[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 96-101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31408]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-967]
Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission, in
Part, 2010/12
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum
extrusions from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of
review (``POR'') is November 12, 2010, through April 30, 2012. These
final results cover 62 companies for which an administrative review was
initiated,\1\ and for which this administrative review was not
rescinded in the Preliminary Results.\2\ For these final
[[Page 97]]
results, the Department examined two mandatory respondents which
include three companies for which this review was initiated. The first
mandatory respondent is Kromet International, Inc. (``Kromet'') for
which the Department finds for these final results did not make sales
of subject merchandise at less than normal value. The second mandatory
respondent the Department has continued to find is a single entity,
collectively Zhongya/Guang Ya Group/Xinya, comprised of Zhaoqing New
Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. a.k.a. Guangdong Zhongya Aluminum Company
Limited (``Zhongya''); Guangya Aluminum Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Guang
Ya''), Foshan Guangcheng Aluminum Co., Ltd. (``Guangcheng'') \3\
(collectively ``Guang Ya Group''); and Foshan Nanhai Xinya Aluminum &
Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd. (``Xinya'').\4\ The Department finds
for these final results that the Zhongya/Guang Ya Group/Xinya entity
failed to demonstrate that it was eligible for a separate rate and thus
it is part of the PRC-wide entity. Furthermore, the Department finds
that ten (including Kromet) of the other companies under review have
established their eligibility for a separate rate. The Department finds
that the remaining companies under review either failed to establish
their eligibility for a separate rate or were not responsive, and,
therefore, these companies are part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 77 FR
40565 (July 10, 2012) (``Initiation Notice''). In the Initiation
Notice, 67 companies are listed. However, there were entries for
Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminum Extrusion Co., Ltd. and Taishan City
Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd. which appear to be the same
entity, with the result that the Department considers the Initiation
Notice to cover 66 companies.
\2\ See Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Rescission, in Part, 2010/12, 78 FR 34986 (June 11, 2013)
(``Preliminary Results'') (where the Department rescinded this
administrative review for four companies: Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd.,
Changshu Changsheng Aluminum Products Co., Ltd., Pingguo Asia
Aluminum Co., Ltd., and Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminum Extrusion Co.,
Ltd.).
\3\ No review was initiated for Guangcheng, however, this
company did provide a Q&V response.
\4\ No review was initiated for Xinya, however, this company did
provide a Q&V response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: January 2, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Demitrios
Kalogeropoulos, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4474 or (202)
482-2623, respectively.
Background
On June 11, 2013, the Department published the Preliminary Results
of this administrative review. At that time, we invited interested
parties to comment on the Preliminary Results.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Preliminary Results at 34988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 26, 2013 we received case briefs from the Aluminum
Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (``Petitioner''); \6\ Zhongya; the
Government of China (``GOC''); Shenzhen Hudson Technology Development
Co., Ltd. (``Shenzhen Hudson''); Skyline Exhibit Systems (Shanghai)
Co., Ltd. (``Skyline''); Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (``Newell''); Zhongshan
Gold Mountain Aluminum Factory Ltd. (``ZGM'') and Gold Mountain
International Development Limited (``GMID''); Dongguan Golden Tiger
Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Golden Tiger''), Guangdong Whirlpool
Electrical Appliances Co. Ltd. (``Guangdong Whirlpool''), Hanyung
Alcobis Co., Ltd. (``Hanyung Alcobis''), Henan New Kelong Electrical
Appliances Co., Ltd. (``New Kelong''), and Shanghai Tongtai Precise
Aluminum Alloy Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (``Tongtai''); Xin Wei Aluminum
Company Limited, Guang Dong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd. and Xin
Wei Aluminum Co., Ltd. (collectively ``Xin Wei''); and Electrolux North
America, Inc., Electrolux Home Products, Inc. and Electrolux Major
Appliances (collectively ``Electrolux'').\7\ On September 12, 2013 we
received rebuttal briefs from the Petitioner; Kromet; Zhongya; the GOC;
and ZGM and GMID.\8\ On September 26, 2013, the Department extended the
deadline for the final results until December 9, 2013.\9\ On October
18, 2013, the Department tolled this deadline by 16 days until December
25, which is a federal holiday.\10\ Therefore, the extended deadline is
the next business day, which is Thursday, December 26, 2013.\11\ At
Zhongya's request, we held a hearing on November 20, 2013.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The individual members of the Committee are Aerolite
Extrusion Company; Alexandria Extrusion Company; Benada Aluminum of
Florida, Inc.; William L. Bonnell Company, Inc.; Frontier Aluminum
Corporation; Futural Industries Corporation; Hydro Aluminum North
America, Inc.; Kaiser Aluminum Corporation; Profile Extrusion
Company; Sapa Extrusions, Inc.; and Western Extrusions Corporation.
\7\ See letters from (1) Petitioner, ``Aluminum Extrusions from
the People's Republic of China: Case Brief'' (``Petitioner's Case
Brief''); (2) Zhongya, ``Aluminum Extrusions from China''
(``Zhongya's Case Brief''), (3) Electrolux, ``Aluminum Extrusions
from the People's Republic of China: Case Brief'' (``Electrolux's
Case Brief''), (4) The GOC, ``Aluminum Extrusions from China; 1st AD
Administrative Review GOC Case Brief'' (``GOC's Case Brief''), (5)
Xin Wei, ``Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Case
Brief'' (``Xin Wei's Case Brief''), (6) Golden Tiger et al.,
``Aluminum Extrusions from The People's Republic of China (First
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review): Case Brief of Dongguan
Golden Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd., Guangdong Whirlpool
Electrical Appliances Co. Ltd., Hanyung Alcobis Co., Ltd., Henan New
Kelong Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Tongtai Precise
Aluminum Alloy Manufacturing Co., Ltd.'' (``Golden Tiger et al.'s
Case Brief''), (7) ZGM and GMID, ``Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the People's
Republic of China: Case Brief for Consideration Prior to the Final
Results'' (``ZGM and GMID's Case Brief''), (8) Newell, ``Aluminum
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Case Brief''
(``Newell's Case Brief''), (9) Skyline, ``Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the People's
Republic of China: Case Brief of Skyline'' (``Skyline's Case
Brief''), (10) Shenzhen Hudson, ``Shenzhen Hudson Administrative
Case Brief in the First Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of
China'' (``Shenzhen Hudson's Case Brief''), all dated August 26,
2013. IDEX Health & Science LLC and BAND-IT-IDEX, Inc. submitted its
case brief on August 2, 2013, ``Aluminum Extrusions from China: IDEX
Antidumping Case Brief,'' (``IDEX Case Brief''). Jiuyuan and UQM
Technology Inc. submitted their case brief on July 29, 2013,
``Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Case Brief of
Shenzhen Jiuyuan Co., Ltd. and UQM Technology, Inc.'' (``Jiuyuan and
UQM Case Brief'').
\8\ See letters from (1) Petitioner, ``Aluminum Extrusions from
the People's Republic of China: Rebuttal Brief,'' (``Petitioner's
Rebuttal Brief''); (2) Kromet, ``Aluminum Extrusions from the
People's Republic of China (First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review): Rebuttal Brief of Respondent Kromet International Inc.,''
(``Kromet's Rebuttal Brief''); (3) Zhongya, ``Aluminum Extrusions
from China--Zhongya Rebuttal Brief,'' (``Zhongya's Rebuttal
Brief''); (4) the GOC, ``Aluminum Extrusions from China; 1st AD
Administrative Review GOC Rebuttal Brief,'' (``The GOC's Rebuttal
Brief''); and (5) ZGM and GMID, ``Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the People's
Republic of China: Rebuttal Brief for Consideration Prior to the
Final Results,'' (``ZGM and GMID's Rebuttal Brief''), all dated
September 12, 2013.
\9\ See ``Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of
China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review,'' dated September 26, 2013.
\10\ See the memorandum for the record ``Deadlines Affected by
the Shutdown of the Federal Government,'' dated October 18, 2013.
\11\ See Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next Business
Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to
the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2008).
\12\ See hearing transcript, ``In the Matter of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the PRC (A-570-967) (November
12, 2010 through April 30, 2012),'' filed December 2, 2013; see also
``Aluminum Extrusions from China: Request for Hearing; Extension
Request,'' submitted by Zhongya on July 11, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the Order \13\ is aluminum extrusions
which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from
aluminum alloys having metallic elements corresponding to the alloy
series designations published by The Aluminum Association commencing
with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or proprietary equivalents or other
certifying body equivalents).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of
China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011)
(``Order'').
