[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10130-10134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03236]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-952]


Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2010-2011

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') published its 
Preliminary Results of administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (``narrow woven 
ribbons'') on August 8, 2012.\1\ The period of review (``POR'') is 
September 1, 2010, through August 31, 2011. The Department invited 
interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. Based on an 
analysis of the comments received, the Department made no changes to 
the margins assigned in the Preliminary Results. The final dumping 
margins for this review are listed in the ``Final Results of Review'' 
section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 47363 
(August 8, 2012) (``Preliminary Results'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: February 13, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan or Robert Bolling, 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-
4081 or (202) 482-3434, respectively.

Background

    On August 8, 2012, the Department published its Preliminary 
Results. On September 7, 2012, Hubscher Ribbon Corp., Ltd. 
(``Hubschercorp'') submitted a case brief for this administrative 
review.\2\ On September 12, 2012, the Department received a rebuttal 
brief from Berwick Offray LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary Lion 
Ribbon Company, Inc. (collectively, ``Petitioner'').\3\ No other party 
submitted comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Letter from Hubschercorp to the Secretary of Commerce, 
``Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge from China, Antidumping 
Duty: Case Brief'' (September 7, 2012).
    \3\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce, 
``Rebuttal Brief on Behalf of Petitioner Berwick Offray LLC and Its 
Wholly-Owned Subsidiary Lion Ribbon Company, Inc.'' (September 12, 
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extension of Final Results Due to Government Closure During Hurricane 
Sandy

    As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion to 
toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal 
Government from October 29, through October 30, 2012. Thus, all 
deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by two 
days.\4\ Therefore, the revised deadline for the final results of this 
review is now February 6, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order includes narrow woven ribbons 
with woven selvedge, in any length, but with a width (measured at the 
narrowest span of the ribbon) less than or equal to 12 centimeters, 
composed of, in whole or in part, man-made fibers (whether artificial 
or synthetic, including but not limited to nylon, polyester, rayon, 
polypropylene, and polyethylene teraphthalate), metal threads and/or 
metalized yarns, or any combination thereof.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review issued concurrently with this 
notice for a complete description of the Scope of the Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The merchandise subject to the order is classifiable under the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') statistical 
categories 5806.32.1020; 5806.32.1030; 5806.32.1050 and 5806.32.1060. 
Subject merchandise also may enter under subheadings 5806.31.00; 
5806.32.20; 5806.39.20; 5806.39.30; 5808.90.00; 5810.91.00; 5810.99.90; 
5903.90.10; 5903.90.25; 5907.00.60; and 5907.00.80 and under 
statistical categories 5806.32.1080; 5810.92.9080; 5903.90.3090; and 
6307.90.9889. The HTSUS statistical categories and subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written 
description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Narrow Woven Ribbons 
With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan and the People's Republic of China: 
Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 FR 53632 (September 1, 2010), as amended 
in Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan and the 
People's Republic of China: Amended Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 FR 
56982 (September 17, 2010) (``Orders'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by 
parties in this review are addressed in the Memorandum from Christian 
Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results 
of the Administrative Review of Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven 
Selvedge from the People's Republic of China'' (dated concurrently with 
this notice) (``Issues and Decision Memorandum'') and the Memorandum to 
the File from Karine Gziryan, Senior Financial Analyst, Office 4, NME 
Unit, ``Antidumping Administrative Review of Narrow Woven Ribbons with 
Woven Selvedge from the People's Republic of China: Proprietary 
Memorandum regarding Corroboration of Adverse Facts Available Rate'' 
(dated concurrently with this notice) (``Final Corroboration Memo''), 
which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issue that parties raised 
and to which the Department responded in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and 
Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically 
via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

[[Page 10131]]

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 Central Records Unit, which is 
in 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 www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed 
Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on an analysis of the comment received, the Department made 
no changes to the margins assigned in the Preliminary Results.

Non-Market Economy Country

    The PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') in every 
proceeding conducted by the Department. In accordance with section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act''), any 
determination that a foreign country is an NME shall remain in effect 
until revoked by the administering authority. The Department has not 
revoked the PRC's status as an NME. Therefore, the Department continues 
to treat the PRC as an NME for purposes of these final results and, 
accordingly, applied the NME methodology.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NMEs, the Department maintains a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the NME are subject to 
government control and, therefore, should be assessed a single 
weighted-average dumping margin.\7\ The Department's policy is to 
assign all exporters of merchandise under consideration that are in an 
NME this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.\8\ 
The Department analyzes whether each entity exporting the merchandise 
under consideration is sufficiently independent under a test 
established in Sparklers \9\ and further developed in Silicon 
Carbide.\10\ According to this separate rate test, the Department will 
assign a separate rate in NME proceedings if a respondent can 
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control 
over its 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 that company is independent from 
government control and eligible for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24, 2008).
    \8\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 
(May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers'').
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ See 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that Weifang 
Dongfang Ribbon Weaving Co., Ltd. (``Weifang Dongfang'') demonstrated 
its eligibility for separate-rate status.\11\ No party commented on 
this preliminary determination. For the final results, the Department 
continues to find that the evidence placed on the record of this 
administrative review by Weifang Dongfang demonstrate both a de jure 
and de facto absence of government control and, therefore, is eligible 
for separate-rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 47366.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calculation of Separate Rate

    In accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department 
employed a limited examination methodology, as it did not have the 
resources to examine all companies for which a review request was made. 
The Department selected two respondents for review, Precious Planet 
Ribbons & Bows Co., Ltd. (``Precious Planet'') and Hubschercorp. On 
January 24, 2012, Precious Planet timely withdrew its request for an 
administrative review of its sales.\12\ On May 29, 2012, Hubschercorp 
indicated that it would no longer participate in the administrative 
review and failed to further answer the Department's 
questionnaires.\13\ For those companies not selected for review, only 
Weifang Dongfang submitted timely information as requested by the 
Department and remains subject to the review as a cooperative separate 
rate respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Letter from Precious Planet to the Secretary of 
Commerce, ``Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge from China, 
Antidumping Duty: Revised Withdrawal of Request for Administrative 
Review'' (January 24, 2012).
    \13\ See Letter from Hubschercorp's to the Secretary of 
Commerce, ``Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge from China, 
Antidumping Duty: Withdrawal from Administrative Review'' (May 29, 
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the Act and the Department's regulations do not 
directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to 
individual companies not selected for 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, which 
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an 
investigation, for guidance. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs 
that in most investigations 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. Furthermore, Congress, 
in the Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA''), stated that when 
``the dumping margins for all of the exporters and producers that are 
individually investigated are determined entirely on the basis of the 
facts available or are zero or de minimis * * * (t)he expected method 
in such cases will be to weight-average the zero and de minimis margins 
and margins determined pursuant to the facts available.'' \14\ However, 
Congress also stated that ``if this method is not feasible, or if it 
results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of 
potential dumping margins for non-investigated exporters or producers, 
(the Department) may use other reasonable methods.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See SAA accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. 
Doc. No. 103-316 at 873 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 
4200.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this instance, because one of the two selected respondents, 
Precious Planet, timely withdrew its request for an administrative 
review of its sales, the only rate determined in this review for a 
selected respondent, Hubschercorp, is based entirely on facts 
available.
    We note that the Department has used other reasonable means to 
assign separate-rate margins to non-reviewed companies in instances in 
which the use of an ``average'' of calculated zero rates, de minimis 
rates, or rates based entirely on facts available was not possible.\16\ 
In Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final, the Department assigned to those separate

[[Page 10132]]

rate companies with no history of an individually calculated rate the 
margin determined for cooperative separate rate respondents from the 
underlying investigation.\17\ However, for those separate rate 
respondents that had received a calculated rate in a prior segment, 
concurrent with or more recent than the calculated rate in the 
underlying investigation, the Department assigned that calculated rate 
as the company's separate rate in the review at hand.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 47191, 47194 
(September 15, 2009) (``Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final'').
    \17\ See Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
49460, 49463 (August 13, 2010).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this review, we preliminarily found that a reasonable method was 
to assign to the separate rate company Weifang Dongfang, with no 
history of an individually calculated rate, the margin calculated for 
cooperative separate rate respondents in the underlying investigation, 
123.83 percent.\19\ No parties commented on this separate rate and we 
continue to assign this separate rate for the final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 75 FR 41808, 41812 (July 19, 2010) (``Final LTFV 
Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PRC-Wide Entity

    In addition to the separate-rate certification discussed above, 
there were two companies, Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd. (``Stribbons 
Guangzhou''), Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC, Ltd. (``Stribbons MNC''), 
(collectively ``MNC Stribbons'' \20\) for which we initiated a review 
in this proceeding and which previously had a separate rate. However, 
in accordance with the Department's established NME methodology, a 
party's separate rate status must be established in each segment of the 
proceeding in which the party is involved.\21\ Because these companies 
did not file a timely (i.e., within 60 calendar days after publication 
of Initiation Notice \22\) separate rate certification to demonstrate 
eligibility for a separate rate in this administrative review, or 
certify that they had no shipments,\23\ we preliminarily determined 
that these companies were part of the PRC-wide entity. In addition, 
because Precious Planet withdrew timely the only request for review and 
did not have a prior separate rate status, it is also part of the PRC-
wide entity. No parties commented on these determinations and we 
continue to find these companies part of the PRC-wide entity for these 
final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ MNC Stribbons filed their Separate Rate Certification on 
behalf of two companies under collective name MNC Stribbons, 
however, the Department initiated our administrative review on two 
companies Stribbons Guangzhou and Stribbons MNC, and we will 
continue to treat these two companies as two separate entities.
    \21\ See Sigma Corp. v.United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405-06 
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming the Department's presumption of State 
control over exporters in NME cases).
    \22\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 
67133, 67134 (October 31, 2011).
    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that MNC Stribbons filed a request to be selected as a 
voluntary respondent after one of the selected respondents withdrew 
from the proceeding. However, MNC Stribbons made this request after it 
had missed the 60-day deadline to demonstrate its eligibility for a 
separate rate (i.e., failed to provide a timely separate rate 
certification) and the Department returned its submissions in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(d).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4 to Mr. James Cannon, Williams Mullen, 
representing Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd. and Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC 
Ltd., dated January 13, 2012 (``Rejection Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Facts Otherwise Available and AFA

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply 
``facts otherwise available'' 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.
    Hubschercorp did not respond to the Department's Section D 
questionnaire or Sections A and C supplemental questionnaires in this 
administrative review, and informed the Department that it would no 
longer participate in this review.\25\ As a result, Hubschercorp failed 
to provide requested information that is necessary for the Department 
to calculate an antidumping duty rate for Hubschercorp in this 
administrative review. This information includes complete product 
characteristics related to control numbers of products sold in the 
United States, FOPs, consumption rates of FOPs, and production 
processes data. Without this information, it is not possible for the 
Department to determine or calculate an antidumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Hubschercorp's May 29, 2012, submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hubschercorp withheld requested information, significantly impeded 
this proceeding and did not provide the Department with the information 
necessary to calculate an antidumping duty margin. Therefore, pursuant 
to section 776(a)(1) and (2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the Department 
finds that the use of total facts available is appropriate.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information.\26\ Adverse 
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a 
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' \27\ Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the 
part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an 
adverse inference.'' \28\ We find that Hubschercorp did not act to the 
best of its ability in this administrative review, within the meaning 
of section 776(b) of the Act, because it failed to respond to the 
Department's requests for information and failed to provide timely 
information. Therefore, we preliminarily determined that an adverse 
inference was warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise available 
with respect to this company.\29\ No parties disagreed with this 
determination and we continue to apply facts available with an adverse 
inference to Hubschercorp for these final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 
54025-26 (September 13, 2005); Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 
67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002).
    \27\ See SAA, at 870.
    \28\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. 
United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon'').
    \29\ See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'') Rate

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as 
AFA information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final 
determination in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any 
other information placed on the record.
    In the SAA, Congress expressly stated that the choice of AFA must 
``ensure

[[Page 10133]]

that the party does not obtain a favorable result by failing to 
corroborate than if it had cooperated fully. In employing adverse 
inferences, ``one factor'' the Department ``will consider is the extent 
to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation.'' \30\ 
The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the 
possible sources of information, has been to select the highest rate on 
the record of the proceeding and to ensure that the margin is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the 
adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 
\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See SAA, at 870.
    \31\ See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 
Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 (November 7, 
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, we have assigned to Hubschercorp a rate of 247.65 
percent, which is the highest rate alleged in the petition, as noted in 
the initiation of the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation, 
adjusted with the surrogate value for labor rate used in the final 
determination.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the 
People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping 
Duty Investigations, 74 FR 39291 (August 6, 2009) (``LTFV 
Initiation'') and Final LTFV Determination, 75 FR at 41812, and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration of Secondary Information

    Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes 
secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the 
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary 
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The 
Department's regulations provide that ``corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value.\33\ To be considered corroborated, the 
Department must find the secondary information is both reliable and 
relevant.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 19 CFR 351.308(d); see also SAA, at 870.
    \34\ See, e.g., 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether the information is reliable, we placed 
information from the LTFV investigation on the record of this segment 
of the proceeding, and reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the 
information in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis for 
purposes of these final results, including source documents as well as 
publicly available information.\35\ Based on our examination of the 
information, we have determined that the margins in the petition are 
reliable for the purposes of this administrative review.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See LTFV Initiation, 74 FR at 39294-39296.
    \36\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the relevance of the petition margin, we placed the 
model-specific rates calculated for the mandatory respondent, Yama 
Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. (``Yama''), in the LTFV investigation on the 
record of this segment of the proceeding and compared the 247.65 
percent rate with those model-specific rates. We find that this margin 
is relevant because the petition rate fell within the range of model-
specific margins calculated for the mandatory respondent in the LTFV 
investigation, this is the first review under this order (i.e., only 
one segment removed from the LTFV investigation), and Hubschercorp 
exported merchandise during the POR that was specifically produced by 
Yama.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See id.; Final Corroboration Memo; and the Memorandum to 
the File from Karine Gziryan, Analyst, entitled, ``Placement of 
Proprietary Model-Specific Margins from the Less-Than-Fair-Value 
Investigation on the Record and Corroboration of Adverse Facts 
Available Rate for the Preliminary Results in the 2010-2011 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Narrow Woven Ribbons with 
Woven Selvedge from the PRC,'' dated July 31, 2012 (``Preliminary 
Corroboration Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Department will consider information reasonably at its 
disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a 
margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected 
margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department may disregard the 
margin and determine an appropriate margin.\38\ Therefore, we examined 
whether any information on the record would discredit the selected rate 
as reasonable facts available. No information on the administrative 
record discredits the selected AFA rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 
22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest calculated 
margin as AFA because the margin was based on a company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above, for these final results, the Department finds 
the highest rate derived from the petition (i.e., 247.65 percent) is, 
therefore, corroborated to the extent practicable, pursuant to section 
776(c) of the Act. Thus, we have assigned Hubschercorp this rate, as 
AFA, in this administrative review. For further discussion of the 
corroboration of this rate, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1, Final Corroboration Memo, and the Preliminary Corroboration 
Memo.

Final Results of Review

    The Department determined that the dumping margins for the POR are 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ We note that Hubscher Ribbons Corp., Ltd. (d/b/a 
Hubschercorp) is a third-country reseller from Canada.
    \40\ For the reasons stated above, the Department has concluded 
that the PRC-wide Entity includes Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd.; 
Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC Ltd. and Precious Planet.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                        Exporter                          average margin
                                                            (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hubscher Ribbon Corp., Ltd. (d/b/a Hubschercorp) \39\...          247.65
Weifang Dongfang Ribbon Weaving Co., Ltd................          123.83
PRC-wide Entity \40\....................................          247.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    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. In this case, the Department determined that the assessment 
rate for the separate rate respondent Weifang Dongfang will be the 
separate rate of 123.83 percent from the previous period less the 0.39 
percent export subsidy rate \41\ which will be equal to 123.44 percent. 
The Department also determined that the assessment rate for 
Hubschercorp will be the highest petition rate of 247.65 percent less 
the 0.39 percent export subsidy rate \42\ which will be equal to 247.26 
percent. Additionally, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate 
entries of subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the 
PRC-wide rate of 247.65 percent less the 0.39 percent export subsidy 
rate \43\ which will equal 247.26 percent. Accordingly, the Department 
is adjusting the assessment rates of Weifang Dongfang, Hubschercorp and 
the PRC-wide entity for export subsidies

[[Page 10134]]

in the same manner that the Department adjusted each company's cash 
deposit rate. See Cash Deposit Requirements section below. The 
Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\  See See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination, 75 FR 41801 (July 19, 2010) (``Final CVD 
Determination'').
    \42\ See Final CVD Determination.
    \43\  See Final CVD Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    While the Department did not conduct a companion countervailing 
duty (``CVD'') administrative review, in the final determination of the 
CVD investigation on narrow woven ribbons from the PRC, the Department 
determined that the product under investigation benefitted from an 
export subsidy.\44\ Accordingly, the Department will instruct CBP to 
require an antidumping cash deposit equal to the weighted-average 
amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price, as indicated 
above, reduced by an amount, as appropriate, determined to constitute 
an export subsidy in the Final CVD Determination. Therefore, for 
Hubschercorp, the separate rate respondent, Weifang Dongfang and the 
PRC-wide entity the Department will instruct CBP to require an 
antidumping duty cash deposit for each entry equal to the weighted-
average margins indicated above adjusted for the export subsidy rate 
determined in the Final CVD Determination. The adjusted cash deposit 
rates are 123.44 percent for Weifang Dongfang and 247.26 percent for 
Hubschercorp and the PRC-wide entity.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination, 75 FR 41801 (July 19, 2010) (``Final CVD 
Determination'').
    \45\ See Memorandum from Karine Gziryan to Robert Bolling 
regarding the adjusted cash deposit rate (dated concurrently with 
this notice) for further detail on the calculation of these 
adjustments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Hubschercorp, 
a third-country reseller from Canada, the cash deposit rate will be 
that established in the final results of this review; (2) for Weifang 
Dongfang, a PRC exporter which has a separate rate, the cash deposit 
rate will be that established in the final results of this review; (3) 
for previously investigated 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; (4) 
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 247.26 percent; \46\ and (5) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Final LTFV Determination, 75 FR at 41812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice 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 the review period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.402(f)(3), failure to comply with this requirement could result in 
the Department presuming that the exporter or producer paid or 
reimbursed the antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO. 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 the terms of an 
APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This notice of the final results of this review is issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

     Dated: February, 5, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

APPENDIX

Comment in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Use of the Highest Petition Rate as Adverse Facts 
Available

[FR Doc. 2013-03236 Filed 2-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P