[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26739-26742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10952]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-977]
High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: May 7, 2012.
SUMMARY: On December 15, 2011, the Department of Commerce
(``Department'') published the Preliminary Determination of sales at
less than fair value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of
high pressure steel cylinders from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'').\1\ The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 2010,
through March 31, 2011. Based on its analysis of the comments received,
the Department has made changes to its Preliminary Determination. The
Department continues to find that high pressure steel cylinders from
the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at
LTFV, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the
``Final Determination Margins'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value, 76 FR 77964 (December 15, 2011) (``Preliminary
Determination'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Ray or Emeka Chukwudebe, 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-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5403 or 482-0219, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Since the Preliminary Determination, the Department conducted sales
and factors of production (``FOP'') verifications for Beijing Tianhai
Industry Co., Ltd. (``BTIC''), the mandatory respondent, from January 9
through January 17, 2012, and a sales verification for American Fortune
Company (``AFC''), BTIC's U.S. affiliate, on February 9 and 10,
2012.\2\ See the
[[Page 26740]]
``Verification'' section below for additional information. On January
31, 2012, and February 10, 2012, we received surrogate value (``SV'')
comments from both BTIC and Petitioner and rebuttal SV comments from
BTIC. On March 2, 2011, we issued a post-preliminary supplemental
questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We conducted verifications of BTIC and one of its affiliated
producers, Langfang Tianhai High Pressure Contain Co., Ltd.
(``Langfang Tianhai''), which produced the merchandise under
investigation that BTIC sold to the United States, and BTIC's U.S.
affiliate which sold merchandise under investigation in the United
States. See Memo to the File, through Matthew Renkey, Acting Program
Manager, Office 9, from Alan Ray and Emeka Chukwudebe, International
Trade Analysts, ``Verification of the Sales and Factors of
Production Response of Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd. (``BTIC'')
in the Investigation of High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the
People's Republic of China,'' dated February 23, 2012 (``BTIC
Verification Report''); Memo to the File, through Matthew Renkey,
Acting Program Manager, Office 9, from Alan Ray and Ricardo Martinez
Rivera, International Trade Analysts,, ``Verification of the
Constructed Export Price Sales of American Fortune Company (``AFC'')
in the Investigation of High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the
People's Republic of China,'' dated February 23, 2012 (``AFC
Verification Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon the February 23, 2012, release of the verification reports, we
invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination.
On March 6, 2012, we received case briefs from Petitioner,\3\ BTIC, and
Zhejiang Jindun Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd. (``Jindun''). On March 26,
2012, we received rebuttal briefs from Petitioner and BTIC. On March
16, 2012, we released a new labor calculation and requested that
interested parties submit comments.\4\ On March 26, 2012, BTIC
submitted comments regarding the revised labor calculation. The
Department held a public hearing on April 4, 2012, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Norris Cylinder Company.
\4\ See ``Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
through Matthew Renkey, Acting Program Manager, Office 9, from Emeka
Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation
of High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of
China: Post-Preliminary Analysis Regarding Surrogate Labor Value,''
dated March 16, 2012 (``Surrogate Labor Value Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this investigation are addressed in the ``Antidumping Duty
Investigation of High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's
Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final
Determination'' (``Decision Memorandum''), dated concurrently with this
notice and which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues
which parties raised, and to which we respond to in the Decision
Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Decision
Memorandum 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 (``CRU''), room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic
versions of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Based on our analysis of information on the record of this
investigation, we have made changes regarding BTIC and the separate
rate companies \5\ for the final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Jindun, Shanghai J.S.X. International Trading Corporation
(``Shanghai J.S.X.''), and Shijiazhuang Enric Gas Equipment Co.,
Ltd. (``Enric'') (``Separate Rate Respondents'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to the Preliminary Determination, at the
Department's request, BTIC provided a revised FOP and sales database.
We have changed the source used for valuing truck freight.
We have changed the surrogate financial statements upon
which we are relying to calculate financial ratios from Everest Kanto
Cylinder Ltd. to Thai Metal Drum Manufacturing Public Company Limited.
We have excluded water and all of the other energy FOPs
from the build-up for normal value as the Thai Metal Drum Manufacturing
Public Company Limited financial statement does not provide sufficient
detail for the Department to allocate those factors appropriately.
We are changing the date of sale for constructed export
price (``CEP'') sales to reflect the correct date of sale in the
``Targeted Dumping'' section of the margin calculation program.
We are using the revised labor valuation methodology
discussed in our March 16, 2012, memorandum.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Surrogate Labor Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, we assigned the PRC-wide
rate of 26.23 percent, the highest transaction-specific rate
preliminarily calculated for BTIC. For this final determination, we
continue to use BTIC's highest transaction-specific rate, which now is
31.42 percent.
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by the scope of the investigation is
seamless steel cylinders designed for storage or transport of
compressed or liquefied gas (``high pressure steel cylinders''). High
pressure steel cylinders are fabricated of chrome alloy steel
including, but not limited to, chromium-molybdenum steel or chromium
magnesium steel, and have permanently impressed into the steel, either
before or after importation, the symbol of a U.S. Department of
Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(``DOT'') approved high pressure steel cylinder manufacturer, as well
as an approved DOT type marking of DOT 3A, 3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3B, 3E, 3HT,
3T, or DOT-E (followed by a specific exemption number) in accordance
with the requirements of sections 178.36 through 178.68 of Title 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, or any subsequent amendments thereof.
High pressure steel cylinders covered by the investigation have a water
capacity up to 450 liters, and a gas capacity ranging from 8 to 702
cubic feet, regardless of corresponding service pressure levels and
regardless of physical dimensions, finish or coatings.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are high pressure
steel cylinders manufactured to UN-ISO-9809-1 and 2 specifications and
permanently impressed with ISO or UN symbols. Also excluded from the
investigation are acetylene cylinders, with or without internal porous
mass, and permanently impressed with 8A or 8AL in accordance with DOT
regulations.
Merchandise covered by the investigation is classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under
subheading 7311.00.00.30. Subject merchandise may also enter under
HTSUS subheadings 7311.00.00.60 or 7311.00.00.90. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise under the investigation is
dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification
of the information submitted by BTIC for use in our final
determination. We used standard verification procedures, including
examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as
original source documents provided by BTIC.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See BTIC Verification Report; AFC Verification Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26741]]
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we selected Ukraine as the
primary surrogate country in this investigation because: (1) In
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, we determined that it is
a significant producer of comparable merchandise and it is at a level
of economic development comparable to the PRC; and (2) Ukraine data
satisfy several factors that the Department considers in selecting a
primary surrogate country, including whether the SV data are publicly
available, contemporaneous with the POI, represent a broad-market
average, from an approved surrogate country, are tax- and duty-
exclusive, and specific to the input.\8\ Interested parties submitted
comments regarding our preliminary determinations concerning the
selection of surrogate country, which are summarized in the
accompanying Decision Memo at Comment I. For this final determination
we continue to select Ukraine as the primary surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 77967-77968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non-market-economy (``NME'') countries,
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to
an investigation 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.\9\ In the Preliminary Determination, we
found that BTIC, Enric, Jindun, and Shanghai J.S.X., (collectively,
``Separate Rate Companies'') demonstrated their eligibility for, and
were hence assigned, separate rate status.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 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 amplified by Notice of 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''),
and 19 CFR 351.107(d).
\10\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 77965 n.16 and
77969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No parties commented on the above companies' eligibility for
separate rate status. Consequently, for the final determination, we
continue to find that these companies demonstrated both a de jure and
de facto absence of government control with respect to their exports of
the merchandise under investigation, and are eligible for separate rate
status for the final determination.
Calculation of the Margin for the Separate Rate Companies
As in the Preliminary Determination, we are basing the antidumping
duty margin for those companies receiving a separate rate, but who were
not individually examined,\11\ on the margin calculated for BTIC.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Enric, Jindun, and Shanghai J.S.X.
\12\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 77970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department received comments from Jindun regarding the
Department's Preliminary Determination and its decision not to examine
Jindun as a voluntary respondent, as requested. The Department has
addressed these arguments in Comment VI of the Decision Memorandum. For
the final determination, we continue not to individually examine
Jindun. Accordingly, Jindun will continue to be treated as and receive
the rate assigned to the non-selected, Separate Rate Companies.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-Wide Entity Rate
Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a
NME country are subject to government control, and because only the
companies listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section,
below, have overcome that presumption, we are assigning a single
weighted-average dumping margin (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to all other
exporters of the merchandise under consideration. These other companies
did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate.\14\ The PRC-wide
rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under consideration
except for entries from the Separate Rate Companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of
China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that
there were exporters/producers of the merchandise subject to this
investigation during the POI from the PRC that did not respond to the
Department's request for information.\15\ Further, we treated these PRC
exporters/producers as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not
qualify for a separate rate. Therefore, we find that the use of facts
available (``FA'') is necessary and appropriate to determine the PRC-
wide rate pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 77970.
\16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department also determined
that, in selecting from among the FA, an adverse inference is
appropriate because the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for
information.\17\ As adverse facts available (``AFA''), we preliminarily
assigned to the PRC-wide entity a rate of 26.23 percent, the highest
transaction-specific rate preliminarily calculated for BTIC.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See id.
\18\ See id., at 77971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to
provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner
requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides
information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject
to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may
employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for
information.\19\ We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not
respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department finds that, in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse
inference is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel
Products from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4,
2000). See also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, vol. 1, at 870
(1994) (``SAA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``so as to
effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule
to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and
accurate information in a timely manner.'' \20\ It is also the
Department's practice to select a rate that ensures ``that the party
does not obtain a more favorable result by failing
[[Page 26742]]
to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 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).
\21\ See SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department selected as AFA, a
rate of 26.23 percent, the highest transaction-specific rate for
BTIC.\22\ For the final determination, the Department continues to use
the same methodology to determine the AFA rate used in the Preliminary
Determination.\23\ Specifically, the Department continues to use the
highest transaction-specific rate calculated for BTIC, which, because
of changes to the calculations since the Preliminary Determination now
is 31.42 percent. No parties commented on the selection of AFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 77971.
\23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determination Weighted-Average Dumping Margins
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins
exist for the following entities for the POI:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Average
Exporter Producer dumping
margin
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd................ Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd................ 6.62
Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd................ Tianjin Tianhai High Pressure Container Co., Ltd. 6.62
Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd................ Langfang Tianhai High Pressure Container Co., 6.62
Ltd..
Shanghai J.S.X. International Trading Corporation Shanghai High Pressure Special Gas Cylinder Co., 6.62
Ltd..
Zhejiang Jindun Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd......... Zhejiang Jindun Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd......... 6.62
Shijiazhuang Enric Gas Equipment Co., Ltd........ Shijiazhuang Enric Gas Equipment Co., Ltd........ 6.62
PRC-Wide Rate \24\............................... ................................................. 31.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The PRC-Wide entity includes: Shanghai High Pressure
Container Co., Ltd.; Heibei Baigong Industrial Co., Ltd.; Nanjing
Ocean High-Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Baigong Industrial and
Trading Co., Ltd.; Shandong Huachen High Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd.;
Shandong Province Building High Pressure Vessel Limited Company;
Sichuan Mingchuan Chengyu Co., Ltd.; and Zhuolu High Pressure Vessel
Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue
to suspend liquidation of all imports of merchandise subject to the
investigation entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption for
the PRC-wide entity and the Separate Rate Companies on or after
December 15, 2011. The Department will instruct CBP to require a cash
deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount
by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The rate
for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above will
be the rate we have determined in this final determination; (2) for all
PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own
rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) 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
exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. The
suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until
further notice.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will, within 45 days,
determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is
materially injured or threatened with material injury, by reason of
imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the
subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or
threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be
terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will
issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to collect cash deposits
for antidumping duties due on all imports of the subject merchandise
entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the
effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination and notice are issued and published in
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 30, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
General Issues
Comment I: Selection of Surrogate Country
Comment II: Surrogate Values
A. Selection of Surrogate Financial Ratios
B. Truck Freight
C. Labor
Comment III: Double Remedy
Comment IV: Targeted Dumping Methodology
A. General Department Targeted Dumping Methodology
B. Average to Transaction Methodology
C. Zeroing
Company-Specific Issues
Comment V: BTIC
A. Targeted Dumping--Clerical Error Allegation
B. Cash Deposit Instructions
Comment VI: Jindun's Voluntary Respondent Status
[FR Doc. 2012-10952 Filed 5-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P