12704 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 

1 In the initiation notice we initiated reviews of, 

inter alia, Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Co., 

Ltd., Golden Banyan Foodstuffs, Co., Ltd., and 

Zhangzhou Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial 

Co., Ltd. See Initiation Notice 75 FR at 15681. 

However, Golden Banyan, in response to a 

questionnaire from the Department, placed on the 

record information regarding its name, its past 

name changes, and the addresses of its affiliates. 

Based on this information, we determine that these 

three entities are actually all the same. See 

petitioners’ March 1, 2010 submission at 

Attachment, and Golden Banyan’s January 20, 2011 

submission. 

2See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, from Scott Hoefke 

and Fred Baker, Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 7, Subject: ‘‘Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China: 

Respondent Selection Memorandum, ’’ dated May 

17, 2010. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–851] 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 

Rescission in Part, and Intent To 

Rescind in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 8, 2011. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is currently 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC) covering the 

period February 1, 2009, through 

January 31, 2010. We preliminarily 

determine that sales made by Blue Field 

(Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(Blue Field), Guangxi Jisheng Foods, 

Inc. (Jisheng), and Xiamen International 

Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd. (XITIC) 

were made below normal value (NV). 

We invite interested parties to comment 

on these preliminary results. In 

addition, we are also rescinding this 

administrative review with respect to 

Zhangzhou Gangchang Canned Foods 

Co., Ltd. (Gangchang), Shandong 

Fengyu Edible Fungus Corporation Ltd. 

(Fengyu), and Zhangzhou Tongfa Foods 

Industry Co., Ltd. (Tongfa). 

Additionally, we are announcing that 

we intend to rescind this review with 

respect to five companies which we 

have preliminarily determined had no 

shipments during the period of review 

(POR). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Baker, Scott Hoefke, or Robert James, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2924, (202) 482– 

4947 or (202) 482–0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 19, 1999, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms (mushrooms) 

from the PRC. See Notice of Amendment 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China, 64 

FR 8308 (February 19, 1999) (the Order). 

On February 1, 2010, the Department 

published in the Federal Register its 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on mushrooms 

from the PRC. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 75 

FR 5037 (February 1, 2010). On March 

1, 2010, Monterrey Mushrooms 

(Petitioner) requested the Department 

conduct an administrative review of 26 

PRC mushroom producers/exporters. On 

March 30, 2010, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of initiation of the antidumping 

duty administrative review of 

mushrooms from the PRC for the period 

February 1, 2009, through January 31, 

2010, with respect to the 26 companies. 

See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 75 FR 15679 (March 30, 2010) 

(Initiation Notice). 

On April 9, 2010, we received a noshipment certification from 

Dujianghyan Xingda Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 

(Xingda). On April 27, 2010, we 

received no-shipment certifications 

from Fujian Pinghe Baofeng Canned 

Foods, Longhai Guangfa Food Co., Ltd., 

Fujian Zishan Group Co., Ltd., and 

Xiamen Longhuai Import & Export Co., 

Ltd. 

On April 26, 2010, we received 

separate rate certifications from Fujian 

Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial 

Co., Ltd. (Golden Banyan) 1 and Blue 

Field. On April 28, 2010, we received 

separate rate certifications from Ayecue 

(Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 

(Ayecue), and Shandong Jiufa Edible 

Fungus Corporation, Ltd. (Jiufa). On 

April 29, 2010, we received separate 

rate certifications from Zhejiang Iceman 

Group Co., Ltd. (Iceman), Gangchang, 

and XITIC. 

On June 28, 2010 Petitioner withdrew 

its request for an administrative review 

of Gangchang. 

Respondent Selection 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), directs the 

Department to calculate individual 

dumping margins for each known 

exporter or producer of the subject 

merchandise. However, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 

Department discretion to limit its 

examination to a reasonable number of 

exporters or producers if it is not 

practicable to examine all exporters or 

producers involved in the review. 

On April 2, 2010, the Department 

released U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) data for entries of the 

subject merchandise during the POR 

under administrative protective order 

(APO) to all interested parties having an 

APO, inviting comments regarding the 

CBP data and respondent selection. The 

Department received comments from 

Blue Field on April 12, 2010, and from 

Petitioner and XITIC on April 14, 2010. 

Based on the large number of 

potential exporters or producers 

involved in this administrative review 

and, after considering our resources, we 

determined that it was not practicable to 

individually examine all twenty-six 

companies. Accordingly, on May 17, 

2010, we issued our respondent 

selection memorandum indicating that, 

pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the 

Act, we could reasonably examine only 

the three largest producers/exporters of 

subject merchandise by volume. 

