[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69403-69415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28539]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-967]
Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and
Preliminary Determination of Targeted Dumping
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: November 12, 2010.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') preliminarily
determines that aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'') are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value (``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of
sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section of
this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Lori Apodaca, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4474 or (202) 482-4551, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 31, 2010, the Department received a petition concerning
imports of aluminum extrusions from the PRC filed in proper form by the
Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee,\1\ and the United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial
and Service Workers International Union (collectively,
``Petitioners'').\2\ Between April 6 and April 19, 2010, the Department
issued several requests for information and clarification of certain
areas of the Petition, to which Petitioners timely filed additional
responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee is comprised of
Aerolite Extrusion Company, Alexandria Extrusion Company, Benada
Aluminum of Florida, Inc., William L. Bonnell Company, Inc.,
Frontier Aluminum Corporation, Futura Industries Corporation, Hydro
Aluminum North America, Inc., Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, Profile
Extrusions Company, Sapa Extrusions, Inc., and Western Extrusions
Corporation.
\2\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties: Aluminum Extrusions from the People's
Republic of China, dated March 31, 2010 (``Petition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department initiated this investigation on April 27, 2010.\3\
In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain
separate-rate status in non-market economy (``NME'')
[[Page 69404]]
investigations. The process requires exporters and producers to submit
a separate-rate status application (``SRA'') \4\ and to demonstrate an
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over their
export activities. The SRA for this investigation was posted on the
Department's Web site, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html, on April 27, 2010. The due date for filing an SRA was June
28, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 22109
(``Initiation Notice'').
\4\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (``Policy
Bulletin 05.1''), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 17, 2010, the International Trade Commission (``ITC'')
determined that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in
the United States is materially injured or threatened with material
injury by reason of imports of aluminum extrusions from the PRC.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Investigation Nos. 701-TA-475 and 731-TA-1177
(Preliminary): Aluminum extrusions from China, USITC Publication
4153 (June 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2009, through
December 31, 2009. This period corresponds to the two most recent
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which
was March 2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Postponement of Preliminary Determination
On August 4, 2010, Petitioners made a timely request pursuant to
section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) for a
50-day postponement of the preliminary determination. On August 19,
2010, the Department published a postponement of the preliminary AD
determination on aluminum extrusions from the PRC.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China:
Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 75 FR 51243 (August 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is aluminum
extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion
process, made from aluminum alloys having metallic elements
corresponding to the alloy series designations published by The
Aluminum Association commencing with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or
proprietary equivalents or other certifying body equivalents).
Specifically, the subject merchandise made from aluminum alloy with an
Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 1
contains not less than 99 percent aluminum by weight. The subject
merchandise made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association
series designation commencing with the number 3 contains manganese as
the major alloying element, with manganese accounting for not more than
3.0 percent of total materials by weight. The subject merchandise made
from an aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation
commencing with the number 6 contains magnesium and silicon as the
major alloying elements, with magnesium accounting for at least 0.1
percent but not more than 2.0 percent of total materials by weight, and
silicon accounting for at least 0.1 percent but not more than 3.0
percent of total materials by weight. The subject aluminum extrusions
are properly identified by a four-digit alloy series without either a
decimal point or leading letter. Illustrative examples from among the
approximately 160 registered alloys that may characterize the subject
merchandise are as follows: 1350, 3003, and 6060.
Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported in a wide variety of
shapes and forms, including, but not limited to, hollow profiles, other
solid profiles, pipes, tubes, bars, and rods. Aluminum extrusions that
are drawn subsequent to extrusion (``drawn aluminum'') are also
included in the scope.
Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported with a variety of
finishes (both coatings and surface treatments), and types of
fabrication. The types of coatings and treatments applied to subject
aluminum extrusions include, but are not limited to, extrusions that
are mill finished (i.e., without any coating or further finishing),
brushed, buffed, polished, anodized (including bright-dip anodized),
liquid painted, or powder coated. Aluminum extrusions may also be
fabricated, i.e., prepared for assembly. Such operations would include,
but are not limited to, extrusions that are cut-to-length, machined,
drilled, punched, notched, bent, stretched, knurled, swedged, mitered,
chamfered, threaded, and spun. The subject merchandise includes
aluminum extrusions that are finished (coated, painted, etc.),
fabricated, or any combination thereof.
Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of
importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled
after importation, including, but not limited to, window frames, door
frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or furniture. Such parts that
otherwise meet the definition of aluminum extrusions are included in
the scope. The scope includes aluminum extrusions that are attached
(e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies, i.e., partially
assembled merchandise.
Subject extrusions may be identified with reference to their end
use, such as heat sinks, door thresholds, or carpet trim. Such goods
are subject merchandise if they otherwise meet the scope definition,
regardless of whether they are finished products and ready for use at
the time of importation.
The following aluminum extrusion products are excluded: Aluminum
extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series
designations commencing with the number 2 and containing in excess of
1.5 percent copper by weight; aluminum extrusions made from aluminum
alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with
the number 5 and containing in excess of 1.0 percent magnesium by
weight; and aluminum extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an
Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 7
and containing in excess of 2.0 percent zinc by weight.
The scope also excludes finished merchandise containing aluminum
extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and
completed at the time of entry, such as finished windows with glass,
doors, picture frames, and solar panels. The scope also excludes
finished goods containing aluminum extrusions that are entered
unassembled in a ``kit.'' A kit is understood to mean a packaged
combination of parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of
the necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good.
The scope also excludes aluminum alloy sheet or plates produced by
other than the extrusion process, such as aluminum products produced by
a method of casting. Cast aluminum products are properly identified by
four digits with a decimal point between the third and fourth digit. A
letter may also precede the four digits. The following Aluminum
Association designations are representative of aluminum alloys for
casting: 208.0, 295.0, 308.0, 355.0, C355.0, 356.0, A356.0, A357.0,
360.0, 366.0, 380.0, A380.0, 413.0, 443.0, 514.0, 518.1, and 712.0. The
scope also excludes pure, unwrought aluminum in any form.
The scope also excludes collapsible tubular containers composed of
metallic elements corresponding to alloy code 1080A as designated by
the Aluminum
[[Page 69405]]
Association where the tubular container (excluding the nozzle) meets
each of the following dimensional characteristics: (1) Length of 37 mm
or 62 mm, (2) outer diameter of 11.0 mm or 12.7 mm, and (3) wall
thickness not exceeding 0.13 mm.
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the
following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTS''): 7604.21.0000, 7604.29.1000, 7604.29.3010,
7604.29.3050, 7604.29.5030, 7604.29.5060, 7608.20.0030, and
7608.20.0090. The subject merchandise entered as parts of other
aluminum products may be classifiable under the following additional
Chapter 76 subheadings: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99
as well as under other HTS chapters. While HTS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
scope in this proceeding is dispositive.
Scope Comments
In accordance with the preamble to our regulations,\7\ the
Department set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit
comments within twenty calendar days of publication.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27323 (May 19, 1997).
\8\ See Notice of Initiation, 75 FR at 22110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2010, Petitioners submitted comments concerning the
scope of the investigation. On this same date, Toagosei America, Inc.
(``Toagosei''), an importer of aluminum extrusions, and Shanghai
Canghai Aluminum Tube Packing Co. (``Shanghai Canghai''), its Chinese
exporter and supplier, submitted a product exclusion request for
collapsible tubular containers. Also on May 10, 2010, Kam Kiu Aluminium
Products Sdn Bhd and Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co.,
Ltd. (collectively ``Kam Kiu'') submitted a request to exclude drawn
aluminum products from the scope. On May 10, 2010, Brazeway, Inc.
(``Brazeway'') submitted comments arguing that all shapes, forms,
fabrications and subassemblies extruded from soft aluminum alloys
(Aluminum Association series 1000, 3000, 6000) be included in the
scope. On the same date, Eagle Metal Distributors, Inc. (``Eagle
Metals'') also submitted comments requesting that certain aluminum
extrusions that have a particular chemistry, wall thickness and length
be excluded from the scope. On May 11, 2010, Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium
Industry Engineering Co., Ltd. (``CNYD''), a Chinese exporter of
assorted aluminum components, made a request for its unitized curtain
walls and component parts to be considered kits excluded from the scope
of the investigation. Also on May 11, 2010, the Department received
scope comments from Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. (``HPS''), a U.S.
importer of aluminum extrusions from the PRC, requesting a product
exclusion for insulators and connectors used in the electric
transmission industry. On May 20, 2010, Petitioners responded to scope
comments submitted by Eagle Metals, CNYD, Kam Kiu, Toagosei, Shanghai
Canghai and HPS.
On June 14, 2010, Toagosei clarified its May 20, 2010 scope
comments regarding collapsible tubular containers. On June 15, 2010,
the Department received scope comments from Alumi-Guard, Inc. (``Alumi-
Guard''), a domestic manufacturer of fences and gates, proposing to
modify the scope exclusion regarding fully assembled finished
merchandise and kits so that such items comprised of at least 70
percent aluminum extrusions by weight would not be excluded from the
scope of the investigation. On June 22, 2010, the Department received
scope comments from Jerith Manufacturing Co., Inc. (``Jerith''),
proposing to revise the scope exclusion regarding fully assembled
finished merchandise and kits so that fully assembled finished
merchandise and kits comprised of at least 75 percent aluminum
extrusions by weight would not be excluded from the scope of the
proceeding. On June 23, 2010, the Department received scope comments
from Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum Factory Co. Ltd. (``ZAA''), an exporter of
aluminum extrusions from the PRC and ZAA's U.S. purchaser of aluminum
extrusions, Shapes Unlimited, Inc. (``Shapes Unlimited''), requesting
that certain aluminum extrusions with specific chemistry, wall
thickness, finish and weight be excluded from the scope. On June 24,
2010, Elite Fence Products, Inc. (``Elite Fence'') proposed a
modification of the scope language mimicking the request made by
Jerith. On July 22, 2010, Delair Group, LLC (``Delair''), submitted a
scope language modification requesting the exclusion for finished
products and kits be modified so that finished products and complete
kits comprised of at least 75 percent aluminum extrusions by weight
would not be excluded from the scope of the investigations. On August
20, 2010, Petitioners submitted a request to amend the scope to exclude
certain collapsible tubular containers meeting specific dimensions. On
August 23, 2010, Toagosei and Shanghai Canghai submitted comments in
support of Petitioners' August 20, 2010, scope amendment request. On
August 26, 2010, Digger Specialties, Inc. (``DSI'') requested a
revision of scope language also mimicking the request made by Jerith.
On September 15, 2010, Nexxt Show, LLC (``Nexxt Show''), an
importer of aluminum exhibition kits, inquired as to whether its
imports would be covered by the ``kit'' exclusion. On September 17,
2010, the Department received scope comments from the Shower Door
Manufacturers and Shower Enclosures Alliance (``Shower Door
Manufacturers''), in which they requested clarification of the scope
language covering ``kits'' and ``finishes.'' On September 27, 2010,
Petitioners filed their rebuttal, objecting to the proposals made by
the Shower Door Manufacturers. On September 29, 2010, the Department
received scope comments from Aavid Thermalloy, LLC (``Aavid''),
requesting a scope exclusion for heat sinks manufactured for electronic
equipment.
On October 1, 2010, Eagle Metals submitted additional scope
comments covering its May 10, 2010 submission. On October 6, 2010, the
Department received comments from Brazeway, objecting to Aavid's
request to exclude heat sinks. On this same date, Petitioners filed
pre-preliminary scope comments, requesting that the Department not
amend the scope language in a manner contrary to Petitioners' intent.
The Department has summarized the submitted comments and has made
preliminary determinations with regard to the issues.\9\ Based on our
analysis of the comments, we preliminarily determine to amend the scope
language by adding the following exclusion: ``the scope also excludes
collapsible tubular containers composed of metallic elements
corresponding to alloy code 1080A as designated by the Aluminum
Association where the tubular container (excluding the nozzle) meets
each of the following dimensional characteristics: (1) Length of 37 mm
or 62 mm, (2) outer diameter of 11.0 mm or 12.7 mm, and (3) wall
thickness not exceeding 0.13 mm.'' \10\ No other changes to the scope
language have been made for this preliminary determination. Comments
received on or after October 7, 2010, were not submitted in time for
[[Page 69406]]
consideration for the preliminary determination; however, we will fully
consider them for the final determination. Interested parties may
address these comments in their case briefs, and rebuttal briefs as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See the Department's memorandum entitled ``Aluminum
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China, Preliminary
Determinations: Comments on the Scope of the Investigations, dated
October 27, 2010.
\10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Country
For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted an LTFV analysis
for the PRC as an NME.\11\ The Department's most recent examination of
the PRC's market status determined that NME status should continue for
the PRC.\12\ Additionally, in two recent investigations, the Department
also determined that the PRC is an NME country.\13\ In accordance with
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the NME status remains in effect
until revoked by the Department. The Department has not revoked the
PRC's status as an NME country, and we have therefore treated the PRC
as an NME in this preliminary determination and applied our NME
methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 22111.
\12\ See Memorandum for David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain
Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China
(``China''): China's Status as a Non-Market Economy (``NME''')
(August 30, 2006) (memorandum is on file in the CRU on the record of
case number A-570-901).
\13\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9593 (March 5, 2009) (``Kitchen Racks
Prelim'') (unchanged in Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009) (``Kitchen Racks
Final'')) and Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of
Final Determination, 74 FR 4929, 4931 (January 28, 2009) (unchanged
in Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 74 FR 29167 (June 19, 2009)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of Respondents
In accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, the Department
selected the two largest exporters (by quantity) of aluminum extrusions
(Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd., Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium
Co., Ltd., Kong Ah International Company Limited, and Guang Ya
Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Limited, (collectively, ``Guang Ya
Group''); and ZAA as the mandatory respondents in this investigation
based on the information contained in the timely submitted Quantity
&Value (``Q&V'') questionnaire responses filed by 49 exporters/
producers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``Antidumping
Duty Investigation of Aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic
of China: Selection of Mandatory Respondents,'' dated July 16, 2010
(``Respondent Selection Memo''). Of the companies that filed Q&Vs,
34 were named in the Petition, 15 were not. Some companies submitted
one Q&V for multiple entities, resulting in 45 submissions in total,
covering 49 companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 16, 2010, and September 8, 2010, Zhaoqing New Zhongya
Aluminum Co., Ltd. (``ZNZ''), Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding
Limited (``Shaped Aluminum'') and Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd.
(``Karlton'') (collectively ``New Zhongya'') filed an Original
Questionnaire response to sections A and sections C and D,
respectively, requesting to be considered as a voluntary respondent.
Further, on June 29, 2010, ZNZ, Shaped Aluminum and Karlton each filed
SRA's.
The Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Guang Ya
Group and ZAA on July 16, 2010. The Department requested that the
respondents provide a response to section A of the Department's
questionnaire on August 6, 2010, and a response to sections C and D of
the questionnaire on August 23, 2010. From August 5, 2010, until the
present, the Department has granted both respondents several extensions
for their submissions.
Guang Ya Group submitted its responses to the section A and
sections C and D questionnaires on August 16, 2010 and September 8,
2010, respectively. The Department issued several supplemental
questionnaires and Guang Ya Group submitted responses to these
supplemental questionnaires on September 22, 24, 27, 29, October 15,
and 21, 2010.
ZAA submitted its section A response on August 13, 2010. ZAA
submitted responses to section C and D on September 3, 2010. On
September 10, 2010, ZAA informed the Department that it would no longer
participate in the investigation.\15\ The Department subsequently
determined that it did not have sufficient time to investigate New
Zhongya as a voluntary respondent.\16\ However, as described in the
Affiliation section below, New Zhongya is being examined in the context
of its relationship to the Guang Ya Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See ZAA's September 10, 2010, letter to the Department
stating that it would no longer participate in the investigation.
\16\ See The Department's October 1, 2010 supplemental
questionnaire to New Zhongya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, 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 surrogate values we have
used in this investigation are discussed under the ``Normal Value''
section below.
The Department determined that India, the Philippines, Indonesia,
Thailand, Ukraine and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in terms
of economic development.\17\ Once the countries that are economically
comparable to the PRC have been identified, we select 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 is both available and reliable.\18\ No
parties provided comments on the record concerning the surrogate
country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Memorandum to Eugene Degnan from Carole Showers,
``Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of
China (``PRC'') (``Office of Policy Surrogate Countries
Memorandum''), dated July 26, 2010. The Department notes that these
six countries are part of a non-exhaustive list of countries that
are at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC.
\18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have 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
pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) we have reliable data from
India that we can use to value the FOPs. Thus, we have calculated
normal value (``NV'') using Indian prices when available and
appropriate to value the FOPs of the aluminum extrusion producers under
investigation. We have obtained and relied upon contemporaneous
publicly available information wherever possible.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, ``Aluminum Extrusions
from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum''
(October 27, 2010) (``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final
determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may
submit publicly available information to
[[Page 69407]]
value the FOPs within 40 days after the date of publication of the
preliminary determination.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
determination of this investigation, 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 recently 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Value Comments
Surrogate factor valuation comments and surrogate value information
with which to value the FOPs for the preliminary determination in this
proceeding were originally due August 24, 1010. On August 4, 2010,
Petitioners requested an extension to submit surrogate values. On
August 6, 2010, the Department granted this request extending the
deadline for submission of surrogate value information for all
interested parties until 7 days after both mandatory respondents had
submitted their section D questionnaire responses. Surrogate value
submissions were filed September 10, 2010, by Petitioners and Guang Ya
Group, respectively. Petitioners filed rebuttal surrogate values
comments on September 28, 2010. For a detailed discussion of the
surrogate values used in this LTFV proceeding, see the ``Factor
Valuation'' section below and the Surrogate Value Memorandum.
Affiliation
Based on the evidence presented in Guang Ya Group's questionnaire
responses, we preliminarily find affiliation between the entities
comprising Guang Ya Group pursuant to section 771(33)(A) and (F) of the
Act.\21\ In addition, based on the evidence presented in Guang Ya
Group's questionnaire responses, we find that Guang Ya Group should be
collapsed and treated as a single entity for purposes of this
investigation, pursuant to sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act, and
19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2).\22\ Further, while we have not accepted
New Zhongya as a voluntary respondent in this investigation, we have
determined to examine New Zhongya in the context of its relationship to
Guang Ya Group.\23\ In that context, we issued supplemental
questionnaires to New Zhongya on October 1, 2010, and October 12,
2010.\24\ Based on the evidence on the record, we have preliminarily
determined that the New Zhongya entities are affiliated and should be
collapsed and treated as a single entity pursuant to sections
771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2).\25\
Additionally, we have preliminarily determined that Guang Ya Group and
New Zhongya are also affiliated with each other pursuant to section
771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, Investigation of
Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination Regarding Affiliation and Collapsing of Guang Ya
Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd., Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co.,
Ltd., Kong Ah International Company Limited, and Guang Ya Aluminium
Industries (Hong Kong) Limited, and Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum
Co., Ltd., Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited; Xinya
Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. and Dayang Aluminum
Co., Ltd. (October 27, 2010) (``Affiliation and Collapsing Memo'').
\22\ Id.
\23\ See October 1, 2010 supplemental questionnaire.
\24\ New Zhongya requested, and the Department granted, an
extension to the submission of the response to the October 12, 2010
supplemental questionnaire until October 28, 2010. Additionally, the
U.S. sales and FOP databases submitted pursuant to the October 1,
2010 supplemental questionnaire were consolidated with Guang Ya
Group data and due to the Department on October 19, 2010. However,
Guang Ya Group requested an extension for the submission of the
consolidated database to October 21, 2010. The Department granted
this extension request, but informed Guang Ya Group that as a result
of the extension, the Department may not be able to use this data
for the preliminary determination. In fact, due to the need to make
multiple formatting changes to the consolidated database to render
it usable for margin calculation, the Department was unable to use
this data for the preliminary determination. See Analysis Memo.
\25\ See Affiliation and Collapsing Memo.
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, we also find that the Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya
should be collapsed and treated as a single entity (collectively
``Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya'') for purposes of this investigation,
pursuant to sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.401(f)(1) and (2).\27\ Furthermore, we find that Guang Ya Group/New
Zhongya is affiliated with another exporter/producer of aluminum
extrusions: Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd.
