[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14906-14910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6450]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-916]
Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 13, 2010, the Department of Commerce
(``Department'') published in the Federal
[[Page 14907]]
Register the preliminary results of the first administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on laminated woven sacks (``Sacks'') from
the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See Laminated Woven Sacks
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 55568 (September 13, 2010)
(``Preliminary Results''). We gave interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the Preliminary Results. Based upon our analysis of the
comments and information received, we made changes to the margin
calculations for the final results. We continue to find that the
mandatory respondent has sold subject merchandise at less than normal
value during the period of review (``POR''), January 31, 2008, through
July 31, 2009.
DATES: Effective Date: March 18, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamie Blair-Walker, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2615.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 22, 2009, the Department initiated this review with
respect to two companies upon which an administrative review was
requested. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 48224,
48228 (September 22, 2009). The review was initiated with respect to
Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd. (``Zibo Aifudi'') and Changshu
Xinsheng Bags Producing Company Ltd. (``Changshu Xinsheng''). On
November 6, 2009, Changshu Xinsheng submitted to the Department a
timely letter withdrawing its request for review from the ongoing
administrative review. On December 17, 2009, the Department rescinded
the review with respect to Changshu Xinsheng.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of
China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
74 FR 66954 (December 17, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 25, 2010, the Department issued a preliminary determination
regarding the country of origin of Sacks made from fabric woven in
third countries.\2\ Following this determination by the Department,
which stated that the PRC is the country of origin of Sacks produced in
the PRC from imported fabric, the Department has coordinated with U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to resolve issues arising from
differences between the Department's and CBP's respective country-of-
origin classifications and from technical restrictions in CBP's
electronic filing systems. As a result, the Department has added
several case numbers to the Case Reference file within the Automated
Commercial Environment to ensure that requisite entries are and can be
properly claimed as scope merchandise.\3\ We sent instructions to CBP
on November 23, 2010, providing parties with notice of these new case
reference files.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ``Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia from Zhulieta
Willbrand through Robert Bolling re: Preliminary Decision Regarding
the Country of Origin of Laminated Woven Sacks Exported by Zibo
Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.--Laminated Woven Sacks from the
People's Republic of China,'' dated May 25, 2010 (``Country of
Origin Memo'').
\3\ See ``Memorandum to the File from Catherine Bertrand re:
Case Reference Files,'' dated November 12, 2010; see also CBP
Message No. 0327303 dated November 23, 2010, regarding the
clarification of the order.
\4\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We hereby finalize our preliminary decision presented in the
Country of Origin Memo of Sacks made from fabric woven in third
countries.\5\ The Department has determined that the PRC is the country
of origin of Sacks produced in the PRC from imported fabric, as
discussed in detail in the ``Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's
Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results
of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,'' which is dated
concurrently with this notice (``Issues and Decision Memorandum'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 55569.
\6\ See accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment
1d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 20, 2010, Zibo Aifudi notified the Department of its
withdrawal and refusal to participate in this ongoing administrative
review.\7\ Additionally, Zibo Aifudi requested that the Department
destroy all business proprietary submissions placed on the record by
Zibo Aifudi. On September 30, 2010, the Department notified Zibo Aifudi
that it had complied with its request and asked all interested parties
to do so as well. On October 6, 2010, the Department received from all
interested parties the confirmation of the destruction of the business
proprietary submissions placed on the record by Zibo Aifudi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Letter from Zibo Aifudi Regarding ``Withdrawal from
Administrative Review,'' dated September 20, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the Preliminary Results, we set the deadline for interested
parties to submit case briefs and rebuttal briefs to October 13, 2010,
and October 18, 2010, respectively. On October 12, 2010, we extended
the deadlines for case and rebuttal briefs submissions by one day to
October 14, 2010, and October 19, 2010, respectively. On October 14,
2010, Petitioners,\8\ AMS Associates, Inc., operating as Shapiro
Packaging (``AMS''), and Commercial Bag Company, doing business as
Commercial Packaging (``Commercial Packaging'') filed case briefs. On
October 19, 2010, Petitioners and AMS filed rebuttal briefs. The
Department did not hold a public hearing pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d),
as all hearing requests made by interested parties were withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Petitioners are the Laminated Woven Sacks Committee and its
individual members, Coating Excellence International, LLC and
Polytex Fibers Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A
list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an
Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and
is on file in the Central Records Unit, Main Commerce Building, Room
7046, and is accessible on the Department's Web site at http://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic version of the
memorandum are identical in content.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order is laminated woven sacks.
Laminated woven sacks are bags or sacks consisting of one or more plies
of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven
polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with or
without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene on
one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either to an
exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxially-oriented polypropylene
(``BOPP'') or to an exterior ply of paper that is suitable for high
quality print graphics; \9\ printed with three colors or more in
register; with or without lining; whether or not closed on one end;
whether or not in roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and
sleeves); with or without handles; with or without special closing
features; not exceeding one kilogram in weight. Laminated woven sacks
are typically used for retail packaging of
[[Page 14908]]
consumer goods such as pet foods and bird seed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Paper suitable for high quality print graphics,'' as used
herein, means paper having an ISO brightness of 82 or higher and a
Sheffield Smoothness of 250 or less. Coated free sheet is an example
of a paper suitable for high quality print graphics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective July 1, 2007, laminated woven sacks are classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
subheadings 6305.33.0050 and 6305.33.0080. Laminated woven sacks were
previously classifiable under HTSUS subheading 6305.33.0020. If entered
with plastic coating on both sides of the fabric consisting of woven
polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, laminated woven
sacks may be classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 3923.21.0080,
3923.21.0095, and 3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on one end or in
roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves), laminated
woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including
3917.39.0050, 3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and 5903.90.2500. If the
polypropylene strips and/or polyethylene strips making up the fabric
measure more than 5 millimeters in width, laminated woven sacks may be
classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 4601.99.0500,
4601.99.9000, and 4602.90.0000. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
In the Preliminary Results, we found that the one mandatory
respondent (i.e., Zibo Aifudi) demonstrated its eligibility for
separate-rate status. However, we no longer find Zibo Aifudi eligible
for separate rate status as it has significantly impeded the
Department's ability to conduct this proceeding and, by withdrawing
from the review, prevented the verification of the information it had
earlier provided.
Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act'')
provides that, if an interested party or any other person: (A)
Withholds information that has been requested by the administering
authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for
the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested,
subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides
such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in
section 782(i) of the Act, the Department shall, subject to section
782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination under this title. 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 shall promptly inform the party submitting the response of
the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable,
provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. Section 782(d) of the Act further states that, if the party
submits further information that is unsatisfactory or untimely, the
administering authority may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all
or part of the original and subsequent responses. 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 the applicable requirements
established by the administering authority if (1) the information is
submitted by the deadline established for its submission, (2) the
information can be verified, (3) the information is not so incomplete
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable
determination, (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted
to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the
requirements established by the administering authority with respect to
the information, and (5) the information can be used without undue
difficulties.
Zibo Aifudi
Zibo Aifudi responded to the Department's original questionnaire
and several supplemental questionnaires, and the Department calculated
a company-specific margin for Zibo Aifudi in the Preliminary Results.
After the issuance of the Preliminary Results, the Department received
a letter from Zibo Aifudi withdrawing from this administrative review
and requesting that all business proprietary information be
destroyed.\10\ The Department therefore finds that, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D) of the Act, Zibo Aifudi has
significantly impeded the Department's ability to conduct this
administrative review and, by withdrawing from the review and
requesting the removal of information from the record, prevented the
verification of the information it had earlier provided. Therefore, the
application of facts available is warranted with respect to Zibo
Aifudi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Letter from Zibo Aifudi Regarding ``Withdrawal from
Administrative Review,'' dated September 20, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application of an Adverse Inference
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among
the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of the respondent if it determines that a
party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. 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.'' \11\ In determining whether a respondent has failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department need not make a
determination regarding the willfulness of a respondent's conduct.\12\
Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of the
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse
inference.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'')
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d
Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994).
