Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 12325 

1See ‘‘Partial Rescission of the Administrative 

Review’’ section below. 

2See ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section below. 

3See ‘‘The PRC–Wide Entity, PRC–Wide Rate, and 

Use of Adverse Facts Available’’ section below. 

4See ‘‘Intent to Rescind, in Part, the 

Administrative Review’’ section below. 

5See Antidumping Duty Order: Small Diameter 

Graphite Electrodes from the People’s Republic of 

China, 74 FR 8775 (February 26, 2009). 

6See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 5037 

(February 1, 2010). 

Manufacturers/producers/exporters Margin 

(percent) 

PRC–Wide Rate ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 53.65 

1 In the original order and subsequent administrative reviews, China First Pencil Co. Ltd (‘‘China First’’) and Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Three Star’’) were treated as separate entities. In the 1999–2000 administrative review, the Department determined that China 

First and Three Star should henceforth be treated as a single entity. See Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 48612 (July 25, 2002) (‘‘99–00 Pencils Final’’) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12, amended at Notice of Amended Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 59049 (September 19, 2002). The Department continued to treat China First and Three Star as a single entity in the four successive administrative reviews. In the 2006–2007 administrative review, 

the Department determined that due to new evidence regarding the relationship between China First and Three Star there was no longer a sufficient basis to combine the two companies. See Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 33406 (July 13, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1, 

amended at Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 

FR 45177 (September 1, 2009). The Department continues to view China First and Three Star as separate and distinct entities as a result of the 

2006–2007 administrative review determination. See Certain Cased Pencils From the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 38980 (July 7, 2010). 2The Department originally excluded from the order exports made by Guangdong Provincial Stationery & Sporting Goods Import & Export 

Corp. (‘‘Guangdong’’) and produced by Three Star. However, the Department determined in the 1999–2000 administrative review that the 

Guangdong/Three Star sales chain was no longer excluded from the order, and that all merchandise exported by Guangdong was subject to the 

cash deposit requirements at the PRC–Wide Rate. See 99–00 Pencils Final and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

1, amended at 67 FR 59049. 

This notice also 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 notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

is hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

final results and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 1, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5123 Filed 3–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–929] 

Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of the First 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order; Partial 

Rescission of Administrative Review; 

and Intent To Rescind Administrative 

Review, in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce. (‘‘Department’’) is 

conducting the first administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on small diameter graphite electrodes 

(‘‘SDGE’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’), covering the period 

August 21, 2008, through January 31, 

2010. The Department has preliminarily 

determined that during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) respondents in this 

proceeding have made sales of subject 

merchandise at less than normal value 

(‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of review, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR. The Department is also 

rescinding this review for those 

exporters for which requests for review 

were timely withdrawn.1 For the 

companies for which this review is 

rescinded, antidumping duties shall be 

assessed at rates equal to the cash 

deposit of estimated antidumping duties 

required at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption. Furthermore, we 

determine that four companies for 

which a review was requested have not 

been responsive, and thus have not 

demonstrated entitlement to a separate 

rate.2 As a result, we have preliminarily 

determined that they are part of the 

PRC-wide entity, and continue to be 

subject to the PRC-wide entity rate.3

Further, the Department intends to 

rescind this administrative review with 

respect to UK Carbon & Graphite 

(‘‘UKCG’’) if the Department concludes 

that there were no entries, exports, or 

sales of the subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR.4

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue final results no later than 

120 days from the date of publication of 

this notice, pursuant to section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lindsey Novom or Frances Veith, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5256 or (202) 482– 

4295, respectively. 

Background 

On February 26, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on SDGE from 

the PRC.5 On February 1, 2010, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on SDGE from the PRC.6 On February 

23, February 25, and February 26, 2010, 

the Department received timely requests 

for an administrative review of this 

antidumping duty order in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(b) from Fushun 

Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd 

(‘‘Fushun Jinly’’), Xinghe County Muzi 

Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Muzi Carbon’’), and 

Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Beijing Fangda’’), Chengdu Rongguang 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12326 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 

7 In the Initiation Notice, the firm names for these 

named companies were listed as follows: (1) 

‘‘Fushun Jinli Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. (aka 

Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd.),’’ (2) 

‘‘Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Co., Ltd. (aka Xinghe 

County Muzi Carbon Plant),’’ (3) Beijing Fangda was 

listed as shown above, (4) ‘‘Chengdu Rongguang 

Carbon Co., Ltd. (subsidiary of Liaoning Fangda 

Group Industrial Co., Ltd.),’’ (5) ‘‘Fangda Carbon 

New Material Co., Ltd. (subsidiary of Liaoning 

Fangda Group Industrial Co., Ltd. and formerly 

Lanzhou Hailong New Material Co),’’ (6) ‘‘Fushun 

Carbon Co., Ltd. (subsidiary of Liaoning Fangda 

Group Industrial Co., Ltd. and formerly Fushun 

Carbon Plant),’’ and (7) ‘‘Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd. 

(subsidiary of Liaoning Fangda Group Industrial 

Co., Ltd.).’’ See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 15679, 

15681–15683 (March 30, 2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’) 

8See id. 

9See the Department’s March 30, 2010, 

Memorandum to ‘‘All Interested Parties,’’ in which 

we requested comments regarding respondent 

selection based on the released CBP data. 

10See Initiation Notice. 

11See ‘‘Separate Rates,’’ ‘‘Partial Rescission of the 

Administrative Review,’’ and ‘‘Intent to Rescind, in 

Part, the Administrative Review’’ sections below. 

12See the Department’s memorandum regarding, 

‘‘Respondent Selection in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Small Diameter Graphite 

Electrodes from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated May 6, 2010. 

13See ‘‘Partial Rescission of the Administrative 

Review’’ section below. 

14See Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From 

the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limit for the Preliminary Results of the First 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order, 75 FR 64250 (October 19, 2010). 

15See the ‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. 

16See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances: Small Diameter Graphite 

Electrodes from the People’s Republic of China, 74 

FR 2049, 2051 (January 14, 2009) (‘‘SDGE Final 

LTFV Determination’’), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

17See the Department’s memorandums entitled, 

‘‘1st Administrative Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order on Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes 

from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the 

Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for 

the Fangda Group Companies,’’ (‘‘Fangda Group’s 

Preliminary Analysis Memo’’) and ‘‘1st 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from 

the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the 

Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for 

Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd’’ 

(‘‘Fushun Jinly’s Preliminary Analysis Memo’’), 

dated concurrently with this notice. 

Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Rongguang’’), Fangda 

Carbon New Material Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fangda 

Carbon’’), Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Fushun Carbon’’), and Hefei Carbon 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hefei’’) (collectively ‘‘the 

Fangda Group’’).7 On February 26, 2010, 

the Department also received a timely 

request for an administrative review of 

112 companies from SGL Carbon LLC 

and Superior Graphite Co. 

(‘‘Petitioners’’).8

On March 26, 2010, Petitioners 

submitted pre-initiation comments 

regarding respondent selection. On 

March 30, 2010, the Department 

released to interested parties CBP data 

covering POR imports of SDGE from the 

PRC, and invited these parties to 

comment on the Department’s 

respondent selection process.9

On March 30, 2010, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on SDGE from 

the PRC for 112 individually named 

firms.10 On April 29, 2010, the 

Department received four separate-rate 

certifications, two separate-rate 

applications, of which one company 

also filed a no-shipment certification 

and a request for rescission of this 

administrative review.11 On May 6, 

2010, the Department issued the 

respondent selection memorandum in 

which it selected the Fangda Group and 

Fushun Jinly as respondents for 

individual review.12

On May 26, 2010, the Department sent 

the antidumping duty questionnaires to 

the Fangda Group and Fushun Jinly. On 

June 28, 2010, we received from 

Petitioners a timely request for 

rescission of review for 100 of the 112 

companies for which the Department 

initiated a review.13 Between June 4, 

2010, and December 30, 2010, the 

Fangda Group and Fushun Jinly 

responded to the Department’s original 

and supplemental questionnaires. 

