[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 176 (Monday, September 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55568-55574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22778]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-916]
Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: September 13, 2010.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
laminated woven sacks (``woven sacks'') from the People's Republic of
China (``PRC'') for the period of review (``POR'') January 31, 2008,
through July 31, 2009. The Department has preliminarily determined that
sales have been made below normal value (``NV'') by the respondent. If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this
review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of
subject merchandise during the POR. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results. We intend to issue
[[Page 55569]]
the final results of this review no later than 120 days from the date
of publication of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander, 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) 482-0182.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 7, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on woven sacks from the PRC.\1\ On August 3,
2009, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the Woven Sacks Order.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Laminated Woven Sacks
From the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 45941 (August 7, 2008)
(``Woven Sacks Order'').
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 74 FR 38397 (August 3, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department received a timely request for an administrative
review of the Woven Sacks Order from Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co.,
Ltd. (``Zibo Aifudi'') and Changshu Xinsheng Bags Producing Company,
Ltd. (``Changshu Xinsheng Bags'') on August 26, 2009, and August 31,
2009, respectively, in accordance with section 751(a) of Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the ``Act''). On September 22, 2009, the Department
published in the Federal Register a notice of the initiation of an
administrative review of the Woven Sacks Order.\3\ The review was
initiated with respect to both Zibo Aifudi and Changshu Xinsheng Bags.
On November 6, 2009, Changshu Xinsheng Bags submitted to the Department
a timely letter requesting a withdrawal from the ongoing administrative
review. On December 17, 2009, the Department rescinded the review with
respect to Changshu Xinsheng Bags.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR
48224 (September 22, 2009) (``Initiation Notice'').
\4\ See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of
China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
74 FR 66954 (December 17, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Zibo Aifudi
from January to June 2010. The Department received responses to its
supplemental questionnaires from Zibo Aifudi from January to July 2010.
From January to July 2010, Petitioners \5\ submitted comments to the
Department regarding the submissions and/or responses of Zibo Aifudi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Petitioners are the Laminated Woven Sacks Committee and its
individual members, Coating Excellence International, LLC and
Polytex Fibers Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 3, 2010, the Department released a letter to interested
parties which listed potential surrogate countries and invited
interested parties to comment on surrogate country and surrogate value
(``SV'') selection. Between March and July 2010, Petitioners and Zibo
Aifudi submitted publicly available SV information, comments, and
rebuttal comments on the selection of a surrogate country and SVs. On
July 9, 2010, the Department requested additional information and
analysis regarding the three financial statements on the record from
Petitioners and Zibo Aifudi. For a discussion of the selection of the
surrogate country, see ``Surrogate Country'' section below.
On April 20, 2010, and August 16, 2010, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department extended the time period for
completing the preliminary results by 90 days and 30 days,
respectively.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of
China: Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 20564 (April 20,
2010); see Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of
China: Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 49888 (August 16,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 25, 2010, the Department preliminarily determined that the
PRC is the country of origin of woven sacks produced in the PRC from
imported fabric. As a result, the Department preliminarily determined
that the woven sacks produced in the PRC by Zibo Aifudi from imported
fabric and imported by Zibo Aifudi into the United States are within
the scope of the order.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Office Director, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, from Zhulieta Willbrand, International
Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, ``Preliminary Decision
Regarding the Country of Origin of Laminated Woven Sacks Exported by
Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.,--Laminated Woven Sacks from
the People's Republic of China'' (May 25, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 6, 2010, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Zibo Aifudi regarding its consumption of imported
woven fabric. On August 18, 2010, Zibo Aifudi responded to the
Department's supplemental questionnaire and provided an explanation,
with supporting documentation, of its consumption of imported woven
fabric. See the Factor Valuation Methodology section below for
additional information.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order is laminated woven sacks.
