[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 220 (Thursday, November 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67124-67131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-26992]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-849]


Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is currently 
conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on cut-
to-length carbon steel plate (``CTL Steel Plate'') from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC'') covering the period November 1, 2006, 
through October 31, 2007. This new shipper review covers one producer/
exporter.
    We preliminarily determine that the new shipper has made sale(s) 
below normal value (``NV''), and the producer/exporter combination is 
entitled to a separate rate in this new shipper review. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this new 
shipper review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject 
merchandise during the period of review (``POR'') for which the 
importer specific assessment rates are above de minimis. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. We intend to 
issue the final results no later than 90 days from the date of 
publication of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Demitrios Kalogeropoulos, 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-
2623.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The antidumping duty order on CTL Steel Plate from the PRC was 
published on October 21, 2003. See Suspension Agreement on Certain Cut-
to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China; 
Termination of Suspension Agreement and Notice of Antidumping Duty 
Order, 68 FR 60081 (October 21, 2003).
    On November 30, 2007, we received a timely request for a new 
shipper review from Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. 
(``Valin Xiangtan'') in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d)(2). In its 
request, Valin Xiangtan certified that it produced and exported the CTL 
Steel Plate on which it based its request for a new shipper review. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Valin Xiangtan submitted 
documentation establishing the date on which the merchandise was first 
shipped for export to the United States, the volume of that first 
shipment, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in 
the United States.
    On December 27, 2007, the Department initially determined that 
Valin Xiangtan did not meet the requirements under which the Department 
can initiate a new shipper review. On January 7, 2008, upon further 
review of subsequent information submitted by the requester, the 
Department reconsidered its decision and initiated the new shipper 
review on January 17, 2008. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate From the People's Republic of China; Initiation of New Shipper 
Review, 73 FR 3236 (January 17, 2008). On January 14,

[[Page 67125]]

2008, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to Valin Xiangtan. 
We issued supplemental questionnaires to Valin Xiangtan in April, May, 
and September 2008. On April 18, 2008, the Department extended the POR 
by one month to enable the Department to capture the entries 
corresponding to the respondent's sales to the United States.

Period of Review

    The POR covers November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007.

Affiliation

    On March 25, 2008, Nucor Corporation (``Nucor'') submitted comments 
regarding Valin Xiangtan's eligibility for a new shipper review and 
separate rate status. Specifically, Nucor argued that the Department 
should rescind the new shipper review because Valin Xiangtan is 
affiliated with exporters that shipped to the United States during the 
original period of investigation (``POI''). Because one of Valin 
Xiangtan's corporate parents is wholly owned by the Hunan-Supervision 
and Administration Commission (``Hunan SASAC''), Nucor contends that 
the Hunan SASAC and Valin Xiangtan are affiliated by an excess of five 
percent ownership. Since the PRC-wide entity had shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POI, and because the Hunan SASAC, as an organ of 
the central-Supervision and Administration Commission (``central 
SASAC''), is the same as the PRC-wide entity, Nucor argued that Valin 
Xiangtan is affiliated with a producer/exporter that exported subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI.
    Nucor also argued that affiliation exists between Valin Xiangtan 
and two respondents in the original investigation (i.e., AISCO/Anshan 
International/Sincerely Asia Ltd. (collectively ``Anshan Steel'') and 
Bao/Baoshan International Trade Corp/Bao Steel Metals Trading Corp. 
(collectively ``Baoshan Steel'')). Nucor contends these two companies' 
financial statements demonstrate that they are directly owned by and 
under the control of the central SASAC. Therefore, Nucor argued, Valin 
Xiangtan, through the Hunan SASAC and the central SASAC, is affiliated 
with producers/exporters that exported subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POI.
    On October 21, 2008, in its pre-preliminary comments submission, 
Valin Xiangtan argued the Department has reviewed similar allegations 
in other proceedings and rejected them.\1\ Valin Xiangtan contended 
there is no rationale to justify the Department reversing its long-
standing practice of allowing new shippers that are state-owned to 
request and receive reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Citing previous cases such as Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination 
of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from 
the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006) 
(``Diamond Sawblades'') and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the preliminary results, in response to Nucor's claims that 
Valin Xiangtan is state-owned and therefore affiliated with Anshan 
Steel and Baoshan Steel, we note first that the Department has 
considered and granted NSR requests in the past where the requesting 
firm was state-owned (``owned by the whole people'').\2\ In this case, 
we determine that Valin Xiangtan is not affiliated with Anshan Steel 
and Baoshan Steel. In order to find these companies affiliated, section 
771(33)(F) of the Act requires more than some degree of commonality of 
state ownership interest between them. Rather, to make a finding of 
affiliation between two or more entities, section 771(33)(F) of the Act 
requires the Department to find ``common control.'' Otherwise, all 
state-owned companies would automatically be found affiliated. Further, 
consistent with long-standing policy and practice,\3\ we find that 
ownership by a government entity such as the Hunan SASAC or central 
SASAC, in and of itself, is not germane to Valin Xiangtan's eligibility 
for a new shipper review. In the instant case, as discussed in the 
``Separate Rates'' section below, there is no evidence that the Hunan 
SASAC or central SASAC exerted control over Valin Xiangtan's export 
activities. In other words, absent evidence of such de jure or de facto 
control, government ownership alone does not warrant denying Valin 
Xiangtan eligibility for a new shipper review. Indeed, the Department 
has in previous proceedings granted separate rates to companies that 
were wholly owned by government entities when evidence of actual 
government control over export activities was not present.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 3085 (January 21, 1998) (``Pure Magnesium'').
    \3\ See, e.g., Pure Magnesium and Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews, 66 FR 59569 
(November 29, 2001)
    \4\ Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR 29303 at Comment 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Collapsing of Affiliated Producers

