[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18524-18532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7927]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-967]
Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: April 4, 2011.
SUMMARY: On November 12, 2010, the Department of Commerce
(``Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at
less than fair value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of
aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\
We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary
determination. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we
have made changes to our margin calculations for the mandatory
respondents. The final dumping margins for this investigation are
listed in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, and Preliminary Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR
69403 (November 12, 2010) (``Preliminary Determination'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Lori Apodaca, 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-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4474 or (202) 482-4551, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The Department published its Preliminary Determination on November
12, 2010. The Department subsequently issued a ministerial error
memorandum, in which it agreed to correct several ministerial
errors.\2\ On January 4, 2011, pursuant to the correction of
ministerial errors, the Department published an Amended Preliminary
Determination.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Memorandum entitled ``Ministerial Error Memorandum,
Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China, Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,'' dated December 21,
2010, on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU''),
Room 7046 of the main Department building.
\3\ See Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 76 FR 323 (January 4, 2011) (``Amended Preliminary
Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between December 6, 2010, and December 21, 2010, the Department
conducted verifications of Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd.
(``Guang Ya''), Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd. (``Guangcheng''),
Kong Ah International Co., Ltd.(``Kong Ah''), and Guang Ya Aluminium
Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd. (``Guang Ya HK'') (collectively the ``Guang
Ya Group''); Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. (``ZNZ''), Zhongya
Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited (``Shaped Aluminum'') and Karlton
Aluminum Company Ltd. (``Karlton'') (collectively ``New Zhongya''); and
Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. (``Xinya'') (all
parties, collectively ``the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya''). The
Department released verification reports for each of these companies on
January 28, 2011.\4\ See the ``Verification'' section below for
additional information. On December 12, 2010, Aavid Thermalloy, Inc.
(``Aavid'') submitted a request for a scope hearing. On December 13,
2010, The Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee,\5\ and the United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union (collectively,
``Petitioners'') and New Zhongya submitted requests for a public
hearing. On February 9, 2011, Petitioners submitted a request for a
closed session of the hearing. On March 2, 2011, the Department held a
public scope hearing for the antidumping duty and countervailing duty
investigations, and both an open and a closed session of the
antidumping duty hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the Department's verification reports on the record of
this investigation, all on file in the CRU.
\5\ The Aluminum Extrusions fair Trade Committee is comprised of
Aerolite Extrusion Company, Alexandria Extrusion Company, Benada
Aluminum of Florida, Inc., William L. Bonnell Company, Inc.,
Frontier Aluminum Corporation, Futura Industries Corporation, Hydro
Aluminum North America, Inc., Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, Profile
Extrusions Company, Sapa Extrusions, Inc., and Western Extrusions
Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zhongya and Petitioners submitted surrogate value comments on
December 22, 2010. On February 9, 2011, case briefs were filed by the
Guang Ya Group, the Government of China (``GOC''), Petitioners, and New
Zhongya. On February 14, 2011, the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and
Petitioners filed their rebuttal briefs.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2009, through
December 31, 2009. This period corresponds to the two most recent
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which
was March 2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``Act''), we conducted verification of the information submitted by
the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya for use in our final
determination.\6\ We used standard verification procedures, including
the examination of relevant accounting and production records, as
appropriate, as well as original source documents provided by
respondents.
[[Page 18525]]
However, as detailed in our verification report and discussed further
below, we were unable verify the information submitted by Xinya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the Department's verification reports on the record of
this investigation in the CRU, with respect to these entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted in this
investigation are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the Final Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of
Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China,'' (``Issues
and Decision Memorandum'') dated concurrently with this notice, which
is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties
have raised and to which we have responded in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and
Decision Memorandum is a public document on file in the CRU and is
accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
We are amending the language of the scope of the
antidumping duty (``AD'') and countervailing duty (``CVD'')
investigations for clarification purposes as described in detail in the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. See Comment 3, A-J in the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
For the final determination, the Department has adjusted
the Petition rates using the revised surrogate value for labor as
described in detail in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
The revised petition margins range from 32.53 percent to 33.28 percent.
See Comment 1, A-F, Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum; see also March 28, 2011 Memorandum to the File,
regarding Investigation of Certain Aluminum Extrusions from the
People's Republic of China: Petition Rate Recalculation (``Petition
Rate Recalculation Memo'').
For the final determination, we are applying a rate based
on adverse facts available (``AFA'') to the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/
Xinya single entity. As AFA we have assigned the highest rate from the
petition of 33.18 percent, as recalculated for the final
determination.\7\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5:
Application of Total AFA; see also Memorandum regarding: Application of
Total Adverse Facts Available for the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya
in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the
People's Republic of China, dated March 28, 2011 (``Guang Ya Group/New
Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the final determination, we have assigned the 29
separate rate applicants to whom we are granting a separate rate a
dumping margin of 32.79 percent, based on the simple average of the
margins alleged in the petition, as recalculated for this final
determination. See Comment 1, A-F, Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum; see also Petition Rate Recalculation
Memo, detailing recalculation to correct for a ministerial error.
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by this investigation is aluminum
extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion
process, made from aluminum alloys having metallic elements
corresponding to the alloy series designations published by The
Aluminum Association commencing with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or
proprietary equivalents or other certifying body equivalents).
Specifically, the subject merchandise made from aluminum alloy with an
Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 1
contains not less than 99 percent aluminum by weight. The subject
merchandise made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association
series designation commencing with the number 3 contains manganese as
the major alloying element, with manganese accounting for not more than
3.0 percent of total materials by weight. The subject merchandise is
made from an aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series
designation commencing with the number 6 contains magnesium and silicon
as the major alloying elements, with magnesium accounting for at least
0.1 percent but not more than 2.0 percent of total materials by weight,
and silicon accounting for at least 0.1 percent but not more than 3.0
percent of total materials by weight. The subject aluminum extrusions
are properly identified by a four-digit alloy series without either a
decimal point or leading letter. Illustrative examples from among the
approximately 160 registered alloys that may characterize the subject
merchandise are as follows: 1350, 3003, and 6060.
Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported in a wide variety of
shapes and forms, including, but not limited to, hollow profiles, other
solid profiles, pipes, tubes, bars, and rods. Aluminum extrusions that
are drawn subsequent to extrusion (``drawn aluminum'') are also
included in the scope.
Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported with a variety of
finishes (both coatings and surface treatments), and types of
fabrication. The types of coatings and treatments applied to subject
aluminum extrusions include, but are not limited to, extrusions that
are mill finished (i.e., without any coating or further finishing),
brushed, buffed, polished, anodized (including bright-dip anodized),
liquid painted, or powder coated. Aluminum extrusions may also be
fabricated, i.e., prepared for assembly. Such operations would include,
but are not limited to, extrusions that are cut-to-length, machined,
drilled, punched, notched, bent, stretched, knurled, swedged, mitered,
chamfered, threaded, and spun. The subject merchandise includes
aluminum extrusions that are finished (coated, painted, etc.),
fabricated, or any combination thereof.
Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of
importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled
after importation, including, but not limited to, window frames, door
frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or furniture. Such parts that
otherwise meet the definition of aluminum extrusions are included in
the scope. The scope includes the aluminum extrusion components that
are attached (e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies,
i.e., partially assembled merchandise unless imported as part of the
finished goods `kit' defined further below. The scope does not include
the non-aluminum extrusion components of subassemblies or subject kits.
Subject extrusions may be identified with reference to their end
use, such as fence posts, electrical conduits, heat sinks, door
thresholds, or carpet trim. Such goods are subject merchandise if they
otherwise meet the scope definition, regardless of whether they are
ready for use at the time of importation.
The following aluminum extrusion products are excluded: Aluminum
extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series
designations commencing with the number 2 and containing in excess of
1.5 percent copper by weight; aluminum extrusions made from aluminum
alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with
the number 5 and containing in excess of 1.0 percent magnesium by
weight; and aluminum extrusions made from
[[Page 18526]]
aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation
commencing with the number 7 and containing in excess of 2.0 percent
zinc by weight.
The scope also excludes finished merchandise containing aluminum
extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and
completed at the time of entry, such as finished windows with glass,
doors with glass or vinyl, picture frames with glass pane and backing
material, and solar panels. The scope also excludes finished goods
containing aluminum extrusions that are entered unassembled in a
``finished goods kit.'' A finished goods kit is understood to mean a
packaged combination of parts that contains, at the time of
importation, all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final
finished good and requires no further finishing or fabrication, such as
cutting or punching, and is assembled `as is' into a finished product.
An imported product will not be considered a `finished goods kit' and
therefore excluded from the scope of the investigation merely by
including fasteners such as screws, bolts, etc. in the packaging with
an aluminum extrusion product.
The scope also excludes aluminum alloy sheet or plates produced by
other than the extrusion process, such as aluminum products produced by
a method of casting. Cast aluminum products are properly identified by
four digits with a decimal point between the third and fourth digit. A
letter may also precede the four digits. The following Aluminum
Association designations are representative of aluminum alloys for
casting: 208.0, 295.0, 308.0, 355.0, C355.0, 356.0, A356.0, A357.0,
360.0, 366.0, 380.0, A380.0, 413.0, 443.0, 514.0, 518.1, and 712.0. The
scope also excludes pure, unwrought aluminum in any form.
The scope also excludes collapsible tubular containers composed of
metallic elements corresponding to alloy code 1080A as designated by
the Aluminum Association where the tubular container (excluding the
nozzle) meets each of the following dimensional characteristics: (1)
Length of 37 mm or 62 mm, (2) outer diameter of 11.0 mm or 12.7 mm, and
(3) wall thickness not exceeding 0.13 mm.
