[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rescinded in the Preliminary Results.\2\ For these final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