[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20317-20318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8742]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-900]
Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of
China: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 9, 2011, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
issued its preliminary intent to rescind the new shipper review
(``NSR'') of Pujiang Talent Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. (``PTDT'').\1\ We
gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary
Intent to Rescind and, based upon our analysis of the comments and
rebuttal comments received, we continue to determine that PTDT has
failed to meet the minimum requirements for entitlement to an NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Memorandum to the File, from James C. Doyle, Office
Director, through Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Preliminary
Intent to Rescind the New Shipper Review of Pujiang Talent Diamond
Tools Co., Ltd., dated March 9, 2011 (``Preliminary Intent to
Rescind'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: April 12, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Ray, 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) 482-5403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The Department received a timely request from PTDT, in what at the
time appeared to be in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for an NSR of
the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof from
the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). On June 28, 2010, the
Department published the initiation of the NSR with a January 23, 2009,
through April 30, 2010 period of review (``POR'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 75 FR 36632 (June 28, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 9, 2011, the Department issued its preliminary intent to
rescind this NSR based on the sale of subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR that had been produced by a company that had
exported subject merchandise to the United States during the period of
investigation (``POI''). See Preliminary Intent to Rescind.
On March 16, 2011, the Department received affirmative comments
from PTDT, requesting that the Department not terminate the NSR. The
Department received rebuttal comments from Petitioners, the Diamond
Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition, on March 23, 2011, requesting that
the Department terminate the NSR.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are all finished circular
sawblades, whether slotted or not, with a working part that is
comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and parts thereof,
regardless of specification or size, except as specifically excluded
below. Within the scope of the order are semifinished diamond
sawblades, including diamond sawblade cores and diamond sawblade
segments. Diamond sawblade cores are circular steel plates, whether or
not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. Diamond sawblade cores
are manufactured principally, but not exclusively, from alloy steel. A
diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of diamonds (whether
natural or synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and
metal powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel,
tungsten carbide) that are formed together into a solid shape (from
generally, but not limited to, a heating and pressing process).
Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin
or electroplated bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond segment,
are not included within the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/
or sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 inches, or with a
thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope of the
order. Circular steel plates that have a cutting edge of non-diamond
material, such as external teeth that protrude from the outer diameter
of the plate, whether or not finished, are excluded from the scope of
the order. Diamond sawblade cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less
than 25 are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades
and/or diamond segment(s) with diamonds that predominantly have a mesh
size number greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are excluded from the
scope of the order. Merchandise subject to the order is typically
imported under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (``HTSUS'''). When packaged together as a set for
retail sale with an item that is separately classified under headings
8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be
imported under heading 8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. The tariff
classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes;
however, the written description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
Summary of Comments Received \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Certain business proprietary information (``BPI'') regarding
the rescission of this NSR has been addressed in a public manner in
this notice. For an explanation of the BPI relied upon, see
Memorandum to the File, from Alan Ray, Case Analyst, Diamond
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: BPI
Referenced in Final Rescission, dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 16, 2011, PTDT submitted comments regarding the
Department's Preliminary Intent to Rescind. PTDT raised four main
arguments. First, the purpose of the NSR is to determine if PTDT was
dumping subject merchandise and then to calculate its antidumping duty
margin. To rescind the NSR based on an isolated incident, representing
such a low volume, places too much weight on the insignificant incident
at issue. To rescind the review would now be a significant waste of
already spent time and resources. Second, PTDT exported subject
merchandise produced by another company to fill a customer's order, not
in an effort to assist that company in circumventing payment of
antidumping duties. Third, the Department should exercise its
discretion and overlook this technical violation by applying the same
kind of logic it employs when it extends the POR of an NSR so as to
capture non-entered sales, or the same logic employed in the
application of the de minimis provision for antidumping duty margins of
less than 0.5 percent. Finally, PTDT argues that if the Department
determines that rescission is appropriate, it should instead consider
[[Page 20318]]
conducting this NSR concurrently with the first administrative review.
On March 23, 2011, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments.\4\ With
respect to PTDT's argument that the rescission would render significant
time and effort a nullity, Petitioners note that this NSR was
undertaken at PTDT's request and certification. PTDT's certification at
the time of the request for the NSR did not state that PTDT had
exported a low volume of subject merchandise produced by a company that
exported during the POI. With respect to PTDT's argument that the
Department should exercise its discretion and overlook this technical
violation, Petitioners note that 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii) requires in
cases where an exporter is not the producer of all merchandise it ships
to the United States, a secondary certification that the supplier did
not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POI.
Petitioners further note that as the Department already stated, the
regulations do not require the consideration of relative volumes
sourced from a company that exported to the United States during the
POI, with respect to the secondary certification requirement.
Therefore, Petitioners argue, PTDT is not entitled to an NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We note that the deadline for submitting rebuttal comments
was March 21, 2011. However, according to Petitioners, although PTDT
certified as to service, Petitioners still had not received a
service copy of PTDT's submission as of March 23, 2011. Therefore,
we find good cause under 19 CFR 351.302(b) to extend the time limit
to submit rebuttal comments and, accordingly, accept Petitioners'
submission. Moreover, because PTDT certified that it served
Petitioners with its submission and subsequently submitted a letter
confirming service, we have not rejected PTDT's submission, as
requested by Petitioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rescission of Review
As stated in the Preliminary Intent to Rescind, the Department has
determined that PTDT does not meet the minimum requirements for
establishing its qualification for an NSR under 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B) because PTDT sold and exported subject merchandise
to the United States during the POR that had been produced by a company
that had exported to the United States during the POI. Because PTDT
could not produce a certification that none of the merchandise it
exported during the POR had been produced by a company that had
exported during the POI, PTDT does not meet the minimum requirements
for establishing qualification for an NSR. Furthermore, we note that
the regulations provide a basis for extending the POR of NSRs \5\ and
applying the de minimis provision for margins of less than 0.5
percent,\6\ but there is no basis for overlooking the requirements set
forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B). Accordingly, we are rescinding
this NSR. As the Department is rescinding this NSR, we are not
calculating a company-specific rate for PTDT, and PTDT will remain part
of the PRC-wide entity subject to the PRC-wide rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii).
\6\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of this final rescission of this NSR for all shipments of
subject merchandise by PTDT, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act''): (1) For
subject merchandise produced and exported by PTDT, as part of the PRC-
wide entity the cash deposit rate will be 164.09 percent; (2) for
subject merchandise exported by PTDT, but not manufactured by PTDT, as
part of the PRC-wide entity the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the PRC-wide rate of 164.09 percent; and (3) for subject merchandise
manufactured by PTDT, but exported by any party other than PTDT, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter. These
cash deposit requirements will remain in effect until further notice.
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 determination in accordance with
sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and
351.221(b)(5).
Dated: April 6, 2011.
Gary Taverman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-8742 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P