Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 2337 

1For the calculation of the per-megabit rate, see 

Memorandum to the File from Shane Subler and 

Jennifer Meek, ‘‘Final Results Calculations for Hynix 

Semiconductor, Inc.’’ (January 5, 2010). 

HTSUS. Removable memory modules 

placed on motherboards are classifiable 

under subheadings 8443.99.2500, 

8443.99.2550, 8471.50.0085, 

8471.50.0150, 8517.30.5000, 

8517.50.1000, 8517.50.5000, 

8517.50.9000, 8517.61.0000, 

8517.62.0010, 8517.62.0050, 

8517.69.0000, 8517.70.0000, 

8517.90.3400, 8517.90.3600, 

8517.90.3800, 8517.90.4400, 

8542.21.8005, 8542.21.8020, 

8542.21.8021, 8542.21.8022, 

8542.21.8023, 8542.21.8024, 

8542.21.8025, 8542.21.8026, 

8542.21.8027, 8542.21.8028, 

8542.21.8029, 8542.21.8030, 

8542.31.0000, 8542.33.0000, 

8542.39.0000, 8543.89.9300, and 

8543.89.9600 of the HTSUS. However, 

the product description, and not the 

HTSUS classification, is dispositive of 

whether merchandise imported into the 

United States falls within the scope. 

Scope Rulings 

On December 29, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received a request from 

Cisco Systems, Inc., to determine 

whether removable memory modules 

placed on motherboards that are 

imported for repair or refurbishment are 

within the scope of the CVD Order. See 

Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: 

Dynamic Random Access Memory 

Semiconductors from the Republic of 

Korea, 68 FR 47546 (August 11, 2003) 

(‘‘CVD Order’’). The Department 

initiated a scope inquiry pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.225(e) on February 4, 2005. On 

January 12, 2006, the Department issued 

a final scope ruling, finding that 

removable memory modules placed on 

motherboards that are imported for 

repair or refurbishment are not within 

the scope of the CVD Order provided 

that the importer certifies that it will 

destroy any memory modules that are 

removed for repair or refurbishment. 

See Memorandum from Stephen J. 

Claeys to David M. Spooner, regarding 

Final Scope Ruling, Countervailing Duty 

Order on DRAMs from the Republic of 

Korea (January 12, 2006). 

Period of Review 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’), is January 1, 2008, 

through August 10, 2008. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

We have addressed all issues raised in 

the case and rebuttal briefs in the 

January 5, 2011, Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results in 

the Sixth Administrative Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order on Dynamic 

Random Access Memory 

Semiconductors from the Republic of 

Korea from Christian Marsh, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. Attached 

to this notice as an appendix is a list of 

the issues which parties have raised and 

to which we have responded in the 

Decision Memorandum. Parties can find 

a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Department’s Central Records Unit, 

Room 7046 of the main Department 

building. In addition, a complete 

version of the public Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(5), we calculated an 

individual subsidy rate for the producer, 

Hynix. For the period January 1, 2008, 

through August 10, 2008, we find that 

the ad valorem net subsidy rate for 

Hynix is 1.93 percent. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP fifteen 

days after the date of publication of 

these final results of this review. The 

Department will instruct CBP to 

liquidate shipments of DRAMS by 

Hynix entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption from 

January 1, 2008, through August 10, 

2008, at 1.93 percent ad valorem of the 

F.O.B. invoice price, or 0.0033 U.S. 

dollars per megabit, as appropriate.1

Cash Deposits 

On October 3, 2008, the Department 

published a Federal Register notice 

that, inter alia, revoked this order, 

effective August 11, 2008. See Dynamic 

Random Access Memory 

Semiconductors From the Republic of 

Korea: Final Results of Sunset Review 

and Revocation of Order, 73 FR 57594 

(October 3, 2008). As a result, CBP is no 

longer suspending liquidation for 

entries of subject merchandise occurring 

after the revocation. Therefore, there is 

no need to issue new cash deposit 

instructions pursuant to the final results 

of this administrative review. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

This administrative review and notice 

are issued and published in accordance 

with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended. 

Dated: January 5, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Comments in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Comment 1: Income Tax Treatment of 

Hynix’s Debt Restructuring 

Comment 2: Allocation Method for 

Tax Benefit 

Comment 3: Clerical Error Allegations 

Comment 4: Circumvention of the 

Order 

[FR Doc. 2011–615 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–827] 

Certain Cased Pencils From the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 13, 2011. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) has preliminarily 

determined that the respondents in this 

review, for the period December 1, 2008, 

through November 30, 2009, have made 

sales of subject merchandise at less than 

normal value. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in the final results 

of this review, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. 