On October 19, 2010, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register extending the time limit for the 

preliminary results of review by the full 

120 days allowed under section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act to February 28, 

2011.14

Between January 10 and January 21, 

2011, the Department conducted 

verifications of two of the Fangda Group 

entities (Beijing Fangda and Fushun 

Carbon), as well as, Fushun Jinly and 

one of its tollers, Fushun Hexie Carbon 

Product Co., Ltd (‘‘Hexie’’).15

Period of Review 

The POR is August 21, 2008, through 

January 31, 2010. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order includes all small diameter 

graphite electrodes of any length, 

whether or not finished, of a kind used 

in furnaces, with a nominal or actual 

diameter of 400 millimeters (16 inches) 

or less, and whether or not attached to 

a graphite pin joining system or any 

other type of joining system or 

hardware. The merchandise covered by 

this order also includes graphite pin 

joining systems for small diameter 

graphite electrodes, of any length, 

whether or not finished, of a kind used 

in furnaces, and whether or not the 

graphite pin joining system is attached 

to, sold with, or sold separately from, 

the small diameter graphite electrode. 

Small diameter graphite electrodes and 

graphite pin joining systems for small 

diameter graphite electrodes are most 

commonly used in primary melting, 

ladle metallurgy, and specialty furnace 

applications in industries including 

foundries, smelters, and steel refining 

operations. Small diameter graphite 

electrodes and graphite pin joining 

systems for small diameter graphite 

electrodes that are subject to this order 

are currently classified under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 

8545.11.0000. The HTSUS number is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, but the written description of 

the scope is dispositive. 

Connecting Pins—Model Match 

Methodology 

On August 13, 2010, the Department 

determined that all connecting pins for 

SDGE, whether or not they are attached 

to, sold with, or sold separately from the 

SDGE are covered by the scope of this 

proceeding. We invited parties to 

submit comments regarding the 

appropriate methodology for reporting 

normal value for sales where connecting 

pins are sold with SDGEs at one price 

per metric ton. On August 19, 2010, 

both Petitioners and the Fangda Group 

submitted comments on reporting and 

model match methodology where 

connecting pins are sold with SDGEs as 

one finished product. 

We have previously determined that 

graphite connecting pins produced by 

respondents are covered by the 

description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ 

section, above, and are subject 

merchandise for purposes of 

determining appropriate fair value 

comparisons to U.S. sales.16 We 

compared respondent’s U.S. sales of 

SDGEs, including connecting pins, to its 

corresponding NV. In making the fair 

value comparisons, we compared NV to 

respondents’ individual export price 

(‘‘EP’’) based on the physical 

characteristics of the SDGE control 

number, or CONNUM, reported by 

respondents. For more information, see 

Fangda Carbon and Fushun Jinly’s 

respective analysis memoranda.17

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by the Fangda Group for 

Beijing Fangda and Fushun Carbon, and 

information submitted by Fushun Jinly 

for itself and its toller Hexie for use in 

our preliminary results. See the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 12327 

18See the Department’s memorandums entitled, 

‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of 

the Fangda Group Companies in the Antidumping 

Review of Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from 

the People’s Republic of China,’’ (‘‘Fangda Group’s 

Verification Report’’) and ‘‘Verification of the Sales 

and Factors Response of Fushun Jinly 

Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd in the Antidumping 

Review of Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from 

the People’s Republic of China’’ (‘‘Fushun Jinly’s 

Verification Report’’), dated concurrently with this 

notice. 

Department’s verification reports on the 

record of this investigation, available in 

the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of 

the main Department building, with 

respect to these entities.18 For all 

verified companies, we used standard 

verification procedures, including the 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by 

respondents. 

Partial Rescission of the Administrative 

Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if a party 

that requested the review withdraws the 

request within 90 days of the date of 

publication of the initiation notice of 

the requested review. Further, pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department 

is permitted to extend this time if it is 

reasonable to do so. 

For all but seven of the 112 

companies for which the Department 

initiated an administrative review, 

Petitioners were the only party that 

requested the review. On June 28, 2010, 

Petitioners timely withdrew their 

review requests for 100 of the 105 

companies in which the Petitioners 

were the only party that had requested 

an administrative review. Therefore, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), 

we are rescinding this administrative 

review with respect to the companies 

named as follows in the Initiation 

Notice: 

PARTIAL RESCISSION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

Firm Name 

1 .............. 5-Continent Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. (aka Sichuan 5-Continent Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.). 

2 .............. Acclcarbon Co., Ltd. 

3 .............. Allied Carbon (China) Co., Limited. 

4 .............. Anssen Metallurgy Group Co., Ltd. (aka AMGL). 

5 .............. Beijing Xincheng Sci-Tech. Development Inc. (formerly Beijing Xinchengze Inc.) (subsidiary of XC Carbon Group). 

6 .............. Brilliant Charter Limited. 

7 .............. Chengdelh Carbonaceouse Elements Factory. 

8 .............. Chengdu Jia Tang Corp. 

9 .............. China Shaanxi Richbond Imp. & Exp. Industrial Corp. Ltd. 

10 ............ China Xingyong Carbon Co., Ltd. (aka Xinghe Xingyong Carbon Co., Ltd.). 

11 ............ CIMM Group Co., Ltd. (formerly China Industrial Mineral & Metals Group). 

12 ............ Dalian Carbon & Graphite Corporation. 

13 ............ Dalian Hongrui Carbon Co., Ltd. 

14 ............ Dalian Horton International Trading Co., Ltd. 

15 ............ Dalian LST Metallurgy Co., Ltd. 

16 ............ Dalian Shuangji Co., Ltd. 

17 ............ Dalian Thrive Metallurgy Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 

18 ............ Datong Xincheng Carbon Co., Ltd. 

19 ............ Dechang Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. (aka Sichuan Dechang Shida Co., Ltd.; and subsidiary of Shida Carbon Group). 

20 ............ Dignity Success Investment Trading Co., Ltd. 

21 ............ Double Dragon Metals and Mineral Tools Co., Ltd. 

22 ............ Foset Co., Ltd. (aka Shanxi Foset Carbon Co. Ltd.). 

23 ............ GES (China) Co., Ltd. (aka Shanghai GC Co., Ltd.). 

24 ............ Guangdong Highsun Yongye (Group) Co., Ltd. (formerly Moaming Yongye (Group) Co., Ltd.). 

25 ............ Guanghan Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. (aka Sichuan Guanghan Shida Carbon Co., Ltd.; a subsidiary of Shida Carbon Group). 

26 ............ Haimen Shuguang Carbon Industry Co., Ltd. 

27 ............ Handan Hanbo Material Co., Ltd. 

28 ............ Hebei Long Great Wall Electrode Co., Ltd. (aka Chang Cheng Chang Electrode Co., Ltd. and Laishui Long Great Wall Electrode 

Co. Ltd.). 

29 ............ Heilongjiang Xinyuan Metacarbon Company, Ltd. (Heilongjiang Xinyuan Carbon Products Co., Ltd.). 

30 ............ Henan Sanli Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 

31 ............ Hopes (Beijing) International Co., Ltd. 

32 ............ Hunan Mec Machinery and Electronics Imp. & Exp. Corp. 

33 ............ Hunan Yinguang Carbon Factory Co., Ltd. 

34 ............ Inner Mongolia Xinghe County Hongyuan Electrical Carbon Factory. 

35 ............ Jiang Long Carbon. 

36 ............ Jiangsu Yafei Carbon Co., Ltd. 

37 ............ Jiaozuo Zhongzhou Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 

38 ............ Jichun International Trade Co., Ltd. of Jilin Province. 

39 ............ Jiexiu Juyuan Carbon Co., Ltd./Jiexiu Ju-Yuan & Coaly Co., Ltd. 

40 ............ Jilin Songjiang Carbon Co Ltd. 

41 ............ Jinyu Thermo-Electric Material Co., Ltd. 

42 ............ Kaifeng Carbon Company Ltd. 

43 ............ Kingstone Industrial Group Ltd. 

44 ............ L & T Group Co., Ltd. 

45 ............ Lanzhou Carbon Co., Ltd./Lanzhou Carbon Import & Export Corp. (aka Fangda Lanzhou Carbon Joint Stock Company Co. Ltd.; 

Lanzhou Hailong Technology; Lanzhou Hailong New Material Co.). 

46 ............ Lanzhou Ruixin Industrial Material Co., Ltd. 

47 ............ LH Carbon Factory of Chengde. 

48 ............ Lianyungang Jinli Carbon Co., Ltd. (aka Lianyungang Jianglida Co., Ltd.). 

49 ............ Liaoyang Carbon Co. Ltd. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12328 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 

19See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 15683. 

