[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17436-17439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7215]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-972]


Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

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

DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012.
SUMMARY: On November 3, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at 
less than fair value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of 
certain stilbenic optical brightening agents (``stilbenic OBAs'') from 
the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\ The Department invited 
interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. Based 
on the Department's analysis of the comments received, the Department 
has made changes from the Preliminary Determination, and continues to 
find that stilbenic OBAs from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in section 735 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act''). The final dumping margins 
for this investigation are listed in the ``Final Determination'' 
section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 76 FR 
68148 (November 3, 2011) (``Preliminary Determination'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Higgins or Maisha Cryor, 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-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0679, or (202) 482-5831, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Department published its Preliminary Determination of sales at 
LTFV and postponement of the final determination on November 3, 2011. 
Between November 7, 2011, and November 18, 2011, the Department 
conducted verification of mandatory respondents Zhejiang Transfar 
Whyyon Chemical Co., Ltd. (``Transfar'') and Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals 
Co., Ltd. (``Hongda'').\2\ Clariant Corporation (``Petitioner''), 
Transfar, and Hongda submitted case briefs on January 6, 2012.\3\ On 
January 11, 2012, Petitioner and Transfar filed rebuttal briefs. The 
Department conducted a public hearing on February 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the ``Verification'' section below.
    \3\ The Department rejected Transfar's original case brief 
because it contained untimely information. See Letter from Robert 
Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Transfar, 
regarding Transfar's submission of untimely information (January 10, 
2012). Transfar submitted a revised version of its case brief on 
January 13, 2012. See Letter from Transfar to the Secretary of 
Commerce, ``Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from 
China'' (January 13, 2012) (``Transfar's Case Brief''); Letter from 
Transfar to the Secretary of Commerce, ``Certain Stilbenic Optical 
Brightening Agents from China'' (January 11, 2012) (``Transfar's 
Rebuttal Brief'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2010, through 
December 31, 2010. This period corresponds to the two most recent 
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which 
was March 2011.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.\5\ A list of

[[Page 17437]]

these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and 
Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically 
via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''). Access to IA 
ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main 
Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet 
at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum 
and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are 
identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 
Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical 
Brightening Agents from the People's Republic of China'' (March 19, 
2012) (``Issues and Decision Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

     The Department changed the surrogate value (``SV'') for 
ocean freight to reflect shipping rates that actually occurred during 
the POI. In addition, the Department included certain additional 
charges (i.e., fuel surcharges, destination delivery charges, and bill 
of lading charges) in the ocean freight calculation because these 
charges were not separately covered by the brokerage and handling 
SV.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; Memorandum 
from Maisha Cryor, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, to the File, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Surrogate Value Memorandum'' (March 19, 
2012) (``Final SV Memo'') at Attachment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Department changed the SV for ice blocks from Global 
Trade Atlas import data to a value reported in the publication Business 
Report Thailand.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; Final SV 
Memo at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Department made changes based on minor corrections 
presented at verification.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, and Abdelali 
Elouaradia, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the 
File, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical 
Brightening Agents from the People's Republic of China: Verification 
of the Antidumping Duty Questionnaire Responses of Zhejiang Hongda 
Chemicals Co., Ltd.'' (December 15, 2011) (``Hongda's Verification 
Report''); Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File, 
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical 
Brightening Agents from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination Analysis Memorandum for Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co., 
Ltd.'' (March 19, 2012); Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 
and Maisha Cryor, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, to the File, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People's 
Republic of China: Verification of the Antidumping Duty 
Questionnaire Responses of Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon Chemical Co., 
Ltd.'' (December 15, 2011) (``Transfar's Verification Report''); 
Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade Compliance 
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File, ``Antidumping 
Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination Analysis 
Memorandum for Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon Chemical Co., Ltd.'' (March 
19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The stilbenic OBAs covered by this investigation are all forms 
(whether free acid or salt) of compounds known as 
triazinylaminostilbenes (i.e., all derivatives of 4,4'-bis [1,3,5- 
triazin-2-yl]\9\ amino-2,2'-stilbenedisulfonic acid), except for 
compounds listed in the following paragraph. The stilbenic OBAs covered 
by this investigation include final stilbenic OBA products, as well as 
intermediate products that are themselves triazinylaminostilbenes 
produced during the synthesis of stilbenic OBA products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The brackets in this sentence are part of the chemical 
formula.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excluded from this investigation are all forms of 4,4'-bis[4-
anilino-6-morpholino-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]\10\ amino-2,2'-
stilbenedisulfonic acid, 
C40H40N12O8S2 
(``Fluorescent Brightener 71''). This investigation covers the above-
described compounds in any state (including but not limited to powder, 
slurry, or solution), of any concentrations of active stilbenic OBA 
ingredient, as well as any compositions regardless of additives (i.e., 
mixtures or blends, whether of stilbenic OBAs with each other, or of 
stilbenic OBAs with additives that are not stilbenic OBAs), and in any 
type of packaging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These stilbenic OBAs are classifiable under subheading 3204.20.8000 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''), but 
they may also enter under subheadings 2933.69.6050, 2921.59.4000 and 
2921.59.8090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department verified 
the information submitted by Transfar and Hongda for use in its final 
determination. The Department used standard verification procedures, 
including examination of relevant accounting and production records and 
original source documents provided by the respondents.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Transfar's Verification Report; Hongda's Verification 
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market Economy Country

    The Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy 
(``NME'') country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, 
any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain 
in effect until revoked by the administering authority. The Department 
has not revoked the PRC's status as an NME country. No party has 
challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this 
investigation. Therefore, the Department continues to treat the PRC as 
an NME for purposes of the final determination.

Surrogate Country

    In the preliminary determination, the Department selected Thailand 
as the appropriate surrogate country for use in this investigation 
pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act based on the following: (1) It 
is at a similar level of economic development as the PRC; (2) it is a 
significant producer of merchandise comparable to the merchandise under 
consideration; and (3) the record contains reliable data from Thailand 
that the Department can use to value the factors of production.\12\ The 
Department has not made changes to these findings for the final 
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia from Shawn Higgins, 
``Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People's 
Republic of China: Surrogate Country Memorandum'' (October 27, 
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply 
facts available (``FA'') if (1) necessary information is not on the 
record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) withholds 
information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information 
within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested 
by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of 
the Act.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying FA when a party has failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information. Such an adverse inference may include

[[Page 17438]]

reliance on information derived from the petition, the final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record.

PRC-Wide Entity

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that 
certain PRC exporters/producers did not respond to the Department's 
requests for information including information pertaining to whether 
they were separate from the PRC-wide entity.\13\ Thus, the Department 
has found that these PRC exporters/producers are part of the PRC-wide 
entity and the PRC-wide entity has not responded to requests for 
information.\14\ No additional information was placed on the record 
with respect to any of these companies after the Preliminary 
Determination. Because the PRC-wide entity did not provide the 
Department with requested information, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) 
of the Act, the Department continues to find it appropriate to base the 
PRC-wide rate on FA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 68150.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for 
information, the Department has determined that the PRC-wide entity has 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has found that, in selecting 
from among the FA, an adverse inference is appropriate for the PRC-wide 
entity.
    Because the Department begins with the presumption that all 
companies within an NME country are subject to government control and 
only the mandatory respondents have overcome that presumption, the 
Department is applying a single antidumping rate to all other exporters 
of merchandise under consideration from the PRC. Such companies have 
not demonstrated entitlement to a separate rate.\15\ Accordingly, the 
PRC-wide entity rate applies to all entries of merchandise under 
consideration except for entries from Transfar and Hongda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Market Value: Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of 
China, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 2, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate for the PRC-Wide Entity

    In selecting a rate for adverse facts available (``AFA''), the 
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to 
effectuate the purpose of the adverse facts available rule to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner.'' \16\ Further, it is the Department's 
practice to select a rate that ensures ``that the party does not obtain 
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' \17\ It is the Department's practice to select as 
AFA the higher of (a) the highest margin alleged in the petition or (b) 
the highest rate calculated for any respondent in the 
investigation.\18\ The highest margin alleged in the petition is 203.16 
percent.\19\ This rate is higher than any of the rates calculated for 
individually examined companies. Thus, as AFA, the Department's 
practice would be to assign the rate of 203.16 percent to the PRC-wide 
entity. However, in order to determine the probative value of the 
margins in the petition for use as AFA for purposes of this final 
determination, the Department examined information on the record and 
found that it was unable to corroborate either the highest margin in 
the petition or both its U.S. price and normal value components. In 
addition, the Department does not find the highest calculated weighted-
average margin of the mandatory respondents to be sufficiently adverse 
to act as the AFA rate.\20\ The Department finds, however, that the 
highest transaction-specific margin of the mandatory respondents (i.e., 
109.95 percent) is sufficiently adverse to serve as the AFA rate.\21\ 
No corroboration of this rate is necessary because the Department is 
relying on information obtained in the course of this investigation, 
rather than secondary information.\22\ This was the same methodology 
the Department employed in the Preliminary Determination. No interested 
party has commented on this methodology for calculating the PRC-wide 
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 
63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998).
    \17\ See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; 
Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 
(Nov. 18, 2005) (quoting the Statement of Administrative Action 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d 
Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994)).
    \18\ See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 75 FR 60725, 60729 (October 1, 2010).
    \19\ See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the 
People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping 
Duty Investigations, 76 FR 23554, 23558 (April 27, 2011) 
(``Initiation Notice'').
    \20\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic 
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 
FR 64318, 64322 (October 18, 2011).
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d) and section 776(c) of the 
Act; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: Light-
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of 
China, 73 FR 35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008) and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity applies to all entries 
of the merchandise under investigation except for entries of 
merchandise under investigation from the exporter/manufacturer 
combinations listed in the chart in the ``Final Determination'' section 
below.

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a 
separate rate in this investigation.\23\ This practice is described in 
Policy Bulletin 05.1.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 23559.
    \24\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination

    The Department determines that the following dumping margins exist 
for the period July 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted average
             Exporter                    Producer            margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co.,     Zhejiang Hongda                 95.29
 Ltd.                               Chemicals Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon Chemical  Zhejiang Transfar               63.98
 Co., Ltd.                          Whyyon Chemical
                                    Co., Ltd.
PRC-wide Entity..................  ...................            109.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17439]]

Disclosure

    The Department intends to disclose the calculations performed to 
parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication 
of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue 
to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of stilbenic OBAs 
from the PRC as described in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
November 3, 2011, the date of publication of the Preliminary 
Determination in the Federal Register. The Department will instruct CBP 
to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the 
weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, 
as indicated above.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of the final affirmative 
determination of sales at LTFV. As the Department's final determination 
is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the 
ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in 
the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material 
injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 
importation, of the merchandise under consideration. If the ITC 
determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an 
antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further 
instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the 
merchandise under consideration entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of 
liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of propriety information disclosed under APO 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or 
distruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms 
of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 19, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Issues for Final Determination

Issue 1: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value 
for 4,4[acute]-Diamino-2,2[acute] Stilbenedisulfonic Acid
Issue 2: Whether the Department Should Revise the Calculation of the 
Surrogate Financial Ratios
Issue 3: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value 
for Ice Blocks
Issue 4: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value 
for Ocean Freight
Issue 5: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value 
for Brokerage and Handling
Issue 6: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value 
for Labor

[FR Doc. 2012-7215 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P