\12\ See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373,
1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon Steel'').
\13\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27340 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the best of
its ability, the Department considers whether a party could comply with
the request for information, and whether a party paid insufficient
attention to its statutory duties.\14\ Furthermore, the Department also
considers the accuracy and completeness of submitted information, and
whether the respondent has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping
margins.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Pacific Giant, Inc. v. United States, 223 F. Supp. 2d
1336, 1342 (August 6, 2002).
\15\ See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From
Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
62 FR 53808, 53819-53820 (October 16, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Nippon Steel the Federal Circuit explained that,
if a respondent ``fails to provide requested information by the
deadlines for submission,'' Commerce shall fill in the gaps with
``facts otherwise available.'' The focus of {section 776(a) of the
Act{time} is respondent's failure to provide information. The
reason for the failure is of no moment. As a separate matter,
{section 776(b) of the Act{time} permits Commerce to ``use an
inference that is adverse to the interests of a respondent in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available,'' only if
Commerce makes the separate determination that the respondent ``has
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to
comply.'' The focus of {section 776(b) of the Act{time} is
respondent's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability, not
its failure to provide requested information.
See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1381. The Federal Circuit also held that
``the
[[Page 14909]]
statutory mandate that a respondent act to the `best of its ability'
requires the respondent to do the maximum it is able to do.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived
from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any
previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See
section 776(b) of the Act. It is the Department's practice to assign
the highest rate from any segment of a proceeding as total adverse
facts available (``AFA'') when a respondent fails to cooperate to the
best of its ability.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan;
Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789, 5790 (February 7, 2002)
(``Consistent with Department practice in cases where a respondent
fails to cooperate to the best of its ability, and in keeping with
section 776(b)(3) of the Act, as adverse facts available, we have
applied a margin based on the highest margin from any prior segment
of the proceeding.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zibo Aifudi/PRC-Wide Entity
As discussed above, Zibo Aifudi withdrew from participation in this
segment of the proceeding and requested that all of its business
proprietary submissions be destroyed. Because of this, the Department
does not have any record evidence upon which to determine whether Zibo
Aifudi is eligible for a separate rate for this review period. Thus,
pursuant to Department practice, as Zibo Aifudi has not demonstrated
its entitlement to a separate rate, we consider it to be part of the
PRC-entity and subject to the PRC-wide rate.\18\ Furthermore, because
Zibo Aifudi is part of the PRC-wide entity and the only mandatory
respondent in this administrative review, it is necessary that we
review the PRC-wide entity. In doing so, we note that section 776(a)(1)
of the Act mandates that the Department use the facts available if
necessary information is not available on the record of an antidumping
proceeding. In addition, we find that an element of the PRC-wide entity
(Zibo Aifudi) did not respond to our requests for information, the
necessary information was not provided, and the information that was
provided was unable to be verified. Therefore, we find it necessary,
under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to continue to use facts otherwise
available as the basis for the final results of this review for the
PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 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) (``WBF
2008'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the PRC-wide
entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with requests for information. As noted above, an element of the
PRC-wide entity (Zibo Aifudi) informed the Department that it would not
participate further in this review. Thus, because the PRC-wide entity
refused to participate fully in this proceeding, we find it appropriate
to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide
entity in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing
so, we ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity
will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than
had they cooperated fully in this review.
As stated above, the PRC-wide entity (including Zibo Aifudi)
withdrew from this administrative review. Because of this, we find it
necessary, under sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, to use AFA
as the basis for these final results of review for the PRC-wide entity.
In accordance with the Department's practice, as AFA, we have assigned
to the PRC-wide entity the rate of 91.73 percent, which is the highest
rate assigned in any segment of this proceeding. See Laminated Woven
Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 35646, 35648 (June 24, 2008) (``LTFV
Final Determination'').\19\ In selecting a rate as AFA, the Department
selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the
purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide
the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely
manner.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of
China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and
Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 1999).
\20\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of AFA Rate for PRC-Wide Entity, Including Zibo Aifudi
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. As described in the SAA, it is the
Department's practice to use secondary information from the petition,
the final determination, or any previous review under section 751 of
the Act concerning the subject merchandise. See SAA at 870. Further,
the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information has
probative value and, to the extent practicable, will examine the
reliability and relevance of the information to be used.
In this case, the AFA rate we are assigning to the PRC-wide entity,
including Zibo Aifudi, is the highest rate from any segment of this
proceeding, and is the petition rate in the less-than-fair-value
investigation. See LTFV Final Determination, 73 FR at 35648. This rate
was corroborated in the LTFV Final Determination, finding that the
petition margin of 91.73 percent had probative value because it was
within the range of CONNUM margins for Zibo Aifudi. See id.
Furthermore, no information has been presented by interested parties
challenging the reliability of the 91.73 percent AFA rate. We note that
this is the highest rate from any segment of the proceeding and the
rate is less than four years old. Thus, the Department finds that the
information continues to be reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, 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 as
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an
appropriate margin.\21\ Similarly, the Department does not apply a
margin that has been discredited.\22\ None of these unusual
circumstances are present with respect to the rate being used here.\23\
Moreover,
[[Page 14910]]
the rate selected is the rate currently applicable to the PRC-wide
entity and was corroborated in the LTFV Final Determination, using Zibo
Aifudi's CONNUM margins. See LTFV Final Determination, 73 FR at 35648.
The Department assumes that if an uncooperative respondent could have
obtained a lower rate, it would have cooperated.\24\ Consequently, as
there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates
that this rate is not appropriate for use as AFA, we determine that
this rate continues to have relevance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See WBF 2008, 73 FR at 49166; see also Fresh Cut Flowers
From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department
disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best
information available {the predecessor to facts available{time}
because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin).
\22\ See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been
judicially invalidated).
\23\ See e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 14th Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 34976, 34979 (June 21, 2010); Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Preliminary Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission and Final
Partial Rescission of the Second Administrative Review, 73 FR 12127,
12131-12132 (March 6, 2008) unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and
Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
73 FR 52273 (September 9, 2008).
\24\ See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185,
1190-91 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v.
United States, 24 CIT 841, 848 (2000) (respondents should not
benefit from failure to cooperate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our analysis as described above, we find that the margin
of 91.73 percent is reliable and has relevance. As the 91.73 percent
rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative
value. Accordingly, we determine that the calculated rate of 91.73
percent, which is the current PRC-wide rate, is in accordance with the
requirement of section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information be
corroborated to the extent practicable (i.e., that it have probative
value). Consequently, we have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the
subject merchandise from the PRC-wide entity, including Zibo Aifudi.
Final Results of Review
The weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The PRC-Wide entity, including Zibo Aifudi Plastic
Packaging Co., Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average
Exporter Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate \25\................................... 91.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b),
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. For assessment purposes, we
calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review. Where appropriate, we calculated an
ad valorem rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total
dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total entered
values associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates
calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad
valorem rate against the entered customs values for the subject
merchandise. Where appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each
importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for
reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated
with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against
the entered quantity of the subject merchandise. Where an importer (or
customer)-specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50
percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer (or
customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to
antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). The
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these final results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit
rate for each of the reviewed companies that received a separate rate
in this review will be the rate listed in the final results of review
(except that if the rate for a particular company is de minimis, i.e.,
less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that
company); (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent POR; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair
value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most recent period for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all
other manufacturers or exporters will be the PRC-wide rate of 91.73
percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March 14, 2011.
Kim Glas,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I--Issues and Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Preliminary Decision Regarding Country of Origin
1a. Procedures in Determining Country of Origin
1b. Department's Decision of Country of Origin of Sacks
1c. Authority to Issue Clarification Instruction to CBP
1d. Finalizing the Country-of-Origin Memorandum
Comment 2: Liquidation Instructions
[FR Doc. 2011-6450 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P