[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1464-1470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-242]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-891]


Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

DATES: Effective Date: January 10, 2012.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is currently 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
hand trucks and certain parts thereof (hand trucks) from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC) covering the period of review (POR) of December 
1, 2009, through November 30, 2010. We preliminarily determine that 
sales made by New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (New-Tec), were 
below normal value (NV) at a de minimis level. We invite interested 
parties to comment on these preliminary results.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 2, 2004, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC. See 
Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 
From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 70122 (December 2, 2004). On 
December 1,

[[Page 1465]]

2010, the Department published in the Federal Register its notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on hand trucks from the PRC covering the POR of December 1, 2009, 
through November 30, 2010. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 74682 (December 1, 2010). On January 28, 
2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of 
initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of hand trucks 
from the PRC with respect to New-Tec. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 5137 (January 28, 
2011) (Initiation Notice).
    We issued the standard antidumping duty questionnaire to New-Tec on 
February 2, 2011, and received timely responses from New-Tec in March 
2011. We issued supplemental questionnaires to New-Tec covering 
sections A, C, and D of the original questionnaire in May 2011, August 
2011, and November 2011 and received timely responses to those 
questionnaires.
    On September 29, 2011, and November 7, 2011, respectively, we 
received separate rate applications from Yangjiang Shunhe Industrial 
Co., Ltd. (Yangjiang Shunhe) and Welcom Products Inc. (Welcom).

Period of Review

    The POR is December 1, 2009, through November 30, 2010.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order consists of 
hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or 
unassembled, complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain 
parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the 
projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof. A complete 
or fully assembled hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow consisting of 
a vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than one handle at 
or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least two wheels at 
or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a horizontal 
projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or angled to the 
vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the vertical frame. The 
projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides under a load for 
purposes of lifting and/or moving the load.
    That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical setting to 
a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a 
platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope 
of the order. That the vertical frame, handling area, wheels, 
projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be collapsed or 
folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of 
the order. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, 
handling area, projecting edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in 
addition to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower section 
of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck 
from the scope of the order. Finally, that the hand truck may exhibit 
physical characteristics in addition to the vertical frame, the 
handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at 
or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for 
exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the order.
    Examples of names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand 
truck, convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cylinder hand 
truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically imported 
under heading 8716.80.50.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS), although they may also be imported under heading 
8716.80.50.90. Specific parts of a hand truck, namely the vertical 
frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, or any 
combination thereof, are typically imported under heading 8716.90.50.60 
of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description 
of the scope is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope are small two-wheel or four-wheel utility 
carts specifically designed for carrying loads like personal bags or 
luggage in which the frame is made from telescoping tubular materials 
measuring less than \5/8\-inch in diameter; hand trucks that use 
motorized operations either to move the hand truck from one location to 
the next or to assist in the lifting of items placed on the hand truck; 
vertical carriers designed specifically to transport golf bags; and 
wheels and tires used in the manufacture of hand trucks.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, we 
have treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country. See, e.g., 
Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 76336 (December 16, 
2008); and Frontseating Service Valves From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final 
Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 
13, 2009). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Act), any determination that a foreign country 
is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/
2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New 
Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the parties to 
this proceeding have contested such treatment or provided record 
evidence for us to reconsider our continued treatment of the PRC as an 
NME. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Separate Rates Determination

    A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is 
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. 
Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the PRC are subject to government control, and thus should be 
assessed a single antidumping duty rate.
    It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of the 
merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless an 
exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government 
control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to 
exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to 
be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test 
established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 
6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified by the Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide).
    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that all firms that 
wish to qualify for separate-rate status in the administrative reviews 
involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a 
separate-rate application or certification. See Initiation Notice, 76 
FR at 5138. To establish separate-rate eligibility, the Department 
requires entities for which a review was requested, that were assigned 
a separate rate in the most recent segment of the proceeding in which 
they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria 
for

[[Page 1466]]

obtaining a separate rate. In this administrative review, Yangjiang 
Shunhe and Welcom each submitted a separate-rate application long after 
the 60-day deadline (September 29, 2011, and November 7, 2011, 
respectively) for when separate rate applications were due (i.e., March 
29, 2011). The Department generally will not accept separate rate 
requests from companies that were not requested to be reviewed. See 
Initiation Notice (``All firms listed below that wish to qualify for 
separate-rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME 
countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate-rate 
application or certification, as described below''). Because no request 
for review of Yangjiang Shunhe and Welcom was submitted by an 
interested party, we did not initiate an administrative review with 
regard to either company's shipments of subject merchandise. 
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that neither firm is eligible 
to apply for a separate-rate in this review.

Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. In this review, New-Tec submitted 
complete responses to the separate rates section of the Department's 
questionnaire. The evidence submitted by New-Tec includes government 
laws and regulations on corporate ownership and control (i.e., the 
Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China and the Law of the 
People's Republic of China on Foreign Joint Ventures), its individual 
business license, and narrative information regarding its operations 
and selection of management. The evidence provided by New-Tec supports 
a preliminary finding of a de jure absence of government control over 
its export activities. Specifically, record evidence indicates that: 
(1) There are no controls on exports of subject merchandise, such as 
quotas applied to, or licenses required for, exports of the subject 
merchandise to the United States; (2) the government of the PRC has 
passed legislation decentralizing control of companies; and (3) the 
government has taken formal measures to decentralize control of 
companies. See New-Tec's March 2, 2011, submission at 2-10.

Absence of De Facto Control

    The absence of de facto government control over exports is based on 
whether the company: (1) Sets its own export prices independent of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) 
retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes independent 
decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; 
(3) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (4) has autonomy from the government regarding the 
selection of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; 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).
    In its March 2, 2011 submission, New-Tec submitted evidence 
demonstrating an absence of de facto government control over its export 
activities. Specifically, this evidence indicates that: (1) The company 
sets its own export prices independent of the government and without 
the approval of a government authority; (2) the company retains the 
proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) the company has a 
general manager with the authority to negotiate and bind the company in 
an agreement; (4) the general manager is selected by the board of 
directors; (5) the general manager appoints the other management 
personnel; and (6) there are no restrictions on the company's use of 
export revenues.
    Therefore, we preliminarily find that New-Tec has established that 
it qualifies for a separate rate under the criteria established by 
Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (FOPs), 
valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to 
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) 
of the Act, in valuing FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the 
extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market 
economy countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of 
comparable merchandise.
    The Department determined that Colombia, Indonesia, the 
Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine are countries 
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.\1\ Moreover, it 
is the Department's practice to select an appropriate surrogate country 
based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries 
that are producers of comparable merchandise. See Department Policy 
Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection 
Process (March 1, 2004). In the current segment of the proceeding, we 
received comments regarding surrogate country selection only from New-
Tec. New-Tec argued that Thailand was the most comparable economically 
to the PRC and was a significant producer of hand trucks during the 
POR. See New-Tec's December 1, 2011 submission at 2. Among the 
countries identified as economically comparable to the PRC, based on 
record evidence, we find that Thailand is the most appropriate 
surrogate country for valuing FOPs because it is a significant producer 
of comparable merchandise, and we have reliable, publicly-available 
data from Thailand representing broad-market averages. Although New-Tec 
has submitted a financial statement from an Indian company producing 
identical merchandise, we note that New-Tec does not propose using 
India as a potential surrogate country. In addition, because we have 
determined that Thailand is both economically comparable to the PRC and 
a producer of comparable merchandise, and that Thai data is both 
publicly available and reliable, we need not resort to an alternative 
surrogate country which is not as economically comparable to the PRC as 
the countries on the Surrogate Country List. See 773(c)(4) of the Act; 
see also Memorandum to the File, from Scott Hoefke, Analyst, Subject: 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Hand Trucks and Certain Parts 
Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate 
Country, dated concurrently with this notice.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Director, Office of 
Policy, to Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7; Subject: 
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Hand Trucks and Parts 
Thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated August 15, 2011 
(Surrogate Country List). The Department notes that these six 
countries are part of a non-exhaustive list of countries that are at 
a level of economic development comparable to the PRC in terms of 
per capita gross national income.
    \2\ In the most recently completed proceeding involving the 
order, India was included in the Surrogate Country Memorandum. We 
determined that India was comparable to the PRC in terms of economic 
development and had surrogate value data that were publically 
available and reliable. See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final 
Rescission in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 
36083 (June 21, 2011) (Hand Trucks 08/09 Final). Our position is 
that India may still be economically comparable, but is less so than 
those on the Surrogate Country List. Because Thailand meets all of 
our selection criteria, the Department has selected Thailand as the 
primary surrogate country for this administrative review.

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

[[Page 1467]]

U.S. Price

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), we used invoice date as the date of 
sale. Because record evidence indicated the terms of New-Tec's U.S. 
sales changed following the contract date, we determine that invoice 
date better reflects when the material terms of sale are set. See 19 
CFR 351.401(i); see also New-Tec's June 16, 2011 submission at 1.
    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based New-Tec's 
U.S. prices on export prices, because its first sales to an 
unaffiliated purchaser were made before the date of importation and the 
use of constructed export price was not otherwise warranted by the 
facts on the record. As appropriate, we deducted foreign inland freight 
and foreign brokerage and handling from the starting price (or gross 
unit price), in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. These 
services were provided by NME vendors for New-Tec's U.S. sales. 
Therefore, we based the deduction of these movement charges on 
surrogate values. See Memorandum to the File, ``Administrative Review 
of Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of 
China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results'' (New-Tec 
Surrogate Values Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice, at 
Exhibit 6.
    We used Thai transport information in order to value the freight-in 
cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available 
information for valuing truck freight to be from Doing Business 2011: 
Thailand. This World Bank report gathers information concerning the 
distance and cost to transport products in a 20-foot container from the 
largest city in Thailand to the nearest seaport. We calculated the per-
unit inland freight costs using the distance from Thailand's largest 
city, Bangkok, to the nearest seaport. We calculated a per-kilogram, 
per-kilometer surrogate inland freight rate of 0.0008 U.S. dollars per 
kilometer per kilogram based on using the full capacity of a 20-foot 
container as reported in the World Bank report. See New-Tec Surrogate 
Values Memorandum at Exhibit 6.
    We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export 
procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in 
Thailand. 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 Thailand that is published in Doing Business 2011: 
Thailand, published by the World Bank. See New-Tec Surrogate Values 
Memorandum at Exhibit 7.

Normal Value

1. Methodology

    Section 773(c)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act provides that the 
Department shall determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the 
merchandise under review is exported from an NME and the information 
does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. 
The Department bases NV on FOPs because the presence of government 
controls on various aspects of the NME economy renders price 
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the 
Department's normal methodologies.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744 (July 11, 2005), 
unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
2003-2004 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 71 
FR 2517 (January 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV by 
adding the value of the FOPs, general expenses, profit, and packing 
costs reported by New-Tec. The FOPs for subject merchandise include: 
(1) Quantities of raw materials employed; (2) hours of labor required; 
(3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; (4) representative 
capital and selling costs; and (5) packing materials. See section 
773(c)(3) of the Act. We valued the FOP that New-Tec reported by 
multiplying the amount of the factor consumed in producing subject 
merchandise by the average unit surrogate value of the factor derived 
from the Thai surrogate values selected.
    The Department used Thailand import statistics to value the raw 
material and packing material inputs that New-Tec used to produce the 
merchandise under review except where listed below. We used data from 
the Thailand import statistics in the Global Trade Atlas (GTA), 
published by Global Trade Information Services, Inc. The GTA reports 
import statistics, such as those from Thailand, in the original 
reporting currency and thus these data correspond to the original 
currency value reported by each country. The record shows that data in 
the Thailand import statistics, as well as those from the other 
Thailand sources, are contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, 
and tax-exclusive.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See New-Tec Surrogate Values Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As appropriate, we added freight costs to the surrogate values that 
we calculated for New-Tec's material inputs to make these prices 
delivered prices. We calculated these freight costs by multiplying 
surrogate freight rates by the shorter of the reported distance from 
the domestic supplier to the factory that produced the subject 
merchandise or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory 
that produced the subject merchandise, as appropriate. Where there were 
multiple domestic suppliers of a material input, we calculated a 
weighted-average distance after limiting each supplier's distance to no 
more than the distance from the nearest seaport to New-Tec. This 
adjustment is in accordance with the decision by the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 
1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We increased the calculated costs of the 
FOPs for surrogate general expenses and profit. See New-Tec Surrogate 
Values Memorandum at Exhibit 8.
    Other inputs consisted of water, electricity, carbon dioxide, and 
liquid petroleum gas. We valued electricity using an average price of 
energy sale to various customers as published by the Electrical 
Generating Authority of Thailand, Annual Report 2010: Key Statistical 
data. See New-Tec Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 4. To value 
water, the Department used the average of published water rates for 
Type 2 used by the Metropolitan Water Authority of Thailand, which are 
available at The Board of Investment of Thailand's Web site at http://www.boi.go.th. The Department found this source to be the best 
available information because it includes a wide range of industrial 
water rates. See New-Tec Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 4. We 
valued carbon dioxide and liquid petroleum gas using import statistics 
from the GTA as described above. See New-Tec Surrogate Values 
Memorandum at Exhibit 3.
    New-Tec reported that scrap material are produced in the production 
process of hand trucks. New-Tec gathers all of the recovered material, 
weighs it, and

[[Page 1468]]

then sells it to an unaffiliated outside party. See New-Tec's March 23, 
2011 submission at 47. Therefore, we offset New-Tec's material costs 
for revenue generated from the sale of recovered steel and aluminum. 
See New-Tec Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 3.
    Thai surrogate values were denominated in baht and were converted 
to U.S. dollars using the applicable average exchange rate based on 
exchange rate data from the Department's Web site. For further details 
regarding the surrogate values used for these preliminary results see 
New-Tec Surrogate Values Memorandum.
    New-Tec reported that several of its raw materials were produced in 
market-economy countries and paid for in market-economy currencies. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent sources inputs from 
a market-economy supplier in meaningful quantities (i.e., thirty-three 
percent or more not in an NME country), the Department normally will 
use the actual price paid by the respondent for those inputs.\5\ 
Because information reported by New-Tec demonstrates that it purchased 
meaningful quantities of certain inputs (e.g., hot-rolled steel, 
aluminum ingots, rubber wheels and various fasteners) produced in 
market economies, the Department used New-Tec's actual market-economy 
purchase prices to value its FOPs for these inputs because these prices 
constitute the best available information to value these FOPs. Where 
appropriate, we added freight expenses to the market-economy prices for 
these inputs. New-Tec also made market economy purchases that record 
evidence show were produced in a market economy but the purchased 
quantities were not meaningful (i.e., less than 33 percent of the total 
purchases). We valued such inputs (cold-rolled steel and polypropylene 
resin) using a weighted-average of the volume demonstrated to be 
manufactured in and purchased from a market-economy country valued 
using the market-economy price and the volume manufactured in an NME 
valued using a surrogate value.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 
27366 (May 19, 1997).
    \6\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006). See also Hand 
Trucks 08/09 Final, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value the surrogate financial ratios for factory overhead (OH), 
selling, general & administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit, the 
Department used the 2009-2010 financial statement of Prohandlift 
Equipment Company Limited (Prohandlift). Prohandlift is a producer of 
comparable merchandise in Thailand. Its financial ratios for OH and 
SG&A expenses are comparable to New-Tec's financial ratios by virtue of 
each company's production of comparable merchandise. See New-Tec 
Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 8.

2. Selection of Surrogate Values

    In selecting the ``best available information for surrogate 
values'' (see section 773(c)(1) of the Act) consistent with the 
Department's practice, we considered whether the information was 
publicly available, product-specific, representative of broad market 
average prices, contemporaneous with the POR, and free of taxes.\7\ We 
also considered the quality of the source of surrogate information. 
See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic 
of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 
FR 71509 (December 11, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the legislative history of the Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act the Department continues to disregard surrogate 
values if it has a reason to believe or suspect the source data may be 
subsidized.\8\ In this regard, the Department has previously found that 
it is appropriate to disregard prices based upon exports from India, 
Indonesia, and South Korea because we have determined that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry specific export 
subsidies. 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, and South Korea may 
have benefitted from these subsidies.\9\ Additionally, we disregarded 
prices from NME countries. Finally, we excluded imports that were 
labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' country from the average 
value, because the Department could not be certain that they were not 
from either an NME country or a country with general export 
subsidies.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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.
    \9\ See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 
from Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 
45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum 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 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19-20; and 
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 accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at 4-5.
    \10\ See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 75 FR 24578, 24582 (May 
5, 2010), unchanged in Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of New Shipper Review, 75 FR 61130 (October 4, 
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 21, 2011, the Department announced its new methodology to 
value the cost of labor in NME countries. See Antidumping Methodologies 
in Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of 
Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June 21, 2011) (Labor 
Methodologies).\11\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This notice followed the Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC 
2010), found that the ``[regression-based] method for calculating 
wage rates [as stipulated by 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3)] uses data not 
permitted by [the statutory requirements laid out in section 773 of 
the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c))].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As announced above, the Department's latest methodology is to use 
data reported under Chapter 6A by the ILO. For this review the 
Department found that Thailand last reported data in 2000 for data 6A 
for Thailand under Sub-Classification 34 of the ISIC-Revision 3. 
However, Thailand did report total manufacturing wage data in 2005. 
Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the Department 
calculated the labor input using total labor data reported by Thailand 
to the ILO, in accordance with section 773 (c)(4) of the Act. For the 
preliminary results the calculated wage rate is 134.59 Baht/hour. A 
more detailed description of the wage rate calculation methodology is 
provided in the New-Tec Surrogate Values Memorandum.
    As stated above, the Department used Thailand ILO data reported 
under

[[Page 1469]]

Chapter 6A of Yearbook, which reflects all costs related to labor, 
including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. Pursuant to Labor 
Methodologies, the Department's practice is to consider whether 
financial ratios reflect labor expenses that are included in other 
elements of the respondent's factors of production (e.g., general and 
administrative expenses). However, the financial statements used to 
calculate financial ratios in this review were insufficiently detailed 
to permit the Department to isolate whether any labor expenses were 
included in other components of NV. Therefore, in this review, the 
Department made no adjustment to these financial statements.

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 the Review

    The Department has determined that the following preliminary 
dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2009, through November 
30, 2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Manufacturer/exporter                   average margin
                                                             (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd...................            0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the 
calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five 
days of the date of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 
CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit written comments (case 
briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and 
rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within five days after the time 
limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 
351.309(d)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must 
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit 
arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of 
the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of 
authorities.
    Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to 
participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, filed electronically using Import Administration's 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service 
System (``IA ACCESS''). An electronically filed document must be 
received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic 
records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 
days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, and 
telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues 
to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform 
parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. See 19 
CFR 351.310. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and 
location of the hearing.
    Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department will issue the final 
results of this administrative review, including the results of our 
analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 
120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.

Deadline for Submission of Publicly Available Surrogate Value 
Information

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3), the deadline for 
submission of publicly available information to value FOPs under 19 CFR 
351.408(c) is 20 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), if an 
interested party submits factual information less than ten days before, 
on, or after (if the Department has extended the deadline), the 
applicable deadline for submission of such factual information, an 
interested party may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or 
correct the factual information no later than ten days after such 
factual information is served on the interested party. However, the 
Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), permits new information 
only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently 
placed on the record. See, e.g., Glycine from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Furthermore, 
the Department generally will not accept business proprietary 
information in either the surrogate value submissions or the rebuttals 
thereto, as the regulation regarding the submission of surrogate values 
allows only for the submission of publicly available information.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuing the final results of the review, 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 15 days after the date of 
publication of the final results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping 
margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above 
de minimis. However, the final results of this review shall be the 
basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of 
merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future 
deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements, when imposed, will apply 
to all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final 
results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for New-Tec will be 
the rate established in the final results of this administrative 
review; (2) for any previously reviewed or investigated PRC or non-PRC 
exporter, not covered in this administrative review, with a separate 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate 
established in the most recent segment of this proceeding; (3) for all 
other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-
wide rate (i.e., 383.60 percent); and (4) the cash-deposit rate for any 
non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These cash 
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

[[Page 1470]]

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

     Dated: January 3, 2012.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-242 Filed 1-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P