Therefore, we selected Blue Field, 

Jisheng, and XITIC as mandatory 

respondents.2 The following day we 

issued the standard antidumping 

questionnaire to those three 

respondents, and received the responses 

in June and July 2010. We issued 

supplemental questionnaires to Blue 

Field, Jisheng, and XITIC in the ensuing 

months, and received their responses in 

August, September, October, and 

November 2010, and January 2011. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value 

Data 

On July 13, 2010, the Department sent 

interested parties a letter inviting 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and surrogate value data. We 

received a response from Jisheng on 

November 16, 2010, and from Petitioner 

and XITIC on November 22, 2010. 

Petitioner argued that India is the 

appropriate surrogate country for this 

review, and submitted information with 

which to value the factors of production 

(FOPs). Jisheng and XITIC made no 

comments regarding surrogate country 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 12705 

3See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 75 FR 

66729 (October 29, 2010). 

4On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that 

‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms 

containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are 

within the scope of the antidumping duty order. 

See Recommendation Memorandum—Final Ruling 

of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain 

Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved 

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

dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit upheld this decision. See Tak Fat v. United 

States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

selection, but they had obtained all of 

the potential surrogate value data they 

placed on the record from sources in 

India. 

Partial Rescission 

Section 351.213(d)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations provide that 

the Department will rescind an 

administrative review if the party that 

requested the review withdraws its 

request for review within 90 days of the 

date of publication of the notice of 

initiation of the requested review, or 

withdraws it at a later date if the 

Department determines it is reasonable 

to extend the time limit for withdrawing 

the request. The Department initiated 

this administrative review on March 30, 

2010. See Initiation Notice. As indicated 

above, Petitioner withdrew its request 

for review of Gangchang on June 28, 

2010. Because the party that requested 

this review has timely withdrawn the 

request for review, we are rescinding 

this review with respect to Gangchang. 

Furthermore, concurrent with this 

administrative review we are 

conducting new shipper reviews of 

Fengyu and Tongfa,3 both of which are 

companies on whom we initiated an 

administrative review in this 

proceeding. See Initiation Notice. 

Therefore, since we are conducting new 

shipper reviews of these companies for 

the period covered by this 

administrative review, we are 

rescinding their administrative review 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j). 

Intent To Rescind Review in Part 

In April 2010 we received 

certifications of no shipments from five 

companies for whom we initiated a 

review in this proceeding. Those five 

companies were Dujianghyan Xingda 

Foodstuff Co., Fujian Pinghe Baofeng 

Canned Foods, Fujian Zishan Group 

Co., Ltd., Longhai Guangfa Food Co., 

and Xiamen Longhuai Import & Export 

Co. We made inquiries with CBP as to 

whether any shipments were entered 

with respect to these five companies 

during the POR. See CBP message 

numbers 0347302, 0347303, 0347304, 

0347305, and 0347306, all dated 

December 13, 2010. We received no 

responses from CBP to those inquiries. 

We also examined CBP information 

used in the selection of the mandatory 

respondents to further confirm no 

shipments by these companies during 

the POR. See the attachment to ‘‘Letter 

from Robert James to All Interested 

Parties’’ dated April 2, 2010. Based on 

the above, we preliminarily find that 

these five companies had no shipments 

of subject merchandise during the POR, 

and we intend to rescind their reviews 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). 

Interested parties may submit 

comments on the Department’s intent to 

rescind with respect to these five 

companies 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. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain preserved mushrooms, 

whether imported whole, sliced, diced, 

or as stems and pieces. The certain 

preserved mushrooms covered under 

this order are the species Agaricus 

bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. 

‘‘Certain Preserved Mushrooms’’ refers to 

mushrooms that have been prepared or 

preserved by cleaning, blanching, and 

sometimes slicing or cutting. These 

mushrooms are then packed and heated 

in containers including, but not limited 

to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid 

medium, including, but not limited to, 

water, brine, butter or butter sauce. 

Certain preserved mushrooms may be 

imported whole, sliced, diced, or as 

stems and pieces. Included within the 

scope of this order are ‘‘brined’’ 

mushrooms, which are presalted and 

packed in a heavy salt solution to 

provisionally preserve them for further 

processing.4

Excluded from the scope of this order 

are the following: (1) All other species 

of mushroom, including straw 

mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled 

mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or 

‘‘quick blanched mushrooms;’’ (3) dried 

mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and 

(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ 

mushrooms, which are prepared or 

preserved by means of vinegar or acetic 

acid, but may contain oil or other 

additives. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is classifiable under subheadings: 

2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 

2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 

2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, and 

0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and Customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this order is dispositive. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, we have 

treated the PRC as a non-market 

economy (NME) country. See, e.g., Pure 

Magnesium from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

76336 (December 16, 2008); and 

Frontseating Service Valves from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Negative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 12, 

2009). In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the Department. See, 

e.g., Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper 

Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 

2006). None of the parties to this 

proceeding have contested such 

treatment, or provided record evidence 

to reconsider our continued treatment of 

the PRC as an NME. Accordingly, we 

calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Separate Rates Determination 

A designation of a country as an NME 

remains in effect until it is revoked by 

the Department. See section 771(18)(C) 

of the Act. Accordingly, the Department 

begins its separate rate analysis with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the PRC are subject to 

government control, and thus should be 

assessed a single antidumping duty rate 

(i.e., the PRC-wide rate). 

