[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36166-36168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14374]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-900]


Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof 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: On December 10, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts 
thereof (diamond sawblades) from the People's Republic of China (the 
PRC). The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2010, through October 
31, 2011. For the final results, we continue to find that certain 
companies covered by this review made sales of subject merchandise at 
less than normal value.

DATES: As of June 17, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Romani or Yang Jin Chun, 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-
0198 or (202) 482-5760, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 10, 2012, the Department published the preliminary 
results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
diamond sawblades from the PRC.\1\ We received case and rebuttal briefs 
with respect to the Preliminary Results and, at the request of 
interested parties, we held a hearing on April 15, 2013. We extended 
the due date for the final results of review to June 10, 2013.\2\ We 
have conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: 2010-2011, 77 FR 73417 (December 10, 2012) 
(Preliminary Results).
    \2\ See the memorandum to Gary Taverman, Senior Advisor for 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled ``Diamond 
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the Republic of Korea and the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews'' dated April 29, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fraud Allegation

    On April 5, 2012, the Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition 
(the petitioner) alleged that Korean respondents Ehwa Diamond 
Industrial Co., Ltd., Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. and SH 
Trading Inc., and Hyosung Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd., and their 
respective Chinese subsidiaries Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial 
Co., Ltd. (Weihai), Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. 
(Qingdao Shinhan), and Qingdao Hyosung Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. (Qingdao 
Hyosung),\3\ sold diamond sawblades into the United States bearing 
false country of origin designations. On March 19, 2013, we issued a 
post-preliminary analysis memorandum finding that the information 
submitted by Weihai and Qingdao Shinhan is reliable for the final 
results of the review.\4\ For the final results, we continue to find 
the information Weihai and Qingdao Shinhan submitted in this review to 
be reliable.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Qingdao Hyosung is not a respondent in this review.
    \4\ See the memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, entitled ``Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from 
the People's Republic of China for the 2010-2011 Period: Post-
Preliminary Analysis'' dated March 19, 2013. See also the memorandum 
to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from 
Gary Taverman, Senior Advisor for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations, entitled ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Diamond 
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China 
covering the Period November 1, 2010, through October 31, 2011'' 
dated June 10, 2013 (Final Decision Memorandum), which is hereby 
adopted by this notice, at pages 3-4.
    \5\ See Final Decision Memorandum for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is diamond sawblades. The 
diamond sawblades subject to the order are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 8202 to 8206 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS), and may also enter under 6804.21.00. The HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. A full 
description of the scope of the order is contained in the Final 
Decision Memorandum. The written description is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this 
administrative review are addressed in the Final Decision Memorandum. A 
list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as an appendix. 
The Final 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 Central 
Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In 
addition, a complete version of the Final Decision Memorandum can be 
accessed directly on the Import Administration Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Final Decision Memorandum and 
the electronic version of the Final Decision Memorandum are identical 
in content.

[[Page 36167]]

Final Determination of No Shipments

    We continue to find that Qingdao Shinhan, which has a separate 
rate, did not have any exports of subject merchandise during the POR. 
Consistent with our ``automatic assessment'' clarification, we will 
issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on our final results.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 4, 2011) (Assessment 
Practice Refinement); see also the ``Assessment'' section of this 
notice, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made revisions 
that have changed the results for certain companies, including the 
valuation of certain factors of production. Additionally, we have made 
calculation programming changes for the final results. For further 
details on the changes we made for these final results, see the 
company-specific analysis memoranda, the Final Decision Memorandum, and 
the final surrogate value memorandum dated concurrently with this 
notice.

Final Results of the Review

    As a result of this administrative review, we determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period 
November 1, 2010, through October 31, 2011:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                        Company \a\                           (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd...................         0.00
AT&M International Trading Co., Ltd........................         0.00
Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Co.......................         0.00
Bosun Tools Co., Ltd.......................................         8.10
Chengdu Huifeng Diamond Tools Co., Ltd.....................         8.10
Cliff International Ltd....................................         0.00
Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd......         8.10
Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd..................         8.10
Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd...............         8.10
Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co., Ltd...................         8.10
Hangzhou Deer King Industrial & Trading Co., Ltd...........         8.10
Hebei Husqvarna-Jikai Diamond Tools Co., Ltd...............         8.10
Huzhou Gu's Import & Export Co., Ltd.......................         8.10
HXF Saw Co., Ltd...........................................         0.00
Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd..........         8.10
Jiangsu Inter-China Group Corporation......................         8.10
Jiangsu Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd...................         8.10
Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co. Ltd.....................         8.10
Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd...................................         8.10
Saint-Gobain Abrasives (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.................         8.10
Shanghai Robtol Tool Manufacturing Co., Ltd................         8.10
Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd \b\.......         8.10
Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co.......................         8.10
Xiamen ZL Diamond Technology Co., Ltd......................         8.10
Zhejiang Wanli Tools Group Co., Ltd........................         8.10
PRC-Wide Entity \c\........................................       164.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ During this segment of the proceeding, we identified certain name
  variations for several companies. See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at
  73418-49, and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 14.
\b\ Weihai exported some of the subject merchandise to the United States
  through its Korean parent company, Ehwa Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd.
  See, e.g., Weihai's March 23, 2012, section A response at 1-2.
\c\ The deadline to file a separate rate application, separate rate
  certification, or a notification of no sales, exports or entries is 60
  days after the initiation of the administrative review, which in this
  case was February 28, 2012. Therefore, as of February 29, 2012, the
  remaining companies under review that did not demonstrate eligibility
  for a separate rate effectively became part of the PRC-wide entity.
  Accordingly, the PRC-wide entity includes the following companies:
  Central Iron and Steel Research Institute Group, China Iron and Steel
  Research Institute Group, Danyang Aurui Hardware Products Co., Ltd.,
  Danyang Dida Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Danyang Hantronic,
  Danyang Tsunda Diamond Tools Co., Ltd., Danyang Youmei Tools Co.,
  Ltd., Electrolux Construction Products (Xiamen) Co. Ltd., Fujian
  Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co., Ltd., Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co.,
  Ltd., Hua Da Superabrasive Tools Technology Co., Ltd., Huachang
  Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Fengyu Tools Co., Ltd.,
  Jiangyin Likn Industry Co., Ltd., Protech Diamond Tools, Pujiang
  Talent Diamond Tools Co., Ltd., Quanzhou Shuangyang Diamond Tools Co.,
  Ltd., Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading Co., Ltd., Shijiazhuang Global
  New Century Tools Co., Ltd., Sichuan Huili Tools Co., Task Tools &
  Abrasives, Wuxi Lianhua Superhard Material Tools Co., Ltd., Zhejiang
  Tea Import & Export Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Wanda Import and Export Co.,
  Zhejiang Wanda Tools Group Corp., Zhejiang Wanli Super-hard Materials
  Co., Ltd., and Wanli Tools Group.

Assessment

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), 
the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review. For customers or importers of Weihai for which 
we do not have entered value, we calculated customer-/importer-specific 
antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total 
amount of dumping duties calculated for the examined sales of subject 
merchandise to the total sales quantity of those same sales.\7\ For 
customers or importers of Weihai for which we received entered-value 
information, we have calculated customer/importer-specific antidumping 
duty assessment rates based on customer-/importer-specific ad valorem 
rates in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has applied the assessment rate calculation method 
adopted in Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., on the basis of 
monthly average-to-average comparisons using only the transactions 
associated with that importer with offsets being provided for non-
dumped comparisons.\8\ For all non-selected respondents that received a 
separate rate, we will instruct CBP to apply an antidumping duty 
assessment rate of 8.10 percent \9\ to all entries of subject 
merchandise that entered the United States during the POR. For all 
other companies, we will instruct CBP to apply an antidumping duty 
assessment rate of 164.09 percent \10\ to all entries of subject 
merchandise exported by these companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Antidumping Proceeding: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping 
Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8103 (February 14, 2012) 
(Final Modification for Reviews).
    \9\ See Final Decision Memorandum at 5.
    \10\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's 
Republic of China and the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty 
Orders, 74 FR 57145, 57147 (November 4, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 24, 2011, the Department announced a refinement to its 
assessment practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in 
practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales 
databases submitted by companies individually examined during this 
review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 
the PRC-wide rate.\11\ In addition, for companies where the Department 
determined that the exporter under review had no shipments of the 
subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that 
exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be 
liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For a full discussion of this practice, see Assessment 
Practice Refinement.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the 
date of publication of the final results of review.

[[Page 36168]]

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results of 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 subject merchandise exported by the 
companies listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate 
will be the rate established in this final results of review for each 
exporter as listed above; \13\ (2) for previously investigated or 
reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a 
separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC 
exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be 
entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the 
PRC-wide entity; (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC 
exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until 
further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ We note that, pursuant to a section 129 determination, the 
Department announced it would instruct CBP ``to discontinue the 
collection of cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties for 
AT&M.'' See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's 
Republic of China and Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the 
People's Republic of China: Notice of Implementation of 
Determinations Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 78 FR 18958 
(March 28, 2013). However, because of an injunction issued by the 
U.S. Court of International Trade in CIT Ct. No. 09-00511, the 
Department also explained that ``future entries of such merchandise 
are subject to suspension of liquidation at the cash deposit rate of 
zero. Subsequent action will be consistent with the final court 
decision.'' Id. at 18960, n.20. Thus, while the Department continues 
to be enjoined from ordering the lifting of suspension of 
liquidation regarding incoming entries, future entries of such 
merchandise will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation 
at the cash deposit rate of zero, consistent with the final section 
129 determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification

    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 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.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 
written notification of the 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.
    These final results of review are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: June 10, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

1. Separate Rate
2. Corporate Affiliation
3. Targeted Dumping Allegation
4. Post-Preliminary FOP Data
5. Surrogate Country
6. Surrogate Values
    --Bronze Powder
    --Cores
    --Diamond Powder
    --Energy Inputs
    --Financial Ratios
    --Labor Costs
    --Oxygen
    --Steel Types
    --Truck Freight
    --The Philippine Data
7. U.S. Repacking Expense

[FR Doc. 2013-14374 Filed 6-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P