[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76135-76143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31281]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-900]


Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Intent To Rescind Review in Part

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

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests, the Department of Commerce 
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof (diamond 
sawblades) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of 
review (POR) is January 23, 2009, through October 31, 2010. We have 
preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value 
by the companies subject to individual examination in this review.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments in this review are requested to 
submit with each argument (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

DATES: Effective Date: December 6, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerrold Freeman or Yang Jin Chun, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0180 and (202) 482-5760, respectively.

Background

    On November 4, 2009, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC. 
See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of 
China and the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 57145 
(November 4, 2009). On November 1, 2010, the Department published in 
the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of the order. See Antidumping or Countervailing 
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 67079 (November 1, 2010).
    On December 28, 2010, based on timely requests for an 
administrative review, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request 
for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 81565 (December 28, 2010) (Initiation 
Notice).
    Consistent with our determination in Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006), and the 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (I&D Memo) (LTFV Final) at 
Comment 5, we solicited comments from interested parties concerning 
whether to change in this review the physical characteristics we use to 
identify the various products covered by this order. See the letter to 
all interested parties dated February 17, 2011. After reviewing the 
parties' comments, we decided to continue relying on the physical 
characteristics used in the investigation. See the memorandum entitled 
``Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of 
China: Physical Characteristics'' dated April 8, 2011.
    On February 18, 2011, we selected Advanced Technology & Materials 
Co., Ltd. (ATM), Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Co. (BGY), and Cliff 
International Ltd. (Cliff) (treated as a single entity in the 
investigation) and Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd. 
(Weihai), for individual examination in this review. See the memorandum 
entitled ``Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China: Selection of Respondents for Individual 
Examination'' dated February 18, 2011 (Respondent Selection Memo).
    We extended the due date for the preliminary results of review by 
120 days to November 30, 2011. See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof 
From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 
41759 (July 15, 2011), and Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 64896 (October 
19, 2011).
    We are conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

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 or 6804.21.00 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.

[[Page 76136]]

Intent To Rescind Review in Part

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind 
an administrative review, ``in whole or only with respect to a 
particular exporter or producer, if (the Department) concludes that, 
during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, 
exports, or sales of the subject merchandise * * *'' Record evidence 
indicates that Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading Co., Ltd., did not have 
any exports of subject merchandise during the POR. See the February 28, 
2011, submission from Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading Co., Ltd. 
Moreover, we have reviewed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
entry data for the POR and found no evidence of exports from this 
company. See the memorandum entitled ``Diamond Sawblades and Parts 
Thereof from the People's Republic of China (`PRC'): U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (`CBP') Data'' dated January 4, 2011. Additionally, 
on October 24, 2011, we requested that CBP report any contrary 
information. To date, we have not received any evidence that this 
company had any shipments to the United States of subject merchandise 
during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the 
Department intends to rescind this review in part with respect to 
Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading Co., Ltd.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    The Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy (NME) 
country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 
determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect 
until revoked by the administering authority. See Brake Rotors From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission 
of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Preliminary Notice of Intent 
To Rescind the 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 26736 (May 8, 2006), 
unchanged in 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 has 
contested NME treatment for the PRC. Therefore, for the preliminary 
results of this review, we have treated the PRC as an NME country and 
applied our current NME methodology in accordance with section 773(c) 
of the Act.

Surrogate Country

    In antidumping proceedings involving NME countries, pursuant to 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department generally bases normal 
value on the value of the NME producer's factors of production (FOP). 
In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOP, 
the Department uses to the extent possible the prices or costs of the 
FOP 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 merchandise comparable to the subject 
merchandise. Moreover, as we stated in Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-
Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process, dated March 1, 
2004, it is the Department's practice to select an appropriate 
surrogate country based on the availability and reliability of data 
from these countries.
    The Department has determined that India, Indonesia, Peru, the 
Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine are countries that are at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of the PRC. See the memorandum 
entitled ``Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Diamond 
Sawblades and Parts Thereof (`Diamond Sawblades') from the People's 
Republic of China (`China')'' dated May 9, 2011. On June 23, 2011, we 
issued a letter inviting comments on the selection of surrogate country 
and surrogate value. See the June 23, 2011, letter to all interested 
parties.
    On August 11, 2011, the petitioner \1\ and the respondents selected 
for individual examination recommended that the Department select India 
as the surrogate country. On August 25, 2011, Bosun Tools Co., Ltd., 
and the respondents selected for individual examination submitted 
information concerning surrogate values based on Indian statistics. For 
the preliminary results, we have selected India as the surrogate 
country and used Indian statistics for surrogate values. See the 
memorandum entitled ``Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country'' dated 
November 30, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affiliation