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the
following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTS''): 7604.21.0000, 7604.29.1000, 7604.29.3010,
7604.29.3050, 7604.29.5030, 7604.29.5060, 7608.20.0030, and
7608.20.0090. The subject merchandise entered as parts of other
aluminum products may be classifiable under the following additional
Chapter 76 subheadings: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99
as well as under other HTS chapters. In addition, fin evaporator coils
may be classifiable under HTS numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and 8418.99.80.60.
While HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the scope in this proceeding is
dispositive.
Scope Comments
Concurrent with the Preliminary Determination, on October 27, 2010,
the Department issued a decision memorandum addressing ten scope issues
in this and the concurrent countervailing duty investigation on
aluminum extrusions from the PRC.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See October 27, 2010, Memorandum entitled ``Preliminary
Determinations: Comments on the Scope of the Investigations''
(``Preliminary Scope Memorandum''); see also Preliminary
Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in the Preliminary Determination, scope comments received
on or after October 7, 2010, but prior to the Preliminary Determination
were not submitted in time for consideration for the Preliminary
Determination and that, as a result, we would fully consider any such
comments for the final determination. In addition, it came to our
attention that our Preliminary Scope Memorandum inadvertently did not
address scope comments submitted by Petitioners on May 10, 2010. We
provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
Preliminary Scope Memorandum. In response, multiple parties submitted
scope case briefs on January 20, 2011, and scope rebuttal briefs on
January 25, 2011.
For the final determination, we have considered Petitioners' May
10, 2010, scope comments, the scope comments provided by all parties on
or after October 7, 2011, but prior to the Preliminary Determination,
and the scope case and rebuttal briefs submitted on January 20 and
January 25, 2011, respectively, and addressed these issues in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Specifically: Floturn, Inc. (``Floturn'') submitted comments
on October 7, 2010; Petitioners on October 13, 2010, October 19,
2010, and October 22, 2010; the Shower Door, Tub and Shower
Enclosures Manufacturers' Alliance (``SDMA'') on October 7, 2010;
Eagle Metals, Inc. and Eagle Metals Distributors, Inc.
(collectively, ``Eagle Metals'') on October 12, 2010, October 13,
2010, and October 21, 2010; Aavid Thermalloy (``Aavid'') on October
13, 2010, and October 21, 2010; Brazeway Inc. (``Brazeway'') on
October 19, 2010, and December 15, 2010; Maine Ornamental, LLC
(``Maine Ornamental'') on October 22, 2010; and Hubble Power Systems
(``HPS'') on October 26, 2010. Additionally, Petitioners, Floturn,
SDMA, Eagle Metals, Aavid, Brazeway, and Maine Ornamental submitted
scope case briefs on January 20, 2011; Petitioners, Floturn, SDMA,
and Brazeway submitted scope rebuttal briefs on January 25, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2010, and in its scope case brief of January 11, 2011,
Petitioners provided a series of proposed wording changes to clarify
the scope language of these investigations. No other party provided
comments on these proposed changes. On February 28, 2011, the
Department requested that Petitioners clarify whether the Petition
intended to cover the non-aluminum components of subject kits and
subassemblies and that Petitioners provide language if the intent of
the Petition was to not cover the non-aluminum components. On March 9,
2011, Petitioners submitted clarifying language stipulating that it is
the intent of the petition to cover only the aluminum extrusion
components of entries of subject aluminum extrusion subassemblies or
subject kits.
We have adopted all of Petitioners' clarifications for the final
determination. For a complete discussion of the parties' scope-related
comments (including the clarifications discussed above) and the
Department's position, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum
accompanying this notice at Comment 3, A-J.
Targeted Dumping
Because we are basing the margin of the sole mandatory respondent
on total AFA for the final determination, we have not considered
Petitioners' targeted dumping allegation for the final determination.
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected
India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation
for the following reasons: (1) It is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the PRC, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the
Act; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use to value
the FOPs. See Preliminary Determination. For the final determination,
we received no comments on surrogate country selection and,
accordingly, made no changes to our findings with respect to the
selection of a surrogate country.
Affiliation
For the reasons set forth in our Preliminary Determination, we
continue to find the entities comprising the Guang Ya Group, and the
entities
[[Page 18527]]
comprising New Zhongya, affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of
the Act, as each entity is owned by a member of the Kuang family.
Further, we find that New Zhongya is affiliated with one of its
reported customers during the POI pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the
Act.\10\ Furthermore, we continue to find the Guang Ya Group/New
Zhongya and Xinya affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See March 28, 2011, Memorandum regarding the Investigation
of Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination Regarding Affiliation and Collapsing of Guang Ya
Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd., Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co.,
Ltd., Kong Ah International Co., Ltd., and Guang Ya Aluminium
Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd.; Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co.,
Ltd., Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Ltd., Karlton Aluminum
Co., Ltd.; and Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd.
