[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19325-19329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8347]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-934]


1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind Review in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a timely request from Compass Chemical 
International LLC (``Petitioner''), the Department of Commerce 
(``Department'') is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid 
(``HEDP'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of 
review (``POR'') is April 23, 2009, through March 31, 2010. This 
administrative review covers two exporters of the subject merchandise 
that are being individually examined as mandatory respondents.
    The Department has preliminarily determined that one mandatory 
respondent, Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co., Ltd. (``Jiangsu 
Jianghai''), did not demonstrate that it is entitled to a separate 
rate. Therefore, the Department has treated Jiangsu Jianghai as part of 
the PRC-wide entity. The other mandatory respondent, Changzhou Wujin 
Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. (``Wujin Fine''), reported that it did 
not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
Because record evidence does not contradict Wujin Fine's no-shipment 
claim, the Department intends to rescind the administrative review with 
respect to this company. If these preliminary results are adopted in 
the final results of review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries 
of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific 
assessment rates are above de minimis.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with each 
argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument. 
The Department intends to issue the final results of this review no 
later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: April 7, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Higgins, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0679.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 28, 2009, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on HEDP from the PRC in the Federal Register.\1\ On April 1, 
2010, the Department notified interested parties of their opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
HEDP from the PRC.\2\ On April 30, 2010, Petitioner requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of Jiangsu Jianghai and 
Wujin Fine.\3\ On May 28, 2010, the Department published a notice 
initiating an antidumping duty administrative review of the Order 
covering Jiangsu Jianghai and Wujin Fine during the period April 23, 
2009, through March 31, 2010.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from India 
and the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 
19197 (April 28, 2009) (``Order'').
    \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 16426 (April 1, 2010).
    \3\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce, 
``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid (HEDP) from The 
People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for Administrative 
Review'' (April 30, 2010).
    \4\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 29976 (May 28, 2010) (``Initiation 
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Initiation Notice notified parties that they must submit timely 
separate rate applications or separate rate certifications in order to 
qualify for a separate rate.\5\ The Department did not receive any 
separate rate applications or separate rate certifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id., 75 FR at 29976-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 7, 2010, the Department issued antidumping questionnaires 
to Jiangsu Jianghai and Wujin Fine.\6\ In June and July 2010, Jiangsu 
Jianghai and Wujin Fine submitted letters certifying that they did not 
ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.\7\ From 
July through September 2010, the Department requested and received 
import data and entry documentation from CBP. The Department placed 
this information on the record of this review and solicited comments 
from interested parties.\8\ Petitioner, Jiangsu Jianghai, and Wujin 
Fine submitted comments on this import data and entry documentation in 
August and October 2010.\9\ On October 25, 2010, the Department 
informed Jiangsu Jianghai that record CBP data

[[Page 19326]]