The Department is also rescinding 

this review for those foreign producers/ 

exporters for which requests for review 

were timely withdrawn. For the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
2338 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 

1The Department sent a letter to China First on 

January 13, 2010, asking China First to provide a 

complete list of its affiliated companies. China First 

responded on January 15, 2010, stating that its 

affiliated companies subject to the review are FST, 

Fang Zheng, Great Wall and Huadian. On March 1, 

2010, SFTC withdrew its December 31, 2009 

request for a review. 

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. 

The Department invites interested 

parties to comment on these preliminary 

results. The Department intends to issue 

the final results no later than 120 days 

from the publication date of this notice, 

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

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Tran, Mahnaz Khan or David 

Layton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1503, 

(202) 482–0914 or (202) 482–0371, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 28, 1994, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register an antidumping duty order on 

certain cased pencils (‘‘pencils’’) from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). 

See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Cased Pencils from the People’s 

Republic of China, 59 FR 66909 

(December 28, 1994). On December 1, 

2009, the Department published a notice 

of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of this order 

covering the period December 1, 2008, 

through November 30, 2009. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 62743 

(December 1, 2009). On December 4, 

2009, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), Shandong Rongxin Import 

and Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Rongxin’’), a 

foreign exporter/producer, requested 

that the Department review its sales of 

subject merchandise. On December 28, 

2009, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), Beijing Fila Dixon 

Stationery Company Ltd. (‘‘Beijing 

Dixon’’), a foreign exporter, requested 

that the Department review its sales of 

subject merchandise. On December 31, 

2009, the following exporters/producers 

requested reviews of themselves, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b): 

Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Three Star’’), Orient 

International Holding Shanghai Foreign 

Trade Corporation (‘‘SFTC’’), and China 

First Pencil Co., Ltd. (‘‘China First’’) and 

its affiliated companies including 

Shanghai First Writing Instrument Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘FST’’), Fang Zheng Ltd. (‘‘Fang 

Zheng’’), Shanghai Great Wall Pencil Co. 

Ltd. (‘‘Great Wall’’) and China First 

Pencil Huadian Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huadian’’).1

On January 29, 2010, the Department 

published a notice of initiation for this 

administrative review covering the 

companies listed in the requests 

received from the interested parties 

named above. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Request for 

Revocation in Part, and Deferral of 

Initiation of Administrative Review, 75 

FR 4770, 4772 (January 29, 2010). On 

March 29, 2010, China First and its 

affiliated companies, and Three Star 

withdrew their December 31, 2009 

requests for a review. 

The Department issued antidumping 

duty questionnaires to Rongxin and 

Beijing Dixon on April 6, 2010. Rongxin 

submitted its Section A Questionnaire 

Response on May 6, 2010, and its 

Section C and Section D Questionnaire 

Responses on May 28, 2010. Beijing 

Dixon submitted its Section A 

Questionnaire Response on April 23, 

2010, its Section C Questionnaire 

Response on May 12, 2010, and its 

Section D Questionnaire Response on 

May 12, 2010. The Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires to Rongxin 

and Beijing Dixon between June 2010 

and December 2010. Both companies 

timely filed their responses to those 

supplemental questionnaires. 

On September 3, 2010, we extended 

the time limit for the preliminary results 

in this review until January 7, 2011. See 

Certain Cased Pencils From the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 54089 (September 3, 

2010). 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of certain cased pencils of 

any shape or dimension (except as 

described below) which are writing and/ 

or drawing instruments that feature 

cores of graphite or other materials, 

encased in wood and/or man-made 

materials, whether or not decorated and 

whether or not tipped (e.g., with erasers, 

etc.) in any fashion, and either 

sharpened or unsharpened. The pencils 

subject to the order are currently 

classifiable under subheading 

9609.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Specifically excluded from 

the scope of the order are mechanical 

pencils, cosmetic pencils, pens, noncased crayons (wax), pastels, charcoals, 

chalks, and pencils produced under 

U.S. patent number 6,217,242, from 

paper infused with scents by the means 

covered in the above-referenced patent, 

thereby having odors distinct from those 

that may emanate from pencils lacking 

the scent infusion. Also excluded from 

the scope of the order are pencils with 

all of the following physical 

characteristics: (1) Length: 13.5 or more 

inches; (2) sheath diameter: not less 

than one-and-one quarter inches at any 

point (before sharpening); and (3) core 

length: not more than 15 percent of the 

length of the pencil. 

In addition, pencils with all of the 

following physical characteristics are 

excluded from the scope of the order: 

novelty jumbo pencils that are octagonal 

in shape, approximately ten inches long, 

one inch in diameter before sharpening, 

and three-and-one eighth inches in 

circumference, composed of turned 

wood encasing one-and-one half inches 

of sharpened lead on one end and a 

rubber eraser on the other end. 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Partial Rescission of Review 

The Department’s regulations at 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(1) provide that the 

Department will rescind an 

administrative review, in part, if a party 

that requested a review withdraws the 

request within 90 days of the date of 

publication of the notice of initiation of 

the requested review. As explained 

above, SFTC withdrew its request for a 

review on March 1, 2010. On March 29, 

2010, China First and its affiliated 

companies, and Three Star withdrew 

their requests for a review. These 

withdrawals occurred within the 90-day 

deadline, and no other party requested 

a review with respect to these 

companies. Therefore, the Department is 

rescinding this administrative review 

with regard to SFTC, China First and its 

affiliated companies, and Three Star. 