(``Final Affiliation/Collapsing Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In making this determination, we note that the Guang Ya Group and
New Zhongya each stated on the record that a Kuang sibling was
``Shareholder'' of Xinya, and though the Guang Ya Group also made other
inconsistent statements regarding ownership of Xinya, neither party has
recanted these original statements. Further, because the ownership
information provided by Xinya could not be verified, we do not accord
any weight to its ownership claims, which constitute unverifiable
information. Thus, we continue to find that the record evidence
indicates that Xinya is owned by a member of the Kuang family. Because
each entity is owned by a member of the Kuang family, we conclude that
the owners of Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya are members of a
family grouping, pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the Act. Further, we
find that the ownership by the family grouping satisfies the
requirement of affiliation pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act,
because all of the companies within the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya,
and Xinya are under the common control of the family grouping.
To the extent that section 771(33) of the Act does not conflict
with the Department's application of separate rates and enforcement of
the non-market economy (``NME'') provision or section 773(c) of the
Act, the Department will determine that affiliated exporters and/or
producers are a single entity if the facts of the case support such a
finding.\11\ The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') has upheld the
Department's practice of determining whether to treat two or more
companies as a single entity for antidumping purposes based on a
consideration of whether there exists a significant potential for
manipulation of prices and/or export decisions.\12\ The determination
to treat the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya as a single entity,
is based on a finding that the family grouping holds essentially full
ownership of the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya, all of which
are producers and/or exporters of merchandise under consideration in
this investigation. Therefore, in considering the level of common
ownership pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(i), we find nearly 100
percent common ownership of the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya
by the family grouping. In this context, the family in question is the
``person'' jointly owning and controlling the Guang Ya Group, New
Zhongya, and Xinya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of Sixth New Shipper Review and
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fourth Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 10410, 10413 (March 5, 2004)
(``Mushrooms''), unchanged in Final Results and Final Rescission, in
Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 54361
(September 14, 2005).
\12\ See Hontex Enterprises v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d
1225, 1230-34 (CIT 2004) (``Hontex II'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(ii), the extent to which managerial
employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of
an affiliated firm, the record of this proceeding shows that Kuang
family members sit on the boards of, and have management positions at,
the Guang Ya Group, and New Zhongya, as described above. With respect
to the third criterion for finding significant potential for
manipulation, 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(iii), the presence of intertwined
operations, information on the record indicates significant financial
transactions between Xinya and the owner of New Zhongya, which are
recorded as part of New Zhongya's accounting records.\13\ Accordingly,
we find that the relationship between the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya,
and Xinya poses a significant potential for the manipulation of price
or production pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See January 28, 2010, Memorandum regarding the Verification
of the Sales and Factors Responses of Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum
Co., Ltd. (``ZNZ''), Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited
(``Shaped Aluminum'') and Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd.
(``Karlton'') (collectively ``New Zhongya'') in the Less-Than-Fair
Value Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the People's
Republic of China (``New Zhongya Verification Report''), at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, by virtue of the common ownership of the three entities,
family members on the boards of at least two of the companies, evidence
of financial transactions between two of these entities, and the fact
that all entities produce and/or export merchandise under
consideration, we find that there exists the significant potential for
manipulation such that the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya and Xinya should
be treated as a single entity.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 47198 (September 15,
2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all exporters 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 exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation involving an
NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it
is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 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 amplified by Notice of 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''),
and 19 CFR 351.107(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, we found that the mandatory
respondent (i.e., the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya) \16\ and 29 separate-
rate applicants demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate
status. Specifically, both Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya provided, and
the Department successfully verified, the requisite information to
demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto government control
over their respective export activities. For the final determination,
we continue to find that the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya single entity
is eligible for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Because there is no record information to indicate that
Xinya, which is part of this collapsed entity, is an exporter to the
United States, Xinya is not eligible for consideration of a separate
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, because no parties commented on the separate-rate status
of the other separate-rate applicants and no information has come to
light that would alter our preliminary findings, we continue to find
that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the 29
separate-rate applicants to whom we preliminarily granted separate rate
status demonstrates both a de jure and de facto absence of government
control, with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise
under investigation; thus they are eligible for separate-rate status.
See Preliminary Determination.
In the Preliminary Determination, we denied separate rate status to
one
[[Page 18528]]
separate rate applicant, Shanghai Canghai Aluminum Tube Packing Co.