and entry documentation indicated that Jiangsu Jianghai had a shipment 
of subject merchandise that entered the United States during the 
POR.\10\ Further, the Department explained that it is necessary for 
Jiangsu Jianghai to provide the information requested by the Department 
in the antidumping questionnaire because the entry date of Jiangsu 
Jianghai's shipment was within the POR and there is no record evidence 
in this review of circumstances that compel the Department to employ an 
atypical methodology to determine the universe of sales to be examined 
during this review.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, to Jiangsu Jianghai, ``1-
Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic 
of China: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Jiangsu Jianghai 
Chemical Group Co., Ltd.'' (June 7, 2010) (``antidumping 
questionnaire'').
    \7\ See Letter from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary of 
Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the 
Republic of India and the People's Republic of China; A-570-934; 
Copy of Certification of No Shipments by Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical 
Group Co., Ltd.'' (July 13, 2010); Letter from Wujin Fine to the 
Secretary of Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid 
from the Republic of India and the People's Republic of China; A-
570-934; Notification by Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., 
Ltd.'' (June 28, 2010).
    \8\ See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Interested 
Parties, ``2009-2010 Administrative Review of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 
1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China; Placing CBP 
Data and Entry Documents on the Record'' (August 13, 2010); 
Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade Compliance 
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Interested Parties, ``2009-
2010 Administrative Review of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic 
Acid from the People's Republic of China; Placing CBP Data and Entry 
Documents on the Record'' (September 24, 2010) (``CBP Data and Entry 
Documents'').
    \9\ See Letter from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary of 
Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethyidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the 
Republic of India and the People's Republic of China; A-570-934; 
Comments on Customs and Border Protection Data by Jiangsu Jianghai 
Chemical Group Co., Ltd.'' (August 19, 2010); Letter from Wujin Fine 
to the Secretary of Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethyidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic 
Acid from the Republic of India and the People's Republic of China; 
A-570-934; Comments on Customs and Border Protection Data by 
Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd.'' (August 19, 2010); 
Letter from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary of Commerce, ``1-
Hydroxyethyidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India 
and the People's Republic of China; A-570-934; Comments on Customs 
and Border Protection Data by Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co., 
Ltd.'' (October 4, 2010); Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of 
Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the 
People's Republic of China'' (October 4, 2010).
    \10\ See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, to Jiangsu Jianghai, ``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 
1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co., 
Ltd.'' (October 25, 2010) (``Shipment Letter'') at 2.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In November and December 2010, Jiangsu Jianghai submitted timely 
responses to Sections A, C, and D of the antidumping questionnaire.\12\ 
The Department issued a supplementary Sections A and C questionnaire 
and a supplementary Section D questionnaire to Jiangsu Jianghai on 
December 9, 2010, and December 17, 2010, respectively.\13\ Jiangsu 
Jianghai neither responded to these supplementary questionnaires nor 
asked for extensions of time to respond.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Memorandum from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary of 
Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the 
Republic of India and the People's Republic of China; A-570-934; 
Section A Response'' (November 19, 2010) (``Section A Response''); 
Memorandum from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary of Commerce, ``1-
Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India 
and the People's Republic of China; A-570-934; Section C Response'' 
(December 1, 2010); Memorandum from Jiangsu Jianghai to the 
Secretary of Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid 
from the Republic of India and the People's Republic of China; A-
570-934; Section D Response of Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co., 
Ltd.'' (December 9, 2010).
    \13\ See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, to Jiangsu Jianghai, ``Sections A & C 
Supplemental Questionnaire'' (December 9, 2010) (``Sections A & C 
Supplemental''); Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, to Jiangsu Jianghai, ``Section D Supplemental 
Questionnaire'' (December 17, 2010).
    \14\ See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File, 
``Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 1-
Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic 
of China: Telephone Conversation With Counsel for Jiangsu Jianghai 
Chemical Group Co., Ltd.'' (January 3, 2011) (``Telephone 
Conversation Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the Department's November 12, 2010, letter providing 
all interested parties with an opportunity to submit comments regarding 
surrogate country and surrogate value selection,\15\ Petitioner filed 
surrogate country and surrogate value comments in November and December 
2010.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, to All Interested Parties, ``Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-
Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Request for 
Comments on Selection of Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values'' 
(November 12, 2010).
    \16\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce, 
``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's 
Republic of China'' (November 30, 2010); Letter from Petitioner to 
the Secretary of Commerce, ``1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic 
Acid from the People's Republic of China'' (December 16, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 1, 2010, the Department extended the time period for 
completing the preliminary results of this administrative review until 
March 31, 2011.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of the Time Limit for the 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
75 FR 74684 (December 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order includes all grades of 
aqueous, acidic (non-neutralized) concentrations of 1-
hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid,\18\ also referred to as 
hydroxethlylidenediphosphonic acid, hydroxyethanediphosphonic acid, 
acetodiphosphonic acid, and etidronic acid. The CAS (Chemical Abstract 
Service) registry number for HEDP is 2809-21-4. The merchandise subject 
to the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (``HTSUS'') at subheading 2931.00.9043. It may 
also enter under HTSUS subheading 2811.19.6090. While HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes only, the written 
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>8</INF>O<INF>7</INF>P<INF>2</INF> or 
C(CH<INF>3</INF>)(OH)(PO<INF>3</INF>H<INF>2</INF>)<INF>2</INF>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intent To Partially Rescind the Administrative Review

