[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80791-80795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32329]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-832]
Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Final Results
of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 18, 2010, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results in the 2008-
2009 antidumping duty administrative review of pure magnesium from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\ The period of review (``POR'')
is May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009. We initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping order on pure magnesium from the PRC with
respect to Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. (``TMI''), Tianjin
Xianghaiqi Resources Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. (``TXR''), and Pan
Asia Magnesium Co., Ltd. (``Pan Asia''). Because neither TXR nor Pan
Asia responded to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, we
determined that they were not entitled to a separate rate in the
Preliminary Results and included them in the PRC-Wide Entity.\2\ We
determined that TMI, the only responsive respondent in this proceeding,
made sales in the United States at prices below normal value (``NV'').
We invited interested parties to comment on our Preliminary Results.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made changes to the
margin calculations for TMI. The final dumping margin for this review
is listed in the ``Final Results Margins'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 34689 (June 18, 2010) (``Preliminary Results'').
\2\ See Preliminary Results, at 75 FR at 34692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: December 23, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita, Sergio Balbontin, or
Eve Wang, 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) 482-4243, (202) 482-6478, and (202) 482-6231, respectively.
Background
On June 18, 2010, the Department published its Preliminary Results
of the antidumping duty administrative review of pure magnesium from
the PRC.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 8, 2010, U.S. Magnesium LLC (``Petitioner'') and TMI
submitted publicly available surrogate value data to value TMI's
factors of production. On July 19, 2010, both Petitioner and TMI
submitted rebuttal comments concerning valuation of factors of
production.
On July 14, 2010, the Department released additional data related
to its reconsideration of its valuation of the labor wage rate in this
review in light of a decision in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604
F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and afforded interested parties an
opportunity to comment on the narrow issue of the new labor wage
data.\4\ In addition, when it appeared that TMI did not understand that
it had the opportunity to provide rebuttal information concerning the
new wage data, the Department granted TMI another opportunity to
comment and provide rebuttal factual comments.\5\ On
[[Page 80792]]
July 15, 2010, the Department noted an error in the currency-conversion
calculation of the hourly wage-rate data for El Salvador and released
corrected data to the parties.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Wage Data,'' dated of July 14,
2010.
\5\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Treatment of Alleged New
Information in U.S. Magnesium's Case Brief,'' dated of August 23,
2010.
\6\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Wage Rate Calculation--Error
in Currency Conversion of the Hourly Wage Rate for El Salvador,''
dated of July 15, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received case briefs from Petitioner and TMI on July 29, 2010,
and Petitioner's rebuttal briefs on August 3, 2010. We rejected TMI's
rebuttal brief because the brief was untimely filed.\7\ On August 9,
2010, TMI alleged that Petitioner's case brief contained new factual
information and requested the Department to reject it. On August 23,
2010, the Department declined to reject the information because it
determined that the information at issue did not constitute new factual
information within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3).\8\ Following
the time period for case and rebuttal briefs, the Department noted that
it inadvertently omitted the underlying data used in making its
preliminary determination of the surrogate value for truck freight, and
it afforded parties opportunities to comment on and rebut the data
concerning truck freight.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Administrative Review of Pure
Magnesium from the People's Republic of China (`PRC'): Return of
Untimely Submission of TMI's August 5, 2010 Rebuttal Brief,'' dated
of August 23, 2010.
\8\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Treatment of Alleged New
Information in U.S. Magnesium's Case Brief,'' dated August 23, 2010.
\9\ Id. at 3; see Memorandum to the File, ``Telephone
Conversation Concerning Deadlines for the Submission of New Factual
Information,'' dated of August 24, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 5, 2010, the Department requested all interested parties
to provide comments on the Department's recent determination in the
2008-2009 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen
warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that the wage
rate reported by the International Labor Organization for Honduras was
inaccurate.\10\ In response, Petitioner filed its comments on August
16, 2010, and TMI provided comments on August 26, 2010. On August 30,
2010, Petitioner submitted rebuttal comments concerning wage rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Honduras Data on Labor Wage
Rate,'' dated August 5, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department held a hearing on September 1, 2010.\11\ On October
7, 2010, the Department extended the deadline for the final results of
review to December 15, 2010.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Petitioner and TMI requested a hearing for issues raised in
the case and rebuttal briefs on June 18, 2010, and July 14, 2010,
respectively.
\12\ See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China;
Extension of Time for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 63440 (October 15, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 10, 2010, the Department re-opened the record to place
additional industry-specific wage-rate information on the record for
consideration in the final results, afforded parties an opportunity to
provide rebuttal factual information, and requested parties to comment
on the industry-specific wage-rate data placed on the record by the
Department. On November 15, 2010, TMI submitted factual information on
wage rate. On November 19, 2010, TMI submitted comments on the
Department's industry-specific wage-rate data. Petitioner filed
rebuttal comments to TMI's November 19, 2010, wage rate comments on
November 24, 2010.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties
in this review are addressed in the Memorandum from Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, ``Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of
China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the
2008-2009 Administrative Review,'' dated December 15, 2010 (``Issues
and Decision Memorandum''), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A
list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file
in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), Main Commerce Building, Room
7046, and is also accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act''), we verified the information submitted by TMI for use in
our final results of review.\13\ We used standard verification
procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production
records, as well as original source documents provided by TMI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic
of China: Verification of the Sales and Factors of Production
(`FOP') of Tianjin Magnesium Industries,'' dated of June 7, 2010, on
the record of this review CRU, Room 7046 of the main Department
building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009.
Scope of the Order
Merchandise covered by the order is pure magnesium regardless of
chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of
the order. Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight
primarily the element magnesium and produced by decomposing raw
materials into magnesium metal. Pure primary magnesium is used
primarily as a chemical in the aluminum alloying, desulfurization, and
chemical reduction industries. In addition, pure magnesium is used as
an input in producing magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium encompasses
products (including, but not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns and
crystals) with the following primary magnesium contents:
(1) Products that contain at least 99.95% primary magnesium, by
weight (generally referred to as ``ultra pure'' magnesium);
(2) Products that contain less than 99.95% but not less than 99.8%
primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as ``pure''
magnesium); and
(3) Products that contain 50% or greater, but less than 99.8%
primary magnesium, by weight, and that do not conform to ASTM
specifications for alloy magnesium (generally referred to as ``off-
specification pure'' magnesium).
``Off-specification pure'' magnesium is pure primary magnesium
containing magnesium scrap, secondary magnesium, oxidized magnesium or
impurities (whether or not intentionally added) that cause the primary
magnesium content to fall below 99.8% by weight. It generally does not
contain, individually or in combination, 1.5% or more, by weight, of
the following alloying elements: aluminum, manganese, zinc, silicon,
thorium, zirconium and rare earths.
Excluded from the scope of the order are alloy primary magnesium
(that meets specifications for alloy magnesium), primary magnesium
anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings, chips and
powder) having a maximum physical dimension (i.e., length or diameter)
of one inch or less, secondary magnesium (which has pure primary
magnesium content of less than 50% by weight), and remelted magnesium
whose pure primary magnesium content is less than 50% by weight.
[[Page 80793]]
Pure magnesium products covered by the order are currently
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'') subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.20.00, 8104.30.00,
8104.90.00, 3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope is dispositive.
Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'')
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply
``facts otherwise available'' if (1) necessary information is not on
the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A)
withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D)
provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section
782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not
decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested
party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all
applicable requirements established by the administering authority'' if
the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that
it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its
ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are
met, the statute requires the Department to use the information
supplied if it can do so without undue difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse
inference may include reliance on information derived from the
petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or
other information placed on the record.
Application of Total AFA to the PRC-Wide Entity
Because TXR and Pan Asia did not respond to the Department's
antidumping duty questionnaire, we preliminarily determined that these
companies withheld information requested by the Department in
accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act.\14\
Furthermore, by not providing the requested information, these
companies significantly impeded the proceeding in accordance with
section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 34697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because there is no information on the record demonstrating TXR's
or Pan Asia's eligibility for a separate rate in accordance with
section 776(a) of the Act, the Department has treated these companies
as part of the PRC-Wide Entity. Further, because these parties did not
respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire and are part of
the PRC-Wide Entity, the Department is basing the dumping margin of the
PRC-Wide Entity on the facts otherwise available on the record. No
other party provided any additional information regarding the PRC-Wide
Entity. 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.\15\ Hence, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department
has determined that, when selecting from among the facts otherwise
available, an adverse inference is warranted with respect to the PRC-
Wide Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, 337 F.3d
1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003), where the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of AFA Rates
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
information placed on the record. The Department's practice is to
select an AFA rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the
purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide
the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely
manner'' and that ensures ``that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.\16\ Specifically, the Department's practice in reviews, in
selecting a rate as total AFA, is to use the highest rate on the record
of the proceeding which, to the extent practicable, can be corroborated
(assuming the rate is based on secondary information).\17\ The Court of
International Trade (``CIT'') and the CAFC have affirmed decisions to
select the highest margin from any prior segment of the proceeding as
the AFA rate on numerous occasions.\18\ Therefore, as AFA, the
Department has assigned the PRC-Wide Entity a dumping margin of 111.73
percent. This margin is the highest calculated rate for a respondent on
the record of any segment of the proceeding.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan,
63 FR 8909, 8911(February 23, 1998); see also Brake Rotors From the
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
the Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New
Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005) and the
Statement of Administrative Action accompany the Uruguay Round
Agreement Act, H.R. Rep. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870
(``SAA'').
\17\ See Glycine from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
15930, 15934 (April 8, 2009), unchanged in Glycine From the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 41121 (August 14, 2009); see also Fujian Lianfu
Forestry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 638 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (CIT
August 10, 2009) (``Commerce may, of course, begin its total AFA
selection process by defaulting to the highest rate in any segment
of the proceeding, but that selection must then be corroborated, to
the extent practicable.'').
\18\ See, e.g., NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312,
1335 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004) (affirming a 73. 55 percent total AFA
rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different
respondent in the investigation); Kompass Food Trading International
v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 683-84 (2000) (affirming a 51. 16
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a
different, fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen
International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d
1339, 1348 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005) (affirming a 223. 01 percent total
AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different
respondent in a previous administrative review).
\19\ See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 76336
(December 16, 2008) (``Pure Magnesium 06-07Final Results'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of Secondary Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on
[[Page 80794]]
secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course
of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable,
corroborate that information from independent sources that are
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.\20\ Corroborate means that the Department will
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative
value.\21\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department will,
to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used.\22\ Independent sources used to corroborate
such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official
import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from
interested parties during the particular investigation.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See SAA.
\21\ See id.
\22\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March
13, 1997).
\23\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003), unchanged
in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
High and Ultra High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from
Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 2003); and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From
Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183-84 (March 11, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, the 111.73 percent AFA margin is the highest
rate on the record of any segment of this antidumping duty order. This
rate was calculated for a cooperative respondent in the 2006-2007
administrative review of this order. This rate was recently applied to
a separate rate company as well as the PRC-Wide Entity in the
immediately preceding administrative review. No party has provided
information related to the PRC-Wide Entity. During the 2006-2007
administrative review, this margin was calculated using data from a
cooperative respondent. The Federal Circuit has held that the
Department ``is permitted to use a `common sense inference that the
highest prior margin is most probative evidence of current margins
because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would
have produced current information showing the margin to be less.'''
\24\ The Federal Circuit has held that ``{t{time} he presumption that a
prior dumping margin imposed against an exporter in an earlier
administrative review continues to be valid if the exporter fails to
cooperate in a subsequent administrative review.'' \25\ Here, the PRC-
Wide Entity failed to cooperate or demonstrate that the margin applied
is no longer valid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Rhome Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190
(Fed. Cir. 1990)).
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department continues to find that the 111.73 percent margin is
probative, as it is both reliable and relevant.\26\ The rate is
reliable as it was calculated for a cooperative mandatory respondent in
a prior segment of this proceeding. The rate is relevant because, as
discussed above, no party overcame the court-affirmed presumption that
a rate applied to an exporter remains valid unless that exporter
demonstrates that facts exist to rebut that presumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Preliminary Results, at 75 FR at 34697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and
determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to
facts available) because the margin was based on another company's
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been
discredited.\27\ None of these unusual circumstances are present in
this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been
judicially invalidated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate determined in any
segment of this administrative proceeding (i.e., 111.73 percent) is
corroborated (i.e., it has probative value) within the meaning of
section 776 (c) of the Act.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on an analysis of the comments received, the Department has
made certain changes in TMI's margin calculation. For the final
results, the Department has made the following changes:
We based our determination of the surrogate financial
ratios on the financial statements of Madras Aluminum Company Ltd.
(``MALCO'') rather than Sudal Industries Ltd. See Comment 2 of the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Consistent with our current practice, we revised the
surrogate value for direct labor, indirect labor and packing labor to
account for industry-specific wage rates. Additionally, for these final
results we made corrections to the industry-specific labor calculation
that we originally released to the parties on November 10, 2010. See
Comment 8 of the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
We revised the calculation of the surrogate value for
dolomite to reflect the average of the value for dolomite reflected in
the April 1, 2008-March 31, 2009 financial statements of Madras Cements
Ltd., Tata Sponge Iron Ltd., Sagar Cements Limited, and Bhushan Steel
Limited. See Comment 9 of the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
We revised our calculation of brokerage and handling to
divide the brokerage and handling costs reported in Doing Business
2010--India by the publicly available value for the average maximum
cargo load per container of 21,727 kgs. See Comment 12 of the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
We revised our calculation of the surrogate value for the
inputs of magnesium metal waste and magnesium waste to use the
categories of 8104.20 and 8104.11, respectively. See Comment 13 of the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
We revised the surrogate value for plastic bags, steel
bands, and plastic bands. See Comment 14 of the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
Final Results Margin
The weighted-average dumping margins for the final results are as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Exporter average margin
(percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tianjin Magnesium International Co. Ltd............... 0.73
PRC-Wide Entity **.................................... 111.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Pan Asia and TXR are part of this PRC-Wide Entity.
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b),
the
[[Page 80795]]
Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this
review. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer (or customer)-
specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Where
appropriate, we calculated an ad valorem rate for each importer (or
customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to
that party by the total entered values associated with those
transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we
will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad valorem rate against the
entered customs values for the subject merchandise. Where appropriate,
we calculated a per-unit rate for each importer (or customer) by
dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by
the total sales quantity associated with those transactions. For duty-
assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess
the resulting per-unit rate against the entered quantity of the subject
merchandise. Where an importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate
is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the Department will
instruct CBP to assess that importer (or customer's) entries of subject
merchandise without regard to antidumping duties, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.106(c)(2). The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these
final results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TMI, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (2) for previously
investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above
that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for
all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to
be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-
wide rate of 111.73 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that
supplied that non-PRC exporter. The deposit requirements shall remain
in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of
the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction
of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 15, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Apply Total AFA to TMI
Comment 2: Selection of Surrogate Financial Statements
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Calculate the Surrogate
Value for Labor Using Multiple Surrogate Countries or a Single
Country, India
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Expand the List of
Economically Comparable Countries
Comment 5: Whether the Department's Wage Data Memorandum Contained
Data Errors
Comment 6: Whether To Use ILO Wage Data Contemporaneous With the POR
Rather Than Using Pre-POR Data and Adjusting for Inflation as
Reported in the Wage Rate Memorandum
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Exclude Indian Data from
the Wage Rate Calculation
Comment 8: Whether the Countries Used to Determine the Wage Rate in
this Case Are ``Significant Producers of Comparable Merchandise''
Comment 9: Valuation of Dolomite
Comment 10: Valuation of Flux
Comment 11: The Source of the Surrogate Value for Foreign Inland
Freight
Comment 12: The Surrogate Value for Brokerage and Handling
Comment 13: The Appropriate HTS Classification for Magnesium Waste/
Scrap (``MGS'') and Magnesium Metal Waste/Scrap (``ALLOYS'')
Comment 14: The Per-Unit Basis for Plastic Bags, Steel Bands, and
Plastic Bands
[FR Doc. 2010-32329 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P