(``Shanghai Canghai''), but stated that we would provide it with an
additional opportunity to correct deficiencies submitted in its
original separate rate application (``SRA'') and September 8, 2010,
Supplemental Questionnaire Response (``SQR'') to the Department's
supplemental questionnaire.\17\ On November 27, 2010, the Department
sent another letter to Shanghai Canghai rejecting its September 8,
2010, SQR because of procedural deficiencies and because it contained
insufficient documentation to analyze Shanghai Canghai's eligibility
for a separate rate, including incomplete narrative responses to the
questions asked and no translations. In this letter, however, we also
provided Shanghai Canghai an opportunity to re-submit its response to
correct these deficiencies.\18\ On or about December 9, 2010, the
Department received Shanghai Canghai's response to the Department's
November 27, 2010, letter. However, the December 9, 2010, SQR was not
filed in conformance with the Department's regulations regarding
filing, service, or certification of documents (see 19 CFR 351.303).
Further, Shanghai Canghai's December 9, 2010, SQR again provided no
narrative responses to any of the Department's questions from the
separate-rate application. As a result, on March 17, 2011, the
Department sent a letter to Shanghai Canghai rejecting its December 9,
2010, response. Because Shanghai Canghai has failed to respond
adequately to the Department's request for separate rate information
despite being given several opportunities to do so, the Department has
not considered Shanghai Canghai's submission for the final
determination nor retained it for the record. Thus, for this final
determination, we are not granting Shanghai Canghai a separate rate,
and it is part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Preliminary Determination, the Department's June 25,
2010, letter to Shanghai Canghai granting the company's request to
extend the deadline for its SRA submission to July 2, 2010, and the
Department's August 18, 2010, letter to Shanghai Canghai regarding
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the
People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questionnaire--Separate
Rate Application.
\18\ See the Department's November 27, 2010, letter to Shanghai
Canghai regarding re-filing its Separate Rate Supplemental
Questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin for the Separate Rate Companies
Since we assigned the individually examined respondent a dumping
margin based on total AFA, we do not have any mandatory respondents in
this investigation whose dumping margin is not based on AFA. Thus, we
have assigned the 29 separate rate applicants to whom we are granting a
separate rate a dumping margin based on the simple average of the
margins alleged in the petition, as recalculated for the final
determination.
Use of Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested
party: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by the
Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or
in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to sections
782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding
under the antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching
the applicable determination.
Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time} for
information, notifies {the Department{time} that such party is unable
to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner,
together with a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in
which such party is able to submit the information,'' the Department
may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on
that party.
Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to
section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent
responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section
782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established
deadline; (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; and (5) the information can
be used without undue difficulties.
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the
Department ``finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
information from the {Department{time} , the {Department{time} , in
reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an
inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting
from among the facts otherwise available.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See also Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'')
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Rep. No.
103-316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this final determination, in accordance with sections
773(c)(3)(A) and (B) of the Act and sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
and (D) and 776(b) of the Act, we have determined that the use of AFA
is warranted for the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya, and the PRC-wide
entity as discussed below.
Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya
The Department has determined that the information to construct an
accurate and otherwise reliable margin is not available on the record
with respect to the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya. The Department
reached this determination because the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya
withheld information that had been requested, failed to provide such
information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested,
significantly impeded this proceeding, and provided information that
could not be verified, pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(A), (B),
(C) and (D) of the of Act.\20\ Specifically, Guang Ya Group's narrative
questionnaire responses did not comport with the data sections of those
same responses; moreover, the factors of production data submitted by
Guang Ya Group post-verification did not reflect the data verified by
the Department at Guang Ya Group's facilities. New Zhongya mis-reported
a portion of its U.S. sales indicating that they were constructed
export price sales to the first unaffiliated party in the United States
when in fact they were the transfer price sales to its U.S. affiliated
party. Finally, Xinya provided no documentation at verification to
demonstrate its claimed ownership. For additional detail, see Guang Ya
Group/New Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo. As a result, the Department has
determined to apply the facts otherwise available. Further, because the
Department finds that the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/
[[Page 18529]]
Xinya failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined to use an
adverse inference when applying facts available for the final
determination in this investigation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo.
\21\ See Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-Wide Entity
Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within an
NME country are subject to government control, and because only the
companies listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section,
below, have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single
antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters of
subject merchandise from the PRC because these other companies did not
demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate.\22\ The PRC-wide rate
applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from
the companies eligible for separate rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of
China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that there
were producers/exporters of the subject merchandise during the POI from
the PRC that did not respond to the Department's request for
information. Further, we treated these PRC producers/exporters as part
of the PRC-wide entity because they did not demonstrate their
eligibility for a separate rate. Additionally, as a result of the PRC-
wide entity's failure to respond to our requests for information we
further determined that, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act,
the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of
its ability to comply with requests for information. See id.
Accordingly, we also determined that in selecting from among the facts
available an adverse inference was warranted because of the PRC-wide
entity's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability. As AFA, we
preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity a recalculated rate of
33.18 percent, the highest calculated rate from the petition, as
recalculated for the Amended Preliminary Determination.\23\ See
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No.
103-316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (``SAA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Amended Preliminary Determination; see also the
December 10, 2010, Memorandum to the File, regarding the
Investigation of Certain Aluminum Extrusions from the People's
Republic of China: Petition Rate recalculation; (``Amended Prelim
Petition Rate Recalculation Memo''); and the December 10, 2010,
Memorandum to the File, regarding the Amended Preliminary
Determination Analysis Memorandum (``Amended Preliminary
Determination Analysis Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for
information, significantly impeded the proceeding, and withheld
information requested by the Department, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, we determine, as in the
Preliminary Determination, that in selecting from among the facts
available an adverse inference is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide
rate, recalculated for the final determination, because of the PRC-wide
entity's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) provide that the Department may rely on
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for 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.'' \25\ It is also the Department's
practice to select a rate that ensures ``that the party does not obtain
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 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).
\26\ See 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); See also SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, the Department finds selecting the highest rate in any
segment of the proceeding as AFA to be appropriate.\27\ It is the
Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest
margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of
any respondent in the investigation.\28\ In the instant investigation,
as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity the highest petition
rate (as recalculated for the final determination) on the record of
this proceeding that can be corroborated, 33.28 percent, as re-
calculated for the final determination.\29\ For the final determination
in this investigation, the Department has selected this rate as the
most appropriate from the available sources to effectuate the purposes
of AFA. Accordingly, the Department has assigned both the Guang Ya
Group/New Zhongya/Xinya and the PRC-wide entity an AFA rate of 33.28
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic
of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 (December
28, 2005) unchanged in final, 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),
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
\28\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's
Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Facts Available.''
\29\ See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo; see also Comment 1C,
Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it
must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from
independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. We have
interpreted ``corroborate'' to mean that we will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information
submitted.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel
Products From Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 4, 2000); see,
e.g., 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As total AFA, the Department preliminarily selected the highest
adjusted petition rate of 33.28 percent.\31\ In the Amended Preliminary
Determination, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we
corroborated our AFA margin by comparing it to the control number
(``CONNUM'') margins we found for the cooperating mandatory
respondents. We found that the margin of 33.18 percent had probative
value because it was in the range of CONNUM model margins we found for
the mandatory respondents, the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya, during
the period of
[[Page 18530]]
investigation.\32\ Accordingly, we found that the rate of 33.28
percent, which is only one tenth of a one percent difference from the
rate applied in the Amended Preliminary Determination is corroborated
within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Amended Preliminary Determination; see also Amended
Prelim Petition Rate Recalculation Memo; and the December 21, 2010,
Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, from Wendy Frankel, Director, Office 8, entitled
``Ministerial Error Memorandum, Aluminum Extrusions from the
People's Republic of China, Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value'' (``Ministerial Error Memo''), at Issue 4.
\32\ See Amended Preliminary Determination Analysis Memo.
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because there are no cooperating mandatory respondents to
corroborate the 33.28 percent margin used as AFA for the Guang Ya
Group/New Zhongya/Xinya and the PRC-wide entity, to the extent
appropriate information was available, we revisited our pre-initiation
analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the
petition. See Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China, dated April
20, 2010 (``Initiation Checklist''). We examined evidence supporting
the calculations in the petition and the supplemental information
provided by Petitioners prior to initiation to determine the probative
value of the margins alleged in the petition. During our pre-initiation
analysis, we examined the information used as the basis of export price
and normal value (``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 (e.g., Global Trade Atlas, and Petitioners' experience with
selling and producing the merchandise under consideration), which
corroborated key elements of the export price and NV calculations. See
Initiation Checklist at 6-10. We received no comments as to the
relevance or probative value of this information. In our examination of
the petition data to corroborate the 33.28 percent AFA rate for the
final determination, the Department found nothing impinging the
reliability or relevance of the petition rate, as adjusted.
We did receive comments on the Department's wage rate calculation,
which was utilized to derive the petition margin. We have evaluated
those comments and recalculated the labor wage rate used in calculating
the Petition margin.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo; see also Comment 1C,
Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the Department finds that the margin of 33.28 percent
has probative value for the purpose of being selected as the AFA rate
assigned to the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya and the PRC-wide
entity.
Combination Rates
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that it
would assign combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation.\35\ This practice is described in
the Separate Rate Policy Bulletin.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Preliminary Determination; see also Aluminum Extrusions
from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 75 FR 22109 (``Initiation Notice'').
\36\ See Memorandum entitled ``Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations
involving Non-Market Economy Countries'' dated April 5, 2005,
available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determination Margins
The weighted-average dumping margin percentages are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Exporter * Producer average
margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Guang Ya Aluminium 33.28
Co., Ltd.; Foshan Guangcheng Industries Co., Ltd.;
Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Kong Ah Foshan Guangcheng
International Company Limited; Aluminium Co., Ltd.;
Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Kong Ah International
(Hong Kong) Limited. Company Limited; Guang
Ya Aluminium
Industries (Hong Kong)
Limited; Zhaoqing New
Zhongya Aluminum Co.,
Ltd.; Zhongya Shaped
Aluminium (HK) Holding
Limited; Karlton
Aluminum Company Ltd.;
Xinya Aluminum &
Stainless Steel
Product Co., Ltd.
(A.K.A. New Asia
Aluminum & Stainless
Steel Product Co.,
Ltd.).
Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Guang Ya Aluminium 33.28
Co., Ltd.; Zhongya Shaped Industries Co., Ltd.;
Aluminium (HK) Holding Foshan Guangcheng
Limited; Karlton Aluminum Aluminium Co., Ltd.;
Company Ltd. Kong Ah International
Company Limited; Guang
Ya Aluminium
Industries (Hong Kong)
Limited; Zhaoqing New
Zhongya Aluminum Co.,
Ltd.; Zhongya Shaped
Aluminium (HK) Holding
Limited; Karlton
Aluminum Company Ltd.;
Xinya Aluminum &
Stainless Steel
Product Co., Ltd.
(A.K.A. New Asia
Aluminum & Stainless
Steel Product Co.,
Ltd.).
Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd....... Alnan Aluminium Co., 32.79
Ltd.
Changshu Changsheng Aluminium Changshu Changsheng 32.79
Products Co., Ltd. Aluminium Products
Co., Ltd.
China Square Industrial Limited Zhaoqing China Square 32.79
Industry Limited.
Cosco (J.M.) Aluminium Co., Ltd Cosco (J.M.) Aluminium 32.79
Co., Ltd.; Jiangmen
Qunxing Hardware
Diecasting Co., Ltd.
First Union Property Limited... Top-Wok Metal Co., Ltd. 32.79
Foshan Jinlan Non-ferrous Metal Foshan Jinlan Aluminium 32.79
Product Co. Ltd. Co. Ltd.
Foshan Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium Foshan Sanshui Fenglu 32.79
Co., Ltd. Aluminium Co., Ltd.
Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium Guangdong Hao Mei 32.79
Co., Ltd. Aluminium Co., Ltd.
Guangdong Weiye Aluminium Guangdong Weiye 32.79
Factory Co., Ltd. Aluminium Factory Co.,
Ltd.
Guangdong Xingfa Aluminium Co., Guangdong Xingfa 32.79
Ltd. Aluminium Co., Ltd.
Hanwood Enterprises Limited.... Pingguo Aluminium 32.79
Company Limited.
Honsense Development Company... Kanal Precision 32.79
Aluminium Product Co.,
Ltd.
Innovative Aluminium (Hong Taishan Golden Gain 32.79
Kong) Limited. Aluminium Products
Limited.
Jiangyin Trust International Jiangyin Xinhong Doors 32.79
Inc. and Windows Co., Ltd.
JMA (HK) Company Limited....... Guangdong Jianmei 32.79
Aluminum Profile
Company Limited;
Foshan JMA Aluminium
Company Limited.
Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Tai Shan City Kam Kiu 32.79
Bhd. Aluminium Extrusion
Co., Ltd.
Longkou Donghai Trade Co., Ltd. Shandong Nanshan 32.79
Aluminum Co., Ltd.
[[Page 18531]]
Ningbo Yili Import and Export Zhejiang Anji Xinxiang 32.79
Co., Ltd. Aluminum Co., Ltd.
North China Aluminum Co., Ltd.. North China Aluminum 32.79
Co., Ltd.
PanAsia Aluminium (China) PanAsia Aluminium 32.79
Limited. (China) Limited.
Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd. Pingguo Asia Aluminum 32.79
Co., Ltd.
Popular Plastics Co., Ltd...... Hoi Tat Plastic Mould & 32.79
Metal Factory.
Press Metal International Ltd.. Press Metal 32.79
International Ltd.
Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum 32.79
Industry Engineering Co. Ltd. Factory Company
Limited; Guang Ya
Aluminum Industries
Co., Ltd.
Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Tai-Ao Aluminium 32.79
Ltd. (Taishan) Co., Ltd.
Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat Tianjin Ruixin Electric 32.79
Transmission Technology Co., Heat Transmission
Ltd. Technology Co., Ltd.
USA Worldwide Door Components USA Worldwide Door 32.79
(Pinghu) Co., Ltd; Worldwide Components (Pinghu)
Door Components (Pinghu) Co. Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Zhejiang Yongkang 32.79
Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd. Listar Aluminium
Industry Co., Ltd.
Zhongshan Gold Mountain Zhongshan Gold Mountain 32.79
Aluminium Factory Ltd. Aluminium Factory Ltd.
PRC-wide Entity................ ....................... 33.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Because Xinya did not export subject merchandise to the United States
during the POI, for the final determination, Xinya is not being
considered for a separate rate.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue to
suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise entered or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.
We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond
equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S.
price, as follows: (1) The rate for the exporter/producer combinations
listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in this
final determination; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise
which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be
the PRC-wide rate; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer
combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Additionally, as the Department has determined in its concurrent
CVD investigation that the merchandise under investigation exported by
the Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya benefitted from export subsidies, we
will instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or posting of
a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the
U.S. price for the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya, as indicated
above, reduced by the simple average of the amounts determined to
constitute export subsidies for the Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya
(0.26 percent).\37\ For the separate-rate companies, none of which were
selected as respondents in the CVD investigation, we will instruct CBP
to reduce the dumping margin by the amount of export subsidies included
in the All Others rate from the CVD final determination (42.16
percent), published concurrently with this notice.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with
this notice; see also Memorandum: Countervailing Duty Investigation
of Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China:
Derivation of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Net Subsidy Rate Applied
in Final Determination (March 28, 2011).
\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will, within 45 days,
determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is
materially injured or threatened with material injury, by reason of
imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the
subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or
threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be
terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will
issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn
from warehouse for consumption on or after the effective date of the
suspension of liquidation.
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination and notice are issued and published in
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 28, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I--List of Issues
I. General Issues
Comment 1: Labor Wage Rate
A. Whether the Department Should Calculate the Surrogate Value
for Labor Using Multiple Surrogate Countries or a Single Country,
India
B. If the Department Continues to Rely on a Basket of Countries,
Whether that Data Should Be Limited to 2006 Data Onward and Should
Exclude Ecuador
C. Whether the Department's Wage Rate Calculation as to the
Ukraine is in Error
D. Whether To Use 2009 GNI Data Because it is Contemporaneous
With the POI
E. Whether To Revise the Department's ``Bookend'' Countries
Using Absolute Differences in GNI Data
[[Page 18532]]
F. Whether To Use the 2008 Wage Data for the Philippines Rather
Than the 2003 Data
Comment 2: Double Remedies
Comment 3: Scope of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Investigations
A. Petitioners' Proposed Changes to the Scope
B. Clarifying Language for Covered Kits and Subassemblies
C. Certain Special High Purity/High Accuracy OPC Tubes
D. Shower Doors
E. Finish Types
F. Wall Thicknesses of Various Sizes
G. Heat Sinks
H. Baluster Kits
I. Grading Rings
J. Aluminum Tubes and Fin Evaporator Coils
Comment 4: Affiliation and Collapsing
Comment 5: Application of Total AFA
Comment 6: Whether To Recalculate Billet Consumption Using Partial
AFA or Neutral Facts Available
Comment 7: Whether To Apply Partial AFA To New Zhongya's Constructed
Export Price Sales
II. Other Issues
Because the issues identified below have been rendered moot by
the Department's Application of Total AFA to the Guang Ya Group/New
Zhongya/Xinya Single Entity, we have not responded to these comments
for the final determination.
A. General Issues
[cir] Targeted Dumping
[cir] Financial Ratios
[cir] Surrogate Value for Aluminum Ingots
[cir] Surrogate Value for Coating Powders
[cir] Surrogate Value for Paints
[cir] Surrogate Values for New Factors of Production: Aluminum
Billets, Sodium Carbonate, Hydrochloric Acid, and Paints
[cir] Surrogate Values for Movement Expenses: Foreign Inland
Freight, Barge Freight, Foreign Brokerage and Handling, Ocean
Freight, U.S. Brokerage and Handling, and U.S. Inland Freight
B. The Guang Ya Group Issues
[cir] Whether To Apply Partial AFA to Channel One Sales
[cir] Whether To Recalculate Credit Expenses Using Partial AFA
[cir] Whether To Include Bad Debt in Indirect Selling Expenses
[cir] Treatment of Sample Sales
[cir] Whether To Deduct Discounts from U.S. Price
[cir] Whether To Use AFA to Value Alkali Etching
[cir] Surrogate Value for Steel Shelves
C. New Zhongya Issues
[cir] Whether To Use New Zhongya's Market Economy Price For
Aluminum Ingots
[cir] Whether To Recalculate Surrogate Value for Sodium
Hydroxide and Ammonium Bifluoride
[cir] Whether To Use AFA To Value Aluminum Sealant, Chromaking
Agent, Long Life Additive for Alkaline Etching, Deslagging Agent and
Refining Agent
[cir] Wood Packing Materials
[cir] Whether To Value Movement Expenses Using Surrogate Values
[cir] Whether To Deduct the Difference Between Freight Costs and
Freight Revenue
[cir] Whether To Treat Scrap Aluminum Ingot as a Direct Material
Rather Than a Scrap Offset
[cir] How To Account for the Full Weight of All Packaging
Materials
[cir] Whether To Value Wood Packing Materials Using AFA
[FR Doc. 2011-7927 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P