\14\ See ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Aluminum Extrusions from
the People's Republic of China,'' from Melissa G. Skinner, Director,
Office III to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, dated concurrently
with this notice (``Issues and Decision Memorandum'') for a complete
description of the scope of the Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 98]]
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the
following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS''): 7610.10.00, 7610.90.00, 7615.10.30, 7615.10.71,
7615.10.91, 7615.19.10, 7615.19.30, 7615.19.50, 7615.19.70, 7615.19.90,
7615.20.00, 7616.99.10, 7616.99.50, 8479.89.98, 8479.90.94, 8513.90.20,
9403.10.00, 9403.20.00, 7604.21.00.00, 7604.29.10.00, 7604.29.30.10,
7604.29.30.50, 7604.29.50.30, 7604.29.50.60, 7608.20.00.30,
7608.20.00.90, 8302.10.30.00, 8302.10.60.30, 8302.10.60.60,
8302.10.60.90, 8302.20.00.00, 8302.30.30.10, 8302.30.30.60,
8302.41.30.00, 8302.41.60.15, 8302.41.60.45, 8302.41.60.50,
8302.41.60.80, 8302.42.30.10, 8302.42.30.15, 8302.42.30.65,
8302.49.60.35, 8302.49.60.45, 8302.49.60.55, 8302.49.60.85,
8302.50.00.00, 8302.60.90.00, 8305.10.00.50, 8306.30.00.00,
8418.99.80.05, 8418.99.80.50, 8418.99.80.60, 8419.90.10.00,
8422.90.06.40, 8479.90.85.00, 8486.90.00.00, 8487.90.00.80,
8503.00.95.20, 8516.90.50.00, 8516.90.80.50, 8708.80.65.90,
9401.90.50.81, 9403.90.10.40, 9403.90.10.50, 9403.90.10.85,
9403.90.25.40, 9403.90.25.80, 9403.90.40.05, 9403.90.40.10,
9403.90.40.60, 9403.90.50.05, 9403.90.50.10, 9403.90.50.80,
9403.90.60.05, 9403.90.60.10, 9403.90.60.80, 9403.90.70.05,
9403.90.70.10, 9403.90.70.80, 9403.90.80.10, 9403.90.80.15,
9403.90.80.20, 9403.90.80.30, 9403.90.80.41, 9403.90.80.51,
9403.90.80.61, 9506.51.40.00, 9506.51.60.00, 9506.59.40.40,
9506.70.20.90, 9506.91.00.10, 9506.91.00.20, 9506.91.00.30,
9506.99.05.10, 9506.99.05.20, 9506.99.05.30, 9506.99.15.00,
9506.99.20.00, 9506.99.25.80, 9506.99.28.00, 9506.99.55.00,
9506.99.60.80, 9507.30.20.00, 9507.30.40.00, 9507.30.60.00,
9507.90.60.00, and 9603.90.80.50.
The subject merchandise entered as parts of other aluminum products
may be classifiable under the following additional Chapter 76
subheadings: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99 as well as
under other HTSUS chapters. In addition, fin evaporator coils may be
classifiable under HTSUS numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and 8418.99.80.60.
While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the scope of this Order is
dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties
in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
which is dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this
notice.\15\ A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we
responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix
to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document
and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service
System (``IA ACCESS''). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and it 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 Issues and Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum
and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on an analysis of the comments received from interested
parties and a review of the record, the Department has made the
following changes for these final results of review:
We are correcting the weighted-average dumping margin for
the PRC-wide entity. The Preliminary Results misstated this rate as
32.79 percent. The correct weighted-average dumping margin applicable
to the PRC-wide entity is 33.28 percent, and was noted in the decision
memorandum for the Preliminary Results.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See ``Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Aluminum Extrusions from the
People's Republic of China, 2010/12,'' dated June 3, 2013, (``PDM'')
at page 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We excluded from the margin calculation a small portion of
sales which Kromet initially reported as its own, but which were
actually sold by its PRC supplier.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Comment 2 of the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We included an additional portion of sales that, based on
the commercial invoicing date, occurred within the POR.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See ``First Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China:
Analysis of the Final Results Margin Calculation for Kromet
International'' dated concurrently with this notice (``Final
Analysis Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We changed the export subsidy adjustment applied to
Kromet's weighted-average dumping margin to account for the final
subsidy rates determined in the companion countervailing duty
investigation.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id. and Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Notice of Amended
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 77 FR 74466
(December 14, 2012)(``CVD Amended Final'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We determined that five additional separate rate
applicants have demonstrated eligibility for a separate rate in this
administrative review.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Comment 8 of the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We made an adjustment under section 777A(f) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'') to the antidumping duty rate
assigned to separate rate respondents in the final results.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Comment 10 of the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Companies Eligible for a Separate Rate
In our Preliminary Results, we determined that four companies are
eligible for a separate rate: GMID; Shenzhen Jiuyuan Co., Ltd. (a.k.a.
Jiuyuan Co., Ltd. or Shenzhen Jiuyuan Import and Export Co., Ltd.)
(``Jiuyuan''); Sincere Profit Limited (``Sincere Profit''); and
Skyline.\22\ We have received no information since the issuance of the
Preliminary Results that provides a basis for reconsideration of this
determination. Therefore, the Department continues to find that these
four companies are eligible for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Preliminary Results at 34986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, we received information that
provides a basis for finding five additional companies eligible for a
separate rate. These companies are Changzhou Tenglong Auto Parts Co.,
Ltd.; Dynamic Technologies China Ltd.; Xin Wei Aluminum Company
Limited; Zhejiang Xinlong Industry Co., Ltd.; and ZGM.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Comment 8 of the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate for Non-Examined Companies Which Are Eligible for a Separate Rate
The Department has assigned to non-examined, separate rate
companies the
[[Page 99]]
weighted-average dumping margin assigned to non-examined, separate rate
companies in the final determination of the antidumping investigation.
Neither the Act nor the Department's regulations address the
establishment of the rate 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 for guidance, which provides
instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs the Department to avoid
calculating an all-others rate using any rates that are zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on facts available in investigations.
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where all rates are
zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, the Department
may use ``any reasonable method'' for assigning a rate to non-examined
respondents.
We determine that the application of the rate from the
investigation to the non-examined separate rate respondents is
consistent with precedent and the most appropriate method to determine
the separate rate in the instant review. Pursuant to this method, we
are assigning the rate of 32.79 percent, the most recent rate (from the
less than fair value investigation) calculated for the non-examined
separate rate respondents, to the non-examined separate rate
respondents in the instant review.
Adjustment Under Section 777A(f) of the Act
Pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act, the Department has made an
adjustment for countervailable domestic subsidies which have been found
to have impacted the U.S. prices. For the non-examined companies which
are eligible for a separate rate, as noted above, their weighted-
average dumping margin is based on the weighted-average dumping margin
for non-examined, separate rate companies in the antidumping
investigation. This rate was based on the average petition rates, which
were based on prices for sales of subject merchandise to the United
States. In the companion countervailing duty investigation, the
Department did not individually examine the PRC exporter(s) underlying
the prices and, therefore, they would be part of the all-other
exporters in the amended final determination for the CVD investigation.
Accordingly, the adjustment to account for domestic subsidies is based
on the countervailing duties found for all-other exporters. The amount
of these countervailing duties which are passed through to the U.S.
prices is found to be the rate determined for Kromet in these final
results, which is based on data from Bloomberg.\24\ For Kromet, no such
adjustment is necessary because Kromet's weighted-average dumping
margin is zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See PDM at Attachment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, the Department has
also made an adjustment for countervailable export subsidies. For
Kromet, an adjustment has been made to its U.S. price as reported in
its U.S. sales database.\25\ For the companies eligible for a separate
rate, an adjustment has been made based on the countervailable export
subsidy found for all-other exporters in the amended final
determination for the countervailing duty investigation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Final Analysis Memorandum.
\26\ See CVD Amended Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Entity
In the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that the
mandatory respondent Zhongya/Guang Ya Group/Xinya was not eligible for
a separate rate, and, accordingly, was found to be part of the PRC-wide
entity. The Department has received no information since the issuance
of the Preliminary Results that provides a basis for reconsideration of
this determination. Therefore, the Department continues to find that
Zhongya/Guang Ya Group/Xinya is not eligible for a separate rate and is
part of the PRC-wide entity.
In the Preliminary Results, the Department also found the following
25 companies to be part of the PRC-wide entity: Foshan City Nanhai
Hongjia Aluminum Alloy Co., Ltd.; Foshan Shunde Aoneng Electrical
Appliances Co., Ltd.; Guangdong Nanhai Foodstuffs Imp. & Exp. Co.,
Ltd.; Isource Asia Limited and affiliates; Kunshan Giant Light Metal
Technology Co., Ltd.; Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd.; Nidec
Sankyo Singapore Pte. Ltd.; Nidec Sankyo (Zhejang) Corporation; Ningbo
Coaster International Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Dongsheng Metal; Shanghai
Shen Hang Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; Sihui Shi Guo Yao Aluminum Co., Ltd.;
Suzhou JRP Import & Export Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Gangly Nonferrous Metal
Materials Co., Ltd.; Activa International Incorporated; Changzhou
Changfa Power Machinery Co., Ltd.; Foshan Yong Li Jian Alu. Ltd.
Guangzhou Mingcan Die-Casting Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Jiaxing
Taixin Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Metaltek Metal Industry Ltd.; Zhejuang
Zhengte Group Co., Ltd.; Clear Sky Inc.; Zhuhai Runxingtai Electrical
Equipment Co., Ltd.; Shandong Huasheng Pesticide Machinery Co.; and
North China Aluminum Co., Ltd. The Department has received no
information since the issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides
a basis for reconsideration of this determination. Therefore, the
Department continues to find that these 25 companies are not eligible
for a separate rate and are part of the PRC-wide entity.
In the Preliminary Results, the Department identified 29 companies
\27\ for which it was seeking additional information regarding each
company's eligibility for a separate rate. As noted above, four of
these companies provided additional information to substantiate their
eligibility for a separate rate. One company, Allied Maker Limited, had
submitted a Q&V response as well as a SRA but was never under review;
therefore, the Department is not considering this company as part of
these final results. For the remaining 24 companies, each did not
provide the requested information to substantiate a suspended AD/CVD
entry for eligibility for a separate rate, and, therefore, for these
final results, are found to be part of the PRC-wide entity. These
companies are Acro Import and Export Corp.; Changzhou Changzheng
Evaporator Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Aoda Aluminum Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Golden
Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.; Global PMX (Dongguan) Co., Ltd.;
Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai; Guangdong Whirlpool
Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Xingyi Metal Products Co.,
Ltd.; Hanyung Alcobis Co., Ltd.; Henan New Kelong Electrical Appliances
Co., Ltd.; IDEX Dinglee Technology (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Changfa
Refrigeration Co., Ltd.; Jiaxing Jackson Travel Products Co., Ltd.;
Justhere Co., Ltd.; Metaltek Group Co., Ltd.; Midea International
Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Tongtai Precise Aluminum Alloy
Manufacturing Co., Ltd; Shenzhen Hudson Technology Development Co.,
Ltd.; Suzhou New Hongji Precision Part Co., Ltd.; Taizhou Lifeng
Manufacturing Corp.; Tianjin Jinmao Import & Export Corp., Ltd.; Union
Industry (Asia) Co., Limited;
[[Page 100]]
Guang Dong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd.; and Xin Wei Aluminum
Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ In the Preliminary Results, the Department considered Xin
Wei Aluminum Company Limited, Guang Dong Xin Wei Aluminum Products
Co., Ltd., and Xin Wei Aluminum Co., Ltd. as one company where as
they are three separate entities. For these final results, these
three separate entities have been considered individually. As a
result, the 27 companies referenced in footnote 8 of the Preliminary
Results encompass 29 companies for which a review was initiated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One other company for which a review was initiated has submitted
neither a Q&V response nor a separate rate application and is
considered part of the PRC-wide entity. This company is Zhaoquing Asia
Aluminum Factory.
Rate for the PRC-Wide Entity
For the PRC-wide entity, the Department in the Preliminary Results
assigned the rate of 33.28 \28\ percent, the only rate ever determined
for the PRC-wide entity in this proceeding. Because this rate is the
same as the rate for the PRC-wide entity from previously completed
segments in this proceeding and nothing on the record of the instant
review calls into question the reliability of this rate, we find it
appropriate to continue to apply the rate of 33.28 percent to the PRC-
wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The PRC-wide Entity cash deposit rate was misstated in the
Preliminary Results as 32.79 percent. The correct cash deposit rate
applicable to the PRC-wide Entity for these final results is 33.28
percent. See the PDM at page 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, we determine that the following
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period November 12,
2010, through April 30, 2012:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter dumping margin
(percent)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kromet International, Inc............................. 0.00
Sincere Profit Limited................................ 32.79
Skyline Exhibit Systems (Shanghai) Co., Ltd........... 32.79
Gold Mountain International Development Limited....... 32.79
Shenzhen Jiuyuan Co., Ltd............................. 32.79
Dynamic Technologies China Ltd........................ 32.79
Zhejiang Xinlong Industry Co., Ltd.................... 32.79
Changzhou Tenglong Auto Parts Co., Ltd................ 32.79
Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited...................... 32.79
Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminum Factory Ltd.......... 32.79
PRC-wide Entity....................................... 33.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review pursuant to
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b).\29\ The
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these final results of review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Kromet, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate
entries without regard to antidumping duties because Kromet's weighted-
average dumping margin is zero percent. For the nine non-examined,
separate rate companies, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all
appropriate entries at a rate based on 32.79 percent and adjusted for
both export and domestic subsidies as described above. For the PRC-wide
entity, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at a
rate equal to 33.28 percent.
The Department recently 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 NME-wide rate. In
addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review
had no shipments of 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 NME-wide rate. For a full discussion of
this practice, see NME Antidumping Proceedings, supra.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash
deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin
identified in ``Final Results of the Review,'' and adjusted for
applicable export and domestic subsidies; (2) for previously
investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that are not under
review in this segment of the proceeding but that received a separate
rate in a previous segment, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed
segment of this proceeding; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate
rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate of
33.28 percent; \30\ and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied
that non-PRC exporter. The cash deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ This rate was established in the final results of the
original less than fair value investigation. See Aluminum Extrusions
From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value,
76 FR 18524 (April 4, 2011). This includes Zhongya/Guang Ya
Group/Xinya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice serves as a
reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(``APO'') of their responsibility concerning the disposition of
proprietary information disclosed under the APO. 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 and notice are published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 101]]
Dated: December 26, 2013.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary For Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
Appendix I
Issues for the Final Results
Issues Relating to Kromet
Comment 1: Whether To Continue To Use the Philippines as the
Surrogate Country
Comment 2: Whether to Continue To Treat Kromet as the Exporter
Comment 3: Whether To Adjust Kromet's Sales Prices To Account for
Taxes Paid
Issues Relating to Zhongya
Comment 4: Whether to Collapse Zhongya, the Guang Ya Group, and
Xinya
Comment 5: Whether the Guang Ya Group and Xinya Should Be Treated as
Part of the PRC-Wide Entity
Comment 6: Whether AFA Should Be Applied to Zhongya
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Request Certain Additional
Information From Zhongya
Issues Relating to Separate Rate Applicants
Comment 8: Whether Absence of a Suspended Entry Is a Basis for
Denying a Separate Rate
Comment 9: Calculation of the AD Margin Assigned to the Separate
Rate Respondents
Comment 10: How To Adjust the Separate Rate for Double Counting
Under Section 777A(f) of the Act
Comment 11: Whether the Margin Assigned to the Separate Rate
Respondents in the Preliminary Results was an AFA Rate
Comment 12: Whether GMID and Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminium
Factory Ltd. Are Both Eligible for Separate Rate Status
Comment 13: Whether Suppliers for Electrolux and Newell Should Be
Subsumed Within Their Exporter's Rate
Comment 14: Whether AD Duties Should Only Be Assessed on IDEX After
the Date of the Department's Initiation of a Formal Scope Inquiry
[FR Doc. 2013-31408 Filed 12-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P