    On May 23, 2008, Nucor submitted comments regarding Valin 
Xiangtan's affiliated producers. Nucor urged the Department to conduct 
a full collapsing analysis on all of the companies with a relationship 
to Valin Xiangtan or its owners in addition to all of the subsidiaries 
of each of these entities. Nucor argued that any steel producer with a 
rolling mill would be capable of producing subject merchandise with 
only minor retooling, thus satisfying the collapsing criteria under 19 
CFR 351.401(f)(1).
    For the preliminary results, we have determined not to collapse 
Valin Xiangtan with any of its affiliates. We have determined that 
based on record evidence of the four affiliates we identified as 
possible candidates for a collapsing analysis, two do not have any 
production capabilities at all, and the remaining two produce steel 
wire and steel rod, respectively.\5\ Further, we have determined that 
neither of the steel producing affiliates has a rolling mill,\6\ and it 
would be cost prohibitive (i.e., require substantial retooling) to 
build a rolling mill capable of producing subject merchandise. Thus the 
collapsing criteria under 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) are not satisfied. In 
determining whether there is a significant potential for manipulation, 
as contemplated by 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2), the Department considers the 
totality of the circumstances of the situation and may place more 
reliance on some factors than others. In the instant case, because 
Valin Xiangtan's affiliates do not produce subject merchandise and do 
not have the capability to produce subject merchandise without a 
substantial retooling, the totality of the circumstances here shows 
that there is not a significant potential for the manipulation of price 
or production. Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have not 
collapsed Valin Xiangtan with its affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the Department's Memorandum to the File entitled, ``Cut-
To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China: 
Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for 
Valin Xiangtan,'' dated concurrent with this notice (``Valin 
Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis Memorandum'').
    \6\ See Valin Xiangtan's second supplemental submission dated 
October 16, 2008, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order include hot-rolled carbon steel 
universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces 
or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not 
exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 
millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of 
rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether 
or not

[[Page 67126]]

painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic 
substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in 
straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, 
plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or 
coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters 
or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and 
measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item 
numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 
7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 
7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included in the order are 
flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-
section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products 
which have been ``worked after rolling'') for example, products which 
have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from the order is 
grade X-70 plate. Also excluded from the order is certain carbon cut-
to-length steel plate with a maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel grades 
BS 7191, 355 EM, and 355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy 
Project specification XB MOO Y 15 0001, types 1 and 2. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the scope is dispositive.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (``NME'') countries, 
the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within 
the country are subject to government control and thus should be 
assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy 
to assign all exporters of subject merchandise in an NME country this 
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently 
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can 
demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and 
de facto government control over export activities. The Department 
analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test 
arising from the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 
(May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in 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''). However, if the Department determines that a company is 
wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent 
from government control.