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. 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 2339 

administering authority. 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 has contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, we calculated 

normal value (‘‘NV’’) in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate 

Values 

When the Department investigates 

imports from an NME country and 

available information does not permit 

the Department to determine NV 

pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, 

then, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, the Department bases NV on an 

NME producer’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOPs’’), to the extent possible, valued 

in one or more market-economy 

countries (‘‘ME’’) that (1) are at a level 

of economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country, and (2) are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The Department 

determined that India, Indonesia, the 

Philippines, Ukraine, Thailand, and 

Peru are countries comparable to the 

PRC in terms of economic development. 

See Memorandum from Carole Showers, 

Director, Office of Policy, to Brandon 

Farlander, Program Manager, Office 1, 

entitled ‘‘Request for a List of Surrogate 

Countries for Administrative Review of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Cased Pencils from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’),’’ dated April 

14, 2010. On April 15, 2010, the 

Department invited the interested 

parties to comment on surrogate country 

selection and to submit surrogate value 

data. On September 1 and on September 

27, 2010, the Department extended the 

deadline for submission of publicly 

available information to value factors. 

See the Department’s Letters to All 

Interested Parties, ‘‘Certain Cased 

Pencils from the People’s Republic of 

China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country 

and Surrogate Value Comments,’’ dated 

April 15, 2010 and September 1, 2010, 

and Memorandum to the File from 

David Layton, ‘‘2008/2009 

Administrative Review of Certain Cased 

Pencils from the People’s Republic of 

China: Extension Request from Rongxin 

Import & Export Co., Ltd. Regarding the 

Submission of Surrogate Values,’’ dated 

September 27, 2010. Beijing Dixon 

submitted publicly available 

information to value factors on October 

15, 2010, and November 22, 2010. 

Rongxin submitted publicly available 

information on June 25, 2010, and 

October 18, 2010. Both respondents also 

provided certain surrogate value 

information in their supplemental 

responses. 

As explained above, we determined 

that India is comparable to the PRC. 

Furthermore, India is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise. 

See Memorandum from Mahnaz Khan to 

the File, ‘‘2008–2009 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review on Certain Cased 

Pencils from the People’s Republic of 

China: Selection of a Surrogate 

Country,’’ dated January 7, 2011. 

Finally, it is the Department’s practice 

to select an appropriate surrogate 

country based on the availability and 

reliability of data from those countries. 

In this instance, India has publicly 

available, reliable data. See Department 

Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market 

Economy Surrogate Country Selection 

Process, March 1, 2004. 

Therefore, because India is at a 

comparable level of economic 

development to the PRC, is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise, 

and has publicly available and reliable 

data, we have selected India as the 

primary surrogate country for this 

review. The Department notes that India 

has been the primary surrogate country 

in past segments of this proceeding. 

Separate Rates Determination 

A designation 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 with a rebuttable presumption 

that all companies within the country 

are subject to government control and, 

thus, should be assessed a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate (i.e., a 

country-wide rate). See, e.g., 

Department Policy Bulletin 05.1: 

Separate-Rates Practice and Application 

of Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries, April 5, 2005; see 

also Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In 

Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From 

the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 

53079 (September 8, 2006); Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, 29307 

(May 22, 2006) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’). 

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. See, 

e.g., Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 

29307. Exporters can demonstrate this 

independence through the absence of 

both de jure and de facto government 

control over export activities. Id. 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, 20589 

(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further 

developed in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

22585, 22586–87 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon 

Carbide’’). However, if the Department 

determines that a company is wholly 

foreign-owned or located in an ME, then 

a separate rate analysis is not necessary 

to determine whether it is independent 

from government control. See, e.g., Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax 

Candles from the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 

13, 2007). 

The Department received a separate 

rate certification from Rongxin on 

February 26, 2010, and a separate rate 

certification from Beijing Dixon on 

March 5, 2010. China First, Three Star, 

and SFTC requested an extension until 

March 29, 2010, to file a separate rate 

certification before withdrawing their 

respective requests for a review. 

Consequently, SFTC, China First, and 

Three Star never filed separate rate 

certifications before the March 29, 2010 

deadline. 

In its separate rate application, Beijing 

Dixon reported that it is owned wholly 

by an entity located and registered in an 

ME country (i.e., the United States). 