It is the Department’s policy to assign 

all exporters of the merchandise subject 

to review in NME countries a single rate 

unless an exporter can affirmatively 

demonstrate an absence of government 

control, both in law (de jure) and in fact 

(de facto), with respect to exports. To 

establish whether a company is 

sufficiently independent to be entitled 

to a separate, company-specific rate, the 

Department analyzes each exporting 

entity in an NME country under the test 

established in the Final Determination 

of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12706 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 

5The most recently completed segment of this 

proceeding in which Golden Banyan participated 

and was granted separate rate status was Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review, 73 FR 75083 (December 10, 2008). 

The most recently completed segment of this 

proceeding in which Gangchang and Iceman 

participated and were granted separate rate status 

was Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 

28882 (June 18, 2009). The most recently completed 

segment of this proceeding in which Ayecue 

participated and was granted separate rate status 

was Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 73 FR 

21904 (April 23, 2008). The most recently 

completed segment of this proceeding in which 

Blue Field participated and was granted separate 

rate status was Certain Preserved Mushrooms from 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Results of the Eighth New Shipper Review, 70 FR 

60789 (October 19, 2005). The most recently 

completed segment of this proceeding in which 

Jiufa and XITIC participated and were granted 

separate rate status was Notice of Amended Final 

Results of Antidumping duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 

People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 60280 (October 

17, 2005). The most recently completed segment of 

this proceeding in which Jisheng participated and 

was granted separate rate status was Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of the Tenth Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 72 FR 68858 (December 

6, 2007). 

Sparklers from the People’s Republic of 

China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), 

(Sparklers) as amplified by the Notice of 

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). 

In the Initiation Notice the 

Department stated that all firms that 

wish to qualify for separate-rate status 

in the administrative reviews involving 

NME countries must complete, as 

appropriate, either a separate-rate 

application or certification. See 

Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 15680. To 

establish separate-rate eligibility, the 

Department requires entities for which a 

review was requested, that were 

assigned a separate rate in the most 

recent segment of the proceeding in 

which they participated, to certify that 

they continue to meet the criteria for 

obtaining a separate rate. In this 

administrative review, Ayecue, 

Gangchang, Golden Banyan, Iceman, 

and Jiufa (the separate-rate applicants) 

each submitted a separate-rate 

certification indicating they continued 

to meet the criteria for obtaining a 

separate rate. Although Jisheng did not 

submit a separate-rate certification, as a 

cooperating mandatory respondent it 

did answer all the separate-rate 

questions in our questionnaires. 

Additionally, Blue Field and XITIC both 

submitted a separate-rate certification 

and answered all the separate-rate 

questions in our questionnaires. As 

such, we have determined that Blue 

Field, Jisheng, XITIC, and the separaterate applicants each provided companyspecific information, and each stated 

that it met the criteria for the 

assignment of a separate rate. 

The Department’s separate-rate test to 

determine whether the exporter is 

independent from government control 

does not consider, in general, 

macroeconomic/border-type controls 

(e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices), particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on 

controls over the investment, pricing, 

and output decision-making process at 

the individual firm level. See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine, 62 FR 

61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, finished and Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of Antidumping Administrative 

Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 

17, 1997). 

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 the individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

In this administrative review, Blue 

Field, Jisheng, and XITIC demonstrated, 

and the separate-rate applicants 

certified that, consistent with the most 

recent segment of this proceeding in 

which it participated and was granted a 

separate rate, there is an absence of de 

jure government control of its exports.5

Each of the separate-rate applicants 

certified to its separate-rate status. 

Additionally, Blue Field, Jisheng, XITIC, 

and the separate-rate applicants stated 

that their companies had no 

relationship with any level of the PRC 

government with respect to ownership, 

internal management, and business 

operations. In this segment we have no 

new information on the record that 

would cause us to reconsider our 

previous determinations of the absence 

of de jure government control with 

regard to these companies. Thus, we 

find that evidence on the record 

supports a preliminary finding of an 

absence of de jure government control 

with regard to the export activities of 

Blue Field, Jisheng, XITIC, and the 

separate-rate applicants. 

Absence of De Facto Control 

As stated in previous cases, there is 

some evidence that certain enactments 

of the PRC central government have not 

been implemented uniformly among 

different sectors and/or jurisdictions in 

the PRC. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87 and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 

1998). Therefore, the Department has 

determined that an analysis of de facto 

control is critical in determining 

whether the respondents are, in fact, 

subject to a degree of government 

control which would preclude the 

Department from assigning separate 

rates. 

The Department typically considers 

the following four factors in evaluating 

whether a respondent is subject to de 

facto government control over its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by, or subject to the approval of, 

a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent retains the proceeds from its 

export sales and makes independent 

decisions regarding the disposition of 

profits or financing of losses; (3) 

whether the respondent has the 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; (4) whether the 

respondent has autonomy from the 

government regarding the selection of 

management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR 

at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; and 

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). 

The evidence provided by Blue Field, 

Jisheng, XITIC, and the separate-rate 

applicants supports a preliminary 

finding of absence of de facto 

government control based on the 

following: (1) The companies set their 

own export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) there is no 

restriction on any of the companies’ use 

of export revenue, nor the disposition of 

profits or financing of losses; (3) the 

companies have authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (4) the companies have 

autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management. See, e.g., Blue 

Field’s June 22, 2010, Section A 

response at A–1 through A–8; Jisheng’s 

June 23, 2010, Section A response at A– 

1 through A–8; and XITIC’s June 16, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 12707 

6Those seven companies are: China National 

Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp., 

China Processed Food Import & Export Co., Fujian 

Yuxing Fruits & Vegetables Foodstuffs Development 

Co., Ltd., Guangxi Eastwing Trading Co., Ltd., 

Xiamen Gulong Import & Export Co., Ltd., Primera 

Harvest (Xiangfan) Co. Ltd., Xiamen Jiufa Edible 

Fungus Corp. 

7See, Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 

1401, 1405–06 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming the 

Department’s presumption of State control over 

exporters in non-market economy cases). 

8See Memorandum from Carole Showers, 

Director, Office of Policy, to Richard Weible, 

Director, Office 7; Subject: Request for a List of 

Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review 

of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China, dated June 25, 2010. The Department 

notes that these six countries are part of a nonexhaustive list of countries that are at a level of 

economic development comparable to the PRC. 

9 Jisheng did report a portion of its U.S. sales as 

CEP sales. However, we reclassified them as EP 

sales because given our date of sale methodology 

(explained below) we determined that they are 

more appropriately classified as EP sales. See 

Jisheng’s September 13, 2010, submission at 6 and 

Jisheng’s preliminary results analysis memorandum 

dated February 28, 2011. 

2010, Section A response at A–2 

through A–9. Additionally, in this 

administrative review we have no new 

information on the record that would 

cause us to reconsider our previous 

determinations of the absence of de 

facto government control with regard to 

these companies. Therefore, the 

Department preliminarily finds that 

Blue Field, Jisheng, XITIC and the 

separate-rate applicants have 

established that they qualify for separate 

rates under the criteria established by 

Silicon Carbide and Sparklers. 

The PRC-Wide Entity 

In addition to the separate-rate 

applications discussed above, seven 

other companies for which we initiated 

a review in this proceeding already had 

separate rates.6 However, they failed to 

recertify their separate rates using the 

separate rate certification provided at 

the Department’s Web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html, 

to demonstrate their continued 

eligibility for separate rate status. See 

Initiation Notice, at 15680. These seven 

companies also did not make a claim 

that they had not sold or shipped 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. In accordance 

with the Department’s established NME 

methodology, a party’s separate rate 

status must be established in each 

segment of the proceeding in which the 

party is involved.7 Therefore, because 

these companies did not certify that 

they had no shipments or demonstrate 

that they were entitled to a separate rate, 

the Department preliminarily finds that 

each company should be considered 

part of the PRC-wide entity for this 

review. 

Furthermore, there are two 

companies, Sun Wave Trading Co., Ltd. 

and Xiamen Greenland Import & Export 

Co., Ltd., for which we initiated a 

review in this proceeding and which 

did not previously have a separate rate. 

Because these companies did not file a 

Separate Rate Application, see 

generally, Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 

15680, to demonstrate eligibility for a 

separate rate in this administrative 

review, or certify that they had no 

shipments, we preliminarily determine 

that these companies will remain part of 

the PRC-wide entity. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, 

in most circumstances, on the NME 

producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate 

market economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to 

the extent possible, the prices or costs 

of FOPs in one or more market economy 

countries that are: (1) At a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country; and (2) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. 