PARTIAL RESCISSION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW—Continued 

Firm Name 

50 ............ Linghai Hongfeng Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 

51 ............ Linyi County Lubei Carbon Co., Ltd. 

52 ............ Nantong Falter New Energy Co., Ltd. 

53 ............ Nantong River-East Carbon Joint Stock Co., Ltd. (aka Nantong River-East Carbon Co., Ltd.). 

54 ............ Nantong Yangtze Carbon Corp. Ltd. 

55 ............ Orient (Dalian) Carbon Resouces Developing Co., Ltd. 

56 ............ Peixian Longxiang Foreign Trade Co. Ltd. 

57 ............ Qingdao Grand Graphite Products Co., Ltd. 

58 ............ Qingdao Haosheng Metals Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. (aka Quingdao Haosheng Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Co.,Ltd.). 

59 ............ Qingdao Liyikun Carbon Development Co., Ltd. (aka Qingdao Likun Graphite Co., Ltd.). 

60 ............ Qingdao Ruizhen Carbon Co., Ltd. 

61 ............ Rt Carbon Co., Ltd. 

62 ............ Ruitong Carbon Co., Ltd. 

63 ............ Shandong Basan Carbon Plant. 

64 ............ Shanghai Carbon International Trade Co., Ltd. (affiliate of Xuzhou Jianglong Carbon Manufacture Co., Ltd.). 

65 ............ Shanghai GC Co., Ltd. (affiliated with GES (China) Co., Ltd.). 

66 ............ Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd. (affiliated with Jinneng Group). 

67 ............ Shanghai P.W. International Ltd. 

68 ............ Shanghai Topstate International Trading Co., Ltd. 

69 ............ Shanxi Datong Energy Development Co., Ltd. (aka Datong Carbon; subsidiary of Shanxi Jinneng Group Co., Ltd.). 

70 ............ Shanxi Jiexiu Import and Export Co., Ltd. 

71 ............ Shanxi Jinneng Group Co., Ltd. 

72 ............ Shanxi Yunheng Graphite Electrode Co., Ltd. (affiliated with Datong Carbon Plant). 

73 ............ Shenyang Jinli Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 

74 ............ Shida Carbon Group. 

75 ............ Shijaizhuang Carbon Co., Ltd. 

76 ............ Sichuan Shida Trading Co., Ltd. (subsidiary of Shida Carbon Group). 

77 ............ Sichuan GMT International Inc. 

78 ............ Sinosteel Anhui Co., Ltd. (subsidiary of Sinosteel Corp.). 

79 ............ Sinosteel Sichuan Co., Ltd. (subsidiary of Sinosteel Corp.). 

80 ............ SMMC Group Co., Ltd. 

81 ............ Tangshan Kimwan Special Carbon & Graphite Co., Ltd. 

82 ............ Tengchong Carbon Co., Ltd. 

83 ............ Tianjin (Teda) Iron & Steel Trade Co., Ltd. 

84 ............ Tianjin Yue Yang Industrial & Trading Co., Ltd. 

85 ............ Tianzhen Jintian Graphite Electrodes Co., Ltd. 

86 ............ Tielong (Chengdu) Carbon Co., Ltd. 

87 ............ United Carbon Ltd. 

88 ............ World Trade Metals & Minerals Co., Ltd. 

89 ............ Xinghe Xinyuan Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 

90 ............ Xinyuan Carbon Co., Ltd. 

91 ............ Xuanhua Hongli Refractory and Mineral Company. 

92 ............ Xuchang Minmetals & Industry Co., Ltd. 

93 ............ Xuzhou Jianglong Carbon Manufacture Co., Ltd. (aka Xuzhou Carbon Co., Ltd.; formerly Xuzhou Electrode Factory). 

94 ............ Yangzhou Qionghua Carbon Trading Ltd. 

95 ............ Yixing Huaxin Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. 

96 ............ Youth Industry Co., Ltd. 

97 ............ Zhengzhou Jinyu Thermo-Electric Material Co., Ltd. 

98 ............ Zibo Continent Carbon Factory (aka Shandong Zibo Continent Carbon Factory, aka Zibo Wuzhou Tanshun Carbon Co., Ltd.). 

99 ............ Zibo DuoCheng Trading Co., Ltd. 

100 .......... Zibo Lianxing Carbon Co., Ltd. (affiliated with Lianxing Carbon (Shandong) Co., Ltd., Weifang Lianxing Carbon Co., Ltd., Lianxing 

Carbon Qinghai Co., Ltd., and Lianxing Carbon Science Institute). 

Intent To Rescind, in Part, the 

Administrative Review 

Petitioners’ timely request for 

administrative reviews included a 

request to conduct an administrative 

review of UKCG. After initiating an 

administrative review of UKCG,19 the 

Department on April 29, 2010, received 

a certification of no shipments from 

UKCG and a request to rescind the 

administrative review of UKCG. On May 

18, 2010, the Department sent a 

supplemental questionnaire to UKCG 

requesting information pertaining to its 

input suppliers and its manufacturing 

operations in the United Kingdom. On 

June 1, 2010, UKCG responded to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire. On May 5, and May 21, 

2010, Petitioners submitted to the 

Department requests to keep UKCG in 

this administrative review and to seek 

further information and clarification 

from the company to ascertain the merit 

of its claim for rescission. On July 19, 

2010, UKCG submitted factual 

information, and on July 29, 2010, 

Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments 

on UKCG’s factual information. On 

August 9, 2010, UKCG submitted 

additional information and rebuttal 

comments on Petitioners July 29, 2010, 

submission. 

We made inquiries with CBP as to 

whether there were any entries of 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

exported by UKCG during the POR. See 

message number 1039304, dated 

February 8, 2011. We received no 

responses to those inquiries indicating 

that any shipments of subject 

merchandise from UKCG from the PRC 

entered during the POR. Further, in our 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 12329 

20See the Department’s March 30, 2010 

Memorandum to ‘‘All Interested Parties.’’ 

21See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the 

People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 

(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet 

Paper from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 

60632 (October 25, 2007). 

22See Petitioners’ submission regarding the 

appropriate surrogate country to be used for 

purposes of valuing FOPs in this administrative 

review, dated October 14, 2010. 

23See the Department’s letter to all interested 

parties regarding the ‘‘Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Small Diameter 

Graphite Electrodes (‘‘SDGE’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’),’’ dated September 29, 

2010 (‘‘Surrogate Countries Memorandum’’), at 2. 

24See Attachment to the Surrogate Countries 

Memorandum. 

25See the Department’s Policy Bulletin No. 04.1, 

regarding, ‘‘Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country 

Selection Process,’’ (March 1, 2004) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 

04.1’’), available on the Department’s Web site at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html. 

26See the Department’s memorandum to the file 

regarding the preliminary factor values used in this 

administrative review, dated concurrently with this 

notice (‘‘Factor Valuation Memorandum’’). 

respondent selection process, we 

released CBP data covering POR imports 

of SDGE from the PRC to interested 

parties. Upon examination of this data, 

we found no entries of subject 

merchandise from the PRC exported by 

UKCG during the POR.20 Based on the 

above, we preliminarily find that UKCG 

had no shipments of SDGE from the 

PRC during the POR, and we intend to 

rescind the review with respect to 

UKCG pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3). 

Interested parties may submit 

comments on the Department’s intent to 

rescind this review with respect to 

UKCG no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. The Department will 

issue the final rescission (if 

appropriate), which will include the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any comments received, in the final 

results of review. 

Non-Market-Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country.21 In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, any determination that a 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. None of the 

parties to this proceeding has contested 

such treatment. Accordingly, the 

Department calculated NV in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, which applies to NME countries. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department conducts an 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of imports from an NME country, 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the 

Department to base NV, in most cases, 

on the NME producer’s factors of 

production (‘‘FOP’’), valued in a 

surrogate market-economy (‘‘ME’’) 

country or countries considered 

appropriate by the Department. In 

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, the Department will value FOPs 

using ‘‘to the extent possible, the prices 

or costs of the FOPs in one or more 

market-economy countries that are: (A) 

At a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the NME country, 

and (B) significant producers of 

comparable merchandise.’’ 

With respect to the Department’s 

selection of surrogate country, 

Petitioners argue that the Ukraine is the 

most appropriate surrogate country from 

which to derive surrogate factor values 

for the PRC because Ukraine’s per capita 

gross national income (‘‘GNI’’) is 

economically comparable to the PRC 

and is also a significant producer of 

SDGE.22 Petitioners also state that in the 

alternative, the Department should rely 

on India to derive surrogate factor 

values for the PRC, as it did in the 

investigation. Although Petitioners 

suggested we use Ukrainian financial 

statements as a source for valuing 

financial ratios and placed one such 

financial statement on the record, 

Petitioners additionally placed on the 

record financial ratio calculations of an 

Indian producer. 

On November 8, 2010, respondents 

Fangda Group and Fushun Jinly 

submitted rebuttal comments to 

Petitioners’ surrogate country 

submission, in which respondents argue 

that India is both economically 

comparable to the PRC and a significant 

producer of identical merchandise (i.e., 

SDGE) and the administrative record 

establishes that India is a superior data 

source as compared to Ukraine. 

Respondents maintain that the record 

contains complete and audited Indian 

financial statements from two 

companies that produce identical 

merchandise to SDGE while the 

financial statement from the Ukraine is 

incomplete and not fully translated. 

Respondents also contend that 

Petitioners’ reliance on Ukraine’s GNI as 

the basis for replacing India because 

Ukraine’s GNI is closer to the PRC’s 

than that of India’s GNI, is unavailing. 

Respondents argue that it is the 

Department’s practice to select surrogate 

values from a country that is at a level 

of economic development ‘‘comparable’’ 

to the NME country, not on the basis of 

the country that is most comparable in 

terms of GNI. Further, the Department’s 

August 30, 2010, memorandum which 

set forth a non-exhaustive list of six 

countries determined to be at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

the PRC (inclusive of both the India and 

Ukraine), specifically noted that all of 

the listed countries ‘‘are economically 

comparable to the PRC’’ and ‘‘{t}he 

surrogate countries on the list are not 

ranked and should be considered 

equivalent in terms of economic 

comparability.’’ 23 Additionally, 

respondents maintain that the 

availability of two companies in India 

from which to calculate surrogate 

financial ratios further establishes that 

India is a superior data source compared 

to the Ukraine. Thus, respondents argue 

that the Department should continue to 

use India as the primary surrogate 

country in this proceeding. 

In the instant review, the Department 

has identified India, Indonesia, the 

Philippines, Ukraine, Thailand, and 

Peru as a non-exhaustive list of 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to the PRC 

and for which good quality data are 

most likely available.24 The Department 

uses per capita GNI as the primary basis 

for determining economic 

comparability.25 Once the countries that 

are economically comparable to the PRC 

have been identified, the Department 

selects an appropriate surrogate country 

by determining whether an 

economically comparable country is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise and whether data for 

valuing FOPs are both available and 

reliable. Like the PRC, India has a broad 

and diverse production base, and the 

Department has reliable data from India 

that it can use to value the FOPs, while 

for Ukraine there are not reliable 

Ukrainian surrogate financial statements 

on the record with which to calculate 

the financial ratios.26 Therefore, the 

Department has determined that it is 

appropriate to use India as a surrogate 

country for the purposes of this 

administrative review, pursuant to 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act, based on 

the following: (1) It is at a similar level 

of economic development to the PRC; 

(2) it is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise, and (3) the 

Department has reliable data from India 

that it can use to value the FOPs. 

Accordingly, we have calculated NV 

using Indian prices when available and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12330 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 

27See Surrogate Value Memorandum; see also 

‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section, below. 

28 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for 

the final results of this administrative review, 

interested parties may submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct factual information 

submitted by an interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for 

submission of such factual information. However, 

the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) 

permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 

clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on 

the record. The Department generally will not 

accept the submission of additional, previously 

absent-from-the-record, alternative surrogate value 

information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See 

Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 

(October 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

29See, e.g., Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses From the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 75 FR 24892, 24899 (May 6, 2010), 

unchanged in Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 

FR 59217 (September 27, 2010). 

30See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 15680. 

31 Id. 

32See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

33See Beijing Fangda’s, Fushun Carbon’s, Fangda 

Carbon’s, Rongguang’s, and Heifei’s Section A 

Questionnaire Responses, dated June 4, 2010; 

Fushun Jinly’s Section A Questionnaire Response, 

dated June 7, 2010; and Muzi Carbon’s Separate 

Rate Certification, dated April 29, 2010. 

34See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see 

also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 

(May 8, 1995). 

appropriate to value each respondent’s 

FOPs.27

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of 

an administrative review, interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value the FOPs within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results.28

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty rate.29 It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to 

review in an NME country this single 

rate unless an exporter can demonstrate 

that it is sufficiently independent so as 

to be entitled to a separate rate. 

Exporters can demonstrate this 

independence through the absence of 

both de jure and de facto government 

control over export activities. The 

Department analyzes each entity 

exporting the subject merchandise 

under a test arising from the Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 

1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further developed 

in the Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon 

Carbide’’). However, if the Department 

determines that a company is wholly 

foreign-owned or located in a market 

economy, then a separate-rate analysis 

is not necessary to determine whether it 

is independent from government 

control. 

In order to demonstrate separate-rate 

status eligibility, the Department 

normally requires entities, for whom a 

review was requested, and who were 

assigned a separate rate in a previous 

segment of this proceeding, to submit a 

separate-rate certification stating that 

they continue to meet the criteria for 

obtaining a separate rate.30 For entities 

that were not assigned a separate rate in 

the previous segment of a proceeding, to 

demonstrate eligibility for such, the 

Department requires a separate-rate 

application.31 On April 29, 2010, 

Shanghai Jinneng International Trade 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jinneng’’), Sichuan Guanghan 

Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shida’’), and 

Muzi Cabon each submitted separate 

rate certifications. On June 1, 2010, 

Qingdao Hao Sheng Metals & Minerals 

Import & Exports Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hao Sheng 

Metals’’) and UKCG submitted a separate 

rate application. On June 28, 2010, 

Petitioners withdrew their review 

requests for Jinneng, Shida, and Hao 

Sheng Metals. For further information, 

see the ‘‘Partial Rescission of the 

Administrative Review’’ section above. 

The Department also intends to rescind 

the administrative review with respect 

to UKCG. For further information, see 

the ‘‘Intent to Rescind, in Part, the 

Administrative Review’’ section above. 

In this administrative review, of the 

five entities not selected for individual 

review (i.e., (1) Muzi Carbon, (2) 

Shijiazhuang Huanan Carbon Factory 

(‘‘Huanan Carbon’’), (3) Sinosteel Jilin 

Carbon Co., Ltd./Sinosteel Jilin Carbon 

Import & Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Sinosteel 

Jilin’’), (4) Jilin Carbon Graphite Material 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jilin Carbon’’), and (5) Jilin 

Carbon Import and Export Company 

(‘‘Jilin Carbon I&E’’)) for which the 

review has not been rescinded or for 

which the Department does not intend 

to rescind the review, only one 

company, Muzi Carbon, submitted 

separate-rate information. The 

remaining four companies (Huanan 

Carbon, Sinosteel Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and 

Jilin Carbon I&E) did not provide either 

a separate rate application or separate 

rate certification, as applicable, and will 

be considered part of the PRC-wide 

entity. See ‘‘The PRC-Wide Rate, PRCWide Entity, and Use of Adverse Facts 

Available’’ section below. 

The two mandatory respondents (i.e., 

the Fangda Group and Fushun Jinly) 

and Muzi Carbon have provided 

company-specific information and each 

stated that it meets the criteria for the 

assignment of a separate rate. 

a. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies.32

The evidence provided by the Fangda 

Group, Fushun Jinly, and Muzi Carbon 

supports a preliminary finding of de 

jure absence of government control 

based on the following: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with the individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) there are 

applicable legislative enactments 

decentralizing control of the companies; 

and (3) there are formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

the companies.33

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses.34

The Department has determined that 

an analysis of de facto control is critical 

in determining whether respondents 

are, in fact, subject to a degree of 

government control over export 

activities which would preclude the 

Department from assigning separate 

rates. For the Fangda Group, Fushun 

Jinly, and Muzi Carbon, we determine 

that the evidence on the record supports 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 12331 

35See Beijing Fangda’s, Fushun Carbon’s, Fangda 

Carbon’s, Rongguang’s, and Heifei’s Section A 

Questionnaire Responses, dated June 4, 2010; 

Fushun Jinly’s Section A Questionnaire Response, 

dated June 7, 2010; and Muzi Carbon’s Separate 

Rate Certification Response, dated April 29, 2010. 

