[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26489-26496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10839]
[[Page 26489]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-933]
Frontseating Service Valves From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the 2010-2011 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 (``the Department'') is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frontseating
service valves (``FSVs'') from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''), covering the period April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011.
We have preliminarily determined that neither respondent in this
administrative review, Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co., Ltd.
(``DunAn'') or Zhejiang Sanhua Co., Ltd. (``Sanhua'') made sales in the
United States at prices below normal value (``NV'') during the period
of review (``POR''). We invite interested parties to comment on these
preliminary results. Parties who submit comments are requested to
submit with each argument a summary of the argument. 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'').
DATES: Effective Date: May 4, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita, Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4243, and (202) 482-0414, respectively.
Background
On April 28, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on FSVs from the PRC.\1\ On April 1, 2011,
the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on FSVs from the PRC for the period April 1, 2010 through March
31, 2011.\2\ On April 27, 2011, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(2), Sanhua, a foreign exporter of the subject merchandise,
requested the Department to review its sales of subject merchandise.\3\
On May 2, 2011, Parker-Hannifin Corporation (``Petitioner'') requested
that the Department conduct an administrative review of the exports of
subject merchandise made by DunAn and Sanhua during the POR.\4\ On the
same date, DunAn, a foreign exporter of the subject merchandise,
requested that the Department review its sales of subject
merchandise.\5\ On May 27, 2011, the Department initiated an
administrative review of the order on FSVs from the PRC for the POR
with respect to DunAn and Sanhua.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Frontseating Service Valves from
the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 19196 (April 28, 2009)
(``Order'').
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 76 FR 18153, 18154 (April 1, 2011).
\3\ See Letter from Sanhua, ``Frontseating Service Valves from
the People's Republic of China; A-570-933; Request for Sec. 751
Administrative Review of Exports by Zhejiang Sanhua Co., Ltd.,''
dated April 27, 2011.
\4\ See Letter from Petitioners, ``Frontseating Service Valves
from the People's Republic of China--Request for Initiation of
Antidumping Administrative Review,'' dated May 2, 2011.
\5\ See Letter from DunAn, ``Request for Administrative Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order of Frontseating Service Valves from
the People's Republic of China (POR 4/01/2010-3/31/2011),'' dated
May 2, 2011.
\6\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 30912 (May 27, 2011) (``Initiation
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between June 2011 and April 2012, the Department issued its initial
and supplemental antidumping duty questionnaires to DunAn and Sanhua.
DunAn and Sanhua submitted their responses between September 2011 and
March 2012. Petitioner did not comment on these questionnaire
responses.
On September 2, 2011, the Department requested that Import
Administration's Office of Policy provide a list of surrogate countries
for this review.\7\ On September 22, 2011, the Office of Policy issued
its list of surrogate countries.\8\ On October 11, 2011, the Department
issued a letter to interested parties seeking comments on surrogate
country selection and surrogate values (``SVs'').\9\ On November 1,
2011, Petitioner and DunAn provided surrogate country selection
comments. On November 28, Petitioner and DunAn submitted SV comments
(``Petitioner's SV Comments'' and ``DunAn's SV Comments,''
respectively). On December 12, 2011, DunAn submitted rebuttal SV
comments (``DunAn's Rebuttal SV Comments'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Memorandum to Carole Showers, Director, Office of
Policy, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Frontseating
Service Valves from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate-
Country Selection,'' dated September 2, 2011.
\8\ See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Director, Office of
Policy, ``Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frontseating
Service Valves (`FSVs') from the People's Republic of China
(`China'),'' dated September 22, 2011 (``Surrogate Country List'').
\9\ See Letter to Interested Parties, ``Second Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Front Seating Valves from
the People's Republic of China: Request for Comments on the
Selection of a Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values,'' dated
October 11, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 13, 2011, the Department extended the time period for
completion of the preliminary results of this review by 90 days until
March 30, 2012.\10\ On March 7, 2012, the Department extended the time
period for completing the preliminary results of review by an
additional 30 days until April 29, 2012.\11\ However, because April 29,
2012, falls on a weekend, the preliminary results are now due no later
than April 30, 2012.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Frontseating Service Valves From the People's Republic
of China: Extension of Time for the Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 77479 (December 13,
2011).
