[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72567-72568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25430]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-836]


Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015

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

SUMMARY: On April 15, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC).\1\ The review covers five companies, Baoding Mantong Fine 
Chemistry Co., Ltd. (Baoding Mantong), Kumar Industries (Kumar), 
Nutracare International (Nutracare), Ravi Industries (Ravi), and Rudraa 
International (Rudraa). The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2014, 
through February 28, 2015. As a result of our analysis of the comments 
and information received, these final results do not differ from the 
Preliminary Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 
22212 (April 15, 2016) (Preliminary Results).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective October 20, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland or Brian Davis, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3362 or (202) 482-7924, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 15, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary 
Results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited 
parties to comment on our Preliminary Results.\2\ On May 16, 2016, GEO 
submitted a case brief and requested a hearing.\3\ On August 10, 2016, 
the Department issued a memorandum extending the time period for 
issuing the final results of this administrative review from August 15, 
2016, to October 12, 2016.\4\ On September 21, 2016, GEO withdrew its 
request for a public hearing. As no other party had requested a 
hearing, no public hearing was held. The Department conducted on-site 
verifications of Kumar and Salvi Chemical Industries Ltd., Nutracare's 
affiliate and glycine producer, from August 1, 2016, through August 5, 
2016.\5\ On September 2, 2016, GEO and respondents submitted post-
verification comments.\6\ On September 7, 2016, GEO and respondents 
submitted post-verification rebuttal comments.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Preliminary Results at 22212-22213.
    \3\ See Letter to the Department of Commerce from GEO Specialty 
Chemicals, Inc. regarding ``Glycine from the People's Republic of 
China: GEO Specialty Chemicals' Case Brief,'' dated May 16, 2016.
    \4\ See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from 
Madeline Heeren, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Operations, Office VI, through Scot 
Fullerton, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Office 
VI, on the subject of ``Glycine from the People's Republic of China: 
Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping; 2014/2015,'' 
dated August 10, 2016.
    \5\ See Memorandum to The File from Marcus A. Kraker, Import 
Policy Analyst, Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy & 
Negotiations, and Elisabeth Urfer, Senior International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, Customs Liaison Unit, through Brian Davis, 
Program Manager, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 
Office VI, on the subject of ``Verification of the Questionnaire 
Responses of Kumar Industries in the Antidumping Duty Review of 
Glycine from the People's Republic of China,'' dated August 19, 
2016, and Memorandum to The File from Marcus A. Kraker, Import 
Policy Analyst, Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy & 
Negotiations, and Elisabeth Urfer, Senior International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, Customs Liaison Unit, through Brian Davis, 
Program Manager, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 
Office VI, on the subject of ``Verification of the Questionnaire 
Responses of Salvi Chemical Industries Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty 
Review of Glycine from the People's Republic of China,'' dated 
August 19, 2016.
    \6\ See Letter to the Department of Commerce from GEO Specialty 
Chemicals, Inc. regarding ``Glycine from the People's Republic of 
China: Comments on Verification Reports,'' dated September 2, 2016, 
and Letter to the Department of Commerce from Nutracare 
International, Ravi Industries, Kumar Industries, and Rudraa 
International regarding ``Glycine from the People's Republic of 
China: Comments on the Preliminary Determination,'' dated September 
2, 2016. In its September 2, 2016, letter, Nutracare, Kumar, Ravi, 
and Rudraa alleged that GEO submitted untimely, new factual 
information in its post-verification comments. On September 12, 
2016, GEO, submitted a letter in response to respondents' new 
factual information allegation. We have rejected GEO's submission 
and requested that they resubmit their comments without the new 
factual information. GEO resubmitted their comments on October 7, 
2016 (see Letter to the Department of Commerce from GEO Specialty 
Chemicals, Inc. regarding, ``Glycine from the People's Republic of 
China: Removal of Information from September 2, 2016 and September 
7, 2016 Submissions,'' dated October 7, 2016).
    \7\ See Letter to the Department of Commerce from GEO Specialty 
Chemicals, Inc. regarding ``Glycine from the People's Republic of 
China: GEO's Rebuttal to the Preliminary Determination and 
Verification Report Comments of Nutracare, Ravi, Kumar and Rudraa,'' 
dated September 7, 2016, and Letter to the Department of Commerce 
from Nutracare International, Ravi Industries, Kumar Industries, and 
Rudraa International regarding ``Glycine from the People's Republic 
of China: Rebuttal Comments to Petitioner's Case Brief,'' dated 
September 7, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the antidumping duty order is glycine, which 
is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar.\8\ The 
subject merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2922.49.4020. 
The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes 
only; the written product description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Glycine from the 
People's Republic of China; 2014-2015'' from Christian Marsh, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with this notice 
(Issues and Decision Memorandum), for a complete description of the 
scope of the order.
    \9\ See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping 
Duty Order, 60 FR 16116 (March 29, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.\10\ A list of the issues that parties raised and to which 
we responded is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and 
Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically 
via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 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://enforcement.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The signed 
Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues 
and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of the Review

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from 
interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we determine that 
that Baoding Mantong, Kumar, Nutracare, Ravi, and Rudraa did not have 
reviewable transactions of subject merchandise during the POR.

[[Page 72568]]

Duty Assessment

    The Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 
days after publication of the final results of this review. Given that 
the Department continues to determine that the exporters under review 
had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that 
entered under the exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's 
rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate, in accordance with our 
practice.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 23, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice for all shipments of subject merchandise 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) 
of the Act: (1) For Baoding Mantong, Nutracare International, Ravi 
Industries, Kumar Industries, and Rudraa International, which all 
claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from 
rates assigned to these companies in the most recently completed 
reviews of these companies; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed 
PRC and non-PRC exporters who are not under review in this segment of 
the proceeding but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (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 the PRC-wide rate of 453.79 percent; 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 the non-PRC exporter. These cash deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to 
liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and 
the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 
continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of 
the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction 
of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an 
APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: October 12, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

List of Topics Discussed in the Final Issues and Decision 
Memorandum

I. Summary
II. List of Issues
III. Background
IV. Scope of the Order
V. Discussion of Interested Party Comments
    A. Kumar-Specific Issue
    Comment 1: Whether Kumar, Ravi, or Rudraa Had Shipments of 
Subject Merchandise During the Period of Review
    B. Salvi/Nutracare-Specific Issue
    Comment 2: Whether Nutracare/Salvi Had Shipments of Subject 
Merchandise During the Period of Review
VI. Recommendation

[FR Doc. 2016-25430 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P