[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 108-110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31411]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-938]


Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 
2011

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has completed its 
administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on citric 
acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from the People's Republic 
of China for the period January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. On 
June 10, 2013, we published the preliminary results of this review and 
the post-

[[Page 109]]

preliminary results were completed on November 7, 2013.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts: Preliminary 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2011, 78 FR 
34648 (June 10, 2013) (Preliminary Results) and Memorandum to Paul 
Piquado, ``Post-Preliminary Results Decision Memorandum: Citric Acid 
and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China,'' 
dated November 7, 2013 (Post-Preliminary Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment on 
the Preliminary Results and Post-Preliminary Results. Our analysis of 
the comments submitted has resulted in a change to the net subsidy rate 
for RZBC Group Shareholding Co., Ltd. (RZBC Group), RZBC Co., Ltd., 
RZBC Juxian Co., Ltd. (RZBC Juxian), and RZBC Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 
(collectively, RZBC or RZBC Companies). The final net subsidy rate is 
listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results of Review.''

DATES: Effective Date: January 2, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia M. Tran, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 
telephone (202) 482-1503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Following the Preliminary Results and Post-Preliminary Results, we 
received case briefs from the Government of the People's Republic of 
China (GOC), RZBC Companies, and Petitioners \2\ on November 18, 2013. 
On November 25, 2013, all parties submitted their rebuttal briefs. We 
held ex-parte meetings with RZBC Companies on November 27, 2013, and 
Petitioners on December 5, 2013.\3\ Each party discussed their 
arguments in the case and rebuttal briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Petitioners are Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill 
Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle Ingredients America LLC.
    \3\ See Memoranda to the File from Patricia Tran, ``Ex-Parte 
Meeting with Counsel representing Petitioners'' and ``Ex-Parte 
Meeting with Counsel representing RZBC Companies,'' dated December 
20, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to 
toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal 
Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013. Therefore, all 
deadlines in this segment of the proceeding were extended by 16 days. 
The deadline for the final results for this segment of the proceeding 
was extended to Wednesday, December 25, 2013, and because December 25 
is a Federal Holiday, the actual deadline is Thursday, December 26, 
2013.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum to the File from Patricia Tran, 
``Countervailing Duty (CVD) Administrative Review: Citric Acid & 
Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China, covering 
period 1/01/2011--12/31/2011 (2011 Citric Acid from the PRC): 
Tolling of Final Results Deadline,'' dated October 21, 2013, which 
contains Memorandum for the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant 
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ``Deadlines Affected by 
the Shutdown of the Federal Government'' (October 18, 2013). 
Therefore, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been 
extended by 16 days. If the new deadline falls on a non-business 
day, in accordance with the Department's practice, the deadline will 
become the next business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is citric acid and certain 
citrate salts. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 2918.14.0000, 
2918.15.1000, 2918.15.5000, 3824.90.9290, and 3824.90.9290. Although 
the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written product description, available in Citric Acid and Certain 
Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Countervailing Duty Order, 74 FR 25705 (May 29, 2009), remains 
dispositive.
    A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the 
memorandum from Melissa G. Skinner, Director, Office III, Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Operations to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ``Issues 
and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts; 
2011'' (Final Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this 
notice, and hereby adopted by this notice.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs 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 IA ACCESS. IA ACCESS is 
available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and 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 Internet at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Final Decision Memorandum and 
the electronic versions of the Final Decision Memorandum are identical 
in content.

Methodology

    The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 
751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). For 
each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that 
there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an ``authority'' 
that confers a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is 
specific. For a full description of the methodology underlying our 
conclusions, see the Final Decision Memorandum.
    In making these findings, we have relied, in part, on facts 
available and, because one or more respondents did not act to the best 
of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for 
information, we have drawn an adverse inference in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available. For further information, see ``Use of 
Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences'' in the Final 
Decision Memorandum.

Final Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated a subsidy 
rate for the mandatory respondent, RZBC Companies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Net subsidy
                    Producer/Exporter                          rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RZBC Co., Ltd., RZBC Juxian Co., Ltd., RZBC Imp. & Exp.            35.87
 Co., Ltd., and RZBC Group Shareholding Co., Ltd........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the 
date of publication of these final results, to liquidate shipments of 
subject merchandise by RZBC Companies entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2011, through 
December 31, 2011.

Cash Deposit Instructions

    The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash 
deposits of estimated CVDs in the amount shown above on shipments of 
subject merchandise by RZBC Companies entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the 
final results of this review. For all non-reviewed companies, we will 
instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recent 
company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. 
Accordingly, the cash deposit

[[Page 110]]

rates that will be applied to companies covered by this order, but not 
examined in this review, are those established in the most recently 
completed segment of the proceeding for each company. These cash 
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

Administrative Protective Order

    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 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Dated: December 26, 2013.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.

Appendix I

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. Summary
II Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences
V. Subsidy Valuation Information
VI. Benchmark and Discount Rates
VII. Analysis of Programs
VIII. Analysis of Comments
    Comment 1: Whether There Is a Basis for the Imposition of 
Countervailing Duties on RZBC's Imports
    Comment 2: Whether the Provision of Sulfuric Acid Is Specific 
Under Section 771(5A) of the Act
    Comment 3: Whether the Provision of Steam Coal Is Specific Under 
Section 771(5A) of the Act
    Comment 4: Whether the Provision of Calcium Carbonate Is 
Specific Under Section 771(5A) of the Act
    Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Countervail Input 
Purchases Made Through Trading Companies and Produced by 
``Authorities''
    Comment 6: Whether the Certain Sulfuric Acid Producers are 
``Authorities''
    Comment 7: Shandong Province Policy Loans
    Comment 8: Creditworthiness
    Comment 9: Whether Provision of Land for Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration (LTAR) to Enterprises Located in Development Parks/
Zones in the Donggang District Is Countervailable
    Comment 10: Whether Provision of Land for LTAR to Enterprises in 
Strategic Emerging Industries in Shandong Province Is 
Countervailable
    Comment 11: Whether Limestone Flux Is Calcium Carbonate and Sold 
at LTAR
    Comment 12: Whether the Department Should Modify the Calcium 
Carbonate Benchmark To Use World Export Prices Derived From Chapter 
28 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
    Comment 13: Benchmark Issues
    A. Whether World Market Prices for Input Benchmarks Are 
Reasonably Available
    B. Whether To Consider Factors of Comparability to Select World 
Market Prices
    C. Whether To Exclude Export Prices to the PRC in the Benchmark 
Calculation
    D. Whether To Include RZBC Companies' Limestone Flux Benchmark 
Submission
    E. Whether Benchmark Averaging Methodology is Unreasonable, 
Distortive, and Otherwise Not in Accordance With Law
    F. The Department Should Average Import Duties When Calculating 
the LTAR Benchmarks
    G. The Department Should Modify The Sulfuric Acid Benchmark by 
Adding Hazardous Shipping Charges
    H. Whether International Freight for Limestone Flux Is 
Aberrational
    Comment 14: Whether To Adjust Sulfuric Acid Input Purchases by 
RZBC Companies
IX. Conclusion

[FR Doc. 2013-31411 Filed 12-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P