    As stated above, Jiangsu Jianghai and Wujin Fine submitted letters 
certifying that they did not ship subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR. To test these claims, the Department ran a CBP 
data query, issued no-shipment inquiries to CBP requesting that it 
provide any information that contradicted these no-shipment claims, and 
obtained entry documentation from CBP. After examining this 
information, the Department has preliminarily determined that Jiangsu 
Jianghai had a shipment of subject merchandise that entered the United 
States during the POR.\19\ However, because the evidence on the record 
does not contradict Wujin Fine's no-shipment claim, the Department 
intends to rescind this administrative review with respect to Wujin 
Fine, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Shipment Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the 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. None of the parties to this proceeding have contested NME 
treatment.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department maintains a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control.\20\ In accordance with this presumption, 
all exporters of subject merchandise in an NME country are assigned a 
single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate its 
entitlement to a separate, company-specific margin by showing an 
absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to 
export activities.\21\ To determine whether de jure government control 
exists, the Department examines evidence of: (1) An absence of 
restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's 
business and export license; (2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; or (3) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies.\22\ Evidence 
supporting de facto absence of government control includes: (1) Whether 
each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the 
government; (2) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate 
and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether each exporter has 
autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the 
selection of

[[Page 19327]]

management; and (4) whether each exporter can retain the proceeds from 
its export sales and make independent decisions regarding disposition 
of profits or financing of losses.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405-06 
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
    \21\ Id., 117 F.3d at 1405.
    \22\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 
(May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''); Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd. v. 
United States, 710 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1355-56 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010) 
(``Qingdao Taifa'') (citing Coal. for the Pres. of Am. Brake Drum 
and Rotor Aftermarket Mfrs. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 229, 
242 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999) (``Brake Drum'')).
    \23\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China, 59 
FR 22585, 22586-87 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide,''); Qingdao 
Taifa, 710 F. Supp. 2d at 1356 (citing Brake Drum, 44 F. Supp. 2d at 
243).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 19, 2010, Jiangsu Jianghai submitted its response to 
Section A of the antidumping questionnaire.\24\ Jiangsu Jianghai's 
submission was incomplete and contained information insufficient to 
overcome the presumption that Jiangsu Jianghai's export activities are 
controlled, in law and in fact, by the PRC government. On December 9, 
2010, the Department issued Jiangsu Jianghai a supplementary 
questionnaire that requested Jiangsu Jianghai to correct these 
deficiencies and provide additional information necessary to determine 
whether it qualified for a separate rate.\25\ On January 3, 2011, the 
Department received confirmation that Jiangsu Jianghai would not 
provide the Department with the information requested in the December 
9, 2010 supplementary questionnaire.\26\ Therefore, by submitting 
incomplete and unverifiable responses to questions regarding government 
control of its export activities and not responding to the Department's 
supplementary questionnaire, Jiangsu Jianghai has prevented the 
Department from further investigating the facts related to the question 
of government control and failed to demonstrate an absence of de jure 
and de facto government control under the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Section A Response.
    \25\ See Sections A & C Supplemental at Enclosure 1-3.
    \26\ See Telephone Conversation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, by submitting incomplete and unverifiable responses to 
the antidumping questionnaire and not responding to either the 
Department's December 9, 2010, supplementary Sections A and C 
questionnaire or its December 17, 2010, supplementary Section D 
questionnaire, Jiangsu Jianghai did not meet its requirement to fully 
participate in this administrative review by responding to all 
information that has been requested by the Department.\27\ The 
Department does not permit respondents to selectively choose which 
requests to respond to or which information to submit.\28\ Jiangsu 
Jianghai cannot qualify for separate rate status by participating in 
only limited aspects of this review while simultaneously failing to 
provide complete and verifiable data with respect to other required 
elements.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See antidumping questionnaire at G-1 (``[A]s a respondent, 
your company must wholly and fully participate in this 
administrative review. * * * a respondent must respond to all 
information that has been requested by the Department''); Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 
74 FR 41374 (August 17, 2009) (``Furniture'') and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 32.
    \28\ See antidumping questionnaire at G-1.
    \29\ See Furniture, and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 32; see also antidumping questionnaire at G-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that Jiangsu 
Jianghai does not qualify for a separate rate because it has failed to 
demonstrate an absence of de jure and de facto government control under 
the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide and did not 
fully participate in this administrative review. Accordingly, the 
Department is treating Jiangsu Jianghai as part of the PRC-wide entity. 
Moreover, because Jiangsu Jianghai's responses to the antidumping 
questionnaire cannot be verified and Jiangsu Jianghai did not remedy 
the deficiencies noted in the Department's supplementary 
questionnaires, the Department has, in accordance with sections 782(d) 
and (e) of the Act, preliminarily determined to disregard all of 
Jiangsu Jianghai's responses to the antidumping questionnaire.

