[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13534-13539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5582]



[[Page 13534]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-806]


Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of review (``POR'') is June 1, 
2010, through May 31, 2011. The Department has preliminarily determined 
that the mandatory respondent, Shanghai Jinneng International Trade 
Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Jinneng''), made sales of subject merchandise to 
the United States at prices below normal value (``NV''). If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess 
antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the POR for 
which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days 
from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Pandolph or Howard Smith, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3627, and (202) 482-5193, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    On June 10, 1991, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on silicon metal from the PRC.\1\ On June 1, 2011, the Department 
published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review 
of the order for the June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011 POR.\2\ On June 
30, 2011, the Department received a timely request from Globe 
Metallurgical Inc. (``Petitioner'') for an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the PRC for Shanghai 
Jinneng.\3\ On July 28, 2011, the Department initiated the 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal 
from the PRC for the 2010-2011 POR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal from the People's 
Republic of China, 56 FR 26649 (June 10, 1991).
    \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 31586 (June 1, 2011).
    \3\ See letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce, 
regarding ``Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China; 
Request for 2010-11 Administrative Review,'' dated June 30, 2011.
    \4\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocations in Part and 
Deferral of Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 45227 (July 28, 2011) 
(``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 2, 2011, the Department issued the antidumping 
questionnaire to Shanghai Jinneng. Between September 2011 and January 
2012, Shanghai Jinneng responded to the Department's questionnaire and 
supplemental questionnaires and Petitioner commented on Shanghai 
Jinneng's responses.
    In response to the Department's September 15, 2011, letter 
providing parties with an opportunity to submit comments regarding 
surrogate country and surrogate value selection,\5\ Shanghai Jinneng 
and Petitioner filed surrogate country and surrogate value comments on 
November 4, 2011 and rebuttal comments on November 14, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Letter from Howard Smith, Program Manager, Office 4, to 
All Interested Parties, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China,'' dated September 
15, 2011 (``Surrogate Country and Values Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 7, 2011, the Department received a request from 
Petitioner to verify the information submitted by Shanghai Jinneng 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(v) and for good cause.\6\ On February 
15, 2012, Petitioner submitted comments for the Department's 
consideration in the preliminary results and on February 21, 2012, 
Shanghai Jinneng submitted rebuttal comments.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See letter from Petitioner to the Honorable John Bryson, 
Secretary of Commerce, regarding, ``Silicon Metal from the People's 
Republic of China; 2010-11 Administrative Review; Request for 
Verification,'' dated November 7, 2011. The Department responded to 
this request in a memorandum to the file from Rebecca Pandolph, 
International Trade Analyst, Office 4, AD/CVD Operations, regarding, 
``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Silicon Metal from the 
People's Republic of China,'' dated concurrently with this notice.
    \7\ See letter from Petitioner to the Honorable John Bryson, 
Secretary of Commerce, regarding, ``Silicon Metal from the People's 
Republic of China; 2010-11 Administrative Review; Preliminary 
Results Comments,'' dated February 15, 2012 and letter from Shanghai 
Jinneng to the Honorable John Bryson, Secretary of Commerce, 
regarding, ``Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China: 
Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd.--Rebuttal to 
Petitioner's Comments on the Preliminary Results,'' dated February 
21, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of silicon metal 
containing at least 96.00 but less than 99.99 percent of silicon by 
weight. Also covered by the order is silicon metal from the PRC 
containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight but which 
contain a higher aluminum content than the silicon metal containing at 
least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. 
Silicon metal is currently provided for under subheadings 2804.69.10 
and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') as a chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a 
metal. Semiconductor-grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight 
not less than 99.99 percent of silicon and provided for in subheading 
2804.61.00 of the HTSUS) is not subject to the order. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs 
purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country.\8\ In 
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 administering authority. Accordingly, we calculated NV 
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME 
countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From 
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 
FR 9591, 9593 (March 5, 2009) (unchanged in Certain Kitchen 
Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656 
(July 24, 2009)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: 
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006), and Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the 
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the

[[Page 13535]]

application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate rate status in NME proceedings.\10\ It is the Department's 
policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to a proceeding 
involving an NME country 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 Sparklers,\11\ 
as amplified by Silicon Carbide.\12\ However, if the Department 
determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a 
market economy (``ME''), then a separate rate analysis is not necessary 
to determine whether it is independent from government control.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 45228.
    \11\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991) (``Sparklers'').
    \12\ See 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'').
    \13\ See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China, 
72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wholly Chinese-Owned

