (``GTA'') and other publicly available Indian and Indonesian
sources in order to calculate SVs for RZBC's and Yixing Union's FOPs
(i.e. direct materials, energy, and packing materials) and certain
movement expenses. As Indonesia is the primary surrogate country, we
used Indonesian data and applied Thai and Indian data where there were
no usable Indonesian data. In selecting the best available information
for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the
Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs
which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\26\ The record shows that data in
the Indonesian Import Statistics, as well as those from the other
Indonesian, Thai, and Indian sources, are contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\27\ In those instances where we
could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the
POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the SVs using, where
appropriate, the Indonesian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as
published in the IMF's International Financial Statistics.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
\27\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
\28\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5, 2009) (``Kitchen Racks
Prelim''), unchanged in Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009) (``Kitchen Racks
Final'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with legislative history, the Department continues to
apply its long-standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason
to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.\29\ In this
regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate to
disregard such prices from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand
because we have determined that these countries maintain broadly
available, non-industry specific export subsidies.\30\ Based on the
existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available to
all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the POR,
the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have benefitted
from these subsidies. Therefore, the Department has not used prices
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand in calculating the
import-based SVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess.
(1988) at 590.
\30\ See e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final
Results of the Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4-5; Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia: Final Results of
Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4; Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea:
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 17, 19-20; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.\31\
Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an
``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, because
the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an
NME country or a country with generally available export subsidies.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See, e.g., Kitchen Racks Prelim, 74 FR at 9600, unchanged
in Kitchen Racks Final.
\32\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate
calculated from data on the infobanc Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this Web site contains
inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued the surrogate value for inland water freight using price
data for barge freight reported in a March 19,
[[Page 34052]]
2007 article published in The Hindu Business Line. The data is based on
average inland transport costs and port handling charges. We inflated
the inland water transportation rate by using the appropriate Indian
WPI inflator.
On May 14, 2010, the Federal Circuit in Dorbest Ltd. v. United
States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010), found that the
regression-based method for calculating wage rates, as stipulated by 19
CFR 351.408(c)(3), uses data not permitted by the statutory
requirements laid out in section 773 of the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C.
1677b(c)). The Department is continuing to evaluate options for
determining labor values in light of the recent CAFC decision. However,
for these preliminary results, we have calculated an hourly wage rate
to use in valuing respondents' reported labor input by averaging
industry-specific earnings and/or wages in countries that are
economically comparable to the PRC and that are significant producers
of comparable merchandise.
For the preliminary results of this administrative review, the
Department is valuing labor using a simple-average, industry-specific
wage rate using earnings or wage data reported under Chapter 5B by the
International Labor Organization (``ILO''). To achieve an industry-
specific labor value, we relied on industry-specific labor data from
the countries we determined to be both economically comparable to the
PRC and significant producers of comparable merchandise. A full
description of the industry-specific wage rate calculation methodology
is provided in the Surrogate Value Memorandum. The Department
calculated a simple average industry-specific wage rate of $2.01 for
these preliminary results. Specifically, for this review, the
Department has calculated the wage rate using a simple average of the
data provided to the ILO under Sub-Classification 24 of the ISIC-
Revision 3 standard by countries determined to be both economically
comparable to the PRC and significant producers of comparable
merchandise. The Department finds the two-digit description under ISIC-
Revision 3 (``Manufacture of Chemicals and Chemical Products'') to be
the best available wage rate surrogate value on the record because it
is specific and derived from industries that produce merchandise
comparable to the subject merchandise. Consequently, we averaged the
ILO industry-specific wage rate data or earnings data available from
the following countries found to be economically comparable to the PRC
and which are significant producers of comparable merchandise: Ecuador,
Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine. For
further information on the calculation of the wage rate, see Surrogate
Value Memorandum.
We were unable to segregate and, therefore, were unable to exclude
energy costs from the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios.
Accordingly, for the preliminary results, we have disregarded the
respondents' energy inputs (electricity and steam for both RZBC and
Yixing Union) in the calculation of normal value for purposes of the
final determination, in order to avoid double-counting energy costs
that have necessarily been captured in the surrogate financial
ratios.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 74 FR 16838 (April 13, 2009) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
expenses, and profit, we used audited financial statements for the year
ending December 2009 of PT Budi Acid Jaya TBK, a producer of comparable
merchandise from Indonesia. The Department may consider other publicly
available financial statements for the final results, as appropriate.
RZBC and Yixing Union reported that they have recovered by-products
in their production of subject merchandise and successfully
demonstrated that all of them have commercial value; therefore, we have
granted a by-product offset for the quantities of each respondent's
reported by-products, valued using Indonesian GTA data.
Currency Conversion
Where appropriate, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars,
in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
The weighted-average dumping margins for the individually reviewed
exporters are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RZBC Co., Ltd./RZBC Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd./ 0.36 (de minimis).
RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd.
Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd......... 66.75.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of
review.\35\ Rebuttals to written comments may be filed no later than
five days after the written comments are filed.\36\ Further, parties
submitting written comments and rebuttal comments are requested to
provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on a
CD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c).
\36\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice.\37\ Hearing requests should contain the
following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to
be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in
the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be
notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\38\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance
with the final results of this review. For Laiwu Taihe and BBCA, which
had previously established eligibility for a separate rate, antidumping
duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of
estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(c)(2). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions
to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this
review. For assessment purposes, we calculated exporter/importer-
specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review.\39\
Where appropriate, we calculated an ad valorem rate for each importer
(or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales
to that party by the total entered values associated
[[Page 34053]]
with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad valorem rate
against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise. Where
appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each importer (or
customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to
that party by the total sales quantity associated with those
transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we
will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against the
entered quantity of the subject merchandise. Where an importer (or
customer)-specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50
percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer's
(or customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to
antidumping duties. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries
containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity \40\ at
the PRC-wide rate we determine in the final results of this review.
Where the weighted average ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\40\ PRC-wide entity includes Pioneers and Worldbest, which did
not previously establish eligibility for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For RZBC and Yixing
Union the cash deposit rate will be their respective rates established
in the final results of this review, except if the rate is zero or de
minimis no cash deposit will be required; (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, including Pioneers and Worldbest, the
cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 156.87 percent; and (4)
for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied those non-PRC exporters.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and (3) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213
and 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: May 31, 201.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-14363 Filed 6-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P