Laminated woven sacks are bags or sacks consisting of one or more plies
of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven
polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with or
without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene on
one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either to an
exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxially-oriented polypropylene
(``BOPP'') or to an exterior ply of paper that is suitable for high
quality print graphics; \8\ printed with three colors or more in
register; with or without lining; whether or not closed on one end;
whether or not in roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and
sleeves); with or without handles; with or without special closing
features; not exceeding one kilogram in weight. Laminated woven sacks
are typically used for retail packaging of consumer goods such as pet
foods and bird seed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Paper suitable for high quality print graphics,'' as used
herein, means paper having an ISO brightness of 82 or higher and a
Sheffield Smoothness of 250 or less. Coated free sheet is an example
of a paper suitable for high quality print graphics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective July 1, 2007, laminated woven sacks are classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
subheadings 6305.33.0050 and 6305.33.0080. Laminated woven sacks were
previously classifiable under HTSUS subheading 6305.33.0020. If entered
with plastic coating on both sides of the fabric consisting of woven
polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, laminated woven
sacks may be classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 3923.21.0080,
3923.21.0095, and 3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on one end or in
roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves), laminated
woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including
3917.39.0050, 3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and 5903.90.2500. If the
polypropylene strips and/or polyethylene strips making up the fabric
measure more than 5 millimeters in width, laminated woven sacks may be
classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 4601.99.0500,
4601.99.9000, and 4602.90.0000. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
[[Page 55570]]
Non-Market Economy Treatment
The Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy
(``NME'') country.\9\ In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the
Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall
remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. No party
has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this
review. Therefore, the Department continues to treat the PRC as an NME
country for purposes of these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free
Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760
(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic
of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
When the Department reviews imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on
the NME producer's factors of production (``FOPs'') valued in a
surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of
the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the
extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market-
economy countries that are at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of
comparable merchandise. The sources of the SVs that the Department has
used in this review are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section
below.
In this review, the Department determined that India, the
Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru are countries
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.\10\ Once the
countries that are economically comparable to the PRC have been
identified, the Department selects an appropriate surrogate country by
determining whether an economically comparable country is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise and whether the data for valuing
FOPs are both available and reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting Director, Office
of Policy, to Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, ``Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Laminated
Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China'' (January 25,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has preliminarily determined that it is appropriate
to use India as a surrogate country pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of
the Act based on the following: (1) It is at a similar level of
economic development to the PRC pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the
Act; (2) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and
(3) the Department has reliable data from India that it can use to
value the FOPs.\11\ Thus, the Department calculated NV using Indian
prices when available and appropriate to value the FOPs of Zibo Aifudi.
The Department obtained and relied upon publicly available information
wherever possible.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Petitioners submitted surrogate country information and
recommended India as the surrogate country. See Petitioners' March
12, 2010 surrogate country comments.
\12\ See Memorandum to the File from Brandon Farlander,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4,
``Administrative Review of Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's
Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,'' (September 3, 2010)
(``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may
submit publicly-available information to value FOPs until 20 days after
the date of publication of the preliminary results.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information placed on the record. The
Department generally will not accept the submission of additional,
previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department holds a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of subject merchandise 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. Exporters can demonstrate this
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export activities. The Department analyzes
each entity exporting the subject merchandise under the test announced
in the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in 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''). However, if the Department determines that a company is
wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent
from government control.
The mandatory respondent, Zibo Aifudi, provided evidence that it is
a joint venture between PRC and U.S. companies. The Department has
analyzed whether Zibo Aifudi has demonstrated the absence of de jure
and de facto governmental control over its export activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export license; (2) legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\14\ The
evidence provided by Zibo Aifudi supports a preliminary finding that
all of the above criteria have been satisfied.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
\15\ See Zibo Aifudi's Section A response, dated October 26,
2009, at 4-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the evidence provided by Zibo Aifudi supports a
preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on
the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) the
existence of applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control
of Chinese companies; and (3) the implementation of formal measures by
the government decentralizing control of Chinese companies.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in
[[Page 55571]]
making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether
the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of
losses.\17\ The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto
control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact,
subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the
Department from assigning separate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May
8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by Zibo Aifudi supports a preliminary finding
of de facto absence of governmental control based on record statements
and supporting documentation showing that the company: (1) Set its own
export prices independent of the government and without the approval of
a government authority; (2) has the authority to negotiate and sign
contracts and other agreements; (3) maintains autonomy from the
government in making decisions regarding the selection of management;
and (4) retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Zibo Aifudi's Section A response, dated October 26,
2009, at 7-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this review by Zibo
Aifudi demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government
control under the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily granted Zibo Aifudi
separate rate status.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparison
To determine whether sales of woven sacks to the United States by
Zibo Aifudi were made at less than fair value, the Department compared
export price (``EP'') and constructed export price (``CEP'') to NV, as
described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this
notice.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department used
EP as the basis for U.S. price for Zibo Aifudi's sales where the first
sale to unaffiliated purchasers was made prior to importation and the
use of CEP was not otherwise warranted. In accordance with section
772(c) of the Act, the Department calculated EP for Zibo Aifudi by
deducting the following expenses from the starting price charged to the
first unaffiliated customer in the United States: Foreign inland
freight from the plant to the port of exportation and foreign brokerage
and handling. Additionally, for the expenses that were either provided
by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency, the Department
based the expenses on SVs, as appropriate. For details regarding our EP
calculations, see Memorandum from Brandon Farlander, International
Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File,
``Administrative Review of Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for Zibo Aifudi
Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.'' (September 3, 2010) (``Zibo Aifudi
Analysis Memo'').
