2648 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 

is requested and the final results within 

120 days after the date on which the 

preliminary results are published. If it is 

not practicable to complete the review 

within these time periods, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend the time limit for 

the preliminary results to a maximum of 

365 days after the last day of the 

anniversary month. 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the preliminary results of 

these reviews within the original time 

limit because we received requests from 

several respondents for extensions of 

time to respond to our supplemental 

questionnaires and because we have 

scheduled verifications for several 

respondents in these reviews which 

have not yet been completed. Therefore, 

we are extending the time period for 

issuing the preliminary results of these 

reviews by 45 days until March 17, 

2011. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). 

Dated: January 10, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–793 Filed 1–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–938] 

Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts 

From People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

DATES: Effective Date: January 14, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth 

Isenberg or Patricia Tran, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0588 and (202) 

482–1503, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 30, 2010, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on citric acid 

and certain citrate salts from the 

People’s Republic of China, covering the 

period September 19, 2008, through 

December 31, 2009. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 37759 

(June 30, 2010). The preliminary results 

of this administrative review are 

currently due no later than January 31, 

2011. 

Statutory Time Limits 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department to issue the 

preliminary results of an administrative 

review within 245 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month of a 

countervailing duty order for which a 

review is requested and issue the final 

results within 120 days after the date on 

which the preliminary results are 

published. However, if it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within the time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend these deadlines to 

a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, 

respectively. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

Due to the complexity of the issues in 

this case, such as new subsidy 

allegations and comments on those 

allegations, the Department requires 

additional time to review and analyze 

the respondents’ submitted information 

and to issue supplemental 

questionnaires. Thus, it is not 

practicable to complete the preliminary 

results of this review within the original 

time limit (i.e., January 31, 2011). 

Therefore, the Department is extending 

the time limit for completion of the 

preliminary results by 120 days to no 

later than May 31, 2011, in accordance 

with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: January 10, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–792 Filed 1–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–891] 

Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Intent 

To Rescind in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 14, 2011. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is currently 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on hand 

trucks and parts thereof (hand trucks) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) covering the period of review 

(POR) of December 1, 2008, through 

November 30, 2009. We preliminarily 

determine that sales made by New-Tec 

Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (NewTec), were not made below normal 

value (NV). We also preliminarily 

determine that two companies for which 

a review was requested had no 

shipments during the POR, and 

therefore we intend to rescind the 

review with respect to them. 

Furthermore, we determine that three 

companies for which a review was 

requested have not been responsive, and 

thus have not demonstrated entitlement 

to a separate rate. As a result, we have 

preliminarily determined that they are 

part of the PRC-wide entity, and 

continue to be subject to the PRC-wide 

entity rate. We invite interested parties 

to comment on these preliminary 

results. 

Parties who submit comments are 

requested to submit with each argument 

a statement of the issue and a summary 

of the argument. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Baker, Scott Hoefke, or Robert James, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

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

4947 or (202) 482–0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 2, 2004, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on hand trucks 

from the PRC. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order: Hand Trucks 

and Certain Parts Thereof From the 

People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 70122 

(December 2, 2004). On December 1, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 2649 

2009, the Department published in the 

Federal Register its notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on hand trucks from the PRC. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 62743 

(December 1, 2009). On December 30, 

2009, Gleason Industrial Products, Inc., 

and Precision Products, Inc., requested 

that the Department conduct reviews of 

New-Tec, Century Distribution Systems, 

Inc. (Century Distribution), Sunshine 

International Corporation (Sunshine 

International), Zhejiang Yinmao Import 

and Export Co. (Zhejiang Yinmao), 

Qingdao Huazhan Hardware and 

Machinery Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Huazhan), 

and Yangjiang Shunhe Industrial Co. 

(Yangjiang Shunhe). On January 29, 

2010, the Department published in the 

Federal Register a notice of initiation of 

the antidumping duty administrative 

review of hand trucks from the PRC for 

the period December 1, 2008, through 

November 30, 2009, with respect to the 

six companies named above. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 75 FR 4770 (January 29, 2010) 

(Initiation Notice). 

We issued the standard antidumping 

duty questionnaire to each of the six 

companies on February 4, 2010, and 

received timely responses from NewTec in March 2010. We issued 

supplemental questionnaires to NewTec covering sections A, C, and D of the 

original questionnaire in May 2010, July 

2010, and November 2010 and received 

timely responses to those 

questionnaires. 

On February 25, 2010, and February 

26, 2010, we received certifications of 

no-shipments during the POR from 

Century Distribution and Yangjiang 

Shunhe. 

Period of Review 

The POR covers December 1, 2008, 

through November 30, 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this 

antidumping duty order consists of 

hand trucks manufactured from any 

material, whether assembled or 

unassembled, complete or incomplete, 

suitable for any use, and certain parts 

thereof, namely the vertical frame, the 

handling area and the projecting edges 

or toe plate, and any combination 

thereof. A complete or fully assembled 

hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow 

consisting of a vertically disposed frame 

having a handle or more than one 

handle at or near the upper section of 

the vertical frame; at least two wheels at 

or near the lower section of the vertical 

frame; and a horizontal projecting edge 

or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or 

angled to the vertical frame, at or near 

the lower section of the vertical frame. 

The projecting edge or edges, or toe 

plate, slides under a load for purposes 

of lifting and/or moving the load. 

That the vertical frame can be 

converted from a vertical setting to a 

horizontal setting, then operated in that 

horizontal setting as a platform, is not 

a basis for exclusion of the hand truck 

from the scope of this petition. That the 

vertical frame, handling area, wheels, 

projecting edges or other parts of the 

hand truck can be collapsed or folded is 

not a basis for exclusion of the hand 

truck from the scope of the petition. 

That other wheels may be connected to 

the vertical frame, handling area, 

projecting edges, or other parts of the 

hand truck, in addition to the two or 

more wheels located at or near the lower 

section of the vertical frame, is not a 

basis for exclusion of the hand truck 

from the scope of the petition. Finally, 

that the hand truck may exhibit physical 

characteristics in addition to the vertical 

frame, the handling area, the projecting 

edges or toe plate, and the two wheels 

at or near the lower section of the 

vertical frame, is not a basis for 

exclusion of the hand truck from the 

scope of the petition. 

Examples of names commonly used to 

reference hand trucks are hand truck, 

convertible hand truck, appliance hand 

truck, cylinder hand truck, bag truck, 

dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically 

imported under heading 8716.80.50.10 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (HTSUS), although 

they may also be imported under 

heading 8716.80.50.90. Specific parts of 

a hand truck, namely the vertical frame, 

the handling area and the projecting 

edges or toe plate, or any combination 

thereof, are typically imported under 

heading 8716.90.50.60 of the HTSUS. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the Department’s written 

description of the scope is dispositive. 

Excluded from the scope are small 

two-wheel or four-wheel utility carts 

specifically designed for carrying loads 

like personal bags or luggage in which 

the frame is made from telescoping 

tubular materials measuring less than 5⁄8

inch in diameter; hand trucks that use 

motorized operations either to move the 

hand truck from one location to the next 

or to assist in the lifting of items placed 

on the hand truck; vertical carriers 

designed specifically to transport golf 

bags; and wheels and tires used in the 

manufacture of hand trucks. 

Intent To Rescind Review in Part 

As indicated above, in February 2010, 

we received certifications of no 

shipments from Century Distribution 

and Yangjiang Shunhe. We made 

inquiries with U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) as to whether any 

shipments were entered with respect to 

these two companies during the POR. 

See message numbers 0158302 and 

0158303, both dated June 7, 2010. We 

received no responses to those inquiries 

indicating that any shipments from 

either Century Distribution or Yangjiang 

Shunhe entered during the POR. We 

also examined CBP information to 

further confirm no shipments by these 

companies during the POR. Based on 

the above, we preliminarily find that 

both of these companies had no 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR, and we intend to 

rescind the review with respect to them 

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

Interested parties may submit 

comments on the Department’s intent to 

rescind with respect to these two 

companies no later than 30 days after 

the date of publication of these 

preliminary results of review. The 

Department will issue the final 

rescission (if appropriate), which will 

include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any comments received, 

in the final results of review. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, we have 

treated the PRC as a non-market 

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

Magnesium from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

76336 (December 16, 2008); and 

Frontseating Service Valves from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Negative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 12, 

2009). In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act), any determination 

that a foreign country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the 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 have contested such 

treatment or provided record evidence 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

2650 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 

1See Memorandum from Carole Showers, 

Director, Office of Policy, to Richard Weible, 

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

Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review 

of the Antidumping Duty Order on Hand Trucks 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of 

China, dated June 28, 2010. The Department notes 

that these six countries are part of a non-exhaustive 

list of countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to the PRC. See the 

Department’s letter to ‘‘All Interested Parties; First 

Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment 

Hangers from the People’s Republic of China: 

Deadlines for Surrogate Country and Surrogate 

Value Comments,’’ dated March 25, 2010 at 1 and 

Attachment I (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’). 

to reconsider our continued treatment of 

the PRC as an NME. Accordingly, we 

calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Separate Rates Determination 

A designation of a country as an NME 

remains in effect until it is revoked by 

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

of the Act. Accordingly, there is a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the PRC are subject to 

government control, and thus should be 

assessed a single antidumping duty rate. 

