[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11143-11146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03481]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-900]
Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2009-
2010
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 6, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts
thereof (diamond sawblades) from the People's Republic of China (the
PRC). The period of review (POR) is January 23, 2009, through October
31, 2010. For the final results, we continue to find that certain
companies covered by this review made sales of subject merchandise at
less than normal value.
DATES: Effective Date: February 15, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Romani or Yang Jin Chun, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0198 or (202) 482-5760, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 6, 2011, the Department published the preliminary
results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
diamond sawblades from the PRC.\1\ We received case and rebuttal briefs
with respect to the Preliminary Results and, at the request of
interested parties, we held a hearing on February 23, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind Review in Part, 76 FR
76135 (December 6, 2011) (Preliminary Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 5, 2012, the Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition
(the petitioner) alleged that Korean respondents Ehwa Diamond
Industrial Co., Ltd., and Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. and SH
Trading Inc., and their respective Chinese subsidiaries Weihai
Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd. (Weihai), and Qingdao
Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Shinhan), sold diamond
sawblades into
[[Page 11144]]
the United States bearing false country of origin designations.
We extended the due date for the final results of review to June 4,
2012.\2\ On June 4, 2012, the Department deferred the final results of
this administrative review in order to address the petitioner's fraud
allegations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 14733 (March 13,
2012), and Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the Republic of
Korea and the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits
for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 77 FR 20788 (April 6, 2012).
\3\ See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, entitled ``Diamond Sawblades and Parts
Thereof From the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of
China: Deferral of the Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews,'' dated June 4, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 8, 2013, we issued a post-preliminary memorandum finding
that the information submitted by Weihai and Qingdao Shinhan is
reliable for the final results of the review.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, entitled ``2009/2010 Review of the
Antidumping Duty Orders on Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From
the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China: Post-
Preliminary Analysis,'' dated January 8, 2013. See also Memorandum
to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from
Gary Taverman, Senior Advisor for Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Operations, entitled ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Diamond
Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China
covering the Period January 23, 2009, through October 31, 2010,''
dated February 8, 2013 (Final Decision Memorandum), which is hereby
adopted by this notice, at Comment 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with
section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Fraud Allegation
We continue to find the information Weihai and Qingdao Shinhan
submitted in this review to be reliable for the final results of
review.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Final Decision Memorandum for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order is diamond sawblades. The
diamond sawblades subject to the order are currently classifiable under
subheadings 8202 to 8206 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS), and may also enter under 6804.21.00. The HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. A full
description of the scope of the order is contained in the Final
Decision Memorandum. The written description is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this
administrative review are addressed in the Final Decision Memorandum. A
list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as an appendix.
The Final 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, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the Final Decision Memorandum can be
accessed directly on the Import Administration Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Final Decision Memorandum and
the electronic versions of the Final Decision Memorandum are identical
in content.
Rescission of Administrative Review in Part
We preliminarily found that Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading Co.,
Ltd. (Shanghai Deda) did not have any exports of subject merchandise
during the POR and, on this basis, we stated our intent to rescind the
review in part.\6\ We continue to find that the company had no
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR and are rescinding this
review for Shanghai Deda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 76136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 28, 2011, the petitioner withdrew its request for review
of the following companies:
Electrolux Construction Products (Xiamen) Co. Ltd.
Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd.
Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Jiangsu Fengyu Tools Co., Ltd.
Jiangyin Likn Industry Co., Ltd.
Protech Diamond Tools
Quanzhou Shuangyang Diamond Tools Co., Ltd.
Task Tools & Abrasives
Zhejiang Wanda Import and Export Co.
Zhejiang Wanda Tools Group Corp.
Zhejiang Wanli Super-hard Materials Co., Ltd.
In the Preliminary Results, we assigned the PRC-wide rate to these
companies. In its case brief, Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd.
(Hebei Jikai) requested that the Department rescind the review of these
companies because the petitioner was the only party that requested
their review and because the petitioner timely withdrew its request. On
August 8, 2012, we rescinded the review in part for Hebei Jikai and
Jiangyin Likn Industry Co., Ltd.\7\ Because the other companies listed
above have not previously received a separate rate, we did not rescind
this review with respect to those companies. While the request for
review for those companies was timely withdrawn, those companies remain
part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's
Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review in Part, 77 FR 47362 (August 8, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Results, we treated the PRC as a non-market-
economy (NME) country and, therefore, we calculated normal value in
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. We selected India as the
surrogate country, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, because it
is a significant producer of merchandise comparable to subject
merchandise and is at a level of economic development comparable to the
PRC.\8\ For the final results of review, we have continued to treat the
PRC as an NME country and have used the same primary surrogate country,
India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 76136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliation
In the Preliminary Results, we treated five companies as a single
entity, the ATM Single Entity,\9\ for purposes of calculating a single
margin.\10\ We have received and evaluated the comments with respect to
ATM Single Entity and whether to expand it to include two additional
companies. For these final results, we have determined not to include
any additional companies in ATM Single Entity.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ATM Single Entity includes Advanced Technology & Materials
Co., Ltd., Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Co., Ltd., HXF Saw Co.,
Ltd., AT&M International Trading Co., Ltd., and Cliff International
Ltd.
\10\ See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 76136.
\11\ See Final Decision Memorandum at Comments 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving 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.\12\ It is
[[Page 11145]]
the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject
to review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to
a separate rate.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g.,Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006), and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative
Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From
the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 (September 8, 2006).
\13\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR
81565, 81566 (December 28, 2010) (Initiation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Results, we found that, in addition to the
companies we selected for individual examination, certain companies
demonstrated their eligibility for separate rate status by
demonstrating that they operated free of de jure and de facto
government control.\14\ We received comments from interested parties
regarding the separate rate status of ATM Single Entity. Based on the
information on the record of this review, we continue to find that ATM
Single Entity has demonstrated an absence of de jure and de facto
government control and is, thus, eligible for a separate rate.\15\ We
also continue to find that the other respondents that received separate
rates in the Preliminary Results are eligible for separate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 76136-37.
\15\ See Final Decision Memorandum at Comments 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rate for a Non-Selected Company
In the Preliminary Results, with regard to companies not selected
for individual examination, we explained that, because (1) the statute
and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a
rate to be applied to individual companies not selected for examination
when the Department limits its examination in an administrative review
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, and (2) the Department's
usual practice has been to average the margins for the selected
companies, excluding margins that are zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on facts available,\16\ we assigned the antidumping duty
margin for Weihai to companies not selected for individual examination
and eligible for a separate rate. We are continuing to assign them
Weihai's rate, 9.55 percent, for these final results. In assigning this
separate rate, we did not impute the actions of any other companies to
the behavior of the companies not individually examined but based this
determination on record evidence that is reasonably reflective of the
potential dumping margin for the companies not selected for individual
examination and eligible for a separate rate in this administrative
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in Part, 73 FR
52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made revisions
that have changed the results for certain companies. Additionally, we
have made calculation programming changes for the final results. For
further details on the changes we made for these final results, see the
company-specific analysis memoranda, the Final Decision Memorandum, and
the final surrogate value memorandum dated concurrently with this
notice.
Final Results of the Review
As a result of the administrative review, we determine that the
following weighted-average percentage dumping margins exist for the
period January 23, 2009, through October 31, 2010:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Company \17\ (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd.............. 0.15
ASHINE Diamond Tools Co., Ltd......................... 9.55
AT&M International Trading Co., Ltd................... 0.15
Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Co.................. 0.15
Bosun Tools Co., Ltd.................................. 9.55
Chengdu Huifeng Diamond Tools Co., Ltd................ 9.55
Cliff International Ltd.\18\.......................... 0.15
Danyang Hantronic Import & Export Co., Ltd............ 9.55
Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 9.55
Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd............. 9.55
Fujian Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co., Ltd................ 9.55
Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co., Ltd.............. 9.55
Hangzhou Deer King Industrial & Trading Co., Ltd...... 9.55
Hebei Husqvarna-Jikai Diamond Tools Co., Ltd.......... 9.55
Hebei XMF Tools Group Co., Ltd.\19\................... 9.55
Henan Huanghe Whirlwind Co., Ltd...................... 9.55
Henan Huanghe Whirlwind International Co., Ltd........ 9.55
Huzhou Gu's Import & Export Co., Ltd.................. 9.55
HXF Saw Co., Ltd...................................... 0.15
Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd..... 9.55
Jiangsu Inter-China Group Corporation................. 9.55
Jiangsu Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd.............. 9.55
Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd........... 9.55
Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co. Ltd................ 9.55
Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd.............................. 9.55
Saint-Gobain Abrasives (Shanghai) Co., Ltd............ 9.55
Shanghai Robtol Tool Manufacturing Co., Ltd........... 9.55
Shijiazhuang Global New Century Tools Co., Ltd........ 9.55
Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd...... 9.55
Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co.................. 9.55
Xiamen ZL Diamond Technology Co., Ltd................. 9.55
Zhejiang Wanli Tools Group Co., Ltd................... 9.55
PRC-Wide Entity \20\.................................. 164.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For explanations on the names of certain companies, see
Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 76136-37.
\18\ Cliff International Ltd. also used the company name Cliff
(Tianjin) International Ltd., according to various documents
provided in ATM Single Entity's May 10, 2011, section A response.
\19\ Hebei XMF Tools Group Co., Ltd., reported that its correct
name is Hebei XMF Tools Group Co., Ltd., and not Hebei XMF Tools
(Group) Co., Ltd., which is the name we stated in the Initiation, 75
FR at 81567, and the Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 76137, 76141. See
the letter from Hebei XMF Tools Group Co., Ltd., dated December 2,
2011.
\20\ The PRC-wide entity includes the following companies:
Central Iron and Steel Research Institute Group, Danyang Aurui
Hardware Products Co., Ltd., Danyang Dida Diamond Tools
Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Danyang Tsunda Diamond Tools Co., Ltd.,
Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Electrolux
Construction Products (Xiamen) Co. Ltd., Huachang Diamond Tools
Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Hua Da Superabrasive Tools Technology Co.,
Ltd., Jiangsu Fengyu Tools Co., Ltd., Protech Diamond Tools, Pujiang
Talent Diamond Tools Co., Ltd., Quanzhou Shuangyang Diamond Tools
Co., Ltd., Sichuan Huili Tools Co., Task Tools & Abrasives, Wuxi
Lianhua Superhard Material Tools Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Tea Import &
Export Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Wanda Import and Export Co., Zhejiang
Wanda Tools Group Corp., and Zhejiang Wanli Super-hard Materials
Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated,
whenever possible, an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific
assessment rate or value for merchandise subject to this review as
described below.
For ATM Single Entity, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all
entries
[[Page 11146]]
during the POR without regard to antidumping duties in accordance with
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). For customers or importers of Weihai for which we
do not have entered value, we have calculated customer/importer-
specific antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales of
subject merchandise to the total quantity of subject merchandise sold
in those transactions. For customers or importers of Weihai for which
we received entered-value information, we have calculated customer/
importer-specific antidumping duty assessment rates based on customer/
importer-specific ad valorem rates in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). For all non-selected respondents that received a
separate rate, we will instruct CBP to apply an antidumping duty
assessment rate of 9.55 percent to all entries of subject merchandise
that entered the United States during the POR. For all other companies,
we will instruct CBP to apply an antidumping duty assessment rate of
164.09 percent to all entries of subject merchandise exported by these
companies.
We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the
date of publication of the final results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results of review for all shipments of the
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by the
companies listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established in this final results of review for each
exporter as listed above, except if the rate is zero or de minimis,
then no cash deposit will be required for that exporter; (2) for
previously investigated companies not listed above that have separate
rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific
rate published for the investigation; (3) for all other PRC exporters
of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of
164.09 percent; (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise
which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate applicable to the PRC entity that supplied that non-PRC
exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notifications
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 this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
These final results of review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: February 8, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
1. Separate Rate
2. Corporate Affiliation
3. Respondent Selection
4. Surrogate Values
Air Freight
Brokerage and Handling
Cores
Diamond Powder
Electricity
Financial Ratios
Gasoline
Paraffin Wax
Steel Types 1, 2, 3, and 6
Tin Powder
5. Status of the Order
6. Combination Rates
7. Assessment Period
8. Instructions to CBP
9. Zeroing
10. Fraud Allegations and the Reliability of Respondents'
Submissions
[FR Doc. 2013-03481 Filed 2-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P