[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13264-13270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5413]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-851]


Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and 
Rescission in Part

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

DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 2012.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is currently 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC'') covering the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 
2011. We preliminarily determine that sales made by Blue Field 
(Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. (Blue Field), and Dujiangyan Xingda 
Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Xingda) were made below normal value (``NV''). We 
invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. In 
addition, we are also rescinding this administrative review with 
respect to China National Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export 
Corp. (China National), China Processed Food Import & Export Co. (China 
Processed), Fujian Pinghe Baofeng Canned Foods (Fujian Pinghe), Fujian 
Yuxing Fruits and Vegetables Foodstufs Development Co., Ltd. (Fujian 
Yuxing), Fujian Zishan Group Co., Ltd. (Fujian Zishan), Guangxi 
Eastwing Trading Co., Ltd. (Guangxi Eastwing), Guangxi Hengyong 
Industrial & Commercial Dev. Ltd. (Guangxi Hengyong), Guangxi Jisheng 
Foods, Inc. (Jisheng), Linyi City Kangfu Foodstuff Drinkable Co.Ltd. 
(Linyi City), Longhai Guangfa Food Co., Ltd.(Longhai Guangfa), Primera 
Harvest (Xingfan) Co., Ltd. (Primera Harvest), Shandong Fengyu Edible 
Fungus Corporation Ltd. (Shangdong Fengyu), Sun Wave Trading Co., Ltd. 
(Sun Wave Trading), Xiamen Greenland Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Xiamen 
Greenland), Xiamen Gulong Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Xiamen Gulong), 
Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd. (Xiamen Jiahua), Xiamen 
International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd. (XITIC), Xiamen Longhuai 
Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Xiamen Longhuai), Zhangzhou Ganchang Foods 
Co., Ltd. (Zhangzhou Ganchang), Zhangzhou Hongda Import & Export 
Trading Co., Ltd. (Zhangzhou Hongda), and Zhangzhou Tongfa Foods 
Industry Co., Ltd. (Zhangzhou Tongfa).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney, 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-
4475 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms 
(``mushrooms'') from the PRC.\1\ On February 1, 2011, the Department 
published in the Federal Register its notice of opportunity to request 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on mushrooms 
from the PRC.\2\ On February 25, 2011, Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff 
Co.,Ltd. (Ayecue) filed a request for review. On February 28, 2011, 
Blue Field also filed a review request. Finally, on February 28, 2011, 
Petitioner, Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., requested reviews for the 
following exporters: (1) Ayecue, (2) Blue Field, (3) China National, 
(4) China Processed, (5) Dujiangyan Xingda Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. 
(Xingda), (6) Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Golden 
Banyan), (7) Fujian Pinghe, (8) Fujian Yuxing, (9) Fujian Zishan, (10) 
Guangxi Eastwing, (11) Guangxi Hengyong, (12) Jisheng, (13) Linyi City, 
(14) Longhai Guangfa, (15) Primera Harvest, (16) Shandong Fengyu, (17) 
Shandong Jiufa, (18) Sun Wave Trading, (19) Xiamen Greenland, (20) 
Xiamen Gulong, (21) XITIC, (22) Xiamen Jiahua, (23) XITIC, (24) Xiamen 
Longhuai, (25) Zhangzhou Ganchang, Ltd. (Zhangzhou Ganchang), (26) 
Zhangzhou Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd. (Zhangzgou 
Golden), (27) Zhangzhou Hongda, (28) Zhangzhou Tongfa Foods Industry 
Co., Ltd., (Zhangzhou Tongfa) and (29) Zhejiang Iceman Food Co., Ltd 
(Zhejiang Iceman). On March 31 2011, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty 
administrative review of mushrooms from the PRC for the period February 
1, 2010, through January 31, 2011, with respect to the 28 companies 
named in the review requests specified above.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 8308 (February 
19, 1999) (``the Order'').
    \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 5559 (February 1, 2011).
    \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral 
of Administrative Review, 76 FR 17825 (March 31, 2011) (``Initiation 
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 8, 2011, we received a separate rate certification from 
Ayecue. On April 28, 2010, we received a separate rate certification 
from Jisheng.
    On May 27, 2011, Shandong Jiufa submitted a separate rate 
certificaton. On May 31, 2011, Golden Banyan filed a separate rate 
certification.
    On June 27, 2011 the petitioner filed a letter withdrawing its 
request for Linyi City and for Zhangzhou Ganchang. Finally, on June 29, 
2011, the petitioner filed a letter withdrawing its request for review 
of XITIC. As the review request was timely withdrawn for one of the 
exporters previously selected for examination (i.e., XITIC), the 
Department selected an additional exporter for individual examination 
in this administrative review according to the methodology specified 
below.

[[Page 13265]]

Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins 
for each known exporter or producer of the subject merchandise. 
However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department discretion 
to limit its examination to a reasonable number of exporters or 
producers if it is not practicable to examine all exporters or 
producers involved in the review.
    On April 4, 2011, the Department released U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') data for entries of the subject merchandise during 
the period of review (``POR'') under administrative protective order 
(``APO'') to all interested parties having an APO, inviting comments 
regarding the CBP data and respondent selection. The Department 
received comments from Ayecue on April 8, 2011, and XITIC, Shandong 
Jiufia, and Blue Field on April 13, 2011.
    Based on the large number of potential exporters or producers 
involved in this administrative review and, after considering our 
resources, we determined that it was not practicable to individually 
examine all 28 companies. Accordingly, on May 18, 2011, we issued our 
first respondent selection memorandum indicating that, pursuant to 
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, we could reasonably examine only the 
two largest producers/exporters of subject merchandise by volume. 
Therefore, we selected Blue Field and XITIC as mandatory 
respondents.\4\ As noted, previously, on June 29, 2011, the petitioner 
filed a letter withdrawing its request for review of XITIC. 
Accordingly, on July 22, 2011, we issued a second respondent selection 
memorandum in which we selected Xingda, the second largest exporter of 
the remaining respondents for which the Department had a continuing 
request for review, as the second respondent in this review.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, from Michael J. Heaney, Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Subject: ``Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 
People's Republic of China: Respondent Selection Memorandum,'' dated 
May 18, 2011.
    \5\ See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, from Michael J. Heaney, Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Subject: ``Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 
People's Republic of China: Respondent Selection Memorandum,'' dated 
July 22, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We issued our antidumping questionnaire to Blue Field and Xingda on 
June 1, 2011, and July 25, 2011, respectively. On October 26, 2011, we 
issued supplemental questionnaires to Blue Field and Xingda. Blue Field 
and Xingda filed their responses to our request for supplemental 
information on November 10, 2011.

Verification

    From January 9 through January 13, we conducted a verification of 
Blue Field. We used standard verification procedures, including 
examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as 
source documentation provided by the respondents.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See ``Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Blue 
Field in the Antidumping Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms'' 
(``Blue Filed Verification Report''), dated February 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data

Partial Rescission

    Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations provide that 
the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that 
requested the review withdraws its request for review within 90 days of 
the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested 
review, or withdraws it at a later date if the Department determines it 
is reasonable to extend the time limit for withdrawing the request. The 
Department initiated this administrative review on March 31, 2011. See 
Initiation Notice, 76 FR 17825.
    Petitioner withdrew its request for review for 18 exporters on May 
6, 2011. Additionally, on June 27, 2011 petitioner withdrew its request 
for review of Linyi City and for Zhangzhou Ganchang. Finally, on June 
29, 2011, the petitioner filed a letter withdrawing its request for 
review of XITIC. Because the party that requested this review has 
timely withdrawn the request for review, we are rescinding this review 
with respect to the following companies: (1) China National, (2) China 
Processed, (3) Fujian Pinghe, (4) Fujian Yuxing, (5) Fujian Zishan, (6) 
Guangxi Eastwing, (7) Guangxi Hengyong, (8) Jisheng, (9) Linyi City, 
(10) Longhai Guangfa, (11) Primera Harvest, (12) Shandong Fengyu, (13) 
Sun Wave Trading, (14) Xiamen Greenland, (15) Xiamen Gulong, (16) 
Xiamen Jiahua, (17) XITIC, (18) Xiamen Longhuai, (19) Zhangzhou 
Ganchang, (20) Zhangzhou Hongda, and (21) Zhangzhou Tongfa.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, 
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The 
certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species 
Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ``Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms'' refers to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by 
cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms 
are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to, 
cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not 
limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Certain preserved 
mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. 
Included within the scope of this order are ``brined'' mushrooms, which 
are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally 
preserve them for further processing.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that 
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms containing 
less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the 
antidumping duty order. See Recommendation Memorandum--Final Ruling 
of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for ``Exclusion of Certain Marinated, 
Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China'', 
dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld this decision. See Tak Fat v. 
United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All 
other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and 
chilled mushrooms, including ``refrigerated'' or ``quick blanched 
mushrooms;'' (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) 
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms, which are 
prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may 
contain oil or other additives.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under 
subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 
2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

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.\8\ In

[[Page 13266]]

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until 
revoked by the Department.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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 12, 2009).
    \9\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates Determination

    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 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 amplified by 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 must complete, as appropriate, 
either a separate-rate application or certification. See Initiation 
Notice, 76 FR at 17826. 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 obtaining a separate rate. In this administrative review, 
Ayecue, Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs, and Shandong Juifa (``the 
separate-rate applicants'') each submitted a separate-rate 
certification indicating they continued to meet the criteria for 
obtaining a separate rate. Additionally, Blue Field and Xingda both 
submitted a separate-rate certification and answered all the separate-
rate questions in our questionnaires. As such, we have determined that 
Blue Field, Xingda, and the separate-rate applicants each provided 
company-specific information and each stated that it met the criteria 
for the assignment of a separate rate.
    The Department's separate-rate test to determine whether the 
exporter is independent from government control does not consider, in 
general, macroeconomic/border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, 
quotas, and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are 
imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over 
the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine, 
62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic 
of China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR 
61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 administrative review, Blue Field and Xingda demonstrated, 
and the separate-rate applicants certified, that consistent with the 
most recent segment of this proceeding in which the entities 
participated and were granted a separate rate, there is an absence of 
de jure government control of their respective exports.\11\ Each of the 
separate-rate applicants certified to its separate-rate status. 
Additionally, Blue Field, Xingda, and the separate-rate applicants 
stated that their companies had no relationship with any level of the 
PRC government with respect to ownership, internal management, and 
business operations. In this segment, we have no new information on the 
record that would cause us to reconsider our previous determinations of 
the absence of de jure government control with regard to these 
companies. Thus, we find that evidence on the record supports a 
preliminary finding of an absence of de jure government control with 
regard to the export activities of Blue Field, XITIC, and the separate-
rate applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The most recently completed segment of this proceeding in 
which Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd. 
participated and was granted separate rate status was Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 73 FR 75083 
(December 10, 2008). The most recently completed segment of this 
proceeding in which Ayecue participated and was granted separate 
rate status was Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review, 73 FR 21904 (April 23, 2008). The most recently completed 
segment of this proceeding in which Blue Field participated and was 
granted separate rate status was Certain Preserved Mushrooms from 
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of the 
Eighth New Shipper Review, 70 FR 60789 (October 19, 2005). The most 
recently completed segment of this proceeding in which Shandong 
Jiufa participated and was granted separate rate status was Notice 
of Amended Final Results of Antidumping duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 70 
FR 60280 (October 17, 2005). The most recently completed segment of 
this proceeding in which Xingda participated and was granted 
separate rate status was Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
New Shipper Review, 73 FR 45402 (August 5, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 22586-87; Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 
People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 1998). 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 over its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are 
set by, or subject to the approval of, a government agency; (2) whether 
the respondent retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing 
of losses; (3) whether the respondent has the authority to negotiate 
and sign contracts and other agreements; (4) whether the respondent has 
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See 
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; 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).
    The evidence provided by Blue Field, Xingda, and the separate-rate 
applicants supports a preliminary finding of absence of de facto 
government control based on the following facts: (1) The companies set 
their own export prices independent of the government and without the 
approval of a government

[[Page 13267]]

authority; (2) there is no restriction on any of the companies' use of 
export revenue, nor the disposition of profits or financing of losses; 
(3) the companies have authority to negotiate and sign contracts and 
other agreements; (4) the companies have autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Blue Field's June 21, 2011, Section A response 
at A-1 through A-8; Xingda's September 6, 2011, Section A response 
at A-1 through A-8, Ayecue April 18, 2011, separate rate 
certification at 3-5; Golden Banyan May 27, 2011, separate rate 
certification at 4-7, and Shandong Juifa separate rates 
certification at 4-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in this administrative review we have no new 
information on the record that would cause us to reconsider our 
previous determinations of the absence of de facto government control 
with regard to these companies. Therefore, the Department preliminarily 
finds that Blue Field, Xingda and the separate-rate applicants have 
established that they qualify for separate rates under the criteria 
established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.

The PRC-Wide Entity

    In addition to the separate-rate applications discussed above, 
there was one company, Golden Banyan, for which we initiated a review 
in this proceeding and which did not previously have a separate rate. 
Because this company did not file a separate rate application to 
demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this administrative 
review or certify that it had no shipments, we preliminarily determine 
that this company will remain part of the PRC-wide entity. See 
Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 15680.

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 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 
the 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.\13\ From the countries that are both economically 
comparable and significant producers, the Department will select a 
primary surrogate country based upon whether the data for valuing FOPs 
are both available and reliable.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market 
Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004) 
(``Policy Bulletin''), available on the Department's Web site at 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Comparability

    As explained in our surrogate country list, the Department 
considers Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, 
and Ukraine all comparable to the PRC in economic development.\15\ 
Therefore, we consider all six counties on the Surrogate Country List 
as having satisfied the comparable economic development prong of the 
surrogate selection criteria.\16\ Furthermore, in Steel Wheels,\17\ the 
Department stated:

    \15\ See Memoandum from Carole Showers, Office of Policy to 
Richard Weible, Office Director, Office 7, AD/CVD Operations RE: 
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrroms 
(Mushrooms) from the People's Republic of China (China) dated 
October 12, 2011 (``Surrogate Country List'').
    \16\ See section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act.
    \17\ See Certain Steel Wheels From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Preliminary Deterrmination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, and Postponent of Final Determination, 76 FR 
67703, 67708 (November 2, 2011) (``Steel Wheels'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

{U{time} nless we find that all of the countries determined to be 
equally economically comparable are not significant producers of 
comparable merchandise, do not provide a reliable source of publicly 
available surrogate data or are unsuitable for use for other 
reasons, we will rely on data from one of these countries.

Because the Department finds that one of these countries from the 
Surrogate Country List meets the selection criteria, as explained 
below, the Department will not consider India as the primary surrogate 
country.

Significant Producers of Identical or Comparable Merchandise

    Based on publicly available information placed on the record by 
interested parties (e.g., production data), the Department determines 
that Colombia, Ukraine, and the Philippines to be significant producers 
of identical or comparable merchandise. Because Colombia has publicly 
available and reliable data for all but two of the factors of 
production, the Department has determined to use Colombia as the 
primary surrogate country. Colombia is at a comparable level of 
economic development pursuant to section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act, and 
is a significant producer of the subject merchandise pursuant to 
section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act. See Petitioner's January 6, 2012, 
submission at Exhibit 1.\18\ Accordingly because Colombia meets all of 
the criteria for selection as a surrogate country, the Department has 
selected Colombia as the primary source for valuing surrogate values. 
With the exception of mushroom spawn and land rent discussed below, the 
Department used Colombia as the source of surrogate values in this 
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Memorandum to the File through Robert James, Program 
Manager Office 7 from Michael J. Heaney International Trade Analyst: 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Preserved 
Mushrroms from the People's Republic of China, dated February 28, 
2012 (``Factors Valuation Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For mushroom spawn and land rent, the Department was unable to find 
surrogate value information from Colombia. For mushroom spawn, the 
Department used mushroom data derived from Ukraine because, among the 
six countries on the Surrogate Country List, Ukraine represented by HTS 
category the most specific and reliable source of data for the input 
among the six countries listed on the Surrogate Country List. For land 
rent, the Department used data derived from the Philippines, since 
these data were publicly available, specific to the production input in 
question, and Philippine land rent was the only available source of 
data among the six countries comprising our Surrogate Country List.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly 
available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results.

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based Blue Field's 
and Xingda's U.S. prices on export prices (``EP'') because their first 
sales to unaffiliated purchasers were made before the date of 
importation and the use of constructed export price (``CEP'') 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. Where these services were provided by NME 
vendors, we based the deduction on surrogate values.
    Both respondents used foreign inland freight via truck and train. 
As previously stated, where applicable, we made deductions for these 
expenses from the U.S. price. We valued truck and train freight using a 
per-unit, POR-wide, average rate calculated from the

[[Page 13268]]

World Bank's Doing Business in Colombia study. See Surrogate Values 
Memorandum at page 11. We valued foreign brokerage and handling using 
the publicly summarized brokerage and handling expense reported in the 
World Bank's Doing Business in Colombia study. See Petitioner's January 
6 Submission, at Exhibit 42; Surrogate Values Memorandum at page 11.
    Because the record indicates that the material terms of Blue 
Field's and Xingda's U.S. sales were established on the date of 
invoice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), we determine that invoice date 
is the appropriate date to use as the date of sale for these two 
respondents. See Blue Field July 6, 2011, Section C response at C-8; 
Xingda September 19, 2011, Section C response at C-8.

Normal Value

1. Methodology

    Section 773(c)(1)(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 NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of 
production costs invalid under the Department's normal 
methodologies.\19\ Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include, 
but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of 
raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities 
consumed; and (4) representative capital costs, including depreciation. 
The Department based NV on FOPs reported by the respondents for 
materials, energy, labor, and packing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated 
NV by adding the values of the FOPs, overhead, selling, general and 
administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, profit, and packing costs.

2. Selection of Surrogate Values

    In selecting the ``best available information for surrogate 
values,'' consistent with the Department's preference, we considered 
whether the potential surrogate value data on the record were: Publicly 
available; product-specific; representative of broad market average 
prices; contemporaneous with the POR; and free of taxes and import 
duties.\20\ Where only surrogate values that were not contemporaneous 
with the POR were available on the record of this administrative 
review, we inflated the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the 
Colombian WPI as published in International Financial Statistics by the 
International Monetary Fund. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., Drill Pipe From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, and 
Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 51004 (August 18, 2010), 
unchanged in Drill Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical 
Circumstances, 76 FR 196 (January 11, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with these guidelines, we calculated surrogate 
values, except as noted below, from import statistics of the primary 
selected surrogate country, Colombia, from Global Trade Atlas 
(``GTA''), as published by Global Trade Information Services. Our use 
of GTA import data is in accordance with past practice and satisfies 
all of our criteria for surrogate values noted above.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New 
Shipper Review, 74 FR 50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009), unchanged in 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520 
(December 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After identifying appropriate surrogate values, we calculated NV by 
multiplying the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by the 
surrogate values. As appropriate, we also added freight costs to the 
surrogate values that we calculated for the respondents' 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 the factory of each of the two respondents. This adjustment 
is in accordance with the decision by the U.S. 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 Surrogate Values 
Memorandum at page 12.
    Because Colombian surrogate values were denominated in Colombian 
Pesos, we converted these data to U.S. dollars (``USD'') using the 
applicable average exchange rate based on exchange rate data from the 
Department's Web site.
    For further details regarding the specific surrogate values used 
for direct materials, energy inputs, and packing materials in these 
preliminary results, see the Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhbit 1.
    To calculate the labor input, we based our calculation on the 
methodology which the Department enunciated on June 21, 2011, in 
Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-Market 
Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June 
21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies''). Prior to 2010, the Department used 
regression-based wages that captured the worldwide relationship between 
per capita Gross National Income and hourly manufacturing wages, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). On May 14, 2010, the Federal Circuit 
in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F. 3d 1363, 1372-73 (Fed Cir. 
2010) (``Dorbest''), invalidated part of that regulation. As a 
consequence of the Federal Circuit's ruling in Dorbest, the Department 
no longer relies on the regression-based methodology described in 19 
CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    In Labor Methodologies, the Department explained that the best 
methodology to value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor 
rates from the primary surrogate country. See Labor Methodologies, 76 
FR at 36093. 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's (``ILO'') 
Yearbook of Labor Statistics (``Yearbook''). See Labor Methodologies, 
76 FR at 36093-36094.
    Consistent with this methodology, to calculate labor expense in 
this review, we used 2005 data from Colombia that falls under 
International Standard Industrial Classification (``ISIC'') 15 
``Manufacture of Food Products and Beverages'' in Chapter 6A of the 
ILO' Yearbook. We used Colombian WPI data to inflate these values to 
POR amounts. This results in a calculated labor rate of 10,863 Colombia 
pesos per hour. Based on the reporting of financial ratios in this 
review, we find that the facts and information on the record do not 
warrant or permit an adjustment to the

[[Page 13269]]

surrogate financial statements. See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 
36094. Accordingly, we made no offset to the surrogate financial 
statements in this review. A more detailed description of the wage rate 
calculation methodology is provided in the Factors Valuation Memorandum 
at page 9-10.
    We offset the respondents' material costs for revenue generated 
from the sale of tin scrap. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at page 12.
    Finally, to value overhead, SG&A, and profit, we have preliminarily 
determined that the 2010 financial statements of the Setas Colombianas 
S.A. constitute the best information available. See Surrogate Values 
Memorandum at page 12.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    The Department has determined that the following preliminary 
dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2010, through January 
31, 2011. Respondents other than mandatory respondents will receive the 
weighted-average of the margins calculated for those companies selected 
for individual review (i.e., mandatory respondents), excluding de 
minimis margins or margins based entirely on adverse facts available.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                          Exporter                              margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Field..................................................      215.10
Xingda......................................................      222.78
Ayecue......................................................      215.41
Golden Banyan...............................................      215.41
Shandong Jiufa..............................................      215.41
PRC-wide rate *.............................................      198.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes Zhangzhou Golden.

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. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting 
written comments concurrently provide a public version of those 
comments.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Any interested 
party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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, and electronically file the request via the 
Department's Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''). Id. An 
electronically filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). Requests should contain: (1) The 
party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See id. Issues 
raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the briefs.
    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 factors of 
production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) is 20 days after the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination. 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 has ten days to 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 issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 
assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review. Where the 
respondent has reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer 
or customer-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping 
margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer or customer, and 
dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each 
importer or customer. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer or 
customer-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we will 
apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importers'/
customers' entries during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, we 
calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping 
duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer or customer and dividing 
this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer or customer. 
See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the duty assessment 
rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer or customer-specific ad 
valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where an importer 
or customer-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we will 
instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to 
antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
    For the companies that were not selected for individual review, we 
calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted-average of the cash 
deposit rates calculated for companies selected for individual review, 
where those rates were not de minimis or based on

[[Page 13270]]

adverse facts available, in accordance with Department practice.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements, when imposed, will be 
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative 
review for all shipments of 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 the exporters 
listed above, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in the 
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required 
for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and 
non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, 
the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 198.63 percent; and 
(4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not 
received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. 
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until further notice.

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)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 28, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-5413 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P