Thus, because we have no evidence 

indicating that Beijing Dixon is under 

the control of the PRC government, a 

separate-rate analysis is not necessary to 

determine whether it is independent 

from government control, and we 

determine Beijing Dixon has met the 

criteria for the application of a separate 

rate. See Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of Fifth New 

Shipper Review, 66 FR 29080, 29081 

(May 29, 2001) (where the respondent 

was wholly owned by a U.S. registered 

company), unchanged in Brake Rotors 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Fifth New Shipper Review, 66 FR 44331 

(August 23, 2001); Brake Rotors From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of the Fourth New Shipper 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
2340 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 

2See Rongxin’s Separate Rate Certification 

submission dated February 26, 2010, and Rongxin’s 

Section A submission dated May 6, 2010. 

Review and Rescission of the Third 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8, 

2001) (where the respondent was 

wholly owned by a company located in 

Hong Kong), unchanged in Brake Rotors 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Fourth New Shipper Review and 

Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 66 FR 27063 

(May 16, 2001); and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From 

the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 

71104, 71105 (December 20, 1999) 

(where the respondent was wholly 

owned by persons located in Hong 

Kong). 

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. The evidence 

provided by Rongxin supports a 

preliminary finding of de jure absence 

of government control. 

Rongxin has placed on the 

administrative record a copy of its 

business license and articles of 

association.2 Neither of these 

documents contains restrictions with 

respect to export activities. 

In its separate rates certification, 

Rongxin certified that during the POR: 

(1) As with the segment of the 

proceeding in which the firm was 

previously granted a separate rate 

(‘‘previous Granting Period’’), there were 

no government laws or regulations that 

controlled the firm’s export activities; 

(2) the ownership under which the firm 

registered itself with the official 

government business license issuing 

authority remains the same as for the 

previous Granting Period; (3) the firm 

had a valid PRC Export Certificate of 

Approval, now referred to and labeled 

as a Registration Form for Foreign Trade 

Operator; (4) as in the previous Granting 

Period, in order to conduct export 

activities, the firm was not required by 

law or regulation at any level of 

government to possess additional 

certificates or other documents related 

to the legal status and/or operation of its 

business beyond those discussed above; 

and (5) PRC government laws and 

legislative enactments applicable to 

Rongxin remained the same as in the 

previous Granting Period. 

In prior cases, we have found an 

absence of de jure control absent proof 

on the record to the contrary. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl 

Alcohol From the People’s Republic of 

China, 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995) 

(‘‘Furfuryl Alcohol’’). We have no 

information in this proceeding that 

would cause us to reconsider this 

determination. Thus, we determine that 

the evidence on the record supports a 

preliminary finding of absence of de 

jure government control for Rongxin. 

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 

22587. Therefore, 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 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 of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by, or subject to the approval of, 

a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has the 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 the 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87, and Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR 

at 22545. 

Rongxin has asserted the following: 

(1) It establishes its own export prices; 

(2) it negotiates contracts without 

guidance from any government entities 

or organizations; (3) it makes its own 

personnel decisions; and (4) it retains 

the proceeds of its export sales, uses 

profits according to its business needs, 

and has the authority to sell its assets 

and to obtain loans. Additionally, 

Rongxin’s questionnaire responses 

indicate that its pricing during the POR 

was not coordinated with other 

exporters. As a result, there is a 

sufficient basis to preliminarily 

determine that Rongxin has 

demonstrated a de facto absence of 

government control of its export 

functions and it is entitled to a separate 

rate. 

Fair-Value Comparisons 

To determine whether Rongxin’s sales 

of subject merchandise were made at 

less than NV, we compared the NV to 

individual export price (‘‘EP’’) 

transactions in accordance with section 

777A(d)(2) of the Act. See ‘‘Export Price’’ 

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this 

notice, below. To determine whether 

Beijing Dixon’s sales were made at less 

than NV, we compared constructed 

export price (‘‘CEP’’) to NV as described 

in the ‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ 

section of the 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. In accordance with section 

772(a) of the Act, we used EPs for sales 

by Rongxin to the United States because 

the first sale to an unaffiliated party was 

made before the date of importation, 

and CEP methodology 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, we made 

deductions for Rongxin’s foreign inland 

freight and foreign brokeage and 

handling where appropriate. 

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. See Memorandum 

from David Layton to File, ‘‘Factor 

Valuation for the Preliminary Results 

Memorandum,’’ dated January 7, 2011 

(‘‘Factor Valuation Memorandum’’). 

Constructed Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, CEP is the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) in the United States 

before or after the date of importation by 

or for the account of the producer or 

exporter of such merchandise or by a 

seller affiliated with the producer or 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 2341 

exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 

with the producer or exporter, as 

adjusted under subsections (c) and (d). 

In its questionnaire responses, Beijing 

Dixon stated that it made CEP sales 

through its U.S. affiliate, Dixon 

Ticonderoga Company. In accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act, we used 

CEP for Beijing Dixon’s U.S. sales 

because all sales to unaffiliated 

customers were made after the date of 

importation and by its U.S. affiliate. 

