[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 216 (Friday, November 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71049-71051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24701]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-831]


Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
and Partial Rescission, of the 24th Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2017-2018

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) published the 
Preliminary Results of the 24th administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of 
China (China) on January 15, 2020. The period of review (POR) is 
November 1, 2017 through October 31, 2018. The mandatory respondent in 
this review is Shijiazhuang Goodman Trading Co., Ltd. (Goodman). 
Commerce is also rescinding its review of nineteen companies including 
the other selected mandatory respondent Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., 
Ltd. (Harmoni). Based upon our analysis of the comments and information 
received, we made no changes to the margin calculated for mandatory 
respondent Goodman.

DATES: Applicable November 6, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Cipolla, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4956.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 71050]]

Background

    Commerce published the preliminary results of this administrative 
review of fresh garlic from China on January 15, 2020.\1\ We 
preliminarily found that the mandatory respondent Goodman sold subject 
merchandise to the United States at less than normal value. We 
rescinded the review with respect to eight companies for which their 
sole requests for review had been timely withdrawn.\2\ Furthermore, we 
preliminarily determined that the review requests submitted by the 
Coalition for Fair Trade in Garlic (CFTG) and Roots Farm Inc. (Roots 
Farm) were invalid and preliminarily rescinded the review with respect 
to the 19 companies solely requested by the CFTG and Roots Farm. 
Additionally, we found that three companies qualified for separate rate 
status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results, Preliminary Rescission, and Final Rescission, 
In Part, of the 24th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-
2018, 85 FR 2400 (January 15, 2020) (Preliminary Results) and 
accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM).
    \2\ Those companies are: Chengwu County Yuanxiang Industries; 
Jiang Hua Yao Autonomous County Nikko Biotechnology Co., Ltd.; 
Jiangsu Lvhui Food Co., Ltd.; Jiangyong Foreign Trade Corp.; 
Lianyungang Xiangjiang Food Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Ritai Food Co., Ltd.; 
Tianjin Calgry Import Export; and Weifang Naike Food Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 24, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative 
reviews by 50 days.\3\ On June 30, 2020, Commerce extended the deadline 
for these final results.\4\ On July 21, 2020, Commerce tolled all 
deadlines in administrative reviews by an additional 60 days.\5\ The 
deadline for the final results of this review is now November 2, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum, ``Tolling of Deadlines for Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews in Response to 
Operational Adjustments Due to COVID-19,'' dated April 24, 2020.
    \4\ See Memorandum, ``Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of 
China--24th Administrative Review: Extension of Deadline for the 
Final Results of the Review,'' dated June 30, 2020.
    \5\ See Memorandum, ``Tolling of Deadlines for Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,'' dated July 21, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFTG and Roots Farm each timely submitted case briefs.\6\ 
Harmoni and the petitioners each timely filed rebuttal briefs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CFTG's Letter, ``Case Brief,'' dated April 10, 2020; see 
also Roots Farm's Letter, ``Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic 
of China Antidumping Administrative Review: Case Brief of Roots 
Farm,'' dated April 13, 2020.
    \7\ See Harmoni's Letter, ``Harmoni Administrative Reply Briefs: 
24th Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh 
Garlic from the People's Republic of China (A-570-831),'' dated 
April 24, 2020 at Attachment 1 and Attachment 2; see also 
Petitioners' Letter, ``Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of 
China: Petitioners' Case Rebuttal Brief,'' dated April 24, 2020 .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are all grades of garlic, whole 
or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, 
chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other 
neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of 
other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades 
are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of 
the order does not include the following: (a) Garlic that has been 
mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, 
destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially 
prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and 
otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used 
principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is 
currently classifiable under subheadings: 0703.20.0000, 0703.20.0005, 
0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0015, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 
0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, 2005.90.9500, 2005.90.9700, 
and 2005.99.9700, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic from the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 59209
    (November 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive. In order to be excluded from the order, garlic entered 
under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically 
harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh 
use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then 
harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by 
declarations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to that 
effect.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All comments raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed 
in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.\9\ The comments are 
identified in Appendix I 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 (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to 
registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete 
version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly 
on the internet at http://trade.gov/enforcement/frn/index.html. The 
signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and electronic versions of the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 
Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of the 2017-2018 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Garlic from the 
People's Republic of China,'' dated November 2, 2020, and hereby 
adopted by this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In the Preliminary Results, in accordance with section 
777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, Commerce employed a limited examination 
methodology, as we determined that it would not be practicable to 
examine individually all companies for which a review request was 
made.\10\ There were three exporters of subject merchandise from China 
that have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate but were 
not selected for individual examination in this review. These three 
exporters are listed in the Final Results of Review section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Memorandum, ``Administrative Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: 
2017-2018: Selection of Respondents for Individual Examination,'' 
dated May 30, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither the Act nor Commerce's regulations address the 
establishment of the rate applied to individual companies not selected 
for examination where Commerce limited its examination in an 
administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. 
Commerce's practice in cases involving limited selection based on 
exporters accounting for the largest volume of imports 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 Commerce to use rates 
established for individually investigated producers and exporters, 
excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on 
facts available in investigations. In these final results of review, 
Goodman is the only reviewed respondent that received a weighted-
average dumping margin. Goodman's margin is the only margin that is not 
either de minimis or based entirely on adverse facts available. 
Therefore, we have assigned Goodman's margin to the non-selected 
separate rate respondents.

Final Results of Review

    Commerce finds that the following weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the POR:

[[Page 71051]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                                                                dumping
                          Exporter                              margin
                                                               (dollars
                                                                  per
                                                               kilogram)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shijiazhuang Goodman Trading Co., Ltd.......................        4.37
Jinxiang Feiteng Import & Export Co., Ltd...................        4.37
Chengwu Yuanxiang Industry & Commerce Co., Ltd..............        4.37
Qingdao Sea-Line International Trading Co., Ltd.............        4.37
China-Wide Entity...........................................        4.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance 
with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to direct CBP 
to assess rates based on the per-unit (i.e., per kilogram) amount on 
each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. Commerce also 
intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the 
publication date of the final results of review.
    Pursuant to Commerce's assessment practice in NME cases, for 
merchandise that was not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted 
by the exporter individually examined during this review, but that 
entered under the case number of that exporter (i.e., at the 
individually-examined exporter's cash deposit rate), Commerce intends 
to instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. In 
addition, if Commerce determines that an exporter under review had no 
shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that 
entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's 
rate) will be liquidated at the China-wide rate.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market 
Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 
76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Commerce intends to instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for 
antidumping duties equal to the weighted-average amount by which NV 
exceeds U.S. price. The following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective upon publication of these final results of this 
administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from 
China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the weighted-average 
dumping margin established in the final results of this review; (2) for 
previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters 
not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of 
this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the 
exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed 
segment of this proceeding; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the China-wide entity 
(i.e., 4.71 dollars per kilogram); and (4) for all non-Chinese 
exporters of subject merchandise that have not received their own rate, 
the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese 
exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a 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 POR. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement 
of antidumping duties has occurred, and the subsequent assessment of 
double antidumping duties.

Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 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 Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: November 2, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix 1

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Final Rescission of Administrative Review
V. Discussion of the Issues:
    Issue 1: Whether the CFTG has Standing to Request a Review
    Issue 2: Whether 26 U.S.C. 6103 Is Applicable
    Issue 3: Whether Sections 782(d) and 782(e) of the Act Are 
Applicable
    Issue 4: Whether Section 751 of the Act Requires Country-Wide 
Reviews
    Issue 5: Whether Commerce May Rescind a Review for a Company 
that Has Not Demonstrated the Absence of De Jure and De Facto 
Government Control
    Issue 6: Whether Commerce Exceeded its Authority to Combine 
Reviews
    Issue 7: Whether the Petitioners and Harmoni's Relationship 
Reveals Fraudulent Activity
    Issue 8: Whether Commerce Should Pursue an 18 U.S.C.1001 Case 
Against Ms. Medina
    Issue 9: Whether Harmoni and the FGPA Conspired to Defraud the 
United States
    Issue 10: Whether Roots Farm has Standing to Request an 
Administrative Review
    Issue 11: Whether Commerce Should Calculate a Margin for Harmoni
VI. Recommendation

Appendix 2

List of Companies for Which Administrative Reviews Have Been Rescinded

1. Hebei Golden Bird Trading Co., Ltd.
2. Jining Yongjia Trade Co., Ltd.
3. Jinxiang Changwei Agricultural Products Co., Ltd.
4. Jinxiang Dingyu Agricultural Products Co., Ltd.
5. Jinxiang Fitow Trading Co., Ltd.
6. Jinxiang Guihua Food Co., Ltd.
7. Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd.
8. Jinxiang Honghua Foodstuff Co., Ltd.
9. Jinxiang Infang Fruit & Vegetable Co., Ltd.
10. Jinxiang Kingkey Trade Co., Ltd.
11. Jinxiang Wanxing Garlic Products Co. Ltd.
12. Qingdao Doo Won Foods Co., Ltd.
13. Qingdao Joinseafoods Co. Ltd.
14. Shandong Chengwu Longxing Farm Produce & By-Products Co., Ltd.
15. Weifang Hongqiao International Logistics Co., Ltd.
16. Xinjiang Longping Hongan Xiwannian Chili Products Co., Ltd.
17. Yantai Jinyan Trading, Inc.
18. Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd.
19. Zhengzhou Yudishengjin Farm Products Co., Ltd.

[FR Doc. 2020-24701 Filed 11-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P