[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21738-21744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8732]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-836]


Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests, the Department of Commerce is 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
glycine from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review 
is March 1, 2010, through February 28, 2011. We have preliminarily 
determined that Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. (Baoding 
Mantong), made sales of subject merchandise at or above normal value 
during the period of review and invite interested parties to comment on 
these preliminary results. In addition, we are rescinding this 
administrative review with respect to 29 other companies.

DATES: Effective Date: April 11, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edythe Artman or Angelica Mendoza,

[[Page 21739]]

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-
3931 and (202) 482-3019, respectively.

Background

    On March 1, 2011, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
glycine in the Federal Register.\1\ Baoding Mantong requested a review 
of its own sales on March 23, 2011, and GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. 
(GEO), a domestic interested party, requested a review of the sales of 
Baoding Mantong and 29 other firms on March 31, 2011. Based on these 
requests, we initiated a review of the 30 companies on April 27, 
2011.\2\ On July 1, 2011, however, GEO withdrew its request for review 
of all companies except that of Baoding Mantong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 11197 (March 1, 2011).
    \2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 23545 (April 27, 2011) (Initiation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Baoding Mantong filed timely responses to our original antidumping 
questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires. GEO filed comments on 
Baoding Mantong's submissions and, on July 25, 2011, GEO filed a 
request that we verify the responses.
    On November 23, 2011, we extended the due date for the preliminary 
results of review by 120 days to March 30, 2012.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Glycine From the People's Republic of China; Extension 
of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 72388 (November 23, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

    We conducted a verification of Baoding Mantong's responses from 
February 6 through February 10, 2012. We used standard verification 
procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production 
records, as well as source documentation provided by the respondent. 
See Memorandum to the File regarding ``Verification of the Sales and 
Factors-Of-Production Responses of Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., 
Ltd., in the Antidumping Administrative Review of Glycine from the 
People's Republic of China,'' dated March 30, 2012 (Verification 
Report).

Partial Rescission

    Under 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), 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.
    Because GEO withdrew its request for review of 29 companies on July 
1, 2011, within 90 days of publication of our notice of initiation on 
April 27, 2011, we find GEO's withdrawal to be timely. Thus, we are 
rescinding this review with respect to the following companies: (1) A&A 
Pharmachem Inc., (2) Advance Exports, (3) AICO Laboratories Ltd., (4) 
Avid Organics, (5) Beijing Onlystar Technology Co. Ltd., (6) China 
Jiangsu International, (7) Chiyuen International Trading Ltd., (8) E-
Heng Import & Export Co., Ltd., (9) General Ingredient Inc., (10) Hebei 
Donghua Chemical General Corporation, (11) Hebei Donghua Jiheng Fine 
Chemical, (12) H.K. Tangfin Chemicals Co., Ltd., (13) Jizhou City 
Huayang Chemical Co., Ltd., (14) Kissner Milling Co. Ltd., (15) Long 
Dragon Company Ltd., (16) Nantong Dongchang Chemical Industry Corp., 
(17) Nutracare International, (18) Paras Intermediates Pvt. Ltd., (19) 
Qingdao Samin Chemical Co., Ltd., (20) Ravi Industries, (21) Salvi 
Chemical Industries, (22) Shaanxi Maxsun Trading Co., Ltd., (23) 
Shijiazhuang Green Carbon Products Co., Ltd., (24) Showa Denko K.K., 
(25) Sinochem Qingdao Company, Ltd., (26) Sino-Siam Resources Imp. & 
Exp. Co., Ltd., (27) Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Company, (28) 
Universal Minerals, and (29) Yuki Gosei Kogyo Co., Ltd.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this antidumping duty order is glycine, 
which is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. 
Glycine is produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a 
sweetener/taste enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, 
chemical intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. Glycine is 
currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This proceeding includes 
glycine of all purity levels.
    Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the 
order is dispositive.
    In a separate scope ruling, the Department determined that D(-) 
Phenylglycine Ethyl Dane Salt is outside the scope of the order. See 
Notice of Scope Rulings, 62 FR 62288 (November 21, 1997).

