[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5782-5787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2276]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-853]
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Canada: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a timely request by one manufacturer/exporter,
Jungbunzlauer Canada Inc. (JBL Canada), the Department of Commerce (the
Department) is conducting the first administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric
acid) from Canada with respect to JBL Canada. The review covers the
period November 20, 2008, through May 19, 2009, and May 29, 2009,
through April 30, 2010. We preliminarily determine that JBL Canada made
sales below normal value (NV).
If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of the
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4007 or (202) 482-4929, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In response to a timely request by JBL Canada, on June 30, 2010,
the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation
of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric
acid from Canada with respect to JBL Canada covering the period
November 20, 2008, through May 19, 2009, and May 29, 2009, through
April 30, 2010. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 37759
(June 30, 2010).
Also on June 30, 2010, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire
to JBL Canada. In August 2010, we received responses to sections A
(i.e., the section covering general information about the company), B
(i.e., the section covering comparison-market sales), C (i.e., the
section covering U.S. sales), and D (the
[[Page 5783]]
section covering cost of production (COP) and constructed value (CV))
of the antidumping duty questionnaire from JBL Canada.
During the period October through December 2010, we issued to JBL
Canada supplemental questionnaires regarding sections A, B, C, and D of
the original questionnaire. We received responses to these
questionnaires during the period October 2010 through January 2011.
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order includes all grades and granulation sizes
of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their
unblended forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of
packaging type. The scope also includes blends of citric acid, sodium
citrate, and potassium citrate; as well as blends with other
ingredients, such as sugar, where the unblended form(s) of citric acid,
sodium citrate, and potassium citrate constitute 40 percent or more, by
weight, of the blend. The scope of this order also includes all forms
of crude calcium citrate, including dicalcium citrate monohydrate, and
tricalcium citrate tetrahydrate, which are intermediate products in the
production of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate. The
scope of this order does not include calcium citrate that satisfies the
standards set forth in the United States Pharmacopeia and has been
mixed with a functional excipient, such as dextrose or starch, where
the excipient constitutes at least 2 percent, by weight, of the
product. The scope of this order includes the hydrous and anhydrous
forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium
citrate, otherwise known as citric acid sodium salt, and the
monohydrate and monopotassium forms of potassium citrate. Sodium
citrate also includes both trisodium citrate and monosodium citrate,
which are also known as citric acid trisodium salt and citric acid
monosodium salt, respectively. Citric acid and sodium citrate are
classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), respectively. Potassium
citrate and crude calcium citrate are classifiable under 2918.15.5000
and 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS, respectively. Blends that include citric
acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate are classifiable under
3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is November 20, 2008, through May 19,
2009, and May 29, 2009, through April 30, 2010. In accordance with
section 733(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and
subsequent to the imposition of the antidumping duty order, we
instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to
liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, entries of subject
merchandise for the period May 20, 2009, through May 28, 2009.
Accordingly, this administrative review does not include the period May
20, 2009, through May 28, 2009.
Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply
``facts otherwise available'' if necessary information is not available
on the record or an interested party: (1) Withholds information that
has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to provide such
information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the Act; (3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (4)
provides such information, but the information cannot be verified.
The Department's original and first supplemental antidumping
questionnaires instructed JBL Canada to report its prices and expenses
in the currencies in which they were incurred, in accordance with
section 773A of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.415(a).\1\ Despite our
instructions, JBL Canada reported its home market price and expense
data in Canadian dollars (CAD) and its U.S. market price and expense
data in U.S. dollars (USD), regardless of the currencies in which they
were incurred. JBL Canada explained that its data processing system
automatically converts all foreign currency transactions into the
currency of the respective JBL Group entity at the moment of posting.
Although the system maintains a record of the original currency in
which the price or expense was incurred and the exchange rate used to
make currency conversions, JBL Canada failed to report certain prices
and expenses in their original currencies, maintaining that retrieving
the original currency values from the system would be ``an extremely
laborious and time-consuming undertaking.'' See JBL Canada's October
29, 2010, supplemental questionnaire response at pages 7-8. Therefore,
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we find that JBL Canada
failed to provide information in the form and manner requested by the
Department and that it is appropriate to resort to facts otherwise
available to account for the unreported information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We also referred JBL Canada to the Department's adverse
facts available (AFA) determination on this same issue in the less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. See Comment 4 of the Issues
and Decision Memorandum (LTFV I&D Memo) accompanying the Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Citric Acid
and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada, 74 FR 16843 (April 13, 2009)
(Citric Acid LTFV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference
if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
information. The legislative history of the Act also provides guidance
by explaining that adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that
the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-465 at 870 (1995). Information used to make an
adverse inference may include such sources as the petition, other
information placed on the record, or determinations in a prior
proceeding regarding the subject merchandise. Id. and 19 CFR
351.308(c). Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the
part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an
adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62
FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United
States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon).
Based on JBL Canada's questionnaire response description of how
exchange rate information is currently stored in its data processing
system, we find that it was possible for JBL Canada to report all of
its sales data in the currencies in which they were incurred. This is
consistent with our determination in Citric Acid LTFV with respect to
the same issue.\2\ Because JBL Canada could have reported the
information at issue in the form and manner requested by the
Department, but failed to do so, we find that JBL Canada has failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability with our requests for information
in the original and supplemental questionnaires. Specifically, we find
that an adverse inference is appropriate because: (1) JBL Canada had
the necessary information within its control
[[Page 5784]]
and it did not report this information; and 2) it failed to put forth
its maximum effort to provide the requested information. See, e.g.,
Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1883; and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, Rescission of Administrative Review in
Part, and Final Determination to Not Revoke Order in Part: Canned
Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 68 FR 65247 (November 19, 2003), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 20b. Thus, for
these preliminary results, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we
find that it is appropriate to apply AFA to the following home market
variables which JBL Canada converted to CAD from the original currency:
Gross unit price, billing adjustments, inland insurance, and indirect
selling expenses. Likewise, we applied AFA to the following U.S. market
variables which JBL Canada converted to USD from the original currency:
Foreign inland freight (warehouse to port), foreign inland insurance,
U.S. inland freight (port to warehouse and warehouse to customer),
indirect selling expenses, inventory carrying costs, and packing.
Specifically, as AFA, we increased JBL Canada's reported home market
sales prices as well as the above-specified U.S. and home market
expenses by the highest difference between the Department's weighted-
average monthly exchange rates (used to convert comparison-market
values to USD in the margin program), and JBL Canada's monthly exchange
rates (used by JBL Canada's data processing system for currency
conversion purposes). For further explanation, see Memorandum to the
File entitled ``2008-2010 Administrative Review of Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from Canada,'' dated concurrently with this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Comment 4 of the LTFV I&D Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether JBL Canada's sales of citric acid from Canada
to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the
constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the
``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this
notice.
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, for JBL Canada we
compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-
average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in
the ordinary course of trade. See discussion below.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by JBL Canada covered by the description in the
``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be foreign like products for
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared JBL Canada's U.S. sales
of citric acid to its sales of citric acid made in the home market.
Where there were no contemporaneous sales within the definition of 19
CFR 351.414(e)(2)(i), pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2)(ii) and (iii),
we compared sales within the contemporaneous window period, which
extends from three months prior to the month of the U.S. sale until two
months after the sale.
In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products
based on the physical characteristics reported by JBL Canada in the
following order: type, form, grade, and particle size.
Constructed Export Price
For all U.S. sales made by JBL Canada, we calculated CEP in
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the subject
merchandise was 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, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or
exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.
We based CEP on packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we
adjusted the starting prices for billing adjustments, rebates and
interest revenue, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We made
deductions for movement expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate,
foreign inland freight expenses, foreign inland insurance expenses,
U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. inland freight expenses,
U.S. warehousing expenses, and U.S. inland insurance expenses. In
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we
deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities
occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses
(e.g., imputed credit expenses), and indirect selling expenses
(including inventory carrying costs).
Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using
the expenses incurred by JBL Canada on its sales of the subject
merchandise in the United States and the profit associated with those
sales.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Market
To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared
the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with
section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we
determined that, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.404(b) JBL Canada had a viable
home market during the POR. Consequently, pursuant to section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.404(c)(i), we based NV on
home market sales.
B. Level of Trade
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales of foreign
like products at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export price or
CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different
marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2).
Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not
sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the
stages of marketing. See Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) (Plate from
South Africa). In order to determine whether the comparison-market
sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S.
sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the
chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of customer
(customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of
sale.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs
for EP and comparison-market sales (i.e., where NV is based on either
home market or third country prices),\3\ we consider the starting
prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the
selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron
Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2001). When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign
like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP,
the
[[Page 5785]]
Department may compare the U.S. sales to sales at a different LOT in
the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT
in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally,
for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of
distribution than the LOT of the CEP and there is no basis for
determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects
price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the
Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732-
33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general
and administrative (G&A) expenses, and profit for CV, where
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this administrative review, we obtained information from JBL
Canada regarding the marketing stages involved in making its reported
home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling
activities performed by the respondent and its affiliates for each
channel of distribution.
During the POR, JBL Canada reported that it sold citric acid to
end-users and distributors through two channels of distribution in both
the U.S. and home markets. JBL Canada stated that its selling process
was essentially the same for all channels of distribution. Because the
details of JBL Canada's reported selling functions for each channel of
distribution are business proprietary, our analysis of these selling
functions for purposes of determining whether different LOTs exist is
contained in a separate memorandum to James Maeder, Director, AD/CVD
Operations Office 2, from the Team entitled ``Preliminary Level-of-
Trade Analysis,'' dated contemporaneously with this notice.
Based on our analysis, we find that the selling functions JBL
Canada performed for each of its channels of distribution in the U.S.
market were essentially the same, with the exception of one selling
function which we determined was not sufficient to warrant an LOT
distinction between these channels. Therefore, we determined
preliminarily that there is only one LOT (for CEP sales) in the U.S.
market. Similarly, we found that the selling functions that JBL Canada
(and its affiliates) performed for each of the channels of distribution
in the home market were essentially the same, with the exception of
certain selling activities which we determined were not sufficient to
warrant an LOT distinction between these channels. Therefore, we
preliminarily determine that there is only one LOT in the home market.
In comparing the home market LOT to the CEP LOT, we found that the
selling activities performed by JBL Canada (and its affiliates) for its
CEP sales were significantly fewer than the selling activities that it
performed for its home market sales, and that the home-market LOT was
more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT. Accordingly, we
considered the CEP LOT to be different from the home-market LOT and to
be at a less advanced stage of distribution than the home-market LOT.
Therefore, we could not match CEP sales to sales at the same LOT in
the home market, nor could we determine an LOT adjustment based on JBL
Canada's home market sales because there is only one LOT in the home
market, and it is not possible to determine if there is a pattern of
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and
home market sales at the LOT of the export transaction. See section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Furthermore, we have no other information that
provides an appropriate basis for determining an LOT adjustment.
Consequently, because the available data do not form an appropriate
basis for making an LOT adjustment but the home market LOT is at a more
advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT, we find it is
appropriate to make a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP offset is calculated as the lesser of:
(1) The indirect selling expenses incurred on the home market sales, or
(2) the indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price in
calculating CEP.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
Whenever the Department has reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for
the determination of NV have been made at prices which represent less
than the COP, the Department shall determine whether, in fact, such
sales were made at less than COP. See section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We
found that JBL Canada made home market sales below the COP in the LTFV
investigation and such sales were disregarded. See Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from Canada: Notice of Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 73 FR 70324 (November 20, 2008); unchanged in Citric
Acid LTFV. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Act, we find that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that JBL Canada made sales in its home market at prices below the cost
of producing the merchandise in the current review period.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP
based on the sum of the cost of materials and conversion for the
foreign like product, plus an amount for G&A expenses and interest
expenses (see ``Test of Comparison-Market Sales Prices'' section below
for treatment of comparison-market selling expenses and packing costs).
The Department relied on the COP data submitted by JBL Canada in
the November 8, 2010, supplemental response to section D of the
questionnaire for the COP calculations. We made an adjustment to the
reported depreciation expenses associated with an affiliated party
transaction. For adjustment details, see the Memorandum to Neal M.
Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, ``Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--
Jungbunzlauer Canada, Inc,'' dated concurrently with this notice.
Based on the review of record evidence, JBL Canada did not appear
to experience significant changes in cost of manufacturing during the
POR. Therefore, we followed our normal methodology of calculating a
POR-wide weighted-average cost.
2. Test of Comparison-Market Sales Prices
On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP
to the prices of home market sales of the foreign like product, as
required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether
the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we
used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices,
adjusted for any applicable billing adjustments, rebates, and interest
revenue, were also exclusive of any applicable movement charges, direct
and indirect selling expenses,\4\ and packing expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We recalculated home market credit expenses in order to
account for the application of AFA to home market prices used in the
credit expense calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Results of the COP Test
After concluding that we had reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that JBL Canada's sales of foreign like product were made at
prices less than COP, to determine whether to disregard such sales, we
examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act:
(1) Whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in
substantial quantities; and (2) whether
[[Page 5786]]
such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade.
Where less than 20 percent of a respondent's comparison-market sales of
a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard
any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that, in such
instances, the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period
of time in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP,
we disregard the below-cost sales because: (1) They were made within an
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on our
comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they
were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Act.
Based on this test, we did not disregard any of JBL Canada's home
market sales of citric acid because for all products, we found that
less than 20 percent of these sales were at prices less than the COP.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices
We based NV for JBL Canada on packed, ex-factory or delivered
prices to unaffiliated customers in the home market. Where appropriate,
we adjusted the starting prices for billing adjustments, rebates and
interest revenue, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We made
deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for movement
expenses, including inland freight and inland insurance, under section
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
We made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act for
differences in circumstances-of-sale for imputed credit expenses, where
appropriate.
We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing
costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Finally, as discussed in the ``Level of Trade'' section above, we
made a CEP offset pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.412(f). We calculated the CEP offset as the lesser of the
indirect selling expenses incurred on the home-market sales or the
indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price in
calculating CEP.
Currency Conversion
It is our normal practice to make currency conversions into U.S.
dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified
by the Federal Reserve Bank. See ``Facts Available'' section, above,
for further discussion of currency conversion in this administrative
review.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin
exists for JBL Canada for the period November 20, 2008, through May 19,
2009, and May 29, 2009, through April 30, 2010, as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jungbunzlauer Canada Inc................................... 1.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Hearing
The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to
19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit case briefs not later
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not
later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. Parties who
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged
to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief
summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
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, Room 1870, within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The
party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those
raised in the respective case briefs.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication
of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to
issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject
to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of
the final results of this review.
Because the respondent did not report entered value for all sales
to each importer or customer, we will calculate importer- or customer-
specific per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount
of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing
this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether
the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the
requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate
importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered
value.
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above
de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to
antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The final results of this
review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on
entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and
for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these
final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know
that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller,
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at
the all-others rate effective during the POR if there is no rate for
the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy
Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided
[[Page 5787]]
by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the
company listed above will be that established in the final results of
this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and,
therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in
which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously
reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, a previous review, or the original LTFV
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 23.21 percent, the all-
others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. See Citric Acid
and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and the People's Republic of
China: Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 25703 (May 29, 2009). These
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.
Dated: January 26, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-2276 Filed 2-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P