\11\ See Frontseating Service Valves from the People's Republic
of China: Notice of Second Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
77 FR 13539 (March 7, 2012).
\12\ See id.; see also Notice of Clarification: Application of
``Next Business Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination
Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR
24533 (May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this order is frontseating service
valves, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain
parts thereof. Frontseating service valves contain a sealing surface on
the front side of the valve stem that allows the indoor unit or outdoor
unit to be isolated from the refrigerant stream when the air
conditioning or refrigeration unit is being serviced. Frontseating
service valves rely on an elastomer seal when the stem cap is removed
for servicing and the stem cap metal to metal seat to create this seal
to the atmosphere during normal operation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The frontseating service valve differs from a backseating
service valve in that a backseating service valve has two sealing
surfaces on the valve stem. This difference typically incorporates a
valve stem on a backseating service valve to be machined of steel,
where a frontseating service valve has a brass stem. The backseating
service valve dual stem seal (on the back side of the stem), creates
a metal to metal seal when the valve is in the open position, thus,
sealing the stem from the atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of the scope, the term ``unassembled'' frontseating
service valve means a brazed subassembly
[[Page 26490]]
requiring any one or more of the following processes: the insertion of
a valve core pin, the insertion of a valve stem and/or O ring, the
application or installation of a stem cap, charge port cap or tube dust
cap. The term ``complete'' frontseating service valve means a product
sold ready for installation into an air conditioning or refrigeration
unit. The term ``incomplete'' frontseating service valve means a
product that when sold is in multiple pieces, sections, subassemblies
or components and is incapable of being installed into an air
conditioning or refrigeration unit as a single, unified valve without
further assembly.
The major parts or components of frontseating service valves
intended to be covered by the scope under the term ``certain parts
thereof'' are any brazed subassembly consisting of any two or more of
the following components: a valve body, field connection tube, factory
connection tube or valve charge port. The valve body is a rectangular
block, or brass forging, machined to be hollow in the interior, with a
generally square shaped seat (bottom of body). The field connection
tube and factory connection tube consist of copper or other metallic
tubing, cut to length, shaped and brazed to the valve body in order to
create two ports, the factory connection tube and the field connection
tube, each on opposite sides of the valve assembly body. The valve
charge port is a service port via which a hose connection can be used
to charge or evacuate the refrigerant medium or to monitor the system
pressure for diagnostic purposes.
The scope includes frontseating service valves of any size,
configuration, material composition or connection type. Frontseating
service valves are classified under subheading 8481.80.1095, and also
have been classified under subheading 8415.90.80.85, of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). It is possible for
frontseating service valves to be manufactured out of primary materials
other than copper and brass, in which case they would be classified
under HTSUS subheadings 8481.80.3040, 8481.80.3090, or 8481.80.5090. In
addition, if unassembled or incomplete frontseating service valves are
imported, the various parts or components would be classified under
HTSUS subheadings 8481.90.1000, 8481.90.3000, or 8481.90.5000. The
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
but the written description of the scope of this proceeding is
dispositive.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
No interested party contested the Department's treatment of the PRC
as a non-market economy (``NME'') country in this administrative
review, and the Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all
past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews.\14\
Designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by
the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. As such, we
continue to treat the PRC as a NME in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 52645 (September 10, 2008); see also Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 3560 (January 21,
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOP''),
valued in a surrogate market economy (``ME'') country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with
section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or
more ME countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of
comparable merchandise.\15\ The sources of the surrogate factor values
are discussed under the ``Factor Valuations'' section below and in the
Factor Valuation Memorandum,\16\ which is on file in the Central
Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market
Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004)
(``Policy Bulletin'').