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, the Department used
CEP as the basis for U.S. price for Zibo Aifudi's sales where Zibo
Aifudi first sold subject merchandise to its affiliated companies in
the United States (AMS Associates, Inc. (d.b.a. Shapiro Packing, Inc.)
or Excel Packaging, LLC), which in turn sold subject merchandise to
unaffiliated U.S. customers. In accordance with section 772(b) of the
Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold
(or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of
importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such
merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to
a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted
under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act. The Department calculated CEP
for Zibo Aifudi based on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in
the United States and made deductions, where applicable, from the U.S.
sales price for movement expenses and appropriate selling adjustments,
such as early payment discounts, in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These movement expenses included foreign
inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, foreign
brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S.
customs duty, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. inland freight from port to the
U.S. customer. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the
Department deducted billing adjustments, early payment discounts,
credit expenses and indirect selling expenses from the U.S. price, all
of which relate to commercial activity in the United States. Also, the
Department deducted CEP profit, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3)
and 772(f) of the Act. Additionally, for the expenses that were either
provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency, the
Department based the expenses on SVs, as appropriate. For details
regarding the CEP calculation, see Zibo Aifudi Analysis Memo.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported
from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV
using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value
under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on FOPs
because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs
renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs
invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products
from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703 (April 17,
2006), unchanged in 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the basis for NV, Zibo Aifudi provided FOPs used in the
production of woven sacks. Consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the
Act, it is the Department's practice to value the FOPs that a
respondent uses to produce woven sacks.
Factor Valuation Methodology
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department
calculated NV based on FOP data reported by Zibo Aifudi. To calculate
NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption
rates by publicly available Indian SVs. In selecting the SVs, the
Department considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of
the data.\21\ As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically,
the Department added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost
using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier
to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory
where appropriate. This adjustment is
[[Page 55572]]
in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's
decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all SVs used for Zibo Aifudi can
be found in the Surrogate Value Memorandum, at Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR
72139 (December 4, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; Final Results of First New Shipper Review
and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11,
2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zibo Aifudi reported that several of its raw material inputs (i.e.,
color ink and woven fabric) were sourced from market-economy countries
and paid for in market-economy currencies. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), when a respondent sources inputs from a market-economy
supplier in meaningful quantities (i.e., not insignificant quantities),
the Department normally will use the actual price paid by the
respondent for those inputs.\22\ Because information reported by Zibo
Aifudi demonstrates that it purchased significant quantities (i.e., 33
percent or more) of colored ink and woven fabric from market-economy
suppliers, the Department used Zibo Aifudi's actual market-economy
purchase prices of colored ink and woven fabric to value its FOPs for
this input.\23\ Where appropriate, freight expenses were added to the
market-economy prices of this input. When Zibo Aifudi made market
economy colored ink and woven fabric purchases that may have been
dumped or subsidized, were not bona fide, or were otherwise not
acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, the Department excluded
them from the numerator of the ratio to ensure a fair determination of
whether valid market-economy purchases meet the 33 percent
threshold.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27366 (May 19, 1997).
\23\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping
Methodologies'').