    In the less-than-fair-value investigation, we determined that ATM, 
BGY, and Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd. (HXF), were a 
single entity and calculated a single antidumping duty margin for this 
single entity. See LTFV Final, 71 FR at 29304, 29306-07. We also 
determined that BGY and Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc. (GYDP) were 
affiliated and that GYDP, SANC Materials, Inc., and Cliff were 
affiliated with each other. Id.
    For the preliminary results of this review, we find that ATM, BGY, 
and HXF continue to be affiliated as the facts are similar to those at 
the time of the investigation. Moreover, record evidence indicates that 
BGY determines the prices of the subject merchandise Cliff exports to 
the United States and thus controls Cliff's business operations with 
respect to exports of the subject merchandise. For this reason, we 
preliminarily find that BGY and Cliff are affiliated pursuant to 
section 771(33)(G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)(3). We also 
preliminarily find that ATM and AT&M International Trading Co., Ltd. 
(ATMI) were affiliates pursuant to sections 771(33)(E) and (G) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)(3) for a majority of the POR. For the 
remainder of the POR, we find that ATM and ATMI were affiliates 
pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)(3). For 
more details on these companies' affiliation status, which includes 
these companies' business proprietary information, see the memorandum 
entitled ``Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China: Determination to Include Additional Companies in the 
ATM Single Entity'' dated November 30, 2011. Because ATM, BGY, HXF, 
Cliff, and ATMI (collectively ATM Single Entity) \2\ are affiliated 
respondents in this review, we treated these five companies as a single 
entity for purposes of calculating a single margin for these 
preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The ATM Single Entity submitted information showing that HXF 
changed its name in December 2008 from Yichang HXF Circular Saw 
Industrial Co., Ltd., a company for which we initiated this review 
in Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 81568, to HXF Saw Co., Ltd. See the 
ATM Single Entity's November 14, 2011, supplemental response at 1-2 
and Exhibit SA2-1. The ATM Single Entity also reported that ATM 
International Trading Co., Ltd., a company for which we initiated 
this review in Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 81567, is the same 
company as ATMI. See the ATM Single Entity's November 17, 2011, 
supplemental response at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    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. In 
proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable 
presumption that all companies within the country are subject to 
government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping

[[Page 76137]]

duty rate. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: 
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 
53079 (September 8, 2006), and LTFV Final.
    In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the 
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate rate status in NME proceedings. See Initiation Notice, 75 FR 
at 81566. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of 
merchandise subject to a proceeding involving an NME country this 
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently 
independent from the government so as to be entitled to a separate 
rate. The Department assigns separate rates in NME proceedings only if 
respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto 
government control over export activities under a test developed by the 
Department and described in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 
(May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), and 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 this review, the following companies submitted separate rate 
applications:

ASHINE Diamond Tools Co., Ltd.
Bosun Tools Co., Ltd.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Bosun Tools Co., Ltd., submitted information showing that it 
was previously known as Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd., a company for 
which we initiated this review in Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 81567. 
See, inter alia, Bosun Tools Co., Ltd.'s February 28, 2011, separate 
rate application at Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Danyang Hantronic Import & Export Co., Ltd.
Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Hangzhou Deer King Industrial & Trading Co., Ltd.
Hebei Husqvarna-Jikai Diamond Tools Co., Ltd.
Hebei XMF Tools (Group) Co., Ltd.
Henan Huanghe Whirlwind Co., Ltd.
Henan Huanghe Whirlwind International Co., Ltd.
Huzhou Gu's Import & Export Co., Ltd.
Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd.
Jiangsu Inter-China Group Corporation \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Jiangsu Inter-China Group Corporation submitted information 
showing that it was previously known as Zhenjiang Inter-China Import 
& Export Co., Ltd., a company for which we initiated this review in 
Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 81567. See Jiangsu Inter-China Group 
Corporation's February 28, 2011, separate rate application at 
Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jiangsu Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Jiangsu Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd., submitted 
information showing that it was previously known as Danyang Youhe 
Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd., a company for which we initiated this 
review in Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 81567. See Jiangsu Youhe Tool 
Manufacturer Co., Ltd.'s February 28, 2011, separate rate 
application at 3 and Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd.
Saint-Gobain Abrasives (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Saint-Gobain Abrasives (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., reported that 
Saint-Gobain Abrasives Inc., a company for which we initiated this 
review in Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 81568, is its U.S. affiliate. 
See Saint-Gobain Abrasives (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.'s February 28, 2011, 
separate rate application at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shanghai Robtol Tool Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Xiamen ZL Diamond Technology Co., Ltd.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Xiamen ZL Diamond Tools Co., Ltd., a company for which we 
initiated this review in Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 81568, 
submitted information showing that it changed its name to Xiamen ZL 
Diamond Technology Co., Ltd., during the POR. See Xiamen ZL Diamond 
Technology Co., Ltd.'s January 14, 2011, separate rate application 
at 3 and Exhibit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, the following companies submitted separate rate 
certifications:

Chengdu Huifeng Diamond Tools Co., Ltd.
Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Fujian Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co., Ltd.
Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd.
Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co. Ltd.
Shijiazhuang Global New Century Tools Co., Ltd.
Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co.
Zhejiang Wanli Tools Group Co., Ltd.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In Initiation Notice, we initiated the review for Zhejiang 
Wanli Tools Group Co., Ltd., aka Wanli Tools Group. See Initiation 
Notice, 75 FR at 81568. In its separate rate certification, Zhejiang 
Wanli Tools Group Co., Ltd., certified that it used the same trade 
name as identified in the investigation, which is Zhejiang Wanli 
Tools Group Co., Ltd. See Zhejiang Wanli Tools Group Co., Ltd.'s 
February 28, 2011, separate rate certification at 3 and LTFV Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, the Department received complete responses for the 
antidumping questionnaires which contain additional information 
pertaining to the company's eligibility for a separate rate from the 
following respondents selected for individual examination:

ATM Single Entity

Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd.

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 an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; (3) any other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The companies listed above have placed on the administrative record 
both a copy of their business licenses and export licenses. The 
selected respondents and companies that filed separate rate 
applications also placed on the administrative record a copy of their 
articles of association. None of these documents contains restrictions 
with respect to export activities.
    In their submissions, the companies listed above stated that they 
are independent legal entities and placed evidence on the record of the 
review indicating that the government of the PRC does not have de jure 
control over their export activities. The companies listed above 
submitted evidence of their legal right to set prices independent of 
all governmental oversight. Furthermore, the business licenses of these 
companies indicate that they are permitted to engage in the exportation 
of diamond sawblades. We also found no evidence of de jure government 
control restricting these companies' exportation of the subject 
merchandise.
    The Department has found previously that the Company Law of the 
People's Republic of China (Company Law) indicates a lack of de jure 
government control. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative and New-Shipper Reviews, 75 FR 34100, 34103 (June 16, 
2010), unchanged in Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and 
New-Shipper Reviews, 75 FR 79337 (December 20, 2010). The Company Law 
governs business activities of the companies listed above, made 
effective on July 1, 1994, with the amended version promulgated on 
August 28, 2004, and states that a company is an enterprise legal 
person, that shareholders shall assume liability towards the company to 
the extent of their shareholdings, and that the company shall be liable 
for its debts to the extent of all its assets. Id.
    Additionally, the Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of 
China also indicates a lack of de jure government control. Id. 
Specifically, this document identifies the rights and responsibilities 
of organizations engaging in foreign trade, grants autonomy to foreign-
trade operators in management decisions, and establishes the foreign-
trade operator's accountability for profits and losses. Id. Based on 
the foregoing, the Department has preliminarily determined that there 
is an absence of de jure governmental

[[Page 76138]]

control over the export activities of these companies listed above.

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 22587. 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 of its export functions: (1) Whether the 
export prices are set by, or subject to the approval of, a government 
agency; (2) whether the respondent has the authority to negotiate and 
sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has 
autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the 
selection of management; (4) whether the respondent retains the 
proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding 
the disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 
59 FR at 22586-87, and Notice of 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).
    Companies listed above have each certified the following: (1) The 
company establishes its own export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts 
without guidance from any government entities or organizations; (3) it 
makes its own personnel decisions; (4) it retains the proceeds of its 
export sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the 
authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans.
    Based on the information on the record of this review, the 
Department has preliminarily determined that there is an absence of de 
facto governmental control over the export activities of the companies 
listed above. Given that the Department has found that the companies 
listed above operate free of de jure and de facto governmental control, 
we have preliminarily determined that the companies listed above have 
satisfied the criteria for a separate rate.

Separate Rate for Non-Selected Companies

    In accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, we selected 
companies within the ATM Single Entity and Weihai for individual 
examination because we did not have the resources to examine all 
companies for which a review was requested. See Respondent Selection 
Memo.
    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the 
establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not 
selected for examination when the Department limits its examination in 
an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. 
Generally we have used section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides 
instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, 
for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents we did not 
examine in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 
articulates a preference that we do not calculate an all-others rate 
using any zero or de minimis margins or any margins based entirely on 
facts available. Accordingly, the Department's usual practice has been 
to average the rates for the selected companies, excluding zero, de 
minimis, and rates based entirely on facts available. See, e.g., Ball 
Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the 
United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 
(September 11, 2008), and the accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 16.
    Because the weighted-average antidumping duty margin for the ATM 
Single Entity is de minimis, the antidumping duty margin for Weihai is 
the only weighted-average margin which is applicable to companies not 
selected for individual examination and eligible for a separate rate. 
Accordingly, for the preliminary results of this review, we are 
assigning the rate of 8.50 percent to companies not selected for 
individual examination and eligible for a separate rate. In assigning 
this separate rate, we did not impute the actions of any other 
companies to the behavior of the companies not individually examined 
but based this determination on record evidence that may be deemed 
reasonably reflective of the potential dumping margin for the companies 
not selected for individual examination and eligible for a separate 
rate in this administrative review.
    Additionally, in its February 25, 2011, separate rate application, 
Hebei Husqvarna-Jikai Diamond Tools Co., Ltd., claimed that it is the 
successor-in-interest to Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd., which 
is another respondent in this review. The Department has determined 
that Hebei Husqvarna-Jikai Diamond Tools Co., Ltd., is not the 
successor-in-interest to Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd., and 
that Hebei Husqvarna-Jikai Diamond Tools Co., Ltd., is a new entity. 
See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Intent To Terminate, in 
Part, Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Extension of 
Time Limit for Final Results, 76 FR 38357 (June 30, 2011), unchanged in 
Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results and Termination, in Part, of the Antidumping Duty 
Changed Circumstances Review, 76 FR 64898 (October 19, 2011). 
Accordingly, because Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd., did not 
file a separate rate application or a separate rate certification, we 
assigned a PRC-wide rate to this company for the preliminary results of 
this review.

U.S. Price

    For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and (b) of 
the Act, as appropriate.

Export Price Sales

    For the ATM Single Entity and Weihai, in accordance with section 
772(a) of the Act, the Department calculated EP for a portion of sales 
to the United States because the first sale to an unaffiliated party 
was made before the date of importation and the use of CEP was not 
otherwise warranted. The Department calculated EP based on the sales 
price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, as appropriate, the Department 
deducted from the sales price expenses for certain foreign inland 
freight, brokerage and handling (B&H), and international movement 
costs. For the inland freight and B&H services provided by an NME 
vendor or paid for using an NME currency, the Department based the 
deduction of these charges on surrogate values. See the memorandum 
entitled ``Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China: Surrogate Value for the Preliminary Results of 
Review'' dated November 30, 2011 (Surrogate Value Memo), for details 
regarding the surrogate values for movement expenses. For international 
freight provided by a market economy provider and paid in U.S. dollars, 
the Department used the actual cost per kilogram of the freight.

[[Page 76139]]

Constructed Export Price Sales

    For some of the U.S. sales the ATM Single Entity and Weihai 
reported, the Department based U.S. price on CEP in accordance with 
section 772(b) of the Act because sales were made on behalf of the 
China-based exporter by a U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated customers in 
the United States. For these sales, the Department based CEP on prices 
to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where 
appropriate, the Department made deductions from the starting price 
(gross unit price) for foreign movement expenses, international 
movement expenses, U.S. movement expenses, and appropriate selling 
adjustments, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department 
also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States. The Department deducted, 
where appropriate, commissions, inventory carrying costs, credit 
expenses, warranty expenses, and indirect selling expenses. Where 
foreign movement expenses, international movement expenses, or U.S. 
movement expenses were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in 
renminbi, the Department valued these services using surrogate values. 
See the ``Surrogate Values'' section, infra, for further discussion. 
For those expenses that were provided by a market economy provider and 
paid for in a market economy currency, the Department used the reported 
expense. Due to the proprietary nature of certain adjustments to U.S. 
price, see the company-specific analysis memoranda dated November 30, 
2011, for a detailed description of all adjustments made to U.S. price 
for each company.

Further Manufactured Sales

    The ATM Single Entity reported sales of subject merchandise that 
its U.S. affiliate further manufactured in the United States and 
responded to section E of the Department's questionnaire. Section E 
requests data related to cost of further manufacturing or assembly 
performed in the United States of subject merchandise. Based on the ATM 
Single Entity's responses and data, we have made the deduction required 
by section 772(d)(2) of the Act for the costs of the further 
manufacturing.
    On April 27, 2011, Weihai requested that the Department exempt the 
company from responding to section E. On June 1, 2011, we directed the 
company to provide the information regarding further manufacturing in 
section A of our questionnaire and to report its sales of further 
manufactured products to unaffiliated customers. See the June 1, 2011, 
letter from the Department to Weihai. Weihai submitted the requested 
information on June 8, 2011, and August 24, 2011, respectively. After 
reviewing Weihai's responses, we granted Weihai's request not to 
respond to section E because the total value of Weihai's U.S. sales of 
further manufactured products was insignificant and did not justify the 
extensive use of our resources to analyze those sales for the 
preliminary results of this review. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From 
the Republic of Korea, 62 FR 51437, 51438 (October 1, 1997), unchanged 
in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From the Republic of Korea, 
63 FR 8934 (February 23, 1998). For business proprietary details on our 
decision, see the Weihai preliminary analysis memorandum dated November 
30, 2011.

Revenue Caps

    Weihai received freight revenues from its customers for certain 
U.S. sales. In Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
46584 (August 11, 2008), and the accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 7 and 
in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
6857 (February 11, 2009), and accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 6, the 
Department determined to treat such revenues as an offset to the 
specific expenses for which they were intended to compensate. 
Accordingly, we have used Weihai's freight revenues as an offset to its 
corresponding freight expenses.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine normal value using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is 
exported from an NME country and the available information does not 
permit the calculation of normal value using home market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. 
The Department uses an FOP methodology because the presence of 
government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders price 
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its 
normal methodologies. See 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, 39754 (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).
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we relied on the FOP 
data reported by the ATM Single Entity and Weihai.\9\ We calculated 
normal value by adding together the value of the FOP, overhead, general 
expenses, profit, and packing costs. Specifically, we valued material, 
labor, energy, and packing by multiplying the reported per-unit rates 
for the factors consumed in producing the subject merchandise by the 
average per-unit surrogate value of the factor. In addition, we added 
freight costs to the surrogate costs that we calculated for material 
inputs. We calculated 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. This adjustment is in accordance 
with the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (CAFC) in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-
1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We increased the calculated costs of the FOP for 
surrogate general expenses and profit. See Surrogate Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We based the values of the FOPs on surrogate values, as 
applicable. See the ``Surrogate Values'' section, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Values

    In selecting surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. For these preliminary 
results, in selecting the best available data for valuing FOPs in 
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, we followed our practice 
of choosing publicly available values which are non-export average 
values, most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-
exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen 
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the

[[Page 76140]]

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). We also considered the 
quality of the source of surrogate information in selecting surrogate 
values. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 
55625, 55633 (November 8, 1994). Where we could only obtain surrogate 
values that were not contemporaneous with the POR, we inflated the 
surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price 
Index (Indian WPI), as published in the International Financial 
Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. See Surrogate Value 
Memo.
    As explained in the legislative history of the Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act of 1988, the Department continues to apply its 
long-standing practice of disregarding surrogate values if it has a 
reason to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized as 
discussed below.\10\ In this regard, we have found previously that it 
is appropriate to disregard such prices from India, Indonesia, South 
Korea, and Thailand because we have determined that these countries 
maintain broadly available, non-industry specific export subsidies.\11\ 
Based on the existence of these subsidy programs that were generally 
available to all exporters and producers in these countries at the time 
of the POR, the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that 
all exporters from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have 
benefitted from these subsidies. Additionally, we disregarded prices 
from NME countries.\12\ 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 generally 
available export subsidies.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. 
Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd 
Sess. (1988) at 590, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24.
    \11\ See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India: Final 
Results of the Expedited Five-Year (Sunset) Review of the 
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010), and the 
accompanying I&D Memo at 4-5, Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 
Steel Plate From Indonesia: Final Result of Expedited Sunset Review, 
70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and the accompanying I&D Memo at 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 the accompanying I&D Memo at 17, 
19-20, and Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand, 66 FR 
50410 (October 3, 2001), and the accompanying I&D Memo at 23.
    \12\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 
Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5, 2009), unchanged in 
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We used the following surrogate values in our margin calculations 
for these preliminary results of review. We valued raw materials, 
packing materials, and energy consumption (with the exception of 
electricity) using January 2009-October 2010 weighted-average Indian 
import values derived from the Global Trade Atlas online (GTA). The 
Indian import statistics that we obtained from the GTA were published 
by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence & Statistics, 
Ministry of Commerce of India, and are contemporaneous with the POR.
    To value electricity, we used March 2008 electricity price rates 
from Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply 
in India, published by the Central Electricity Authority of the 
Government of India. As the rates listed in this source became 
effective on a variety of different dates, we are not adjusting the 
average value for inflation.
    We valued truck-freight expenses using an average of the per-unit 
average rates for January 2009, April 2009, July 2009, October 2009, 
January 2010, April 2010, July 2010, and October 2010 which we 
calculated from data at www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The 
logistics section of this Web site contains rates for inland-freight 
trucking between many large Indian cities. We inflated or deflated, 
depending on the month, the per-unit average truck-freight rates for 
the selected months of the POR using the Indian WPI to make it 
contemporaneous with the POR.
    We valued B&H expenses using a price list of export procedures 
necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in India. The price 
list is compiled based on a survey case study of the procedural 
requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by ocean 
transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2011: India, 
published by the World Bank. Because these data were current throughout 
the POR, we did not inflate the value for B&H. See Surrogate Value Memo 
for further details.
    We valued international freight using the data obtained from the 
Descartes Carrier Rate Retrieval Database (Descartes) which is 
available at http://descartes.com/. The Descartes database is a web-
based service which publishes the ocean freight rates of numerous 
carriers. In the less-than-fair-value investigation of the subject 
merchandise, the Department did not use the Descartes database as an 
ocean freight surrogate value source because the data did not appear to 
be publicly available. Upon reexamination, we have found that this 
database is accessible to government agencies without charge in 
compliance with Federal Maritime Commission regulations and, thus, we 
now find that this is a publicly available source.
    In addition to being publicly available, the Descartes data reflect 
rates for multiple carriers, the Web site reports rates on a daily 
basis, the price data are based on routes that correspond closely to 
those used by a respondent, and they reflect merchandise similar to 
subject merchandise. Therefore, the Descartes data are product-
specific, publicly available, a broad-market average, and 
contemporaneous with the POR. Accordingly, we find that the Descartes 
database is the best available source for valuing international freight 
on the record of this review because it provides rates that are 
representative of the entire POR and a broader representation of 
product-specificity.
    While we find that the Descartes database is the best available 
source on the record of the review for valuing international freight, 
to make the source less impractical, we had to define certain 
parameters in our selection of data. For example, we calculated the 
period-average international freight rate by obtaining rates from 
multiple carriers for a single day in each quarter of the POR. Further, 
we did not include rates in the period-average international freight 
calculation that we determined were from NME carriers. Additionally, we 
excluded from any individual rate calculation any charges that are 
covered by the B&H expenses that a respondent incurred and which are 
valued by the appropriate surrogate value. See Surrogate Value Memo for 
further details.
    We valued international air freight using rates obtained from DHL 
Hong Kong. See Surrogate Value Memo. We valued marine insurance using a 
price quote retrieved from RJG Consultants, online at http://www.rjgconsultants.com/163.html, a market economy provider of marine 
insurance. We did not inflate this rate

[[Page 76141]]

because it is contemporaneous with the POR. Id.
    Previously, with respect to valuation of labor inputs, the 
Department used regression-based wages that captured the worldwide 
relationship between per capita Gross National Income (GNI) and hourly 
manufacturing wages pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) to value the 
respondent's cost of labor. On May 14, 2010, the CAFC in Dorbest Ltd. 
v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Dorbest), 
invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). As a consequence of the CAFC's ruling 
in Dorbest, the Department no longer relies on the regression-based 
wage rate methodology described in its regulations. On February 18, 
2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a request for 
public comment on the interim methodology and the data sources. See 
Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-Market 
Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor; Request for 
Comment, 76 FR 9544 (February 18, 2011).
    On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for 
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings. See Antidumping 
Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies: Valuing 
the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June 21, 2011) (Labor 
Methodologies). In Labor Methodologies, the Department determined that 
the best methodology to value the labor input is to use industry-
specific labor rates from the primary surrogate country. Additionally, 
the Department determined that the best data source for industry-
specific labor rates is Chapter 6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from 
the International Labor Organization (ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics 
(Yearbook).
    For the preliminary results, we have calculated the labor inputs 
using the method described in Labor Methodologies. To value the labor 
inputs, we relied on data reported by India to the ILO in Chapter 6A of 
the Yearbook. We find further that the two-digit description under 
ISIC-Revision 3, i.e., 28--``Manufacture of Fabricated Metal Products, 
except Machinery and Equipment,'' is the best available information on 
the record because it is specific to the industry being examined and is 
therefore derived from industries that produce comparable merchandise. 
Specifically, this category captures class 2893--``Manufacture of 
cutlery, hand tools and general hardware'' and ``includes the 
manufacture of . . . saws and sawblades including circular sawblades 
and chainsaw blades.'' Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the 
Yearbook, we calculated the labor inputs using labor data reported by 
India to the ILO under Sub-Classification 28 of the ISIC-Revision 3 
standard in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act. The ILO data 
reported under Chapter 6A of the Yearbook reflects all costs related to 
labor, including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. A more 
detailed description of the wage-rate calculation methodology is 
provided in the Surrogate Value Memo.
    We valued factory overhead costs, selling, general, and 
administrative expenses, and profit using the 2010-11 financial 
statements of Carborundum Universal Limited, an Indian abrasives 
manufacturer. See Surrogate Value Memo. Because the financial 
statements used to calculate the surrogate financial ratios do not 
include an itemized detail of labor costs, we did not make adjustments 
to certain labor costs in the surrogate financial ratios. See Labor 
Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the 
dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. These 
exchange rates are available on the Import Administration Web site at 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of the administrative review, we preliminarily 
determine that the following weighted-average percentage dumping 
margins exist for the period January 23, 2009, through October 31, 
2010:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Cliff International Ltd. also used the company name Cliff 
(Tianjin) International Ltd., according to various documents 
provided in the ATM Single Entity's May 10, 2011, section A 
response.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                         Company                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd................            0.14
ASHINE Diamond Tools Co., Ltd...........................            8.50
AT&M International Trading Co., Ltd.....................            0.14
Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Co....................            0.14
Bosun Tools Co., Ltd....................................            8.50
Central Iron and Steel Research Institute Group.........          164.09
Chengdu Huifeng Diamond Tools Co., Ltd..................            8.50
Cliff International Ltd \14\............................            0.14
Danyang Aurui Hardware Products Co., Ltd................          164.09
Danyang Dida Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd.......          164.09
Danyang Hantronic Import & Export Co., Ltd..............            8.50
Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd...            8.50
Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd...............            8.50
Danyang Tsunda Diamond Tools Co., Ltd...................          164.09
Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd............          164.09
Electrolux Construction Products (Xiamen) Co. Ltd.......          164.09
Fujian Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co., Ltd..................            8.50
Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co., Ltd................            8.50
Hangzhou Deer King Industrial & Trading Co., Ltd........            8.50
Hebei Husqvarna-Jikai Diamond Tools Co., Ltd............            8.50
Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd...................          164.09
Hebei XMF Tools (Group) Co., Ltd........................            8.50
Henan Huanghe Whirlwind Co., Ltd........................            8.50
Henan Huanghe Whirlwind International Co., Ltd..........            8.50
Hua Da Superabrasive Tools Technology Co., Ltd..........          164.09
Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd...........          164.09

[[Page 76142]]

 
Huzhou Gu's Import & Export Co., Ltd....................            8.50
HXF Saw Co., Ltd........................................            0.14
Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd.......            8.50
Jiangsu Fengyu Tools Co., Ltd...........................          164.09
Jiangyin Likn Industry Co., Ltd.........................          164.09
Jiangsu Inter-China Group Corporation...................            8.50
Jiangsu Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd................            8.50
Protech Diamond Tools...................................          164.09
Pujiang Talent Diamond Tools Co., Ltd...................          164.09
Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd.............            8.50
Quanzhou Shuangyang Diamond Tools Co., Ltd..............          164.09
Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co. Ltd..................            8.50
Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd................................            8.50
Saint-Gobain Abrasives (Shanghai) Co., Ltd..............            8.50
Shanghai Robtol Tool Manufacturing Co., Ltd.............            8.50
Shijiazhuang Global New Century Tools Co., Ltd..........            8.50
Sichuan Huili Tools Co..................................          164.09
Task Tools & Abrasives..................................          164.09
Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd........            8.50
Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co....................            8.50
Wuxi Lianhua Superhard Material Tools Co., Ltd..........          164.09
Xiamen ZL Diamond Technology Co., Ltd...................            8.50
Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Ltd...................          164.09
Zhejiang Wanda Import and Export Co.....................          164.09
Zhejiang Wanda Tools Group Corp.........................          164.09
Zhejiang Wanli Super-hard Materials Co., Ltd............          164.09
Zhejiang Wanli Tools Group Co., Ltd.....................            8.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to 
interested parties to this review within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties 
may submit publicly available information to value factors no later 
than 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results 
of review. See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii).
    Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 
30 days after the date of publication of this notice of preliminary 
results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs from 
interested parties, limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, 
may be submitted not later than five days after the time limit for 
filing the case briefs or comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).
    Any interested party may request a hearing no later than the date 
on which the case briefs are due. See 19 CFR 351.310. Interested 
parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate in a hearing if 
a hearing is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration. Requests should contain the 
following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; (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 case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    If requested, any hearing will be held two days after the scheduled 
date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Parties 
who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested 
to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the 
arguments not exceeding five pages, and a table of statutes, 
regulations, and cases cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
    The Department intends to issue the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later 
than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. See section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/
importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for 
merchandise subject to this review as described below. We intend to 
issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of 
publication of the final results of review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of review for all shipments of the 
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 subject merchandise exported by the 
ATM Single Entity and Weihai, the cash deposit rate will be that 
established in the final results of review; (2) for previously 
investigated companies not listed above that have separate rates, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the investigation; (3) for all other PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be PRC-wide rate of 164.09 
percent; (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC entity that 
supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also 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.

[[Page 76143]]

    This review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 
751(a)(2)(B)(iv), 751(a)(3), and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-31281 Filed 12-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P