\16\ See Memorandum to the File, ``2010-2011 Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frontseating Service Valves
from the People's Republic of China: Factor Valuation Memorandum for
the Preliminary Results of Review,'' dated April 30, 2012 (``Factor
Valuation Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In examining which country to select as its primary surrogate
country for this proceeding, the Department first determined that
Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and
Ukraine are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic
development.\17\ Once the Department has identified countries that are
economically comparable to the PRC, it identifies those countries which
are significant producers of comparable merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Surrogate Country List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner submitted a letter stating that Thailand is an
appropriate surrogate country because: (1) Thailand is at a level of
economic development comparable to the PRC; (2) of the six countries at
a level of economic development to the PRC, Thailand is the most
significant producer of comparable merchandise; (3) the World Trade
Atlas (``WTA'') has import values for direct materials, energy and
packaging inputs used to manufacture the merchandise under
consideration; and, (4) the Department recently used Thailand as the
surrogate country in the preliminary determination of the antidumping
duty investigation of galvanized steel wire from the PRC.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Letter from Petitioner, ``Petitioner's Comments on
Surrogate Country Selection in the Second Administrative Review of
Certain Frontseating Service Valves from the People's Republic of
China,'' dated November 1, 2011 (``Petitioner's Surrogate Country
Selection Letter'') at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DunAn submitted a letter stating that the Philippines is an
appropriate surrogate country because: (1) The Philippines is at a
level of economic development comparable to the PRC; (2) the
Philippines is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; (3)
the Philippines offers the most specific, comprehensive and reliable
surrogate value data of all the potential surrogate countries.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Letter from DunAn, ``Surrogate Country Comments in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation on Frontseating Service Valves from
the People's Republic of China,'' dated November 1, 2011 (``DunAn's
Surrogate Country Selection Letter'') at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After evaluating interested parties' comments, the Department has
determined that the Philippines is the appropriate surrogate country to
use in this review in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act. The
Department based its decision on the following facts: (1) The
Philippines is at a level of economic development comparable to that of
the PRC; \20\ (2) the Philippines, in terms of total value of net
exports, is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; \21\ and,
as explained below, (3) the Philippines provides the best opportunity
to use quality, publicly available data to value the FOPs, including
surrogate financial data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Surrogate Country List.
\21\ See DunAn's Surrogate Country Selection Letter at 2-3 and
Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, because the Philippines best represents the experience
of producers of comparable merchandise operating in a surrogate
country, we have selected the Philippines as the surrogate country and,
accordingly,
[[Page 26491]]
have calculated NV using Philippine prices to value DunAn's and
Sanhua's FOPs, when available and appropriate. We have obtained and
relied upon publicly available information to value all FOPs.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may
submit publicly available information to value the FOPs within 20 days
after the date of publication of the preliminary results of review.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
determination of this 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 SV 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 at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department.\23\ In proceedings involving NME countries,
the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within
the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be
assessed a single antidumping duty rate.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.
\24\ See 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) (``Lined Paper from the PRC''); see also
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
application and certification process by which exporters may obtain
separate rate status in NME proceedings.\25\ It is the Department's
policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise in an NME country
a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both
de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities. The
Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under
a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May
6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in 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''). However, if the Department determines that a company is
wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent
from government control.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR 30913.
\26\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rate Recipients
DunAn and Sanhua each reported that it is a wholly Chinese-owned
company.\27\ Therefore, the Department must analyze whether these
respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See DunAn's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated July
11, 2010 (``DunAn's AQR'') at 2-19; Sanhua's Section A Questionnaire
Response, dated July 11, 2011 (``Sanhua's AQR'') at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Sparklers, 56 FR 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by DunAn and Sanhua supports a preliminary
finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with
their businesses and export licenses; (2) applicable legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) formal measures
by the government decentralizing control of companies.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China,
contained in Sanhua's AQR, at Exhibit A-2. See also DunAn's AQR at
3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government 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.\30\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR 22587; 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by DunAn and Sanhua supports a preliminary
finding of de facto absence of government control based on the
following: (1) The absence of evidence that the export prices are set
by or are subject to the approval of a government agency; \31\ (2) the
respondents have authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; \32\ (3) the respondents have autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; \33\ and (4)
the respondents retain the proceeds of their export sales and make
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of
losses.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See DunAn's AQR, at 8-9 and Sanhua's AQR at 7-8 and Exhibit
A-5.
\32\ See DunAn's AQR, at 8-9 and Sanhua's AQR at 8-9.
\33\ See DunAn's AQR, at 10-11 and Sanhua's AQR at 9-10.
\34\ See DunAn's AQR, at 11-12 and Sanhua's AQR at 10-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this review by
DunAn and Sanhua demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto
government control with respect to DunAn's and Sanhua's exports of the
merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria identified in
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Accordingly, we have determined that
DunAn and Sanhua have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate
rate.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of FSVs to the United States by DunAn
and Sanhua were made at less than NV, the Department compared
constructed export price (``CEP'') to NV, as described in the
``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this
notice. In these preliminary results, the Department applied the
weighted-average dumping margin calculation method adopted in
Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping
Margin and
[[Page 26492]]
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final
Modification.\35\ In particular, the Department compared monthly
weighted-average export prices (or constructed export prices) with
monthly weighted-average normal values and granted offsets for non-
dumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted average dumping
margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012)
(``Final Modification for Reviews'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in
the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the
account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated
with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and
(d) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used
CEP for DunAn's and Sanhua's sales because the sales were made by U.S.
affiliates in the United States.
We calculated CEP based on delivered prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments, where applicable,
to the reported gross unit prices for billing adjustments to arrive at
the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold in the United
States to an unaffiliated customer. We made deductions from the U.S.
sales price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)
of the Act. These included, where applicable, foreign inland freight
from plant to the port of exportation, foreign brokerage and handling,
ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from port to the
warehouse, U.S. freight from warehouse to customer, U.S. warehousing,
U.S. customs duty, and U.S. brokerage and handling. In accordance with
section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department deducted, where
applicable, commissions, credit expenses, inventory carrying costs, and
indirect selling expenses from the U.S. price, all of which relate to
commercial activity in the United States. In accordance with section
772(d) of the Act, we calculated DunAn's and Sanhua's credit expenses
and inventory carrying costs based on each company's respective short-
term interest rate. In addition, we deducted CEP profit in accordance
with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ For a detailed description of all adjustments, see
Memoranda titled ``Frontseating Service Valves from the People's
Republic of China: Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results
of the 2010-2011 Administrative Review: Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal
Co. Ltd.,'' (``DunAn Preliminary Analysis Memorandum''), dated April
30, 2012; and, ``Frontseating Service Valves (``FSVs'') from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC''): Analysis Memorandum for the
Preliminary Results of the 2010-2011 Administrative Review: Zhejiang
Sanhua Co., Ltd. (``Sanhua''),'' (``Sanhua Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum''), dated April 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using a factors of production methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME country and the Department finds
that 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 will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of these economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our
normal methodologies. The Department's questionnaire requires that
DunAn and Sanhua each provide information regarding the weighted-
average FOPs across all of the company's plants and/or suppliers that
produce the merchandise under consideration, not just the FOPs from a
single plant or supplier. This methodology ensures that the
Department's calculations are as accurate as possible.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe
Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October
28, 2003), and accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment
19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available information to find an appropriate SV
to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a ME and pays
for it in ME currency, the Department may value the factor using the
actual price paid for the input.\38\ DunAn and Sanhua each reported
that they did not purchase inputs from ME suppliers for the production
of the merchandise under consideration.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly
Components, Div. of Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. United States, 268 F.3d
1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department's use of
market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
\39\ See DunAn's Section D Questionnaire response (``DunAn's
DQR'') at 6, and Sanhua's Section D Questionnaire response, dated
August 3, 2011 (``Sanhua's DQR'') at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We calculated NV based on FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(3)
and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include but are not
limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw
materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed;
and (4) representative capital costs. The Department used FOPs reported
by DunAn and Sanhua for direct materials, energy, labor, by-products,
and packing materials.
DunAn used unaffiliated tollers for the production of recycled
brass bar, copper tubing, brass valve caps and valve stems.\40\ DunAn
reported the FOPs of the unaffiliated tollers of brass bar, except for
two tollers that would not provide full information.\41\ We requested
DunAn to report the FOPs of the unaffiliated tollers of the other
components.\42\ DunAn reported that it attempted to obtain FOP's from
all of its unaffiliated tollers of copper tubing, brass valve caps and
valve stems, but that the tollers were unable or unwilling to cooperate
with the Department's request for information. DunAn documented these
attempts for the record.\43\ Consequently, we do not find that DunAn
failed to cooperate by not acting in the best of its abilities.
Consistent with our treatment of missing tolled FOPs of an intermediate
input in the first administrative review of certain steel nails,\44\ we
have preliminarily applied facts available (``FA'') in accordance with
section
[[Page 26493]]
776(a)(1) of the Act.\45\ The Department is using DunAn's reported
consumption of the intermediate inputs received from the tollers as FA
(facts available without an adverse inference) for DunAn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See DunAn's letter, ``DunAn Questionnaire Response to
Question 16 of the Third Supplemental Questionnaire in the Second
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frontseating
Service Valves from the people's Republic of China,'' dated February
21, 2012 (``3rd SQR (Question 16)''), at 2.
\41\ See DunAn's DQR at Exhibit D-19; and DunAn's letter,
``DunAn Third Supplemental Questionnaire Response in the Second
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frontseating
Service Valves from the people's Republic of China,'' dated February
27, 2012 (``3rd SQR'').
\42\ See letter from the Department, ``Front Seating Service
Values from the People's Republic of China: Zhejiang DunAn Hetian
Metal Co., Ltd. (``DunAn''): Fourth Supplemental Questionnaire,''
dated March 1, 2012.
\43\ See letter from DunAn, ``Fourth Supplemental Questionnaire
Response in the Second Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Frontseating Service Valves from the People's Republic of
China,'' dated March 22, 2012 (``4th SQR''), at 1-2, and Exhibit 1,
with respect to the tollers of copper tubing, brass valve caps and
valve stems. With respect to brass bar, see DunAn's 3rd SQR
(Question 16) at 8.
\44\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 16379 (March 23, 2011) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 17.
\45\ See the ``Facts Available'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DunAn reported that it produced model SFJH-308-DG8 (``DG8'') in its
entirety prior to the POR,\46\ and that it produced the valve bodies
for models SFJI-314-DG16 (``DG16'') and SFJI-314-DG20 (``DG20'') prior
to the POR, but completed certain components (brass valve caps and
valve stems),\47\ final assembly, and packing during the current
POR.\48\ Consequently, DunAn explained that it reported per-unit FOPs
in the section D database based on its production experience at the
time when the models were produced.\49\ Thus, DunAn explained that the
FOPs for model DG8 were based entirely on consumption rates during the
previous administrative review.\50\ However, for models DG16 and DG20,
DunAn explained that it based the FOPs for the valve bodies, brass
scrap, and most raw material inputs on the consumption rates of the
prior POR,\51\ but that it based FOPs for brass valve caps and
stems,\52\ assembly, and packing on the consumption rates for the
current POR.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See DunAn's DQR at 2.
\47\ See DunAn's 3rd SQR (Question 16) at 2.
\48\ See DunAn's DQR at 2.
\49\ See DunAn's DQR at 2 and DunAn's 3rd SQR (Question 16) at
1-2.
\50\ See DunAn's DQR at 2.
\51\ See DunAn's DQR at 2 and 15.
\52\ See DunAn's 3rd SQR (Question 16) at 2.
\53\ See DunAn's DQR at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a careful examination of its questionnaire and supplemental
responses, we have determined that DunAn's reporting methodology may
not be appropriate for the purposes of this antidumping duty review.
Because models DG16 and DG20 were completed (e.g., entered into
finished goods inventory) during the current POR, we consider these
models to have been produced during the current POR.\54\ Therefore, we
have requested DunAn to revise its questionnaire response to report all
factors of production (including factors for all material and packing
inputs, components (tolled or produced in-house), tolled round brass
bar, brass scrap, labor, energy, water, ammonia and acid wash) for
models DG16 and DG20 based on its production experience during the
current POR.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See section 751(a)(2) of the Act (directing the Department
in an administrative review to determine the normal value of each
entry of subject merchandise); section 773(c)(1) of the Act
(requiring the Department to determine normal value based upon ``the
factors of production utilized in producing the merchandise'')
(emphasis added).
\55\ See the Department's letter to DunAn, ``Front Seating
Service Values from the People's Republic of China: Zhejiang DunAn
Hetian Metal Co., Ltd. (``DunAn''): Fifth Supplemental
Questionnaire,'' dated April 10, 2012 (``5th Supplemental
Questionnaire'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because this response is not due until after the preliminary
results, we have used DunAn's reported FOPs as FA in accordance with
section 776(a)(1) of the Act, for the purposes of these preliminary
results.\56\ However, for the final results of review, we will make our
determination based on DunAn's full set of questionnaire responses,
including its response to the Department's 5th Supplemental
Questionnaire, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See the ``Facts Available'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DunAn and Sanhua separately reported that they each generate brass
scrap during the production process of merchandise under consideration
and requested an offset for this scrap.\57\ In addition, Sanhua
reported that it also generates copper scrap in the production of
merchandise under consideration, and requested an additional offset for
this scrap.\58\ Sanhua established that it sold all of the brass and
copper scrap that it produced during the POR. Therefore, for these
preliminary results, we have granted Sanhua a by-product offset for
brass and copper scrap because it demonstrated that there is commercial
value to this scrap.\59\ DunAn also established commercial value for
its scrap by demonstrating that it sold a portion of the scrap that it
produced during the POR, and provided the remaining scrap to
unaffiliated processors for production into recycled bar. Accordingly,
we have granted DunAn a by-product offset for its brass scrap generated
during production during the POR.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See DunAn's DQR at D-8 and Exhibits D-5, D-15 through 18
and Sanhua's DQR at 17-19 and Exhibit D-10a.
