[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75984-75988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30944]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-552-814]


Utility Scale Wind Towers From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

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

DATES: Effective Date: December 24, 2012.
SUMMARY: On August 2, 2012, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published its preliminary determination of sales at less than fair 
value (``LTFV'') and postponement of final determination in the 
antidumping investigation of utility scale wind towers (``wind 
towers'') from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam'').\1\ 
Based on the Department's analysis of the comments received, the 
Department has made changes from the Preliminary Determination. The 
Department determines that wind towers from Vietnam are being, or are 
likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in section 
735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act''). The final 
weighted-average dumping margins for this investigation are listed in 
the ``Final Determination'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Postponement of Final Determination, 77 FR 29315 (August 2, 
2012) (``Preliminary Determination'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4162 or (202) 482-0650, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at 
LTFV and postponement of final determination on August 2, 2012.\2\ 
Between August 13, 2012, and August 24, 2012, the Department conducted 
verifications of the mandatory respondent CS Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd. 
(``CS Wind Vietnam'') and its parent company CS Wind Corporation (``CS 
Wind Corp.'') (collectively, ``CS Wind Group'').\3\ Between September 
14, 2012, and September 24, 2012, CS Wind Group and the Wind Tower 
Trade Coalition (``Petitioner'') \4\ submitted surrogate value and 
rebuttal surrogate value comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Preliminary Determination.
    \3\ See the ``Verification'' section below.
    \4\ The Wind Tower Trade Coalition is comprised of Broadwind 
Towers, Inc., DMI Industries, Katana Summit LLC, and Trinity 
Structural Towers, Inc. See Petitions for the Imposition of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Utility Scale Wind Towers 
from the People's Republic of China and Antidumping Duties on 
Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 
(December 29, 2011) (``Petition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 2, 2012, CS Wind Group and Petitioner submitted case 
briefs. On October 9, 2012, CS Wind Group and Petitioner submitted 
rebuttal briefs.
    On September 4, 2012, Petitioner requested a hearing. However, on 
October 23, 2012, Petitioner withdrew its request for a hearing, and no 
other parties requested a hearing.

[[Page 75985]]

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2011, through 
September 30, 2011. This period corresponds to the two most recent 
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which 
was December 2011.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this investigation, as well as comments received pursuant to the 
Department's requests are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.\6\ A list of the issues which the parties raised and to 
which the Department responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is 
attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision 
Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via 
Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized 
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''). Access to IA ACCESS is 
available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and is 
available to all parties in the CRU, room 7046 of the main Department 
of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the 
electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical 
in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 
Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
regarding ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final 
Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Utility Scale 
Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam'' (December 17, 
2012) (``Issue and Decision Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extension of Final Determination Due to Government Closure During 
Hurricane Sandy

    On October 31, 2012, the Department's Import Administration 
determined that the impact of the recent government closure during 
Hurricane Sandy would be best minimized by uniformly tolling all Import 
Administration deadlines for two days.\7\ This determination applies to 
every proceeding before the Import Administration, including this 
investigation. The Department notes, however, that because the deadline 
of the final determination of this investigation was originally on 
December 15, 2012, which falls on a weekend, this deadline would have 
been automatically extended by two days until the following working 
day, Monday, December 17, 2012. Therefore, the two day extension of the 
deadlines due to government closure during Hurricane Sandy does not 
impact the deadline for the final determination of this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum For the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, ``Tolling of Administrative 
Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure During Hurricane 
Sandy'' (October 31, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

     The Department revised its calculation of brokerage and 
handling.
     The Department made price adjustments to certain U.S. 
sales.
     The Department corrected the shipment dates for certain 
U.S. sales.
     The Department revised the reported factors of production 
(``FOPs'') of self-produced and free-of-charge internal components so 
that the total sum of all FOPs equals the packed weight of the subject 
merchandise.
     The Department granted a steel scrap offset.
     The Department revised the reported labor hours to include 
idle labor hours based on verification findings.
     The Department revised the per-unit measurement of 
insulated wire to reflect meters rather than pieces based on 
verification findings.
     The Department revised the reported pieces of tarpaulins 
based on verification findings.
     The Department revised the reported distance from the port 
to CS Wind Vietnam's manufacturing facility for all imported inputs to 
the simple average of the two ports used during the POI based on 
verification findings.
     The Department revised the distance from CS Wind Vietnam's 
LPG supplier to CS Wind Vietnam's manufacturing facility based on 
verification findings.
     The Department used the financial statements for Ganges 
International Pvt Ltd. for purposes of calculating the surrogate 
financial ratios.

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation are certain wind 
towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Certain wind 
towers are designed to support the nacelle and rotor blades in a wind 
turbine with a minimum rated electrical power generation capacity in 
excess of 100 kilowatts (``kW'') and with a minimum height of 50 meters 
measured from the base of the tower to the bottom of the nacelle (i.e., 
where the top of the tower and nacelle are joined) when fully 
assembled.
    A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel 
plates rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together 
(or otherwise attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of coating, 
end-finish, painting, treatment, or method of manufacture, and with or 
without flanges, doors, or internal or external components (e.g., 
flooring/decking, ladders, lifts, electrical buss boxes, electrical 
cabling, conduit, cable harness for nacelle generator, interior 
lighting, tool and storage lockers) attached to the wind tower section. 
Several wind tower sections are normally required to form a completed 
wind tower.
    Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope 
whether or not they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, such as 
nacelles or rotor blades, and whether or not they have internal or 
external components attached to the subject merchandise.
    Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor blades, 
regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower. Also 
excluded are any internal or external components which are not attached 
to the wind towers or sections thereof.
    Merchandise covered by the investigation are currently classified 
in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (``HTSUS'') under 
subheadings 7308.20.0020 \8\ or 8502.31.0000.\9\ Prior to 2011, 
merchandise covered by the investigation were classified in the HTSUS 
under subheading 7308.20.0000 and may continue to be to some degree. 
While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is 
dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Wind towers are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 when 
imported as a tower or tower section(s) alone.
    \9\ Wind towers may also be classified under HTSUS 8502.31.0000 
when imported as part of a wind turbine (i.e., accompanying nacelles 
and/or rotor blades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope Comments

    The Department received comments regarding the scope of the 
investigation from Petitioner and CS Wind Group. After analyzing the 
comments, the Department has made no changes to the scope of this 
investigation. For a complete discussion of scope issues, see the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department verified 
the

[[Page 75986]]

information submitted by CS Wind Group for use in the final 
determination. The Department used standard verification procedures, 
including examination of relevant accounting and production records and 
original source documents provided by this respondent.

Non-Market Economy Country

    The Department considers Vietnam to be a non-market economy 
(``NME'') country.\10\ In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the 
Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall 
remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. The 
Department has not revoked Vietnam's status as an NME country. No party 
has challenged the designation of Vietnam as an NME country in this 
investigation. Therefore, the Department continues to treat Vietnam as 
an NME for purposes of this final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46060.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that it 
selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this 
investigation pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act based on the 
following: (1) It is at a similar level of economic development; (2) it 
is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) we have 
reliable data from India that we can use to value the factors of 
production.\11\ As no party has challenged the selection of India since 
the Preliminary Determination, the Department continues using India as 
the primary surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id., 77 FR at 46060-61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Single Entity Treatment

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that CS 
Wind Vietnam and CS Wind Corporation, the Korean parent company of CS 
Wind Vietnam, are affiliated pursuant to sections 771(33)(E) and (F) of 
the Act and that these companies should be treated as a single entity 
for antidumping duty purposes.\12\ Furthermore, the Department found a 
significant potential for manipulation of production and sales 
decisions between CS Wind Corporation and CS Wind Vietnam.\13\ 
Accordingly, the Department has determined it appropriate to treat CS 
Wind Corporation and CS Wind Vietnam as a single entity in this 
proceeding. Since the Preliminary Determination, the Department 
received no new information to warrant a change in its finding that CS 
Wind Corporation and CS Wind Vietnam are a single entity. Accordingly, 
consistent with the Preliminary Determination, the Department continues 
to find CS Wind Corporation and CS Wind Vietnam to be a single entity 
for purposes of the final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46061-62; 
Memorandum from Magd Zalok, International Trade Analyst, through 
Charles Riggle, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to 
Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 
regarding ``Affiliation and Single Entity Status of CS Wind Group 
Vietnam Co., Ltd. and CS Wind Corporation'' (July 26, 2012).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rate

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department holds a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of the subject merchandise 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.\14\ The Department analyzes 
whether each entity exporting the subject merchandise is sufficiently 
independent under a test arising from Sparklers,\15\ as further 
developed in Silicon Carbide.\16\ In accordance with the separate rates 
criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases if 
respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over their export activities. If, however, the 
Department determines that a company is wholly foreign owned, then a 
separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is 
independent from government control.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991) (``Sparklers''), as 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'').
    \15\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20588.
    \16\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22585.
    \17\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated in the Preliminary Determination, Petitioner listed 
only two known Vietnamese exporters/producers in the Petition: CS Wind 
Vietnam Co., Ltd. (``CS Wind Vietnam'') and Vina-Halla Heavy Industries 
Ltd. (``Vina-Halla''). As noted in the Preliminary Determination, CS 
Wind Group, the respondent in this investigation, provided information 
indicating that it is a wholly-owned foreign enterprise.\18\ Since the 
Preliminary Determination, we found no new information to warrant a 
change to the ownership status of CS Wind Group. Accordingly, a 
separate rate analysis is not necessary for this company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46062; CS Wind 
Group's March 20, 2012, letter at A-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department did not grant a 
separate rate to Vina-Halla because the company failed to submit a 
timely response to the Department's questionnaires which requested 
information regarding separate rate eligibility.\19\ As indicated 
above, CS Wind Vietnam and Vina-Halla are the only two known Vietnamese 
exporters/producers identified in the Petition. Accordingly and 
consistent with the Preliminary Determination, the Department did not 
grant Vina Halla a separate rate in this final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46062.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply 
facts available (``FA'') if (1) necessary information is not on the 
record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) withholds 
information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information 
within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested 
by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of 
the Act.
    As FA, we have applied the weighted-average surrogate value of all 
internal components to the difference between the total packed weight 
calculated in the normal course of business for purposes of preparing 
packing lists for shipment, and the total weight of the sum of reported 
FOPs, less recovered scrap. This issue is discussed at comment 4 of the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum. In addition, at verification, the 
Department discovered that CSWG excluded certain idle labor hours from 
its reported labor hours. As FA, we added CS Wind Vietnam's idle 
production time to CSWG's reported labor hours and valued the idle 
labor hours using the same Chapter 6A surrogate value used to value 
CSWG's reported labor hours. This issue is discussed at comment 7 of 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying FA when a party has failed to 
cooperate by

[[Page 75987]]

not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information. Such an adverse inference may include reliance on 
information derived from the petition, the final determination, a 
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the 
record. We do not find that CSWG failed to cooperate by acting to the 
best of its ability with respect to either of these two issues, 
therefore, we did not apply an adverse inference in applying FA.

Vietnam-Wide Entity

    As discussed above, Vina-Halla did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaires, failed to establish its eligibility for a separate rate 
and, thus, the Department, consistent with the Preliminary 
Determination,\20\ finds that Vina-Halla remains a part of the Vietnam-
wide entity. Therefore, we find that the Vietnam-wide entity withheld 
information requested by the Department, failed to provide information 
in a timely manner, and significantly impeded the proceeding by not 
submitting the requested information. The Vietnam-wide entity did not 
file documents indicating that it was having difficulty providing the 
requested information nor did it request that it be allowed to submit 
the information in an alternate form. As a result, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act, and consistent with the Preliminary 
Determination, we find that the use of facts otherwise available is 
appropriate to determine the rate for the Vietnam-wide entity.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id., 77 FR at 46062-63.
    \21\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 
68 FR 4986, 4991 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an inference 
that is adverse to a party if the party failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for 
information.\22\ The Department continues to find that the Vietnam-wide 
entity's failure to provide the requested information constitutes 
circumstances under which it is reasonable to conclude that less than 
full cooperation has been shown.\23\ Because the Vietnam-wide entity 
did not respond to the Department's requests for information, it has 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the 
Department finds that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available, an adverse inference is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, 870 (1994) 
(``SAA''); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products 
from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000).
    \23\ See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that the Department need not show 
intentional conduct existed on the part of the respondent, but 
merely that a ``failure to cooperate to the best of a respondent's 
ability'' existed (i.e., information was not provided ``under 
circumstances in which it is reasonable to conclude that less than 
full cooperation has been shown'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When employing an adverse inference, section 776(b) of the Act 
states that the Department may rely upon information derived from the 
petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a 
previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the 
record. In selecting a rate based on adverse facts available (``AFA''), 
the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure 
that the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated.\24\ Normally, it 
is the Department's practice to select, as an AFA rate, the higher of 
the: (a) Highest dumping margin alleged in the petition, or (b) highest 
calculated weighted-average dumping margin of any respondent in the 
investigation.\25\ The dumping margins alleged in the Petition are 
140.54 percent and 143.29 percent.\26\ Either of these rates is higher 
than the calculated rate for CS Wind Group. Thus, as AFA, the 
Department's practice would be to assign the rate of 143.29 percent to 
the Vietnam-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See SAA at 870.
    \25\ See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 77 FR 17436, 17438 (March 26, 2012).
    \26\ See Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of 
China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 77 FR 3445 (January 24, 2012) 
(``Initiation Notice'') at Volume I, Exhibit I-14 of the Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration of Information

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when, as FA, the 
Department relies on secondary information rather than on information 
obtained in the course of an investigation it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning merchandise 
subject to this investigation, or any previous review under section 751 
{of the Act{time}  concerning the merchandise subject to this 
investigation.''\27\ To ``corroborate'' means that the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative 
value.\28\ Independent sources used to corroborate may include, for 
example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs 
data, and information obtained from interested parties during the 
particular investigation.\29\ To corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information used.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 
6479, 6481 (February 4, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 2 (quoting SAA at 870).
    \28\ See SAA at 870.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 
13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As was the case in the Preliminary Determination,\31\ in order to 
determine the probative value of the dumping margins in the Petition 
for use as AFA for purposes of the final determination, we examined 
information on the record and found that we were unable to corroborate 
either of the dumping margins contained in the Petition. Therefore, for 
the final determination, we have assigned the Vietnam-wide entity the 
rate of 58.49 percent, the highest transaction-specific dumping margin 
for the mandatory respondent, CS Wind Group.\32\ No corroboration of 
this rate is necessary because we are relying on information obtained 
in the course of this investigation, rather than secondary information 
from the Petition.\33\ The dumping margin for the

[[Page 75988]]

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

    \31\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46063.
    \32\ See, e.g., Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 76 FR 64318, 64322 (October 18, 2011) (assigning as an AFA 
rate the highest calculated transaction-specific rate among 
mandatory respondents).
    \33\ See section 776(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c) and 
(d); see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: 
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of 
China, 73 FR 35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a 
separate rate in this investigation.\34\ This practice is described in 
Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at http://www.trade.gov/ia/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Initiation Notice, 77 FR at 3446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination

    The Department determines that the following weighted-average 
dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2011, through September 
30, 2011.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
              Exporter                      Producer           dumping
                                                                margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CS Wind Group *................  The CS Wind Group.....        51.50
Vietnam-Wide Entity **.............  ......................        58.49
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * The CS Wind Group consists of CS Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd. and CS 
Wind Corporation.
    ** The Vietnam-Wide Entity includes Vina-Halla Heavy Industries 
Ltd.

Disclosure

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

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue 
to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of utility scale wind 
towers from Vietnam as described in the ``Scope of Investigation'' 
section, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or 
after August 2, 2012, the date of publication of the Preliminary 
Determination in the Federal Register.
    The Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to 
the weighted-average amount by which NV exceeds U.S. price, as follows: 
(1) The rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the table 
above will be the rate the Department has determined in this 
investigation; (2) for all Vietnamese exporters of merchandise under 
consideration which have not received their own rate, the rate will be 
the rate for the Vietnam-wide entity; and (3) for all non-Vietnamese 
exporters of merchandise under consideration which have not received 
their own rate, the rate will be the rate applicable to the Vietnamese 
exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-Vietnamese 
exporter.

ITC Notification

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

Notification Regarding APO

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

    Dated: December 17, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Issues for Final Determination

1. Steel Plate
2. Surrogate Financial Statements
3. Financial Ratio Adjustments
4. Packed Weight and the Sum of FOPs
5. Scrap Offset
6. Market Economy Purchases
7. Idle Labor
8. Oxygen
9. Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
10. Base Rings
11. Brokerage & Handling
12. Date of Sale
13. Free-of-Charge Inputs

[FR Doc. 2012-30944 Filed 12-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P