(``Xinya''), pursuant to sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act.\28\
Although neither Guang Ya Group nor New Zhongya provided the full
ownership information of this entity, as requested by the Department,
Guang Ya Group stated on the record of this antidumping (``AD'')
investigation that a sibling of its owner was ``shareholder'' of Xinya,
and New Zhongya stated on the public record of the companion
countervailing duty investigation of aluminum extrusions from the PRC
(``CVD investigation'') that a sibling of its owner was ``owner'' of
Xinya. Because this information was provided on the public record of
that proceeding, it is deemed to be public information.\29\
Accordingly, we find it reasonable to infer, as facts available, that
the family members identified in the AD response as ``shareholder'' of
Xinya, and the public CVD investigation response as the ``owner'' of
Xinya, holds full ownership of his or her respective company.
Therefore, because Xinya is owned by members of the same family that
has ownership interests in Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya, we have
determined to preliminarily treat Xinya as owned by the family
grouping. Thus, we also find Xinya to be affiliated with Guang Ya
Group/New Zhongya, based on common family ownership, pursuant to
sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id.
\28\ Id.
\29\ On October 22, 2010, the Department sent letters to Guang
Ya Group and New Zhongya asking them to provide an explanation of
why certain company names and company ownership information should
be accorded business proprietary (``BPI'') treatment, in light of
the fact that this information was previously submitted as public
information on the record of the countervailing duty investigation
of aluminum extrusions and/or found to be publicly available on the
Internet. Specifically, the Department requested that New Zhongya
address the fact that it had previously submitted the names and
shareholdings of each of its intermediate and ultimate owners as
public information, but was now treating this information as BPI. In
regard to Guang Ya Group, the Department requested that Guang Ya
Group also provide an explanation of why it was treating the
ownership information referenced above as BPI. On October 25, 2010,
both companies responded that they agree to the treatment of this
information as public information. See October 25, 2010 letter to
the Department from New Zhongya: Aluminum Extrusions from China:
Antidumping, and October 25, 2010 letter to the Department from
Guang Ya Group: Aluminum Extrusions from the PRC: Comments by the
Guang Ya Group Regarding Treatment of Affiliated Party Information
as BPI. Accordingly, we have determined to treat this information as
public information going forward in this investigation. See October
27, 2010 memorandum to the file: Reclassification of Business
Proprietary Information (placing the public version of New Zhongya's
August 6, 2010, supplemental questionnaire response and certain
publicly available information found on the Internet, on the record
of the AD investigation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we determine that Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya
should be collapsed and treated as a single entity for the purposes of
this investigation, pursuant to sections 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and
(2).\30\ This finding is based on the determination that Guang Ya
Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya are affiliated, that each are exporters/
producers of similar or
[[Page 69408]]
identical products and no retooling would be necessary in order to
restructure manufacturing priorities,\31\ and that there is significant
potential for manipulation of price or production between the parties
based on the familial ownership of these companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Affiliation and Collapsing Memo.
\31\ See Guang Ya Group August 16, 2010, section A response at
16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the level of common ownership pursuant to 19 CFR
351.401(f)(2)(i), we find common ownership of Guang Ya Group, New
Zhongya, and Xinya by the family grouping. In this context, the family
in question is the ``person'' jointly owning these entities. In regards
to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(ii), the record of this proceeding shows that
family members are directors and managers of each of the three
companies.\32\ Given that (1) the family grouping has ownership
interests in both Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya, and we are concluding
based on facts available that the family grouping holds ownership over
Xinya, (2) the family grouping has directors and senior managers at
each company, and (3) all of the companies produce and or export
merchandise under consideration in this investigation, we find that the
family grouping is in a position to have significant influence over the
production and sales decisions of all three companies. We find that
these factors support a finding of significant potential for
manipulation such that all three companies should be treated as a
single entity for purposes of margin calculation and assessment.\33\
For further discussion of the Department's affiliation and collapsing
decision, see the Affiliation and Collapsing Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See October 27, 2010, memorandum to the file:
Reclassification of Business Proprietary Information.
\33\ See, e.g., Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 47198 (September 15,
2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The calculation of the margin for the preliminary determination
will necessarily be based only on the data submitted by Guang Ya Group/
New Zhongya. However, we will request that the single entity of Guang
Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya provide additional information and data
pursuant to a post-preliminary determination supplemental
questionnaire, including but not limited to, separate rate information,
U.S. sales data and FOP data relating to Xinya. We will re-calculate
the margin for the final determination using this information, as
appropriate.
We note that record evidence shows that Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/
Xinya are also potentially affiliated through family ownership with
another company that produces and/or exports aluminum extrusions: Da
Yang Aluminum Co., Ltd. (``Da Yang''). Da Yang was named in the
petition of this investigation, and the Department issued a Q&V
questionnaire to Da Yang on April 27, 2010. Our records show that the
Q&V questionnaire was delivered to Da Yang on May 5, 2010. Da Yang
never responded to our Q&V questionnaire. Our practice is to treat
companies who did not respond to the Department's request for
information as part of the PRC-wide entity.\34\ Therefore, Da Yang is
already considered part of the PRC-wide entity and is not eligible for
consideration in the collapsing analysis of the other individually
reviewed respondents. See The PRC-Wide Entity and PRC-Wide Rate, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Drill Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final
Determination, 75 FR 51004 (August 18, 2010) stating ``although all
exporters/producers were given an opportunity to submit Q&V
responses, we only received seven timely filed Q&V responses in
response to our request. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily
determined that there were exporters/producers of the merchandise
under investigation during the POI from the PRC that did not respond
to the Department's request for information and that it is
appropriate to treat these non-responsive PRC exporters/producers as
part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not qualify for a
separate rate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Targeted Dumping
On September 17 and September 30, 2010, respectively, the
Department received Petitioners' allegations of targeted dumping by
Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya using the Department's methodology as
established in Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates:
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value, 73
FR 33985 (June 16, 2008) (``Steel Nails''). Based on our examination of
the targeted dumping allegations filed by Petitioners, and pursuant to
section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, the Department has determined that
Petitioners' allegations sufficiently indicate that there is a pattern
of export prices (or constructed export prices) for comparable
merchandise that differ significantly among purchasers, time periods,
and regions.
As a result, the Department has applied the targeted dumping
analysis established in Steel Nails to the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya's
U.S. sales to targeted purchasers, time periods, and regions. The
methodology we employed involves a two-stage test; the first stage
addresses the pattern requirement and the second stage addresses the
significant-difference requirement. See section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the
Act and Steel Nails. In this test we made all price comparisons on the
basis of comparable merchandise (i.e., by control number or CONNUM).
The test procedures are the same for the customer, time period and
region targeted-dumping allegations. We based all of our targeted-
dumping calculations on the net U.S. price which we determined for U.S.
sales by Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya in our standard margin
calculations. For further discussion of the test and the results, see
Analysis Memo. As a result of our analysis, we preliminarily determine
that there is a pattern of sales for comparable merchandise that differ
significantly among certain purchasers, time periods, and regions for
Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya in accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i)
of the Act, and our practice as discussed in Steel Nails. For the
preliminary determination, however, we find that in this investigation
the result using the standard average-to-average methodology is not
substantially different from that using the alternative average-to-
transaction methodology. Accordingly, for this preliminary
determination we have applied the standard average-to-average
methodology to all U.S. sales that Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya reported.