The Department determined that 

India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 

Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru are 

countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development and 

that these six countries are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise.8

Moreover, it is the Department’s 

practice to select an appropriate 

surrogate country based on the 

availability and reliability of data from 

the countries. See Department Policy 

Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy 

Surrogate Country Selection Process 

(March 1, 2004) (Surrogate Country 

Policy Bulletin). In the most recently 

completed proceeding involving the 

Order, we determined that India is 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development and has 

surrogate value data that are available 

and reliable. See Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520, 

(December 10, 2009). In the current 

proceeding, all parties who submitted 

factor values were in agreement that 

India was the appropriate surrogate 

country. We find based on the record of 

this administrative review that India is 

an appropriate surrogate country. We 

have selected India as the primary 

surrogate market-economy country 

because it is at a level of economic 

development similar to the PRC, it is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, and we have reliable, 

publicly available data from India 

representing broad market averages. See 

773(c)(4) of the Act; see also 

Memorandum to the File, from Fred 

Baker, Analyst, Subject: Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China: Selection of a 

Surrogate Country, dated February 28, 

2011. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

this administrative review, interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we based Blue Field’s, 

Jisheng’s, and XITIC’s U.S. prices on 

export prices (EP), because their first 

sales to unaffiliated purchasers were 

made before the date of importation and 

the use of constructed export price 

(CEP) was not otherwise warranted by 

the facts on the record.9 As appropriate, 

we deducted foreign inland freight, 

foreign brokerage and handling, 

international freight, U.S. inland freight, 

U.S. duties, and U.S. brokerage and 

handling from the starting price (or 

gross unit price), in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2) of the Act. Where these 

services were provided by NME vendors 

we based the deduction on surrogate 

values. 

The respondents collectively used 

three modes of transportation for foreign 

inland freight. Those modes were truck, 

train, and barge. As previously stated, 

where applicable we made deductions 

for these expenses from the U.S. price. 

We valued truck freight using a per-unit, 

POR-wide, average rate calculated from 

Indian data on the following 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. See Memorandum to the File, 

‘‘Surrogate Values for the Preliminary 

Results of Review of Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China’’ (Surrogate Values 

Memorandum) dated February 28, 2011, 

at Exhibit 7. 

For train freight, we used data 

published by the Indian Railway 

Conference Association. Specifically, 

we used ‘‘Goods Tariff No. 45 Pt. 1, (vol. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12708 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 

10See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 

50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009), unchanged in 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520 (December 

10, 2009). 

11See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia, 70 FR 

45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at page 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 Comment 1, pages 17, 19–20; and 

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

Thailand: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 

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

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. 

II).’’ See Surrogate Values Memorandum 

at 14 for more information. 

For barge freight, we used data 

published in the March 2007 issue of 

The Hindu Business Line. See the 

Surrogate Values Memorandum at 14 for 

more information. 

We valued foreign brokerage and 

handling using the publicly summarized 

brokerage and handling expense 

reported in the U.S. sales listing of 

Indian mushroom producer, Agro Dutch 

Industries, Ltd. (Agro Dutch), in the 

2004–2005 administrative review of 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms from 

India, which we then inflated to be 

contemporaneous with the POR. See 

Surrogate Values Memorandum at 13. 

In their Section A questionnaire 

responses, Blue Field, Jisheng, and 

XITIC stated that they intended to use 

the invoice date as the date of sale. See 

Blue Field’s June 22, 2010, submission 

at A–11, Jisheng’s June 23, 2010, 

submission at A–10, and XITIC’s June 

16, 2010, submission at A–13. 

Subsequently, Blue Field and XITIC, in 

response to questions asked in 

supplemental questionnaires, 

substantiated that there were sometimes 

changes to the price or quantity of a sale 

following issuance of the purchase order 

but before issuance of the invoice. See 

Blue Field’s August 19, 2010, 

submission at 2 and Exhibit 3 and 

XITIC’s August 26, 2010, submission at 

S1–4. Therefore, because the record 

indicates that the material terms of Blue 

Field’s and XITIC’s U.S. sales were 

established on the date of invoice, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), we 

determine that invoice date is the 

appropriate date to use as the date of 

sale for these two respondents. 

However, Jisheng stated that during the 

POR there were no changes to either 

quantity or price between the purchase 

order date and the invoice date for any 

of its sales. See Jisheng’s September 13, 

2010, submission at 1. Therefore, for 

Jisheng, we have preliminarily 

determined that it is appropriate to use 

purchase order date, rather than invoice 

date, as the date of sale because it was 

on the purchase order date that the 

material terms of sale (i.e., quantity and 

price) were set. 

Normal Value 

1. Methodology 

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

provides that the Department shall 

determine the NV using an FOP 

methodology if the merchandise under 

review is exported from an NME and 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. The Department bases NV on 

FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NMEs renders price comparisons and 

the calculation of production costs 

invalid under the Department’s normal 

methodologies. See, e.g., Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 

Unfinished, From the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind 

in Part, 70 FR 39744 (July 11, 2005), 

unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings 

and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of 2003–2004 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517 

(January 17, 2006). 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, including 

depreciation. The Department based NV 

on FOPs reported by the respondents for 

materials, energy, labor, and packing. 

Thus, in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV by 

adding the values of the FOPs, 

overhead, selling, general and 

administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit, 

and packing costs. 

2. Selection of Surrogate Values 

In selecting the ‘‘best available 

information for surrogate values,’’ see 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act, consistent 

with the Department’s preference, we 

considered whether the potential 

surrogate value data on the record were: 

Publicly available; product-specific; 

representative of broad market average 

prices; contemporaneous with the POR; 

and free of taxes and import duties. See, 

e.g., Drill Pipe From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, and Postponement of 

Final Determination, 75 FR 51004 

(August 18, 2010), unchanged in Drill 

Pipe From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Critical 

Circumstances, 76 FR 196 (January 11, 

2011). Where only surrogate values that 

were not contemporaneous with the 

POR were available on the record of this 

administrative review, we inflated the 

surrogate values using, where 

appropriate, the Indian WPI as 

published in International Financial 

Statistics by the International Monetary 

Fund. See Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 2. 

In accordance with these guidelines, 

we calculated surrogate values, except 

as noted below, from import statistics of 

the primary selected surrogate country, 

India, from Global Trade Atlas (GTA), as 

published by Global Trade Information 

Services. Our use of GTA import data is 

in accordance with past practice and 

satisfies all of our criteria for surrogate 

values noted above.10 However, in 

accordance with the legislative history 

of the Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988, see Conf. 

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

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

(OTCA 1988) at 590, the Department 

continued to apply its long-standing 

practice of disregarding surrogate values 

if it has a reason to believe or suspect 

the prices contained in the source data 

may be dumped or subsidized prices. In 

this regard, the Department has 

previously found that it is appropriate 

to disregard such surrogate value prices 

from Indonesia, South Korea and 

Thailand because we have determined 

that these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry specific export 

subsidies. Because there were generally 

available export subsidy programs in 

these countries during the POR, the 

Department finds that it is reasonable to 

infer that all exporters from Indonesia, 

South Korea and Thailand may have 

benefitted from these subsidies and to 

disregard prices from these countries.11

Additionally, consistent with our 

practice, we disregarded prices from 

NME countries. 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 general export 

subsidies. See, e.g., Certain Non-Frozen 

Apple Juice Concentrate from the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 12709 

12Because 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. 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of the New Shipper 

Review, 75 FR 47270 (August 5, 2010), 

unchanged in Certain Non-Frozen 

Apple Juice Concentrate From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of the New Shipper Review, 75 

FR 81564 (December 28, 2010); and Drill 

Pipe From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, and Postponement of 

Final Determination, 75 FR 51004 

(August 18, 2010), unchanged in Drill 

Pipe From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Critical 

Circumstances, 76 FR 1966 (January 11, 

2011). 

After identifying appropriate 

surrogate values, we calculated NV by 

multiplying the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by the surrogate 

values. As appropriate we also added 

freight costs to the surrogate values that 

we calculated for the respondents’ 

material inputs to make these prices 

delivered prices. We calculated these 

freight costs by multiplying surrogate 

freight rates by the shorter of the 

reported distance from the domestic 

supplier to the factory that produced the 

subject merchandise or the distance 

from the nearest seaport to the factory 

that produced the subject merchandise, 

as appropriate. Where there were 

multiple domestic suppliers of a 

material input, we calculated a 

weighted-average distance after limiting 

each supplier’s distance to no more than 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

the factory of each of the three 

respondents. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision by the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 

F.3d 1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

We increased the calculated costs of the 

FOPs for surrogate general expenses and 

profit. See Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 9. 

Because Indian surrogate values were 

denominated in rupees, we converted 

these data to U.S. dollars (USD) using 

the applicable average exchange rate 

based on exchange rate data from the 

Department’s Web site. 

For further details regarding the 

specific surrogate values used for direct 

materials, energy inputs, and packing 

materials in these preliminary results, 

see the Surrogate Values Memorandum. 

On May 14, 2010, the Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal 

Circuit) in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 

604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Dorbest 

IV), 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(c)(4) of the Act. See Dorbest IV, 604 

F.3d at 1372. The Department is 

continuing to evaluate options for 

determining labor values in light of the 

recent Federal Circuit 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 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 

Surrogate Values Memorandum. The 

Department calculated a simple average 

industry-specific wage rate of $1.36 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 Sub-Classification 15 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 this two-digit 

sub-classification under ISIC–Revision 

3, described as ‘‘Manufacture of Food 

Products and Beverages’’ to be the best 

available labor wage rate surrogate value 

on the record because it is the most 

specific to mushrooms and is derived 

from industries that produce 

merchandise comparable to the subject 

merchandise. From the twenty countries 

that the Department determined were 

both economically comparable to the 

PRC and significant producers of 

comparable merchandise, the 

Department identified those with the 

necessary wage data. Of these twenty 

countries, the following eight reported 

industry-specific data under the ISICrevision 3, Sub-Classification 15: 

Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, 

Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine.12

Consequently, we calculated a simple 

average industry-specific wage rate from 

the data obtained for these eight 

countries. For further information on 

the calculation of the wage rate, see 

Surrogate Values Memorandum. 

We offset the respondents’ material 

costs for revenue generated from the 

sale of tin scrap. See Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 8. 

Finally, to value overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses 

(SG&A), and profit, we have 

preliminarily determined that the 2009– 

10 financial statements of the Indian 

mushroom producers Flex Foods 

Limited and Himalya International 

Limited, constitute the best information 

available. See Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 13 for our 

computations. 

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 by the 

Department; (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 its 

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 or its response is not 

submitted within the applicable time 

limits, then the Department may, subject 

to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all 

or part of the original and subsequent 

responses, as appropriate. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12710 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 

13See Jisheng’s November 16, 2010 submission at 

6 and 7. 

from the petition, the final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or any other 

information placed on the record. 

For the reasons discussed below, we 

determine that, in accordance with 

sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) and 776(b) 

of the Act, the use of partial AFA is 

appropriate for the preliminary results 

with respect to Jisheng. 

1. Products With No Factors of 

Production Reported 

The original questionnaire states: 

‘‘Unless otherwise instructed by the 

Department, you should ensure that 

your factors computer file contains a 

separate record for each unique product 

control number contained in your U.S. 

sales file.’’ See May 18, 2010, 

questionnaire at D–6. However, in filing 

its questionnaire response, Jisheng 

included several products in the 

reported U.S. sales listing in its 

response to section C of the 

questionnaire for which it failed to 

provide any factors of production in its 

response to section D. See Jisheng’s July 

8, 2010, Sections C and D questionnaire 

response. In subsequent supplemental 

questionnaires the Department 

requested that Jisheng revise its FOP 

database so as to include a control 

number (CONNUM) for each CONNUM 

represented on its U.S. sales listing. See 

August 13, 2010, supplemental 

questionnaire at 6 (question 23a) and 

November 3, 2010, supplemental 

questionnaire at 4 (question 5a). 

However, Jisheng did not remedy or 

explain its deficient responses. See 

Jisheng’s September 13, 2010, 

submission at Exhibits SC–1 and SD–1, 

November 18, 2010, submission at 

Exhibits SS1 and SS2, and January 21, 

2011, submission at Exhibits SSS–1, 

SSS–2, SSS–3, and SSS–4. 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that partial facts available is 

warranted because necessary 

information is not on the record and 

because Jisheng (1) withheld 

information requested by the 

Department; and (2) failed to provide 

the requested information by the 

applicable deadlines or in the form and 

manner requested. See section 776(a)(1), 

and (a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

Moreover, by never alleging that it was 

unable to provide the information, and 

by failing to provide usable information 

by the applicable deadlines, we find 

that the conditions of section 782(c)(1) 

and (e), to which section 776(a)(2)(B) is 

subject, have not been satisfied. In 

addition, we determine that Jisheng has 

not cooperated to the best of its ability 

by repeatedly failing to provide the 

requested FOP data, despite numerous 

opportunities to do so. Accordingly, an 

adverse inference in using facts 

available under section 776(b) of the Act 

is warranted for Jisheng with regard to 

this specific information. For the 

CONNUMs for which Jisheng has not 

provided factor information we have 

applied, as AFA, the highest NV for any 

CONNUM in Jisheng’s database 

submitted on the record of this 

administrative review. For additional 

information concerning this calculation, 

see Jisheng’s Preliminary Results 

Analysis Memorandum. 

2. Products With Unreported Packing 

Usage Factors 

For reasons not susceptible to public 

summary,13 some of Jisheng’s reported 

CONNUMs were missing certain factor 

values. See Jisheng’s September 13, 

2010, submission at Exhibit SD–1, and 

its November 18, 2010, submission at 

Exhibit SS–2. Therefore, the Department 

requested that Jisheng submit factor 

values for particular CONNUMs for the 

twelve months of the prior POR. See 

January 10, 2011, supplemental 

questionnaire at 4 (question 6). 

However, despite our requests, Jisheng’s 

revised FOP database did not include 

packing usage factors for all CONNUMs. 

See Jisheng’s January 21, 2011, 

submission at Exhibit SSS–2, SSS–3, 

and SSS–4. Therefore, we preliminarily 

determine that partial facts available is 

warranted because necessary 

information is not on the record and 

because Jisheng failed to provide 

requested information by the applicable 

deadlines or in the form and manner 

requested by the Department. See 

section 776(a)(1) and (a)(2)(B) of the Act. 

