[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18524-18532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7927]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-967]


Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: April 4, 2011.

SUMMARY: On November 12, 2010, the Department of Commerce 
(``Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at 
less than fair value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of 
aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\ 
We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary 
determination. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we 
have made changes to our margin calculations for the mandatory 
respondents. The final dumping margins for this investigation are 
listed in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, and Preliminary Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 
69403 (November 12, 2010) (``Preliminary Determination'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Lori Apodaca, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4474 or (202) 482-4551, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History

    The Department published its Preliminary Determination on November 
12, 2010. The Department subsequently issued a ministerial error 
memorandum, in which it agreed to correct several ministerial 
errors.\2\ On January 4, 2011, pursuant to the correction of 
ministerial errors, the Department published an Amended Preliminary 
Determination.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memorandum entitled ``Ministerial Error Memorandum, 
Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China, Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,'' dated December 21, 
2010, on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU''), 
Room 7046 of the main Department building.
    \3\ See Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, 76 FR 323 (January 4, 2011) (``Amended Preliminary 
Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between December 6, 2010, and December 21, 2010, the Department 
conducted verifications of Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd. 
(``Guang Ya''), Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd. (``Guangcheng''), 
Kong Ah International Co., Ltd.(``Kong Ah''), and Guang Ya Aluminium 
Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd. (``Guang Ya HK'') (collectively the ``Guang 
Ya Group''); Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. (``ZNZ''), Zhongya 
Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited (``Shaped Aluminum'') and Karlton 
Aluminum Company Ltd. (``Karlton'') (collectively ``New Zhongya''); and 
Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. (``Xinya'') (all 
parties, collectively ``the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya''). The 
Department released verification reports for each of these companies on 
January 28, 2011.\4\ See the ``Verification'' section below for 
additional information. On December 12, 2010, Aavid Thermalloy, Inc. 
(``Aavid'') submitted a request for a scope hearing. On December 13, 
2010, The Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee,\5\ and the United 
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 
Industrial and Service Workers International Union (collectively, 
``Petitioners'') and New Zhongya submitted requests for a public 
hearing. On February 9, 2011, Petitioners submitted a request for a 
closed session of the hearing. On March 2, 2011, the Department held a 
public scope hearing for the antidumping duty and countervailing duty 
investigations, and both an open and a closed session of the 
antidumping duty hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the Department's verification reports on the record of 
this investigation, all on file in the CRU.
    \5\ The Aluminum Extrusions fair Trade Committee is comprised of 
Aerolite Extrusion Company, Alexandria Extrusion Company, Benada 
Aluminum of Florida, Inc., William L. Bonnell Company, Inc., 
Frontier Aluminum Corporation, Futura Industries Corporation, Hydro 
Aluminum North America, Inc., Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, Profile 
Extrusions Company, Sapa Extrusions, Inc., and Western Extrusions 
Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Zhongya and Petitioners submitted surrogate value comments on 
December 22, 2010. On February 9, 2011, case briefs were filed by the 
Guang Ya Group, the Government of China (``GOC''), Petitioners, and New 
Zhongya. On February 14, 2011, the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and 
Petitioners filed their rebuttal briefs.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2009, through 
December 31, 2009. This period corresponds to the two most recent 
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which 
was March 2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``Act''), we conducted verification of the information submitted by 
the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya for use in our final 
determination.\6\ We used standard verification procedures, including 
the examination of relevant accounting and production records, as 
appropriate, as well as original source documents provided by 
respondents.

[[Page 18525]]

However, as detailed in our verification report and discussed further 
below, we were unable verify the information submitted by Xinya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the Department's verification reports on the record of 
this investigation in the CRU, with respect to these entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted in this 
investigation are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for 
the Final Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of 
Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China,'' (``Issues 
and Decision Memorandum'') dated concurrently with this notice, which 
is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties 
have raised and to which we have responded in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and 
Decision Memorandum is a public document on file in the CRU and is 
accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 
electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    <bullet> We are amending the language of the scope of the 
antidumping duty (``AD'') and countervailing duty (``CVD'') 
investigations for clarification purposes as described in detail in the 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. See Comment 3, A-J in the 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    <bullet> For the final determination, the Department has adjusted 
the Petition rates using the revised surrogate value for labor as 
described in detail in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 
The revised petition margins range from 32.53 percent to 33.28 percent. 
See Comment 1, A-F, Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum; see also March 28, 2011 Memorandum to the File, 
regarding Investigation of Certain Aluminum Extrusions from the 
People's Republic of China: Petition Rate Recalculation (``Petition 
Rate Recalculation Memo'').
    <bullet> For the final determination, we are applying a rate based 
on adverse facts available (``AFA'') to the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/
Xinya single entity. As AFA we have assigned the highest rate from the 
petition of 33.18 percent, as recalculated for the final 
determination.\7\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5: 
Application of Total AFA; see also Memorandum regarding: Application of 
Total Adverse Facts Available for the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya 
in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the 
People's Republic of China, dated March 28, 2011 (``Guang Ya Group/New 
Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> For the final determination, we have assigned the 29 
separate rate applicants to whom we are granting a separate rate a 
dumping margin of 32.79 percent, based on the simple average of the 
margins alleged in the petition, as recalculated for this final 
determination. See Comment 1, A-F, Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum; see also Petition Rate Recalculation 
Memo, detailing recalculation to correct for a ministerial error.

Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is aluminum 
extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion 
process, made from aluminum alloys having metallic elements 
corresponding to the alloy series designations published by The 
Aluminum Association commencing with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or 
proprietary equivalents or other certifying body equivalents). 
Specifically, the subject merchandise made from aluminum alloy with an 
Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 1 
contains not less than 99 percent aluminum by weight. The subject 
merchandise made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association 
series designation commencing with the number 3 contains manganese as 
the major alloying element, with manganese accounting for not more than 
3.0 percent of total materials by weight. The subject merchandise is 
made from an aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series 
designation commencing with the number 6 contains magnesium and silicon 
as the major alloying elements, with magnesium accounting for at least 
0.1 percent but not more than 2.0 percent of total materials by weight, 
and silicon accounting for at least 0.1 percent but not more than 3.0 
percent of total materials by weight. The subject aluminum extrusions 
are properly identified by a four-digit alloy series without either a 
decimal point or leading letter. Illustrative examples from among the 
approximately 160 registered alloys that may characterize the subject 
merchandise are as follows: 1350, 3003, and 6060.
    Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported in a wide variety of 
shapes and forms, including, but not limited to, hollow profiles, other 
solid profiles, pipes, tubes, bars, and rods. Aluminum extrusions that 
are drawn subsequent to extrusion (``drawn aluminum'') are also 
included in the scope.
    Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported with a variety of 
finishes (both coatings and surface treatments), and types of 
fabrication. The types of coatings and treatments applied to subject 
aluminum extrusions include, but are not limited to, extrusions that 
are mill finished (i.e., without any coating or further finishing), 
brushed, buffed, polished, anodized (including bright-dip anodized), 
liquid painted, or powder coated. Aluminum extrusions may also be 
fabricated, i.e., prepared for assembly. Such operations would include, 
but are not limited to, extrusions that are cut-to-length, machined, 
drilled, punched, notched, bent, stretched, knurled, swedged, mitered, 
chamfered, threaded, and spun. The subject merchandise includes 
aluminum extrusions that are finished (coated, painted, etc.), 
fabricated, or any combination thereof.
    Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of 
importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled 
after importation, including, but not limited to, window frames, door 
frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or furniture. Such parts that 
otherwise meet the definition of aluminum extrusions are included in 
the scope. The scope includes the aluminum extrusion components that 
are attached (e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies, 
i.e., partially assembled merchandise unless imported as part of the 
finished goods `kit' defined further below. The scope does not include 
the non-aluminum extrusion components of subassemblies or subject kits.
    Subject extrusions may be identified with reference to their end 
use, such as fence posts, electrical conduits, heat sinks, door 
thresholds, or carpet trim. Such goods are subject merchandise if they 
otherwise meet the scope definition, regardless of whether they are 
ready for use at the time of importation.
    The following aluminum extrusion products are excluded: Aluminum 
extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series 
designations commencing with the number 2 and containing in excess of 
1.5 percent copper by weight; aluminum extrusions made from aluminum 
alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with 
the number 5 and containing in excess of 1.0 percent magnesium by 
weight; and aluminum extrusions made from

[[Page 18526]]

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation 
commencing with the number 7 and containing in excess of 2.0 percent 
zinc by weight.
    The scope also excludes finished merchandise containing aluminum 
extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and 
completed at the time of entry, such as finished windows with glass, 
doors with glass or vinyl, picture frames with glass pane and backing 
material, and solar panels. The scope also excludes finished goods 
containing aluminum extrusions that are entered unassembled in a 
``finished goods kit.'' A finished goods kit is understood to mean a 
packaged combination of parts that contains, at the time of 
importation, all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final 
finished good and requires no further finishing or fabrication, such as 
cutting or punching, and is assembled `as is' into a finished product. 
An imported product will not be considered a `finished goods kit' and 
therefore excluded from the scope of the investigation merely by 
including fasteners such as screws, bolts, etc. in the packaging with 
an aluminum extrusion product.
    The scope also excludes aluminum alloy sheet or plates produced by 
other than the extrusion process, such as aluminum products produced by 
a method of casting. Cast aluminum products are properly identified by 
four digits with a decimal point between the third and fourth digit. A 
letter may also precede the four digits. The following Aluminum 
Association designations are representative of aluminum alloys for 
casting: 208.0, 295.0, 308.0, 355.0, C355.0, 356.0, A356.0, A357.0, 
360.0, 366.0, 380.0, A380.0, 413.0, 443.0, 514.0, 518.1, and 712.0. The 
scope also excludes pure, unwrought aluminum in any form.
    The scope also excludes collapsible tubular containers composed of 
metallic elements corresponding to alloy code 1080A as designated by 
the Aluminum Association where the tubular container (excluding the 
nozzle) meets each of the following dimensional characteristics: (1) 
Length of 37 mm or 62 mm, (2) outer diameter of 11.0 mm or 12.7 mm, and 
(3) wall thickness not exceeding 0.13 mm.
    Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the 
following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTS''): 7604.21.0000, 7604.29.1000, 7604.29.3010, 
7604.29.3050, 7604.29.5030, 7604.29.5060, 7608.20.0030, and 
7608.20.0090. The subject merchandise entered as parts of other 
aluminum products may be classifiable under the following additional 
Chapter 76 subheadings: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99 
as well as under other HTS chapters. In addition, fin evaporator coils 
may be classifiable under HTS numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and 8418.99.80.60. 
While HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope in this proceeding is 
dispositive.

Scope Comments

    Concurrent with the Preliminary Determination, on October 27, 2010, 
the Department issued a decision memorandum addressing ten scope issues 
in this and the concurrent countervailing duty investigation on 
aluminum extrusions from the PRC.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See October 27, 2010, Memorandum entitled ``Preliminary 
Determinations: Comments on the Scope of the Investigations'' 
(``Preliminary Scope Memorandum''); see also Preliminary 
Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the Preliminary Determination, scope comments received 
on or after October 7, 2010, but prior to the Preliminary Determination 
were not submitted in time for consideration for the Preliminary 
Determination and that, as a result, we would fully consider any such 
comments for the final determination. In addition, it came to our 
attention that our Preliminary Scope Memorandum inadvertently did not 
address scope comments submitted by Petitioners on May 10, 2010. We 
provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
Preliminary Scope Memorandum. In response, multiple parties submitted 
scope case briefs on January 20, 2011, and scope rebuttal briefs on 
January 25, 2011.
    For the final determination, we have considered Petitioners' May 
10, 2010, scope comments, the scope comments provided by all parties on 
or after October 7, 2011, but prior to the Preliminary Determination, 
and the scope case and rebuttal briefs submitted on January 20 and 
January 25, 2011, respectively, and addressed these issues in the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Specifically: Floturn, Inc. (``Floturn'') submitted comments 
on October 7, 2010; Petitioners on October 13, 2010, October 19, 
2010, and October 22, 2010; the Shower Door, Tub and Shower 
Enclosures Manufacturers' Alliance (``SDMA'') on October 7, 2010; 
Eagle Metals, Inc. and Eagle Metals Distributors, Inc. 
(collectively, ``Eagle Metals'') on October 12, 2010, October 13, 
2010, and October 21, 2010; Aavid Thermalloy (``Aavid'') on October 
13, 2010, and October 21, 2010; Brazeway Inc. (``Brazeway'') on 
October 19, 2010, and December 15, 2010; Maine Ornamental, LLC 
(``Maine Ornamental'') on October 22, 2010; and Hubble Power Systems 
(``HPS'') on October 26, 2010. Additionally, Petitioners, Floturn, 
SDMA, Eagle Metals, Aavid, Brazeway, and Maine Ornamental submitted 
scope case briefs on January 20, 2011; Petitioners, Floturn, SDMA, 
and Brazeway submitted scope rebuttal briefs on January 25, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 10, 2010, and in its scope case brief of January 11, 2011, 
Petitioners provided a series of proposed wording changes to clarify 
the scope language of these investigations. No other party provided 
comments on these proposed changes. On February 28, 2011, the 
Department requested that Petitioners clarify whether the Petition 
intended to cover the non-aluminum components of subject kits and 
subassemblies and that Petitioners provide language if the intent of 
the Petition was to not cover the non-aluminum components. On March 9, 
2011, Petitioners submitted clarifying language stipulating that it is 
the intent of the petition to cover only the aluminum extrusion 
components of entries of subject aluminum extrusion subassemblies or 
subject kits.
    We have adopted all of Petitioners' clarifications for the final 
determination. For a complete discussion of the parties' scope-related 
comments (including the clarifications discussed above) and the 
Department's position, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
accompanying this notice at Comment 3, A-J.

Targeted Dumping

    Because we are basing the margin of the sole mandatory respondent 
on total AFA for the final determination, we have not considered 
Petitioners' targeted dumping allegation for the final determination.

Surrogate Country

    In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected 
India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation 
for the following reasons: (1) It is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the PRC, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the 
Act; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use to value 
the FOPs. See Preliminary Determination. For the final determination, 
we received no comments on surrogate country selection and, 
accordingly, made no changes to our findings with respect to the 
selection of a surrogate country.

Affiliation

    For the reasons set forth in our Preliminary Determination, we 
continue to find the entities comprising the Guang Ya Group, and the 
entities

[[Page 18527]]

comprising New Zhongya, affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of 
the Act, as each entity is owned by a member of the Kuang family. 
Further, we find that New Zhongya is affiliated with one of its 
reported customers during the POI pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the 
Act.\10\ Furthermore, we continue to find the Guang Ya Group/New 
Zhongya and Xinya affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See March 28, 2011, Memorandum regarding the Investigation 
of Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination Regarding Affiliation and Collapsing of Guang Ya 
Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd., Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., 
Ltd., Kong Ah International Co., Ltd., and Guang Ya Aluminium 
Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd.; Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., 
Ltd., Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Ltd., Karlton Aluminum 
Co., Ltd.; and Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. 
(``Final Affiliation/Collapsing Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making this determination, we note that the Guang Ya Group and 
New Zhongya each stated on the record that a Kuang sibling was 
``Shareholder'' of Xinya, and though the Guang Ya Group also made other 
inconsistent statements regarding ownership of Xinya, neither party has 
recanted these original statements. Further, because the ownership 
information provided by Xinya could not be verified, we do not accord 
any weight to its ownership claims, which constitute unverifiable 
information. Thus, we continue to find that the record evidence 
indicates that Xinya is owned by a member of the Kuang family. Because 
each entity is owned by a member of the Kuang family, we conclude that 
the owners of Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya are members of a 
family grouping, pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the Act. Further, we 
find that the ownership by the family grouping satisfies the 
requirement of affiliation pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act, 
because all of the companies within the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, 
and Xinya are under the common control of the family grouping.
    To the extent that section 771(33) of the Act does not conflict 
with the Department's application of separate rates and enforcement of 
the non-market economy (``NME'') provision or section 773(c) of the 
Act, the Department will determine that affiliated exporters and/or 
producers are a single entity if the facts of the case support such a 
finding.\11\ The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') has upheld the 
Department's practice of determining whether to treat two or more 
companies as a single entity for antidumping purposes based on a 
consideration of whether there exists a significant potential for 
manipulation of prices and/or export decisions.\12\ The determination 
to treat the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya as a single entity, 
is based on a finding that the family grouping holds essentially full 
ownership of the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya, all of which 
are producers and/or exporters of merchandise under consideration in 
this investigation. Therefore, in considering the level of common 
ownership pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(i), we find nearly 100 
percent common ownership of the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya 
by the family grouping. In this context, the family in question is the 
``person'' jointly owning and controlling the Guang Ya Group, New 
Zhongya, and Xinya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Sixth New Shipper Review and 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fourth Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 10410, 10413 (March 5, 2004) 
(``Mushrooms''), unchanged in Final Results and Final Rescission, in 
Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 54361 
(September 14, 2005).
    \12\ See Hontex Enterprises v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 
1225, 1230-34 (CIT 2004) (``Hontex II'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(ii), the extent to which managerial 
employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of 
an affiliated firm, the record of this proceeding shows that Kuang 
family members sit on the boards of, and have management positions at, 
the Guang Ya Group, and New Zhongya, as described above. With respect 
to the third criterion for finding significant potential for 
manipulation, 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(iii), the presence of intertwined 
operations, information on the record indicates significant financial 
transactions between Xinya and the owner of New Zhongya, which are 
recorded as part of New Zhongya's accounting records.\13\ Accordingly, 
we find that the relationship between the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, 
and Xinya poses a significant potential for the manipulation of price 
or production pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See January 28, 2010, Memorandum regarding the Verification 
of the Sales and Factors Responses of Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum 
Co., Ltd. (``ZNZ''), Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited 
(``Shaped Aluminum'') and Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd. 
(``Karlton'') (collectively ``New Zhongya'') in the Less-Than-Fair 
Value Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the People's 
Republic of China (``New Zhongya Verification Report''), at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, by virtue of the common ownership of the three entities, 
family members on the boards of at least two of the companies, evidence 
of financial transactions between two of these entities, and the fact 
that all entities produce and/or export merchandise under 
consideration, we find that there exists the significant potential for 
manipulation such that the Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya and Xinya should 
be treated as a single entity.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 47198 (September 15, 
2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all exporters within the country are 
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign 
all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation involving an 
NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it 
is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by 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''), 
and 19 CFR 351.107(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Determination, we found that the mandatory 
respondent (i.e., the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya) \16\ and 29 separate-
rate applicants demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate 
status. Specifically, both Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya provided, and 
the Department successfully verified, the requisite information to 
demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto government control 
over their respective export activities. For the final determination, 
we continue to find that the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya single entity 
is eligible for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Because there is no record information to indicate that 
Xinya, which is part of this collapsed entity, is an exporter to the 
United States, Xinya is not eligible for consideration of a separate 
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, because no parties commented on the separate-rate status 
of the other separate-rate applicants and no information has come to 
light that would alter our preliminary findings, we continue to find 
that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the 29 
separate-rate applicants to whom we preliminarily granted separate rate 
status demonstrates both a de jure and de facto absence of government 
control, with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise 
under investigation; thus they are eligible for separate-rate status. 
See Preliminary Determination.
    In the Preliminary Determination, we denied separate rate status to 
one

[[Page 18528]]

