[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20317-20318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8742]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-900]


Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review

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

SUMMARY: On March 9, 2011, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
issued its preliminary intent to rescind the new shipper review 
(``NSR'') of Pujiang Talent Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. (``PTDT'').\1\ We 
gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary 
Intent to Rescind and, based upon our analysis of the comments and 
rebuttal comments received, we continue to determine that PTDT has 
failed to meet the minimum requirements for entitlement to an NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum to the File, from James C. Doyle, Office 
Director, through Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Preliminary 
Intent to Rescind the New Shipper Review of Pujiang Talent Diamond 
Tools Co., Ltd., dated March 9, 2011 (``Preliminary Intent to 
Rescind'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: April 12, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Ray, 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) 482-5403.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History

    The Department received a timely request from PTDT, in what at the 
time appeared to be in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for an NSR of 
the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof from 
the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). On June 28, 2010, the 
Department published the initiation of the NSR with a January 23, 2009, 
through April 30, 2010 period of review (``POR'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review, 75 FR 36632 (June 28, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 9, 2011, the Department issued its preliminary intent to 
rescind this NSR based on the sale of subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR that had been produced by a company that had 
exported subject merchandise to the United States during the period of 
investigation (``POI''). See Preliminary Intent to Rescind.
    On March 16, 2011, the Department received affirmative comments 
from PTDT, requesting that the Department not terminate the NSR. The 
Department received rebuttal comments from Petitioners, the Diamond 
Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition, on March 23, 2011, requesting that 
the Department terminate the NSR.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are all finished circular 
sawblades, whether slotted or not, with a working part that is 
comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and parts thereof, 
regardless of specification or size, except as specifically excluded 
below. Within the scope of the order are semifinished diamond 
sawblades, including diamond sawblade cores and diamond sawblade 
segments. Diamond sawblade cores are circular steel plates, whether or 
not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. Diamond sawblade cores 
are manufactured principally, but not exclusively, from alloy steel. A 
diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of diamonds (whether 
natural or synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and 
metal powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel, 
tungsten carbide) that are formed together into a solid shape (from 
generally, but not limited to, a heating and pressing process).
    Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin 
or electroplated bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond segment, 
are not included within the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/
or sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 inches, or with a 
thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope of the 
order. Circular steel plates that have a cutting edge of non-diamond 
material, such as external teeth that protrude from the outer diameter 
of the plate, whether or not finished, are excluded from the scope of 
the order. Diamond sawblade cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less 
than 25 are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades 
and/or diamond segment(s) with diamonds that predominantly have a mesh 
size number greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are excluded from the 
scope of the order. Merchandise subject to the order is typically 
imported under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (``HTSUS'''). When packaged together as a set for 
retail sale with an item that is separately classified under headings 
8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be 
imported under heading 8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. The tariff 
classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; 
however, the written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.

Summary of Comments Received \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Certain business proprietary information (``BPI'') regarding 
the rescission of this NSR has been addressed in a public manner in 
this notice. For an explanation of the BPI relied upon, see 
Memorandum to the File, from Alan Ray, Case Analyst, Diamond 
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: BPI 
Referenced in Final Rescission, dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 16, 2011, PTDT submitted comments regarding the 
Department's Preliminary Intent to Rescind. PTDT raised four main 
arguments. First, the purpose of the NSR is to determine if PTDT was 
dumping subject merchandise and then to calculate its antidumping duty 
margin. To rescind the NSR based on an isolated incident, representing 
such a low volume, places too much weight on the insignificant incident 
at issue. To rescind the review would now be a significant waste of 
already spent time and resources. Second, PTDT exported subject 
merchandise produced by another company to fill a customer's order, not 
in an effort to assist that company in circumventing payment of 
antidumping duties. Third, the Department should exercise its 
discretion and overlook this technical violation by applying the same 
kind of logic it employs when it extends the POR of an NSR so as to 
capture non-entered sales, or the same logic employed in the 
application of the de minimis provision for antidumping duty margins of 
less than 0.5 percent. Finally, PTDT argues that if the Department 
determines that rescission is appropriate, it should instead consider

[[Page 20318]]

conducting this NSR concurrently with the first administrative review.
    On March 23, 2011, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments.\4\ With 
respect to PTDT's argument that the rescission would render significant 
time and effort a nullity, Petitioners note that this NSR was 
undertaken at PTDT's request and certification. PTDT's certification at 
the time of the request for the NSR did not state that PTDT had 
exported a low volume of subject merchandise produced by a company that 
exported during the POI. With respect to PTDT's argument that the 
Department should exercise its discretion and overlook this technical 
violation, Petitioners note that 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii) requires in 
cases where an exporter is not the producer of all merchandise it ships 
to the United States, a secondary certification that the supplier did 
not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. 
Petitioners further note that as the Department already stated, the 
regulations do not require the consideration of relative volumes 
sourced from a company that exported to the United States during the 
POI, with respect to the secondary certification requirement. 
Therefore, Petitioners argue, PTDT is not entitled to an NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We note that the deadline for submitting rebuttal comments 
was March 21, 2011. However, according to Petitioners, although PTDT 
certified as to service, Petitioners still had not received a 
service copy of PTDT's submission as of March 23, 2011. Therefore, 
we find good cause under 19 CFR 351.302(b) to extend the time limit 
to submit rebuttal comments and, accordingly, accept Petitioners' 
submission. Moreover, because PTDT certified that it served 
Petitioners with its submission and subsequently submitted a letter 
confirming service, we have not rejected PTDT's submission, as 
requested by Petitioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Rescission of Review

    As stated in the Preliminary Intent to Rescind, the Department has 
determined that PTDT does not meet the minimum requirements for 
establishing its qualification for an NSR under 19 CFR 
351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B) because PTDT sold and exported subject merchandise 
to the United States during the POR that had been produced by a company 
that had exported to the United States during the POI. Because PTDT 
could not produce a certification that none of the merchandise it 
exported during the POR had been produced by a company that had 
exported during the POI, PTDT does not meet the minimum requirements 
for establishing qualification for an NSR. Furthermore, we note that 
the regulations provide a basis for extending the POR of NSRs \5\ and 
applying the de minimis provision for margins of less than 0.5 
percent,\6\ but there is no basis for overlooking the requirements set 
forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B). Accordingly, we are rescinding 
this NSR. As the Department is rescinding this NSR, we are not 
calculating a company-specific rate for PTDT, and PTDT will remain part 
of the PRC-wide entity subject to the PRC-wide rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii).
    \6\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this final rescission of this NSR for all shipments of 
subject merchandise by PTDT, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act''): (1) For 
subject merchandise produced and exported by PTDT, as part of the PRC-
wide entity the cash deposit rate will be 164.09 percent; (2) for 
subject merchandise exported by PTDT, but not manufactured by PTDT, as 
part of the PRC-wide entity the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the PRC-wide rate of 164.09 percent; and (3) for subject merchandise 
manufactured by PTDT, but exported by any party other than PTDT, the 
cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter. These 
cash deposit requirements will remain in effect until further notice.

Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 
351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: April 6, 2011.
Gary Taverman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-8742 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P