[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12704-12711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5262]



[[Page 12704]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-851]


Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
Rescission in Part, and Intent To Rescind in Part

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

DATES: Effective Date: March 8, 2011.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is currently 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (PRC) 
covering the period February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010. We 
preliminarily determine that sales made by Blue Field (Sichuan) Food 
Industrial Co., Ltd. (Blue Field), Guangxi Jisheng Foods, Inc. 
(Jisheng), and Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd. 
(XITIC) were made below normal value (NV). We invite interested parties 
to comment on these preliminary results. In addition, we are also 
rescinding this administrative review with respect to Zhangzhou 
Gangchang Canned Foods Co., Ltd. (Gangchang), Shandong Fengyu Edible 
Fungus Corporation Ltd. (Fengyu), and Zhangzhou Tongfa Foods Industry 
Co., Ltd. (Tongfa). Additionally, we are announcing that we intend to 
rescind this review with respect to five companies which we have 
preliminarily determined had no shipments during the period of review 
(POR).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Scott Hoefke, or Robert 
James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-2924, (202) 482-4947 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms 
(mushrooms) from the PRC. See Notice of Amendment of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 
Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 
64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999) (the Order). On February 1, 2010, the 
Department published in the Federal Register its notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
mushrooms from the PRC. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 5037 (February 1, 2010). On March 1, 2010, 
Monterrey Mushrooms (Petitioner) requested the Department conduct an 
administrative review of 26 PRC mushroom producers/exporters. On March 
30, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of 
initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of mushrooms 
from the PRC for the period February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010, 
with respect to the 26 companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
in Part, 75 FR 15679 (March 30, 2010) (Initiation Notice).
    On April 9, 2010, we received a no-shipment certification from 
Dujianghyan Xingda Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (Xingda). On April 27, 2010, we 
received no-shipment certifications from Fujian Pinghe Baofeng Canned 
Foods, Longhai Guangfa Food Co., Ltd., Fujian Zishan Group Co., Ltd., 
and Xiamen Longhuai Import & Export Co., Ltd.
    On April 26, 2010, we received separate rate certifications from 
Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd. (Golden Banyan) 
\1\ and Blue Field. On April 28, 2010, we received separate rate 
certifications from Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (Ayecue), 
and Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Corporation, Ltd. (Jiufa). On April 
29, 2010, we received separate rate certifications from Zhejiang Iceman 
Group Co., Ltd. (Iceman), Gangchang, and XITIC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the initiation notice we initiated reviews of, inter 
alia, Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Co., Ltd., Golden Banyan 
Foodstuffs, Co., Ltd., and Zhangzhou Golden Banyan Foodstuffs 
Industrial Co., Ltd. See Initiation Notice 75 FR at 15681. However, 
Golden Banyan, in response to a questionnaire from the Department, 
placed on the record information regarding its name, its past name 
changes, and the addresses of its affiliates. Based on this 
information, we determine that these three entities are actually all 
the same. See petitioners' March 1, 2010 submission at Attachment, 
and Golden Banyan's January 20, 2011 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 28, 2010 Petitioner withdrew its request for an 
administrative review of Gangchang.

Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 
directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each 
known exporter or producer of the subject merchandise. However, section 
777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department discretion to limit its 
examination to a reasonable number of exporters or producers if it is 
not practicable to examine all exporters or producers involved in the 
review.
    On April 2, 2010, the Department released U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) data for entries of the subject merchandise during the 
POR under administrative protective order (APO) to all interested 
parties having an APO, inviting comments regarding the CBP data and 
respondent selection. The Department received comments from Blue Field 
on April 12, 2010, and from Petitioner and XITIC on April 14, 2010.
    Based on the large number of potential exporters or producers 
involved in this administrative review and, after considering our 
resources, we determined that it was not practicable to individually 
examine all twenty-six companies. Accordingly, on May 17, 2010, we 
issued our respondent selection memorandum indicating that, pursuant to 
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, we could reasonably examine only the 
three largest producers/exporters of subject merchandise by volume. 
Therefore, we selected Blue Field, Jisheng, and XITIC as mandatory 
respondents.\2\ The following day we issued the standard antidumping 
questionnaire to those three respondents, and received the responses in 
June and July 2010. We issued supplemental questionnaires to Blue 
Field, Jisheng, and XITIC in the ensuing months, and received their 
responses in August, September, October, and November 2010, and January 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, from Scott Hoefke and Fred Baker, Analysts, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Subject: ``Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 
People's Republic of China: Respondent Selection Memorandum, '' 
dated May 17, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data