\24\ See Antidumping Methodologies, 71 FR at 61717-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In past cases, it has been the Department's practice to value
various FOPs using import statistics of the primary selected surrogate
country from World Trade Atlas (``WTA''), as published by Global Trade
Information Services (``GTIS'').\25\ However, in a recent case, the
OCTG Final, the Department explained, based on discussions with GTIS,
that the Indian import data obtained from the WTA, as published by
GTIS, began identifying the original reporting currency for India as
the U.S. Dollar rather than the Indian Rupee, as was previously
reported by GTIS for Indian import data.\26\ While the original India
import data\27\ obtained by GTIS is denominated and published in Indian
Rupees, in the OCTG Final, the Department noted that GTIS made a
decision to change the original reporting currency for Indian data from
the Indian Rupee to the U.S. Dollar in order to reduce the loss of the
number of significant digits when obtaining data through the WTA
software. Additionally, in the OCTG Final, the Department also noted
that subsequently, GTIS restored the ability to view Indian Rupee
values in the WTA software for Indian import data. However, because
this data was twice converted\28\, it was found that this data would
not correspond to the original India data based on the WTA software's
capability to only handle a limited number of significant digits in
each conversion calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review, 74 FR 50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009).
\26\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances,
and Final Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19,
2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4
(``OCTG Final'').
\27\ GTIS obtains data on imports into India directly from the
Ministry of Commerce, Government of India.
\28\ Converted from Indian Rupee to U.S. Dollar, then converted
from U.S. Dollar to Indian Rupee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the conversion and rounding problems in the data
reported by the WTA, the Department will now obtain import statistics
from Global Trade Atlas (``GTA''), as published by GTIS, for valuing
various FOPs. The data reported in the GTA software reports import
statistics, such as from India, in the original reporting currency and
thus this data corresponds to the original currency value reported by
each country. Additionally, the data reported in the GTA software is
reported to the nearest digit and thus there is not a loss of data by
rounding, as there is with the data reported by the WTA software.
Consequently the import statistics we obtain from GTA are in the
original reporting currency of the country from which the data are
obtained and have the same level of accuracy as the original data
released.
The Department used data from the Indian import statistics in the
GTA and other publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate
SVs for Zibo Aifudi's FOPs (i.e., direct materials, energy, packing
materials) and certain movement expenses. In selecting the best
available information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section
773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the
extent practicable, SVs which are non-export average values, most
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\29\
The record shows that data in the GTA Indian import statistics, as well
as those from the other Indian sources, are contemporaneous with the
POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
\30\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with legislative history, the Department continues to
apply its long-standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason
to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.\31\ In this
regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate to
disregard such prices from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand because
we have determined that these countries maintain broadly available,
non-industry specific export subsidies.\32\ Based on the existence of
these subsidy programs that were generally available to all exporters
and producers in these countries at the time of the POR, the Department
finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters from Indonesia,
South Korea and Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies.
Therefore, the Department has not used prices from these three
countries in calculating the Indian import-based SVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report
To Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess.
(1988) at 590.
\32\ See e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India: Final
Results of the Expedited Five-Year (Sunset) Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4-5; Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From Indonesia: Final Results of
Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4; Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea:
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 17, 19-20; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the Department disregarded prices from NME countries.
Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an
``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, because
the Department could not be certain that they were not from
[[Page 55573]]
either an NME country or a country with general export subsidies.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), unchanged
in 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 (September 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners raised concerns regarding Zibo Aifudi's FOPs for the
production of woven sacks from imported woven fabric and we sought
additional information from Zibo Aifudi regarding its production of
woven sacks from imported woven fabric. At this time, we are still
examining this matter and may issue additional supplemental questions
regarding Zibo Aifudi's material consumption and production process for
woven sacks produced from imported woven fabric. For the preliminary
results, we have determined to use Zibo Aifudi's reported FOP data,
specifically Zibo Aifudi's FOPs used to produce woven sacks from
imported woven fabric, to calculate its margin. See Zibo Aifudi
Analysis Memo. However, we intend to continue to analyze this issue for
the final results.