    Shanghai Jinneng stated that it is a wholly Chinese-owned 
company.\14\ Therefore, the Department must analyze whether this 
respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over its export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Letter from Shanghai Jinneng to Rebecca M. Blank, 
Acting Secretary of Commerce, regarding, ``Silicon Metal from the 
People's Republic of China: Shanghai Jinneng International Trade 
Co., Ltd.--Section A Questionnaire Response,'' dated August 30, 2011 
(``Section A Response'') at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence provided by Shanghai Jinneng supports a preliminary 
finding of a de jure absence of governmental control based on the 
following: (1) There is an absence of restrictive stipulations 
associated with the company's business and export licenses; (2) there 
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of PRC 
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of PRC companies.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Section A Response at 5-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    The Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each 
respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export 
functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to 
the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the respondent has 
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) 
whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making 
decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the 
respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of 
losses.\17\ The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto 
control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, 
subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the 
Department from assigning separate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We determine that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary 
finding of a de facto absence of governmental control with respect to 
Shanghai Jinneng based on record statements and supporting 
documentation showing that the company: (1) Sets its own export prices 
independent of the government and without the approval of a government 
authority; (2) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and 
other agreements; (3) has autonomy from the government regarding the 
selection of management; and (4) retains the proceeds from its sales 
and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Section A Response at 5-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence placed on the record of this administrative review by 
Shanghai Jinneng demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto 
government control with respect to the company's exports of the 
merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we have preliminarily granted 
Shanghai Jinneng separate rate status.

Selection of a Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV, in 
most cases, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOP'') 
valued in a surrogate ME country or countries considered appropriate by 
the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the 
Department will value FOP using ``to the extent possible, the prices or 
costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy countries 
that are--(A) at a level of economic development comparable to that of 
the nonmarket economy country, and (B) significant producers of 
comparable merchandise.'' Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), 
the Department will normally value FOP in a single country.
    In the instant review, the Department identified Colombia, 
Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand and Ukraine as a 
non-exhaustive list of countries that are at a level of economic 
development comparable to the PRC and for which good quality data is 
most likely available.\19\ On January 13, 2010, Petitioner and Shanghai 
Jinneng proposed selecting Thailand as the surrogate country because it 
is at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC and is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise.\20\ Petitioner provided 
export data from Global Trade Atlas (``GTA'') demonstrating that during 
the POR, Thailand exported 14,022 metric tons of silicon metal 
worldwide.\21\ With respect to data considerations, in selecting a 
surrogate country, it is the Department's practice that, ``* * * if 
more than one country has survived the selection process to this point, 
the country with the best factors data is selected as the primary 
surrogate country.''\22\ Currently, the record contains surrogate value 
information, including a surrogate financial statement, only from 
Thailand. The Department is preliminarily

[[Page 13536]]

selecting Thailand as the surrogate country on the basis that: (1) It 
is at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC, pursuant 
to section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act; (2) it is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise, pursuant to section 733(c)(4)(B) of the Act; 
and (3) we have reliable data from Thailand that we can use to value 
the FOP. Therefore, we have calculated NV using Thai prices, when 
available and appropriate, to value Shanghai Jinneng's FOP.\23\ In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may submit 
publicly available information to value FOP until 20 days after the 
date of publication of the preliminary results.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Surrogate Country and Values Letter at Attachment 1.
    \20\ See letter from Shanghai Jinneng to Rebecca M. Blank, 
Acting Secretary of Commerce regarding, ``Silicon Metal from the 
People's Republic of China,'' dated November 4, 2011 (``Shanghai 
Jinneng's SV Comments'') at 1-2 and letter from Petitioner to John 
Bryson, Secretary of Commerce regarding, ``Silicon Metal from the 
People's Republic of China; 2010-11 Administrative Review; Comments 
on Surrogate Country Selection and Submission of Surrogate Value 
Data'' dated November 4, 2011 (``Petitioner's SV Comments'').
    \21\ See Petitioner's SV Comments at 4 and Exhibit 4.
    \22\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate 
Country Selection Process, (March 1, 2004) available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.
    \23\ See Memorandum to the File through Howard Smith, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, from Rebecca Pandolph, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, regarding ``Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of 
China: Factor Valuation Memorandum,'' dated March 1, 2012 
(``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
    \24\ Interested parties must provide the Department with 
supporting documentation for the publicly available information to 
value each FOP. Additionally, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this administrative review, 
interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, 
or correct factual information submitted by an interested party less 
than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for 
submission of such factual information. 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. The Department generally cannot accept the submission of 
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate 
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See 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 
(``IDM'') at Comment 2. Additionally, for each piece of factual 
information submitted with surrogate value rebuttal comments, the 
Department is hereby requesting that the interested party provide a 
written explanation of what information that is already on the 
record of the ongoing proceeding the factual information is 
rebutting, clarifying, or correcting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, to determine 
whether Shanghai Jinneng sold silicon metal to the United States at 
less than fair value, we compared the export price (``EP'') of the 
silicon metal to the NV of the silicon metal, as described in the 
``Export Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for all 
sales reported by Shanghai Jinneng. We calculated EP based on the 
packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the 
United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement 
expenses (e.g., foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of 
exportation, domestic brokerage, international freight to the port of 
importation) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Where 
foreign inland freight or foreign brokerage and handling fees were 
provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based 
those charges on surrogate values.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See the ``Factor Valuation Methodology'' section for 
further discussion of surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported 
from an NME country and the available 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. When determining NV 
in an NME context, the Department uses an FOP methodology because the 
presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders 
price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under 
its normal methodologies.\26\ Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOP 
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. The 
Department based NV on FOP reported by Shanghai Jinneng for materials, 
energy, labor and packing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products 
from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703 (April 17, 
2006) (unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: 
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuation Methodology

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV by 
adding together the values of the FOPs, general expenses, profit, and 
packing costs. We calculated FOP values by multiplying the reported 
per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available surrogate 
values (except as discussed below). In selecting the surrogate values, 
we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the 
data.\27\ As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight 
costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Thai 
import surrogate values a Thai surrogate freight cost using the shorter 
of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or 
the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate. 
This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit's (``CAFC'') decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 
117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all 
surrogate values used for Shanghai Jinneng can be found in the 
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales 
at Less than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008), and 
accompanying IDM at Comment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In selecting the best available information for valuing FOP in 
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice 
is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are 
non-export average values, contemporaneous or closest in time with the 
POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\28\ The record shows that 
import data from Thailand's Customs Department, as published by the 
GTA, as well as data from other Thai sources used, are typically 
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific or for similar products, 
and tax-exclusive.\29\ Thus, for these preliminary results, in 
accordance with its practice, the Department used data from the 
Thailand Customs Department and other publicly available sources from 
Thailand in order to calculate surrogate values for Shanghai Jinneng's 
FOP (direct materials and packing materials) and certain movement 
expenses.\30\ In those instances where we could not obtain publicly 
available surrogate values contemporaneous with the POR with which to 
value FOPs, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, 
the International Monetary Fund's Consumer Price Index (``CPI'') for 
Thailand.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 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)).
    \29\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 3-6.
    \30\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 1-2 and Attachment 1.
    \31\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2 and Attachment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, with regard to Thailand's import-based surrogate 
values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to 
believe or

[[Page 13537]]

suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that 
prices of inputs from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may 
have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to 
all markets from these countries may be subsidized.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004), and accompanying 
IDM at Comment 7; see also 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 IDM at 4-5; Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel 
Plate from Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review, 70 
FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying IDM 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 IDM at 17, 19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, guided by the legislative history, it is the Department's 
practice not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such 
prices are not subsidized.\33\ Rather, the Department bases its 
decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes 
its determination.\34\ Therefore, we have not used prices from India, 
Indonesia, or South Korea in calculating Thailand's import-based 
surrogate values. Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME 
countries. Furthermore, imports that were labeled as originating from 
an ``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, 
because the Department could not be certain that they were not from 
either an NME country or a country with general export subsidies.\35\ 
Lastly, the Department has also excluded imports from Thailand into 
Thailand because there is no evidence on the record regarding what 
these data represent (e.g., re-importations, another category of 
unspecified imports, or the result of an error in reporting). Thus, 
these data do not represent the best available information upon which 
to rely for valuation purposes.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, 
Conference Report to accompany H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988) 
reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24; see also Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet 
Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 
2007) (unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 
72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007)).
    \34\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008) (unchanged 
in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008)).
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9, 2010) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Previously to value the respondent's cost of labor, the Department 
used regression-based wages that captured the worldwide relationship 
between per capita Gross National Income (``GNI'') and hourly 
manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). However, on May 
14, 2010, the CAFC, in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Dorbest''), invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). 
As a consequence of the CAFC's ruling in Dorbest, the Department no 
longer relies on the regression-based wage rate methodology described 
in its regulations. On February 18, 2011, the Department published in 
the Federal Register a request for public comment on the interim 
methodology, and the data sources.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, Request 
for Comment, 76 FR 9544 (February 18, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for 
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings.\38\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In these preliminary results, the Department calculated the labor 
input using the data on industry specific labor cost from the primary 
surrogate country (i.e., Thailand), as described in Labor 
Methodologies. The Department relied on Chapter 6A labor cost data for 
Thailand from the ILO's Yearbook. The Department used ILO Chapter 6A 
labor cost data for the year 2000 because this is the most recent 
Chapter 6A data available for Thailand. The Department further 
determined that the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 3-D 
(``Manufacture of Basic Metals'') is the best available information 
because it is specific to the industry being examined and, therefore, 
is derived from industries that produce comparable merchandise. 
Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the Department 
calculated the labor input using labor cost data reported by Thailand 
to the ILO under Sub-Classification 27 of the ISIC-Revision 3-D, in 
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act. For these preliminary 
results, the calculated industry-specific wage rate is 81.96 baht per 
hour. The Department inflated this value to the POR using Thai CPI 
data. For further information on the calculation of the wage rate, see 
Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5.
    The ILO data from Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, which was used to 
value labor, reflects all costs related to labor, including wages, 
benefits, housing, training, etc. The financial statement used to 
calculate the surrogate financial ratios does not include itemized 
details regarding the indirect labor costs incurred. Therefore, the 
Department has not made adjustments to the surrogate financial ratios.
    We valued all packing and direct materials, except quartz, using 
Thai import data from the GTA that are contemporaneous with the POR. We 
valued quartz using the price of unground quartz in 2010 from Mineral 
Statistics of Thailand 2006-2010 report issued by the Thai Department 
of Primary Industries and Mines.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued electricity using data from the Thai Provincial 
Electricity Authority and Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand 
as reported by the Thailand Board of Investment in its 2011 publication 
Costs of Doing Business in Thailand for large general services at a 
voltage of 22-33 kilovolts. These electricity rates represent actual 
country-wide, publicly available information on tax-exclusive 
electricity rates in Thailand. As the rates were in effect during the 
POR, we are not adjusting the average value for inflation.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate from 
the Express Transportation Organization of Thailand as reported in 
Thailand Board of Investment's 2011 publication, Costs of Doing 
Business in Thailand.\41\ Because the rate is from August 2005, we 
inflated this rate to a POR rate using Thai CPI data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued railway freight using price data from State Railway of 
Thailand as reported in Thailand Board of Investment's 2011 
publication, Costs of

[[Page 13538]]

Doing Business in Thailand.\42\ Because the rate is from August 2011, 
we deflated it to the POR using Thai CPI data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued ocean freight using price data from Profreight 
International Co., Ltd., as reported in Thailand Board of Investment's 
2011 publication, Costs of Doing Business in Thailand.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export 
procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in 
Thailand for a 20 foot container published in the World Bank 
publication, Doing Business 2012: Thailand.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, we valued selling, general and administrative expenses, 
factory overhead costs, and profit using the contemporaneous 2010 
financial statement of GS Energy Co., Ltd., a Thai producer of silicon 
metal, which is identical to subject merchandise.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currency Conversion

    Where necessary, 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.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists 
for the period June 1, 2010 through May 31, 2011.

                       Silicon Metal From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                        Exporter                           (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd..........             5.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results to the parties within 10 days of the date of the 
public announcement of the results of this review in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.224(b).

Comments

    Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of 
review.\47\ Rebuttal comments must be limited to the issues raised in 
the written comments and may be filed no later than five days after the 
time limit for filing the case briefs.\48\ 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.\49\ 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.\50\ 
Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the 
hearing. The Department will issue the final results of the 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in the briefs, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act, unless the time limit is extended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
    \48\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
    \49\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    \50\ See 19 CFR 351.310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are 
calculating customer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise 
subject to this review. Because we do not have entered values for all 
U.S. sales to a particular importer/customer, we calculate a per-unit 
assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. 
sales to that importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the 
total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).\51\ 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 
customer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered 
value. Where a customer-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, 
we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to 
antidumping duties.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    \52\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the 
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate 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 
139.49 \53\ percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied 
that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 18570, 
18571-2 (April 23, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.
    The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results 
of administrative review in accordance with sections751(a)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).


[[Page 13539]]


     Dated: March 1, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-5582 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P