Non-Market-Economy Country Status

    The Department considers the PRC to be a non-market-economy (NME) 
country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 
Administrative Review and Preliminary Notice of Intent To Rescind 
the 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 26736, 26739 (May 8, 2006) 
(unchanged in Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative 
Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 
FR 66304 (November 14, 2006)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    A designation of a country as a NME remains in effect until it is 
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. We 
maintain that there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the PRC are subject to government control and, thus, should be 
assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's 
standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to 
review 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 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).
    To establish separate-rate eligibility, the Department requires 
entities, for which a review was requested and that were assigned 
separate rates 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 unless there were changes to a company's 
corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or 
changes to their official company name. Initiation at 23546. In the 
current review, Baoding Mantong filed a response to Section A

[[Page 21740]]

of the antidumping questionnaire in which it described recent changes 
in its corporate structure and ownership and responded to all items 
concerning the assignment of a separate rate. In doing so, it provided 
company-specific information and stated that it met the criteria for 
the assignment of a separate rate.

Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; (3) any other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The information provided by Baoding Mantong supports a finding of a 
de jure absence of governmental control over its export activities 
based on: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with 
the exporter's business license and certificate of approval; and (2) 
the legal authority on the record decentralizing control over Baoding 
Mantong, including the provisions of the relevant PRC law. Furthermore, 
no party submitted information to the contrary. Thus, we preliminarily 
find an absence of de jure control.

Absence of De Facto Control

    The Department typically considers the following four factors in 
evaluating whether a respondent is subject to de facto government 
control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set 
by, or subject to the approval of, a government agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; Sparklers, 
56 FR at 20589; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 
60 FR 22544-45, n.3 (May 8, 1995). 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.
    The evidence provided by Baoding Mantong supports a preliminary 
finding of de facto absence of government control based on the 
following: (1) Its export price is not set by or subject to the 
approval of a governmental agency; (2) the respondent has authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) the respondent 
has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the 
selection of its management; and (4) the respondent retains the 
proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding 
disposition of profits or financing of losses. Based on this 
information, the Department preliminarily finds that there is an 
absence of de facto governmental control over the export activities of 
Baoding Mantong.
    Therefore, given the findings that the company operates free of de 
jure and de facto governmental control, we preliminarily determine that 
Baoding Mantong satisfies the criteria for a separate rate established 
in Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production, 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 factors of production, the Department shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the factors 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.\5\ Once the Department 
has identified the countries that are economically comparable to the 
PRC, it identifies those countries which are significant producers of 
comparable merchandise. From the countries which are both economically 
comparable and significant producers, the Department will then select a 
primary surrogate country based upon whether the data for valuing the 
factors of production are both available and reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market 
Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004) 
available on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Comparability

    For this administrative review, the Department has identified 
Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and 
Ukraine as countries that are comparable to the PRC in terms of 
economic development. See Memorandum to Angelica Mendoza from Carole 
Showers regarding ``Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine from the 
People's Republic of China,'' dated August 15, 2011 (Surrogate Country 
List). Thus, we consider all of the countries on the Surrogate Country 
List as having satisfied the comparable-economic-development prong of 
the surrogate selection criteria.
    Furthermore, the Department has previously stated that:

    {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.

    See Certain Steel Wheels From the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 76 FR 67703, 
67708 (November 2, 2011). Because, as explained below, we find that one 
of the countries from the Surrogate Country List meets the selection 
criteria, the Department need not consider another country as the 
primary surrogate country.