For direct, indirect, and packing labor, pursuant to a recent
decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we are no
longer using the regression based methodology to value labor.\34\
Rather, we have calculated an hourly wage rate to use in valuing each
respondent's reported labor input by averaging available data for
earnings and/or wages in countries that are economically comparable to
the PRC, and that are significant producers of comparable merchandise.
Because this wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different
skill levels or types of labor, the Department has applied the same
wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the
respondents.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372-73
(CAFC 2010).
\35\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit
average rate calculated from data on the infobanc Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this
Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian
cities. The value is contemporaneous with the POR.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department valued electricity using price data for small,
medium, and large industries, as published by the Central Electricity
Authority of the Government of India in its publication entitled
``Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in
India,'' dated March 2008. These electricity rates represent actual
country-wide, publicly available information on tax-exclusive
electricity rates charged to industries in India. We did not inflate
this value because utility rates represent current rates, as indicated
by the effective dates listed for each of the rates provided.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued brokerage and handling expenses using a price list of
export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in
India. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean freight in India that is published in Doing Business 2009: India,
published by the World Bank. Because these data were current throughout
the POR, we did not inflate the value for brokerage and handling.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
expenses, and profit, the Department used the factory overhead,
selling, general and administrative expenses, and profit data from two
Indian companies, KG Petrochem Limited, and Emmbi Polyarns Limited,
producers of merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise, for the
fiscal year April 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009.\39\ The Department
did not rely on the financial statements of Deccan Polypacks Limited
(``Deccan Polypacks'') because the record indicates that during this
period, Deccan Polypacks received subsidies the Department has
previously determined to be countervailable. Consistent with Department
practice, we do not use financial statements of a company that we have
reason to believe or suspect may have received subsidies, where there
are other sufficient reliable and representative data on the record for
purposes of calculating the surrogate financial ratios, because the
financial statements of companies receiving actionable subsidies are
less representative of the financial experience of the relevant
industry than the ratios derived from financial statements that do not
contain evidence of subsidization.\40\ In this case, Deccan Polypacks'
2008-2009 financial statements indicate that Deccan Polypacks received
benefits under the Advance License Scheme.\41\ India's Advance License
Scheme has been found by the Department to provide a countervailable
subsidy.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 6.
\40\ See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17A; Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Final Results and Rescission, in Part, of 2004/2006 Antidumping Duty
Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 52049 (September 12,
2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2
(citing Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Final Results and Rescission, In Part, of 2004/2005
Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 19174
(April 17, 2007)).
\41\ See Annual Report 2008-2009, Deccan Polypacks, at 35 of
Attachment 2 of Zibo Aifudi's March 31, 2010, surrogate value
submission.
\42\ See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 74 FR 10545 (March 11, 2009) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currency Conversion
The Department made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in
accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank. These exchange rates are available on the IA Web site at
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department preliminarily determines that the following
weighted-average dumping margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter/producer percent
margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd..................... 0.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
The Department will disclose the calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Public Comment
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of
review.\43\ Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with
each argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the
argument. Rebuttal comments must be limited to the issues raised in the
written comments and may be filed no later than five days after the
deadline for filing case briefs.\44\ Parties submitting written
comments or rebuttals are requested to provide the Department
[[Page 55574]]
with an additional copy of those comments on disk. Any interested party
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these
preliminary results.\45\ Any hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be
held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal
briefs.\46\ Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and
location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
\44\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
\45\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\46\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will issue the final results of the administrative
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in the briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary
results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) unless the time limit
is extended.
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212, the Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject
merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For
assessment purposes, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the
Department calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific
assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Where the
respondent has reported reliable entered values, the Department
calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered
value of the sales to each importer (or customer). See 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate
is greater than de minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the
entered value of the importer's/customer's entries during the POR. See
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, the
Department calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the
antidumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or
customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that
importer (or customer). To determine whether the duty assessment rates
are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem
ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where an importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate that
importer's (or customer's) entries of subject merchandise without
regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this
review. The Department intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries
containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the
PRC-wide rate in the final results of this review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this review for shipments of
subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by
sections 751(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required
for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and
non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published
for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject
merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate,
the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 91.73 percent; and
(4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: September 3, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-22778 Filed 9-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P