36See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and 

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 

8273, 8279 (February 13, 2008), unchanged in 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper 

Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 2008). 

37See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), 

unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007). 

38See Statement of Administrative Action 

(‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d 

Session at 870 (1994). 

39See SAA at 870. 

40See SAA at 869. 

a preliminary finding of de facto 

absence of government control based on 

record statements and supporting 

documentation showing the following: 

(1) Each respondent sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; (2) each 

respondent retains the proceeds from its 

sales and makes independent decisions 

regarding disposition of profits or 

financing of losses; (3) each respondent 

has the authority to negotiate and sign 

contracts and other agreements; and (4) 

each respondent has autonomy from the 

government regarding the selection of 

management.35 Additionally, each of 

these companies’ questionnaire 

responses indicate that its pricing 

during the POR does not involve 

coordination among exporters. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this review by the Fangda Group, 

Fushun Jinly, and Muzi Carbon 

demonstrates an absence of de jure and 

de facto government control with 

respect each company’s respective 

exports of the merchandise under 

review, in accordance with the criteria 

identified in Sparklers and Silicon 

Carbide. Therefore, we are preliminarily 

granting the Fangda Group, Fushun 

Jinly, and Muzi Carbon each a separate 

rate. 

Margin for Separate Rate Company 

The statute and the Department’s 

regulations do not address the 

establishment of a rate to be 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. Generally, 

we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of 

the Act, which provides instructions for 

calculating the all-others rate in an 

investigation, for guidance when 

calculating the rate for respondents we 

did not examine in an administrative 

review. For the exporters subject to a 

review that were determined to be 

eligible for separate rate status, but were 

not selected as mandatory respondents, 

the Department generally weightaverages the rates calculated for the 

mandatory respondents, excluding any 

rates that are zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’).36

As discussed above, the Department 

received a timely and complete separate 

rate certification from Muzi Carbon, 

who is an exporter of SDGE from the 

PRC during the POR and who was not 

selected as a mandatory respondent in 

this review. In this segment, this 

company has demonstrated its 

eligibility for a separate rate, as 

discussed above. Consistent with the 

Department’s practice, as the separate 

rate, we have established a margin for 

Muzi Carbon based on the weightedaverage of the rates we calculated for the 

mandatory respondents, the Fangda 

Group and Fushun Jinly, excluding, 

where appropriate, any rates that were 

zero, de minimis, or based entirely on 

AFA.37

The PRC-Wide Entity, PRC-Wide Rate, 

and Use of Adverse Facts Available 

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act 

provide that the Department shall apply 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not on the 

record or an interested party or any 

other person: (A) Withholds information 

that has been requested; (B) fails to 

provide information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form 

and manner requested by the 

Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding; or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified as provided by section 782(i) of 

the Act. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits, subject to section 782(e) of 

the Act, the Department may disregard 

all or part of the original and subsequent 

responses, as appropriate. Section 

782(e) of the Act provides that the 

Department ‘‘shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all applicable requirements established 

by the administering authority’’ if the 

information is timely, can be verified, is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis, and if the interested 

party acted to the best of its ability in 

providing the information. Where all of 

these conditions are met, the statute 

requires the Department to use the 

information if it can do so without 

undue difficulties. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Section 776(b) 

of the Act also authorizes the 

Department to use as adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) information derived 

from the petition, the final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise.’’ 38

‘‘Corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value.39 To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information to be used. The SAA 

explains, however, that the Department 

need not prove that the selected facts 

available are the best alternative 

information.40

For the reasons discussed below, we 

determine that, in accordance with 

sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, 

the use of AFA is warranted for the 

preliminary results for the PRC-wide 

entity, including Huanan Carbon, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12332 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 

41See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 15680. 

42See id. 

43See id. 

44See id. 

45See ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section above; see also 

Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 15680. 

46See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the 

People’s Republic of China; Notice of Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 

76761 (December 28, 2005), unchanged in Certain 

Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

38366 (July 6, 2006). 

47See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 

F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (upholding the 

Department’s presumption that the highest margin 

was the best information of current margins) 

(‘‘Rhone Poulenc’’); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 

F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 

73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available 

dumping margin from a different respondent in a 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation); 

Kompass Food Trading International v. United 

States, 24 CIT 678, 683 (2000) (upholding a 51.16 

percent total AFA rate, the highest available 

dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative 

respondent); and Shanghai Taoen International 

Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 

1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent 

total AFA rate, the highest available dumping 

margin from a different respondent in a previous 

administrative review). 

48See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 

8932 (February 23, 1998). 

49See SAA at 870; see also Brake Rotors From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative 

Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper 

Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005). 

50See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F. 2d at 1190. 

51See SDGE Final LTFV Determination, 74 FR at 

2054–55. 

52See Section 776(c) of the Act and the 

‘‘Corroboration of Facts Available’’ section below. 

53See SAA at 870. 

54See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Sinosteel Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and Jilin 

Carbon I&E. 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that the named 

companies that wish to qualify for 

separate-rate status in this proceeding 

must complete, as appropriate, either a 

separate rate application or 

certification.41 In proceedings involving 

the PRC, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate.42 It is 

the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

administrative review in an NME 

country this single rate unless an 

exporter can demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently independent so as to be 

entitled to a separate rate.43 Huanan 

Carbon, Sinosteel Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and 

Jilin Carbon I&E did not file with the 

Department either a separate rate 

application or a certification, a 

requirement for qualifying for separaterate status in this proceeding as 

stipulated in the Initiation Notice.44

Because Huanan Carbon, Sinosteel 

Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and Jilin Carbon I&E 

did not submit any information to 

establish their eligibility for separaterate status, we find they are deemed to 

be part of the PRC-wide entity.45

Because we have determined that 

Huanan Carbon, Sinosteel Jilin, Jilin 

Carbon, and Jilin Carbon I&E are not 

entitled to separate rates and are now 

part of the PRC-wide entity, the PRCwide entity (including Huanan Carbon, 

Sinosteel Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and Jilin 

Carbon I&E) is now under review. The 

PRC-wide entity did not respond to our 

requests for information. Because the 

PRC-wide entity did not respond to our 

requests for information, we find it 

necessary under section 776(a)(2) of the 

Act to use facts available as the basis for 

these preliminary results. Because the 

PRC-wide entity provided no 

information, we determine that sections 

782(d) and (e) of the Act are not relevant 

to our analysis. We further find that the 

PRC-wide entity (including Huanan 

Carbon, Sinosteel Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and 

Jilin Carbon I&E) failed to respond to the 

Department’s requests for information 

and, therefore, did not cooperate to the 

best of its ability. Therefore, because the 

PRC-wide entity did not cooperate to 

the best of its ability in the proceeding, 

the Department finds it necessary to use 

an adverse inference in making its 

determination, pursuant to section 

776(b) of the Act. 

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available 

Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the 

Department to rely on information 

derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any other information placed on 

the record. It is the Department’s 

practice to select, as AFA, the highest 

calculated rate in any segment of the 

proceeding.46

The Court of International Trade 

(‘‘CIT’’) and the Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’) have 

consistently upheld the Department’s 

practice.47 The Department’s practice 

when selecting an adverse rate from 

among the possible sources of 

information is to ensure that the margin 

is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate 

the purpose of the facts available role to 

induce respondents to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

information in a timely manner.’’ 48 The 

Department’s practice also ensures ‘‘that 

the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ 49 In 

choosing the appropriate balance 

between providing respondents with an 

incentive to respond accurately and 

imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondents’ prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

highest prior margin in this instance 

‘‘reflects a common sense inference that 

the highest prior margin is the most 

probative evidence of current margins 

because, if it were not so, the importer, 

knowing of the rule, would have 

produced current information showing 

the margin to be less.’’ 50

Because of Huanan Carbon’s, 

Sinosteel Jilin’s, Jilin Carbon’s, and Jilin 

Carbon I&E’s failure to cooperate in this 

administrative review, we have 

preliminarily assigned the PRC-wide 

entity, of which they are deemed to be 

a part, an AFA rate of 159.64 percent, 

which is the PRC-wide rate determined 

in the investigation and the rate 

currently applicable to the PRC-wide 

entity.51

The Department preliminarily 

determines that this information is the 

most appropriate from the available 

sources to effectuate the purposes of 

AFA. The Department’s reliance on the 

PRC-wide rate from the original 

investigation to determine an AFA rate 

is subject to the requirement to 

corroborate secondary information.52

Corroboration of Facts Available 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at the Department’s 

disposal. Secondary information is 

described in the SAA as ‘‘information 

derived from the petition that gave rise 

to the investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning the subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise.’’ 53 The SAA 

explains that ‘‘corroborate’’ means to 

determine that the information used has 

probative value. The Department has 

determined that to have probative value, 

information must be reliable and 

relevant.54 The SAA also explains that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 12333 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

55See SAA at 870; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183 

(March 11, 2005). 