Moreover, by never explaining why it 

was unable to provide the requested 

information, and by failing to provide 

usable information by the applicable 

deadlines, we find that the conditions of 

section 782(c)(1) and (e), to which 

section 776(a)(2)(B) is subject, have not 

been satisfied. In addition, we 

determine that by failing to provide the 

requested FOP data, Jisheng has not 

cooperated to the best of its ability. 

Accordingly, we find that an adverse 

inference in using facts available under 

section 776(b) of the Act is warranted 

for Jisheng with regard to this specific 

information. Specifically, for the 

CONNUMs for which Jisheng has not 

provided packing usage factors, we have 

applied, as AFA, the highest usage 

factor for any CONNUM for which it did 

report packing usage factors on the 

record of this administrative review. For 

additional information concerning this 

calculation, see Jisheng’s preliminary 

results analysis memorandum. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

The Department has determined that 

the following preliminary dumping 

margins exist for the period February 1, 

2009, through January 31, 2010. 

Respondents other than mandatory 

respondents will receive the weightedaverage of the margins calculated for 

those companies selected for individual 

review (i.e., mandatory respondents), 

excluding de minimis margins or 

margins based entirely on adverse facts 

available. 

CERTAIN PRESERVED MUSHROOMS

FROM THE PRC 

Exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. ........................... 30.10 

Guangxi Jisheng Foods, Inc. ...... 146.88 

Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd. ...................... 1.01 

Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff 

Co., Ltd. .................................. 53.69 

Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd. ......... 53.69 

Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus 

Corporation, Ltd. ..................... 53.69 

Zheijiang Iceman Group Co., 

Ltd. .......................................... 53.69 

PRC-wide rate ............................ 198.63 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose to 

parties to this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within five days of 

the date of publication of these 

preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Interested parties may 

submit written comments (case briefs) 

within 30 days of publication of the 

preliminary results and rebuttal 

comments (rebuttal briefs) within five 

days after the time limit for filing case 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 

351.309(d)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must be 

limited to issues raised in the case 

briefs. Parties who submit arguments are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities. Further, the 

Department requests that parties 

submitting written comments provide 

the Department with a diskette 

containing the public version of those 

comments. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 12711 

Interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration within 30 days 

of publication of this notice. Requests 

should contain: (1) The party’s name, 

address, and telephone number; (2) the 

number of participants; and (3) a list of 

issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing 

will be limited to those raised in the 

briefs. 

Unless the deadline is extended 

pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of 

the Act, the Department will issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, including the results of our 

analysis of the issues raised by the 

parties in their comments, within 120 

days after issuance of these preliminary 

results. 

Deadline for Submission of Publicly 

Available Surrogate Value Information 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3), the deadline for 

submission of publicly available 

information to value factors of 

production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) is 

20 days after the date of publication of 

the preliminary determination. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), if 

an interested party submits factual 

information less than ten days before, 

on, or after (if the Department has 

extended the deadline), the applicable 

deadline for submission of such factual 

information, an interested party has ten 

days to submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct the factual 

information no later than ten days after 

such factual information is served on 

the interested party. 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. See, e.g., 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. Furthermore, the 

Department generally will not accept 

business proprietary information in 

either the surrogate value submissions 

or the rebuttals thereto, as the regulation 

regarding the submission of surrogate 

values allows only for the submission of 

publicly available information. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after the date of publication of 

the final results of this review. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 

we calculated exporter/importer (or 

customer)-specific assessment rates for 

the merchandise subject to this review. 

Where the respondent has reported 

reliable entered values, we calculated 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rates by aggregating the 

dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer), 

and dividing this amount by the total 

entered value of the sales to each 

importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 

greater than de minimis, we will apply 

the assessment rate to the entered value 

of the importers’/customers’ entries 

during the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). 

Where we do not have entered values 

for all U.S. sales, we calculated a perunit assessment rate by aggregating the 

antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer (or 

customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates are de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

Where an importer (or customer)- 

specific 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). 

For the companies that were not 

selected for individual review, we 

calculated an assessment rate based on 

the weighted-average of the cash deposit 

rates calculated for companies selected 

for individual review, where those rates 

were not de minimis or based on 

adverse facts available, in accordance 

with Department practice. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of subject merchandise 

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 

exporters listed above, the cash-deposit 

rate will be that established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (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 that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 198.63 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise that 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 cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: February 28, 2011. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5262 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Smart Grid Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Smart Grid Advisory 

Committee (SGAC or Committee), will 

hold a meeting on Thursday, March 24, 

2011 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The 

primary purpose of this meeting is to 

review the early findings and 

observations of each Subcommittee, 

strategize the Table of Contents for the 

Committee report to NIST, agree on the 

page limit for each subcommittee, and 

look for any common overarching 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES