[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40854-40857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16932]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-929]


Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: On March 6, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on small diameter graphite electrodes (SDGEs) 
from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The review covers 25 
companies for the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011.
    The final results differ from the preliminary results. The final 
weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed 
below in the section entitled ``Final Results of Review.''

DATES: Effective Date: July 11, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0665 
or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On March 6, 2012, the Department published Small Diameter Graphite 
Electrodes from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 77 FR 13284 (March 6, 
2012) (Preliminary Results). The administrative review covers Fushun 
Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. (Fushun Jinly), Xinghe County Muzi 
Carbon Co., Ltd. (Muzi Carbon), Sichuan Guanghan Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. 
(Shida Carbon), Jilin Carbon Import and Export Company (Jilin Carbon), 
the Fangda Group (comprised of five collapsed companies, Beijing Fangda 
Carbon Tech Co., Ltd., Chengdu Rongguang Carbon Co., Ltd., Fangda 
Carbon New Material Co., Ltd., Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd., and Hefei 
Carbon Co., Ltd.), Dechang Shida Carbon Co., Ltd., Fushun Carbon Plant, 
Fushun Jinli Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd., Guanghan Shida Carbon Co., 
Ltd., Jilin Carbon Graphite Material Co., Ltd., Lanzhou Hailong New 
Material Co., Liaoning Fangda Group Industrial Co.,

[[Page 40855]]

Ltd., Shida Carbon Group, Sichuan Dechang Shida Co., Ltd., Sichuan 
Shida Trading Co., Ltd., Sinosteel Anhui Co., Ltd., Sinosteel Corp., 
Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Co., Ltd., Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Imp. & Exp. 
Co., Ltd., Sinosteel Sichuan Co., Ltd., and Xinghe County Muzi Carbon 
Plant. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2010, through January 
31, 2011.
    On April 5, 2012, and April 13, 2012, we received case and rebuttal 
briefs, respectively, from Fushun Jinly, the remaining participating 
respondent company selected for individual examination, and the 
petitioners, SGL Carbon LLC and Superior Graphite Co. No interested 
party requested a hearing.
    The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order includes all small diameter 
graphite electrodes of any length, whether or not finished, of a kind 
used in furnaces, with a nominal or actual diameter of 400 millimeters 
(16 inches) or less, and whether or not attached to a graphite pin 
joining system or any other type of joining system or hardware. The 
merchandise covered by the order also includes graphite pin joining 
systems for small diameter graphite electrodes, of any length, whether 
or not finished, of a kind used in furnaces, and whether or not the 
graphite pin joining system is attached to, sold with, or sold 
separately from, the small diameter graphite electrode. Small diameter 
graphite electrodes and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter 
graphite electrodes are most commonly used in primary melting, ladle 
metallurgy, and specialty furnace applications in industries including 
foundries, smelters, and steel refining operations. Small diameter 
graphite electrodes and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter 
graphite electrodes that are subject to the order are currently 
classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) subheading 8545.11.0000. The HTSUS number is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, but the written description of the 
scope is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
(I&D) Memorandum which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the 
issues raised is attached to this notice as an appendix. The I&D 
Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via 
Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized 
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available 
in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of 
Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the I&D 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed I&D Memorandum and the electronic 
versions of the I&D Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested 
parties, we made a change to the margin calculations for Fushun Jinly. 
Specifically, for the final results, we have revised the calculation of 
the surrogate value for steel strip packing material.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See I&D Memorandum at Comment 5. See also Memorandum to the 
File, entitled ``Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 
on Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results Analysis Memorandum for Fushun Jinly 
Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd.,'' dated concurrently with this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market-Economy Country Status

    In the Preliminary Results, we treated the PRC as a non-market 
economy (NME) country. See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 13286. No 
interested party commented on our designation of the PRC as an NME 
country. Therefore, for the final results of review, we have continued 
to treat the PRC as an NME country for purposes of determining normal 
value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign 
all exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this 
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently 
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
    In the Preliminary Results, we found that the Fangda Group, Fushun 
Jinly, Muzi Carbon, and Shida Carbon demonstrated their eligibility for 
separaterates. See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 13286-88. We received 
no comments from interested parties on this finding. Therefore, in 
these final results, we continue to find that the evidence placed on 
the record of this review by the Fangda Group, Fushun Jinly, Muzi 
Carbon, and Shida Carbon demonstrates an absence of government control, 
both in law and in fact, with respect to these companies' exports of 
the subject merchandise. Thus, we have determined that the Fangda 
Group, Fushun Jinly, Muzi Carbon, and Shida Carbon are eligible to 
receive a separate rate.

Rate for Non-Selected Companies

    We selected Fushun Jinly and Jilin Carbon as mandatory respondents 
in this review. See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 13285. The Fangda 
Group, Muzi Carbon, and Shida Carbon are exporters of SDGEs from the 
PRC that demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate, as 
discussed above, but were not selected for individual examination in 
this review. The statute and the Department's regulations do not 
directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies 
not selected for individual examination where the Department limited 
its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 
777A(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in cases involving 
limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes 
of trade has been to look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for guidance, 
which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an 
investigation. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs that we are 
not to calculate an all-others rate using any zero or de minimis 
margins or any margins based entirely on facts available. Section 
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also provides that, where all margins are zero 
rates, de minimis rates, or rates based entirely on facts available, we 
may use ``any reasonable method'' for assigning the rate to non-
selected respondents. In this instance, we have calculated a rate above 
de minimis for Fushun Jinly.
    Consistent with the Department's practice, we have assigned the 
rate calculated for Fushun Jinly to the Fangda Group, Muzi Carbon, and 
Shida Carbon. Because the rate calculated for Fushun Jinly has changed 
since the Preliminary Results, the margin assigned to the Fangda Group, 
Muzi Carbon, and Shida Carbon has also changed accordingly. As 
explained in the section below entitled ``The PRC-Wide Entity,'' 
because Jilin Carbon did not participate in this administrative review, 
we did not grant it a separate rate and considered it part of the PRC-
wide entity.

[[Page 40856]]

The PRC-Wide Entity

    As explained in the Preliminary Results, 16 companies under review 
did not apply for a separate rate. See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 
13288. As such, they have not demonstrated their eligibility for 
separate rates in this administrative review. Id. Additionally, none of 
these companies notified the Department that they had no shipments of 
subject merchandise during the POR. In the Preliminary Results we 
determined that, because there were exports of merchandise under review 
from PRC exporters that did not demonstrate their eligibility for 
separate rates, they should be treated as part of the PRC-wide entity. 
Additionally, as stated in the Preliminary Results, because Jilin 
Carbon did not participate in this administrative review, we 
preliminarily did not grant it a separate rate and also considered it 
part of the PRC-wide entity. See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 13288-
89. We have not received any information since the Preliminary Results 
that provides a basis for reconsidering our preliminary determination 
with respect to these 17 companies. Therefore, the Department continues 
to find that these 17 companies should be treated as part of the PRC-
wide entity and subject to the PRC-wide entity rate.
    In accordance with section 776(a) and (b) of the Act and as 
explained in more detail in the Preliminary Results, we determined that 
the PRC-wide entity's rate should be based on total adverse facts 
available (AFA). See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 13289. No party has 
commented on the use of a total AFA rate for the PRC-wide entity. 
Accordingly, the Department continues to assign an AFA rate to the PRC-
wide entity of 159.64 percent. This is the highest percent margin 
alleged in the petition, the PRC-wide rate determined in the 
investigation, and the rate currently applicable to the PRC-wide 
entity.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Small Diameter 
Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 2049, 
2054-55 (January 14, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained further in the Preliminary Results, the Department 
considers that rate corroborated pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act 
based upon our pre-initiation analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of 
the information in the Petition. See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 
13289-90. No party commented on this.

Final Results of Review

    The Department has determined that the following final dumping 
margins exist for the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 
2011:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the Preliminary Results we stated that Fushun Jinli 
Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. (Fushun Jinli), Guanghan Shida Carbon 
Co., Ltd. (Guanghan Shida Carbon), and Xinghe County Muzi Carbon 
Plant (Muzi Carbon Plant) are part of the PRC-Wide entity and are 
not entitled to a separate rate. See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 
13287, FN 17. Upon further examination of record evidence we find 
that each of the following sets of companies are the same entity, 
respectively: Fushun Jinli and Fushun Jinly; Guanghan Shida Carbon 
and Shida Carbon; Muzi Carbon Plant and Muzi Carbon. Accordingly, 
Fushun Jinli, Guanghan Shida Carbon, and Muzi Carbon Plant are not 
part of the PRC-wide entity and the cash deposit and assessment 
rates that we establish for Fushun Jinly, Shida Carbon, and Muzi 
Carbon apply to any entries made by Fushun Jinli, Guanghan Shida 
Carbon, and Muzi Carbon Plant.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                         Company                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd..............           36.79
Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Co., Ltd......................           36.79
Sichuan Guanghan Shida Carbon Co., Ltd..................           36.79
Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd.....................           36.79
Chengdu Rongguang Carbon Co., Ltd.......................           36.79
Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd.....................           36.79
Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd..................................           36.79
Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd...................................           36.79
PRC-wide entity[dagger].................................          159.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] The PRC-wide entity includes the following companies: Dechang
  Shida Carbon Co., Ltd., Fushun Carbon Plant, Jilin Carbon Graphite
  Material Co., Ltd., Jilin Carbon Import and Export Company, Lanzhou
  Hailong New Material Co., Liaoning Fangda Group Industrial Co., Ltd.,
  Shida Carbon Group, Sichuan Dechang Shida Co., Ltd., Sichuan Shida
  Trading Co., Ltd., Sinosteel Anhui Co., Ltd., Sinosteel Corp.,
  Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Co., Ltd., Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Imp. & Exp.
  Co., Ltd., and Sinosteel Sichuan Co., Ltd.\3\

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), 
the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of 
subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this 
review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 
15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. 
For assessment purposes, we calculated exporter/importer- (or customer-
) specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review 
consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We calculated an ad valorem rate 
for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins 
for reviewed sales to that party by the total entered values associated 
with those transactions. None of these rates was de minimis (see 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2)). Thus, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad 
valorem rates against the entered customs values for the subject 
merchandise. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing 
subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide 
entity rate shown above.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the Fangda Group, 
Fushun Jinly, Muzi Carbon, and Shida Carbon the cash deposit rates will 
be the margins listed above; (2) for previously investigated or 
reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate 
rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific 
rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 
159.64 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 exporters that supplied 
that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final 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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which

[[Page 40857]]

continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of 
the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction 
of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.

Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 3, 2012.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012-16932 Filed 7-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P