\58\ See id.
\59\ See Sanhua's Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
\60\ See DunAn's Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department
calculated NV based on FOPs reported by DunAn and Sanhua for the POR.
To calculate NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor
consumption quantities by publicly available Philippine SVs. In
selecting the SVs, the Department considered the quality, specificity,
and contemporaneity of the data. The Department adjusted input prices
by including freight costs to make them delivered prices, as
appropriate. Specifically, the Department added to Philippine import
surrogate values a Philippine 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. This adjustment
is in accordance with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08
(Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all SVs used to value
DunAn's and Sanhua's reported FOPs may be found in the Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
For the preliminary results, in accordance with the Department's
practice, except where noted below, we used data from the Philippine
import statistics in the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA'') and other
publicly available Philippine sources in order to calculate SVs for
DunAn and Sanhua's FOPs (i.e., direct materials, energy, and packing
materials) and certain movement expenses. In selecting the best
available information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section
773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the
extent practicable, SVs which are non-export average values, most
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\61\
The record shows that data in the Philippine import statistics, as well
as those from the other Philippine sources, are contemporaneous with
the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\62\ In those instances
where we could not obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous to the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the
SVs using, where appropriate, the Philippine Producer Price Index
(``PPI'') inflators as published in the International Monetary Fund's
International Financial Statistics.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ 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).
\62\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
\63\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum. See also, 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, 9600 (March 5,
2009) (``Kitchen Racks Prelim''), 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) (``Kitchen Racks Final'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26494]]
However, with respect to four inputs, arsenic alloy, crystal
silicon, phosphorus, and silicon, there was no reasonably
contemporaneous import data into the Philippines was available. As a
result, we valued these inputs using import data into Indonesia as
recorded in the GTA. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act,
the Department has determined that Indonesia is at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC and is a significant producer of
merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise.\64\ In addition, in
accordance with our practice,\65\ the GTA import data with respect to
Indonesia represents non-export average values and is contemporaneous
with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See Surrogate Country List; see also Petitioner's Surrogate
Country Selection Letter at 2, showing that Indonesia had exports of
23 million USD of comparable merchandise during the POR.
\65\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, with regard to Philippine and Indonesian import-based
SVs, we have disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or
suspect may be subsidized, such as those from Indonesia, South Korea,
India, and Thailand. 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.\66\ We are also
guided by the statute's legislative history that explains that it is
not necessary to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such
prices are not subsidized.\67\ Rather, the Department was instructed by
Congress to base its decision on information that is available to it at
the time it is making its determination. In accordance with the
foregoing, we have not used prices from these countries in calculating
the Philippine import-based SVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011
(September 13, 2005), unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First
Administrative Review, 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006); and China Nat'l
Mach. Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334
(CIT 2003), affirmed 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
\67\ See H.R. Rep. No. 100-576 at 590 (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In these preliminary results, the Department calculated the labor
input using data on industry-specific labor cost from the primary
surrogate country (i.e., the Philippines), as described in Labor
Methodologies. The Department relied on the ILO's Yearbook Chapter 6A
labor cost data for the Philippines for the year 2008, because this is
the most recent Chapter 6A data available for the Philippines. The
Department further determined that the two-digit description under
ISIC-Revision 3-D (``28-Manufacture of Fabricated Metal Products'') 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 the Philippines to the ILO under Sub-Classification 28
of the ISIC-Revision 3-D, in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the
Act. For further information on the calculation of the wage rate, see
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
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. Pursuant to Labor Methodologies, the
Department's practice is to consider whether financial ratios reflect
labor expenses that are included in other elements of the respondent's
factors of production (e.g., general and administrative expenses).\68\
The financial statements used to calculate financial ratios in this
review were sufficiently detailed to allow the Department to isolate
labor expenses from other expenses such as selling, general and
administrative expenses. Therefore, the Department revised its
calculation of surrogate financial ratios consistent with Labor
Methodologies to exclude items incorporated in the labor wage rate data
in Chapter 6A of the ILO data. As a result, bonuses and other forms of
compensation included in the ILO's calculation of wages are now
excluded from our calculation of labor in our surrogate financial
ratios.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See id. at 36094.