The Department calculated CEP based 

on the packed, delivered prices to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States, net of billing adjustments, 

rebates and early payment discounts. 

We adjusted these prices for movement 

expenses, including foreign inland 

freight, international freight, marine 

insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage 

and handling (U.S. brokerage and 

handling was reported as three ‘‘other 

transportation expense’’ categories), U.S. 

customs duties, U.S. inland freight from 

port to warehouse and U.S inland 

shipment insurance in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act, we deducted from Beijing 

Dixon’s starting price those selling 

expenses that were incurred in selling 

the subject merchandise in the United 

States, including imputed credit 

expenses, applicable advertising 

expenses, commissions, royalties and 

indirect selling expenses. We also made 

an adjustment for profit in accordance 

with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. For a 

detailed description of all adjustments, 

see Memorandum from Mahnaz Khan to 

the File, ‘‘Analysis for the Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Cased 

Pencils from the People’s Republic of 

China: Beijing Fila Dixon Stationery 

Company Ltd.,’’ dated January 7, 2011 

(‘‘Beijing Dixon Preliminary Calculation 

Memo’’). 

For our CEP adjustments for Beijing 

Dixon, we valued foreign brokerage and 

handling, and foreign inland truck rates 

using the same surrogate values 

described above in the ‘‘Export Price’’ 

section. 

For its calculation of the CEP, the 

Department changed certain data in 

Beijing Dixon’s U.S. sales database. 

Beijing Dixon reported no payment date 

for certain observations in the U.S. sales 

database. For these observations, the 

Department, as is its practice, applied as 

the payment date May 20, 2010, the 

deadline for submission of factual 

information in this administrative 

review as provided in 19 CFR 

351.301(b)(2). We have also calculated 

the credit expense for each of the 

specific observations with missing 

payment dates based on the May 20, 

2010 payment date. See Beijing Dixon 

Preliminary Calculation Memo at 3–4. 

We have not yet requested clarification 

from Beijing Dixon regarding the 

missing payment dates, but intend to do 

so after these preliminary results. 

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine NV 

using a FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

country 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 will base NV on 

FOPs where the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of NMEs 

renders price comparisons and the 

calculation of production costs invalid 

under our normal ME methodologies. 

Therefore, we calculated NV based on 

FOPs in accordance with sections 

773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.408(c). The FOPs include: (1) Hours 

of labor required; (2) quantities of raw 

materials employed; (3) amounts of 

energy and other utilities consumed; 

and (4) representative capital costs. We 

used the FOPs reported by the 

respondents for materials, energy, labor, 

and packing. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), when a producer sources 

an input from an ME country and pays 

for it in ME currency, the Department 

will normally value the factor using the 

actual price paid to the ME supplier for 

the input. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1). 

Where a portion of the input is 

purchased from an ME supplier and the 

remainder from an NME supplier, the 

Department will normally use the price 

paid for the input sourced from ME 

suppliers to value all of the input, 

provided the volume of the ME input as 

a share of total purchases from all 

sources is ‘‘meaningful.’’ See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 

1997); Shakeproof Assembly 

Components, Div. of Ill. Tool Works, Inc. 

v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382 

(Fed. Cir. 2001); 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); 

see also Antidumping Methodologies: 

Market Economy Inputs, Expected NonMarket Economy Wages, Duty 

Drawback; and Request for Comments, 

71 FR 61716, 61716–61719 (October 19, 

2006) (regarding the Department’s 

flexible 33 percent threshold for ME 

inputs). In this administrative review, 

Beijing Dixon reports purchasing four 

ME material inputs in volumes that 

exceed the threshold percentage that the 

Department normally considers 

‘‘meaningful.’’ See Beijing Dixon 

Preliminary Calculation Memorandum. 

At the Department’s request, Beijing 

Dixon provided documentation to 

support its claim that these four inputs 

were obtained from ME sources. See 

Sections C & D First and Second 

Supplemental Questionnaire Response 

of Beijing Fila Dixon Stationery 

Company, Ltd., dated September 10, 

2010, at Exhibits Supplemental C–12 

and D–5–D–9. Accordingly, we have 

calculated NV for these preliminary 

results using the ME prices paid by 

Beijing Dixon for these four inputs to 

value the relevant factors. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated NV based on 

FOPs reported by the respondents for 

the POR. Except as noted above for 

Beijing Dixon’s ME inputs, we 

multiplied the reported per-unit factor 

quantities by publicly available Indian 

surrogate values. In selecting the 

surrogate values, we considered the 

quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneousness of the data. 

In accordance with section 773(c)(1) 

of the Act, for purposes of calculating 

NV, we attempted to value the FOPs 

using surrogate values that were in 

effect during the POR. If we were unable 

to obtain surrogate values that were in 

effect during the POR, we adjusted the 

values, as appropriate, to account for 

inflation or deflation between the 

effective period and the POR. We 

calculated the inflation or deflation 

adjustments for all factor values, except 

labor and utilities, using the India 

Wholesale Price Index as published in 

the International Monetary Fund’s 

International Financial Statistics. 

When relying on prices of imports 

into India as surrogate values, we have 

disregarded prices that we have reason 

to believe or suspect may be subsidized. 

See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of 1999–2000 Administrative 

Review, Partial Rescission of Review, 

and Determination Not To Revoke Order 

in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 

2001), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

We have found that Indonesia, South 

Korea, and Thailand maintain broadly 

available, non-industry-specific export 

subsidies. Accordingly, it is reasonable 

to infer that exports to all markets from 

those countries may be subsidized. See 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Preliminary Results and Preliminary 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
2342 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 

3See ‘‘Pencil Industry in India—A Robust 

Future,’’ Divya Jha, in ‘‘Paper & Stationery 

Samachar’’ (Delhi, November 2008), an Indian trade 

journal (‘‘Paper and Stationery’’) at 54, attached as 

Exhibit 3 to Rongxin’s June 25, 2010 Surrogate 

Value Submission. 4See id. 

54011 (September 13, 2005), unchanged 

in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 

Results of the First Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006); 

and China Nat’l Machinery Import & 

Export Corp. v. United States, 293 F. 

Supp. 2d 1334, 1336 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 

2003), aff’d 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. 

Cir. 2004). 

In avoiding the use of prices that may 

be subsidized, the Department does not 

conduct a formal investigation to ensure 

that such prices are not subsidized. See 

H.R. Rep. 100–576 at 590–91 (1988), 

reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 

1623. Rather, the Department relies on 

information that is generally available at 

the time of its determination. Therefore, 

we have not used prices from those 

countries in calculating the Indian 

import-based surrogate values. See 

Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

As appropriate, we adjusted input 

prices by including freight costs to make 

them delivered prices. Specifically, we 

added to the Indian import surrogate 

values a surrogate freight cost calculated 

using the shorter of the reported 

distance from the domestic supplier to 

the factory or the distance from the 

nearest port of export to the factory, 

where appropriate. This adjustment is 

in accordance with the decision of the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘Federal Circuit’’) in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–08 

(Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Department 

Policy Bulletin No. 10.2: Inclusion of 

International Freight Costs When Import 

Prices Constitute Normal Value, 

November 1, 2010. 

We valued the FOPs as follows: 

(1) Except where noted below, we 

valued all reported material and packing 

inputs using Indian import data from 

the Global Trade Atlas for December 

2008 through November 2009. 

(2) We calculated the slats surrogate 

value using data from ‘‘Paper and 

Stationery.’’ 3 The slats, for which values 

were reported in ‘‘Paper and Stationery,’’ 

are used for pencil production and are 

made from Ajanta, valued at Rs. 210 per 

1000 cubic feet, and Vatta II, valued at 

Rs. 200 per 1000 cubic feet. We 

averaged the values for Ajanta and Vatta 

II to arrive at a surrogate value of Rs. 

205 per 1000 cubic feet. We converted 

Rupees-per-1000 cubic-feet to Rupeesper-kilogram. We adjusted this value to 

account for inflation between the 

effective period and the POR. See 

Attachment 4 of the Factor Valuation 

Memorandum for the calculation of the 

surrogate values for slats. 

(3) We calculated separate surrogate 

values for black and color cores, and, for 

valuation purposes, distinguished 

between regular and thick core 

dimensions. We obtained surrogate 

values for black and color cores from 

‘‘Paper and Stationery.’’ 4 We adjusted 

these values to account for inflation 

between the effective period and the 

POR. See Attachment 4 of the Factor 

Valuation Memorandum for the 

calculation of the surrogate values for 

black and color cores. 

(4) We valued electricity using price 

data for small, medium, and large 

industries, as published by the Central 

Electricity Authority of the Government 

of India in its publication titled 

‘‘Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average 

Rates of Electricity Supply in India,’’ 

dated March 2008. Those electricity 

rates represent actual country-wide, 

publicly-available information on taxexclusive electricity rates charged to 

industries in India. See Factor Valuation 

Memorandum. 

(5) For Rongxin, we valued steam coal 

using data obtained for grade E non-long 

flame non-coking coal reported on the 

2007 Coal India Data website. For 

Beijing Dixon, we valued steam coal 

using data obtained for grade C long 

flame non-coking coal reported on the 

2007 Coal India Data Web site. See 

Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

(6) 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 Federal Circuit 

decision. However, for these 

preliminary results, we have calculated 

an hourly wage rate to use in valuing 

the respondents’ reported labor input by 

averaging industry-specific earnings 

and/or wages in countries that are 

economically comparable to the PRC 

and that are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. Our 

methodology is described below. 