56See Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from 

the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 8287 

(February 13, 2008) (‘‘SDGE Investigation 

Initiation’’); see also Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: 

Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 31970, 31972 

(June 5, 2008) (where the Department relied upon 

pre-initiation analysis to corroborate the highest 

margin alleged in the petition). 

57See SDGE Investigation Initiation, 73 FR at 

8288–8290. 

58See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer 

Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian 

Federation, 65 FR 1139, 1141 (January 7, 2000), 

unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer 

Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian 

Federation, 65 FR 42669 (July 11, 2000). 

59See Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

60See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof 

Assembly Components Div of Ill Tool Works v. 

United States, 268 F. 3d 1376, 1382–1383 (Fed. Cir. 

2001) (affirming the Department’s use of marketbased prices to value certain FOPs). 61See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 (December 

4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final Results of 

First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China, 

66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. 

independent sources used to corroborate 

such evidence may include, for 

example, published price lists, official 

import statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation.55

As stated above, we are applying as 

AFA the highest rate from any segment 

of this administrative proceeding, which 

is the PRC-wide rate of 159.64 percent. 

The 159.64 percent is the highest rate on 

the record of any segment of this 

antidumping duty order. In the 

investigation, the Department relied 

upon our pre-initiation analysis of the 

adequacy and accuracy of the 

information in the Petition.56 During our 

pre-initiation analysis, we examined the 

information used as the basis of EP and 

NV in the Petition, and the calculations 

used to derive the alleged margins. Also, 

during our pre-initiation analysis, we 

examined information from various 

independent sources provided either in 

the Petition or, based on our requests, in 

supplements to the Petition, which 

corroborated key elements of the export 

price and NV calculations.57 Since the 

investigation, the Department has found 

no other corroborating information 

available in this case, and received no 

comments from interested parties as to 

the relevance or reliability of this 

secondary information. Based upon the 

above, for these preliminary results, the 

Department finds that the rates derived 

from the Petition are corroborated to the 

extent practicable for purposes of the 

AFA rate assigned to the PRC-wide 

entity, including Huanan Carbon, 

Sinosteel Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and Jilin 

Carbon I&E. 

Because these are the preliminary 

results of review, the Department will 

consider all margins on the record at the 

time of the final results of review for the 

purpose of determining the most 

appropriate final margin for the PRCwide entity.58

Fair-Value Comparisons 

To determine whether the Fangda 

Group’s and Fushun Jinly’s sales of 

subject merchandise were made at less 

than NV, we compared the NV to 

individual EP transactions in 

accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of 

the Act. See ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice, below. 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, EP is ‘‘the price at which subject 

merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 

sold) before the date of importation by 

the producer or exporter of the subject 

merchandise outside of the United 

States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States or to an unaffiliated 

purchaser for exportation to the United 

States,’’ as adjusted under section 772(c) 

of the Act. For each respondent, we 

used EP methodology, in accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act, for sales 

in which the subject merchandise was 

first sold prior to importation by the 

exporter outside the United States 

directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in 

the United States and for sales in which 

constructed export price was not 

otherwise indicated. 

We based EP on the price to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. In accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, where 

appropriate, we made deductions from 

the starting price (gross unit price) for 

foreign inland freight and foreign 

brokerage and handling. We valued 

brokerage and handling using a price 

list of export procedures necessary to 

export a standardized cargo of goods in 

India. The price list is compiled based 

on a survey case study of the procedural 

requirements for trading a standard 

shipment of goods by ocean transport in 

India as reported in ‘‘Doing Business 

2010: India’’ published by the World 

Bank.59

Normal Value 

We compared NV to individual EP 

transactions in accordance with section 

777A(d)(2) of the Act, as appropriate. 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine NV 

using an FOP methodology if: (1) The 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

country; and (2) the information does 

not permit the calculation of NV using 

home market prices, third country 

prices, or constructed value under 

section 773(a) of the Act. When 

determining NV in an NME context, the 

Department will base NV on FOPs 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of these 

economies renders price comparisons 

and the calculation of production costs 

invalid under our normal 

methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) 

of the Act, FOPs include but are not 

limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; 

(2) quantities of raw materials 

employed; (3) amounts of energy and 

other utilities consumed; and (4) 

representative capital costs. The 

Department used FOPs reported by the 

respondents for materials, energy, labor, 

packing and by-products. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on 

FOPs reported by respondents for the 

POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department will 

normally use publicly available 

information to find an appropriate 

surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) to value FOPs, 

but when a producer sources an input 

from a market economy and pays for it 

in market economy currency, the 

Department normally will value the 

factor using the actual price paid for the 

input if the quantities were meaningful 

and where the prices have not been 

distorted by dumping or subsidies.60 To 

calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor-consumption 

rates by publicly available SVs (except 

as discussed below). In selecting SVs, 

we considered the quality, specificity, 

and contemporaneity of the data.61 As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to import SVs surrogate freight cost 

using the shorter of the reported 

distance from the domestic supplier to 

the factory or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory, where 

appropriate. This adjustment is in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12334 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 

62See Surrogate Countries Memorandum. 

63See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), 

unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). 

64See Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

65See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5, 2009) 

(‘‘Kitchen Racks Prelim’’), unchanged in Certain 

Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 

2009) (‘‘Kitchen Racks Final’’). 

66Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 

1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. 

No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (‘‘OTCA 

1988’’) at 590, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 

1623–24. 

67See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order on Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 

2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at 4–5; Expedited Sunset Review of 

the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia, 

70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4; CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 

Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 

15, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at 17, 19–20; Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 

66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23. 

68See, e.g., Kitchen Racks Prelim, 74 FR at 9600, 

unchanged in Kitchen Racks Final. 

69See id. 

70See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 

1997). 

71See Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy 

Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 

71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) 

(‘‘Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy 

Inputs’’). 

72See Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, 71 FR at 61718. 

73See Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

74See id. 

accordance with the Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit’s decision in 

Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 

1401, 1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

On September 29, 2010, the 

Department invited all interested parties 

to submit publicly available information 

to value FOPs for consideration in the 

Department’s preliminary results of 

review.62 On October 28, 2010, 

Petitioners, the Fangda Group, and 

Fushun Jinly each submitted publicly 

available information to value FOPs for 

the preliminary results and each 

submitted rebuttal comments on 

November 8, 2010. A detailed 

description of all SVs used for the 

Fangda Group and Fushun Jinly can be 

found in the Factor Valuation 

Memorandum. 

For the preliminary results, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, except where noted below, we 

used data from the Indian import 

Statistics in the Global Trade Atlas 

(‘‘GTA’’) and other publicly available 

Indian sources in order to calculate SVs 

for the Fangda Group’s and Fushun 

Jinly’s FOPs (i.e., direct materials, 

energy, and packing materials) and 

certain movement expenses. In selecting 

the best available information for 

valuing FOPs in accordance with 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the 

Department’s practice is to select, to the 

extent practicable, SVs which are nonexport average values, most 

contemporaneous with the POR, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive.63

The record shows that data in the Indian 

Import Statistics, as well as those from 

the other Indian sources, are 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive.64 In 

those instances where we could not 

obtain publicly available information 

contemporaneous to the POR with 

which to value factors, we adjusted the 

SVs using, where appropriate, the 

Indian Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as 

published in the IMF’s International 

Financial Statistics.65

As explained in the legislative history 

of the Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988, the 

Department continues to apply its longstanding practice of disregarding SVs if 

it has a reason to believe or suspect the 

source data may be subsidized.66 In this 

regard, the Department has previously 

found that it is appropriate to disregard 

such prices from India, Indonesia, South 

Korea and Thailand because we have 

determined that these countries 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry specific export subsidies.67

Based on the existence of these subsidy 

programs that were generally available 

to all exporters and producers in these 

countries at the time of the POR, the 

Department finds that it is reasonable to 

infer that all exporters from India, 

Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand 

may have benefitted from these 

subsidies. Additionally, we disregarded 

prices from NME countries.68 Finally, 

imports that were labeled as originating 

from an ‘‘unspecified’’ country were 

excluded from the average value, 

because the Department could not be 

certain that they were not from either an 

NME country or a country with 

generally available export subsidies.69

The Fangda Group and Fushun Jinly 

claim that certain of their reported raw 

material inputs were sourced from an 

ME country and paid for in ME 

currencies. When a respondent sources 

inputs from an ME supplier in 

meaningful quantities, we use the actual 

price paid by respondent for those 

inputs, except when prices may have 

been distorted by dumping or 

subsidies.70 Where we found ME 

purchases to be of significant quantities 

(i.e., 33 percent or more), in accordance 

with our statement of policy as outlined 

in Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs,71 we used the actual 

purchases of these inputs to value the 

inputs. 

