[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12325-12337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5119]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-929]
Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order; Partial Rescission of Administrative Review;
and Intent To Rescind Administrative Review, in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce. (``Department'') is conducting the first
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on small diameter
graphite electrodes (``SDGE'') from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''), covering the period August 21, 2008, through January 31,
2010. The Department has preliminarily determined that during the
period of review (``POR'') respondents in this proceeding have made
sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV''). If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise
during the POR. The Department is also rescinding this review for those
exporters for which requests for review were timely withdrawn.\1\ For
the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties
shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated
antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from
warehouse, for consumption. Furthermore, we determine that four
companies for which a review was requested have not been responsive,
and thus have not demonstrated entitlement to a separate rate.\2\ As a
result, we have preliminarily determined that they are part of the PRC-
wide entity, and continue to be subject to the PRC-wide entity rate.\3\
Further, the Department intends to rescind this administrative review
with respect to UK Carbon & Graphite (``UKCG'') if the Department
concludes that there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR.\4\ Interested parties
are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue
final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of
this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (``the Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review''
section below.
\2\ See ``Separate Rates'' section below.
\3\ See ``The PRC-Wide Entity, PRC-Wide Rate, and Use of Adverse
Facts Available'' section below.
\4\ See ``Intent to Rescind, in Part, the Administrative
Review'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lindsey Novom or Frances Veith, 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-
5256 or (202) 482-4295, respectively.
Background
On February 26, 2009, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on SDGE from the PRC.\5\ On
February 1, 2010, the Department published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SDGE
from the PRC.\6\ On February 23, February 25, and February 26, 2010,
the Department received timely requests for an administrative review of
this antidumping duty order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b) from
Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd (``Fushun Jinly''), Xinghe
County Muzi Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Muzi Carbon''), and Beijing Fangda
Carbon Tech Co., Ltd. (``Beijing Fangda''), Chengdu Rongguang
[[Page 12326]]
Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Rongguang''), Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd.
(``Fangda Carbon''), Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Fushun Carbon''), and
Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Hefei'') (collectively ``the Fangda
Group'').\7\ On February 26, 2010, the Department also received a
timely request for an administrative review of 112 companies from SGL
Carbon LLC and Superior Graphite Co. (``Petitioners'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Small Diameter Graphite
Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 8775 (February
26, 2009).
\6\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Reviews, 75 FR 5037 (February 1, 2010).
\7\ In the Initiation Notice, the firm names for these named
companies were listed as follows: (1) ``Fushun Jinli Petrochemical
Carbon Co., Ltd. (aka Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co.,
Ltd.),'' (2) ``Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Co., Ltd. (aka Xinghe
County Muzi Carbon Plant),'' (3) Beijing Fangda was listed as shown
above, (4) ``Chengdu Rongguang Carbon Co., Ltd. (subsidiary of
Liaoning Fangda Group Industrial Co., Ltd.),'' (5) ``Fangda Carbon
New Material Co., Ltd. (subsidiary of Liaoning Fangda Group
Industrial Co., Ltd. and formerly Lanzhou Hailong New Material
Co),'' (6) ``Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd. (subsidiary of Liaoning Fangda
Group Industrial Co., Ltd. and formerly Fushun Carbon Plant),'' and
(7) ``Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd. (subsidiary of Liaoning Fangda Group
Industrial Co., Ltd.).'' See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 75 FR 15679, 15681-15683 (March 30, 2010)
(``Initiation Notice'')
\8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 26, 2010, Petitioners submitted pre-initiation comments
regarding respondent selection. On March 30, 2010, the Department
released to interested parties CBP data covering POR imports of SDGE
from the PRC, and invited these parties to comment on the Department's
respondent selection process.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See the Department's March 30, 2010, Memorandum to ``All
Interested Parties,'' in which we requested comments regarding
respondent selection based on the released CBP data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 30, 2010, the Department initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on SDGE from the PRC for 112
individually named firms.\10\ On April 29, 2010, the Department
received four separate-rate certifications, two separate-rate
applications, of which one company also filed a no-shipment
certification and a request for rescission of this administrative
review.\11\ On May 6, 2010, the Department issued the respondent
selection memorandum in which it selected the Fangda Group and Fushun
Jinly as respondents for individual review.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Initiation Notice.
\11\ See ``Separate Rates,'' ``Partial Rescission of the
Administrative Review,'' and ``Intent to Rescind, in Part, the
Administrative Review'' sections below.
\12\ See the Department's memorandum regarding, ``Respondent
Selection in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Small
Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China,''
dated May 6, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 26, 2010, the Department sent the antidumping duty
questionnaires to the Fangda Group and Fushun Jinly. On June 28, 2010,
we received from Petitioners a timely request for rescission of review
for 100 of the 112 companies for which the Department initiated a
review.\13\ Between June 4, 2010, and December 30, 2010, the Fangda
Group and Fushun Jinly responded to the Department's original and
supplemental questionnaires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See ``Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review''
section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 19, 2010, the Department published a notice in the
Federal Register extending the time limit for the preliminary results
of review by the full 120 days allowed under section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act to February 28, 2011.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary
Results of the First Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order, 75 FR 64250 (October 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between January 10 and January 21, 2011, the Department conducted
verifications of two of the Fangda Group entities (Beijing Fangda and
Fushun Carbon), as well as, Fushun Jinly and one of its tollers, Fushun
Hexie Carbon Product Co., Ltd (``Hexie'').\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See the ``Verification'' section below for additional
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is August 21, 2008, through January 31, 2010.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this order includes all small diameter
graphite electrodes of any length, whether or not finished, of a kind
used in furnaces, with a nominal or actual diameter of 400 millimeters
(16 inches) or less, and whether or not attached to a graphite pin
joining system or any other type of joining system or hardware. The
merchandise covered by this order also includes graphite pin joining
systems for small diameter graphite electrodes, of any length, whether
or not finished, of a kind used in furnaces, and whether or not the
graphite pin joining system is attached to, sold with, or sold
separately from, the small diameter graphite electrode. Small diameter
graphite electrodes and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter
graphite electrodes are most commonly used in primary melting, ladle
metallurgy, and specialty furnace applications in industries including
foundries, smelters, and steel refining operations. Small diameter
graphite electrodes and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter
graphite electrodes that are subject to this order are currently
classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'') subheading 8545.11.0000. The HTSUS number is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, but the written description of the
scope is dispositive.
Connecting Pins--Model Match Methodology
On August 13, 2010, the Department determined that all connecting
pins for SDGE, whether or not they are attached to, sold with, or sold
separately from the SDGE are covered by the scope of this proceeding.
We invited parties to submit comments regarding the appropriate
methodology for reporting normal value for sales where connecting pins
are sold with SDGEs at one price per metric ton. On August 19, 2010,
both Petitioners and the Fangda Group submitted comments on reporting
and model match methodology where connecting pins are sold with SDGEs
as one finished product.
We have previously determined that graphite connecting pins
produced by respondents are covered by the description in the ``Scope
of the Order'' section, above, and are subject merchandise for purposes
of determining appropriate fair value comparisons to U.S. sales.\16\ We
compared respondent's U.S. sales of SDGEs, including connecting pins,
to its corresponding NV. In making the fair value comparisons, we
compared NV to respondents' individual export price (``EP'') based on
the physical characteristics of the SDGE control number, or CONNUM,
reported by respondents. For more information, see Fangda Carbon and
Fushun Jinly's respective analysis memoranda.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Small
Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 74
FR 2049, 2051 (January 14, 2009) (``SDGE Final LTFV
Determination''), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2.
\17\ See the Department's memorandums entitled, ``1st
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Small
Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China:
Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for the
Fangda Group Companies,'' (``Fangda Group's Preliminary Analysis
Memo'') and ``1st Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's
Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin
Calculation for Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd''
(``Fushun Jinly's Preliminary Analysis Memo''), dated concurrently
with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by the Fangda Group for Beijing Fangda and Fushun
Carbon, and information submitted by Fushun Jinly for itself and its
toller Hexie for use in our preliminary results. See the
[[Page 12327]]
Department's verification reports on the record of this investigation,
available in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department
building, with respect to these entities.\18\ For all verified
companies, we used standard verification procedures, including the
examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as
original source documents provided by respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See the Department's memorandums entitled, ``Verification
of the Sales and Factors Response of the Fangda Group Companies in
the Antidumping Review of Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from
the People's Republic of China,'' (``Fangda Group's Verification
Report'') and ``Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of
Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd in the Antidumping Review
of Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of
China'' (``Fushun Jinly's Verification Report''), dated concurrently
with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested
the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the initiation notice of the requested review. Further,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department is permitted to extend
this time if it is reasonable to do so.
For all but seven of the 112 companies for which the Department
initiated an administrative review, Petitioners were the only party
that requested the review. On June 28, 2010, Petitioners timely
withdrew their review requests for 100 of the 105 companies in which
the Petitioners were the only party that had requested an
administrative review. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this administrative review with
respect to the companies named as follows in the Initiation Notice:
Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firm Name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................... 5-Continent Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. (aka
Sichuan 5-Continent Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.).
2......................... Acclcarbon Co., Ltd.
3......................... Allied Carbon (China) Co., Limited.
4......................... Anssen Metallurgy Group Co., Ltd. (aka
AMGL).
5......................... Beijing Xincheng Sci-Tech. Development Inc.
(formerly Beijing Xinchengze Inc.)
(subsidiary of XC Carbon Group).
6......................... Brilliant Charter Limited.
7......................... Chengdelh Carbonaceouse Elements Factory.
8......................... Chengdu Jia Tang Corp.
9......................... China Shaanxi Richbond Imp. & Exp.
Industrial Corp. Ltd.
10........................ China Xingyong Carbon Co., Ltd. (aka Xinghe
Xingyong Carbon Co., Ltd.).
11........................ CIMM Group Co., Ltd. (formerly China
Industrial Mineral & Metals Group).
12........................ Dalian Carbon & Graphite Corporation.
13........................ Dalian Hongrui Carbon Co., Ltd.
14........................ Dalian Horton International Trading Co.,
Ltd.
15........................ Dalian LST Metallurgy Co., Ltd.
16........................ Dalian Shuangji Co., Ltd.
17........................ Dalian Thrive Metallurgy Imp. & Exp. Co.,
Ltd.
18........................ Datong Xincheng Carbon Co., Ltd.
19........................ Dechang Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. (aka Sichuan
Dechang Shida Co., Ltd.; and subsidiary of
Shida Carbon Group).
20........................ Dignity Success Investment Trading Co., Ltd.
21........................ Double Dragon Metals and Mineral Tools Co.,
Ltd.
22........................ Foset Co., Ltd. (aka Shanxi Foset Carbon Co.
Ltd.).
23........................ GES (China) Co., Ltd. (aka Shanghai GC Co.,
Ltd.).
24........................ Guangdong Highsun Yongye (Group) Co., Ltd.
(formerly Moaming Yongye (Group) Co.,
Ltd.).
25........................ Guanghan Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. (aka Sichuan
Guanghan Shida Carbon Co., Ltd.; a
subsidiary of Shida Carbon Group).
26........................ Haimen Shuguang Carbon Industry Co., Ltd.
27........................ Handan Hanbo Material Co., Ltd.
28........................ Hebei Long Great Wall Electrode Co., Ltd.
(aka Chang Cheng Chang Electrode Co., Ltd.
and Laishui Long Great Wall Electrode Co.
Ltd.).
29........................ Heilongjiang Xinyuan Metacarbon Company,
Ltd. (Heilongjiang Xinyuan Carbon Products
Co., Ltd.).
30........................ Henan Sanli Carbon Products Co., Ltd.
31........................ Hopes (Beijing) International Co., Ltd.
32........................ Hunan Mec Machinery and Electronics Imp. &
Exp. Corp.
33........................ Hunan Yinguang Carbon Factory Co., Ltd.
34........................ Inner Mongolia Xinghe County Hongyuan
Electrical Carbon Factory.
35........................ Jiang Long Carbon.
36........................ Jiangsu Yafei Carbon Co., Ltd.
37........................ Jiaozuo Zhongzhou Carbon Products Co., Ltd.
38........................ Jichun International Trade Co., Ltd. of
Jilin Province.
39........................ Jiexiu Juyuan Carbon Co., Ltd./Jiexiu Ju-
Yuan & Coaly Co., Ltd.
40........................ Jilin Songjiang Carbon Co Ltd.
41........................ Jinyu Thermo-Electric Material Co., Ltd.
42........................ Kaifeng Carbon Company Ltd.
43........................ Kingstone Industrial Group Ltd.
44........................ L & T Group Co., Ltd.
45........................ Lanzhou Carbon Co., Ltd./Lanzhou Carbon
Import & Export Corp. (aka Fangda Lanzhou
Carbon Joint Stock Company Co. Ltd.;
Lanzhou Hailong Technology; Lanzhou Hailong
New Material Co.).
46........................ Lanzhou Ruixin Industrial Material Co., Ltd.
47........................ LH Carbon Factory of Chengde.
48........................ Lianyungang Jinli Carbon Co., Ltd. (aka
Lianyungang Jianglida Co., Ltd.).
49........................ Liaoyang Carbon Co. Ltd.
[[Page 12328]]
50........................ Linghai Hongfeng Carbon Products Co., Ltd.
51........................ Linyi County Lubei Carbon Co., Ltd.
52........................ Nantong Falter New Energy Co., Ltd.
53........................ Nantong River-East Carbon Joint Stock Co.,
Ltd. (aka Nantong River-East Carbon Co.,
Ltd.).
54........................ Nantong Yangtze Carbon Corp. Ltd.
55........................ Orient (Dalian) Carbon Resouces Developing
Co., Ltd.
56........................ Peixian Longxiang Foreign Trade Co. Ltd.
57........................ Qingdao Grand Graphite Products Co., Ltd.
58........................ Qingdao Haosheng Metals Imp. & Exp. Co.,
Ltd. (aka Quingdao Haosheng Metals &
Minerals Imp. & Exp. Co.,Ltd.).
59........................ Qingdao Liyikun Carbon Development Co., Ltd.
(aka Qingdao Likun Graphite Co., Ltd.).
60........................ Qingdao Ruizhen Carbon Co., Ltd.
61........................ Rt Carbon Co., Ltd.
62........................ Ruitong Carbon Co., Ltd.
63........................ Shandong Basan Carbon Plant.
64........................ Shanghai Carbon International Trade Co.,
Ltd. (affiliate of Xuzhou Jianglong Carbon
Manufacture Co., Ltd.).
65........................ Shanghai GC Co., Ltd. (affiliated with GES
(China) Co., Ltd.).
66........................ Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co.,
Ltd. (affiliated with Jinneng Group).
67........................ Shanghai P.W. International Ltd.
68........................ Shanghai Topstate International Trading Co.,
Ltd.
69........................ Shanxi Datong Energy Development Co., Ltd.
(aka Datong Carbon; subsidiary of Shanxi
Jinneng Group Co., Ltd.).
70........................ Shanxi Jiexiu Import and Export Co., Ltd.
71........................ Shanxi Jinneng Group Co., Ltd.
72........................ Shanxi Yunheng Graphite Electrode Co., Ltd.
(affiliated with Datong Carbon Plant).
73........................ Shenyang Jinli Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp.
Co., Ltd.
74........................ Shida Carbon Group.
75........................ Shijaizhuang Carbon Co., Ltd.
76........................ Sichuan Shida Trading Co., Ltd. (subsidiary
of Shida Carbon Group).
77........................ Sichuan GMT International Inc.
78........................ Sinosteel Anhui Co., Ltd. (subsidiary of
Sinosteel Corp.).
79........................ Sinosteel Sichuan Co., Ltd. (subsidiary of
Sinosteel Corp.).
80........................ SMMC Group Co., Ltd.
81........................ Tangshan Kimwan Special Carbon & Graphite
Co., Ltd.
82........................ Tengchong Carbon Co., Ltd.
83........................ Tianjin (Teda) Iron & Steel Trade Co., Ltd.
84........................ Tianjin Yue Yang Industrial & Trading Co.,
Ltd.
85........................ Tianzhen Jintian Graphite Electrodes Co.,
Ltd.
86........................ Tielong (Chengdu) Carbon Co., Ltd.
87........................ United Carbon Ltd.
88........................ World Trade Metals & Minerals Co., Ltd.
89........................ Xinghe Xinyuan Carbon Products Co., Ltd.
90........................ Xinyuan Carbon Co., Ltd.
91........................ Xuanhua Hongli Refractory and Mineral
Company.
92........................ Xuchang Minmetals & Industry Co., Ltd.
93........................ Xuzhou Jianglong Carbon Manufacture Co.,
Ltd. (aka Xuzhou Carbon Co., Ltd.; formerly
Xuzhou Electrode Factory).
94........................ Yangzhou Qionghua Carbon Trading Ltd.
95........................ Yixing Huaxin Imp & Exp Co. Ltd.
96........................ Youth Industry Co., Ltd.
97........................ Zhengzhou Jinyu Thermo-Electric Material
Co., Ltd.
98........................ Zibo Continent Carbon Factory (aka Shandong
Zibo Continent Carbon Factory, aka Zibo
Wuzhou Tanshun Carbon Co., Ltd.).
99........................ Zibo DuoCheng Trading Co., Ltd.
100....................... Zibo Lianxing Carbon Co., Ltd. (affiliated
with Lianxing Carbon (Shandong) Co., Ltd.,
Weifang Lianxing Carbon Co., Ltd., Lianxing
Carbon Qinghai Co., Ltd., and Lianxing
Carbon Science Institute).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intent To Rescind, in Part, the Administrative Review
Petitioners' timely request for administrative reviews included a
request to conduct an administrative review of UKCG. After initiating
an administrative review of UKCG,\19\ the Department on April 29, 2010,
received a certification of no shipments from UKCG and a request to
rescind the administrative review of UKCG. On May 18, 2010, the
Department sent a supplemental questionnaire to UKCG requesting
information pertaining to its input suppliers and its manufacturing
operations in the United Kingdom. On June 1, 2010, UKCG responded to
the Department's supplemental questionnaire. On May 5, and May 21,
2010, Petitioners submitted to the Department requests to keep UKCG in
this administrative review and to seek further information and
clarification from the company to ascertain the merit of its claim for
rescission. On July 19, 2010, UKCG submitted factual information, and
on July 29, 2010, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments on UKCG's
factual information. On August 9, 2010, UKCG submitted additional
information and rebuttal comments on Petitioners July 29, 2010,
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 15683.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We made inquiries with CBP as to whether there were any entries of
subject merchandise from the PRC exported by UKCG during the POR. See
message number 1039304, dated February 8, 2011. We received no
responses to those inquiries indicating that any shipments of subject
merchandise from UKCG from the PRC entered during the POR. Further, in
our
[[Page 12329]]
respondent selection process, we released CBP data covering POR imports
of SDGE from the PRC to interested parties. Upon examination of this
data, we found no entries of subject merchandise from the PRC exported
by UKCG during the POR.\20\ Based on the above, we preliminarily find
that UKCG had no shipments of SDGE from the PRC during the POR, and we
intend to rescind the review with respect to UKCG pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See the Department's March 30, 2010 Memorandum to ``All
Interested Parties.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties may submit comments on the Department's intent
to rescind this review with respect to UKCG no later than 30 days after
the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. The
Department will issue the final rescission (if appropriate), which will
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any comments
received, in the final results of review.
Non-Market-Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country.\21\ In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked
by the administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding
has contested such treatment. Accordingly, the Department calculated NV
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free
Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760
(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic
of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
When the Department conducts an antidumping duty administrative
review of imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act
directs the Department to base NV, in most cases, on the NME producer's
factors of production (``FOP''), valued in a surrogate market-economy
(``ME'') country or countries considered appropriate by the Department.
In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department will
value FOPs using ``to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the
FOPs in one or more market-economy countries that are: (A) At a level
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (B)
significant producers of comparable merchandise.''
With respect to the Department's selection of surrogate country,
Petitioners argue that the Ukraine is the most appropriate surrogate
country from which to derive surrogate factor values for the PRC
because Ukraine's per capita gross national income (``GNI'') is
economically comparable to the PRC and is also a significant producer
of SDGE.\22\ Petitioners also state that in the alternative, the
Department should rely on India to derive surrogate factor values for
the PRC, as it did in the investigation. Although Petitioners suggested
we use Ukrainian financial statements as a source for valuing financial
ratios and placed one such financial statement on the record,
Petitioners additionally placed on the record financial ratio
calculations of an Indian producer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Petitioners' submission regarding the appropriate
surrogate country to be used for purposes of valuing FOPs in this
administrative review, dated October 14, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 8, 2010, respondents Fangda Group and Fushun Jinly
submitted rebuttal comments to Petitioners' surrogate country
submission, in which respondents argue that India is both economically
comparable to the PRC and a significant producer of identical
merchandise (i.e., SDGE) and the administrative record establishes that
India is a superior data source as compared to Ukraine. Respondents
maintain that the record contains complete and audited Indian financial
statements from two companies that produce identical merchandise to
SDGE while the financial statement from the Ukraine is incomplete and
not fully translated. Respondents also contend that Petitioners'
reliance on Ukraine's GNI as the basis for replacing India because
Ukraine's GNI is closer to the PRC's than that of India's GNI, is
unavailing. Respondents argue that it is the Department's practice to
select surrogate values from a country that is at a level of economic
development ``comparable'' to the NME country, not on the basis of the
country that is most comparable in terms of GNI. Further, the
Department's August 30, 2010, memorandum which set forth a non-
exhaustive list of six countries determined to be at a level of
economic development comparable to the PRC (inclusive of both the India
and Ukraine), specifically noted that all of the listed countries ``are
economically comparable to the PRC'' and ``{t{time} he surrogate
countries on the list are not ranked and should be considered
equivalent in terms of economic comparability.'' \23\ Additionally,
respondents maintain that the availability of two companies in India
from which to calculate surrogate financial ratios further establishes
that India is a superior data source compared to the Ukraine. Thus,
respondents argue that the Department should continue to use India as
the primary surrogate country in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See the Department's letter to all interested parties
regarding the ``Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes (``SDGE'') from the People's
Republic of China (``PRC''),'' dated September 29, 2010 (``Surrogate
Countries Memorandum''), at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the instant review, the Department has identified India,
Indonesia, the Philippines, Ukraine, Thailand, and Peru as a non-
exhaustive list of countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC and for which good quality data are
most likely available.\24\ The Department uses per capita GNI as the
primary basis for determining economic comparability.\25\ Once the
countries that are economically comparable to the PRC have been
identified, the Department selects an appropriate surrogate country by
determining whether an economically comparable country is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise and whether data for valuing FOPs
are both available and reliable. Like the PRC, India has a broad and
diverse production base, and the Department has reliable data from
India that it can use to value the FOPs, while for Ukraine there are
not reliable Ukrainian surrogate financial statements on the record
with which to calculate the financial ratios.\26\ Therefore, the
Department has determined that it is appropriate to use India as a
surrogate country for the purposes of this administrative review,
pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, based on the following: (1)
It is at a similar level of economic development to the PRC; (2) it is
a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and (3) the
Department has reliable data from India that it can use to value the
FOPs. Accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indian prices when
available and
[[Page 12330]]
appropriate to value each respondent's FOPs.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Attachment to the Surrogate Countries Memorandum.
\25\ See the Department's Policy Bulletin No. 04.1, regarding,
``Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process,'' (March
1, 2004) (``Policy Bulletin 04.1''), available on the Department's
Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html.
\26\ See the Department's memorandum to the file regarding the
preliminary factor values used in this administrative review, dated
concurrently with this notice (``Factor Valuation Memorandum'').
\27\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum; see also ``Factor
Valuations'' section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
of an administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value the FOPs within 20 days after the date
of publication of these preliminary results.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
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 assigned a single
antidumping duty rate.\29\ It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and
de facto government control over export activities. The Department
analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test
arising from the 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 the Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide'').
However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-
owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-rate analysis is
not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See, e.g., Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality
Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 24892,
24899 (May 6, 2010), unchanged in Certain Coated Paper Suitable for
High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 75 FR 59217 (September 27, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to demonstrate separate-rate status eligibility, the
Department normally requires entities, for whom a review was requested,
and who were assigned a separate rate in a previous segment of this
proceeding, to submit a separate-rate certification stating that they
continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate.\30\ For
entities that were not assigned a separate rate in the previous segment
of a proceeding, to demonstrate eligibility for such, the Department
requires a separate-rate application.\31\ On April 29, 2010, Shanghai
Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd. (``Jinneng''), Sichuan Guanghan
Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Shida''), and Muzi Cabon each submitted
separate rate certifications. On June 1, 2010, Qingdao Hao Sheng Metals
& Minerals Import & Exports Co., Ltd. (``Hao Sheng Metals'') and UKCG
submitted a separate rate application. On June 28, 2010, Petitioners
withdrew their review requests for Jinneng, Shida, and Hao Sheng
Metals. For further information, see the ``Partial Rescission of the
Administrative Review'' section above. The Department also intends to
rescind the administrative review with respect to UKCG. For further
information, see the ``Intent to Rescind, in Part, the Administrative
Review'' section above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 15680.
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this administrative review, of the five entities not selected
for individual review (i.e., (1) Muzi Carbon, (2) Shijiazhuang Huanan
Carbon Factory (``Huanan Carbon''), (3) Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Co.,
Ltd./Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Import & Export Co., Ltd. (``Sinosteel
Jilin''), (4) Jilin Carbon Graphite Material Co., Ltd. (``Jilin
Carbon''), and (5) Jilin Carbon Import and Export Company (``Jilin
Carbon I&E'')) for which the review has not been rescinded or for which
the Department does not intend to rescind the review, only one company,
Muzi Carbon, submitted separate-rate information. The remaining four
companies (Huanan Carbon, Sinosteel Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and Jilin
Carbon I&E) did not provide either a separate rate application or
separate rate certification, as applicable, and will be considered part
of the PRC-wide entity. See ``The PRC-Wide Rate, PRC-Wide Entity, and
Use of Adverse Facts Available'' section below.
The two mandatory respondents (i.e., the Fangda Group and Fushun
Jinly) and Muzi Carbon have provided company-specific information and
each stated that it meets the criteria for the assignment of a separate
rate.
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.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by the Fangda Group, Fushun Jinly, and Muzi
Carbon supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of government
control based on the following: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and
export licenses; (2) there are applicable legislative enactments
decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) there are formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of the companies.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Beijing Fangda's, Fushun Carbon's, Fangda Carbon's,
Rongguang's, and Heifei's Section A Questionnaire Responses, dated
June 4, 2010; Fushun Jinly's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated
June 7, 2010; and Muzi Carbon's Separate Rate Certification, dated
April 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 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 over export activities which would
preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. For the Fangda
Group, Fushun Jinly, and Muzi Carbon, we determine that the evidence on
the record supports
[[Page 12331]]
a preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based
on record statements and supporting documentation showing the
following: (1) Each respondent sets its own export prices independent
of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2) each respondent retains the proceeds from its sales and makes
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of
losses; (3) each respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign
contracts and other agreements; and (4) each respondent has autonomy
from the government regarding the selection of management.\35\
Additionally, each of these companies' questionnaire responses indicate
that its pricing during the POR does not involve coordination among
exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Beijing Fangda's, Fushun Carbon's, Fangda Carbon's,
Rongguang's, and Heifei's Section A Questionnaire Responses, dated
June 4, 2010; Fushun Jinly's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated
June 7, 2010; and Muzi Carbon's Separate Rate Certification
Response, dated April 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence placed on the record of this review by the Fangda
Group, Fushun Jinly, and Muzi Carbon demonstrates an absence of de jure
and de facto government control with respect each company's respective
exports of the merchandise under review, in accordance with the
criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we are
preliminarily granting the Fangda Group, Fushun Jinly, and Muzi Carbon
each a separate rate.
Margin for Separate Rate Company
The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not
selected for examination where the Department limited its examination
in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act.
Generally, we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an
investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents
we did not examine in an administrative review. For the exporters
subject to a review that were determined to be eligible for separate
rate status, but were not selected as mandatory respondents, the
Department generally weight-averages the rates calculated for the
mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis,
or based entirely on adverse facts available (``AFA'').\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 8273, 8279
(February 13, 2008), unchanged in Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August
20, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, the Department received a timely and complete
separate rate certification from Muzi Carbon, who is an exporter of
SDGE from the PRC during the POR and who was not selected as a
mandatory respondent in this review. In this segment, this company has
demonstrated its eligibility for a separate rate, as discussed above.
Consistent with the Department's practice, as the separate rate, we
have established a margin for Muzi Carbon based on the weighted-average
of the rates we calculated for the mandatory respondents, the Fangda
Group and Fushun Jinly, excluding, where appropriate, any rates that
were zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-Wide Entity, PRC-Wide Rate, and Use of Adverse Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary
information is not on the record or 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, 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 serve as a
reliable basis, 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 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. Section 776(b) of the
Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available
(``AFA'') information derived from the petition, the final
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information
placed on the record.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on 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.'' \38\ ``Corroborate'' means that the Department
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has
probative value.\39\ To corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information to be used. The SAA explains, however,
that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available
are the best alternative information.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'')
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d
Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994).
\39\ See SAA at 870.
\40\ See SAA at 869.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed below, we determine that, in accordance
with sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, the use of AFA is
warranted for the preliminary results for the PRC-wide entity,
including Huanan Carbon,
[[Page 12332]]
Sinosteel Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and Jilin Carbon I&E.
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that the named
companies that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in this
proceeding must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate
application or certification.\41\ In proceedings involving the PRC, the
Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate.\42\ It is the
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to
an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an
exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to
be entitled to a separate rate.\43\ Huanan Carbon, Sinosteel Jilin,
Jilin Carbon, and Jilin Carbon I&E did not file with the Department
either a separate rate application or a certification, a requirement
for qualifying for separate-rate status in this proceeding as
stipulated in the Initiation Notice.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 15680.
\42\ See id.
\43\ See id.
\44\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Huanan Carbon, Sinosteel Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and Jilin
Carbon I&E did not submit any information to establish their
eligibility for separate-rate status, we find they are deemed to be
part of the PRC-wide entity.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See ``Separate Rates'' section above; see also Initiation
Notice, 75 FR at 15680.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we have determined that Huanan Carbon, Sinosteel Jilin,
Jilin Carbon, and Jilin Carbon I&E are not entitled to separate rates
and are now part of the PRC-wide entity, the PRC-wide entity (including
Huanan Carbon, Sinosteel Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and Jilin Carbon I&E) is
now under review. The PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests
for information. Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our
requests for information, we find it necessary under section 776(a)(2)
of the Act to use facts available as the basis for these preliminary
results. Because the PRC-wide entity provided no information, we
determine that sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not relevant to
our analysis. We further find that the PRC-wide entity (including
Huanan Carbon, Sinosteel Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and Jilin Carbon I&E)
failed to respond to the Department's requests for information and,
therefore, did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore,
because the PRC-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its
ability in the proceeding, the Department finds it necessary to use an
adverse inference in making its determination, pursuant to section
776(b) of the Act.
Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
other information placed on the record. It is the Department's practice
to select, as AFA, the highest calculated rate in any segment of the
proceeding.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic
of China; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755,
76761 (December 28, 2005), unchanged in Certain Cased Pencils from
the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') and the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit (``Federal Circuit'') have consistently upheld
the Department's practice.\47\ The Department's practice when selecting
an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to
ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the
purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide
the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely
manner.'' \48\ The Department's practice also ensures ``that the party
does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if
it had cooperated fully.'' \49\ In choosing the appropriate balance
between providing respondents with an incentive to respond accurately
and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondents'
prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin in this
instance ``reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior
margin is the 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.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F. 2d 1185,
1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (upholding the Department's presumption that
the highest margin was the best information of current margins)
(``Rhone Poulenc''); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d
1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the
highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a
less than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation); Kompass Food Trading
International v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 683 (2000) (upholding 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 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate,
the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in
a previous administrative review).
\48\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan,
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
\49\ See SAA at 870; 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).
\50\ See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F. 2d at 1190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of Huanan Carbon's, Sinosteel Jilin's, Jilin Carbon's, and
Jilin Carbon I&E's failure to cooperate in this administrative review,
we have preliminarily assigned the PRC-wide entity, of which they are
deemed to be a part, an AFA rate of 159.64 percent, which is the PRC-
wide rate determined in the investigation and the rate currently
applicable to the PRC-wide entity.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See SDGE Final LTFV Determination, 74 FR at 2054-55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department preliminarily determines that this information is
the most appropriate from the available sources to effectuate the
purposes of AFA. The Department's reliance on the PRC-wide rate from
the original investigation to determine an AFA rate is subject to the
requirement to corroborate secondary information.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See Section 776(c) of the Act and the ``Corroboration of
Facts Available'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of Facts Available
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on 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 the Department's disposal. Secondary information is
described in the SAA 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.'' \53\ The SAA explains
that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information used has
probative value. The Department has determined that to have probative
value, information must be reliable and relevant.\54\ The SAA also
explains that
[[Page 12333]]
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.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See SAA at 870.
\54\ 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).
\55\ See SAA at 870; see also Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181,
12183 (March 11, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, we are applying as AFA the highest rate from any
segment of this administrative proceeding, which is the PRC-wide rate
of 159.64 percent. The 159.64 percent is the highest rate on the record
of any segment of this antidumping duty order. In the investigation,
the Department relied upon our pre-initiation analysis of the adequacy
and accuracy of the information in the Petition.\56\ During our pre-
initiation analysis, we examined the information used as the basis of
EP and NV in the Petition, and the calculations used to derive the
alleged margins. Also, during our pre-initiation analysis, we examined
information from various independent sources provided either in the
Petition or, based on our requests, in supplements to the Petition,
which corroborated key elements of the export price and NV
calculations.\57\ Since the investigation, the Department has found no
other corroborating information available in this case, and received no
comments from interested parties as to the relevance or reliability of
this secondary information. Based upon the above, for these preliminary
results, the Department finds that the rates derived from the Petition
are corroborated to the extent practicable for purposes of the AFA rate
assigned to the PRC-wide entity, including Huanan Carbon, Sinosteel
Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and Jilin Carbon I&E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's
Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73
FR 8287 (February 13, 2008) (``SDGE Investigation Initiation''); see
also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances:
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic
of China, 73 FR 31970, 31972 (June 5, 2008) (where the Department
relied upon pre-initiation analysis to corroborate the highest
margin alleged in the petition).
\57\ See SDGE Investigation Initiation, 73 FR at 8288-8290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because these are the preliminary results of review, the Department
will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final
results of review for the purpose of determining the most appropriate
final margin for the PRC-wide entity.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the
Russian Federation, 65 FR 1139, 1141 (January 7, 2000), unchanged in
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation,
65 FR 42669 (July 11, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair-Value Comparisons
To determine whether the Fangda Group's and Fushun Jinly's sales of
subject merchandise were made at less than NV, we compared the NV to
individual EP transactions in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the
Act. See ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice,
below.
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is ``the price at
which subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before
the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to
the United States,'' as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. For
each respondent, we used EP methodology, in accordance with section
772(a) of the Act, for sales in which the subject merchandise was first
sold prior to importation by the exporter outside the United States
directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States and for
sales in which constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
We based EP on the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, where
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit
price) for foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling.
We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export
procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in India.
The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in India as reported in ``Doing Business 2010: India''
published by the World Bank.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
We compared NV to individual EP transactions in accordance with
section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, as appropriate. Section 773(c)(1) of the
Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP
methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME country;
and (2) 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. When determining NV in an NME context, the
Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of these economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our
normal methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include
but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of
raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities
consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. The Department used
FOPs reported by the respondents for materials, energy, labor, packing
and by-products.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. In accordance with
19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly
available information to find an appropriate surrogate value (``SV'')
to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market
economy and pays for it in market economy currency, the Department
normally will value the factor using the actual price paid for the
input if the quantities were meaningful and where the prices have not
been distorted by dumping or subsidies.\60\ To calculate NV, we
multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly
available SVs (except as discussed below). In selecting SVs, we
considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the
data.\61\ As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight
costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to import
SVs 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
[[Page 12334]]
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly
Components Div of Ill Tool Works 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).
\61\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 29, 2010, the Department invited all interested
parties to submit publicly available information to value FOPs for
consideration in the Department's preliminary results of review.\62\ On
October 28, 2010, Petitioners, the Fangda Group, and Fushun Jinly each
submitted publicly available information to value FOPs for the
preliminary results and each submitted rebuttal comments on November 8,
2010. A detailed description of all SVs used for the Fangda Group and
Fushun Jinly can be found in the Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See Surrogate Countries Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the preliminary results, in accordance with the Department's
practice, except where noted below, we used data from the Indian import
Statistics in the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA'') and other publicly
available Indian sources in order to calculate SVs for the Fangda
Group's and Fushun Jinly's FOPs (i.e., 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, SVs which are non-export average values, most
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\63\
The record shows that data in the Indian Import Statistics, as well as
those from the other Indian sources, are contemporaneous with the POI,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\64\ In those instances where we
could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the
POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the SVs using, where
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in
the IMF's International Financial Statistics.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ 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).
\64\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
\65\ 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, 9600 (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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the legislative history of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988, the Department continues to apply its
long-standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason to
believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.\66\ In this
regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate to
disregard such prices from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand
because we have determined that these countries maintain broadly
available, non-industry specific export subsidies.\67\ Based on the
existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available to
all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the POR,
the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have benefitted
from these subsidies. Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME
countries.\68\ 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 generally available export
subsidies.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess.
(1988) (``OTCA 1988'') at 590, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547,
1623-24.
\67\ See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing
Duty Order on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257
(March 19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
4-5; Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia, 70
FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 4; Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19-20; Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3,
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23.
\68\ See, e.g., Kitchen Racks Prelim, 74 FR at 9600, unchanged
in Kitchen Racks Final.
\69\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fangda Group and Fushun Jinly claim that certain of their
reported raw material inputs were sourced from an ME country and paid
for in ME currencies. When a respondent sources inputs from an ME
supplier in meaningful quantities, we use the actual price paid by
respondent for those inputs, except when prices may have been distorted
by dumping or subsidies.\70\ Where we found 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,\71\ we used the actual purchases of these inputs
to value the inputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997).
\71\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we valued certain of respondents' inputs using the ME
prices paid for in ME currencies for the inputs where the total volume
of the input purchased from all ME sources during the POR exceeds or is
equal to 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all
sources during the period. Where the quantity of the reported input
purchased from ME suppliers was below 33 percent of the total volume of
the input purchased from all sources during the POR, and were otherwise
valid, we weight-averaged 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.\72\ Where
appropriate, we added freight to the ME prices of inputs. For a
detailed description of the actual values used for the ME inputs
reported, see the Fangda Group's and Fushun Jinly's analysis memoranda,
dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 71 FR
at 61718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\73\ We
valued rail freight using freight rate information from the publicly
accessible Indian Ministry of Railways Web site http://www.Indianrailways.gov.in/ to derive, where appropriate, input-specific
train rates on a rupees-per-kilogram per-kilometer basis (``Rs/kg/
km''). These rates are contemporaneous with the POR. We valued inland
water freight using price data for barge freight reported in a March
19, 2007, article published in The Hindu Business Line.\74\ Since the
inland water transportation rates are not contemporaneous with the POR,
we
[[Page 12335]]
inflated the rates using the Indian WPI inflator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
\74\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued electricity using the updated electricity price data for
small, medium, and large industries, as published by the Central
Electricity Authority, an administrative body 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 small,
medium, and large industries in India.\75\ Because the rates listed in
this source became effective on a variety of different dates, we are
not adjusting the average value for inflation. In other words, the
Department did not inflate this value to the POR because the utility
rates represent current rates, as indicated by the effective date
listed for each of the rates provided.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See id.
\76\ See, e.g., Wire Decking from the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR
32905 (June 10, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued steam coal using data obtained for grade C long flame and
non-long flame non-coking coal reported on the 2007 Coal India Data
website (``Coal India'').\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued water using the revised Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation water rates available at http://www.midcindia.com/water-supply.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 14, 2010, the Federal Circuit in Dorbest Ltd. v. United
States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010), found that the
``{regression-based{time} method for calculating wage rates {as
stipulated by 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3){time} uses data not permitted by
{the statutory requirements laid out in section 773 of the Act (i.e.,
19 U.S.C. 1677b(c)){time} .'' The Department is continuing to evaluate
options for determining labor values in light of the recent CAFC
decision. However, for these preliminary results, we have calculated an
hourly wage rate to use in valuing respondents' reported labor input by
averaging industry-specific earnings and/or wages in countries that are
economically comparable to the PRC and that are significant producers
of comparable merchandise.
For the preliminary results of this administrative review, the
Department is valuing labor using a simple average industry-specific
wage rate using earnings and/or wage data reported under Chapter 5B by
the International Labor Organization (``ILO''). To achieve an industry-
specific labor value, we relied on industry-specific labor data from
the countries we determined to be both economically comparable to the
PRC and significant producers of comparable merchandise. A full
description of the industry-specific wage rate calculation methodology
is provided in the Factor Valuation Memorandum. The Department
calculated a simple average industry-specific wage rate of $1.47 for
these preliminary results. Specifically, for this review, the
Department has calculated the wage rate using a simple average of the
data provided to the ILO under Sub-Classification 31 of the ISIC-
Revision 3 standard by countries determined to be both economically
comparable to the PRC and significant producers of comparable
merchandise. The Department finds the two-digit description under ISIC-
Revision 3 (``Manufacture of Electrical Machinery and Apparatus NEC'')
to be 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. Consequently, we
averaged the ILO industry-specific wage rate data or earnings data
available from the following countries found to be economically
comparable to the PRC and are significant producers of comparable
merchandise: Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, the Philippines,
Thailand, and the Ukraine.\79\ For further information on the
calculation of the wage rate, see Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Because India (the primary surrogate country) did not
report wage data in ISIC-Revision 3, which was relied upon for
industry-specific wage rates in these preliminary results, it is not
among the countries that the Department considered for inclusion in
the average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value factory overhead, selling, general and administrative
expenses and profit, the Department used the average of the ratios
derived from the financial statements of two Indian producers: Graphite
India Limited and HEG Limited (for the year ending on March 31,
2010).\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fangda Group and Fushun Jinly reported that they have recovered
by-products in their production of subject merchandise and successfully
demonstrated that all of them have commercial value, therefore, we have
granted a by-product offset for the quantities of each respondent's
reported by-products, valued using Indian GTA data.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available
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. Section 776(b) of the
Act also authorizes the Department to use as AFA information derived
from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative
review, or other information placed on the record.
Fangda Group
At verification, we were unable to verify the supplier distances
for a significant percentage of Fushun Carbon's suppliers. As a result,
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (D) of the Act, we find that
the use of facts available (``FA'') is appropriate to determine Fushun
Carbon's supplier distances, as discussed below.
Fushun Carbon at verification initially provided four maps from the
Chinese internet search engine ``Baidu maps'' as support for its
reported suppliers distance (i.e., the distance from each supplier's
location to Fushun Carbon's factory during the POR). In our review of
these maps, we found that the Baidu map distances differed from the
reported distance for these suppliers. For the preliminary results, as
partial facts available, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, for
those supplier distances where we verified that the distance Fushun
Carbon reported in its FOP database differed from the Baidu maps
presented to us at verification, we have applied FA and set Fushun
Carbon's distance for these suppliers equal to the distances found at
verification.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See Fangda Group's Verification Report; see also the Fangda
Group's Preliminary Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we requested that Fushun Carbon provide maps from the
same source for the remaining suppliers. However, Fushun Carbon was
unable to provide the requested maps during the remaining time at
verification. We were, therefore, unable to verify the supplier
distance for a significant percent of Fushun Carbon's suppliers, and
for the preliminary results, we determine that Fushun Carbon did not
cooperate to the best of its ability by not providing the supporting
documentation needed to verify its reported supplier distances.\83\
Accordingly, an adverse inference in using facts available under
section 776(b) of the Act is warranted for
[[Page 12336]]
Fushun Carbon with regard to this specific information. As partial
adverse facts available, pursuant to section 776(a) and 776(b) of the
Act, for those suppliers where we were not presented with Baidu maps at
verification, we have set Fushun Carbon's distance for these suppliers
equal to the reported supplier distance plus a percent adjustment equal
to the highest percent difference found at verification. Because of the
business proprietary nature of this information, please see the Fangda
Group's Verification Report and the Fangda Group's Preliminary Analysis
Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See Fangda Group's Verification Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fushun Jinly
We provided Fushun Jinly with two opportunities during the
administrative review to accurately report its tollers' consumption
data.\84\ However, Fushun Jinly did not report these data for one of
its tollers and did not adequately explain why there were missing
consumption data with respect to that toller.\85\ As a result, we find
pursuant to section 776(a)(A) and (B) of the Act that use of partial FA
is appropriate to determine the consumption data with respect to this
particular toller. We further find that Fushan Jinly did not cooperate
to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's requests
for information. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a) and 776(b) of
the Act, because Fushun Jinly did not cooperate to the best of its
ability in responding to the Department's requests for information, we
are applying partial adverse facts available to the missing consumption
data for this particular toller. As partial adverse facts available, we
are applying the highest monthly material input consumption of this
toller to the relevant missing consumption data. See Fushun Jinly's
analysis memo for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See the Department's Initial Questionnaire, dated May 26,
2010, at section D.I.D ``Reporting Requirements;'' the Department's
Collective A, C, and D Supplemental Questionnaire, dated November
18, 2010, at 8.
\85\ See Fushun Jinly's fourth supplemental questionnaire
response, dated December 10, 2010, at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Fushun Jinly confirmed that one of its tollers'
consumption of electricity was understated because of the toller's
affiliation with an electric company.\86\ As a result, as partial facts
available, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, the Department for
the preliminary results has used the electricity usage of the toller we
verified (which provides the same tolling services) in lieu of the
other toller's understated electricity consumption data. Due to the
proprietary nature of this discussion, see Fushun Jinly's Preliminary
Analysis Memo for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currency Conversion
Where appropriate, 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.
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department has determined that the following preliminary
dumping margins exist for the period August 21, 2008, through January
31, 2010:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Individually reviewed exporters percent margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDGE from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd., Fangda Carbon 60.16
New Material Co., Ltd., Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd.,
Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd., (collectively, The Fangda
Group).
Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd.......... 64.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDGE from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-reviewed exporters Weighted-average
percent margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xinghe Country Muzi Carbon Co., Ltd................. 61.78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-wide rate Percent margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-wide Entity*.................................... 159.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This includes Huanan Carbon, Sinosteel Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and Jilin
Carbon I&E.
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of
review.\87\ Rebuttals to written comments may be filed no later than
five days after the written comments are filed.\88\ Further, parties
submitting written comments and rebuttal comments are requested to
provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on a
CD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c).
\88\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice.\89\ Hearing requests should contain the
following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to
be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in
the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be
notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\90\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance
with the final results of this review. The
[[Page 12337]]
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the publication date of the final results of these reviews. For
assessment purposes, we calculated exporter/importer- (or customer)
specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review.\91\
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. We intend to instruct
CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the
PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate we determine in the final results
of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See 19 CFR. 351.212(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Muzi Carbon, a company receiving a separate rate that was not
selected for individual review, we will calculate an assessment rate
based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for
the companies selected for individual review consistent with section
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. Where the weighted average ad valorem rate is
zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate
entries without regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
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 from the PRC entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the Fangda Group,
Fushun Jinly, and Muzi Carbon the cash deposit rate will be their
respective rates established in the final results of this review,
except if the rate is zero or de minimis no cash deposit will be
required; (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 159.64 percent; and (4) for
all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received
their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to
the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's
regulations 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 this notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and sections 351.213 and
351.221(b)(4) of the Department's regulations.
Dated: February 28, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-5119 Filed 3-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P