separate rate applicant, Shanghai Canghai Aluminum Tube Packing Co. 
(``Shanghai Canghai''), but stated that we would provide it with an 
additional opportunity to correct deficiencies submitted in its 
original separate rate application (``SRA'') and September 8, 2010, 
Supplemental Questionnaire Response (``SQR'') to the Department's 
supplemental questionnaire.\17\ On November 27, 2010, the Department 
sent another letter to Shanghai Canghai rejecting its September 8, 
2010, SQR because of procedural deficiencies and because it contained 
insufficient documentation to analyze Shanghai Canghai's eligibility 
for a separate rate, including incomplete narrative responses to the 
questions asked and no translations. In this letter, however, we also 
provided Shanghai Canghai an opportunity to re-submit its response to 
correct these deficiencies.\18\ On or about December 9, 2010, the 
Department received Shanghai Canghai's response to the Department's 
November 27, 2010, letter. However, the December 9, 2010, SQR was not 
filed in conformance with the Department's regulations regarding 
filing, service, or certification of documents (see 19 CFR 351.303). 
Further, Shanghai Canghai's December 9, 2010, SQR again provided no 
narrative responses to any of the Department's questions from the 
separate-rate application. As a result, on March 17, 2011, the 
Department sent a letter to Shanghai Canghai rejecting its December 9, 
2010, response. Because Shanghai Canghai has failed to respond 
adequately to the Department's request for separate rate information 
despite being given several opportunities to do so, the Department has 
not considered Shanghai Canghai's submission for the final 
determination nor retained it for the record. Thus, for this final 
determination, we are not granting Shanghai Canghai a separate rate, 
and it is part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Preliminary Determination, the Department's June 25, 
2010, letter to Shanghai Canghai granting the company's request to 
extend the deadline for its SRA submission to July 2, 2010, and the 
Department's August 18, 2010, letter to Shanghai Canghai regarding 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the 
People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questionnaire--Separate 
Rate Application.
    \18\ See the Department's November 27, 2010, letter to Shanghai 
Canghai regarding re-filing its Separate Rate Supplemental 
Questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin for the Separate Rate Companies

    Since we assigned the individually examined respondent a dumping 
margin based on total AFA, we do not have any mandatory respondents in 
this investigation whose dumping margin is not based on AFA. Thus, we 
have assigned the 29 separate rate applicants to whom we are granting a 
separate rate a dumping margin based on the simple average of the 
margins alleged in the petition, as recalculated for the final 
determination.

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested 
party: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or 
in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to sections 
782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding 
under the antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching 
the applicable determination.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time}  for 
information, notifies {the Department{time}  that such party is unable 
to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, 
together with a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in 
which such party is able to submit the information,'' the Department 
may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on 
that party.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent 
responses, as appropriate.
    Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established 
deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is 
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching 
the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can 
be used without undue difficulties.
    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the 
Department ``finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information from the {Department{time} , the {Department{time} , in 
reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See also Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Rep. No. 
103-316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this final determination, in accordance with sections 
773(c)(3)(A) and (B) of the Act and sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 
and (D) and 776(b) of the Act, we have determined that the use of AFA 
is warranted for the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya, and the PRC-wide 
entity as discussed below.

Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya

    The Department has determined that the information to construct an 
accurate and otherwise reliable margin is not available on the record 
with respect to the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya. The Department 
reached this determination because the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya 
withheld information that had been requested, failed to provide such 
information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, 
significantly impeded this proceeding, and provided information that 
could not be verified, pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(A), (B), 
(C) and (D) of the of Act.\20\ Specifically, Guang Ya Group's narrative 
questionnaire responses did not comport with the data sections of those 
same responses; moreover, the factors of production data submitted by 
Guang Ya Group post-verification did not reflect the data verified by 
the Department at Guang Ya Group's facilities. New Zhongya mis-reported 
a portion of its U.S. sales indicating that they were constructed 
export price sales to the first unaffiliated party in the United States 
when in fact they were the transfer price sales to its U.S. affiliated 
party. Finally, Xinya provided no documentation at verification to 
demonstrate its claimed ownership. For additional detail, see Guang Ya 
Group/New Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo. As a result, the Department has 
determined to apply the facts otherwise available. Further, because the 
Department finds that the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/

[[Page 18529]]

Xinya failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined to use an 
adverse inference when applying facts available for the final 
determination in this investigation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo.
    \21\ See Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PRC-Wide Entity

    Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within an 
NME country are subject to government control, and because only the 
companies listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section, 
below, have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single 
antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters of 
subject merchandise from the PRC because these other companies did not 
demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate.\22\ The PRC-wide rate 
applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from 
the companies eligible for separate rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of 
China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that there 
were producers/exporters of the subject merchandise during the POI from 
the PRC that did not respond to the Department's request for 
information. Further, we treated these PRC producers/exporters as part 
of the PRC-wide entity because they did not demonstrate their 
eligibility for a separate rate. Additionally, as a result of the PRC-
wide entity's failure to respond to our requests for information we 
further determined that, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, 
the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of 
its ability to comply with requests for information. See id. 
Accordingly, we also determined that in selecting from among the facts 
available an adverse inference was warranted because of the PRC-wide 
entity's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability. As AFA, we 
preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity a recalculated rate of 
33.18 percent, the highest calculated rate from the petition, as 
recalculated for the Amended Preliminary Determination.\23\ See 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 
103-316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (``SAA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Amended Preliminary Determination; see also the 
December 10, 2010, Memorandum to the File, regarding the 
Investigation of Certain Aluminum Extrusions from the People's 
Republic of China: Petition Rate recalculation; (``Amended Prelim 
Petition Rate Recalculation Memo''); and the December 10, 2010, 
Memorandum to the File, regarding the Amended Preliminary 
Determination Analysis Memorandum (``Amended Preliminary 
Determination Analysis Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for 
information, significantly impeded the proceeding, and withheld 
information requested by the Department, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, we determine, as in the 
Preliminary Determination, that in selecting from among the facts 
available an adverse inference is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide 
rate, recalculated for the final determination, because of the PRC-wide 
entity's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on 
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in 
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any 
information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the 
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to 
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner.'' \25\ It is also the Department's 
practice to select a rate that ensures ``that the party does not obtain 
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
    \26\ See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; 
Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 
(November 18, 2005); See also SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the Department finds selecting the highest rate in any 
segment of the proceeding as AFA to be appropriate.\27\ It is the 
Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest 
margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of 
any respondent in the investigation.\28\ In the instant investigation, 
as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity the highest petition 
rate (as recalculated for the final determination) on the record of 
this proceeding that can be corroborated, 33.28 percent, as re-
calculated for the final determination.\29\ For the final determination 
in this investigation, the Department has selected this rate as the 
most appropriate from the available sources to effectuate the purposes 
of AFA. Accordingly, the Department has assigned both the Guang Ya 
Group/New Zhongya/Xinya and the PRC-wide entity an AFA rate of 33.28 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic 
of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 (December 
28, 2005) unchanged in final, Certain Cased Pencils from the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
    \28\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's 
Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Facts Available.''
    \29\ See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo; see also Comment 1C, 
Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it 
must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from 
independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. We have 
interpreted ``corroborate'' to mean that we will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
submitted.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 
Products From Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 4, 2000); see, 
e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As total AFA, the Department preliminarily selected the highest 
adjusted petition rate of 33.28 percent.\31\ In the Amended Preliminary 
Determination, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we 
corroborated our AFA margin by comparing it to the control number 
(``CONNUM'') margins we found for the cooperating mandatory 
respondents. We found that the margin of 33.18 percent had probative 
value because it was in the range of CONNUM model margins we found for 
the mandatory respondents, the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya, during 
the period of

[[Page 18530]]

investigation.\32\ Accordingly, we found that the rate of 33.28 
percent, which is only one tenth of a one percent difference from the 
rate applied in the Amended Preliminary Determination is corroborated 
within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Amended Preliminary Determination; see also Amended 
Prelim Petition Rate Recalculation Memo; and the December 21, 2010, 
Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, from Wendy Frankel, Director, Office 8, entitled 
``Ministerial Error Memorandum, Aluminum Extrusions from the 
People's Republic of China, Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value'' (``Ministerial Error Memo''), at Issue 4.
    \32\ See Amended Preliminary Determination Analysis Memo.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because there are no cooperating mandatory respondents to 
corroborate the 33.28 percent margin used as AFA for the Guang Ya 
Group/New Zhongya/Xinya and the PRC-wide entity, to the extent 
appropriate information was available, we revisited our pre-initiation 
analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the 
petition. See Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China, dated April 
20, 2010 (``Initiation Checklist''). We examined evidence supporting 
the calculations in the petition and the supplemental information 
provided by Petitioners prior to initiation to determine the probative 
value of the margins alleged in the petition. During our pre-initiation 
analysis, we examined the information used as the basis of export price 
and normal value (``NV'') in the petition, and the calculations used to 
derive the alleged margins. Also during our pre-initiation analysis, we 
examined information from various independent sources provided either 
in the petition or, based on our requests, in supplements to the 
petition (e.g., Global Trade Atlas, and Petitioners' experience with 
selling and producing the merchandise under consideration), which 
corroborated key elements of the export price and NV calculations. See 
Initiation Checklist at 6-10. We received no comments as to the 
relevance or probative value of this information. In our examination of 
the petition data to corroborate the 33.28 percent AFA rate for the 
final determination, the Department found nothing impinging the 
reliability or relevance of the petition rate, as adjusted.
    We did receive comments on the Department's wage rate calculation, 
which was utilized to derive the petition margin. We have evaluated 
those comments and recalculated the labor wage rate used in calculating 
the Petition margin.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo; see also Comment 1C, 
Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Department finds that the margin of 33.28 percent 
has probative value for the purpose of being selected as the AFA rate 
assigned to the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya and the PRC-wide 
entity.

Combination Rates

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that it 
would assign combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a 
separate rate in this investigation.\35\ This practice is described in 
the Separate Rate Policy Bulletin.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Preliminary Determination; see also Aluminum Extrusions 
from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation, 75 FR 22109 (``Initiation Notice'').
    \36\ See Memorandum entitled ``Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries'' dated April 5, 2005, 
available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination Margins

    The weighted-average dumping margin percentages are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
           Exporter *                    Producer             average
                                                              margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guang Ya Aluminium Industries    Guang Ya Aluminium                33.28
 Co., Ltd.; Foshan Guangcheng     Industries Co., Ltd.;
 Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Kong Ah     Foshan Guangcheng
 International Company Limited;   Aluminium Co., Ltd.;
 Guang Ya Aluminium Industries    Kong Ah International
 (Hong Kong) Limited.             Company Limited; Guang
                                  Ya Aluminium
                                  Industries (Hong Kong)
                                  Limited; Zhaoqing New
                                  Zhongya Aluminum Co.,
                                  Ltd.; Zhongya Shaped
                                  Aluminium (HK) Holding
                                  Limited; Karlton
                                  Aluminum Company Ltd.;
                                  Xinya Aluminum &
                                  Stainless Steel
                                  Product Co., Ltd.
                                  (A.K.A. New Asia
                                  Aluminum & Stainless
                                  Steel Product Co.,
                                  Ltd.).
Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum    Guang Ya Aluminium                33.28
 Co., Ltd.; Zhongya Shaped        Industries Co., Ltd.;
 Aluminium (HK) Holding           Foshan Guangcheng
 Limited; Karlton Aluminum        Aluminium Co., Ltd.;
 Company Ltd.                     Kong Ah International
                                  Company Limited; Guang
                                  Ya Aluminium
                                  Industries (Hong Kong)
                                  Limited; Zhaoqing New
                                  Zhongya Aluminum Co.,
                                  Ltd.; Zhongya Shaped
                                  Aluminium (HK) Holding
                                  Limited; Karlton
                                  Aluminum Company Ltd.;
                                  Xinya Aluminum &
                                  Stainless Steel
                                  Product Co., Ltd.
                                  (A.K.A. New Asia
                                  Aluminum & Stainless
                                  Steel Product Co.,
                                  Ltd.).
Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd.......  Alnan Aluminium Co.,              32.79
                                  Ltd.
Changshu Changsheng Aluminium    Changshu Changsheng               32.79
 Products Co., Ltd.               Aluminium Products
                                  Co., Ltd.
China Square Industrial Limited  Zhaoqing China Square             32.79
                                  Industry Limited.
Cosco (J.M.) Aluminium Co., Ltd  Cosco (J.M.) Aluminium            32.79
                                  Co., Ltd.; Jiangmen
                                  Qunxing Hardware
                                  Diecasting Co., Ltd.
First Union Property Limited...  Top-Wok Metal Co., Ltd.           32.79
Foshan Jinlan Non-ferrous Metal  Foshan Jinlan Aluminium           32.79
 Product Co. Ltd.                 Co. Ltd.
Foshan Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium  Foshan Sanshui Fenglu             32.79
 Co., Ltd.                        Aluminium Co., Ltd.
Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium      Guangdong Hao Mei                 32.79
 Co., Ltd.                        Aluminium Co., Ltd.
Guangdong Weiye Aluminium        Guangdong Weiye                   32.79
 Factory Co., Ltd.                Aluminium Factory Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Guangdong Xingfa Aluminium Co.,  Guangdong Xingfa                  32.79
 Ltd.                             Aluminium Co., Ltd.
Hanwood Enterprises Limited....  Pingguo Aluminium                 32.79
                                  Company Limited.
Honsense Development Company...  Kanal Precision                   32.79
                                  Aluminium Product Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Innovative Aluminium (Hong       Taishan Golden Gain               32.79
 Kong) Limited.                   Aluminium Products
                                  Limited.
Jiangyin Trust International     Jiangyin Xinhong Doors            32.79
 Inc.                             and Windows Co., Ltd.
JMA (HK) Company Limited.......  Guangdong Jianmei                 32.79
                                  Aluminum Profile
                                  Company Limited;
                                  Foshan JMA Aluminium
                                  Company Limited.
Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn   Tai Shan City Kam Kiu             32.79
 Bhd.                             Aluminium Extrusion
                                  Co., Ltd.
Longkou Donghai Trade Co., Ltd.  Shandong Nanshan                  32.79
                                  Aluminum Co., Ltd.

[[Page 18531]]

 
Ningbo Yili Import and Export    Zhejiang Anji Xinxiang            32.79
 Co., Ltd.                        Aluminum Co., Ltd.
North China Aluminum Co., Ltd..  North China Aluminum              32.79
                                  Co., Ltd.
PanAsia Aluminium (China)        PanAsia Aluminium                 32.79
 Limited.                         (China) Limited.
Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd.  Pingguo Asia Aluminum             32.79
                                  Co., Ltd.
Popular Plastics Co., Ltd......  Hoi Tat Plastic Mould &           32.79
                                  Metal Factory.
Press Metal International Ltd..  Press Metal                       32.79
                                  International Ltd.
Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium        Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum            32.79
 Industry Engineering Co. Ltd.    Factory Company
                                  Limited; Guang Ya
                                  Aluminum Industries
                                  Co., Ltd.
Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co.,  Tai-Ao Aluminium                  32.79
 Ltd.                             (Taishan) Co., Ltd.
Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat     Tianjin Ruixin Electric           32.79
 Transmission Technology Co.,     Heat Transmission
 Ltd.                             Technology Co., Ltd.
USA Worldwide Door Components    USA Worldwide Door                32.79
 (Pinghu) Co., Ltd; Worldwide     Components (Pinghu)
 Door Components (Pinghu) Co.     Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Yongkang Listar         Zhejiang Yongkang                 32.79
 Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd.     Listar Aluminium
                                  Industry Co., Ltd.
Zhongshan Gold Mountain          Zhongshan Gold Mountain           32.79
 Aluminium Factory Ltd.           Aluminium Factory Ltd.
PRC-wide Entity................  .......................           33.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Because Xinya did not export subject merchandise to the United States
  during the POI, for the final determination, Xinya is not being
  considered for a separate rate.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue to 
suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise entered or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. 
We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond 
equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. 
price, as follows: (1) The rate for the exporter/producer combinations 
listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in this 
final determination; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 
the PRC-wide rate; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer 
combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
    Additionally, as the Department has determined in its concurrent 
CVD investigation that the merchandise under investigation exported by 
the Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya benefitted from export subsidies, we 
will instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or posting of 
a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the 
U.S. price for the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya, as indicated 
above, reduced by the simple average of the amounts determined to 
constitute export subsidies for the Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya 
(0.26 percent).\37\ For the separate-rate companies, none of which were 
selected as respondents in the CVD investigation, we will instruct CBP 
to reduce the dumping margin by the amount of export subsidies included 
in the All Others rate from the CVD final determination (42.16 
percent), published concurrently with this notice.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with 
this notice; see also Memorandum: Countervailing Duty Investigation 
of Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: 
Derivation of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Net Subsidy Rate Applied 
in Final Determination (March 28, 2011).
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of 
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance 
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will, within 45 days, 
determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is 
materially injured or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the 
subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or 
threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be 
terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If 
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will 
issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn 
from warehouse for consumption on or after the effective date of the 
suspension of liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to the 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. Timely notification of return or 
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 28, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I--List of Issues

I. General Issues

Comment 1: Labor Wage Rate
    A. Whether the Department Should Calculate the Surrogate Value 
for Labor Using Multiple Surrogate Countries or a Single Country, 
India
    B. If the Department Continues to Rely on a Basket of Countries, 
Whether that Data Should Be Limited to 2006 Data Onward and Should 
Exclude Ecuador
    C. Whether the Department's Wage Rate Calculation as to the 
Ukraine is in Error
    D. Whether To Use 2009 GNI Data Because it is Contemporaneous 
With the POI
    E. Whether To Revise the Department's ``Bookend'' Countries 
Using Absolute Differences in GNI Data

[[Page 18532]]

    F. Whether To Use the 2008 Wage Data for the Philippines Rather 
Than the 2003 Data
Comment 2: Double Remedies
Comment 3: Scope of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Investigations
    A. Petitioners' Proposed Changes to the Scope
    B. Clarifying Language for Covered Kits and Subassemblies
    C. Certain Special High Purity/High Accuracy OPC Tubes
    D. Shower Doors
    E. Finish Types
    F. Wall Thicknesses of Various Sizes
    G. Heat Sinks
    H. Baluster Kits
    I. Grading Rings
    J. Aluminum Tubes and Fin Evaporator Coils
Comment 4: Affiliation and Collapsing
Comment 5: Application of Total AFA
Comment 6: Whether To Recalculate Billet Consumption Using Partial 
AFA or Neutral Facts Available
Comment 7: Whether To Apply Partial AFA To New Zhongya's Constructed 
Export Price Sales

II. Other Issues

    Because the issues identified below have been rendered moot by 
the Department's Application of Total AFA to the Guang Ya Group/New 
Zhongya/Xinya Single Entity, we have not responded to these comments 
for the final determination.

A. General Issues
    [cir] Targeted Dumping
    [cir] Financial Ratios
    [cir] Surrogate Value for Aluminum Ingots
    [cir] Surrogate Value for Coating Powders
    [cir] Surrogate Value for Paints
    [cir] Surrogate Values for New Factors of Production: Aluminum 
Billets, Sodium Carbonate, Hydrochloric Acid, and Paints
    [cir] Surrogate Values for Movement Expenses: Foreign Inland 
Freight, Barge Freight, Foreign Brokerage and Handling, Ocean 
Freight, U.S. Brokerage and Handling, and U.S. Inland Freight
B. The Guang Ya Group Issues
    [cir] Whether To Apply Partial AFA to Channel One Sales
    [cir] Whether To Recalculate Credit Expenses Using Partial AFA
    [cir] Whether To Include Bad Debt in Indirect Selling Expenses
    [cir] Treatment of Sample Sales
    [cir] Whether To Deduct Discounts from U.S. Price
    [cir] Whether To Use AFA to Value Alkali Etching
    [cir] Surrogate Value for Steel Shelves
C. New Zhongya Issues
    [cir] Whether To Use New Zhongya's Market Economy Price For 
Aluminum Ingots
    [cir] Whether To Recalculate Surrogate Value for Sodium 
Hydroxide and Ammonium Bifluoride
    [cir] Whether To Use AFA To Value Aluminum Sealant, Chromaking 
Agent, Long Life Additive for Alkaline Etching, Deslagging Agent and 
Refining Agent
    [cir] Wood Packing Materials
    [cir] Whether To Value Movement Expenses Using Surrogate Values
    [cir] Whether To Deduct the Difference Between Freight Costs and 
Freight Revenue
    [cir] Whether To Treat Scrap Aluminum Ingot as a Direct Material 
Rather Than a Scrap Offset
    [cir] How To Account for the Full Weight of All Packaging 
Materials
    [cir] Whether To Value Wood Packing Materials Using AFA

[FR Doc. 2011-7927 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P