Accordingly, we valued certain of 

respondents’ inputs using the ME prices 

paid for in ME currencies for the inputs 

where the total volume of the input 

purchased from all ME sources during 

the POR exceeds or is equal to 33 

percent of the total volume of the input 

purchased from all sources during the 

period. Where the quantity of the 

reported input purchased from ME 

suppliers was below 33 percent of the 

total volume of the input purchased 

from all sources during the POR, and 

were otherwise valid, we weightaveraged the ME input’s purchase price 

with the appropriate surrogate value for 

the input according to their respective 

shares of the reported total volume of 

purchases.72 Where appropriate, we 

added freight to the ME prices of inputs. 

For a detailed description of the actual 

values used for the ME inputs reported, 

see the Fangda Group’s and Fushun 

Jinly’s analysis memoranda, dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

We valued truck freight expenses 

using a per-unit average rate calculated 

from data on the infobanc Web site: 

http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this Web site contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities.73 We valued rail freight using 

freight rate information from the 

publicly accessible Indian Ministry of 

Railways Web site http://

www.Indianrailways.gov.in/ to derive, 

where appropriate, input-specific train 

rates on a rupees-per-kilogram perkilometer basis (‘‘Rs/kg/km’’). These 

rates are contemporaneous with the 

POR. We valued inland water freight 

using price data for barge freight 

reported in a March 19, 2007, article 

published in The Hindu Business 

Line.74 Since the inland water 

transportation rates are not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 12335 

75See id. 

76See, e.g., Wire Decking from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 32905 (June 10, 2010), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3. 

77See Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

78See id. 

79Because India (the primary surrogate country) 

did not report wage data in ISIC-Revision 3, which 

was relied upon for industry-specific wage rates in 

these preliminary results, it is not among the 

countries that the Department considered for 

inclusion in the average. 

80See id. 

81See id. 

82See Fangda Group’s Verification Report; see 

also the Fangda Group’s Preliminary Analysis 

Memo. 

83See Fangda Group’s Verification Report. 

inflated the rates using the Indian WPI 

inflator. 

We valued electricity using the 

updated electricity price data for small, 

medium, and large industries, as 

published by the Central Electricity 

Authority, an administrative body of the 

Government of India, in its publication 

titled ‘‘Electricity Tariff & Duty and 

Average Rates of Electricity Supply in 

India,’’ dated March 2008. These 

electricity rates represent actual 

country-wide, publicly-available 

information on tax-exclusive electricity 

rates charged to small, medium, and 

large industries in India.75 Because the 

rates listed in this source became 

effective on a variety of different dates, 

we are not adjusting the average value 

for inflation. In other words, the 

Department did not inflate this value to 

the POR because the utility rates 

represent current rates, as indicated by 

the effective date listed for each of the 

rates provided.76

We valued steam coal using data 

obtained for grade C long flame and 

non-long flame non-coking coal 

reported on the 2007 Coal India Data 

website (‘‘Coal India’’).77

We valued water using the revised 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation water rates available at 

http://www.midcindia.com/watersupply.78

On May 14, 2010, the Federal Circuit 

in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 

F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010), found 

that the ‘‘{regression-based} method for 

calculating wage rates {as stipulated by 

19 CFR 351.408(c)(3)} uses data not 

permitted by {the statutory 

requirements laid out in section 773 of 

the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c))}.’’ The 

Department is continuing to evaluate 

options for determining labor values in 

light of the recent CAFC decision. 

However, for these preliminary results, 

we have calculated an hourly wage rate 

to use in valuing respondents’ reported 

labor input by averaging industryspecific earnings and/or wages in 

countries that are economically 

comparable to the PRC and that are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. 

For the preliminary results of this 

administrative review, the Department 

is valuing labor using a simple average 

industry-specific wage rate using 

earnings and/or wage data reported 

under Chapter 5B by the International 

Labor Organization (‘‘ILO’’). To achieve 

an industry-specific labor value, we 

relied on industry-specific labor data 

from the countries we determined to be 

both economically comparable to the 

PRC and significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. A full 

description of the industry-specific 

wage rate calculation methodology is 

provided in the Factor Valuation 

Memorandum. The Department 

calculated a simple average industryspecific wage rate of $1.47 for these 

preliminary results. Specifically, for this 

review, the Department has calculated 

the wage rate using a simple average of 

the data provided to the ILO under SubClassification 31 of the ISIC-Revision 3 

standard by countries determined to be 

both economically comparable to the 

PRC and significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. The 

Department finds the two-digit 

description under ISIC-Revision 3 

(‘‘Manufacture of Electrical Machinery 

and Apparatus NEC’’) to be the best 

available wage rate surrogate value on 

the record because it is specific and 

derived from industries that produce 

merchandise comparable to the subject 

merchandise. Consequently, we 

averaged the ILO industry-specific wage 

rate data or earnings data available from 

the following countries found to be 

economically comparable to the PRC 

and are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise: Ecuador, 

Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, the 

Philippines, Thailand, and the 

Ukraine.79 For further information on 

the calculation of the wage rate, see 

Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general and administrative expenses 

and profit, the Department used the 

average of the ratios derived from the 

financial statements of two Indian 

producers: Graphite India Limited and 

HEG Limited (for the year ending on 

March 31, 2010).80

The Fangda Group and Fushun Jinly 

reported that they have recovered byproducts in their production of subject 

merchandise and successfully 

demonstrated that all of them have 

commercial value, therefore, we have 

granted a by-product offset for the 

quantities of each respondent’s reported 

by-products, valued using Indian GTA 

data.81

Use of Facts Available and Adverse 

Facts Available 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Section 776(b) 

of the Act also authorizes the 

Department to use as AFA information 

derived from the petition, the final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

Fangda Group 

At verification, we were unable to 

verify the supplier distances for a 

significant percentage of Fushun 

Carbon’s suppliers. As a result, pursuant 

to section 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (D) of 

the Act, we find that the use of facts 

available (‘‘FA’’) is appropriate to 

determine Fushun Carbon’s supplier 

distances, as discussed below. 

Fushun Carbon at verification initially 

provided four maps from the Chinese 

internet search engine ‘‘Baidu maps’’ as 

support for its reported suppliers 

distance (i.e., the distance from each 

supplier’s location to Fushun Carbon’s 

factory during the POR). In our review 

of these maps, we found that the Baidu 

map distances differed from the 

reported distance for these suppliers. 

For the preliminary results, as partial 

facts available, pursuant to section 

776(a) of the Act, for those supplier 

distances where we verified that the 

distance Fushun Carbon reported in its 

FOP database differed from the Baidu 

maps presented to us at verification, we 

have applied FA and set Fushun 

Carbon’s distance for these suppliers 

equal to the distances found at 

verification.82

In addition, we requested that Fushun 

Carbon provide maps from the same 

source for the remaining suppliers. 

However, Fushun Carbon was unable to 

provide the requested maps during the 

remaining time at verification. We were, 

therefore, unable to verify the supplier 

distance for a significant percent of 

Fushun Carbon’s suppliers, and for the 

preliminary results, we determine that 

Fushun Carbon did not cooperate to the 

best of its ability by not providing the 

supporting documentation needed to 

verify its reported supplier distances.83

Accordingly, an adverse inference in 

using facts available under section 

776(b) of the Act is warranted for 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12336 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 

84See the Department’s Initial Questionnaire, 

dated May 26, 2010, at section D.I.D ‘‘Reporting 

Requirements;’’ the Department’s Collective A, C, 

and D Supplemental Questionnaire, dated 

November 18, 2010, at 8. 

85See Fushun Jinly’s fourth supplemental 

questionnaire response, dated December 10, 2010, 

at 15. 

86See id. 

87See 19 CFR 351.309(c). 

88See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

89See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

90See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

Fushun Carbon with regard to this 

specific information. As partial adverse 

facts available, pursuant to section 

776(a) and 776(b) of the Act, for those 

suppliers where we were not presented 

with Baidu maps at verification, we 

have set Fushun Carbon’s distance for 

these suppliers equal to the reported 

supplier distance plus a percent 

adjustment equal to the highest percent 

difference found at verification. Because 

of the business proprietary nature of this 

information, please see the Fangda 

Group’s Verification Report and the 

Fangda Group’s Preliminary Analysis 

Memo. 

Fushun Jinly 

We provided Fushun Jinly with two 

opportunities during the administrative 

review to accurately report its tollers’ 

consumption data.84 However, Fushun 

Jinly did not report these data for one 

of its tollers and did not adequately 

explain why there were missing 

consumption data with respect to that 

toller.85 As a result, we find pursuant to 

section 776(a)(A) and (B) of the Act that 

use of partial FA is appropriate to 

determine the consumption data with 

respect to this particular toller. We 

further find that Fushan Jinly did not 

cooperate to the best of its ability in 

responding to the Department’s requests 

for information. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 776(a) and 776(b) of the Act, 

because Fushun Jinly did not cooperate 

to the best of its ability in responding to 

the Department’s requests for 

information, we are applying partial 

adverse facts available to the missing 

consumption data for this particular 

toller. As partial adverse facts available, 

we are applying the highest monthly 

material input consumption of this 

toller to the relevant missing 

consumption data. See Fushun Jinly’s 

analysis memo for further discussion. 

Additionally, Fushun Jinly confirmed 

that one of its tollers’ consumption of 

electricity was understated because of 

the toller’s affiliation with an electric 

company.86 As a result, as partial facts 

available, pursuant to section 776(a) of 

the Act, the Department for the 

preliminary results has used the 

electricity usage of the toller we verified 

(which provides the same tolling 

services) in lieu of the other toller’s 

understated electricity consumption 

data. Due to the proprietary nature of 

this discussion, see Fushun Jinly’s 

Preliminary Analysis Memo for further 

discussion. 

Currency Conversion 

Where appropriate, we made currency 

conversions into U.S. dollars, in 

accordance with section 773A(a) of the 

Act, based on the exchange rates in 

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

The Department has determined that 

the following preliminary dumping 

margins exist for the period August 21, 

2008, through January 31, 2010: 

Individually reviewed exporters Weighted-average 

percent margin 

SDGE from the PRC 

Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd., Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd., Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd., Hefei Carbon 

Co., Ltd., (collectively, The Fangda Group). 60.16 

Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................. 64.38 

SDGE from the PRC 

Non-reviewed exporters Weighted-average 

percent margin 

Xinghe Country Muzi Carbon Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................ 61.78 

PRC-wide rate Percent margin 

PRC-wide Entity* ......................................................................................................................................................................... 159.64 

* This includes Huanan Carbon, Sinosteel Jilin, Jilin Carbon, and Jilin Carbon I&E. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Interested parties may 

submit written comments no later than 

30 days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results of review.87

Rebuttals to written comments may be 

filed no later than five days after the 

written comments are filed.88 Further, 

parties submitting written comments 

and rebuttal comments are requested to 

provide the Department with an 

additional copy of those comments on a 

CD. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice.89 Hearing requests should 

contain the following information: (1) 

The party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of the issues 

to be discussed. Oral presentations will 

be limited to issues raised in the briefs. 

If a request for a hearing is made, parties 

will be notified of the time and date for 

the hearing to be held at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230.90

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise in accordance with the 

final results of this review. The 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 12337 

91See 19 CFR. 351.212(b)(1). 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

publication date of the final results of 

these reviews. For assessment purposes, 

we calculated exporter/importer- (or 

customer) specific assessment rates for 

merchandise subject to this review.91

Where appropriate, we calculated an ad 

valorem rate for each importer (or 

customer) by dividing the total dumping 

margins for reviewed sales to that party 

by the total entered values associated 

with those transactions. For dutyassessment rates calculated on this 

basis, we will direct CBP to assess the 

resulting ad valorem rate against the 

entered customs values for the subject 

merchandise. Where appropriate, we 

calculated a per-unit rate for each 

importer (or customer) by dividing the 

total dumping margins for reviewed 

sales to that party by the total sales 

quantity associated with those 

transactions. For duty-assessment rates 

calculated on this basis, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate 

against the entered quantity of the 

subject merchandise. Where an 

importer- (or customer) specific 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent), the Department will 

instruct CBP to assess that importer (or 

customer’s) entries of subject 

merchandise without regard to 

antidumping duties. We intend to 

instruct CBP to liquidate entries 

containing subject merchandise 

exported by the PRC-wide entity at the 

PRC-wide rate we determine in the final 

results of this review. 

For Muzi Carbon, a company 

receiving a separate rate that was not 

selected for individual review, we will 

calculate an assessment rate based on 

the weighted average of the cash deposit 

rates calculated for the companies 

selected for individual review 

consistent with section 735(c)(5)(B) of 

the Act. Where the weighted average ad 

valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

appropriate entries without regard to 

antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2). 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following cash-deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 

Fangda Group, Fushun Jinly, and Muzi 

Carbon the cash deposit rate will be 

their respective rates established in the 

final results of this review, except if the 

rate is zero or de minimis no cash 

deposit will be required; (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that 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 which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 159.64 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 exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under section 

351.402(f) of the Department’s 

regulations 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 antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and this 

notice are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 

sections 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4) of 

the Department’s regulations. 

Dated: February 28, 2011. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5119 Filed 3–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Request for Applicants for 

Appointment to the United StatesBrazil CEO Forum 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In March 2007, the 

Governments of the United States and 

Brazil established the U.S.-Brazil CEO 

Forum. This notice announces 

membership opportunities for 

appointment as American 

representatives to the U.S. Section of the 

Forum. The current U.S. Section term 

will expire on June 11, 2011. 

DATES: Applications should be received 

no later than April 29, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Please send requests for 

consideration to Ashley Rosen, Office of 

South America, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, either by e-mail at 

ashley.rosen@trade.gov or by mail to 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 3203, 

Washington, DC 20230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ashley Rosen, Office of South America, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 

telephone: (202) 482–6311. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Secretary of Commerce and the Deputy 

Assistant to the President and Deputy 

National Security Advisor for 

International Economic Affairs, together 

with the Planalto Casa Civil Minister 

(Presidential Chief of Staff) and the 

Brazilian Minister of Development, 

Industry and Foreign Trade, co-chair the 

U.S.-Brazil CEO Forum, pursuant to the 

Terms of Reference signed in March 

2007 by the U.S. and Brazilian 

governments, which set forth the 

objectives and structure of the Forum. 

The Terms of Reference may be viewed 

at: http://trade.gov/press/press_releases/ 

2007/brazilceo_02.asp. The Forum, 

consisting of both private and public 

sector members, brings together leaders 

of the respective business communities 

of the United States and Brazil to 

discuss issues of mutual interest, 

particularly ways to strengthen the 

economic and commercial ties between 

the two countries. The Forum consists 

of the U.S. and Brazilian co-chairs and 

a Committee comprised of private sector 

members. The Committee will be 

composed of two Sections, each 

consisting of eight to ten members from 

the private sector, representing the 

views and interests of the private sector 

business community in the United 

States and Brazil. Each government will 

appoint the members to its respective 

Section. The Committee will provide 

recommendations to the two 

governments that reflect private sector 

views, needs and concerns regarding the 

creation of an economic environment in 

which their respective private sectors 

can partner, thrive, and enhance 

bilateral commercial ties to expand 

trade between the United States and 

Brazil. 

Candidates are currently sought for 

membership on the U.S. Section of the 

Committee. Each candidate must be the 

Chief Executive Officer or President (or 

have a comparable level of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES