[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75992-75997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30950]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-981]
Utility Scale Wind Towers 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: December 24, 2012.
SUMMARY: On August 2, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the
``Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at
less than fair value (``LTFV'') and postponement of final determination
in the antidumping investigation of utility scale wind towers (``wind
towers'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\ Based on an
analysis of the comments received, the Department has made changes from
the Preliminary Determination. The Department has determined that wind
towers 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 (the ``Act''). The final weighted-average dumping margins
for this investigation are listed in the ``Final Determination''
section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Postponement of Final Determination, 77 FR 46034 (August 2,
2012) (``Preliminary Determination'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian, Shawn Higgins,
Thomas Martin, or Trisha Tran, 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) 482-6412, (202) 482-0679, (202) 482-3936, or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(202) 482-4852, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published its Preliminary Determination on August 2,
2012.\2\ Between August 13, 2012, and August 24, 2012, the Department
conducted verifications of the mandatory respondents (i.e., Chengxi
Shipyard Co., Ltd. (``CXS'') and Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
(``Titan'')).\3\ Between September 14, 2012, and September 24, 2012,
CXS,
[[Page 75993]]
Titan and the Wind Tower Trade Coalition (``Petitioner'')\4\ submitted
surrogate value (``SV'') and rebuttal SV comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id.
\3\ See the ``Verification'' section below.
\4\ The Wind Tower Trade Coalition is comprised of Broadwind
Towers, Inc., DMI Industries, Katana Summit LLC, and Trinity
Structural Towers, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 2, 2012, CXS, Titan and Petitioner submitted case
briefs. On October 9, 2012, CXS, Titan, and Petitioner submitted
rebuttal briefs.
On November 2, 2012, the Department held a hearing, which was
requested by Petitioner on September 4, 2012.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2011, through
September 30, 2011. This period corresponds to the two most recent
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which
was December 2012.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension of Final Determination Due to Government Closure During
Hurricane Sandy
On October 31, 2012, the Department's Import Administration
determined that the impact of the recent government closure during
Hurricane Sandy would be best minimized by uniformly tolling all Import
Administration deadlines for two days.\6\ This determination applies to
every proceeding before the Import Administration, including this
investigation. The Department notes, however, that because the deadline
of the final determination of this investigation was originally on
December 15, 2012, which falls on a weekend, this deadline would have
been automatically extended by two days until the following working
day, Monday, December 17, 2012. Therefore, the two day extension of the
deadlines due to government closure during Hurricane Sandy does not
impact the deadline for the final determination of this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Memorandum For the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, ``Tolling of Administrative
Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure During Hurricane
Sandy'' (October 31, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs and rebuttal briefs by parties
in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.\7\ A list of the issues which the parties raised and to
which the Department responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is
attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and 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 to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is
available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, which is in room
7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the internet at www.trade.gov/ia. The signed Issues and
Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to
Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Utility Scale Wind Towers from the
People's Republic of China'' (December 17, 2012) (``Issues and
Decision Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Changes Applicable to Both Mandatory Respondents
The Department recalculated SVs and surrogate financial
ratios based on data from Thailand, which was selected as the surrogate
country for the final determination.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. at Comment 1; Memorandum from Lilit Astvatsatrian and
Trisha Tran, International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, to the File, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation
of Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China:
Final Surrogate Value Memorandum'' (December 17, 2012) (``Final SV
Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department used the unadjusted per-kg brokerage and
handling rate for a 20-foot container to value brokerage and
handling.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; Final SV
Memorandum at 3-4, Attachment 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Applicable to Only CXS
The Department used Thai tariff sub-category 8544.60 to
value CXS's bus bars.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9; Final SV
Memorandum at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department used Ukrainian tariff sub-category 6306.12
to value CXS's tarpaulin.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10; Final SV
Memorandum at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department excluded stainless steel round bars from
CXS's normal value.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department used the unadjusted per-kg international
freight rate for a 40-foot container to value international
freight.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Final SV Memorandum at 4, Attachment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has not valued CXS's river water using the
SV for municipal water.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11; Final SV
Memorandum at 3, Attachment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department revised the distances reported by CXS to
reflect the distances measured by the Department at verification.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins and Trisha Tran,
International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office
4, to the File, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Utility Scale
Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China: Verification of the
Antidumping Duty Questionnaire Responses of Chengxi Shipyard Co.,
Ltd.'' (September 21, 2012) (``CXS's Verification Report'') at 54-
56; Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Robert Bolling, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4 ``Utility Scale Wind Towers
from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Final
Determination Margin Calculation for Chengxi Shipyard Co., Ltd.''
(December 17, 2012) (``CXS's Final Determination Analysis
Memorandum'') at 3, Attachments 3-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department made changes based on the minor corrections
presented at verification.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id. at 2, Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Applicable to Only Titan
The Department applied Titan's reported market economy
purchase price for winches.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 15;
Memorandum from Thomas Martin and Lilit Astvatsatrian, Senior
International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD, Office 4, to Robert
Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4 ``Utility
Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of
the Final Determination Margin Calculation for Titan Wind Energy
(Suzhou) Ltd.'' (December 17, 2012) (``Titan's Final Determination
Analysis Memorandum'') at 5-6, Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department accepted the allocated surcharge for
shipping fixtures in Titan's gross unit price calculation.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16; Titan's
Final Determination Analysis Memorandum at Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department made changes based on the minor corrections
presented at verification.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Memorandum from Thomas Martin and Lilit Astvatsatrian,
Senior International Trade Compliance Analysts, Office 4, to the
File, ``Verification of the Sales and Factors Responses of Titan
Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Investigation of
Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China''
(September 21, 2012) (``Titan's Verification Report'') at 2-3,
Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation are certain wind
towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Certain wind
towers are designed to support the nacelle and
[[Page 75994]]
rotor blades in a wind turbine with a minimum rated electrical power
generation capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts (``kW'') and with a
minimum height of 50 meters measured from the base of the tower to the
bottom of the nacelle (i.e., where the top of the tower and nacelle are
joined) when fully assembled.
A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel
plates rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together
(or otherwise attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of coating,
end-finish, painting, treatment, or method of manufacture, and with or
without flanges, doors, or internal or external components (e.g.,
flooring/decking, ladders, lifts, electrical buss boxes, electrical
cabling, conduit, cable harness for nacelle generator, interior
lighting, tool and storage lockers) attached to the wind tower section.
Several wind tower sections are normally required to form a completed
wind tower.
Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope
whether or not they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, such as
nacelles or rotor blades, and whether or not they have internal or
external components attached to the subject merchandise.
Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor blades,
regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower. Also
excluded are any internal or external components which are not attached
to the wind towers or sections thereof.
Merchandise covered by the investigation is currently classified in
the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (``HTSUS'') under
subheadings 7308.20.0020 \20\ or 8502.31.0000.\21\ Prior to 2011,
merchandise covered by the investigation was classified in the HTSUS
under subheading 7308.20.0000 and may continue to be to some degree.
While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is
dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Wind towers are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 when
imported as a tower or tower section(s) alone.
\21\ Wind towers may also be classified under HTSUS 8502.31.0000
when imported as part of a wind turbine (i.e., accompanying nacelles
and/or rotor blades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope Comments
The Department received comments regarding the scope of the
investigation from Petitioner, CXS, and Titan. After analyzing the
comments, the Department has made no changes to the scope of this
investigation. For a complete discussion of this issue, see the Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department verified
the information submitted by CXS and Titan for use in the final
determination.\22\ The Department used standard verification
procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production
records and original source documents provided by these respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See CXS's Verification Report at 1; Titan's Verification
Report at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Country
The PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') in every
proceeding conducted by the Department. In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is
an NME shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering
authority. The Department has not revoked the PRC's status as an NME
and no party has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME in
this investigation. Therefore, the Department continues to treat the
PRC as an NME for purposes of this final determination and,
accordingly, applied the NME methodology.
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that
Colombia, Indonesia, Peru, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine are (1)
at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and
(2) significant producers of merchandise comparable to the merchandise
under consideration.\23\ From among these countries, the Department
preliminarily selected Ukraine as the surrogate country because, in
addition to being both economically comparable to the PRC and a
significant producer of comparable merchandise, Ukraine provided SV
information that was most specific to many factors of production
(``FOPs''), including the most significant FOP reported by each
respondent (i.e., steel plate).\24\ After the Preliminary
Determination, interested parties submitted financial statements from a
Thai producer of identical merchandise as well as comprehensive,
detailed SV information from Thailand. For the final determination, the
Department has selected Thailand as the surrogate country because
Thailand is: (1) At a level of economic development comparable to that
of the PRC; (2) a significant producer of merchandise comparable to the
merchandise under consideration; and (3) the country that provides the
best available information to value FOPs using data that are specific,
reliable, broad market averages, contemporaneous with the POI, and
publicly available from a single surrogate country.\25\ Specifically,
the Department has found that Thai import data allows the Department to
value each respondent's steel plate, which accounts for the largest
portion of each company's normal value, more accurately than either the
Ukrainian or South African data on the record of this investigation
because the Thai data is most specific to the size and chemistry of the
respondents' steel plate.\26\ Also, Thailand provides a complete set of
SVs (with only minor exceptions), including financial ratios from a
surrogate company that produces identical merchandise.\27\ Therefore,
the Department has determined that Thailand, in addition to being at a
level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and a
significant producer of merchandise comparable to wind towers, offers
the best available SV information on the record of this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46036.
