[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10130-10134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03236]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-952]
Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2010-2011
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') published its
Preliminary Results of administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (``narrow woven
ribbons'') on August 8, 2012.\1\ The period of review (``POR'') is
September 1, 2010, through August 31, 2011. The Department invited
interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. Based on an
analysis of the comments received, the Department made no changes to
the margins assigned in the Preliminary Results. The final dumping
margins for this review are listed in the ``Final Results of Review''
section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 47363
(August 8, 2012) (``Preliminary Results'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: February 13, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan or Robert Bolling, 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-
4081 or (202) 482-3434, respectively.
Background
On August 8, 2012, the Department published its Preliminary
Results. On September 7, 2012, Hubscher Ribbon Corp., Ltd.
(``Hubschercorp'') submitted a case brief for this administrative
review.\2\ On September 12, 2012, the Department received a rebuttal
brief from Berwick Offray LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary Lion
Ribbon Company, Inc. (collectively, ``Petitioner'').\3\ No other party
submitted comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Letter from Hubschercorp to the Secretary of Commerce,
``Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge from China, Antidumping
Duty: Case Brief'' (September 7, 2012).
\3\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce,
``Rebuttal Brief on Behalf of Petitioner Berwick Offray LLC and Its
Wholly-Owned Subsidiary Lion Ribbon Company, Inc.'' (September 12,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension of Final Results Due to Government Closure During Hurricane
Sandy
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion to
toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal
Government from October 29, through October 30, 2012. Thus, all
deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by two
days.\4\ Therefore, the revised deadline for the final results of this
review is now February 6, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this order includes narrow woven ribbons
with woven selvedge, in any length, but with a width (measured at the
narrowest span of the ribbon) less than or equal to 12 centimeters,
composed of, in whole or in part, man-made fibers (whether artificial
or synthetic, including but not limited to nylon, polyester, rayon,
polypropylene, and polyethylene teraphthalate), metal threads and/or
metalized yarns, or any combination thereof.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review issued concurrently with this
notice for a complete description of the Scope of the Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The merchandise subject to the order is classifiable under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') statistical
categories 5806.32.1020; 5806.32.1030; 5806.32.1050 and 5806.32.1060.
Subject merchandise also may enter under subheadings 5806.31.00;
5806.32.20; 5806.39.20; 5806.39.30; 5808.90.00; 5810.91.00; 5810.99.90;
5903.90.10; 5903.90.25; 5907.00.60; and 5907.00.80 and under
statistical categories 5806.32.1080; 5810.92.9080; 5903.90.3090; and
6307.90.9889. The HTSUS statistical categories and subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written
description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Narrow Woven Ribbons
With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan and the People's Republic of China:
Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 FR 53632 (September 1, 2010), as amended
in Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan and the
People's Republic of China: Amended Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 FR
56982 (September 17, 2010) (``Orders'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by
parties in this review are addressed in the 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 Results
of the Administrative Review of Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven
Selvedge from the People's Republic of China'' (dated concurrently with
this notice) (``Issues and Decision Memorandum'') and the Memorandum to
the File from Karine Gziryan, Senior Financial Analyst, Office 4, NME
Unit, ``Antidumping Administrative Review of Narrow Woven Ribbons with
Woven Selvedge from the People's Republic of China: Proprietary
Memorandum regarding Corroboration of Adverse Facts Available Rate''
(dated concurrently with this notice) (``Final Corroboration Memo''),
which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issue that parties raised
and to which the Department responded in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and
Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
[[Page 10131]]
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.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on an analysis of the comment received, the Department made
no changes to the margins assigned in the Preliminary Results.
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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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. Therefore, the Department continues
to treat the PRC as an NME for purposes of these final results and,
accordingly, applied the NME methodology.
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.\7\ 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.\8\
The Department analyzes whether each entity exporting the merchandise
under consideration is sufficiently independent under a test
established in Sparklers \9\ and further developed in Silicon
Carbide.\10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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).
\8\ 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'').
\9\ Id.
\10\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that Weifang
Dongfang Ribbon Weaving Co., Ltd. (``Weifang Dongfang'') demonstrated
its eligibility for separate-rate status.\11\ No party commented on
this preliminary determination. For the final results, the Department
continues to find that the evidence placed on the record of this
administrative review by Weifang Dongfang demonstrate both a de jure
and de facto absence of government control and, therefore, is eligible
for separate-rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 47366.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of Separate Rate
In accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department
employed a limited examination methodology, as it did not have the
resources to examine all companies for which a review request was made.
The Department selected two respondents for review, Precious Planet
Ribbons & Bows Co., Ltd. (``Precious Planet'') and Hubschercorp. On
January 24, 2012, Precious Planet timely withdrew its request for an
administrative review of its sales.\12\ On May 29, 2012, Hubschercorp
indicated that it would no longer participate in the administrative
review and failed to further answer the Department's
questionnaires.\13\ For those companies not selected for review, only
Weifang Dongfang submitted timely information as requested by the
Department and remains subject to the review as a cooperative separate
rate respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Letter from Precious Planet to the Secretary of
Commerce, ``Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge from China,
Antidumping Duty: Revised Withdrawal of Request for Administrative
Review'' (January 24, 2012).
\13\ See Letter from Hubschercorp's to the Secretary of
Commerce, ``Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge from China,
Antidumping Duty: Withdrawal from Administrative Review'' (May 29,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the Act and the Department's regulations do not
directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to
individual companies not selected for examination where the Department
limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section
777A(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in cases involving
limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes
of trade has been to look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an
investigation, for guidance. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs
that in most investigations we are not to calculate an all-others rate
using any zero or de minimis margins or any margins based entirely on
facts available. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also provides that,
where all margins are zero rates, de minimis rates, or rates based
entirely on facts available, we may use ``any reasonable method'' for
assigning the rate to non-selected respondents. Furthermore, Congress,
in the Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA''), stated that when
``the dumping margins for all of the exporters and producers that are
individually investigated are determined entirely on the basis of the
facts available or are zero or de minimis * * * (t)he expected method
in such cases will be to weight-average the zero and de minimis margins
and margins determined pursuant to the facts available.'' \14\ However,
Congress also stated that ``if this method is not feasible, or if it
results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of
potential dumping margins for non-investigated exporters or producers,
(the Department) may use other reasonable methods.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See SAA accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R.
Doc. No. 103-316 at 873 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040,
4200.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this instance, because one of the two selected respondents,
Precious Planet, timely withdrew its request for an administrative
review of its sales, the only rate determined in this review for a
selected respondent, Hubschercorp, is based entirely on facts
available.
We note that the Department has used other reasonable means to
assign separate-rate margins to non-reviewed companies in instances in
which the use of an ``average'' of calculated zero rates, de minimis
rates, or rates based entirely on facts available was not possible.\16\
In Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final, the Department assigned to those separate
[[Page 10132]]
rate companies with no history of an individually calculated rate the
margin determined for cooperative separate rate respondents from the
underlying investigation.\17\ However, for those separate rate
respondents that had received a calculated rate in a prior segment,
concurrent with or more recent than the calculated rate in the
underlying investigation, the Department assigned that calculated rate
as the company's separate rate in the review at hand.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 47191, 47194
(September 15, 2009) (``Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final'').
\17\ See Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
49460, 49463 (August 13, 2010).
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this review, we preliminarily found that a reasonable method was
to assign to the separate rate company Weifang Dongfang, with no
history of an individually calculated rate, the margin calculated for
cooperative separate rate respondents in the underlying investigation,
123.83 percent.\19\ No parties commented on this separate rate and we
continue to assign this separate rate for the final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 75 FR 41808, 41812 (July 19, 2010) (``Final LTFV
Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-Wide Entity
In addition to the separate-rate certification discussed above,
there were two companies, Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd. (``Stribbons
Guangzhou''), Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC, Ltd. (``Stribbons MNC''),
(collectively ``MNC Stribbons'' \20\) for which we initiated a review
in this proceeding and which previously had a separate rate. However,
in accordance with the Department's established NME methodology, a
party's separate rate status must be established in each segment of the
proceeding in which the party is involved.\21\ Because these companies
did not file a timely (i.e., within 60 calendar days after publication
of Initiation Notice \22\) separate rate certification to demonstrate
eligibility for a separate rate in this administrative review, or
certify that they had no shipments,\23\ we preliminarily determined
that these companies were part of the PRC-wide entity. In addition,
because Precious Planet withdrew timely the only request for review and
did not have a prior separate rate status, it is also part of the PRC-
wide entity. No parties commented on these determinations and we
continue to find these companies part of the PRC-wide entity for these
final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ MNC Stribbons filed their Separate Rate Certification on
behalf of two companies under collective name MNC Stribbons,
however, the Department initiated our administrative review on two
companies Stribbons Guangzhou and Stribbons MNC, and we will
continue to treat these two companies as two separate entities.
\21\ See Sigma Corp. v.United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405-06
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming the Department's presumption of State
control over exporters in NME cases).
\22\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR
67133, 67134 (October 31, 2011).
\23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that MNC Stribbons filed a request to be selected as a
voluntary respondent after one of the selected respondents withdrew
from the proceeding. However, MNC Stribbons made this request after it
had missed the 60-day deadline to demonstrate its eligibility for a
separate rate (i.e., failed to provide a timely separate rate
certification) and the Department returned its submissions in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(d).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4 to Mr. James Cannon, Williams Mullen,
representing Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd. and Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC
Ltd., dated January 13, 2012 (``Rejection Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Facts Otherwise Available and AFA
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply
``facts otherwise available'' if: (1) necessary information is not on
the record; or (2) 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.
Hubschercorp did not respond to the Department's Section D
questionnaire or Sections A and C supplemental questionnaires in this
administrative review, and informed the Department that it would no
longer participate in this review.\25\ As a result, Hubschercorp failed
to provide requested information that is necessary for the Department
to calculate an antidumping duty rate for Hubschercorp in this
administrative review. This information includes complete product
characteristics related to control numbers of products sold in the
United States, FOPs, consumption rates of FOPs, and production
processes data. Without this information, it is not possible for the
Department to determine or calculate an antidumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Hubschercorp's May 29, 2012, submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hubschercorp withheld requested information, significantly impeded
this proceeding and did not provide the Department with the information
necessary to calculate an antidumping duty margin. Therefore, pursuant
to section 776(a)(1) and (2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the Department
finds that the use of total facts available is appropriate.
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.\26\ Adverse
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' \27\ Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the
part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an
adverse inference.'' \28\ We find that Hubschercorp did not act to the
best of its ability in this administrative review, within the meaning
of section 776(b) of the Act, because it failed to respond to the
Department's requests for information and failed to provide timely
information. Therefore, we preliminarily determined that an adverse
inference was warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise available
with respect to this company.\29\ No parties disagreed with this
determination and we continue to apply facts available with an adverse
inference to Hubschercorp for these final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023,
54025-26 (September 13, 2005); Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil,
67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002).
\27\ See SAA, at 870.
\28\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule,
62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v.
United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon'').
\29\ See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of the Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'') Rate
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as
AFA information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final
determination in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any
other information placed on the record.
In the SAA, Congress expressly stated that the choice of AFA must
``ensure
[[Page 10133]]
that the party does not obtain a favorable result by failing to
corroborate than if it had cooperated fully. In employing adverse
inferences, ``one factor'' the Department ``will consider is the extent
to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation.'' \30\
The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the
possible sources of information, has been to select the highest rate on
the record of the proceeding and to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse ``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.''
\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See SAA, at 870.
\31\ See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from
Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 (November 7,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, we have assigned to Hubschercorp a rate of 247.65
percent, which is the highest rate alleged in the petition, as noted in
the initiation of the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation,
adjusted with the surrogate value for labor rate used in the final
determination.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the
People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping
Duty Investigations, 74 FR 39291 (August 6, 2009) (``LTFV
Initiation'') and Final LTFV Determination, 75 FR at 41812, and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of Secondary Information
Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes
secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The
Department's regulations provide that ``corroborate'' means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value.\33\ To be considered corroborated, the
Department must find the secondary information is both reliable and
relevant.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See 19 CFR 351.308(d); see also SAA, at 870.
\34\ See, e.g., 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether the information is reliable, we placed
information from the LTFV investigation on the record of this segment
of the proceeding, and reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the
information in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis for
purposes of these final results, including source documents as well as
publicly available information.\35\ Based on our examination of the
information, we have determined that the margins in the petition are
reliable for the purposes of this administrative review.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See LTFV Initiation, 74 FR at 39294-39296.
\36\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the relevance of the petition margin, we placed the
model-specific rates calculated for the mandatory respondent, Yama
Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. (``Yama''), in the LTFV investigation on the
record of this segment of the proceeding and compared the 247.65
percent rate with those model-specific rates. We find that this margin
is relevant because the petition rate fell within the range of model-
specific margins calculated for the mandatory respondent in the LTFV
investigation, this is the first review under this order (i.e., only
one segment removed from the LTFV investigation), and Hubschercorp
exported merchandise during the POR that was specifically produced by
Yama.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See id.; Final Corroboration Memo; and the Memorandum to
the File from Karine Gziryan, Analyst, entitled, ``Placement of
Proprietary Model-Specific Margins from the Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigation on the Record and Corroboration of Adverse Facts
Available Rate for the Preliminary Results in the 2010-2011
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Narrow Woven Ribbons with
Woven Selvedge from the PRC,'' dated July 31, 2012 (``Preliminary
Corroboration Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Department will consider information reasonably at its
disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a
margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected
margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department may disregard the
margin and determine an appropriate margin.\38\ Therefore, we examined
whether any information on the record would discredit the selected rate
as reasonable facts available. No information on the administrative
record discredits the selected AFA rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February
22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest calculated
margin as AFA because the margin was based on a company's
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high
margin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the above, for these final results, the Department finds
the highest rate derived from the petition (i.e., 247.65 percent) is,
therefore, corroborated to the extent practicable, pursuant to section
776(c) of the Act. Thus, we have assigned Hubschercorp this rate, as
AFA, in this administrative review. For further discussion of the
corroboration of this rate, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1, Final Corroboration Memo, and the Preliminary Corroboration
Memo.
Final Results of Review
The Department determined that the dumping margins for the POR are
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ We note that Hubscher Ribbons Corp., Ltd. (d/b/a
Hubschercorp) is a third-country reseller from Canada.
\40\ For the reasons stated above, the Department has concluded
that the PRC-wide Entity includes Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd.;
Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC Ltd. and Precious Planet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Exporter average margin
(percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hubscher Ribbon Corp., Ltd. (d/b/a Hubschercorp) \39\... 247.65
Weifang Dongfang Ribbon Weaving Co., Ltd................ 123.83
PRC-wide Entity \40\.................................... 247.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b),
the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this
review. In this case, the Department determined that the assessment
rate for the separate rate respondent Weifang Dongfang will be the
separate rate of 123.83 percent from the previous period less the 0.39
percent export subsidy rate \41\ which will be equal to 123.44 percent.
The Department also determined that the assessment rate for
Hubschercorp will be the highest petition rate of 247.65 percent less
the 0.39 percent export subsidy rate \42\ which will be equal to 247.26
percent. Additionally, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate
entries of subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the
PRC-wide rate of 247.65 percent less the 0.39 percent export subsidy
rate \43\ which will equal 247.26 percent. Accordingly, the Department
is adjusting the assessment rates of Weifang Dongfang, Hubschercorp and
the PRC-wide entity for export subsidies
[[Page 10134]]
in the same manner that the Department adjusted each company's cash
deposit rate. See Cash Deposit Requirements section below. The
Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination, 75 FR 41801 (July 19, 2010) (``Final CVD
Determination'').
\42\ See Final CVD Determination.
\43\ See Final CVD Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
While the Department did not conduct a companion countervailing
duty (``CVD'') administrative review, in the final determination of the
CVD investigation on narrow woven ribbons from the PRC, the Department
determined that the product under investigation benefitted from an
export subsidy.\44\ Accordingly, the Department will instruct CBP to
require an antidumping cash deposit equal to the weighted-average
amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price, as indicated
above, reduced by an amount, as appropriate, determined to constitute
an export subsidy in the Final CVD Determination. Therefore, for
Hubschercorp, the separate rate respondent, Weifang Dongfang and the
PRC-wide entity the Department will instruct CBP to require an
antidumping duty cash deposit for each entry equal to the weighted-
average margins indicated above adjusted for the export subsidy rate
determined in the Final CVD Determination. The adjusted cash deposit
rates are 123.44 percent for Weifang Dongfang and 247.26 percent for
Hubschercorp and the PRC-wide entity.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination, 75 FR 41801 (July 19, 2010) (``Final CVD
Determination'').
\45\ See Memorandum from Karine Gziryan to Robert Bolling
regarding the adjusted cash deposit rate (dated concurrently with
this notice) for further detail on the calculation of these
adjustments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Hubschercorp,
a third-country reseller from Canada, the cash deposit rate will be
that established in the final results of this review; (2) for Weifang
Dongfang, a PRC exporter which has a separate rate, the cash deposit
rate will be that established in the final results of this review; (3)
for previously investigated PRC exporters not listed above that
received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate; (4)
for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found
to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the
PRC-wide rate of 247.26 percent; \46\ and (5) 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 that
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See Final LTFV Determination, 75 FR at 41812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during the review period. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.402(f)(3), failure to comply with this requirement could result in
the Department presuming that the exporter or producer paid or
reimbursed the antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO. Timely written notification of the return/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 notice of the final results of this review is issued and
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: February, 5, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
APPENDIX
Comment in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Use of the Highest Petition Rate as Adverse Facts
Available
[FR Doc. 2013-03236 Filed 2-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P