A. Separate-Rate Recipient

    Valin Xiangtan is a wholly Chinese-owned company.\7\ Therefore, the 
Department must analyze whether Valin Xiangtan can demonstrate the 
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over its export 
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Valin Xiangtan's business license in its Section A 
response, dated March 5, 2008, at Exhibit A-4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589 at Comment 1.
    In this case, Nucor, a domestic interested party, argued that Valin 
Xiangtan should not receive a separate rate because the State-owned 
entity (i.e., the central SASAC) exercised de jure control over Valin 
Xiangtan during the POR.\8\ Among other things, Nucor alleged that the 
existence of a SASAC demonstrates a recentralization of control over 
companies in which it maintains ownership, and that because of the 
nature of the central SASAC's authority Valin Xiangtan cannot establish 
the absence of de jure control. We solicited additional information 
from Valin Xiangtan regarding Nucor's allegations as they relate to the 
Department's criteria in determining whether there is de jure control 
by the PRC government over a company's export activities.\9\ In 
response, Valin Xiangtan submitted copies of relevant laws under which 
it operates including the Interim Measures for the Supervision and 
Administration of State-owned Assets of the Enterprises (``Interim 
Measures'') and the Company Law of the People's Republic of China 
(``Company Law''). After examining record evidence, we found no 
indication that these laws granted de jure government control.\10\ 
Moreover, review of Valin Xiangtan's business license indicates an 
absence of restrictive stipulations.\11\ Further, under Company Law, in 
addition to Valin Xiangtan's Articles of Association, indicates that 
control rests with the company's executive director and not the PRC 
government.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Nucor's March 25 and May 23, 2008, submissions regarding 
its comments on the section A and supplemental section A 
questionnaire responses of Valin Xiangtan.
    \9\ See, e.g., Valin Xiangtan's March 25, 2008, and October 18, 
2008, supplemental questionnaire responses.
    \10\ See Valin Xiangtan's March 25, 2008, submission.
    \11\ See Valin Xiangtan's March 5, 2008, submission at Exhibit 
4.1
    \12\ See Valin Xiangtan's April 25, 2008, supplemental 
submission at Exhibit A-23 Article 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence provided by Valin Xiangtan supports a preliminary 
finding of de jure absence of government control based on the 
following: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with 
the individual exporters' business and export licenses; (2) there are 
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., Valin Xiangtan's 
section A submissions dated March 5, 2008, and its supplemental 
questionnaire responses dated March 25, 2008, and October 18, 2008.

b. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of 
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates.

[[Page 67127]]

    In this case Nucor alleged that Valin Xiangtan should not receive a 
separate rate because there is indirect de facto control over Valin 
Xiangtan by the PRC government. See Nucor's March 25, 2008, submission 
regarding its comments on Valin Xiangtan eligibility for a new shipper 
review and separate rate status; and Nucor's May 27, 2008, submission 
regarding Valin Xiangtan's supplemental section A Questionnaire 
Response. Among other things, Nucor alleged that the authorities of the 
central SASAC as outlined in the Interim Measures demonstrate control 
over the companies in which the central SASAC invests. We solicited 
additional information from Valin Xiangtan regarding Nucor's 
allegations as they relate to the Department's criteria in determining 
whether there is de facto control by the PRC government over a 
company's export activities.\13\ In its responses, Valin Xiangtan 
reported that it sets its own export prices and has the authority to 
sign and negotiate its sales contracts without review or guidance from 
any governmental organization (e.g., the sales contract and 
correspondence between it and its U.S. customer). See Valin Xiangtan's 
section A supplemental submission dated April 28, 2008, at Exhibits A-
24 and A-25. Valin Xiangtan further submitted evidence indicating 
autonomy in the process by which its managers and directors were 
elected to their positions (e.g., Valin Xiangtan's Articles of 
Association) See Valin Xiangtan's section A supplemental submission 
dated April 28, 2008, at Exhibit A-33. The mere fact that the Hunan 
SASAC has shareholder ownership in companies that have shareholder 
ownership in Valin Xiangtan does not in itself demonstrate that Valin 
Xiangtan is controlled by the PRC central government.\14\ Indeed, the 
Department has in the past granted separate rates to companies that 
were wholly owned by government entities when evidence of actual 
government control was not present.\15\ In this case, we have found no 
record evidence indicating that the Hunan SASAC exercised control over 
Valin Xiangtan's export activities or the disposition of its profits 
during the POR.\16\ Therefore, we have determined that the roles and 
duties undertaken by the Hunan SASAC do not confer de facto government 
control over the day-to-day activities and decisions regarding Valin 
Xiangtan's export activities. Furthermore, Valin Xiangtan has supported 
its claim that it negotiates its own contracts and does not need 
approval from any government authority before making a sale (i.e., the 
sales contract and correspondence between Valin Xiangtan and its U.S. 
customer).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Valin Xiangtan's section A submission dated 
March 5, 2008, and its supplemental questionnaire responses dated 
March 25, 2008, and October 18, 2008.
    \14\ See, e.g., Lightweight Thermal Paper From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 73 FR 57329 (October 2, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
    \15\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.
    \16\ See, e.g., Valin Xiangtan's section A response dated March 
5, 2008 at pages 14 through 16.
    \17\ See Valin Xiangtan's section A supplemental submission 
dated April 28, 2008 at Exhibits A-24 and A-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence placed on the record of this new shipper review by 
Valin Xiangtan demonstrate an absence of de jure and de facto 
government control with respect to its exports of the merchandise under 
review, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and 
Silicon Carbide. Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily 
determined that Valin Xiangtan is eligible for a separate rate because 
it has demonstrated an absence of government control both in law and in 
fact.

Bona Fide Sales Analysis

    In evaluating whether or not sales are commercially reasonable, and 
therefore bona fide, the Department has considered, inter alia, such 
factors as: (1) the timing of the sale; (2) the price and quantity of 
the sale; (3) the expenses arising from the transaction; (4) whether 
the goods were resold at a profit; and (5) whether the transaction was 
made on an arm's-length basis. See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical 
Co., Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (CIT 2005) (``TTPC'') 
at 1249-1250, citing Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 
2d 992, 995 (CIT 2000). Therefore, the Department examines a number of 
factors, all of which may speak to the commercial realities surrounding 
the sale of subject merchandise. While some bona fides issues may share 
commonalities across various cases, each case is company-specific and 
the analysis may vary with the facts surrounding each sale. See, e.g., 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 2003). The weight given to 
each factor investigated will depend on the circumstances surrounding 
the sale. See TTPC, 366 F. Supp at 1263.
    For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Valin 
Xiangtan's reported U.S. sales during the POR appear to be bona fide 
sales, as required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c), based on the 
totality of the facts on the record. Specifically, we find that the 
unit prices for Valin Xiangtan's sales were comparable to the unit 
values of other U.S. imports of CTL Steel Plate from the PRC during the 
POR. Further we find that the quantity of Valin Xiangtan's sales is 
commercially reasonable.\18\ Furthermore, we found no unusual 
circumstances surrounding the sales (e.g., no unusual freight terms). 
Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the Department 
preliminarily finds that Valin Xiangtan's U.S. sale during the POR is a 
bona fide commercial transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For further information, see the Department's memorandum 
entitled ``2006-2007 New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on CTL Steel from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide 
Analysis of Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron Sec.  Steel Company Ltd.,'' 
dated concurrent with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market Economy Country

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. In the investigation of certain 
lined paper products from the PRC, the Department examined the PRC's 
market status and determined that NME status should continue for the 
PRC.\19\ In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''), any determination that a foreign 
country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from 
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006). The 
presumption of the NME status of the PRC has not been revoked by the 
Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of this new 
shipper review. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with 
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``Antidumping 
Duty Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's 
Republic of China (``China'') China's status as a non-market economy 
(``NME''),'' dated August 30, 2006. This document is available 
online at: http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nmestatus/ prc-lined-
paper-memo-08302006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on 
the NME producer's factors of production

[[Page 67128]]

(``FOPs''), valued in a surrogate market economy (``ME'') country or 
countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance 
with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department 
shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs in 
one or more ME countries that are: (1) at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant 
producers of comparable merchandise. For a detailed discussion of the 
surrogate values (``SVs'') used in this proceeding, see the ``Factor 
Valuations'' section below and the Department's memorandum to the file 
entitled, ``New Shipper Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from the People's Republic of China: Factor Valuations for the 
Preliminary Determination,'' dated concurrently with this notice 
(``Factor Valuation Memorandum'').
    On January 14, 2008, the Department determined that India, 
Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Colombia are countries 
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.\20\ On January 
16, 2008, the Department requested comments on the selection of a 
surrogate country from the interested parties in this new shipper 
review. Valin Xiangtan submitted comments on February 6, 2008, 
providing information regarding CTL Steel Plate production in 
Indonesia, Thailand and India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See the Department's Office of Policy memorandum entitled, 
``New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-
To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,'' dated January 
14, 2008 (``Policy Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country from the 
Policy Memorandum based on the availability and reliability of data 
from the countries that are significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. In this case, we found that India is at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of the PRC; is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise (i.e., CTL Steel Plate); and has 
publicly available and reliable data.\21\ Accordingly, we selected 
India as the primary surrogate country for purposes of valuing the FOPs 
in the calculation of NV because it meets the Department's criteria for 
surrogate country selection.\22\ We obtained and relied upon publicly 
available information wherever possible. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping new shipper 
review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to 
value FOPs under 19 CFR 351.408(c) within 20 days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``New Shipper 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order of Cut-To-Length Steel Plate 
from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate 
Country,'' dated February 11, 2008 (``Surrogate Country 
Memorandum'').
    \22\ See Surrogate Country Memorandum.
    \23\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2), for the final 
results of this review, interested parties may submit factual 
information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information 
submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or 
after, the applicable deadline for submission of such factual 
information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2) 
permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or 
corrects information recently placed on the record. The Department 
generally cannot accept the submission of additional information 
previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value 
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2). See Glycine from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Valin 
Xiangtan to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared 
its export prices to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below.

Export Price

    We used export price (``EP'') methodology in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act because the subject merchandise was first 
sold prior to importation by the exporter outside the United States 
directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and 
constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
    We calculated EP based on the packed delivery duty paid ex-docks 
delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, 
the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement 
expenses (e.g., foreign inland rail and barge freight from the plant to 
the port of exportation, domestic brokerage, marine insurance, U.S. 
Customs duty, U.S. brokerage and handling charges, other U.S. 
transportation expense, international freight expense, etc.) in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act,\24\ Where foreign 
inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling fees and foreign marine 
insurance were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in 
renminbi, we based those charges on surrogate value rates from India. 
See ``Factor Valuations'' section below for further discussion of 
surrogate value rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\F or a detailed description of all adjustments, see Valin 
Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining the most appropriate SVs to use in a given case, the 
Department's stated practice is to use period-wide price averages, 
prices specific to the input in question, prices that are net of taxes 
and import duties, prices that are contemporaneous with the POR, and 
publicly available data.\25\ The data we used for brokerage and 
handling expenses fulfill all of the foregoing criteria except that 
they are not specific to the subject merchandise. There is no 
information of that type on the record of this new shipper review. The 
Department used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for domestic 
brokerage expenses: (1) data from the January 9, 2006, public version 
of the Section C questionnaire response from Kejriwal Paper Ltd. 
(``Kejriwal'') in the investigation of certain lined paper products 
from India;\26\ and (2) data from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. in the 
administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India.\27\ 
Because these values were not concurrent with the POR of this new 
shipper review, we adjusted these rates for inflation using the 
Wholesale Price Indices (``WPI'') for India as published in the 
International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics, 
available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf, and then calculated a simple 
average of the two companies' brokerage expense data.\28\ See Factor 
Valuation Memorandum at Attachment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., 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 1.
    \26\Kejriwal was a respondent in the certain lined paper 
products from India investigation for which the period of 
investigation was July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005. See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper 
Products From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006) (``CLPP'') 
(unchanged in final determination).
    \27\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 
2005) (unchanged in final results).
    \28\ See, e.g., Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 52073, 52076 (September 12, 2007) 
(unchanged in final results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported 
from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV 
using home-market

[[Page 67129]]

prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) 
of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOPs because the presence of 
government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders price 
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its 
normal methodologies. The Department's questionnaire requires that the 
respondent provide information regarding the weighted-average FOPs 
across all of the company's plants that produce the subject 
merchandise, not just the FOPs from a single plant. This methodology 
ensures that the Department's calculations are as accurate as 
possible.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe 
Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 
28, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the PRC FOPs in 
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. The FOPs include: (1) 
hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) 
amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative 
capital costs. We used the FOPs reported by Valin Xiangtan for 
materials, energy, and labor. See section 773(c)(3) of the Act.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly available information to find appropriate SVs to 
value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market economy 
and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department will 
normally value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. 
See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal Products, Inc. v. United 
States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In examining SVs, we 
selected, where possible, the publicly available value, which was an 
average non-export value, representative of a range of prices within 
the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and 
tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 
75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004) (unchanged in final determination). 
For a detailed explanation of the methodology used to calculate SVs, 
see Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    Valin Xiangtan reported that during the production process of CTL 
Steel Plate, it generated certain by-products that were recycled and 
resold during the POR.\30\ However, Valin Xiangtan failed to provide 
the requested documentation for each sale of its by-products and each 
transaction of recycled by-product.\31\ Nor did Valin Xiangtan provide 
an explanation as to why it did not provide the requested 
documentation.\32\ In the original and supplemental questionnaires, we 
instructed Valin Xiangtan to provide evidence for the full amount of 
by-products that were sold or returned to production. Valin Xiangtan 
provided incomplete documentation that amounted to a non-response to 
this request. For example, Valin Xiangtan provided one by-product sales 
invoice for each type of by-product sold, which did not reconcile to 
its reported by-product sales.\33\ Further, Valin Xiangtan provided 
inadequately translated screen prints from its internal accounting 
system for some recycled by-products.\34\ These screen prints were also 
not reconciled to Valin Xiangtan's reported recycled product. The 
amount of products reused or sold during the POR is an integral part of 
the factor calculation for by-products.\35\ See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Urea Ammonium Nitrate 
Solutions from Belarus, 68 FR 9055 (February 27, 2003), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3 (``The 
Department allows such credits, but only for the amount of the by-
product/recovery actually sold or reused.''); Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the 
People's Republic of China, 68 FR 27530 (May 20, 2003), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; and Saccharin 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 7515 
(February 13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 2. Because Valin Xiangtan has not provided the Department with 
the requested information in order to determine whether Valin Xiangtan 
is entitled to its claimed offsets, for the preliminary results, we 
have determined to not grant any of Valin Xiangtan's claimed offsets. 
For further details, see Valin Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Valin Xiantan's March 14, 2008, section D submission at 
17 and Exhibit D-6
    \31\ See Valin Xiantan's section D submission at 17 and Exhibit 
D-6; and its supplemental section D response at 6 through 7 and 
Exhibits D-15, D-16, and D-19 through D-25, dated March 14 and May 
28, 2008, respectively.
    \32\ See id.
    \33\ See Valin Xiantan's supplemental section D response at 6 
through 7 and Exhibit D-20 dated May 28, 2008.
    \34\ See Valin Xiantan's supplemental section D response at 6 
through 7 and Exhibits D-23 and D-24 dated May 28, 2008.
    \35\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on the FOPs reported by Valin Xiangtan for the POR. To calculate 
NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by 
publicly available Indian SVs. In selecting the SVs, we considered the 
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.\36\ As 
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to 
make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import SVs 
a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance 
from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the 
nearest seaport to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment is 
in accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 
(Fed. Cir. 1997). In those instances where we could not obtain publicly 
available information contemporaneous with the POI with which to value 
FOPs, we adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian WPI, as 
published in the International Financial Statistics of the 
International Monetary Fund. For a detailed description of all SVs used 
for respondent, see the Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 (December 11, 2006), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using 
November 2006 through October 2007, weighted-average unit import values 
derived from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, as 
published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and 
Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of 
India and compiled by the World Trade Atlas (``WTA''), available at 
http:www.gtis.com/wta.htm. The Indian WTA import data is reported in 
rupees and is contemporaneous with the POR.\37\ Indian SVs denominated 
in Indian rupees were converted to U.S. dollars using the applicable 
daily exchange rate for India for the POR. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum at Attachments 1 and 3.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 67130]]

    Valin Xiangtan reported that certain of its reported raw material 
inputs were sourced from an ME country and paid for in ME currencies. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent sources inputs from 
an ME supplier in meaningful quantities (i.e., not insignificant 
quantities), we use the actual price paid by respondent for those 
inputs, except when prices may have been distorted by findings of 
dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.\38\ Valin Xiangtan's reported 
information demonstrates that it has both significant and insignificant 
quantities of certain raw materials purchased from ME suppliers. Where 
we found ME purchases to be of significant quantities, in accordance 
with our statement of policy as outlined in Antidumping Methodologies: 
Market Economy Inputs,\39\ we used the actual purchases of these inputs 
to value the inputs. Accordingly, we valued Valin Xiangtan's inputs 
using the ME prices paid for in ME currencies for the inputs where the 
total volume of the input purchased from all ME sources during the POR 
exceeds or is equal to 33 percent of the total volume of the input 
purchased from all sources during the period.\40\ Where the quantity of 
the reported input purchased from ME suppliers was below 33 percent of 
the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the 
POI, and were otherwise valid, we weight averaged the ME input's 
purchase price with the appropriate surrogate value for the input 
according to their respective shares of the reported total volume of 
purchases.\41\ Where appropriate, we added freight to the ME prices of 
inputs. For a detailed description of the actual values used for the ME 
inputs reported, see Valin Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997).
    \39\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping 
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs'').
    \40\ See Valin Xiangtan's May 28, 2008, supplemental D 
submission at Exhibit D-8.
    \41\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 71 FR 
at 61718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where we could not obtain publicly available information 
contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted 
the SVs for inflation using the WPI for India. See Factor Valuation 
Memorandum.
    Furthermore, with regard to the WTA Indian import-based SVs, we 
have disregarded prices from NME countries\42\ and those we have reason 
to believe or suspect may be subsidized, because we have found in other 
proceedings that the exporting countries maintain broadly available, 
non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, there is reason 
to believe or suspect all exports to all markets from such countries 
may be subsidized.\43\ We are also guided by the statute's legislative 
history that explains that it is not necessary to conduct a formal 
investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. 
Rep. No. 576 100th Cong., 2. Sess. 590-91 (1988). Rather, the 
Department was instructed by Congress to base its decision on 
information that is available to it at the time it is making its 
determination. Therefore, we excludes export prices from Indonesia, 
South Korea, Thailand, and India when calculating the Indian import-
based SVs. See Factor Valuation Memorandum. Finally, we excluded 
imports that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' 
country from the average value, because we could not be certain that 
they were not from either an NME or a country with general export 
subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The NME countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, 
Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, PRC, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, 
Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.
    \43\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
the 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, 
and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 
10, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and 
Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; 
andChina National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 293 
F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1339 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal 
Circuit, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We used Indian transport information to value the inland truck, 
rail, and waterway freight cost of the raw materials. The Department 
determined the best available information for valuing truck freight to 
be from the following website: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this source contains inland 
truck freight rates from four major points of origin to 25 destinations 
in India. The Department obtained inland truck freight rates updated 
through September 2008 from each point of origin to each destination 
and averaged the data accordingly. Since this value is not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we deflated the rate using the WPI. See 
Factor Valuation Memorandum. The Department determined the best 
available information for valuing rail freight to be from http://www.indianrailways.gov.in. To value waterway freight, we used an Indian 
domestic ship rate from Indian Waterways Authority. For data that were 
not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the rates for inflation 
using WPI, where applicable.
    We valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and large 
industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the 
Government of India in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty 
and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated July 2006. 
These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly 
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to 
industries in India. Since the rates are not contemporaneous with the 
POR, we inflated the values using the WPI. See Factor Valuation 
Memorandum.
    The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra 
Industrial Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) because it 
includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 
386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 
2003: 193 for the ``inside industrial areas'' usage category and 193 
for the ``outside industrial areas'' usage category. Because the value 
was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the rate for 
inflation. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    For direct and indirect labor, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported 
on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries, revised in May 2008, available at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. Because this regression-based wage rate does not 
separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, 
we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of 
labor reported by the respondent. For further details on the labor 
calculation, see Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    Interested parties submitted financial statements for the year 
ending March 31, 2007, of three Indian producers of identical 
merchandise: Essar Steel Limited (``Essar''), Steel Authority of India 
Limited (``SAIL''), and TATA Steel Limited (``TATA'').\44\ Because 
neither SAIL's nor TATA's financial statements were complete, the 
Department has determined to disregard each statement

[[Page 67131]]

in calculating surrogate financial ratios, for the preliminary 
results.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Valin Xiangtan's and IPSCO's surrogate value 
submissions dated March 14, 2008.
    \45\ See IPSCO's surrogate value submission dated March 14, 
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the preliminary results, we have determined to use Essar's year 
ending March 31, 2007, financial statements to calculate surrogate 
financial ratios because they appear to be complete, are publicly 
available, and are contemporaneous with the POR. Therefore, for factory 
overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, 
consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), we used the public information 
from Essar's year ending March 31, 2007, financial statements. For a 
full discussion of the calculation of these ratios, see Factor 
Valuation Memorandum.
    Finally, Valin Xiantan did not provide a full description of 
certain of its FOPs to the Department nor has it provided 
recommendations for valuing certain FOPs. For the preliminary results, 
the Department is using SVs either recommended by the parties or found 
in its own research to value FOPs in its margin calculation. For 
further details regarding each FOP, see Factor Valuation Memorandum and 
Valin Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
    For the final results, the Department is providing Valin Xiangtan 
an opportunity to provide a full description as requested by the 
Department in the original questionnaire issued on January 14, 2008, 
and recommendations for valuing these FOPs. A full description of 
certain FOPs, including all support documentation is hereby due to the 
Department no later than 14 days after its receipt of our supplemental 
questionnaire, which we intend to issue shortly to Valin Xiangtan.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 
See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    We preliminarily find the weighted-average dumping margin for Valin 
Xiangtan for the period November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007, to 
be 133.38 percent.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue 
appropriate appraisement instructions for the company subject to this 
new shipper review directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the 
final results of this new shipper review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer- specific ad valorem duty 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping 
margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries covered by this new shipper review if any 
importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of 
this new shipper review is above de minimis.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Upon completion of this new shipper review, we will require cash 
deposits at the rate established in the final results as further 
described below. Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill 
security requirements for shipments of CTL Steel Plate from the PRC 
produced and exported by Valin Xiantan that are entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of the new shipper review. The following cash deposit 
requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of 
this new shipper review for shipments of subject merchandise from Valin 
Xiangtan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 
Act: (1) Subject merchandise produced and exported by Valin Xiangtan, 
the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of 
this review; (2) subject merchandise exported by Valin Xiangtan but not 
produced by Valin Xiangtan, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the PRC-wide rate of 128.59 percent; (3) for subject merchandise 
produced by Valin Xiangtan, and exported by any party but themselves, 
the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter.
    These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 
751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.

    Dated: November 6, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-26992 Filed 11-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S