[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 147 (Monday, August 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45468-45472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18938]



[[Page 45467]]

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

Part III





Department of Commerce





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



International Trade Administration



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



Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China; 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical 
Circumstances; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; 
Notices

  Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 147 / Monday, August 2, 2010 / 
Notices  

[[Page 45468]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-954]


Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Critical Circumstances

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

DATES: Effective Date: August 2, 2010.
SUMMARY: On March 12, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') published the Preliminary Determination of sales at 
less than fair value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of 
magnesia carbon bricks (``bricks'') from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC'').\1\ On April 21, 2010, the Department published the Amended 
Preliminary Determination in the antidumping investigation of bricks 
from the PRC.\2\ On May 20, 2010, the Department published the 
Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination in the antidumping 
investigation of bricks from the PRC.\3\ The period of investigation 
(``POI'') is January 1, 2009--June 30, 2009. Based on our analysis of 
the comments received, we have made changes to the margin calculation 
for RHI Refractories Liaoning Co., Ltd. (``RHI''). We continue to find 
that bricks from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at LTFV as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV 
are shown in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section of this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 11847 
(March 12, 2010) (``Preliminary Determination'').
    \2\ See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's 
Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 20813 (April 21, 2010) (``Amended 
Preliminary Determination'').
    \3\ See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Determination 
of Critical Circumstances, 75 FR 28237 (May 20, 2010) (``Preliminary 
Critical Circumstances Determination'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Walker or Dana Griffies, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0413 or (202) 482-3023, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On April 1, 2010, Liaoning Mayerton Refractories Co., Ltd. and 
Dalian Mayerton Refractories Co., Ltd. (collectively, ``Mayerton'') 
stated that it would no longer participate in the investigation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Mayerton's April 1, 2010 letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For RHI, the Department conducted sales verification from April 12-
16, 2010 and factors of production (``FOP'') verification May 17-20, 
2010.\5\ For Yingkou New Century Refractories Ltd. (``New Century'') 
and Fengchi Import & Export Co., Ltd. of Haicheng City (``Fengchi''), 
the Department conducted separate rates verifications on May 21, and 
May 24, 2010, respectively.\6\ See the ``Verification'' section below 
for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For sales, we conducted verification of RHI's North American 
affiliates, Veitsch Radix America, Inc. (incorporated in Canada) 
(``VRC'') and Veitsch Radix America, Inc. (incorporated in the U.S.) 
(``VRA''), which handled all of RHI's POI sales. See Memo to the 
File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, from Paul Walker 
and Dana Griffies, Case Analysts, ``Investigation of Magnesia Carbon 
Bricks from the People's Republic of China: Sales Verification of 
Veitsch Radix America, Inc.,'' dated June 10, 2010 (``VRC 
Verification Report''). For FOPs, we conducted verification of RHI, 
which produced the merchandise under consideration. See Memo to the 
File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, from Paul Walker 
and Dana Griffies, Case Analysts, ``Investigation of Magnesia Carbon 
Bricks from the People's Republic of China: Factors of Production 
Verification of RHI Refractories Liaoning Co., Ltd.,'' dated June 
11, 2010 (``RHI Verification Report'').
    \6\ See Memo to the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program 
Manager, from Paul Walker and Dana Griffies, Case Analysts, 
``Investigation of Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic 
of China: Verification of Yingkou New Century Refractories Ltd.,'' 
dated June 10, 2010 (``New Century Verification Report''); Memo to 
the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, from Paul 
Walker and Dana Griffies, Case Analysts, ``Investigation of Magnesia 
Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China: Verification of 
Fengchi Import & Export Co., Ltd. of Haicheng City,'' dated June 11, 
2010 (``Fengchi Verification Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between June 14, 2010 and July 14, 2010, the Department placed 
labor wage rate data on the record and invited parties to comment on 
the Department's labor wage rate methodology.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the memoranda to the file dated June 15, 2010, June 22, 
2010, July 6, 2010 and July 14, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between June 18, 2010 and July 16, 2010, we received case and 
rebuttal briefs from the Petitioner, \8\ the government of the PRC 
(``GOC'') and RHI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The petitioner is Resco Products, Inc. (hereinafter referred 
to as the ``Petitioner'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this investigation are addressed in the ``Investigation of Magnesia 
Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the Final Determination'' (``I&D Memo''), dated 
concurrently with this notice and which is hereby adopted by this 
notice. A list of the issues which parties raised, and to which we 
respond in the I&D Memo, are attached to this notice as Appendix I. The 
I&D Memo is a public document and is on file in the Central Records 
Unit (``CRU''), Room 1117, and is accessible on the World Wide Web at 
http://trade.gov/ia/index.asp. The paper copy and electronic version of 
the memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of information on the record of this 
investigation, we have made changes to RHI's margin calculation for the 
final determination. For the final determination, we have adjusted the 
surrogate value for fused magnesia to exclude certain aberrational data 
and adopted a new methodology for calculating the surrogate value for 
labor.\9\ In addition, we have applied certain discounts that RHI 
reported to its sales database.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See I&D Memo at Comment 1a & 1b; see also Memorandum to the 
File from Paul Walker, Case Analyst, through Scot T. Fullerton, 
Program Manager, ``Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic 
of China: Surrogate Values for the Final Determination,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice.
    \10\ See I&D Memo at Comment 2b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Mayerton, for the final determination, we have applied 
total adverse facts available (``AFA'') for its failure to participate 
and included it as part of the PRC-wide entity. For more information 
see the ``Mayerton'' section below.

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise under investigation consists of certain chemically-
bonded (resin or pitch), magnesia carbon bricks with a magnesia 
component of at least 70 percent magnesia (``MgO'') by weight, 
regardless of the source of raw materials for the MgO, with carbon 
levels ranging from trace amounts to 30 percent by weight, regardless 
of enhancements (for example, magnesia carbon bricks can be enhanced 
with coating, grinding, tar impregnation or coking, high temperature 
heat treatments, anti-slip treatments or metal casing) and regardless 
of whether or not antioxidants are present (for example, antioxidants 
can be added to the mix from trace amounts to 15 percent by weight as 
various metals, metal alloys, and metal carbides). Certain magnesia 
carbon bricks that are the subject of this

[[Page 45469]]

investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 
6902.10.1000, 6902.10.5000, 6815.91.0000, 6815.99.2000 and 6815.99.4000 
\11\ of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In the Preliminary Determination, we included HTSUS 
subheading 6815.99 in our description of the scope of the 
investigation. Subsequently, we determined that all of the ten-digit 
subheadings under subheading 6815.99 must be used instead. 
Accordingly, the appropriate HTSUS ten-digit subheadings have been 
listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party: 
(A) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act; (C) significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping 
statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time}  for 
information, notifies {the Department{time}  that such party is unable 
to submit the information in the requested form and manner, together 
with a full explanation and suggested alternative form in which such 
party is able to submit the information,'' the Department may modify 
the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that 
party.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent 
responses, as appropriate.
    Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established 
deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is 
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching 
the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can 
be used without undue difficulties.
    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the 
administering authority finds that an interested party has not acted to 
the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the 
administering authority may, in reaching its determination, use an 
inference that is adverse to that party. The adverse inference may be 
based upon: (1) The petition, (2) a final determination in the 
investigation under this title, (3) any previous review under section 
751 of the Act or determination under section 753 of the Act, or (4) 
any other information placed on the record.

Mayerton

    As noted above, Mayerton withdrew from the instant investigation. 
By ceasing to participate in the investigation, Mayerton prevented the 
Department from verifying the accuracy of its information as provided 
by section 782(i) of the Act, and thus, failed to demonstrate 
eligibility for a separate rate.\12\ Therefore, Mayerton is considered 
to be part of the PRC-wide entity. Due to its failure to act to the 
best of its ability in responding to the Department's requests for 
information, we find that Mayerton, as part of the PRC-wide entity, 
significantly impeded the Department's proceeding.\13\ Accordingly, we 
have assigned the PRC-wide rate margin to Mayerton of 236.00 percent. 
For a discussion of the PRC-wide entity's rate, see the ``PRC-wide 
Entity'' and ``Corroboration'' sections, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act.
    \13\ See Sections 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) and 776(b) of the Act; 
see also Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 74 FR 14514, 14516 (March 31, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification 
of the information submitted by RHI, New Century and Fengchi for use in 
our final determination.\14\ We used standard verification procedures, 
including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as 
well as original source documents provided by the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See VRC Verification Report, RHI Verification Report, New 
Century Verification Report and Fengchi Verification Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we selected India 
as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation for 
the following reasons: (1) It is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise; (2) it is at a similar level of economic development 
pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have reliable data from 
India that we can use to value the factors of production.\15\ For the 
final determination, we received no comments and made no changes to our 
findings with respect to the selection of a surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Preliminary Determination at 11848-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical Circumstances

    In the Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination, the 
Department determined that, in accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the 
Act, critical circumstances exists with respect to RHI, the separate 
rate respondents \16\ and the PRC-wide entity (which includes 
Mayerton).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As noted in the ``Separate Rates'' section below, these 
include Dashiqiao City Guancheng Refractor Co., Ltd.; Fengchi; 
Jiangsu Sujia Group New Materials Co. Ltd.; Liaoning Fucheng 
Refractories Group Co., Ltd.; Liaoning Fucheng Special Refractory 
Co., Ltd.; Liaoning Jiayi Metals & Minerals Co., Ltd.; Yingkou 
Bayuquan Refractories Co., Ltd.; Yingkou Dalmond Refractories Co., 
Ltd.; Yingkou Guangyang Co., Ltd.; Yingkou Kyushu Refractories Co, 
Ltd.; New Century; Yingkou Wonjin Refractory Material Co., Ltd.; and 
Yingkou Jiahe Refractories Co., Ltd.
    \17\ See Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination at 
28239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No other information has been placed on the record since the 
Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination to contradict the 
information upon which we based our finding that critical circumstances 
exist, nor has any party commented on our preliminary critical 
circumstances finding. Therefore, for the final determination, in 
accordance with section 735(a)(3) of the Act, we continue to find that 
critical circumstances exist with respect to RHI, the separate rate 
respondents and the PRC-wide entity (including Mayerton).

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market-economy (``NME'') countries, 
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should 
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to 
an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter 
can

[[Page 45470]]

demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to 
a separate rate.\18\ In the Preliminary Determination, we found that 
Dashiqiao City Guancheng Refractor Co., Ltd.; Fengchi Imp. and Exp. 
Co., Ltd. of Haicheng City; Jiangsu Sujia Group New Materials Co. Ltd.; 
Liaoning Fucheng Refractories Group Co., Ltd.; Liaoning Fucheng Special 
Refractory Co., Ltd.; Liaoning Jiayi Metals & Minerals Co., Ltd.; 
Yingkou Bayuquan Refractories Co., Ltd.; Yingkou Dalmond Refractories 
Co., Ltd.; Yingkou Guangyang Co., Ltd.; Yingkou Kyushu Refractories Co, 
Ltd.; Yingkou New Century Refractories Ltd.; and Yingkou Wonjin 
Refractory Material Co., Ltd., demonstrated their eligibility for, and 
were hence assigned, separate-rate status. In the Amended Preliminary 
Determination, we found that Yingkou Jiahe Refractories Co., Ltd. 
demonstrated its eligibility for, and was hence assigned, separate-rate 
status. No party has commented on the eligibility of these companies 
for separate rate status. Consequently, for the final determination, we 
continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this 
investigation by these companies demonstrates both a de jure and de 
facto absence of government control with respect to their exports of 
the merchandise under investigation. Thus, we continue to find that the 
separate rate companies are eligible for separate-rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''), 
and 19 CFR 351.107(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Petitioner has commented on RHI's eligibility for a 
separate rate, which we have addressed in Comment 3 of the I&D Memo, we 
continue to find that RHI is eligible for a separate rate. Accordingly, 
for the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence 
placed on the record of this investigation by RHI demonstrates both a 
de jure and de facto absence of government control with respect to its 
exports of the merchandise under investigation.\19\ Thus, we continue 
to find that RHI is eligible for separate-rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See I&D Memo at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRC-wide Entity

    In the Preliminary Determination, we treated PRC exporters/
producers that did not respond to the Department's request for 
information, as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not 
demonstrate that they operate free of government control. No additional 
information has been placed on the record with respect to these 
entities after the Preliminary Determination. The PRC-wide entity, and 
Mayerton, have not provided the Department with the requested 
information; therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, 
the Department continues to find that the use of facts available is 
appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. Section 776(b) of the Act 
provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, 
the Department may employ an adverse inference if an interested party 
fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply 
with requests for information.\20\ We find that, because the PRC-wide 
entity, and Mayerton, did not respond to our request for information, 
they have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. Therefore, 
the Department finds that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available, an adverse inference is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity. 
Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a NME 
country are subject to government control, and because only the 
companies listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section 
below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single 
antidumping rate, i.e., the PRC-wide rate, to all other exporters of 
the merchandise under consideration from the PRC. Such companies, 
including Mayerton, did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate 
rate.\21\ The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise 
under consideration, except for those companies which have received a 
separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (``SAA'').
    \21\ See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning merchandise 
subject to this investigation, or any previous review under section 751 
concerning the merchandise subject to this investigation.'' \22\ To 
``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy itself 
that the secondary information to be used has probative value. 
Independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, 
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation. To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance 
of the information used.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See SAA at 870.
    \23\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 
13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AFA rate that the Department used is from the Petition, 
however, we have updated the labor wage rate used to calculate the 
Petition rates. The Department's practice is not to recalculate dumping 
margins provided in petitions, but rather to corroborate the applicable 
petition rate when applying that rate as adverse facts available.\24\ 
In the instant case, however, the surrogate wage rate used in the 
Petition was based upon the Department's methodology that the Federal 
Circuit found unlawful in Dorbest II.\25\ In light of the Federal 
Circuit decision to invalidate the wage rate methodology, the 
Department has adjusted the petition rate using the surrogate value for 
labor used in this final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Certain Steel Grating from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 75 FR 
32366 (June 8, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2.
    \25\ See Comment 1b below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner's methodology for calculating the United States price 
and normal value in the Petition is discussed in the Initiation 
Notice.\26\ To corroborate the AFA margin that we have selected, we 
compared this margin to the margins we found for RHI. We found that the 
margin of 236.00 percent has probative value because it is in the range 
of the model-specific margins that

[[Page 45471]]

we found for RHI.\27\ Accordingly, we find that the rate of 236.00 
percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's 
Republic of China and Mexico: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations, 74 FR 42852 (August 25, 2009) (``Initiation 
Notice'').
    \27\ See Memorandum to the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, 
Program Manager, from Paul Walker, Case Analyst, ``Investigation of 
Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China: RHI 
Refractories Liaoning Co., Ltd.,'' dated concurrently with this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination Margins

    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins 
exist for the following entities for the POI:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
            Exporter                     Producer         average margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RHI Refractories Liaoning Co.,   RHI Refractories                 128.10
 Ltd.                             Liaoning Co., Ltd.
Dashiqiao City Guancheng         Dashiqiao City                   128.10
 Refractor Co., Ltd.              Guancheng Refractor
                                  Co., Ltd.
Fengchi Imp. And Exp. Co., Ltd.  Fengchi Refractories             128.10
 of Haicheng City.                Co., of Haicheng City.
Jiangsu Sujia Group New          Jiangsu Sujia Group New          128.10
 Materials Co., Ltd.              Materials Co., Ltd.
Liaoning Fucheng Refractories    Liaoning Fucheng                 128.10
 Group Co., Ltd.                  Refractories Group
                                  Co., Ltd.
Liaoning Fucheng Special         Liaoning Fucheng                 128.10
 Refractory Co., Ltd.             Special Refractory
                                  Co., Ltd.
Liaoning Jiayi Metals &          Liaoning Jiayi Metals &          128.10
 Minerals Co., Ltd.               Minerals Co., Ltd.
Yingkou Bayuquan Refractories    Yingkou Bayuquan                 128.10
 Co., Ltd.                        Refractories Co., Ltd.
Yingkou Dalmond Refractories     Yingkou Dalmond                  128.10
 Co., Ltd.                        Refractories Co., Ltd.
Yingkou Guangyang Co., Ltd.....  Yingkou Guangyang Co.,           128.10
                                  Ltd.
Yingkou Jiahe Refractories Co.,  Yingkou Jiahe                    128.10
 Ltd.                             Refractories Co., Ltd.
Yingkou Kyushu Refractories Co,  Yingkou Kyushu                   128.10
 Ltd.                             Refractories Co, Ltd.
Yingkou New Century              Yingkou New Century              128.10
 Refractories Ltd.                Refractories Ltd.
Yingkou Wonjin Refractory        Yingkou Wonjin                   128.10
 Material Co., Ltd.               Refractory Material
                                  Co., Ltd.
PRC-wide Entity*...............  .......................          236.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This rate also applies to Liaoning Mayerton Refractories Co., Ltd. and
  Dalian Mayerton Refractories Co., Ltd.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, and consistent with 
our finding of critical circumstances for RHI, the separate rate 
companies and the PRC-wide entity, pursuant to section 733(e)(2) of the 
Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to 
continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of the merchandise under 
consideration from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after December 12, 2009, which is 90 days prior to 
the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination.\28\ CBP shall 
continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to 
the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price 
as shown above. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain 
in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Correction to an inadvertent error in the date listed in 
the Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Department determined in its final determination 
for the companion countervailing duty (``CVD'') investigation that 
RHI's merchandise benefited from export subsidies.\29\ Therefore, we 
will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal 
to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price 
for RHI, as indicated above, minus the amount determined to constitute 
an export subsidy.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination, dated concurrently with this notice.
    \30\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 69 FR 
67306, 67307 (November 17, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the companies receiving a separate rate, we note 
that the rate applied in this proceeding as a separate rate is the 
calculated rate received by RHI. In the companion countervailing duty 
investigation, the Department found that RHI merchandise benefited from 
export subsidies during the POI, and, consequently, all other exporters 
(besides RHI and Mayerton) were found to have benefited from export 
subsidies based upon RHI results. Therefore, we will instruct CBP to 
require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the weighted-
average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price for RHI, as 
indicated above, minus the amount determined to constitute an export 
subsidy.
    With respect to the PRC-wide entity, as AFA, we applied to highest 
rate form the petition that we were able to corroborate. See the 
``Corroboration'' section above. We note that, although in the 
companion countervailing duty investigation the Department found that 
all other exporters (besides RHI and Mayerton) were found to have 
benefited from export subsidies, because we have applied AFA to the 
PRC-wide entity, we will not instruct CBP to deduct any export subsidy 
from the PRC-wide entity's cash deposit rate.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of 
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance 
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the ITC will 
determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is 
materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the 
merchandise under consideration. If the ITC determines that material 
injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will 
be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. 
If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will 
issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the 
suspension of liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the

[[Page 45472]]

disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or 
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 26, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

APPENDIX I

Comment 1: Surrogate Values
    a. Magnesia
    b. Labor
Comment 2: Deductions to Gross Unit Price
    a. Indirect Selling Expenses
    b. Discounts
Comment 3: RHI's Separate Rate
Comment 4: Service Contracts
Comment 5: Exclusion of Resin-bonded Magnesia Carbon Functional 
Refractory Products from the Scope
Comment 6: Double Remedy
Comment 7: FOP Allocation Ratio

[FR Doc. 2010-18938 Filed 7-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P