Separate Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain
separate-rate status in NME investigations.\35\ The process requires
exporters and producers to submit a SRA.\36\ The standard for
eligibility for a separate rate is whether a firm can demonstrate an
[[Page 69409]]
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over its export
activities. In the instant investigation, the Department received
timely-filed SRAs from 39 companies.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 22113.
\36\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: ``While continuing the practice
of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates
that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will
be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the
period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated
for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject
merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice
applied both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually
calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated
firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated
rates. This practice is referred to as the application of
`combination rates' because such rates apply to specific
combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.'' See
Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.
\37\ The 39 separate-rate applicants are: (1) Alnan Aluminium
Co., Ltd.; (2) Changshu Changsheng Aluminium Products Co., Ltd.; (3)
China Square Industrial Limited; (4) Cosco (J.M) Aluminium
Developments Co., Ltd.; (5) First Union Property Limited/Top-Wok
Metal Co., Ltd.; (6) Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd.; (7)
Foshan Jinlan Non-ferrous Metal Product Co.; Ltd.; (8) Foshan
Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium Co., Ltd.; (9) Guang Ya Aluminium
Industries (Hong Kong) Limited; (10) Guang Ya Aluminium Industries
Co., Ltd.; (11) Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium Co., Ltd/Hao Mei
Aluminium Co., Ltd./Hao Mei International Co., Ltd..; (12) Guangdong
Weiye Aluminium Factory Co., Ltd.; (13) Guangdong Xingfa Aluminum
Co., Ltd.; (14) Hanwood Enterprises Limited; (15) Honsense
Development Company; (16) Innovative Aluminium (Hong Kong) Limited;
(17) Jiangyin Trust International Inc.; (18) JMA (HK) Company
Limited; (19) Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd; (20) Karlton
Aluminium Company Limited; (21) Kong Ah International Company
Limited; (22) Longkou Donghai Trade Co., Ltd.; (23) Ningbo Yili
Import and Export Co., Ltd.; (24) North China Aluminum Co., Ltd.;
(25) PanAsia Aluminium (China) Limited; (26) Pingguo Asia Aluminum
Co., Ltd.; (27) Popular Plastics Co., Ltd.; (28) Press Metal
Huasheng Aluminum Extrusion Co., Ltd.; (29) Press Metal
International Ltd.; (30) Shanghai Canghai Aluminium Tube Packing
Co., Ltd.; (31) Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium Industry Engineering Co.
Ltd.; (32) Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd.; (33) Tianjin Ruixin
Electric Heat Transmission Technology Co., Ltd.; (34) USA Worldwide
Door Components (Pinghu) Co., Ltd./Worldwide Door Components
(Pinghu) Co.; (35) Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum Factory Co., Ltd.; (36)
Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd.; (37) Zhejiang Yongkang
Listar Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd.; (38) Zhongshan Gold Mountain
Aluminium Factory Ltd.; and (39) Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK)
Holding Limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because ZAA did not cooperate in this investigation, we find that
ZAA did not demonstrate that it was eligible for a separate rate, and
it is thus part of the PRC-entity. One SR applicant, Press Metal
Huasheng Aluminum Extrusion Co. Ltd., did not have any shipments of the
merchandise under investigation during the POI, and so is not eligible
for consideration for a separate rate.
One SR applicant, Shanghai Canghai Aluminum Tube Packing Co.,
submitted an SRA on June 30, 2010 (pursuant to an extension granted by
the Department).\38\ On August 18, 2010, the Department issued a
Supplemental Questionnaire (``SQ'') to Shanghai Canghai. On September
8, 2010, Shanghai Canghai improperly filed its response to the SQ and
the Department was not able to analyze the information contained in the
response. Therefore, Shanghai Canghai will not be considered for a
separate rate in the preliminary determination. However, we are
providing Shanghai Canghai an additional opportunity to correct these
deficiencies after the preliminary determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See the Department's June 25, 2010, letter to Shanghai
Canghai granting the company's request to extend the deadline for
its SRA submission to July 2, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining 36 SR applicants have all stated that they are wholly
foreign-owned enterprises or located in a market economy, are joint
ventures between Chinese and foreign companies, or are wholly Chinese-
owned companies. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether these
respondents are wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy as
claimed or demonstrated an absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export activities, as appropriate.
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has 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 merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country
this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
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
a test arising from 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 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
accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns
separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the
absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export
activities.
A. Separate-Rate Recipients \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ All separate-rate applicants receiving a separate rate are
hereby referred to collectively as the ``SR Recipients;'' this
includes the mandatory respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned or Located in a Market Economy
Thirteen separate rate applicants, i.e., the three New Zhongya
entities, the two Guang Ya Group entities and eight other separate rate
companies, provided evidence in their SRAs that they are wholly owned
by individuals or companies located in a market economy (``ME''),
(collectively ``Foreign-Owned SR Applicants'').\40\ Therefore, because
they are wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, and we
have no evidence indicating that they are under the control of the PRC,
a separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether these
companies are independent from government control.\41\ Accordingly, we
have preliminarily granted a separate rate to these companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ The wholly foreign-owned SR Applicants are: (1) Cosco
(J.M.) Aluminium Developments Co., Ltd.; (2) Guangdong Xingfa
Aluminum Co., Ltd.; (3) PanAsia Aluminum (China) Limited; (4)
Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd.; (5) Popular Plastics Company
Limited; (6) Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd.; (7) USA Worldwide
Door Components (Pinghu) Co., Ltd., and (8) Worldwide Door
Components Co.
\41\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of
China, 64 FR 71104, 71104-05 (December 20, 1999) (where the
respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for a
separate rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly
Chinese-Owned Companies
Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd., Foshan Guangcheng
Aluminium Co., Ltd. and twenty-one of the separate-rate companies in
this investigation stated that they are either joint ventures between
Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly Chinese-owned companies
(collectively ``PRC SR Applicants''). Therefore, the Department must
analyze whether these respondents can demonstrate the absence of both
de jure and de facto governmental control over 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 licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
The evidence provided by the PRC SR Recipients 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 exporters' business and export licenses; (2) there
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the
companies; and (3) and there are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.
[[Page 69410]]
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government 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 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. 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 Department has determined that an analysis of
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in
fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude
the Department from assigning separate rates.
In this investigation, the separate rate applicants each asserted
the following: (1) That the export prices are not set by, and are not
subject to, the approval of a governmental agency; (2) they have
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3)
they have autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding
the selection of management; and (4) they retain the proceeds of their
export sales and make independent decisions regarding disposition of
profits or financing of losses. Additionally, each of these companies'
SRA responses indicates that its pricing during the POI does not
involve coordination among exporters.
Evidence placed on the record of this investigation by 36 of the SR
Applicants demonstrate an absence of de jure and de facto government
control with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise
under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we are preliminarily granting
a separate rate to these entities and have identified each of them in
the Preliminary Determination section of this notice, below.
