[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19322-19325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8323]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-831]


Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On November 12, 2010, the Department of Commerce (Department) 
published preliminary results for the new shipper reviews (NSRs) of 
fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the 
period of review (POR) November 1, 2008, through October 31, 2009. See 
Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 
of New Shipper Reviews and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, 75 FR 69415 
(November 12, 2010) (Preliminary Results). The reviews covered three 
respondents: Jinxiang Chengda Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. (Chengda), Zhengzhou 
Huachao Industrial Co., Ltd. (Huachao), and Jinxiang Yuanxin Imp & Exp 
Co., Ltd. (Yuanxin).
    As discussed below, we preliminarily found that Yuanxin's and 
Huachao's sales were bona fide and that these sales were made in the 
United States at prices below normal value (NV). In addition, we found 
Chengda's sales to be not bona fide, and announced our preliminary 
intent to rescind Chengda's new shipper review. For the final results 
of this review, we are finding the sales of all three respondents, 
Chengda, Huachao, and Yuanxin, to be not bona fide. Therefore, because 
there were no other shipments or entries by these three companies 
during the POR, we are rescinding these new shipper reviews.

DATES: Effective Date: April 7, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0780.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Since the Preliminary Results, the following events have occurred. 
On December 2, 2010, surrogate value information was placed on the 
record by Huachao. On December 30, 2010, the Department extended the 
time limit for the final results of this new shipper review. On January 
26, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to 
Yuanxin. On January 27, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to Huachao. On February 4, 2011, the Department issued a 
letter to Yuanxin concerning the business proprietary designation of 
the company's Web site address.
    On February 4, 2011, the Department issued the briefing schedule 
for briefs addressing all issues except the bona fides of Huachao's and 
Yuanxin's respective sales. On February 8, 2011, Yuanxin requested an 
extension to the deadlines as established in the February 4, 2011 
briefing schedule. On February 9, 2011, the Department issued an 
extension of this briefing schedule, with briefs due February 17, 2011, 
and rebuttal briefs due February 22, 2011. On February 14, 2011, the 
Department placed information related to Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd.'s NSR 
sale to the United States, from the 2007/2008 NSR, on the record of 
this review. Huachao and Yuanxin submitted supplemental questionnaire 
responses on February 14, 2011. Yuanxin also submitted its case brief 
on February 14, 2011. On February 15, 2011, the Department placed 
memoranda on the record of this review that included information 
related to

[[Page 19323]]

Yuanxin's domain name registration and the corporate records of the 
importers and customers of each of the exporters involved in this 
review. On February 17, 2011, Huachao and Chengda submitted case 
briefs.
    On February 18, 2011, the Department issued the briefing schedule 
for briefs addressing only the bona fides of Huachao's and Yuanxin's 
respective sales. Additionally, on February 18, 2011, the Fresh Garlic 
Producers Association and its individual members (Christopher Ranch 
L.L.C., the Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, 
Inc.) (collectively, Petitioners) requested an extension of the 
February 22, 2011 deadline for rebuttal briefs not related to the bona 
fides of Huachao's and Yuanxin's respective sales. On February 22, 
2011, the Department granted Petitioners' February 18, 2011 request for 
an extension to the rebuttal briefs deadline, the new deadline becoming 
February 25, 2011. On February 24, 2011, Petitioners submitted a 
rebuttal to Huachao's February 14, 2011 supplemental questionnaire 
response. On February 25, 2011, Petitioners submitted rebuttal briefs 
for all three respondents. Also, on February 25, 2011, Petitioners 
submitted a brief regarding whether Huachao's POR sale was bona fide.
    On March 1, 2011, Huachao requested an extension to the deadline of 
the bona fides rebuttal briefs as established in the Department's 
February 18, 2011 briefing schedule. On March 2, 2011, the Department 
granted Huachao's March 1, 2011 request for an extension, the new 
deadline for bona fides rebuttal briefs becoming March 7, 2011. On 
March 3, 2011, Huachao submitted a letter requesting that the 
Department reject Petitioners' February 24, 2011 submission on the 
grounds that it contained untimely new factual information. Further, 
Huachao argued that Petitioners' February 25, 2011 case brief also be 
rejected, as it relies upon information contained in the February 24, 
2011 submission. The information in question involves the nature of the 
United States garlic market and the appropriate benchmark to be used in 
determining the bona fide nature of Huachao's sale. The Department 
found this information to be relevant to the information provided by 
Huachao in its supplemental response, which addressed Department 
questions regarding whether Huachao's sale was bona fide. Thus, the 
Department concluded that Petitioners' submission was timely rebuttal 
information allowed for under 19 CFR 351.301(c). Finally, on March 7, 
2011, Huachao submitted a rebuttal brief to the February 25, 2011 case 
brief submitted by Petitioners regarding the bona fides of its sale.
    On March 16, 2011, Department officials met with Chengda's counsel 
to discuss issues related to the case briefs. See Memorandum for the 
File from Lingjun Wang, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, 
``Meeting with Counsel for the Jinxiang Chengda Import & Export Co., 
Ltd.: New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh Garlic 
from China'' (March 16, 2011). On March 17, 2011, Department officials 
met with Petitioners' counsel to discuss issues related to the case 
briefs. See Memorandum for the File from David Lindgren, Case Analyst, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, ``Meeting with Counsel for the 
Petitioners: New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh 
Garlic from China'' (March 17, 2011).

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are all grades of garlic, whole 
or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, 
chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other 
neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of 
other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades 
are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of 
this order does not include the following: (a) garlic that has been 
mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, 
destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially 
prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and 
otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used 
principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is 
currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 
0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 
2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order 
is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the order, garlic entered 
under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically 
harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh 
use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then 
harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by 
declarations to CBP to that effect.

Analyses of Comments Received

    In addition to commenting on the bona fides of Chengda's and 
Huachao's U.S. sales (see Bona Fides Analysis section below), the 
parties addressed, in their case and rebuttal briefs, three surrogate 
valuation issues: (1) What to use as the surrogate value for raw garlic 
bulbs; (2) which financial statements to use as the surrogate financial 
ratios; and (3) how to properly calculate the wage rate. Since, as 
discussed below, we are rescinding these reviews, the Department need 
not address the parties' comments on these issues pertaining to the 
calculation of the dumping margin.

Bona Fides Analysis

    In conducting an NSR, the Department examines price, quantity, and 
other circumstances associated with the sale to determine if the sale 
was based on normal commercial considerations and presents an accurate 
representation of the company's normal business practices, and provides 
a future indicator of its future selling practice. See Shandong Chenhe 
Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, No. 08-00373, slip op. at 19 (Ct. 
Int'l Trade Nov. 22, 2010); see also Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical 
Co., Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 (Ct. Int'l Trade 
2005); and Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United States, 374 
F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005). If the Department 
determines that the price was not based on normal commercial 
considerations or is atypical of the respondent's normal business 
practices, including other sales of comparable merchandise, the sale 
may be considered not bona fide, and, as such, cannot serve as a 
reasonable or reliable basis for calculating a dumping margin.
    In the Preliminary Results, the Department found Chengda's POR 
sales to be not bona fide. The Department found that Huachao's POR 
sale, however, was made on a bona fide basis, noting that it would 
continue to examine all factors relating to the bona fides of that sale 
given the Department's concerns regarding the price, quantity, and 
payment terms of the sale. Likewise, the Department found that 
Yuanxin's POR sale was also made on a bona fide basis, noting that it 
would continue to examine the bona fides of the sale given the 
Department's concerns regarding the price, quantity, and atypicality of 
the product and transaction. Based on our continuing analyses of all 
aspects of the parties' sales, summarized below, and our analyses of 
supplemental questionnaire

[[Page 19324]]

responses, of information and documentation from a prior NSR placed on 
the record of this review, and of comments made by interested parties, 
the Department continues to find that Chengda's sales are not bona 
fide, and now finds that the sales of Yuanxin and Huachao are not bona 
fide as well. As such, the sales made by all three parties do not 
provide reasonable or reliable bases for calculating dumping margins.

Chengda

    For the Preliminary Results, the Department analyzed the bona fides 
of Chengda's sales and preliminarily found Chengda's sales to the 
United States to be not bona fide. See ``Bona Fide Nature of the Sale 
in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC): Jinxiang Chengda Imp & Exp Co., 
Ltd.'' (November 1, 2010). Since the Preliminary Results, both Chengda 
and Petitioners have submitted arguments regarding whether Chengda's 
POR shipment was bona fide. Significant portions of these arguments 
involve discussion of business proprietary information (BPI). 
Therefore, the Department's summaries of, and positions on, these 
arguments, in addition to our full analysis of the bona fides of 
Chengda's sales, are included in the memorandum, ``Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's 
Republic of China: Bona Fides Analysis of Chengda Imp & Exp Co., 
Ltd.,'' issued concurrently with this Federal Register notice. Based on 
the Department's complete analysis of all the information on the record 
of this review regarding the bona fides of Chengda's NSR sales, the 
Department continues to find Chengda's sales not bona fide because (1) 
Chengda's sale prices are so high that they are atypical, aberrational, 
commercially unreasonable, and not indicative of future sales, and (2) 
Chengda's sales quantities are too small to reflect normal commercial 
practices of the garlic industry.

Huachao

    For the Preliminary Results, the Department analyzed the bona fides 
of Huachao's sale and preliminarily found Huachao's sale to the United 
States to be bona fide, noting that we would continue to examine all 
factors relating to the bona fides of that sale given the Department's 
concerns regarding the price, quantity, and payment terms of the sale. 
See ``Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC): 
Zhengzhou Huachao Industrial Co., Ltd.'' (November 1, 2010). After the 
Preliminary Results, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire 
to Huachao. In addition, Petitioners filed a case brief and Huachao 
filed a rebuttal brief on whether Huachao's sale should be considered 
bona fide. Significant portions of these arguments involve discussion 
of BPI. Therefore, the Department's summaries of, and positions on, 
these arguments, in addition to our full analysis of the bona fides of 
Huachao's sale, are included in the memorandum ``Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's 
Republic of China: Bona Fides Analysis of Zhengzhou Huachao Industrial 
Co., Ltd.,'' issued concurrently with this Federal Register notice. 
Based on the Department's complete analysis of all the information on 
the record of this review regarding the bona fides of Huachao's NSR 
sale, the Department finds Huachao's sale to be not bona fide because 
(1) Huachao's sale price is so high as to be commercially unreasonable 
and not indicative of the garlic industry, (2) Huachao's sales quantity 
is not commercially reasonable, (3) Huachao's function as the processor 
of its U.S. sale is atypical of its normal business practice, and (4) 
there are inconsistencies in the information provided by Huachao's 
customer in the United States, raising doubts about Huachao's 
description of the sale's structure.

Yuanxin

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that Yuanxin's POR 
sale was made on a bona fide basis, noting that it would continue to 
examine the bona fides of the sale given the Department's concerns 
regarding the price, quantity, and atypical nature of the product and 
transaction. See ``Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the Antidumping Duty 
New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC): Jinxiang Yuanxin Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.'' (November 1, 2010). As 
noted in the background section, after the Preliminary Results, the 
Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Yuanxin. In addition, 
new information with respect to the bona fides of Yuanxin's sale was 
placed on the record of this review. See the Department's February 14, 
2011 memorandum to the file regarding Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd.'s NSR 
and Yuanxin's February 14, 2011 supplemental questionnaire response; 
see also the Department's February 15, 2011 memorandum to the file 
regarding Yuanxin's domain name registration and the Department's 
February 15, 2011 memorandum to the file regarding the corporate 
records of the importers and customers of each of the exporters 
involved in this review.
    Significant portions of the issues involved in Yuanxin's bona fides 
include BPI. Therefore, we have addressed all of the arguments in a 
separate memorandum as part of our full bona fides analysis. See 
``Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic 
from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fides Analysis of Jinxiang 
Yuanxin Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.,'' issued concurrently with this Federal 
Register notice. Based on the Department's complete analysis of all the 
information on the record of this review regarding the bona fides of 
Yuanxin's NSR sale, the Department finds Yuanxin's sale to be not bona 
fide because (1) Yuanxin's sale price is so high as to be commercially 
unreasonable and not indicative of future sales, (2) Yuanxin's sales 
quantity is not representative of the garlic industry, and (3) the 
structure of Yuanxin's U.S. sale is of an unusual nature.

Rescission of New Shipper Reviews

    For the foregoing reasons, the Department finds that the sales of 
all three new shippers are not bona fide and that these sales do not 
provide a reasonable or reliable basis for calculating a dumping 
margin. Because these non-bona fide sales were the only sales of 
subject merchandise during the POR, the Department is rescinding all 
three new shipper reviews in their entirety.

Notification to Importers

    The Department will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection that 
bonding is no longer permitted to fulfill security requirements for 
shipments by Chengda, Huachao, and Yuanxin of fresh garlic from the PRC 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United 
States on or after the publication of this rescission notice in the 
Federal Register, and that a cash deposit of $4.71 per kilogram should 
be collected for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date of this notice, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 
Act, by Chengda, Huachao, and Yuanxin.
    This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information

[[Page 19325]]

disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 
written notification of the 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.
    These new shipper reviews and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.214.

    Dated: March 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-8323 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P