The Department is valuing labor using 

a simple average, industry-specific wage 

rate derived from earnings or wage data 

reported under Chapter 5B by the 

International Labor Organization 

(‘‘ILO’’). Specifically, the Department 

has calculated the wage rate as a simple 

average of the data provided to the ILO 

under Sub-Classification 36 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 Furniture; 

Manufacturing n.e.c.’’) to be the best 

available information for valuing the 

respondents’ labor input 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 to be significant producers of 

comparable merchandise: Ecuador, 

Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, 

Philippines, and Thailand. On this 

basis, the Department calculated a 

simple average, industry-specific wage 

rate of $1.23 for these preliminary 

results. For further information on the 

calculation of the wage rate, see Factor 

Valuation Memorandum. 

(7) We derived ratios for factory 

overhead, depreciation, selling, general 

and administrative expenses, interest 

expenses, and profit for the finished 

product using the 2006–2007 financial 

statement of Triveni Pencils Ltd. 

(‘‘Triveni’’), an Indian producer of 

pencils, in accordance with the 

Department’s practice with respect to 

selecting financial statements for use in 

NME cases. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates 

From the People’s Republic of China, 70 

FR 24502 (May 10, 2005), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. Reliance 

upon Triveni’s financial statements is 

consistent with the 2007–2008 

administrative review. 

(8) We valued inland truck freight 

expenses using a per-unit average rate 

calculated from data on the following 

publicly accessible Web site: http:// 

www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this website contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. Since the truck rate value is based 

on an annual per-unit rate and falls 

within the POR (August 2008 through 

July 2009), we are treating the derived 

average rate as contemporaneous with 

the POR. For rail freight, we used 2006– 

2007 data from the publicly accessible 

website http:// 

www.Indianrailways.gov.in/ to derive, 

where appropriate, input-specific train 

rates on a rupees-per-kilogram perVerDate Mar<15>2010 16:15 Jan 12, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13JAN1.SGM 13JAN1

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 2343 

kilometer basis (‘‘Rs/kg/km’’). The 

Department is not inflating the 2006– 

2007 rail freight data from the http:// 

www.Indianrailways.gov.in website 

since these rates are currently published 

on their website, and the website does 

not have any updated rail freights for 

the POR. Therefore, the Department 

continues to treat these rail freights on 

the http://www.Indianrailways.gov.in 

Web site as contemporaneous with the 

POR in this administrative review. 

Currency Conversion 

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 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following margins exist for the period 

December 1, 2008, through November 

30, 2009: 

Exporter Margin 

(percent) 

Beijing Dixon Stationery Company Ltd. ................................. 0.00 

Shandong Rongxin Import and 

Export Co., Ltd. ....................... 0.17 

As stated above in the ‘‘Separate Rates 

Determination’’ section of this notice, 

Dixon and Rongxin each qualify for a 

separate rate in this review. 

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). 

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. Interested 

parties must provide the Department 

with supporting documentation for the 

publicly available information to value 

each FOP. Additionally, 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 cannot 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. 

An interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

the preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Interested parties may 

submit written comments (case briefs) 

no later than 30 days after publication 

of these preliminary results of review, 

and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), 

which must be limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, within five days after 

the time limit for filing case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit 

arguments are requested to submit with 

the argument: (1) A statement of the 

issue(s); (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 compact 

disk containing the public version of 

those comments. We will issue a 

memorandum identifying the date and 

time of a hearing, if one is requested. 

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 of 

publication of the preliminary results, 

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

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of this 

administration review, the Department 

will determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of review. For assessment 

purposes, we calculated exporter/ 

importer-specific (or customer-specific) 

assessment rates for merchandise 

subject to this review. 

Rongxin did not report entered values 

for its U.S. sales. Therefore, we 

calculated a per-unit assessment 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. 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-specific (or 

customer-specific) rate is de minimis 

(i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the 

Department will instruct CBP to 

liquidate that importer’s (or customer’s) 

entries of subject merchandise without 

regard to antidumping duties. 

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, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212.(c)(1)(i). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions regarding entries of the 

rescinded companies directly to CBP 15 

days after publication of this notice. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash-deposit 

requirements will apply to all 

shipments of certain cased pencils from 

the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the publication date of the final results 

of this administrative review, as 

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 

(1) The cash deposit rates for the 

reviewed companies named above will 

be the rates for those firms established 

in the final results of this administrative 

review; (2) for any previously reviewed 

or investigated PRC or non-PRC 

exporter, not covered in this review, 

with a separate rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the company-specific rate 

established in the most recent segment 

of this proceeding; (3) for all other PRC 

exporters, the cash deposit rate will be 

the PRC-wide rate established in the 

final results of this review; and (4) the 

cash-deposit rate for any non-PRC 

exporter of subject merchandise from 

the PRC will be the rate applicable to 

the PRC exporter that supplied that 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
2344 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 

1The petitioners are the United States Steel 

Corporation, Nucor Corporation, and ArcelorMittal 

USA Inc. (collectively ‘‘petitioners’’). 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

preliminary results determination in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: January 7, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–627 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–820] 

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From India: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

petitioners,1 the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 

from India (‘‘Indian Hot-Rolled’’) 

manufactured by Essar Steel Limited 

(‘‘Essar’’), Ispat Industries Limited 

(‘‘Ispat’’), JSW Steel Limited (‘‘JSW’’), and 

Tata Steel Limited (‘‘Tata’’). The period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) covers December 1, 

2008, through November 30, 2009. We 

preliminarily determine that Essar, 

Ispat, JSW, and Tata had no reviewable 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We intend to issue the 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: January 13, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Hargett or James Terpstra, 

AD/CVD Operations Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4161 and (202) 

482–3965, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 3, 2001, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on Indian HotRolled. See Notice of Amended Final 

Antidumping Duty Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 

India, 66 FR 60194 (December 3, 2001) 

(‘‘Amended Final Determination’’). On 

December 1, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice titled ‘‘Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review’’ of the 

antidumping duty order on Indian HotRolled. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 74 

FR 62743 (December 1, 2009). On 

December 31, 2009, petitioners 

requested an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on Indian 

Hot-Rolled, for subject merchandise 

produced or exported by Ispat, JSW, 

Tata, and Essar. On January 29, 2010, 

the Department published a notice of 

initiation of antidumping duty 

administrative review of Indian HotRolled for the period December 1, 2008, 

through November 30, 2009. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, 

and Deferral of Initiation of 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 4770 

(January 29, 2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

On February 2, 2010, Ispat and Essar, 

and on February 17, 2010, JSW, each 

informed the Department that they did 

not have shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. 

In February 2010, the Department 

exercised its discretion to toll deadlines 

for the duration of the closure of the 

Federal Government from February 5, 

through February 12, 2010. Thus all 

deadlines in this segment of the 

proceeding have been extended for 

seven days. See Memorandum to the 

Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for 

Import Administration, regarding 

‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As 

a Result of the Government Closure 

During the Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated 

February 12, 2010. 

On February 16, 2010, the Department 

issued its antidumping questionnaire to 

Tata. On February 18, 2010, Tata 

informed the Department that it had one 

shipment of subject merchandise that 

was entered into the United States 

during the POR, but that shipment was 

not of normal commercial quantities 

and was a one-off transaction for testing 

purposes only. Tata informed the 

Department that it would, therefore, not 

respond to the antidumping 

questionnaire. 

On August 23, 2010, the Department 

placed on the record and invited 

interested parties to comment on U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

data obtained to corroborate the claims 

of the respondents. See Memorandum to 

the File from Christopher Hargett, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, through James Terpstra, 

Program Manager, and Melissa Skinner, 

Office Director, concerning ‘‘Customs 

and Border Protection (‘CBP’) Data for 

Corroboration of Claims of No 

Shipments,’’ dated August 23, 2010 

(‘‘August 23 Comment Memorandum’’); 

clarified by Memorandum to the File 

from Christopher Hargett, International 

Trade Compliance Analyst, through 

James Terpstra, Program Manager, and 

Melissa Skinner, Office Director, 

concerning ‘‘Clarification of Customs 

and Border Protection (‘CBP’) Data for 

Corroboration of Claims of No 

Shipments,’’ dated August 25, 2010 

(‘‘August 25 Clarification 

Memorandum’’). On August 31, 2010, 

we received timely comments from 

Nucor Corporation. 

On September 14, 2010, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

the preliminary results to January 7, 

2011. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from India: 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 55742 

(September 14, 2010). 

On November 23, 2010, we requested 

CBP to provide documents associated 

with certain entries. See Memorandum 

to Michael Walsh, Director, AD/CVD/ 

Revenue Policy and Programs, Office of 

International Trade, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, from Melissa 

Skinner, Office Director, entitled 

‘‘Request for U.S. Entry Documents— 

Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products 

from India (A–533–820),’’ dated 

November 23, 2010 (‘‘November 23 CBP 

Request Memorandum’’). We received 

such documents on December 23, 2010. 

See Memorandum from Christopher 

Hargett, International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, Office 3, through Melissa 

Skinner, Office Director, Office 3, AD/ 

CVD Operations, to the File, entitled 

‘‘Entry Documentation for Corroboration 

of Claims of No Shipments,’’ dated 

January 7, 2011 (‘‘January 7 Entry 

Documentation Memorandum’’). 

Period of Review 

The POR covered by this review is 

December 1, 2008, through November 

30, 2009. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES