[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21734-21738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8736]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-941]
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of First
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 11, 2011, the Department of Commerce
(``Department'') published in the Federal Register the preliminary
results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks from the People's
Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\ We gave interested parties an
opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. Based upon our
analysis of the comments and information received, we have made changes
to the margin calculations for the final results. We continue to find
that certain exporters have sold subject merchandise at less than
normal value during the period of review (``POR'') March 5, 2009,
through August 31, 2010.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the First
Administrative Review, Preliminary Rescission, in Part, and
Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results, 76 FR 62765 (October
11, 2011) (``Preliminary Results'').
\2\ As explained in the Preliminary Results, the abbreviated POR
for oven racks, a subset of subject merchandise, is September 9,
2009, through August 31, 2010. See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at
62766.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 21735]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: April 11, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katie Marksberry, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7906.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 28, 2010, the Department initiated an administrative
review of certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks from the PRC for
the period March 5, 2009, through August 31, 2010. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 66349
(October 28, 2010) (``Initiation'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Nashville Wire Products Inc. and SSW Holding Company, Inc.
(collectively, ``Petitioners'') initially requested that the
Department initiate an administrative review of ten companies;
however, we required additional information concerning why, pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), Petitioners requested a review of five of
these companies. See Initiation, 75 FR at 66352. Accordingly, the
Department postponed initiation of this administrative review with
respect to five companies requested by Petitioners. See id., and
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews; Correction, 75 FR 69054 (November 10, 2010). After
reviewing additional information placed on the record of this
administrative review by Petitioners, we determined that, for three
of the five companies, Petitioners did not provide any reason, other
than alleged transshipment, for initiation; therefore, we declined
to initiate a review for Asia Pacific CIS (Thailand) Co., Ltd.,
Taiwan Rail Company, and King Shan Wire Co., Ltd. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR
73036, 73039 (November 29, 2010). However, we did determine that it
was appropriate to initiate this review with respect to two
additional companies originally requested by Petitioners: Asia
Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd.; and Hengtong Hardware Manufacturing
(Huizhou) Co., Ltd. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 7, 2011, Guangdong Wireking Housewares and Hardware
Co., Ltd. (``Wireking''), a mandatory respondent in this review, and
Petitioners submitted additional surrogate value (``SV'') information.
The Department set the deadline for interested parties to submit case
briefs and rebuttal briefs to January 6, 2012, and January 11, 2012,
respectively.\4\ On January 6, 2012, New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd.
(``NKS''), a mandatory respondent in this review, Wireking, and
Petitioners each filed case briefs. On January 11, 2012, NKS and
Wireking filed rebuttal briefs. On January 12, 2012, Petitioners filed
a rebuttal brief, one day after the established deadline. In this
instance, to ensure full consideration of comments made by all parties,
the Department has, in its discretion, accepted Petitioners' rebuttal
brief.5 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Memorandum to The File, from Kabir Archuletta, Case
Analyst, Office 9, Re: Case Brief Schedule, dated December 20, 2011.
\5\ See Memorandum to The File, from Katie Marksberry, Case
Analyst, Office 9, Re: Petitioners' Rebuttal Brief, dated January
12, 2012.
\6\ On January 13, 2012, the Department received comments from
NKS citing the Department's past practice and questioning the
acceptance of Petitioners' rebuttal brief. On January 17, 2012, the
Department received comments from Wireking also seeking rejection of
Petitioners' rebuttal brief. On January 18, 2012, Petitioners
submitted comments to the Department requesting that the Department
reject the comments submitted by NKS and Wireking as containing new
factual information. On January 20, 2012, the Department sent
Wireking a letter rejecting its submission for containing untimely
filed new factual information. On January 24, 2012, Wireking
resubmitted its comments without inclusion of that new factual
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department did not hold a public hearing, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.310(d), as it did not receive any hearing requests from interested
parties.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
these reviews are addressed in the ``Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review,'' dated concurrently with this notice
(``Decision Memo''). A list of the issues which parties raised and to
which we respond in the Decision Memo is attached to this notice as an
Appendix. The Decision Memo is a public document and is on file
electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA
ACCESS''). Access to IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records
Unit, main Commerce building, Room 7046. In addition, a complete
version of the Decision Memo is accessible on the Department's Web site
at http://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic versions of
the memorandum are identical in content.
Scope of the Order
The scope of the order consists of shelving and racks for
refrigerators, freezers, combined refrigerator-freezers, other
refrigerating or freezing equipment, cooking stoves, ranges, and ovens
(``certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks'' or ``the merchandise
under order''). Certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks are
defined as shelving, baskets, racks (with or without extension slides,
which are carbon or stainless steel hardware devices that are connected
to shelving, baskets, or racks to enable sliding), side racks (which
are welded wire support structures for oven racks that attach to the
interior walls of an oven cavity that does not include support ribs as
a design feature), and subframes (which are welded wire support
structures that interface with formed support ribs inside an oven
cavity to support oven rack assemblies utilizing extension slides) with
the following dimensions:
--Shelving and racks with dimensions ranging from 3 inches by 5 inches
by 0.10 inch to 28 inches by 34 inches by 6 inches; or
--Baskets with dimensions ranging from 2 inches by 4 inches by 3 inches
to 28 inches by 34 inches by 16 inches; or
--Side racks from 6 inches by 8 inches by 0.1 inch to 16 inches by 30
inches by 4 inches; or
--Subframes from 6 inches by 10 inches by 0.1 inch to 28 inches by 34
inches by 6 inches.
The merchandise under the order is comprised of carbon or stainless
steel wire ranging in thickness from 0.050 inch to 0.500 inch and may
include sheet metal of either carbon or stainless steel ranging in
thickness from 0.020 inch to 0.2 inch. The merchandise under this order
may be coated or uncoated and may be formed and/or welded. Excluded
from the scope of this order is shelving in which the support surface
is glass.
The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
statistical reporting numbers 8418.99.8050, 8418.99.8060, 7321.90.5000,
7321.90.6090, 8516.90.8000, 7321.90.6040, 8516.90.8010 and
8419.90.9520. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope
of the order is dispositive.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on a review of the record as well as comments received from
parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have made revisions to
certain SVs and the margin calculations for Wireking and NKS in the
final results. Specifically, we have revised the surrogate financial
ratios. See Decision Memo at Comment 2.a and Final SV Memo at 2-3.\7\
We have also corrected
[[Page 21736]]
an error in the Preliminary Results alleged by NKS. See Decision Memo
at Comment 3.a. For all changes to the margin calculations, see
Decision Memo and the company specific analysis memoranda.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand,
Program Manager, Office 9, from Katie Marksberry, Case Analyst,
Office 9, Re: First Administrative Review of Certain Kitchen
Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China:
Surrogate Values for the Final Results, dated concurrently with this
notice (``Final SV Memo'').
\8\ See Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand,
Program Manager, Office 9, from Kabir Archuletta, Case Analyst,
Office 9, Re: Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of the First
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Kitchen Appliance
Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China: New King
Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd., dated concurrently with this notice (``NKS
Analysis Memo''), and Memorandum to the File, through Catherine
Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Katie Marksberry, Case
Analyst, Office 9, Re: Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of
the First Antidumping Duty Review of Certain Kitchen Appliance
Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China: Guandong
Wireking Housewares and Hardware Co., Ltd., dated concurrently with
this notice (``Wireking Analysis Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Partial Rescission
In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily rescinded
this review with respect to Hengtong Hardware Manufacturer (Huizhou)
Co., Ltd. (``Hengtong Hardware'') because the Department determined
that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States
during the POR.\9\ Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, no
information was submitted on the record indicating that Hengtong
Hardware made sales to the United States of subject merchandise during
the POR and no party provided written arguments regarding this issue.
Thus, there is no basis for the Department to reconsider its decision
and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with our
practice, we are rescinding this review with respect to Hengtong
Hardware.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62767.
\10\ See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72
FR 53527, 53530 (September 19, 2007), unchanged in Certain Frozen
Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 73
FR 15479, 15480 (March 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NKS Affiliation/Single Entity
In the Preliminary Results, the Department found NKS affiliated
with certain related entities, pursuant to sections 771(33)(A), (E) and
(F) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), based on
ownership and common control, in accordance with our determination in
the LTFV Investigation Final.\11\ For these final results, based on the
evidence presented in NKS's questionnaire responses, we find that NKS
and one of its affiliated entities should be treated as a single entity
for the purposes of this administrative review. This finding is based
on our determination that NKS and its affiliated entity are involved in
the export of subject merchandise sold by NKS and that a significant
potential for manipulation of price or production exists between these
entities. See Decision Memo at Comment 3.b.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62767; see also
Memorandum to the File through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager,
Office 9, from Kabir Archuletta, Case Analyst, Office 9, RE: First
Administrative Review of Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and
Racks from the People's Republic of China: Affiliations of New King
Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd., dated September 30, 2011, and 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) (``LTFV Investigation Final''), amended by
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's
Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 46971
(September 14, 2009) (``LTFV Investigation Amended Final'').
\12\ While NKS's affiliated entity is not a producer of subject
merchandise, where companies are affiliated and there exists a
significant potential for manipulation of prices and/or export
decisions, the Department has found it appropriate to treat those
companies as a single entity. See Hontex Enterprises, Inc. v. United
States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1343 (CIT 2003). In this case, not
only is NKS's affiliated entity an exporter of subject merchandise,
but it is an intermediary for all transactions of subject
merchandise between NKS and its unaffiliated U.S. customer(s). Due
to the proprietary nature of this issue, see Memorandum to the File,
through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Kabir
Archuletta, Case Analyst, Office 9, RE: First Administrative Review
of Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's
Republic of China: Affiliations of New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd.
for the Final Results, dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In our Preliminary Results, we determined that the following
companies met the criteria for separate rate status: Wireking, NKS, and
Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export Co., Ltd.\13\ We have not received any
information since the issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides
a basis for reconsideration of these determinations. Therefore, the
Department continues to find that the companies listed above meet the
criteria for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62769.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The separate rate is determined based on the calculated weighted-
average antidumping margins established for exporters and producers
individually investigated, excluding zero and de minimis margins or
margins based entirely on adverse facts available (``AFA''). In this
administrative review, one mandatory respondent, Wireking, has a
calculated weighted-average antidumping margin which is above de
minimis and NKS, the other mandatory respondent has a calculated margin
which is zero. Therefore, because there is only one weighted-average
antidumping margin calculated for these final results that is neither
zero, de minimis, nor based entirely on AFA, we have assigned
Wireking's margin to the companies not selected for individual
examination.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, e.g., Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic
of China: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 16379, 16381-82 (March 23, 2011); Certain Frozen Fish
Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 74
FR 11349, 11350 n.3 (March 17, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-Wide Entity and Use of Adverse Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other
person: (A) Withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to
provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form
and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1)
and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as
provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the
Act also authorizes the Department to use as AFA information derived
from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative
review, or other information placed on the record.
Asia Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., and Leader Metal Industry Co.,
Ltd. (aka Marmon Retail Services Asia), companies upon which the
Department initiated administrative reviews that have not been
rescinded, did not submit either a separate rate application or
certification.\15\ In addition, Jiangsu Weixi Group Co. (``Weixi''),
was initially selected as a mandatory respondent and did not respond to
the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire.\16\ Therefore, because
Weixi did not cooperate with the Department's request for information,
and Asia Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., and Leader Metal Industry Co.,
Ltd. (aka Marmon Retail Services Asia) did not demonstrate their
eligibility for separate
[[Page 21737]]
rate status in a timely manner, we have determined it is appropriate to
consider these companies as part of the PRC-wide entity.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62769.
\16\ See Id.
\17\ See Id., at 62770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for
information. Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our
requests for information, we find it necessary under section 776(a)(2)
of the Act to use facts available as the basis for these final results.
We further find that the PRC-wide entity--consisting of Weixi, Asia
Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., and Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (aka
Marmon Retail Services Asia)--failed to respond to the Department's
requests for information and, therefore, did not cooperate to the best
of its ability. Therefore, because the PRC-wide entity did not
cooperate to the best of its ability in the proceeding, the Department
finds it necessary to use an adverse inference in making its
determination, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on
information derived from (1) The petition, (2) a final determination in
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
other information placed on the record. Because of the PRC-wide
entity's failure to cooperate in this administrative review, we have
assigned the PRC-wide entity an AFA rate of 95.99 percent, which is the
PRC-wide rate determined in the LTFV Investigation Amended Final and
the only rate ever determined for the PRC-wide entity in this
proceeding.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See LTFV Investigation Amended Final, 74 FR at 46973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department determines for these final results that this
information is the most appropriate from the available sources to
effectuate the purposes of AFA, which is to induce respondents to
provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a
timely manner.\19\ The Department's reliance on the PRC-wide rate from
the original investigation to determine an AFA rate is subject to the
requirement to corroborate secondary information.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan,
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
\20\ See section 776(c) of the Act and the ``Corroboration of
Facts Available'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, where the Department
relies on secondary information in selecting AFA, the Department
corroborate such information to the extent practicable. To be
considered corroborated, the Department must find the information has
probative value, meaning that the information must be both reliable and
relevant.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See SAA at 870; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings,
Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof,
From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR
57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825
(March 13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department considers the AFA rate calculated for the current
review to be both reliable and relevant. On the issue of reliability,
the Department corroborated the AFA rate in the LTFV Investigation
Amended Final.\22\ No information has been presented in the current
review that calls into question the reliability of this information.
With respect to the relevance, the Department will consider information
reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to
have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin
is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and
determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from
Mexico, the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as
best information available (the predecessor to AFA) because the margin
was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense
resulting in an unusually high margin.\23\ Since the investigation, the
Department has found no other corroborating information available in
this case, and received no comments from interested parties as to the
relevance or reliability of that secondary information. Based upon the
above, for these final results, the Department finds that the rate
derived from the Petition and assigned to the PRC-wide entity in the
LTFV Investigation Amended Final is corroborated to the extent
practicable for purposes of assigning the PRC-wide entity the same
95.99 percent rate as AFA in this administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See LTFV Investigation Amended Final, 74 FR at 46973.
\23\ See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22,
1996) (``Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Export Subsidy Adjustment
Section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act states that the price used to
establish export price or constructed export price (``CEP'') ``shall be
increased by the amount of any countervailing duty imposed on the
subject merchandise * * * to offset an export subsidy.'' \24\ The
Department determined in its final results of the companion
countervailing duty administrative review that NKS and Wireking's
merchandise benefited from export subsidies.\25\ Therefore, because
Wireking and NKS both reported their POR sales on a CEP basis,\26\ we
have increased each company's CEP for countervailing duties imposed
that are attributable to export subsidies, where appropriate.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 38076,
38077 (July 1, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1.
\25\ See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, signed concurrently with this notice.
\26\ See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62773-74.
\27\ See NKS Analysis Memo and Wireking Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 21738]]
Final Results of Review
The Department has determined that the following final dumping
margins exist for the period March 5, 2009, through August 31, 2010:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. (a/k/a 7.89
Foshan Shunde Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd.)
\28\......................................................
New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd........................... 0.00
Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export Co., Ltd.................... 7.89
PRC-Wide Entity \29\....................................... 95.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ In the LTFV Investigation Final, the Department found that
Wireking was a single entity with Company G (the name of this
company is business proprietary). See Wireking Analysis Memo. The
information placed on the record of this review demonstrates that
there have not been any changes to the ownership structure.
Therefore, we continue to find Wireking and Company G to constitute
a single entity.
\29\ The PRC-wide entity includes Weixi, Asia Pacific CIS (Wuxi)
Co., Ltd., and Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (aka Marmon Retail
Services Asia), as well as any company that does not have a separate
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends
to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), the Department will calculate importer (or customer)-
specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the
dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered
value of those same sales. The Department will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if
any importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis.
Disclosure
We will 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).
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 exporters
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in
these 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
206.00 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
that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Reimbursement of Duties
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 has occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice also serves as a final 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. 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.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: April 4, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I--Decision Memorandum
General Issues
Comment 1: Zeroing
Comment 2: Surrogate Values
a. Surrogate Financial Ratios
b. Brokerage and Handling
Company Specific Issues
Comment 3: Issues Regarding NKS
a. Conversion of Gross Unit Price
b. Inclusion of Affiliate's Name in Cash Deposit and Liquidation
Instructions
[FR Doc. 2012-8736 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P