It is the Department’s policy to assign 

all exporters of the merchandise subject 

to review in NME countries a single rate 

unless an exporter can affirmatively 

demonstrate an absence of government 

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

(de facto), with respect to exports. To 

establish whether a company is 

sufficiently independent to be entitled 

to a separate, company-specific rate, the 

Department analyzes each exporting 

entity in an NME country under the test 

established in the Final Determination 

of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 

Sparklers from the People’s Republic of 

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

(Sparklers) as amplified by the Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). 

Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with the individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. In this review 

New-Tec submitted complete responses 

to the separate rates section of the 

Department’s questionnaire. The 

evidence submitted by New-Tec 

includes government laws and 

regulations on corporate ownership and 

control (i.e., the Foreign Trade Law of 

the People’s Republic of China and the 

Law of the People’s Republic of China 

on Foreign Joint Ventures), its 

individual business license, and 

narrative information regarding its 

operations and selection of 

management. The evidence provided by 

New-Tec supports a preliminary finding 

of a de jure absence of government 

control over its export activities based 

on the record: (1) There are no controls 

on exports of subject merchandise, such 

as quotas applied to, or licenses 

required for, exports of the subject 

merchandise to the United States; (2) 

the government of the PRC has passed 

legislation decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) there are other 

formal measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

New-Tec’s March 30, 2010, submission 

at 1 and its June 8, 2010, submission at 

2–5. 

Absence of De Facto Control 

The absence of de facto government 

control over exports is based on whether 

the company: (1) Sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; (2) retains the 

proceeds from its export sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

the disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (4) has autonomy from the 

government regarding the selection of 

management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR 

at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; and 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From 

the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). 

In its March 1, 2010, submission, 

New-Tec submitted evidence 

demonstrating an absence of de facto 

government control over its export 

activities. Specifically, this evidence 

indicates that: (1) The company sets its 

own export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) the 

company retains the proceeds from its 

sales and makes independent decisions 

regarding the disposition of profits or 

financing of losses; (3) the company has 

a general manager with the authority to 

negotiate and bind the company in an 

agreement; (4) the general manager is 

selected by the board of directors; (5) 

the general manager appoints the other 

management personnel; and (6) there 

are no restrictions on the company’s use 

of export revenues. Therefore, we 

preliminarily find that New-Tec has 

established that it qualifies for a 

separate rate under the criteria 

established by Silicon Carbide and 

Sparklers. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

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

in most circumstances, on the NME 

producer’s factors of production (FOPs), 

valued in a surrogate market economy 

country or countries considered to be 

appropriate by the Department. In 

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

Act, in valuing the FOPs, the 

Department shall utilize, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in 

one or more market economy countries 

that are: (1) At a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country; and (2) significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

The Department determined that 

India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 

Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru are 

countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development.1

Moreover, it is the Department’s 

practice to select an appropriate 

surrogate country based on the 

availability and reliability of data from 

the countries. See Department Policy 

Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy 

Surrogate Country Selection Process 

(March 1, 2004) (Surrogate Country 

Policy Bulletin). In the most recently 

completed proceeding involving the 

Order, we determined that India is 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development and has 

surrogate value data that are available 

and reliable. See Hand Trucks and Parts 

Thereof From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

29314 (May 25, 2010). In the current 

proceeding, we received no comments 

regarding surrogate country selection. 

Because India meets all of the criteria 

discussed below, we continue to find 

that India is the appropriate surrogate 

country. Specifically, we have selected 

India because it is at a level of economic 

development similar to the PRC, it is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, and we have reliable, 

publicly available data from India 

representing broad-market averages. See 

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

Memorandum to the File, from Fred 

Baker, Analyst, Subject: Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Hand 

Trucks and Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China: Selection of 

a Surrogate Country, dated January 7, 

2011. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 2651 

2See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744 

(July 11, 2005), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of 2003–2004 Administrative Review 

and Partial Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517 

(January 17, 2006). 

