[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70112-70113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29175]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-851]


Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: 
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

DATES: Effective Date: November 10, 2011.
SUMMARY: On September 14, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published in the Federal Register the final results of 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (PRC). See 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in 
Part, 76 FR 56732 (September 14, 2011) (Final Results). The period of 
review is February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010. We are amending 
our final results to correct a ministerial error.

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

    19 CFR 351.224(c)(2) states that a party to an antidumping duty 
proceeding must file comments concerning ministerial errors within five 
days after the earlier of the date on which the Secretary released 
documents to that party or held a disclosure meeting with that party. 
We released disclosure documents to Blue Field (Sichuan) Food 
Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Blue Field'') and Zhejiang Iceman Group, Co., 
Ltd. (``Iceman Group'') on September 7, 2011. On September 12, 2011, 
Blue Field filed a timely allegation of a ministerial error with the 
Department. On September 14, 2011, the Department released disclosure 
documents to Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd. 
(``XITIC''), thus establishing the deadline for XITIC's ministerial 
error comments as September 19, 2011. On September 19, 2011, XITIC and 
Iceman Group filed allegations of ministerial errors with the 
Department. On September 26, 2011, Monterey Mushrooms, Inc. 
(petitioner) filed rebuttal comments in response to the filings from 
XITIC and Iceman Group.
    On October 5, 2011, the Department rejected from the record Iceman 
Group's September 19, 2011, submission because it was untimely given 
that the Department released all disclosure materials to it on 
September 7, 2011. On October 7, 2011, Iceman Group submitted a letter 
arguing that its September 19, 2011, submission was not untimely 
because, inter alia, it actually had not received all disclosure 
materials on September 7, 2011. Specifically, Iceman Group claimed that 
it had not received the computation of the rate for the separate-rate 
respondents. The Department subsequently determined that it had indeed 
failed to release to interested parties the computation of the rate for 
the separate-rate respondents. Therefore, on October 18, 2011, the 
Department released this computation to all interested parties and also 
invited Iceman Group to resubmit its September 19, 2011, submission.
    No interested parties submitted ministerial error allegations with 
respect to the computation of the rate for the separate-rate 
respondents. Iceman Group resubmitted its ministerial error allegation 
on October 25, 2011.

Ministerial Errors

    A ministerial error as defined in section 751(h) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), includes ``errors in addition, 
subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting 
from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type 
of unintentional error with the administering authority considers 
ministerial.'' \1\ In this review, interested parties have alleged a 
total of four ministerial errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See also 19 CFR 351.224(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] Blue Field alleges that the Department erred in its normal 
value calculation by applying incorrect programming language regarding 
the cost of metal lids for tin can products.
    [cir] XITIC alleges that the Department erred in failing to value 
labor using the methodology announced in Antidumping Methodologies in 
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economics: Valuing the Factor of 
Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June 21, 2011).
    [cir] XITIC also alleges the Department used an incorrect surrogate 
value for its lime input.
    [cir] Iceman Group alleges the Department made a clerical error by 
including Iceman Group in the proceedings.
    No interested party commented on Blue Field's allegation. After 
analyzing Blue Field's allegation, we find, in accordance with section 
751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f), that the Department made a 
ministerial error in its normal value calculation by applying incorrect 
programming language regarding the cost of metal lids for tin can 
products.. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results for Blue Field and 
the weighted-average margin for companies that applied for separate-
rate status. For details, see Memorandum from Scott Hoefke to the File, 
Subject: ``Analysis of Data Submitted by Blue Field (Sichuan) Food 
Industrial Co., Ltd. (Blue Field) in the Amended Final Results of 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice.
    With respect to both of XITIC's allegations, petitioners argue that 
they constitute methodological issues, and not ministerial errors.
    After analyzing the interested parties' allegations and reply 
comments regarding XITIC, we find, in accordance with section 751(h) of 
the Act, that the allegations made by XITIC challenge methodological 
determinations in the final results, rather than any clerical errors 
made in carrying out its intentions. XITIC cited no record

[[Page 70113]]

evidence in its ministerial error allegation that it was the 
Department's intention in preparing the final results to use either the 
labor rate methodology announced on June 21, 2011, or to value lime 
using any surrogate value other than the one it used in the final 
results. Thus, XITIC's allegations do not fall under the definition of 
a ministerial error set forth in 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.224(f). Therefore, the Department has not amended the final results 
with respect to XITIC's allegations.
    Finally, Iceman Group argues that the Department made a clerical 
error by including Iceman Group in the proceedings. Iceman Group claims 
that no party requested a review of Iceman Group, and that the 
Department did not initiate an administrative review of shipments by 
Iceman Group. Instead, Iceman Group argues, petitioners requested a 
review of Zhejiang Iceman Food, Co., Ltd. (``Iceman Food''), and it was 
on this entity that the Department initiated an administrative review.
    Petitioner argues the Department should reject Iceman Group's 
argument for three reasons: (1) Iceman Group actively participated in 
the administrative proceedings before the Department (submitting a 
separate rate certification) and its counsel filed an entry of 
appearance on behalf of Iceman Food; (2) the Department's Preliminary 
Results \2\ specifically identified Iceman Group as an entity 
preliminarily eligible for a separate rate; and (3) Iceman Group's 
attempt to raise this issue as a clerical error--rather than having 
raised it during the Department's on-going proceedings--is an 
inappropriate use of the clerical error provision in the Department's 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, Recission in Part, and Intent to Rescind in Part, 76 FR 
12704 (March 8, 2011) (Preliminary Results)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After analyzing the interested parties' allegations and reply 
comments regarding Iceman Group, in accordance with section 751(h) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we find that the Department did not err 
by including Iceman Group in the proceedings. First, the allegations 
made by Iceman Group do not fall under the definition of ``ministerial 
error'' set forth in 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f). 
Additionally, four reasons support equating Iceman Group with the 
entity Iceman Food: (1) Counsel filed an entry of appearance on behalf 
of Iceman Food on April 5, 2010; (2) Iceman Group, which never filed a 
separate notice of appearance, filed a certification for a separate 
rate on April 29, 2010; (3) the separate rate certification filed by 
Iceman Group lists the company Web site as www.icemanfood.com and the 
company email address as ``[email protected];'' and (4) Iceman Group 
did not comment on the Preliminary Results, which specifically list 
Iceman Group as preliminarily receiving a separate rate. Therefore, the 
Department correctly and reasonably assigned a separate rate to Iceman 
Group as a result of counsel's representation of Iceman Group and 
Iceman Food, and the party's own actions before the Department 
indicating that the two names apply to the same company which is 
subject to the review. Thus, the Department will not amend the Final 
Results for Iceman Group other than to account for adjustments to the 
weighted-average margin for companies that applied for separate-rates 
status as described above.

Amended Final Results of the Review

    The Department has determined that the following amended margins 
exist for the period February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
                        Exporter                              margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd...........            2.17
Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co., Ltd...................           76.12
Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd.....           76.12
Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Corporation, Ltd...........           76.12
Zheijiang Iceman Group Co., Ltd.........................           76.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), 
the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The 
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP that are 
related to the amended final results 15 days after the of publication 
of the amended final results of review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Cash deposit requirements related to the amended final results will 
be effective retroactively for all shipments of the subject merchandise 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date of the final results, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The cash deposit rates for companies whose 
rate was corrected are noted above. For previously investigated or 
reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that have separate rates whose rate 
has not changed as a result of these amended final results, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published 
for the most recent period. For all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which 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. For all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have 
not received their own rate, the cash deposit will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. 
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
    These amended final results are published in accordance with 
sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 4, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-29175 Filed 11-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P