[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 93 (Friday, May 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27308-27312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11603]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-914]


Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to a timely request from one importer, FitMAX Inc. 
(``FitMAX''), the Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') is 
conducting the 2008-2009 administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (``LWR'') from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC''). We have preliminarily determined 
that sales have been made below normal value (``NV'') by the exporter 
participating in the instant administrative review. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 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 rate is 
above de minimis.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: May 14, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Blackledge or Howard Smith, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3518 and (202) 482-5193, respectively.

Background

    On June 24, 2008, the Department published its final determination 
of sales at less-than-fair-value in the antidumping duty investigation 
of LWR from the PRC. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: 
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of 
China, 73 FR 35652 (June 24, 2008). On August 5, 2008, the Department 
published its antidumping duty order on LWR from the PRC. See Light-
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico, the People's Republic of 
China, and the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty Orders; Light-Walled 
Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Amended 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 45403 
(August 5, 2008). On August 3, 2009, the Department published a notice 
of opportunity to request an administrative review of the above-
referenced order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 38397 (August 3, 2009). Based on a timely 
request from FitMAX for an administrative review, the Department 
initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on LWR 
from the PRC with respect to the Sun Group Inc. (the ``Sun Group''), a 
producer/exporter of subject merchandise imported by FitMAX. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 48224 (September 22, 
2009) (``Initiation Notice'').
    On September 25, 2009, the Department issued an antidumping duty 
questionnaire to the Sun Group. The Sun Group submitted responses to 
the Department's questionnaire from October through December 2009. We

[[Page 27309]]

issued supplemental questionnaires to, and received responses from, the 
Sun Group from November 2009 through April 2010. Petitioners \1\ 
submitted comments to the Department regarding the questionnaire and 
supplemental questionnaire responses of the Sun Group in November 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioners are Atlas Tube, Bull Moose Tube Company and 
Searing Industries, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 13, 2010, the Department provided parties with an 
opportunity to submit publicly available information on surrogate 
countries and values for consideration in these preliminary results. On 
January 26, 2010, Petitioners submitted comments on surrogate country 
selection, and on March 22, 2010, and April 5, 2010, Petitioners 
submitted comments on surrogate values. The Sun Group submitted 
comments on surrogate values on March 19, 2010, and April 12, 2010.

Period of Review

    The POR is January 20, 2008, through July 31, 2009.

Scope of Order

    The merchandise that is the subject of the order is certain welded 
carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular 
(including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 
4 mm.
    The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy 
steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. 
Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none 
of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight 
respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of 
silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 
1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of 
lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 
percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent 
vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-
quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the 
scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to 
the order is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (``HTSUS'') subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 
7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.

Non-Market-Economy (``NME'') Treatment

    The Department considers the PRC to be an NME country. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the ``Act''), any determination that a country is an NME 
country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering 
authority. See also Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet 
Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 
2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 
FR 60632 (October 25, 2007). The Department has not revoked the PRC's 
status as an NME country. None of the parties to this proceeding has 
contested such treatment. Therefore, in these preliminary results of 
review, we have treated the PRC as an NME country and applied our 
current NME methodology in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

Separate Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the 
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate-rate status in NME investigations. See Initiation Notice, 74 
FR at 48224. The process requires exporters and producers to submit a 
separate-rate status application. See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-
Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping 
Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005) 
(``Policy Bulletin 05.1'') available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.\2\ 
However, the standard for eligibility for a separate rate (which is 
whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over its export activities) has not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Policy Bulletin 05.1 states: ``[w]hile continuing the 
practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate 
rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations 
will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter 
during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is 
calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied 
subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This 
practice applied both to mandatory respondents receiving an 
individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-
investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the 
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the 
application of `combination rates' because such rates apply to 
specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The 
cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to 
merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a 
firm that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation.'' See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis in 
original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proceedings involving 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 merchandise subject to investigation 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 governmental control over export activities. The 
Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under 
a test set out in 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'').

A. Separate Rate Applicant

1. Wholly Chinese-Owned
    The Sun Group stated that it is a wholly Chinese-owned company. 
Therefore, the Department must analyze whether this respondent can 
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental 
control over export activities.
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.
    The evidence provided by the Sun Group supports a preliminary 
finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on the 
following: (1) There is an absence of restrictive stipulations 
associated with the exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there 
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
company; and (3) there are formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of the company. See the Sun Group's Section A 
Response, dated October 27, 2009 (``SAR''), at 2-8.

[[Page 27310]]

b. Absence of De Facto Control
    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental 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 governmental control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates.
    We determine that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary 
finding of de facto absence of governmental control with respect to the 
Sun Group based on record statements and supporting documentation 
showing that the company: (1) Sets its own export prices independent of 
the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) 
has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; 
(3) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of 
management; and (4) retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of 
losses. See SAR at 8-10.
    The evidence placed on the record of this administrative review by 
the Sun Group demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto 
government control with respect to the exporters' exports of the 
merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we have preliminarily granted 
the Sun Group separate rate status.

Selection of a Surrogate Country

    In antidumping proceedings involving NME countries, the Department, 
pursuant to section 773(c)(1) of the Act, will generally base NV on the 
value of the NME producer's factors of production (``FOP''). In 
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the 
Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs 
of FOPs in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are 
significant producers of merchandise comparable to the subject 
merchandise.
    In the instant review, the Department has determined that India, 
the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru are countries 
that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the 
PRC. See Letter to All Interested Parties, from Howard Smith, Re: 2008-
2009 Administrative Review of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube 
from the People's Republic of China (PRC), dated January 13, 2010. 
Based on evidence placed on the record, we have determined that it is 
appropriate to use India as a surrogate country pursuant to section 
773(c)(4) of the Act based on the following: (1) It is at a level of 
economic development comparable to the PRC pursuant to section 
773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use 
to value the FOPs. See Petitioners' January 26, 2010, surrogate country 
comments; see also the Sun Group's March 19, 2010, and Petitioners' 
March 22, 2010, and April 5, 2010, surrogate value comments. Thus, to 
calculate NV, we are using Indian prices, when available and 
appropriate, to value the FOPs of the Sun Group, the mandatory 
respondent. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available 
information wherever possible. See ``Memorandum To The File, from 
Melissa Blackledge, Re: Administrative Review of Light-Walled 
Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China: 
Surrogate Values,'' dated May 10, 2010 (``Surrogate Values Memo'').

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether the Sun Group's sales of subject merchandise 
to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared the 
constructed export price (``CEP'') of the sales to NV, as described in 
the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice.

United States Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price for the Sun Group's sale on CEP because this sale was made by its 
U.S. affiliate, which purchased subject merchandise, produced and sold 
by the Sun Group through one affiliate, FitMAX. In accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CEP by deducting, where 
applicable, the following expenses from the gross unit price charged to 
the first unaffiliated customer in the United States: Foreign inland 
freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, U.S. 
brokerage and handling, and U.S. inland freight. Further, in accordance 
with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), where 
appropriate, we deducted from the starting price the following selling 
expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United 
States: Indirect selling expenses, credit, and inventory carrying 
costs. Because the Sun Group and FitMAX did not incur short-term U.S. 
dollar borrowings during the POR, we based their interest rate on the 
Federal Funds Interest Rate for the calculation of their U.S. credit 
expenses and inventory carrying costs incurred in the United States. As 
explained in Policy Bulletin 98.2, Imputed Credit Expenses and Interest 
Rates, February 23, 1998, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov, if a 
respondent had no short-term debt in U.S. dollars during the POR, it is 
the Department's practice to ``use the Federal Reserve's weighted-
average data for commercial and industrial loans maturing between one 
month and one year from the time the loan is made'' in order to 
calculate the U.S. short-term interest percentage rate. See, e.g., 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia, 71 FR 7016 (February 10, 
2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. In 
addition, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an 
adjustment to the starting price for CEP profit. We based movement 
expenses on either surrogate values where the service was purchased 
from a PRC provider, and actual expenses where service was purchased 
from a market-economy provider in a market-economy currency. For 
details regarding our CEP calculations, and for a complete discussion 
of the calculation of the U.S. price for the Sun Group, see 
``Memorandum To The File, From Melissa Blackledge, Light-Walled 
Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China--
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for the Sun Group Co., Ltd.,'' dated 
May 10, 2010, at 5 (``Analysis Memo'').

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from 
an NME

[[Page 27311]]

country and the available information does not permit the calculation 
of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed 
value under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining NV in an NME 
context, the Department uses an FOP methodology 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. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744, 39754 (July 11, 
2005), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 
and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
2003-2004 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 71 FR 
2517, 2521 (January 17, 2006). Thus, we calculated NV by adding 
together the value of the FOPs, general expenses, profit, and packing 
costs.\3\ Specifically, we valued material, labor, energy, and packing 
by multiplying the amount of the factor consumed in producing subject 
merchandise by the average unit surrogate value of the factor. In 
addition, we added freight costs to the surrogate costs that we 
calculated for material inputs. We calculated freight costs by 
multiplying surrogate freight rates by the shorter of the reported 
distance from the domestic supplier to the factory that produced the 
subject merchandise or the distance from the nearest seaport to the 
factory that produced the subject merchandise, as appropriate. This 
adjustment is in accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 
1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We increased the calculated costs of 
the FOPs for surrogate general expenses and profit. See Analysis Memo 
at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We based the values of the FOPs on surrogate values (see 
``Selected Surrogate Values'' section below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selected Surrogate Values

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by the respondent for the POR. To calculate 
NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by 
publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below).
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered 
prices. We added to each Indian import surrogate value, a surrogate 
freight cost calculated from 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. See Sigma Corp.
    For these preliminary results, in accordance with the Department's 
practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics in order to 
calculate surrogate values for most of the respondent's material 
inputs. In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in 
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice 
is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are 
non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POR, product-
specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2007-2008 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 27090 (June 8, 2009), 
unchanged in Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 66089 
(December 14, 2009). The record shows that the Indian import statistics 
represent import data that are contemporaneous with the POR, product-
specific, and tax-exclusive.
    In calculating surrogate values from import statistics, in 
accordance with the Department's practice, we disregarded statistics 
for imports from NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly 
available, non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all 
exporters to all export markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and 
Thailand). See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011 (September 
13, 2005), unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First Administrative Review, 
71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006); and China Nat'l Machinery Import & Export 
Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1336 (Ct. Int'l. Trade 
2003), aff'd 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, we 
excluded from our calculations imports that were labeled as originating 
from an unspecified country because we could not determine whether they 
were from an NME country.
    We used the following surrogate values in our preliminary results 
of review (see Surrogate Values Memo for details). We valued raw and 
packing materials using February 2008 through July 2009 weighted-
average Indian import values derived from the World Trade Atlas online 
(``WTA''). See http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. The Indian import 
statistics that we obtained from the WTA were published by the 
Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the 
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, and are 
contemporaneous with the POR. See Surrogate Values Memo at 1.
    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 entitled ``Electricity Tariff & 
Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India'', dated March 
2008. These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly 
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to 
industries in India. As the rates listed in this source became 
effective on a variety of different dates, we are not adjusting the 
average value for inflation. See Surrogate Values Memo at 3.
    We valued water using the industrial water rates from the 
Maharashtra Province of India (``MPI'') for April, May, and June 2009. 
See http://www.midcindia.org/MIDCWebSite/WaterSupply. We averaged 378 
industrial water rates within the MPI; 189 for the ``inside industrial 
areas'' usage category; and 189 for the ``outside industrial areas'' 
usage category to obtain a single water rate. These averages exclude 
industrial areas where either no data were reported or a ``0'' was 
reported. See Surrogate Values Memo at 4.
    We valued truck freight using a per-unit average rate calculated 
from data on the following Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this website contains inland 
freight truck rates between many large Indian cities. See Surrogate 
Values Memo at 5.
    We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export 
procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in India. 
The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the 
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by 
ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010: 
India, published by the World Bank. See Surrogate Values Memo at 5.

[[Page 27312]]

    We valued international freight expenses using freight quotes from 
Maersk Sealand, a market-economy shipper. Specifically, we calculated a 
simple average of quotes for shipments from the PRC to the United 
States occurring during the POR. See Surrogate Values Memo at 5.
    For direct labor, indirect labor, and packing labor, consistent 
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we valued labor using the PRC regression-
based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's home page, 
Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in 
December 2009, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. 
Since 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 Sun 
Group. See Surrogate Values Memo at 3.
    Lastly, we valued selling, general and administrative expenses, 
factory overhead costs, and profit using the contemporaneous 2007-2008 
financial statements of Zenith Birla (India) Limited, an Indian 
producer of merchandise that is identical to subject merchandise. See 
Surrogate Values Memo at 6.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may 
submit publicly available information with which to value FOPs in the 
final results of review within 20 days after the date of publication of 
the preliminary results of review.

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. 
These exchange rates can be accessed at the Web site of Import 
Administration at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the 
following respondents during the period January 20, 2008, through July 
31, 2009:

           Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
                         Company                              margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sun Group Inc.......................................          219.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                                              Margin
                      PRC-wide rate                          (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate...........................................          264.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 
30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). 
Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 
requested to submit a list of authorities used and an executive summary 
of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This 
summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. Interested parties who wish to request a 
hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written 
request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 
discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised 
in the briefs.
    The Department will issue the final results of these reviews, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue 
appropriate assessment instructions for the company subject to this 
review directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results 
of these reviews. For assessment purposes for the Sun Group, the 
Department calculated an importer-specific assessment rate for LWR from 
the PRC on a per-unit basis. Specifically, the Department divided the 
total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal 
value and export price) for the importer by the total quantity of 
subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a 
per-unit assessment amount. The Department will direct CBP to assess an 
importer-specific assessment rate based on the resulting per-unit 
(i.e., per-kilogram) rate by the weight in kilograms of the entry of 
the subject merchandise during the POR. However, the final results of 
this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties 
on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review 
and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of 
the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date: (1) For the exporter 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the 
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously 
investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above 
that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the 
exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed 
review; (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 exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. 
These deposit 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 10, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-11603 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P