3See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 

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

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520 (December 

20, 2009). 

4See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances and Final 

Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 

(April 19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. 

U.S. Price 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), we 

used invoice date as the date of sale. 

Because record evidence indicated the 

terms of New-Tec’s U.S. sales changed 

following the contract date, we 

determine that no date other than 

invoice date better reflects when the 

material terms of sale are set. See 19 

CFR 351.401(i); see also New-Tec’s June 

8, 2010, submission at 3. 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we based New-Tec’s U.S. prices 

on export prices (EP), because its first 

sales to an unaffiliated purchaser were 

made before the date of importation and 

the use of constructed export price was 

not otherwise warranted by the facts on 

the record. As appropriate, we deducted 

foreign inland freight and foreign 

brokerage and handling from the 

starting price (or gross unit price), in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the 

Act. These services were provided by 

NME vendors for New-Tec’s U.S. sales. 

Therefore, we based the deduction of 

these movement charges on surrogate 

values. See Memorandum to the File, 

‘‘Administrative Review of Hand Trucks 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Values for 

the Preliminary Results’’ (New-Tec 

Surrogate Values Memorandum) at 

Exhibit 7. 

We valued foreign inland freight 

(which consisted of truck freight) using 

a per-unit, POR-wide, average rate 

calculated from Indian data on the 

following Web site: http:// 

www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this Web site contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. See New-Tec Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 6. 

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 that is 

published in Doing Business 2010: 

India, published by the World Bank. See 

New-Tec Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 7. 

Our surrogate values for truck freight 

and for brokerage and handling were in 

Indian rupees. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 773A(a) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.415, we converted them to U.S. 

dollars (USD) using the official 

exchange rate for India recorded on the 

date of sale of subject merchandise in 

this case. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

exchange/index.html. 

Normal Value 

1. Methodology 

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

provides that the Department shall 

determine the NV using an FOP 

methodology if the merchandise under 

review is exported from an NME and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of the NME economy renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under the 

Department’s normal methodologies.2

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV by adding the 

value of the FOPs, general expenses, 

profit, and packing costs reported by 

New-Tec. The FOPs for subject 

merchandise include: (1) Quantities of 

raw materials employed; (2) hours of 

labor required; (3) amounts of energy 

and other utilities consumed; (4) 

representative capital and selling costs; 

and (5) packing materials. See section 

773(c)(3) of the Act. We valued the FOP 

that New-Tec reported by multiplying 

the amount of the factor consumed in 

producing subject merchandise by the 

average unit surrogate value of the factor 

derived from the Indian surrogate values 

selected. 

The Department used Indian import 

statistics to value the raw material and 

packing material inputs that New-Tec 

used to produce the merchandise under 

review except where listed below. In 

past cases, it has been the Department’s 

practice to use import statistics reported 

by the World Trade Atlas (WTA),3 as 

published by Global Trade Information 

Services (GTIS). However, in October 

2009, the Department learned that 

Indian import data obtained from the 

WTA, as published by GTIS, began 

identifying the original reporting 

currency for India as the USD. The 

Department then contacted GTIS about 

the change in the original reporting 

currency for India from the Indian rupee 

to the USD. Officials at GTIS explained 

that while GTIS obtains data on imports 

into India directly from the Ministry of 

Commerce, Government of India, as 

denominated and published in Indian 

rupees, the WTA software is limited 

with regard to the number of significant 

digits it can manage. Therefore, GTIS 

made a decision to change the official 

reporting currency for Indian data from 

the Indian rupee to the USD in order to 

reduce the loss of significant digits 

when obtaining data through the WTA 

software. GTIS explained that it 

converts the Indian rupee to the USD 

using the monthly Federal Reserve 

exchange rate applicable to the relevant 

month of the data being downloaded 

and converted.4

Notwithstanding the GTIS reporting 

methodology, the data reported in the 

Global Trade Atlas (GTA) software 

report import statistics, such as data 

from India, in the original reporting 

currency, and thus these data 

correspond to the original currency 

value reported by each country. 

Additionally, the data reported in the 

GTA software is reported to the nearest 

digit, and thus there is not a loss of data 

by rounding as there is with the data 

reported by the WTA software. 

Consequently, the Department will now 

obtain import statistics from GTA for 

valuing various FOPs because the GTA 

import statistics are in the original 

reporting currency of the country from 

which the data are obtained and have 

the same level of accuracy as the 

original data released. 

As appropriate, we added freight costs 

to the surrogate values that we 

calculated for New-Tec’s material inputs 

to make these prices delivered prices. 

We calculated these freight costs by 

multiplying surrogate freight rates by 

the shorter of the reported distance from 

the domestic supplier to the factory that 

produced the subject merchandise or 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

the factory that produced the subject 

merchandise, as appropriate. Where 

there were multiple domestic suppliers 

of a material input, we calculated a 

weighted-average distance after limiting 

each supplier’s distance to no more than 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

New-Tec. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision by the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

2652 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 

5See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 

62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997). 

6See Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy 

Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 

71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) 

(Antidumping Methodologies). 

7See Antidumping Methodologies, 71 FR at 

61717–18. 

8See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances and 

Postponement of Final Determination: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 

(July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 

2004). 

9See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia, 70 FR 

45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying Issues 

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

Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 

15, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

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

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

Thailand: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 

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

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. 

10See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 

75 FR 24578 (May 5, 2010), unchanged in Fresh 

Garlic From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of New Shipper Review , 75 FR 51004 

(August 18, 2010). 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 

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

We increased the calculated costs of the 

FOPs for surrogate general expenses and 

profit. See New-Tec Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 8. 

Energy inputs consisted of water, 

electricity, and liquid petroleum gas. 

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 in 

India, dated March 2008. See Surrogate 

Values Memorandum at Exhibit 4. 

These electricity rates represent actual 

country-wide publicly available 

information on tax-exclusive electricity 

rates charges to industries in India. To 

value water, the Department used the 

revised Maharastra Industrial 

Development Corporation water rates, 

which are available at http:// 

www.midcindia.com/water-supply. The 

Department found this source to be the 

best available information because it 

includes a wide range of industrial 

water rates. Since the water rates were 

not contemporaneous with the POR, the 

Department adjusted the value for 

inflation. See Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 4. We valued 

liquid petroleum gas using import 

statistics from the GTA as described 

above. See Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 3. 

We offset New-Tec’s material costs for 

revenue generated from the sale of 

recovered steel scrap and recovered 

aluminum scrap. See New-Tec 

Surrogate Values Memorandum at 

Exhibit 8. 

Indian surrogate values were 

denominated in rupees and were 

converted to USD using the applicable 

average exchange rate based on 

exchange rate data from the 

Department’s Web site. For further 

details regarding the surrogate values 

used for these preliminary results, see 

New-Tec’s Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

New-Tec reported that several of its 

raw materials were sourced from 

market-economy countries and paid for 

in market-economy currencies. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a 

respondent sources inputs from a 

market-economy supplier in meaningful 

quantities (i.e., not insignificant 

quantities), the Department normally 

will use the actual price paid by the 

respondent for those inputs.5 Because 

information reported by New-Tec 

demonstrates that it purchased 

significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent or 

more) of certain inputs from marketeconomy suppliers, the Department 

used New-Tec’s actual market-economy 

purchase prices to value its FOPs for 

these inputs.6 Where appropriate, we 

added freight expenses to the marketeconomy prices for these inputs. Where 

New-Tec made market economy 

purchase of inputs that may have been 

dumped or subsidized, were not bona 

fide, or were otherwise not acceptable 

for use in a dumping calculation, the 

Department excluded them from the 

numerator of the ratio to ensure a fair 

determination of whether valid marketeconomy purchases meet the 33 percent 

threshold.7

To value the surrogate financial ratios 

for factory overhead (OH), selling, 

general & administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, and profit, the Department 

used the 2008–2009 financial statement 

of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing 

Company, Ltd. (Godrej). Godrej is a 

producer of comparable merchandise. 

Its financial ratios for OH and SG&A are 

comparable to New-Tec’s financial 

ratios by virtue of each company’s 

production of comparable merchandise. 

See Surrogate Values Memorandum at 

Exhibit 8. 

2. Selection of Surrogate Values 

In selecting the ‘‘best available 

information for surrogate values’’ (see 

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

with the Department’s practice, we 

considered whether the information was 

publicly available, product-specific, 

representative of broad market average 

prices, contemporaneous with the POR, 

and free of taxes.8 We also considered 

the quality of the source of surrogate 

information. See Manganese Metal From 

the People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998). 

Where we could obtain only surrogate 

values that were not contemporaneous 

with the POR, consistent with our 

practice, we inflated the surrogate 

values using, where appropriate, the 

Indian wholesale price index as 

published in International Financial 

Statistics by the International Monetary 

Fund. See New-Tec Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 2. 

In accordance with the legislative 

history of the Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988, see Conf. 

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

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

(OTCA 1988) at 590, the Department 

continues to disregard surrogate values 

if it has a reason to believe or suspect 

the source data may be subsidized and 

there are other usable data on the 

record. See Pure Magnesium from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 80791 

(December 23, 2010). In this regard, the 

Department has previously found that it 

is appropriate to disregard such prices 

from Indonesia, South Korea and 

Thailand because we have determined 

that these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry specific export 

subsidies. Based on the existence of 

these subsidy programs that were 

generally available to all exporters and 

producers in these countries at the time 

of the POR, the Department finds that it 

is reasonable to infer that all exporters 

from Indonesia, South Korea and 

Thailand may have benefitted from 

these subsidies.9 Additionally, we 

disregarded prices from NME countries. 

Finally, we excluded imports that were 

labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country from the average 

value, because the Department could 

not be certain that they were not from 

either an NME country or a country 

with general export subsidies.10

On May 14, 2010, the Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal 

Circuit) in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 

604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC 2010) 

(Dorbest IV), found that the ‘‘(regressionbased) method for calculating wage rates 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 2653 

11See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 

8911 (February 23, 1998); see also Brake Rotors 

From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of the Seventh 

Administrative Review; Final Results of the 

Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 

(November 18, 2005) and the SAA at 870. 

12See e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 68 FR 19504, 19507 (April 21, 2003). 

13See KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 

(Fed. Cir. 2010) (KYD); Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. 

United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 

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

Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 

percent total AFA rate, the highest available 

dumping margin from a different respondent in a 

less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation); Kompass 

Food Trading Int’l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 684 

(2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, 

the highest available dumping margin from a 

different, fully cooperative respondent); and 

Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 

2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, 

the highest available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in a previous administrative 

review). 

14See Uruguay Round Agreement Act, Statement 

of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, 

vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (SAA); see also Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 

Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 

from Brazil, 69 FR 76910, 76912 (December 23, 

2004); and D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 

F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

(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 

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. 

For the preliminary results of this AR, 

the Department is valuing labor using a 

simple average industry-specific wage 

rate using earnings or wage data 

reported under Chapter 5B by the 

International Labor Organization (ILO). 

To achieve an industry-specific labor 

value, we relied on industry-specific 

labor data from the countries we 

determined to be both economically 

comparable to the PRC and significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

A full description of the industryspecific wage rate calculation 

methodology is provided in the NewTec Surrogate Values Memorandum at 

Exhibit 5. The Department calculated a 

simple-average, industry-specific wage 

rate of $1.51 for these preliminary 

results. Specifically, for this review, the 

Department has calculated the wage rate 

using a simple average of the data 

provided to the ILO under SubClassification 34 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 Motor Vehicles, 

Trailers, and Semi-Trailers’’) to be the 

best available wage rate surrogate value 

on the record because it is specific and 

derived from industries that produce 

merchandise comparable to the subject 

merchandise. Consequently, we 

averaged the ILO industry-specific wage 

rate data or earnings data available from 

the following countries found to be 

economically comparable to the PRC 

and are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise: Ecuador, 

Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, 

Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine. For 

further information on the calculation of 

the wage rate, see New-Tec Surrogate 

Values Memorandum. 

Use of Facts Available and Adverse 

Facts Available (AFA) 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department shall apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if (1) necessary 

information is not on the record or (2) 

an interested party or any other person 

(A) withholds information that has been 

requested, (B) fails to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established, or in the form and manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding, or (D) provides information 

that cannot be verified as provided by 

section 782(i) of the Act. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Such an adverse 

inference may include reliance on 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination, a previous AR, 

or other information placed on the 

record. 

Application of Total AFA to the PRCWide Entity 

Because Sunshine International, 

Qingdao Huazhan, and Zhejiang 

Yinmao did not respond to the 

Department’s antidumping 

questionnaire, we preliminarily 

determine that these companies 

withheld information requested by the 

Department in accordance with sections 

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

Furthermore, these companies’ refusal 

to participate in the review significantly 

impeded the proceeding in accordance 

with section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. 

Specifically, had these companies 

participated in the review, the 

Department would have calculated 

dumping margins for them. 

Further, because there is no 

information on the record 

demonstrating these companies’ 

entitlement to a separate rate in 

accordance with section 776(a) of the 

Act, the Department has preliminarily 

treated these companies as part of the 

PRC-wide entity. 

Because these companies did not 

respond to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire, and are part 

of the PRC-wide entity, the PRC-wide 

entity’s refusal to provide any 

information constitutes circumstances 

under which the Department can 

conclude that less than full cooperation 

has been shown.11 Hence, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, the 

Department has determined that, when 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is warranted with respect to 

the PRC-wide entity. 

Selection of AFA Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the 

Department to rely on information 

derived from: (1) The petition; (2) a final 

determination in the investigation; (3) 

any previous review or determination; 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In reviews, the Department 

normally selects as AFA the highest rate 

determined for any respondent in any 

segment of the proceeding.12 The Court 

of International Trade (CIT) and the 

Federal Circuit have consistently 

upheld the Department’s practice.13 The 

Department’s practice, when selecting 

an AFA rate from among the possible 

sources of information, has been to 

ensure that the margin is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the statutory 

purposes of the adverse facts available 

rule to induce respondents to provide 

the Department with complete and 

accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ The Department’s practice also 

ensures ‘‘that the party does not obtain 

a more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ 14 In choosing the appropriate 

balance between providing respondents 

with an incentive to respond accurately 

and imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondent’s prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

2654 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 

15See KYD (citing Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 

1190). 

16See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof From Japan: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof From Japan; Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997). 

17See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High 

Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 

68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003), unchanged in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic 

Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 62560 

(November 5, 2003); and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Live Swine from Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183–84 

(March 11, 2005). 

highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common 

sense inference that the highest prior 

margin is the most probative evidence of 

current margins because, if it were not 

so, the importer, knowing the rule, 

would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less.’’ 15 Consistent with the statute, 

court precedent, and its normal practice, 

the Department has assigned 383.60 

percent to the PRC-wide entity 

(including Sunshine International, 

Qingdao Huazhan, and Zhejiang 

Yinmao) as AFA. This rate was assigned 

in the less-than-fair value (LTFV) 

investigation of this proceeding and is 

the highest rate determined for any 

party in any segment of this proceeding. 

See Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hand 

Trucks and Certain Parts thereof From 

the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 

65410 (November 12, 2004) (Hand 

Trucks Amended Final Determination). 

As discussed below, this rate has been 

corroborated. 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise. See 

SAA at 870. Corroborate means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. Id. To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information to be used.16 Independent 

sources used to corroborate such 

evidence may include, for example, 

published price lists, official import 

statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation.17

As stated above, we are applying as 

AFA the highest rate from any segment 

of this administrative proceeding, which 

is the PRC-wide rate of 383.60 percent. 

The 383.60 percent AFA margin is the 

highest rate on the record of any 

segment of this antidumping duty order. 

In the investigation, the Department 

determined the reliability of the margin 

contained in the petition by comparing 

the U.S. prices from the price quotes in 

the petition to prices of comparable 

products sold by Qingdao Huatian Hand 

Truck Co., Ltd., a mandatory respondent 

in the LTFV investigation, and found 

them to be comparable. The Department 

also compared the SVs used in the 

petition to the SVs selected for the final 

determination, and then adjusted and 

replaced certain values to make them 

more accurate. Finally, the Department 

replaced the SV ratios in the petition 

with those used in the final 

investigation. Therefore, in the 

investigation we found this margin to be 

reliable. This rate continues to be 

relevant to the PRC-wide entity in this 

proceeding. No party has provided 

information related to the PRC-wide 

entity. The Federal Circuit has held that 

‘‘{t}he presumption that a prior 

dumping margin imposed against an 

exporter in an earlier AR continues to be 

valid if the exporter fails to cooperate in 

a subsequent administrative review.’’ Id. 

Here, the PRC-wide entity failed to 

cooperate or demonstrate that the 

margin applied is no longer valid. 

Because the Department continues to 

find the 383.60 percent margin is 

probative, as it is both reliable and 

relevant as discussed above, we have 

assigned this AFA rate to exports of the 

subject merchandise by the PRC-wide 

entity, including Sunshine 

International, Qingdao Huazhan, and 

Zhejiang Yinmao. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

The Department has determined that 

the following preliminary dumping 

margins exist for the period December 1, 

2008, through November 30, 2009: 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) 

Co., Ltd ................................. 0.00 

PRC-wide Entity ....................... 383.60 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose to 

parties to this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within five days of 

the date of publication of these 

preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Interested parties may 

submit written comments (case briefs) 

within 30 days of publication of the 

preliminary results and rebuttal 

comments (rebuttal briefs) within five 

days after the time limit for filing case 

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

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

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

limited to issues raised in the case 

briefs. Parties who submit arguments are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

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

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities. Further, the 

Department requests that parties 

submitting written comments provide 

the Department with a diskette 

containing the public version of those 

comments. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration within 30 days 

of publication of this notice. Requests 

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

address, and telephone number; (2) the 

number of participants; and (3) a list of 

issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing 

will be limited to those raised in the 

briefs. 

Unless the deadline is extended 

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

the Act, the Department will issue the 

final results of this AR, including the 

results of our analysis of the issues 

raised by the parties in their comments, 

within 120 days after issuance of these 

preliminary results. 

Deadline for Submission of Publicly 

Available Surrogate Value Information 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3), the deadline for 

submission of publicly available 

information to value FOPs under 19 

CFR 351.408(c) is 20 days after the date 

of publication of these preliminary 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 2655 

results. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(1), if an interested party 

submits factual information less than 

ten days before, on, or after (if the 

Department has extended the deadline), 

the applicable deadline for submission 

of such factual information, an 

interested party has ten days to submit 

factual information to rebut, clarify, or 

correct the factual information no later 

than ten days after such factual 

information is served on the interested 

party. However, the Department notes 

that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), permits new 

information only insofar as it rebuts, 

clarifies, or corrects information 

recently placed on the record. See, e.g., 

Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Final 

Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 

(October 17, 2007), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. Furthermore, the 

Department generally will not accept 

business proprietary information in 

either the surrogate value submissions 

or the rebuttals thereto, as the regulation 

regarding the submission of surrogate 

values allows only for the submission of 

publicly available information. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuing the final results of the 

review, the Department shall 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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer-specific ad valorem duty 

assessment rates based on the ratio of 

the total amount of the dumping 

margins calculated for the examined 

sales to the total entered value of those 

same sales. We will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if any importer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. However, the final results of 

this review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of this review and for future 

deposits of estimated duties, where 

applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, will apply 

to all shipments of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The 

cash deposit rate for New-Tec will be 

the rate 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 

administrative 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 continue to be the PRCwide rate (i.e., 383.60 percent); 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 cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

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

CFR 351.213. 

Dated: January 7, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–791 Filed 1–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–357–812] 

Honey From Argentina: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests by 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on honey 

from Argentina. The review covers 

imports of subject merchandise from 

three firms (see ‘‘Background’’ section of 

this notice for further explanation). The 

period of review (POR) is December 1, 

2008, through November 30, 2009. We 

preliminarily determine that sales of 

honey from Argentina have not been 

made below normal value (NV) by 

TransHoney S.A. (TransHoney), 

Compania Inversora Platense S.A. 

(CIPSA), or Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik) 

during the POR. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of administrative review, we will issue 

appropriate assessment instructions to 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP). Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit argument in this 

review are requested to submit with the 

argument: (1) A statement of the issues; 

(2) a brief summary of the argument; 

and (3) a table of authorities. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 14, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Cordell (Patagonik), Dena 

Crossland (CIPSA), or Patrick Edwards 

(TransHoney), AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 7, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Room 7850, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0408, (202) 482– 

3362, or (202) 482–8029, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 10, 2001, the 

Department published the antidumping 

duty order on honey from Argentina. 

See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 63672 

(December 10, 2001). On December 1, 

2009, the Department published in the 

Federal Register its notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of this order. See Antidumping 

or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 

or Suspended Investigation; 

Opportunity To Request Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 62743 (December 1, 

2009). In response, on December 31, 

2009, Asociacion de Cooperativas 

Argentinas (ACA), Nexco S.A. (Nexco), 

CIPSA, Patagonik, and TransHoney 

requested an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on honey 

from Argentina for the period December 

1, 2008, through November 30, 2009. In 

addition, on December 31, 2009, the 

American Honey Producers Association 

and Sioux Honey Association 

(collectively, petitioners) requested an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on honey from 

Argentina for the period December 1, 

2008, through November 30, 2009. 

Specifically, the petitioners requested 

that the Department conduct an 

administrative review of entries of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES