[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13358-13360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5687]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-847]
Persulfates From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from an interested party, the
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from
the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') covering the period July 1,
2009, through June 30, 2010. This administrative review covers one
producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, i.e., United Initiators
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (``United Initiators'').
We preliminarily determine that United Initiators does not qualify
for a separate rate because it did not respond to the Department's
request for information; thus, as adverse facts available, we are
assigning to United Initiators, as part of the PRC-wide entity, the
PRC-wide rate. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise exported by United Initiators during the
period of review (``POR''). We invite interested parties to comment on
these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: March 11, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Petelin or Charles Riggle, 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-
8173 or (202) 482-0650, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 7, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the PRC.\1\ On July 1,
2010, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from
the PRC.\2\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on July 30, 2010,
FMC Corporation, a domestic producer of persulfates, requested that the
Department conduct an administrative review of United Initiators'
exports to the United States for the POR July 1, 2009, through June 30,
2010. Pursuant to this request, the Department published a notice of
initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order
on persulfates from the PRC.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Persulfates from the
People's Republic of China, 62 FR 36259 (July 7, 1997)
(``Persulfates Order and Amended Final''), amended by Notice of
Amended Antidumping Duty Order: Persulfates From the People's
Republic of China, 62 FR 39212 (July 22, 1997) (``Persulfates
Amended Order'').
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 75 FR 38074 (July 1, 2010).
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR
60076 (September 29, 2010) (``September 29 Initiation Notice''). In
the initiation notice that published on August 31, 2010, the
Department incorrectly initiated an administrative review of the
company FMC Corporation, the domestic producer of persulfates, for
the instant administrative review of persulfates from the PRC. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Deferral of Initiation of Administrative Review, 75 FR
53274 (August 31, 2010). However, in the initiation notice that
published on September 29, 2010, the Department retracted its
initiation of an administrative review of FMC Corporation. See
September 29 Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 60081-82, n.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 5, 2010, the Department issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire to United Initiators. On October 8, 2010, we confirmed
that United Initiators signed for and received our mailing of the
antidumping duty questionnaire. United Initiators did not respond to
the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. On January 3, 2011,
the Department placed on the record of this administrative review the
UPS International Air Waybill receipt and delivery confirmation for the
questionnaire issued to United Initiators to confirm that we mailed,
and United Initiators received and signed for, the questionnaire.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this review are persulfates, including
ammonium, potassium, and sodium persulfates. The chemical formula for
these persulfates are, respectively,
(NH4)2S2O8,
K2S2O8, and
Na2S2O8. Potassium persulfates are
currently classifiable under subheading 2833.40.10 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Sodium persulfates
are classifiable under HTSUS subheading 2833.40.20. Ammonium and other
persulfates are classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 2833.40.50 and
2833.40.60. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
review is dispositive.
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.\4\ In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``Act''), any determination that a foreign country is an NME
country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering
authority. Because no interested party in this case has contested such
treatment, the Department continues to treat the PRC as an NME country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Available
In proceedings involving NME countries, 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. It is the Department's policy to assign
all
[[Page 13359]]
exporters of subject merchandise, subject to review in an NME country,
a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a
separate rate.\5\ We have determined that United Initiators does not
qualify for a separate rate and is instead subject to the PRC-wide
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 74764, 74765 (December 16, 2005),
unchanged in Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review 71 FR 34893 (June 16, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In relevant part, section 776(a) of the Act provides that the
Department shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if ``(1) necessary
information is not on the record, or (2) an interested party or any
other person (A) withholds information that has been requested,'' or
``(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.'' Further,
section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may make 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.'' Adverse inferences
are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' \6\ Finally, according to section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.308(c)(1), such an adverse inference may include reliance on
information derived from the petition, the final determination, a
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the
record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'')
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 103-316,
Vol. 1, at 870 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because United Initiators did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire, it has not demonstrated its eligibility for a separate
rate. United Initiators has not rebutted the Department's presumption
of government control and is, therefore, presumed to be part of the
PRC-wide entity. Further, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(B) of the Act, because the PRC-wide entity (including United
Initiators) failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by not
responding to our questionnaire, we find it appropriate to use adverse
facts available. As a result, in accordance with the Department's
practice,\7\ we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity
(including United Initiators) a rate of 119.02 percent, the highest
rate determined in the current, or any previous, segment of this
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products
From The People's Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of Secondary Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than information obtained in the course
of a review, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal.
According to the SAA, secondary information is defined as ``information
derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any
previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.''
\8\ To ``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself
that the secondary information has probative value. The Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance
of the secondary information used.\9\ Further, independent sources used
to corroborate information may include, for example, published price
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information
obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See SAA at 870.
\9\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the instant review, we are applying to the PRC-wide entity
(which includes United Initiators) the PRC-wide rate that was
corroborated in the underlying investigation of sales at less than fair
value (``LTFV'').\10\ No evidence has been presented in the current
review that calls into question the reliability of this
information.\11\ Thus, the Department finds that the rate information
is reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Persulfates From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR
27222, 27224 (May 19, 1997), amended by Persulfates Order and
Amended Final, 62 FR at 36260 (identifying 119.02 percent as the
PRC-wide rate); see also Persulfates Amended Order, 62 FR at 39212
(confirming that 119.02 percent is the PRC-wide rate).
\11\ See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New
Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304, 41308 (July 11,
2003) (where the Department relied on the corroboration memorandum
from the LTFV investigation to assess the reliability of the
petition rate as the basis for an adverse facts available rate in
the administrative review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, regarding relevance, the Department will consider
information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin
continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the
selected margin is not appropriate, the Department will disregard the
margin and establish an appropriate margin. Similarly, the Department
does not apply a margin that has been discredited.\12\ No unusual
circumstances are present here. Since the LTFV investigation, no new
information has indicated that this rate is invalid or uncharacteristic
of the persulfates industry. Further, this rate has been used as the
PRC-wide rate in other segments of this proceeding.\13\ Therefore, we
find that this rate has probative value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (ruling that the Department cannot use a margin
that has been judicially invalidated).
\13\ See, e.g., Persulfates from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 6712
(February 10, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the PRC-wide entity rate from the LTFV investigation is both
reliable and relevant, we preliminarily determine that using this rate,
the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding
(i.e., the rate of 119.02 percent), is in accord with section 776(c) of
the Act, which requires that secondary information be corroborated.
Thus, the Department finds that the LTFV investigation rate is
corroborated for the purposes of this administrative review and may
reasonably be applied to the PRC-wide entity based on the failure of
the PRC-wide entity, which includes United Initiators, to cooperate to
the best of its ability.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily find that the following weighted-average dumping
margin exists for the July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010, POR:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Entity*............................................ 119.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The PRC-wide entity includes United Initiators.
[[Page 13360]]
Public Comment
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within ten
days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c).
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues
raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than five days
after the time limit for filing the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
The Department requests that parties submitting written comments
provide an executive summary and a table of authorities as well as an
additional copy of those comments electronically.
Any interested party may request a hearing within ten days of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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. See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, which will include its analysis of any written comments, no
later than 120 days after the publication date of these preliminary
results. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final
results of this review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our
final results, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the PRC-wide
entity (which includes United Initiators), the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate established in the final results of review; (2)
for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not
listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not
been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate
will be the PRC-wide rate; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied
that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: March 7, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-5687 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P