Significant Producers of Identical or Comparable Merchandise

    In its comments on surrogate-country selection, Baoding Mantong 
argued that, as in previous segments of the proceeding, India should be 
used as the surrogate country because it remained at a level of 
economic development comparable to China, it was a significant producer 
of merchandise identical to the subject merchandise, and it offered 
publicly available information to value the factors of production. See 
Baoding Mantong's Letter regarding ``Surrogate Country Comments and the 
Submission of Proposed Surrogate Values'', dated November 1, 2011 at 2. 
Baoding Mantong acknowledged that, based on export data, Indonesia 
could be considered a producer of merchandise comparable to glycine but 
argued that there were no publicly available data upon which to base 
the financial-ratio calculations. Id. at 3-4 and exhibit 1. In its 
comments, GEO argued that Indonesia was the most appropriate country to 
be selected as the surrogate because: (1) Based on export data, it had

[[Page 21741]]

the most robust glycine and amino acid industry of the six countries 
identified by the Department; (2) U.S. import data showed that 
Indonesia had shipped glycine to the United States in the recent past; 
and (3) the Department had recently selected Indonesia as the surrogate 
country in the less-than-fair-value investigation of citric acid and 
certain citric salts from the PRC. See GEO's Letter regarding ``GEO 
Specialty Chemicals' Comments on Selection of Surrogate Country for 
Valuing Factors of Production and Surrogate Value Data for Valuing 
Baoding Mantong's Factors of Production'', dated November 1, 2011 
(GEO's Comments), at 3 and exhibit 3. GEO asserted that the Department 
could value inputs based on data obtained from the World Trade Atlas 
(WTA), as published by the Global Trade Information Services, and the 
public financial information of five Indonesian companies. Id. at 5-6 
and exhibits 5 and 6.
    In rebuttal, Baoding Mantong asserted that India should remain the 
surrogate country for the proceeding, noting that Indonesia's 2010 
exports of glycine were small in comparison with those of India. 
Baoding Mantong's Letter regarding ``Submission of Rebuttal Surrogate 
Country and Surrogate Value Comments,'' dated November 8, 2011 at 2. 
GEO rebutted, however, that India was not a significant producer of 
merchandise identical to the subject merchandise, alleging that most 
glycine shipments from India to the United States are transshipments of 
Chinese-origin glycine \6\ and noting that, in the history of the 
proceeding, no financial information of an Indian glycine producer had 
been placed on the record. See GEO's Letter regarding ``Rebuttal to 
Baoding Mantong's Surrogate Country Comments and Submission of Proposed 
Surrogate Values,'' dated November 10, 2011 at 2-3. GEO added that the 
Indonesian export data showed Indonesia to be a producer of merchandise 
both identical and comparable to the subject merchandise. Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ GEO's assertions are made in reference to an ongoing anti-
circumvention inquiry involving the antidumping duty order on 
glycine from the PRC and shipments of glycine from India. See 
Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of 
Antidumping Anticircumvention Inquiry, 75 FR 66352 (October 28, 
2010). No final determination has been made in this inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a principal matter and as discussed above, because the 
Department finds that one of the countries from the Surrogate Country 
List meets the selection criteria, the Department is not considering 
India as the primary surrogate country. Specifically, based on the 
export data submitted by the parties,\7\ we find that Indonesia is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise. Baoding Mantong 
observes that the data for exports of amino acids, including glycine, 
show that the exports from India far exceeded those from Indonesia. 
However, of the six economically-comparable countries identified by the 
Department, Indonesia exported the largest amount of comparable 
merchandise. Thus, although the data show that Indonesia is not as 
large an exporter as India, it nevertheless supports the finding that 
Indonesia is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Although Baoding Mantong relied on the United Nations 
Commodity Trade Statistics Database for its export data and GEO 
retrieved its data from the Global Trade Atlas, as published by the 
Global Trade Information Services (GTA), we note that they obtained 
identical results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we find that Indonesia meets both prongs of the 
surrogate-selection criteria; it is at a comparable level of economic 
development to the NME country, pursuant to section 773(c)(4)(A) of the 
Act, and is also a significant producer of the subject merchandise, 
pursuant to section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act. Furthermore, we have found 
Indonesian data to value the inputs to be publicly available in the GTA 
and, as noted above, in the financial information of several Indonesian 
companies placed on the record by the domestic interested party.
    Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that it is appropriate to 
use Indonesia as the primary surrogate country for this review and, 
consequently, we have used it as the source for data for valuing all 
surrogate values.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may 
submit additional publicly-available information to value factors of 
production for the final results of this administrative review within 
20 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results.

Date of Sale

    Normally, the Department considers invoice date as the date of sale 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i). However, it is the Department's 
practice to use shipment date as the date of sale when shipment date 
precedes invoice date.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 
Flat Products From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 13172-73 (March 18, 1998); see 
also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of 
Korea; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review in Part, 72 FR 4486 (January 31, 2007), and 
the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Section C questionnaire response, Baoding Mantong reported 
the sales invoice date as the date of sale for both its export-price 
and constructed-export-price (CEP) sales. However, in a supplemental 
questionnaire response, the company stated that, for export-price 
sales, it usually issued its invoice prior to the date of shipment and 
that, in the case of CEP sales, its U.S. affiliate, Glycine & More, 
Inc. (Glycine & More), usually issued its invoice upon delivery of the 
product to the customer. See Baoding Mantong's supplemental 
questionnaire response, dated November 7, 2011, at 14. Statements at 
verification were consistent with the latter response. See Verification 
Report at 11-12. Thus, we have determined that, for export-price sales, 
the earliest of the invoice date or shipment date is the appropriate 
date of sale and that, for CEP sales, the date of shipment is the date 
of sale for purposes of our preliminary results.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine if sales of glycine from the PRC to the United States 
were made at less than normal value, we compared the export price or 
CEP of each sale to the normal value, as described in the ``U.S. 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice below. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the export 
prices and the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the normal value 
of the product.

U.S. Price

A. Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price for sales on export price where Baoding Mantong made the first 
sale to an unaffiliated purchaser prior to importation, and the use of 
CEP was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We 
calculated export price based on either the packed freight-on-board or 
cost-and-freight price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we 
calculated net export price by deducting foreign inland-freight 
expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses and, if applicable, 
ocean-freight expenses from the starting price (gross unit price). We 
based all movement expenses on surrogate values because the movement 
services were provided by PRC companies (see the ``Normal Value'' 
section of this notice for further details).

[[Page 21742]]

B. Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price for sales on CEP where Glycine & More made the first sale to an 
unaffiliated customer. We calculated CEP based on the packed freight-
on-board or delivered price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
calculated CEP by deducting foreign movement expenses, international 
freight, and U.S. movement expenses, including brokerage and handling, 
from the starting price (gross unit price). Further, in accordance with 
section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we deducted the 
following selling expenses associated with economic activities 
occurring in the United States from the starting price: Credit expenses 
and indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs. In 
addition, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an 
adjustment to the starting price for CEP profit. We based foreign 
movement expenses, incurred on services provided by PRC companies, on 
surrogate values and international movement expenses on the U.S.-dollar 
amount in which they were incurred.

Normal Value

    Sections 773(c)(1)(A)-(B) of the Act provides that the Department 
shall determine normal value using a factors-of-production methodology 
if the merchandise under review is exported from an NME country and the 
available information does not permit the calculation of normal value 
using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value 
under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department uses a factors-of-
production 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.\9\ Thus, 
the Department based normal value on factor information supplied by 
Baoding Mantong in its questionnaire responses or obtained at 
verification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to 
Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744, 39754 (July 11, 2005) (unchanged in 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2003-2004 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517 
(January 17, 2006)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued material, labor, energy, and packing by multiplying the 
reported per-unit rates for the factors consumed in producing the 
subject merchandise by the average per-unit surrogate value of the 
factor. In addition, we added freight costs to the surrogate costs that 
we calculated for material inputs. Normally, we calculate 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. Also, where there are 
multiple domestic suppliers of a material input, we calculate a 
weighted-average distance after limiting each supplier's distance to no 
more than the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. These 
distance adjustments are in accordance with the decision by the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. 
United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Sigma). 
However, since we found the supplier information (with the exception of 
the factor for coal) reported by Baoding Mantong to be inaccurate at 
verification, we found it appropriate to assign partial facts available 
for the supplier freight distances (other than that of coal).
    Specifically, as a result of verification, we found Baoding Mantong 
to have omitted identifying an input supplier and to have inaccurately 
reported the distances between the suppliers of inputs and the factory 
for all inputs except coal. See Verification Report at 34. Because we 
could not verify the reported information, we found it appropriate to 
rely on partial facts available for this information pursuant to 
section 776(a)(2)(2) of the Act. Furthermore, because we found that 
Baoding Mantong possessed the supplier information (i.e., the sales 
receipts from suppliers) and could have obtained the correct supplier 
distances for reporting purposes but failed to do so, we found that it 
did not act to the best of its ability to comply with our requests for 
information. For a detailed discussion of this issue, see Memorandum to 
the File from Edythe Artman regarding ``Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry 
Co., Ltd.--Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 2010/
2011 Administrative Review of Glycine from the People's Republic of 
China,'' dated March 30, 2012 (Baoding Mantong Analysis Memorandum), at 
6.
    Accordingly, because Baoding Mantong failed to cooperate in the 
reporting of its supplier information, we find that use of information 
adverse to the interests of the company, as facts otherwise available, 
is appropriate pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As partial 
adverse facts available we have applied the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory in the calculation of freight costs (other than 
coal), since, for each affected input, this distance exceeds that 
distance between the suppliers and the factory.
    Finally, we calculated normal value by adding the values of the 
factors of production with surrogate values for overhead, selling, 
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit and packing costs.

Selection of Surrogate Values

    In selecting surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. For these preliminary 
results, in selecting the best available data for valuing factors of 
production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, we followed 
our practice of choosing publicly available values which are non-export 
average values, most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, 
and tax-exclusive.\10\ We also considered the quality of the source of 
surrogate information in selecting surrogate values. See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cased 
Pencils From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 55625, 55633 
(November 8, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is the Department's practice to calculate price index adjustors 
to inflate or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate values that are not 
contemporaneous with the period of review using the wholesale price 
index for the subject country. But these data were not available for 
Indonesia. Therefore, where we could not obtain publicly available 
information contemporaneous with the period of review to value factors, 
we adjusted surrogate values by using the Consumer Price Index rate for 
Indonesia, as published in the International Monetary Fund's 
International Financial Statistics. See Silicon Metal From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 77 FR 13534 (March 7, 2012); Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary 
Results of Administrative Review, 77 FR 13547 (March 7, 2012).
    In accordance with these guidelines, we calculated surrogate 
values, except

[[Page 21743]]

as noted below, from import statistics obtained from the GTA for 
Indonesia.\11\ Our use of GTA import data is in accordance with past 
practice and satisfies all of our criteria for surrogate values stated 
above.\12\ For further details regarding the specific surrogate values 
used for direct materials, energy inputs, and packing materials in 
these preliminary results, see the Memorandum to the File from Edythe 
Artman through Angelica Mendoza regarding ``Factors Valuation 
Memorandum,'' dated March 30, 2012 (Factors Valuation Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain 
Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 55357 
(September 7, 2011) (unchanged in Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing 
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 
FR 14499 (March 12, 2012)).
    \12\ 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the labor input, we based our calculation on the 
methodology enunciated by the Department in Antidumping Methodologies 
in Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of 
Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June 21, 2011) (Labor Methodologies). 
We explained that the best methodology to value the labor input is to 
use industry-specific labor rates from the primary surrogate country. 
Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093. We further determined that the 
best data source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A: Labor 
Cost in Manufacturing, from the International Labor Organization's 
Yearbook of Labor Statistics (ILO's Yearbook). Labor Methodologies, 76 
FR at 36093-36094.
    However, ILO's Yearbook does not provide labor data for Indonesia 
under Chapter 6A and, thus, we have relied upon Chapter-5B data, or 
wage-rate data, for Indonesia in order to calculate surrogate labor 
costs. We found the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 2-3 
(Manufacture of Other Chemical Products) to be the best available 
information on the record because it is specific to the industry being 
examined and thus derived from industries that produce comparable 
merchandise. Because these data reflect direct compensation and bonuses 
and none of the indirect costs reflected in Chapter-6A data, we found 
that the facts and information on the record do not warrant or permit 
an adjustment to the surrogate financial statements. A more detailed 
description of the wage-rate-calculation methodology is provided in the 
Factors Valuation Memorandum at 4.
    For export-price sales in which Baoding Mantong paid for 
international freight from a NME provider, we relied upon the freight 
expenses reported for a CEP sale in which the product was shipped to 
the same port of destination as the export-price sales. See Baoding 
Mantong Analysis Memorandum at 4.
    Baoding Mantong generates and sells two by-products--hydrochloric 
acid and ammonium chloride--as a result of its manufacturing process. 
We offset its material costs by revenue it obtained from the sales of 
the byproducts. See Valuation Memorandum at 4.
    To value overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit, we have preliminarily 
determined that the audited 2010 financial statements of three 
Indonesian companies constitute the best information publicly available 
and that these companies make products comparable to the subject 
merchandise. GEO submitted the financial information for five companies 
with a presence in Indonesia. See GEO's Comments at exhibit 6. Two 
financial reports were for those of subsidiaries of international 
companies specializing in pharmaceutical, personal and household care 
products, whereas the other three reports were for companies involved 
in the production of amino acids (used in pharmaceutical products). We 
found the information for the subsidiaries to be inappropriate due to 
the wide range of products made by the companies. Furthermore, we found 
the products made by the other three companies to be comparable to 
glycine. Accordingly, we based our calculation of the surrogate 
financial ratios on the reports of these three companies--PT Darya-
Varia Laboratoria Tbk, PT Pyridam Farma Tbk, and PT Kalbe Farma Tbk. We 
were able to segregate and, therefore, able to exclude direct energy 
costs from the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios. 
Accordingly, for the preliminary results, we have disregarded the 
direct energy components of the surrogate financial ratios in the 
calculation of normal value in order to avoid double-counting energy 
costs and have relied upon the energy inputs reported by Baoding 
Mantong. See Valuation Memorandum at 5.

Currency Conversion

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

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of the administrative review, we preliminarily 
determine that the following weighted-average per-unit dumping margin 
exists for the period March 1, 2010, through February 28, 2011:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Margin  (per-
                          Company                               unit)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd...................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to 
interested parties to this review within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted within 30 days 
of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal briefs from 
interested parties, limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, 
may be submitted within five days after the time limit for filing the 
case briefs or comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 351.309(d). 
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are 
requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a 
summary of the arguments not exceeding five pages, and a table of 
statutes, regulations, and cases cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
    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 in a hearing if it 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). See 19 CFR 351.303(b). An electronically-filed 
document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5 p.m. 
Eastern Time (ET). Id. Requests should contain the following 
information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) 
the number of participants; (3) a list of issues to be discussed. 
Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, any hearing will be 
held two days after the

[[Page 21744]]

scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.310(d).
    The Department intends to issue the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, within 
120 days after the date of publication of this notice. See section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Deadline for Submission of Publicly Available Surrogate Value 
Information

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), 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 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 completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate exporter/importer (or 
customer)-specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this 
review. Because Baoding Mantong could not report the entered value 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). Where the duty 
assessment rates are above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess 
duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer in 
accordance with the requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 
Where an importer- or customer-specific 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).
    We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the 
date of publication of the final results of review. For those companies 
for which this review has been rescinded but for which we do not have a 
separate rate at this time (and which thus remain part of the PRC-wide 
entity), the Department will issue assessment instructions for the PRC-
wide entity upon the completion of this administrative review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of review for all shipments of the 
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject merchandise exported by 
Baoding Mantong, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in the 
final results of review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies not listed above that have separate rates, the cash-deposit 
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) for all other PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate 
rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 155.89 
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 entity that supplied that exporter. These 
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 
751(a)(3), and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: March 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-8732 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P