    On July 13, 2010, the Department sent interested parties a letter 
inviting comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate value 
data. We received a response from Jisheng on November 16, 2010, and 
from Petitioner and XITIC on November 22, 2010. Petitioner argued that 
India is the appropriate surrogate country for this review, and 
submitted information with which to value the factors of production 
(FOPs). Jisheng and XITIC made no comments regarding surrogate country

[[Page 12705]]

selection, but they had obtained all of the potential surrogate value 
data they placed on the record from sources in India.

Partial Rescission

    Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations provide that 
the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that 
requested the review withdraws its request for review within 90 days of 
the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested 
review, or withdraws it at a later date if the Department determines it 
is reasonable to extend the time limit for withdrawing the request. The 
Department initiated this administrative review on March 30, 2010. See 
Initiation Notice. As indicated above, Petitioner withdrew its request 
for review of Gangchang on June 28, 2010. Because the party that 
requested this review has timely withdrawn the request for review, we 
are rescinding this review with respect to Gangchang.
    Furthermore, concurrent with this administrative review we are 
conducting new shipper reviews of Fengyu and Tongfa,\3\ both of which 
are companies on whom we initiated an administrative review in this 
proceeding. See Initiation Notice. Therefore, since we are conducting 
new shipper reviews of these companies for the period covered by this 
administrative review, we are rescinding their administrative review 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Reviews, 75 FR 66729 (October 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intent To Rescind Review in Part

    In April 2010 we received certifications of no shipments from five 
companies for whom we initiated a review in this proceeding. Those five 
companies were Dujianghyan Xingda Foodstuff Co., Fujian Pinghe Baofeng 
Canned Foods, Fujian Zishan Group Co., Ltd., Longhai Guangfa Food Co., 
and Xiamen Longhuai Import & Export Co. We made inquiries with CBP as 
to whether any shipments were entered with respect to these five 
companies during the POR. See CBP message numbers 0347302, 0347303, 
0347304, 0347305, and 0347306, all dated December 13, 2010. We received 
no responses from CBP to those inquiries. We also examined CBP 
information used in the selection of the mandatory respondents to 
further confirm no shipments by these companies during the POR. See the 
attachment to ``Letter from Robert James to All Interested Parties'' 
dated April 2, 2010. Based on the above, we preliminarily find that 
these five companies had no shipments of subject merchandise during the 
POR, and we intend to rescind their reviews pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(3).
    Interested parties may submit comments on the Department's intent 
to rescind with respect to these five companies no later than 30 days 
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. 
The Department will issue the final rescission (if appropriate), which 
will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
comments received, in the final results of review.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, 
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The 
certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species 
Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ``Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms'' refers to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by 
cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms 
are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to, 
cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not 
limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Certain preserved 
mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. 
Included within the scope of this order are ``brined'' mushrooms, which 
are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally 
preserve them for further processing.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that 
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms containing 
less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the 
antidumping duty order. See Recommendation Memorandum--Final Ruling 
of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain Marinated, 
Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,'' 
dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld this decision. See Tak Fat v. 
United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All 
other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and 
chilled mushrooms, including ``refrigerated'' or ``quick blanched 
mushrooms;'' (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) 
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms, which are 
prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may 
contain oil or other additives.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under 
subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 
2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, we 
have treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country. See, e.g., 
Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 76336 (December 16, 
2008); and Frontseating Service Valves from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final 
Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 
12, 2009). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 
determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in 
effect until revoked by the Department. See, e.g., Brake Rotors From 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/
2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the 
parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment, or provided 
record evidence to reconsider our continued treatment of the PRC as an 
NME. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Separate Rates Determination

    A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is 
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. 
Accordingly, the Department begins its separate rate analysis with a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are subject to 
government control, and thus should be assessed a single antidumping 
duty rate (i.e., the PRC-wide rate).
    It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of the 
merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless an 
exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government 
control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to 
exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to 
be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test 
established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value:

[[Page 12706]]

Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991), (Sparklers) as amplified by the 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).
    In the Initiation Notice the Department stated that all firms that 
wish to qualify for separate-rate status in the administrative reviews 
involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a 
separate-rate application or certification. See Initiation Notice, 75 
FR at 15680. To establish separate-rate eligibility, the Department 
requires entities for which a review was requested, that were assigned 
a separate rate in the most recent segment of the proceeding in which 
they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria 
for obtaining a separate rate. In this administrative review, Ayecue, 
Gangchang, Golden Banyan, Iceman, and Jiufa (the separate-rate 
applicants) each submitted a separate-rate certification indicating 
they continued to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. 
Although Jisheng did not submit a separate-rate certification, as a 
cooperating mandatory respondent it did answer all the separate-rate 
questions in our questionnaires. Additionally, Blue Field and XITIC 
both submitted a separate-rate certification and answered all the 
separate-rate questions in our questionnaires. As such, we have 
determined that Blue Field, Jisheng, XITIC, and the separate-rate 
applicants each provided company-specific information, and each stated 
that it met the criteria for the assignment of a separate rate.
    The Department's separate-rate test to determine whether the 
exporter is independent from government control does not consider, in 
general, macroeconomic/border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, 
quotas, and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are 
imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over 
the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 
Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, finished and Unfinished, From the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 
62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).

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 the 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    In this administrative review, Blue Field, Jisheng, and XITIC 
demonstrated, and the separate-rate applicants certified that, 
consistent with the most recent segment of this proceeding in which it 
participated and was granted a separate rate, there is an absence of de 
jure government control of its exports.\5\ Each of the separate-rate 
applicants certified to its separate-rate status. Additionally, Blue 
Field, Jisheng, XITIC, and the separate-rate applicants stated that 
their companies had no relationship with any level of the PRC 
government with respect to ownership, internal management, and business 
operations. In this segment we have no new information on the record 
that would cause us to reconsider our previous determinations of the 
absence of de jure government control with regard to these companies. 
Thus, we find that evidence on the record supports a preliminary 
finding of an absence of de jure government control with regard to the 
export activities of Blue Field, Jisheng, XITIC, and the separate-rate 
applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The most recently completed segment of this proceeding in 
which Golden Banyan participated and was granted separate rate 
status was Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 73 FR 
75083 (December 10, 2008). The most recently completed segment of 
this proceeding in which Gangchang and Iceman participated and were 
granted separate rate status was Certain Preserved Mushrooms from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 28882 (June 18, 2009). The most recently 
completed segment of this proceeding in which Ayecue participated 
and was granted separate rate status was Certain Preserved Mushrooms 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty New Shipper Review, 73 FR 21904 (April 23, 2008). The most 
recently completed segment of this proceeding in which Blue Field 
participated and was granted separate rate status was Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Final Results of the Eighth New Shipper Review, 70 FR 60789 (October 
19, 2005). The most recently completed segment of this proceeding in 
which Jiufa and XITIC participated and were granted separate rate 
status was Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's 
Republic of China, 70 FR 60280 (October 17, 2005). The most recently 
completed segment of this proceeding in which Jisheng participated 
and was granted separate rate status was Certain Preserved Mushrooms 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Tenth 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 72 FR 68858 (December 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absence of De Facto Control

    As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87 and Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 
People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 1998). Therefore, 
the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is 
critical in determining whether the respondents are, in fact, subject 
to a degree of government control which would preclude the Department 
from assigning separate rates.
    The Department typically considers the following four factors in 
evaluating whether a respondent is subject to de facto government 
control over its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are 
set by, or subject to the approval of, a government agency; (2) whether 
the respondent retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing 
of losses; (3) whether the respondent has the authority to negotiate 
and sign contracts and other agreements; (4) whether the respondent has 
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See 
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; and 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 evidence provided by Blue Field, Jisheng, XITIC, and the 
separate-rate applicants supports a preliminary finding of absence of 
de facto government control based on the following: (1) The companies 
set their own export prices independent of the government and without 
the approval of a government authority; (2) there is no restriction on 
any of the companies' use of export revenue, nor the disposition of 
profits or financing of losses; (3) the companies have authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (4) the companies 
have autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the 
selection of management. See, e.g., Blue Field's June 22, 2010, Section 
A response at A-1 through A-8; Jisheng's June 23, 2010, Section A 
response at A-1 through A-8; and XITIC's June 16,

[[Page 12707]]

2010, Section A response at A-2 through A-9. Additionally, in this 
administrative review we have no new information on the record that 
would cause us to reconsider our previous determinations of the absence 
of de facto government control with regard to these companies. 
Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that Blue Field, Jisheng, 
XITIC and the separate-rate applicants have established that they 
qualify for separate rates under the criteria established by Silicon 
Carbide and Sparklers.

The PRC-Wide Entity

    In addition to the separate-rate applications discussed above, 
seven other companies for which we initiated a review in this 
proceeding already had separate rates.\6\ However, they failed to 
recertify their separate rates using the separate rate certification 
provided at the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html, to demonstrate their continued eligibility for separate 
rate status. See Initiation Notice, at 15680. These seven companies 
also did not make a claim that they had not sold or shipped subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. In accordance with the 
Department's established NME methodology, a party's separate rate 
status must be established in each segment of the proceeding in which 
the party is involved.\7\ Therefore, because these companies did not 
certify that they had no shipments or demonstrate that they were 
entitled to a separate rate, the Department preliminarily finds that 
each company should be considered part of the PRC-wide entity for this 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Those seven companies are: China National Cereals, Oils & 
Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp., China Processed Food Import & 
Export Co., Fujian Yuxing Fruits & Vegetables Foodstuffs Development 
Co., Ltd., Guangxi Eastwing Trading Co., Ltd., Xiamen Gulong Import 
& Export Co., Ltd., Primera Harvest (Xiangfan) Co. Ltd., Xiamen 
Jiufa Edible Fungus Corp.
    \7\ See, Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405-06 
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming the Department's presumption of State 
control over exporters in non-market economy cases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, there are two companies, Sun Wave Trading Co., Ltd. 
and Xiamen Greenland Import & Export Co., Ltd., for which we initiated 
a review in this proceeding and which did not previously have a 
separate rate. Because these companies did not file a Separate Rate 
Application, see generally, Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 15680, to 
demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this administrative 
review, or certify that they had no shipments, we preliminarily 
determine that these companies will remain part of the PRC-wide entity.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market 
economy 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 utilize, to the extent possible, the 
prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that 
are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable to that of the 
NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise.
    The Department determined that India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 
Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in 
terms of economic development and that these six countries are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise.\8\ Moreover, it is the 
Department's practice to select an appropriate surrogate country based 
on the availability and reliability of data from the countries. See 
Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate 
Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004) (Surrogate Country Policy 
Bulletin). In the most recently completed proceeding involving the 
Order, we determined that India is comparable to the PRC in terms of 
economic development and has surrogate value data that are available 
and reliable. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review, 74 FR 65520, (December 10, 2009). In the current proceeding, 
all parties who submitted factor values were in agreement that India 
was the appropriate surrogate country. We find based on the record of 
this administrative review that India is an appropriate surrogate 
country. We have selected India as the primary surrogate market-economy 
country because it is at a level of economic development similar to the 
PRC, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and we 
have reliable, publicly available data from India representing broad 
market averages. See 773(c)(4) of the Act; see also Memorandum to the 
File, from Fred Baker, Analyst, Subject: Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's 
Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated February 28, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Director, Office of 
Policy, to Richard Weible, Director, Office 7; Subject: Request for 
a List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 
People's Republic of China, dated June 25, 2010. The Department 
notes that these six countries are part of a non-exhaustive list of 
countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to 
the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly 
available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results.

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based Blue 
Field's, Jisheng's, and XITIC's U.S. prices on export prices (EP), 
because their first sales to unaffiliated purchasers were made before 
the date of importation and the use of constructed export price (CEP) 
was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record.\9\ As 
appropriate, we deducted foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and 
handling, international freight, U.S. inland freight, U.S. duties, and 
U.S. brokerage and handling from the starting price (or gross unit 
price), in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. Where these 
services were provided by NME vendors we based the deduction on 
surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Jisheng did report a portion of its U.S. sales as CEP sales. 
However, we reclassified them as EP sales because given our date of 
sale methodology (explained below) we determined that they are more 
appropriately classified as EP sales. See Jisheng's September 13, 
2010, submission at 6 and Jisheng's preliminary results analysis 
memorandum dated February 28, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The respondents collectively used three modes of transportation for 
foreign inland freight. Those modes were truck, train, and barge. As 
previously stated, where applicable we made deductions for these 
expenses from the U.S. price. We valued truck freight using a per-unit, 
POR-wide, average rate calculated from Indian data on the following Web 
site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics 
section of this Web site contains inland freight truck rates between 
many large Indian cities. See Memorandum to the File, ``Surrogate 
Values for the Preliminary Results of Review of Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China'' (Surrogate Values 
Memorandum) dated February 28, 2011, at Exhibit 7.
    For train freight, we used data published by the Indian Railway 
Conference Association. Specifically, we used ``Goods Tariff No. 45 Pt. 
1, (vol.

[[Page 12708]]

II).'' See Surrogate Values Memorandum at 14 for more information.
    For barge freight, we used data published in the March 2007 issue 
of The Hindu Business Line. See the Surrogate Values Memorandum at 14 
for more information.
    We valued foreign brokerage and handling using the publicly 
summarized brokerage and handling expense reported in the U.S. sales 
listing of Indian mushroom producer, Agro Dutch Industries, Ltd. (Agro 
Dutch), in the 2004-2005 administrative review of Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from India, which we then inflated to be contemporaneous with 
the POR. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at 13.
    In their Section A questionnaire responses, Blue Field, Jisheng, 
and XITIC stated that they intended to use the invoice date as the date 
of sale. See Blue Field's June 22, 2010, submission at A-11, Jisheng's 
June 23, 2010, submission at A-10, and XITIC's June 16, 2010, 
submission at A-13. Subsequently, Blue Field and XITIC, in response to 
questions asked in supplemental questionnaires, substantiated that 
there were sometimes changes to the price or quantity of a sale 
following issuance of the purchase order but before issuance of the 
invoice. See Blue Field's August 19, 2010, submission at 2 and Exhibit 
3 and XITIC's August 26, 2010, submission at S1-4. Therefore, because 
the record indicates that the material terms of Blue Field's and 
XITIC's U.S. sales were established on the date of invoice, pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.401(i), we determine that invoice date is the appropriate 
date to use as the date of sale for these two respondents. However, 
Jisheng stated that during the POR there were no changes to either 
quantity or price between the purchase order date and the invoice date 
for any of its sales. See Jisheng's September 13, 2010, submission at 
1. Therefore, for Jisheng, we have preliminarily determined that it is 
appropriate to use purchase order date, rather than invoice date, as 
the date of sale because it was on the purchase order date that the 
material terms of sale (i.e., quantity and price) were set.

Normal Value

1. Methodology

    Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise under 
review is exported from an NME and the 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. The Department bases 
NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various 
aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of 
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies. 
See, e.g., 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 (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 (January 17, 2006). Under 
section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include, but are not limited to: (1) 
Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) 
amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative 
capital costs, including depreciation. The Department based NV on FOPs 
reported by the respondents for materials, energy, labor, and packing.
    Thus, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated 
NV by adding the values of the FOPs, overhead, selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit, and packing costs.

2. Selection of Surrogate Values

    In selecting the ``best available information for surrogate 
values,'' see Section 773(c)(1) of the Act, consistent with the 
Department's preference, we considered whether the potential surrogate 
value data on the record were: Publicly available; product-specific; 
representative of broad market average prices; contemporaneous with the 
POR; and free of taxes and import duties. See, e.g., Drill Pipe From 
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 51004 
(August 18, 2010), unchanged in Drill Pipe From the People's Republic 
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Critical Circumstances, 76 FR 196 (January 11, 2011). Where only 
surrogate values that were not contemporaneous with the POR were 
available on the record of this administrative review, we inflated the 
surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian WPI as published 
in International Financial Statistics by the International Monetary 
Fund. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 2.
    In accordance with these guidelines, we calculated surrogate 
values, except as noted below, from import statistics of the primary 
selected surrogate country, India, from Global Trade Atlas (GTA), as 
published by Global Trade Information Services. Our use of GTA import 
data is in accordance with past practice and satisfies all of our 
criteria for surrogate values noted above.\10\ However, in accordance 
with the legislative history of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness 
Act of 1988, see Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 
100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (OTCA 1988) at 590, the Department 
continued to apply its long-standing practice of disregarding surrogate 
values if it has a reason to believe or suspect the prices contained in 
the source data may be dumped or subsidized prices. In this regard, the 
Department has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard 
such surrogate value prices from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand 
because we have determined that these countries maintain broadly 
available, non-industry specific export subsidies. Because there were 
generally available export subsidy programs in these countries during 
the POR, the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all 
exporters from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have benefitted 
from these subsidies and to disregard prices from these countries.\11\ 
Additionally, consistent with our practice, we disregarded prices from 
NME countries. Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from 
an ``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, 
because the Department could not be certain that they were not from 
either an NME country or a country with general export subsidies. See, 
e.g., Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the

[[Page 12709]]

People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the New 
Shipper Review, 75 FR 47270 (August 5, 2010), unchanged in Certain Non-
Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of the New Shipper Review, 75 FR 81564 (December 28, 
2010); and Drill Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final 
Determination, 75 FR 51004 (August 18, 2010), unchanged in Drill Pipe 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, 76 FR 1966 (January 
11, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New 
Shipper Review, 74 FR 50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009), unchanged in 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520 
(December 10, 2009).
    \11\ See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing 
Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from 
Indonesia, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at page 4; Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1, pages 17, 
19-20; and Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Thailand: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Determination, 66 FR 
50410 (October 3, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After identifying appropriate surrogate values, we calculated NV by 
multiplying the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by the 
surrogate values. As appropriate we also added freight costs to the 
surrogate values that we calculated for the respondents' material 
inputs to make these prices delivered prices. We calculated these 
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. Where there were multiple domestic suppliers of a material 
input, we calculated a weighted-average distance after limiting each 
supplier's distance to no more than the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory of each of the three respondents. This 
adjustment is in accordance with the decision by the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 
1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We increased the calculated costs of the 
FOPs for surrogate general expenses and profit. See Surrogate Values 
Memorandum at Exhibit 9.
    Because Indian surrogate values were denominated in rupees, we 
converted these data to U.S. dollars (USD) using the applicable average 
exchange rate based on exchange rate data from the Department's Web 
site.
    For further details regarding the specific surrogate values used 
for direct materials, energy inputs, and packing materials in these 
preliminary results, see the Surrogate Values Memorandum.
    On May 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(Federal Circuit) in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. 
Cir. 2010) (Dorbest IV), found that the regression-based method for 
calculating wage rates, as stipulated by 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), uses 
data not permitted by the statutory requirements laid out in section 
773(c)(4) of the Act. See Dorbest IV, 604 F.3d at 1372. The Department 
is continuing to evaluate options for determining labor values in light 
of the recent Federal Circuit decision. However, for these preliminary 
results, we have calculated an hourly wage rate to use in valuing 
respondents' reported labor input by averaging industry-specific 
earnings and/or wages in countries that are economically comparable to 
the PRC and that are significant producers of comparable merchandise.
    For the preliminary results of this administrative review, the 
Department is valuing labor using a simple average industry-specific 
wage rate using earnings or wage data reported under Chapter 5B by the 
International Labor Organization (ILO). To achieve an industry-specific 
labor value, we relied on industry-specific labor data from the 
countries we determined to be both economically comparable to the PRC, 
and significant producers of comparable merchandise. A full description 
of the industry-specific wage rate calculation methodology is provided 
in the Surrogate Values Memorandum. The Department calculated a simple 
average industry-specific wage rate of $1.36 for these preliminary 
results. Specifically, for this review, the Department has calculated 
the wage rate using a simple average of the data provided to the ILO 
under Sub-Classification 15 of the ISIC-Revision 3 standard by 
countries determined to be both economically comparable to the PRC and 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department finds 
this two-digit sub-classification under ISIC-Revision 3, described as 
``Manufacture of Food Products and Beverages'' to be the best available 
labor wage rate surrogate value on the record because it is the most 
specific to mushrooms and is derived from industries that produce 
merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise. From the twenty 
countries that the Department determined were both economically 
comparable to the PRC and significant producers of comparable 
merchandise, the Department identified those with the necessary wage 
data. Of these twenty countries, the following eight reported industry-
specific data under the ISIC-revision 3, Sub-Classification 15: 
Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, and 
Ukraine.\12\ Consequently, we calculated a simple average industry-
specific wage rate from the data obtained for these eight countries. 
For further information on the calculation of the wage rate, see 
Surrogate Values Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Because India (the primary surrogate country) did not 
report wage data in ISIC-Revision 3, which was relied upon for 
industry-specific wage rates in these preliminary results, it is not 
among the countries that the Department considered for inclusion in 
the average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We offset the respondents' material costs for revenue generated 
from the sale of tin scrap. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 
8.
    Finally, to value overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (SG&A), and profit, we have preliminarily determined that the 
2009-10 financial statements of the Indian mushroom producers Flex 
Foods Limited and Himalya International Limited, constitute the best 
information available. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 13 
for our computations.

Adverse Facts Available

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other 
person: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department; (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines 
established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, 
subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) 
significantly impedes a proceeding; or (D) provides information that 
cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with its request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency or its response is not submitted within the 
applicable time limits, then the Department may, subject to section 
782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and subsequent 
responses, as appropriate.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the 
Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available 
(AFA) information derived

[[Page 12710]]

from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative 
review, or any other information placed on the record.
    For the reasons discussed below, we determine that, in accordance 
with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) and 776(b) of the Act, the use of 
partial AFA is appropriate for the preliminary results with respect to 
Jisheng.

1. Products With No Factors of Production Reported

    The original questionnaire states: ``Unless otherwise instructed by 
the Department, you should ensure that your factors computer file 
contains a separate record for each unique product control number 
contained in your U.S. sales file.'' See May 18, 2010, questionnaire at 
D-6. However, in filing its questionnaire response, Jisheng included 
several products in the reported U.S. sales listing in its response to 
section C of the questionnaire for which it failed to provide any 
factors of production in its response to section D. See Jisheng's July 
8, 2010, Sections C and D questionnaire response. In subsequent 
supplemental questionnaires the Department requested that Jisheng 
revise its FOP database so as to include a control number (CONNUM) for 
each CONNUM represented on its U.S. sales listing. See August 13, 2010, 
supplemental questionnaire at 6 (question 23a) and November 3, 2010, 
supplemental questionnaire at 4 (question 5a). However, Jisheng did not 
remedy or explain its deficient responses. See Jisheng's September 13, 
2010, submission at Exhibits SC-1 and SD-1, November 18, 2010, 
submission at Exhibits SS1 and SS2, and January 21, 2011, submission at 
Exhibits SSS-1, SSS-2, SSS-3, and SSS-4. Consequently, we preliminarily 
determine that partial facts available is warranted because necessary 
information is not on the record and because Jisheng (1) withheld 
information requested by the Department; and (2) failed to provide the 
requested information by the applicable deadlines or in the form and 
manner requested. See section 776(a)(1), and (a)(2)(A) and (B) of the 
Act. Moreover, by never alleging that it was unable to provide the 
information, and by failing to provide usable information by the 
applicable deadlines, we find that the conditions of section 782(c)(1) 
and (e), to which section 776(a)(2)(B) is subject, have not been 
satisfied. In addition, we determine that Jisheng has not cooperated to 
the best of its ability by repeatedly failing to provide the requested 
FOP data, despite numerous opportunities to do so. Accordingly, an 
adverse inference in using facts available under section 776(b) of the 
Act is warranted for Jisheng with regard to this specific information. 
For the CONNUMs for which Jisheng has not provided factor information 
we have applied, as AFA, the highest NV for any CONNUM in Jisheng's 
database submitted on the record of this administrative review. For 
additional information concerning this calculation, see Jisheng's 
Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum.

2. Products With Unreported Packing Usage Factors

    For reasons not susceptible to public summary,\13\ some of 
Jisheng's reported CONNUMs were missing certain factor values. See 
Jisheng's September 13, 2010, submission at Exhibit SD-1, and its 
November 18, 2010, submission at Exhibit SS-2. Therefore, the 
Department requested that Jisheng submit factor values for particular 
CONNUMs for the twelve months of the prior POR. See January 10, 2011, 
supplemental questionnaire at 4 (question 6). However, despite our 
requests, Jisheng's revised FOP database did not include packing usage 
factors for all CONNUMs. See Jisheng's January 21, 2011, submission at 
Exhibit SSS-2, SSS-3, and SSS-4. Therefore, we preliminarily determine 
that partial facts available is warranted because necessary information 
is not on the record and because Jisheng failed to provide requested 
information by the applicable deadlines or in the form and manner 
requested by the Department. See section 776(a)(1) and (a)(2)(B) of the 
Act. Moreover, by never explaining why it was unable to provide the 
requested information, and by failing to provide usable information by 
the applicable deadlines, we find that the conditions of section 
782(c)(1) and (e), to which section 776(a)(2)(B) is subject, have not 
been satisfied. In addition, we determine that by failing to provide 
the requested FOP data, Jisheng has not cooperated to the best of its 
ability. Accordingly, we find that an adverse inference in using facts 
available under section 776(b) of the Act is warranted for Jisheng with 
regard to this specific information. Specifically, for the CONNUMs for 
which Jisheng has not provided packing usage factors, we have applied, 
as AFA, the highest usage factor for any CONNUM for which it did report 
packing usage factors on the record of this administrative review. For 
additional information concerning this calculation, see Jisheng's 
preliminary results analysis memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Jisheng's November 16, 2010 submission at 6 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Results of the Review

    The Department has determined that the following preliminary 
dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2009, through January 
31, 2010. Respondents other than mandatory respondents will receive the 
weighted-average of the margins calculated for those companies selected 
for individual review (i.e., mandatory respondents), excluding de 
minimis margins or margins based entirely on adverse facts available.

                Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                          Exporter                              margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd...............       30.10
Guangxi Jisheng Foods, Inc..................................      146.88
Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd............        1.01
Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co., Ltd.......................       53.69
Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd.........       53.69
Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Corporation, Ltd...............       53.69
Zheijiang Iceman Group Co., Ltd.............................       53.69
PRC-wide rate...............................................      198.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the 
calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five 
days of the date of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 
CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit written comments (case 
briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and 
rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within five days after the time 
limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 
351.309(d)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must 
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit 
arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of 
the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of 
authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting 
written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the 
public version of those comments.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

[[Page 12711]]

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 publication of 
this notice. 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. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the 
hearing will be limited to those raised in the briefs.
    Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department will issue the final 
results of this administrative review, including the results of our 
analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 
120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.

Deadline for Submission of Publicly Available Surrogate Value 
Information

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3), the deadline for 
submission of publicly available information to value factors of 
production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) is 20 days after the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1), if an interested party submits factual information less 
than ten days before, on, or after (if the Department has extended the 
deadline), the applicable deadline for submission of such factual 
information, an interested party has ten days to submit factual 
information to rebut, clarify, or correct the factual information no 
later than ten days after such factual information is served on the 
interested party. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1), permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. See, 
e.g., 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. Furthermore, the Department generally will not 
accept business proprietary information in either the surrogate value 
submissions or the rebuttals thereto, as the regulation regarding the 
submission of surrogate values allows only for the submission of 
publicly available information.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 
assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review. Where the 
respondent has reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer 
(or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping 
margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer), 
and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to 
each importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an 
importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de 
minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the 
importers'/customers' entries during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, we 
calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping 
duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and 
dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or 
customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the duty 
assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set 
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where 
an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 
minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without 
regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
    For the companies that were not selected for individual review, we 
calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted-average of the cash 
deposit rates calculated for companies selected for individual review, 
where those rates were not de minimis or based on adverse facts 
available, in accordance with Department practice.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements, when imposed, will be 
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative 
review for all shipments of subject merchandise 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) For the exporters 
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, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required 
for that company); (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 recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, 
the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 198.63 percent; and 
(4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise that 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 cash 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)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: February 28, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-5262 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P