Application of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Facts Available
The PRC-Wide Entity and PRC-Wide Rate
We issued our request for Q&V information to 130 potential Chinese
exporters of the subject merchandise, in addition to posting the Q&V
questionnaire on the Department's website. See Respondent Selection
Memo. While information on the record of this investigation indicates
that there are numerous producers/exporters of aluminum extrusions in
the PRC, we received 45 timely filed Q&V responses.\42\ Although all
exporters were given an opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all
exporters provided a response to the Department's Q&V letter.
Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that there were
exporters/producers of the subject merchandise during the POI from the
PRC that did not respond to the Department's request for information
(including Da Yang).\43\ We have treated these non-responsive PRC
producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not
demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate. See, e.g., Kitchen
Racks Prelim, unchanged in Kitchen Racks Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Several of the Q&V responses provided Q&V data for more
than one company. As a result, the 45 Q&V responses provided
quantity and value for 49 entities.
\43\ Da Yang is one of the companies identified in the Petition
to whom we issued a Q&V questionnaire but received no response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department,
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (F) of the
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping
statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable
determination.
Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the
PRC-wide entity was non-responsive. Specifically, certain companies did
not respond to our questionnaire requesting Q&V information.
Additionally, on September 10, 2010, ZAA informed the Department that
it would no longer participate in the investigation. Accordingly, we
find that the PRC-entity withheld information requested by the
Department; failed to provide information in a timely manner and
neither indicated that it was having difficulty providing the
information nor requested that it be allowed to submit the information
in an alternate form; significantly impeded the proceeding by not
submitting the requested proceeding, and in the case of ZAA, submitted
information that cannot be verified as a result of its determination to
discontinue participation in the proceeding. As a result, pursuant to
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts
available (``FA'') is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. See
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of
Final Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See
Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870 (1994) (``SAA'');
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products
from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). We
find that, because the PRC-wide entity (including ZAA) did not respond
to our requests for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best
of its ability. Furthermore, the PRC-wide entity's refusal to provide
the requested information constitutes circumstances under which it is
reasonable to conclude that less than full cooperation has been shown.
See Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1383
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon Steel'') where the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit provided an explanation of the ``failure to act to the
best of its ability'' standard noting that the Department need not show
intentional conduct existed on the part of the respondent, but merely
that a ``failure to cooperate to the best of a respondent's ability''
existed (i.e., information was not provided ``under circumstances in
which it is reasonable to conclude that less than full cooperation has
been shown'').
[[Page 69411]]
Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from
among the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate.
When employing an adverse inference, section 776 of the Act
indicates that the Department may rely upon information derived from
the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a
previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the
record. In selecting a rate for adverse facts available (``AFA''), the
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that
the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by
failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated. It is the
Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest
margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of
any respondent in the investigation.\44\ With respect to adverse facts
available (``AFA''), for the preliminary determination, we have
assigned the PRC-wide entity the rate of 59.31 percent, which is the
dumping margin calculated for Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya in the
preliminary determination. No corroboration of this rate is necessary
because we are relying on information obtained in the course of this
investigation, rather than secondary information.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's
Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at ``Facts Available.''
\45\ See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d) and section 776(c) of the
Act; see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part:
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of
China, 73 FR 35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial AFA for Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya
New Zhongya did not provide a sufficient description of the FOP
inputs named: Additive, Aluminum sealant, Chromaking agent, Deslagging
agent, Long life additive for alkaline etching, and Refining agent for
the Department to determine an appropriate source with which to value
these inputs. However, information contained in New Zhongya's
questionnaire responses, identified these as broadly as various
``additives.'' Because New Zhongya did not provide us with sufficient
means to identify an appropriate surrogate value for these inputs as
requested by the Department, as adverse facts available, we have
applied the highest surrogate value on the record for any input
described as an ``additive.'' We intend to address these FOP valuations
further in post-preliminary determination supplemental questionnaires.
Margin for the Separate Rate Companies
As discussed above, the Department has preliminarily determined
that in addition to the individually reviewed entities, 29 other
companies have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate. The
Department's practice is to establish a margin, as the separate rate,
for these entities based on the average of the rates we calculated for
the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that were zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on AFA.\46\ In the instant investigation we
have only one mandatory respondent, Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya.
As the rate for Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya is not zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on AFA, we are using its margin to establish
the separate rate margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR
19690 (April 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Sale
19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, ``in identifying the date of sale of
the merchandise under consideration or foreign like product, the
Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the
exporter or producer's records kept in the normal course of business.''
In Allied Tube, the CIT noted that a ``party seeking to establish a
date of sale other than invoice date bears the burden of producing
sufficient evidence to `satisf{y{time} ' the Department that `a
different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or
producer establishes the material terms of sale.' '' Allied Tube &
Conduit Corp. v. United States 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (CIT 2001)
(quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)) (``Allied Tube''). Additionally, the
Secretary may use a date other than the date of invoice if the
Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date
on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of
sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube, 132 F. Supp. 2d
1087, 1090-1092. The date of sale is generally the date on which the
parties agree upon all substantive terms of the sale. This normally
includes the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment terms. See
Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 62824 (November 7,
2007), and accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1;
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Turkey, 65
FR 15123 (March 21, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1.
For sales by Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya, consistent with 19 CFR
351.401(i), we used the commercial invoice date as the sale date
because record evidence indicates that the terms of sale were not set
until the issuance of the commercial invoice.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See, e.g., the Guang Ya Group's section A response at page
29, and New Zhongya's section A response at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of aluminum extrusions to the United
States by the respondents were made at LTFV, we compared export price
(``EP'') and constructed export price (``CEP'') to normal value
(``NV''), as described in the ``Constructed Export Price,'' ``Export
Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
U.S. Price
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) 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 subsections (c) and
(d). In its questionnaire responses, Guang Ya Group stated that it made
CEP sales through its U.S. affiliate, Guangcheng Aluminum Industries
(USA) Inc. (``Guangcheng USA''). In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, we used CEP for Guang Ya Group's U.S. sales where the
merchandise subject to this investigation was sold directly to an
affiliated purchaser located in the United States.
For sales reported by Guang Ya Group as CEP sales, we calculated
CEP based on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. We made deductions from the U.S. sales price, where applicable,
for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the
Act. These included such expenses as foreign inland freight from the
plant to the port of exportation
[[Page 69412]]
and marine insurance. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act,
the Department deducted commissions, credit expenses, inventory
carrying costs and indirect selling expenses from the U.S. price, all
of which relate to commercial activity in the United States. Finally,
we deducted CEP profit, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and
772(f) of the Act.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zhongya also reported that it had CEP sales, but requested that
the Department not require it to submit data for these sales based on
the fact that they comprised a very small percentage of its total
sales. Where the percentage of CEP sales is less than five percent, the
Department practice is to not require that the sales be reported.\49\
Accordingly, the Department has permitted New Zhongya not to report
these sales.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See 19 CFR 351.408(d); see also Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice from
Brazil, 71 FR 2183 (January 13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at 6.
\50\ See October 20, 2010, letter to New Zhongya: Extension of
Deadline to submit supplemental questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for
certain U.S. sales reported by Guang Ya Group and all sales reported by
New Zhongya. We calculated EP based on the packed prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States.
We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement expenses (e.g.,
foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation,
domestic brokerage, international freight to the port of importation,
etc.) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Where foreign
inland freight or foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by
PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges
on surrogate value rates from India. See ``Factor Valuation'' section
below for further discussion of surrogate value rates.
Adjustments to Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya Data
For the preliminary determination, using information from Guang Ya
Group's narrative questionnaire/supplemental questionnaire responses,
the Department made adjustments to Guang Ya Group's and New Zhongya's
FOP and U.S. sales data to resolve multiple flaws with respect to
formatting, variable names, and spreadsheet reference errors. For
example, where values for credit expenses were lost in Guang Ya Group's
Excel version of its U.S. sales database due to broken cell links,
resulting in ``reference'' errors, the Department used data found in
Guang Ya Group's questionnaire/supplemental questionnaire response
narratives to calculate the missing values using SAS programming
language.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See the memorandum to the file: Preliminary Determination
Analysis Memorandum for Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd.,
Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd., Kong Ah International Company
Limited, and Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Limited,
(collectively, the ``Guang Ya Group'') dated October 27, 2010, for a
complete listing of all such adjustments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the 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 the 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.
Therefore, for this preliminary determination we have calculated NV
based on FOPs in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include: (1) Hours of labor required;
(2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and
other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. See,
e.g., Kitchen Racks Prelim, 71 FR at 19703 (unchanged in Kitchen Racks
Final). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available information to find an appropriate
surrogate value to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input
from a ME and pays for it in a ME currency, the Department may value
the factor using the actual price paid for the input. See 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly Components Div of Ill v.
United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the
Department's use of market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
Factor Valuation Methodology
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOP data reported by respondents during the POI. To calculate
NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by
publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In
selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity,
and contemporaneity of the data. 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; and 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. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including
freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to
Indian import surrogate values 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 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
surrogate values used for Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya can be found in
the Surrogate Value Memorandum.
For the preliminary determination, in accordance with the
Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics
and other publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate
surrogate values for Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya's FOPs (direct
materials, energy, and 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, surrogate values
which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive. 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). The record shows that data
in the Indian Import Statistics, as well as those from the other Indian
sources, are contemporaneous with the POI,
[[Page 69413]]
product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. In
those instances where we could not obtain publicly available
information contemporaneous to the POI with which to value factors, we
adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian WPI
as published in the IMF's International Financial Statistics. See,
e.g., Kitchen Racks, 74 FR at 9600.
Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate
values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to
believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or
suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand
may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to
all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16,
2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment
7.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See, also 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 pages 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 page 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 pages 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 page 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, guided by the legislative history, it is the Department's
practice not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such
prices are not subsidized. See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, Conference Report to accompany H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988)
reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24; see also Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper
from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758 (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). Rather, the Department bases its decision on
information that is available to it at the time it makes its
determination. 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). Therefore, we have not used
prices from these countries in calculating the Indian import-based
surrogate values. Additionally, we 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 either an
NME country or a country with general export subsidies. See id.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent sources inputs
from an ME supplier in meaningful quantities (i.e., not insignificant
quantities), we use the actual price paid by respondent for those
inputs, except when prices may have been distorted by findings of
dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.\53\ Where we find ME purchases to
be of significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent or more), in accordance
with our statement of policy as outlined in Antidumping Methodologies:
Market Economy Inputs,\54\ we use the actual purchases of these inputs
to value the inputs. Where the quantity of the reported input purchased
from ME suppliers is below 33 percent of the total volume of the input
purchased from all sources during the POI, and were otherwise valid, we
weight-average the ME input's purchase price with the appropriate
surrogate value for the input according to their respective shares of
the reported total volume of purchases.\55\ Where appropriate, we add
freight to the ME prices of inputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997).
\54\ 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: Market Economy Inputs'').
\55\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 71 FR
at 61718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya claimed that certain of their
reported raw material inputs were sourced from an ME country and paid
for in ME currencies. Record evidence indicates, however, that New
Zhongya's purchases were not from an NME country. Accordingly, we
valued these purchases with a surrogate value.\56\ With respect to the
Guang Ya Group's claim that it had certain purchases of inputs from an
ME country(ies), record evidence brings into question the quantities
and types of merchandise that may have been imported from market
economy countries.\57\ Thus, we valued these inputs with surrogate
values for the preliminary determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See Analysis Memo: Market Economy Purchases section.
\57\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 71 FR
at 61718, and Exhibit D.18 of the Guang Ya Groups September 29, 2010
supplemental questionnaire response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a consequence of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F. 3d 1363 (Fed.
Cir. 2010), the Department is no longer relying on the regression-based
wage rate described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). The Department is
continuing to evaluate options for determining labor values in light of
the recent Federal Circuit decision. For these preliminary results, we
have calculated an hourly wage rate to use in valuing the reported
labor input by averaging earnings and/or wages in countries that are
economically-comparable to the PRC and that are significant producers
of comparable merchandise. To calculate the hourly wage data, we used
wage rate data reported by the International Labor Organization
(``ILO'').\58\ Because an industry-specific dataset relevant to this
proceeding exists within the Department's preferred ILO source, we used
industry-specific data to calculate a surrogate wage rate for this
review, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ The ILO industry-specific data is reported according to the
International Standard Industrial Classification of all Economic
Activities (``ISIC'') code, which is maintained by the United
Nations Statistical Division and is periodically updated. These
updates are referred to as ``Revisions.'' The ILO, an organization
under the auspices of the United Nations, utilizes this
classification for reporting purposes. Currently, wage and earnings
data are available from the ILO under the following revisions: ISIC-
Rev.2, ISIC-Rev.3, and most recently, ISIC-Rev.4. The ISIC code
establishes a two-digit breakout for each manufacturing category,
and also often provides a three- or four-digit sub-category for each
two-digit category. Depending on the country, data may be reported
at either the two-, three- or four-digit subcategory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this review, the Department has calculated the wage rate using
a simple average of the data provided to the ILO under Sub-
Classification 28 (``Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except
machinery and equipment'') of the ISIC-Revision 3 by countries
determined to be both economically-comparable and significant producers
to the PRC. The Department finds the two-digit
[[Page 69414]]
description under Sub-Classification 28 is the best available wage rate
surrogate value on the record because it is specific and derived from
industries that produce merchandise comparable to the subject
merchandise. For further information on the calculation of the wage
rate, see the Surrogate Value Memorandum.
We 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.
We 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 titled 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. To value water, we used the revised Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation water rates available at http://www.midcindia.com/water-supply. We valued natural gas using April
through June 2002 data from the Gas Authority of India Ltd. Consistent
with the Department's recent determination in Polyvinyl Alcohol, we
averaged the base and ceiling gas prices of 2,850 rupees per 1000 cubic
meters (``m3'') and 2,150 rupees per 1000 m3, and
added a transmission charge of 1,150 rupees per 1000 m3 to
calculate a value of Rs 3.650/cubic meter. We used the Indian Bureau of
Mines' publication: 2007 Edition of the Indian Minerals Yearbook (``IBM
Yearbook'') to value coal. For this preliminary determination, we find
that the IBM Yearbook's reported Grade C coal most closely matches the
coal consumed by respondents during the POI. We valued diesel using the
June 2007 diesel prices across four Indian cities from the Indian Oil
Corporation. Since the rates are not contemporaneous with the POI, we
inflated the values using the WPI.
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
expenses, and profit, we used audited financial statements of Indian
aluminum extrusions producers Bhoruka Aluminum, Ltd., and Sudal
Industries Ltd., each covering the fiscal period April 1, 2009, through
March 31, 2010.\59\ The Department may consider other publicly
available financial statements for the final determination, as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See Analysis Memo: Surrogate Financial Statements, for a
discussion of the selection of these financial statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, we 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.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify
the information from Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya upon which we
will rely in making our final determination.
Combination Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation.\60\ This practice is described in
Policy Bulletin 05.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 22113-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Determination
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Exporter Producer average
margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Guang Ya Aluminium 59.31
Co., Ltd.; Foshan Guangcheng Industries Co., Ltd.;
Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Kong Ah Foshan Guangcheng
International Company Limited; Aluminium Co., Ltd.;
Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Kong Ah International
(Hong Kong) Limited; Zhaoqing Company Limited; Guang
New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ya Aluminium
Ltd.; Zhongya Shaped Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong)
(HK) Holding Limited; Karlton Limited; Zhaoqing New
Aluminum Company Ltd.; Xinya Zhongya Aluminum Co.,
Aluminum & Stainless Steel Ltd.; Zhongya Shaped
Product Co., Ltd. Aluminium (HK) Holding
Limited; Karlton
Aluminum Company Ltd.;
Xinya Aluminum &
Stainless Steel
Product Co., Ltd.
Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd....... Alnan Aluminium Co., 59.31
Ltd.
Changshu Changsheng Aluminium Changshu Changsheng 59.31
Products Co., Ltd. Aluminium Products
Co., Ltd.
China Square Industrial Limited Zhaoqing China Square 59.31
Industry Limited.
Cosco (J.M) Aluminium Co., Ltd. Cosco (J.M) Aluminium 59.31
Co., Ltd.; Jiangmen
Qunxing Hardware
Diecasting Co., Ltd.
First Union Property Limited... Top-Wok Metal Co., Ltd. 59.31
Foshan Jinlan Non-ferrous Metal Foshan Jinlan Aluminium 59.31
Product Co.; Ltd. Co. Ltd.
Foshan Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium Foshan Sanshui Fenglu 59.31
Co., Ltd. Aluminium Co., Ltd.
Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium Guangdong Hao Mei 59.31
Co., Ltd. Aluminium Co., Ltd.
Guangdong Weiye Aluminium Guangdong Weiye 59.31
Factory Co., Ltd. Aluminium Factory Co.,
Ltd.
Guangdong Xingfa Aluminium Co., Guangdong Xingfa 59.31
Ltd. Aluminium Co., Ltd.
Hanwood Enterprises Limited.... Pingguo Aluminium 59.31
Company Limited.
Honsense Development Company... Kanal Precision 59.31
Aluminium Product Co.,
Ltd.
Innovative Aluminium (Hong Taishan Golden Gain 59.31
Kong) Limited. Aluminium Products
Limited.
Jiangyin Trust International Jiangyin Xinhong Doors 59.31
Inc. and Windows Co., Ltd.
JMA (HK) Company Limited....... Guangdong Jianmei 59.31
Aluminum Profile
Company Limited;
Foshan JMA Aluminium
Company Limited.
Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Tai Shan City Kam Kiu 59.31
Bhd. Aluminium Extrusion
Co., Ltd.
Longkou Donghai Trade Co., Ltd. Shandong Nanshan 59.31
Aluminum Co., Ltd.
Ningbo Yili Import and Export Zhejiang Anji Xinxiang 59.31
Co., Ltd. Aluminum Co., Ltd.
North China Aluminum Co., Ltd.. North China Aluminum 59.31
Co., Ltd.
PanAsia Aluminium (China) PanAsia Aluminium 59.31
Limited. (China) Limited.
Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd. Pingguo Asia Aluminum 59.31
Co., Ltd.
Popular Plastics Co., Ltd...... Hoi Tat Plastic Mould & 59.31
Metal Factory.
Press Metal International Ltd.. Press Metal 59.31
International Ltd.
[[Page 69415]]
Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum 59.31
Industry Engineering Co. Ltd. Factory Company
Limited; Guang Ya
Aluminum Industries
Co., Ltd.
Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Tai-Ao Aluminium 59.31
Ltd. (Taishan) Co., Ltd.
Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat Tianjin Ruixin Electric 59.31
Transmission Technology Co., Heat Transmission
Ltd. Technology Co., Ltd.
USA Worldwide Door Components USA Worldwide Door 59.31
(Pinghu) Co., Ltd.; Worldwide Components (Pinghu)
Door Components (Pinghu) Co. Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Zhejiang Yongkang 59.31
Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd. Listar Aluminium
Industry Co., Ltd.
Zhongshan Gold Mountain Zhongshan Gold Mountain 59.31
Aluminium Factory Ltd. Aluminium Factory Ltd.
PRC-wide Entity*............... ....................... 59.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this
proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border protection (``CBP'') to suspend liquidation of all
entries of aluminum extrusions from the PRC as described in the ``Scope
of Investigation'' section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the
posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the
normal value exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The rate for the
exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above will be the
rate we have determined in this preliminary determination; (2) for all
PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own
rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) for all
non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their
own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect
until further notice.
Additionally, as the Department has determined in its Aluminum
Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 FR 54302 (September 7, 2010)
(``CVD Prelim'') that the merchandise under investigation exported by
Guang Ya Group, and that exported by New Zhongya, benefitted from
export subsidies, we will instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash
deposit or posting of a bond equal to the amount by which the NV
exceeds the U.S. price for Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya, as
indicated above, minus the amount determined to constitute an export
subsidy. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 67306, 67307
(November 17, 2007).
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV.
Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final
determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States
is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of
imports of aluminum extrusions, or sales (or the likelihood of sales)
for importation, of the merchandise under consideration within 45 days
of our final determination.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days
after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this
proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case
briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline
date for case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309. A table of contents, list of
authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany
any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited
to five pages total, including footnotes. The Department also requests
that parties provide an electronic copy of its case and rebuttal brief
submissions in either a ``Microsoft Word'' or a ``pdf'' format.
In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Interested
parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within
30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, and
telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues
to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we intend to hold
the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to
be determined. See 19 CFR 351.310. Parties should confirm by telephone
the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the
scheduled date.
We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after
the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to
section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 27, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-28539 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P