\69\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued electricity, diesel and kerosene using contemporaneous
Philippine data from The Cost of Doing Business in Camarines Sur
available at the Philippine government's Web site for the province:
http://www.camarinessur.gov.ph. These data pertained only to industrial
consumption.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued natural gas using data obtained from EnergyBiz Magazine's
January/February 2006 edition, in which the American Chemistry
Council's data for Indonesian natural gas prices of January 2006 are
cited. We inflated this rate to be contemporaneous with the POR by
applying PPI inflators.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See id.; see also 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, 67713 (November 2, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued water using an average of the basic rates charged by The
Philippines Maynilad for Business Group II (mostly industrial) users.
These rates were in effect in 2011 and do not include taxes or
surcharges. We did not inflate the rate since all data points are
contemporaneous with the POR.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued truck freight expenses by averaging the rates charged by
the Confederation of Truckers Association of the Philippines, Inc. and
the distances to 92 destinations within the Philippines. We adjusted
the rates downward by 20 percent to account for price increases
effective January 2011. The adjusted rates reflect prices in effect in
2010.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued brokerage and handling expenses using a price list of
export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in
the Philippines, as published in the World Bank's Doing Business 2012,
Economy Profile: Philippines publication.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued marine insurance using a price quote for July 2010, which
we obtained from RJG Consultants. RJG Consultants is a market-economy
provider of marine insurance. We did not inflate this rate since it is
contemporaneous with the POR.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 CFR 351.408(c)(4) directs the Department to value overhead,
general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and profit using non-
proprietary information gathered from producers of identical or
comparable merchandise in the surrogate country. In this administrative
review, Petitioner submitted the 2010 financial statements of Halcyon
Technology Public Company Limited (``Halcyon Technology''), a Thai
corporation engaged in manufacturing, customized production, and
distribution of polycrystalline diamond (``PCD'') cutting tools to
serve the manufacturers of electronic parts and the auto parts
industries, and Patkol Public Company
[[Page 26495]]
Limited (``Patkol''), a Thai producer of machinery and equipment, and a
supplier of engineering services in the ice making, commercial cool-
store, and freezing industries; a producer of dairy, tuna, shrimp, and
alcoholic beverage processing equipment; and a supplier of services for
the on-site fabrication, transportation, and installation of tanks and/
or plant and tank relocation.\76\ Patkol is also a supplier of sanitary
stainless steel machinery and equipment, including high velocity
stainless steel pumps, pipes, tees, bends, valves, and fittings, which
are imported from Europe and the United States. It is also a supplier
of spare parts for evaporative condensers, axial fans, Luang Chi
cooling towers, tube ice machines and block ice plants, equipment for
refrigeration systems, refrigeration spare parts, and ammonia gas
detectors, as well as a reseller of refrigeration pumps and spare parts
from Germany.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ See letter from Petitioner, ``Petitioner's Pre-Preliminary
Results Surrogate Value Submission in the Second Administrative
Review of Certain Frontseating Service Valves from the People's
Republic of China: Case No. A-570-933,'' dated November 28, 2011, at
Attachment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DunAn provided the 2010 audited financial statements of Concord
Metals, Inc. (``Concord Metals''), a Philippine producer of brass, and
cast iron and galvanized iron fittings, and FVC Philippines, Inc.
(``FVC Philippines''), a producer of cast iron valves serving the
petroleum and chemical industry, the machinery and shipbuilding
industries, the paper manufacturing and spinning industries, the
electric power industry, and the gas and water service industry.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See letter from DunAn, ``First Surrogate Value Submission
for DunAn in the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Frontseating
Service Valves from the People's Republic of China, dated November
28, 2011, (``DunAn's 1st SV Submission'') at Exhibit 9A (for Concord
Metals) and 9B (for FVC Philippines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We did not use Halcyon Technology's and Patkol's financial
statements because there is no indication that either of these two
companies produced merchandise that is identical or comparable to the
subject merchandise and they are not located in our primary surrogate
country. We did not use Concord Metals' because the financial
statements indicated that all of its merchandise consists of purchased
goods,\78\ and its Web site indicates that its products may have been
produced in the PRC.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See DunAn's 1st SV Submission at Exhibit 9A, Notes to the
Financial Statements, at note 7.
\79\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, we have preliminarily determined to use the
contemporaneous 2010 audited financial statements of FVC Philippines as
the basis for calculating the surrogate financial ratios in this
review. FVC Philippines produces valves and earned a profit during the
POR. There is no record evidence to indicate that it received benefits
that the Department has a basis to believe or suspect to be
countervailable. Further, its audited financial statements are complete
and sufficiently detailed to disaggregate materials, labor, overhead,
and SG&A expenses. For a complete listing of all the inputs and a
detailed discussion about our SV selections, see Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party:
(A) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form
or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act;
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute;
or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
verified, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act,
use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department
``finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting
to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information
from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering
authority or the Commission * * *, in reaching the applicable
determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to
the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise
available.'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See also Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'')
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep.
No. 103-316 at 870 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this instance, because DunAn was unable to obtain the FOPs of
unaffiliated tollers for the production of the intermediate inputs of
copper tubing, brass valve caps and valve stems, and two of its
recycled brass bar tollers, and documented its attempts to obtain such
information. We do not find that DunAn failed to cooperate by not
acting in the best of its abilities. Consistent with our treatment of
missing tolled FOPs of an intermediate input in the first
administrative review of certain steel nails,\81\ we have preliminarily
applied facts available (``FA'') in accordance with section 776(a)(1)
of the Act. The Department is using DunAn's reported FOP consumption of
the intermediate inputs received from the tollers as FA (facts
available without an adverse inference) for DunAn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 16379 (March 23, 2011) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, while we find that DunAn may not have used an
appropriate methodology to report certain FOPs from the appropriate
period,\82\ we find that DunAn cooperated to the best of its ability
during the course of this proceeding to comply with the Department's
requests for information. DunAn appropriately alerted the Department of
its reporting methodology in its original section D questionnaire
response.\83\ DunAn complied with all of the Department's requests for
information.\84\ Thus, we find that DunAn was forthcoming with the
information requested by the Department in its requests for
information. Thus, DunAn did not impede the Department's proceeding.
Additionally, because the Department did not request that DunAn revise
its FOP reporting prior to the preliminary determination, we do not
find that DunAn failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See ``Normal Value'' section, above.
\83\ See DunAn's DQR at 2.
\84\ See, e.g., DunAn's 1st SQR, 3rd SQR (Question 16), 3rd SQR
and 4th SQR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Act, we have relied on
FA with respect to DunAn's section D response, but without an adverse
inference prescribed under section 776(b) of the Act. As FA, we relied
on DunAn's FOPs as reported in its section D and supplemental
questionnaire responses in our normal value calculations.
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, the Department made currency conversions into U.S.
dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank on
the date of the U.S. sale.
Weighted-Average Dumping Margins
The preliminary weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
[[Page 26496]]
Frontseating Service Valves From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Exporter average margin
(percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. Ltd.................... 0.00%
Zhejiang Sanhua Co., Ltd............................... 0.00%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\85\ 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.\86\ 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.\87\ 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.\88\
Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the
hearing. The Department intends to 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
\86\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
\87\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\88\ 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.\89\ The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final
results of this review. For any individually examined respondent whose
weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., less than
0.50 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate an
importer-specific assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the importer's
examined sales and the total entered value of sales, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).\90\ Where we calculate a margin by dividing the
total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total
sales quantity associated with those transactions, in this and future
reviews, we will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment
rates based on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per-kilogram) rates by the
weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the
POR. Where an importer (or customer)-specific per-unit rate is greater
than de minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value
of the importer's/customer's entries during the POR. See 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or customer)-specific per-unit 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
\90\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the
assessment rate calculation method adopted in Final Modification for
Reviews, i.e., on the basis of monthly average-to-average
comparisons using only the transactions associated with that
importer with offsets being provided for non-dumped comparisons. See
Antidumping Proceeding: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping
Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings;
Final Modification, 77 FR 8103, February 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For DunAn and Sanhua,
which have separate rates, the cash deposit rates will be those
established in the final results of this review (except, if the rates
are zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required); (2)
for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not
listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this
proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-
specific rate; (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 55.62 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 that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification To Importers
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Dated: April 30, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-10839 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P