\24\ Id.
\25\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NMEs, the Department maintains a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the NME are subject to
government control and, therefore, should be assessed a single
weighted-average dumping margin.\28\ The Department's policy is to
assign all exporters of merchandise under consideration that are in an
NME this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.\29\
The Department analyzes whether each entity exporting the merchandise
under consideration is sufficiently independent under a test
established in Sparklers \30\ and further developed in
[[Page 75995]]
Silicon Carbide.\31\ According to this separate rate test, the
Department will assign a separate rate in NME proceedings if a
respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over its export activities. If, however, the
Department determines that a company is wholly foreign owned, then a
separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether that
company is independent from government control and eligible for a
separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24,
2008).
\29\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589
(May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers'').
\30\ Id.
\31\ See 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Companies Receiving a Separate Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that Sinovel
Wind Group Co., Ltd. (``Sinovel''),\32\ Guodian United Power Technology
Baoding Co., Ltd. (``Guodian''), CS Wind China Co., Ltd. and CS Wind
Corporation (collectively, ``CS Wind''), and the mandatory respondents
demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status.\33\ For the
final determination, the Department continues to find that the evidence
placed on the record of this investigation by Sinovel, Guodian, and the
mandatory respondents demonstrate both a de jure and de facto absence
of government control and, therefore, are eligible for separate-rate
status. For further discussion of the separate rate analysis for CXS,
see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. The Department
also continues to find that the evidence placed on the record of this
investigation by CS Wind demonstrates that it is wholly-owned by
individuals and companies located in market economy countries.
Therefore, the Department has granted CS Wind a separate rate in the
final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ In the Preliminary Determination, the Department
inadvertently omitted the producer of the merchandise under
consideration sold by Sinovel from the exporter/producer
combinations listed in the rate table. The producer, Hebei
Qiangsheng Wind Equipment Co., Ltd., has been included in the rate
table for the final determination.
\33\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46037-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department did not grant a
separate rate to AVIC International Renewable Energy Co. Ltd.
(``AVIC'') because the company failed to submit a timely response to
the Department's supplemental separate rate questionnaire and withdrew
its participation in this AD investigation.\34\ Consistent with the
Preliminary Determination, the Department did not grant AVIC a separate
rate in this final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id.,77 FR at 46039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin for the Separate Rate Companies
Normally, the Department's practice is to assign to separate rate
entities that were not individually examined a rate equal to the
average of the rates calculated for the individually examined
respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on adverse facts available (``AFA'').\35\ Consistent with this
practice, the Department has assigned Sinovel, Guodian, and CS Wind a
rate of 46.38 percent, which is equal to an average of the rates
calculated for the mandatory respondents.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR
19690 (April 19, 2007).
\36\ See Memorandum from Thomas Martin, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File,
``Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China:
Calculation of the Final Margin for Separate Rate Recipients''
(December 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-wide Entity
The record indicates that, in addition to AVIC, there are other PRC
exporters and/or producers of the merchandise under consideration
during the POI that did not respond to the Department's requests for
information. Specifically, the Department did not receive responses to
its quantity and value questionnaire from over 30 PRC exporters and/or
producers of merchandise under consideration that were named in the
petition and to whom the Department issued the questionnaire. Because
AVIC and these non-responsive PRC companies have not demonstrated that
they are eligible for separate rate status, the Department considers
them part of the PRC-wide entity.
Application of Facts Available and AFA
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department,
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping
statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable
determination.
The Department has found that the PRC-wide entity withheld
information requested by the Department, failed to provide information
in a timely manner, and significantly impeded this proceeding by not
submitting the requested information. The PRC-wide entity neither filed
documents indicating it was having difficulty providing the information
nor requested that it be allowed to submit the information in an
alternate form. As a result, the Department has determined, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act and consistent with the
Preliminary Determination, that it may use facts otherwise available to
determine the rate for the PRC-wide entity.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department, in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, may use an
inference that is adverse to the interests of a party if that party has
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply
with a request for information. The Department has found that the PRC-
wide entity's failure to provide the requested information constitutes
circumstances under which it is reasonable to conclude that less than
full cooperation has been shown.\37\ Therefore, the Department has
found, consistent with the Preliminary Determination, that the PRC-wide
entity has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information and, consequently, the Department may
employ an inference that is adverse to the PRC-wide entity in selecting
from among the facts otherwise available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, 337 F.3d
1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that the Department need not
show intentional conduct existed on the part of the respondent, but
merely that a ``failure to cooperate to the best of a respondent's
ability'' existed (i.e., information was not provided ``under
circumstances in which it is reasonable to conclude that less than
full cooperation has been shown'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(b) of the Act states that the Department, when
employing an adverse inference, may rely upon information derived from
the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a
previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the
record. In selecting a rate based on AFA, the Department selects a rate
that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party
does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if
it had fully cooperated. The Department's practice is to select, as an
AFA rate, the higher
[[Page 75996]]
of: (1) The highest dumping margin alleged in the petition, or (2) the
highest calculated weighted-average dumping margin of any respondent in
the investigation.\38\ In this investigation, the petition dumping
margin is 213.54 percent. This rate is higher than any of the weighted-
average dumping margins calculated for the companies individually
examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 77 FR 17436, 17438 (March 26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate,
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts
available. Secondary information is defined as ``information derived
from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the
final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous
review under section 751 of the Act concerning the subject
merchandise.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``SAA''), H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong.,
2d Session at 870 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the Department
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has
probative value.\40\ The SAA also states that independent sources used
to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information
obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation.\41\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, determine whether the information used
has probative value by examining the reliability and relevance of the
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Id.
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to determine the probative value of the dumping margins in
the petition for use as AFA for purposes of this final determination,
the Department examined information on the record and found that it was
unable to corroborate the margin contained in the petition. Therefore,
for the final determination, the Department has assigned to the PRC-
wide entity the rate of 70.63 percent, which is the highest
transaction-specific dumping margin for a mandatory respondent.\42\ It
is unnecessary to corroborate this rate because it was obtained in the
course of this investigation and, therefore, is not secondary
information.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See CXS's Final Determination Analysis Memorandum at 6,
Attachment 2; see also Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 76 FR 64318, 64322 (October 18, 2011) (assigning as an AFA
rate the highest calculated transaction-specific rate among
mandatory respondents).
\43\ See section 776(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c) and
(d); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: Light-
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of
China, 73 FR 35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combination Rates
As announced in the Initiation Notice,\44\ the Department has
calculated combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for
a separate rate in this investigation. This practice is described in
Policy Bulletin 05.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of
China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 77 FR 3440, 3445-46 (January 24,
2012) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determination
The Department has determined that the following weighted-average
dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2011, through September
30, 2011:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter Producer dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chengxi Shipyard Co., Ltd...... Chengxi Shipyard Co., 47.59
Ltd..
Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Titan (Lianyungang) 44.99
Ltd. Metal Product Co.,
Ltd..
Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Titan Wind Energy 44.99
Ltd.. (Suzhou) Co., Ltd..
CS Wind Corporation............ CS Wind China Co., Ltd. 46.38
Guodian United Power Technology Guodian United Power 46.38
Baoding Co., Ltd. Technology Baoding
Co., Ltd.
Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd.... Qiangsheng Wind 46.38
Equipment Co., Ltd..
PRC-Wide Entity................ 70.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose
the calculations performed in this investigation to parties within five
days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
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 entries of wind towers from the PRC, as
described in the ``Scope of the Investigation'' section, entered or
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S.
price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies, as follows: (1)
The separate rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the
table above will be the rate the Department has determined in this
final determination; (2) for all combinations of PRC exporters/
producers of merchandise under consideration which have not received
their own separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate for the
PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of merchandise under
consideration which have not received their own separate rate, the
cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/
producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These cash
deposit instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the Department has
notified the International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of the final
affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. In accordance with section
735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether
the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or
threatened with
[[Page 75997]]
material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of
sales) for importation, of the merchandise under consideration. If the
ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue
an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further
instruction by the Department, antidumping duties 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 Administrative Protective Order
This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of propriety 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 terms
of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 17, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
Issues for Final Determination
Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Continue to Use Ukraine as
the Surrogate Country
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Revise its Financial Ratio
Calculations
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Revise the SV for Brokerage
and Handling
Comment 4: Whether Base Rings Are Included in the Scope of the
Investigation
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Offset the Antidumping Cash
Deposit Rate for Export Subsidies
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Grant CXS a Separate Rate
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Apply AFA to CXS
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Revise the SV for CXS's
Expanded Metal
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Revise the SV for CXS's Bus
Bars
Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Revise the SV for CXS's
Tarpaulin
Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Value CXS's River Water
Using the SV for Municipal Water
Comment 12: Whether the Department Should Exclude Stainless Steel
Round Bars from CXS's Normal Value
Comment 13: Whether the Department Should Use CXS's Reported Market
Economy Purchase Prices
Comment 14: Whether Titan Reported the Correct Number of Flanges
Comment 15: Whether the Department Should Use Titan's Reported
Market Economy Purchase Price for Winches
Comment 16: Whether the Department Should Exclude the Packing FOPs
Used To Make Shipping Fixtures
Comment 17: Whether the Department Should Grant Titan a By-Product
Offset
[FR Doc. 2012-30950 Filed 12-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P