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.
    Further, 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 administrative review, or 
other information placed on the record.

Application of Total AFA to the PRC-Wide Entity

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that if one of the 
companies for which this review was initiated ``does not qualify for a 
separate rate, all other exporters of {HEDP from the PRC{time}  that 
have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this 
review as part of the single PRC entity. * * * '' As noted above, 
Jiangsu Jianghai, one of the companies for which this review was 
initiated, has not qualified for a separate rate. Therefore, the PRC-
wide entity is now under review.
    As explained above, Jiangsu Jianghai, as part of the PRC-wide 
entity, submitted incomplete and unverifiable responses to the 
antidumping questionnaire and did not respond to either the 
Department's December 9, 2010, supplementary Sections A and C 
questionnaire or its December 17, 2010 supplementary Section D 
questionnaire. For these reasons, the Department has preliminarily 
determined that the PRC-wide entity (1) withheld information that was 
requested, (2) failed to provide information within the deadlines 
established and in the form and manner requested by the Department, (3) 
significantly impeded this proceeding, and (4) provided information 
that cannot be verified. Therefore, in accordance with subsections 
776(a)(2)(A) through (D) of the Act, the Department has preliminarily 
based the dumping margin of the PRC-wide entity on the facts otherwise 
available. Further, because the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's 
requests for information, the Department has preliminarily determined, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, to use an inference that is 
adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available.

Selection of the AFA Rate

    Section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the 
Department's adverse inference ``may include reliance on information 
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the 
investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any 
other information placed on the record.'' In selecting a rate for use 
as 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

[[Page 19328]]

information in a timely manner.'' \30\ Furthermore, it is the 
Department's practice to ensure ``that the party does not obtain a more 
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully'' \31\ and to select ``the highest rate on the record of the 
proceeding'' \32\ that can be corroborated, to the extent 
practicable.\33\ Therefore, as AFA, the Department has preliminarily 
assigned the PRC-wide entity a dumping margin of 72.42 percent, which 
was the margin calculated in the petition, as adjusted by the 
Department for initiation, and is the highest dumping margin on the 
record of this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 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).
    \31\ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d 
Session at 870 (1994) (``SAA''); 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).
    \32\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 39940, 39942 (July 11, 2008).
    \33\ See Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 638 
F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 of the Act 
concerning the subject merchandise.\34\ ``Corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value.\35\ To corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information to be used.\36\ Independent sources used 
to corroborate such information may include, for example, published 
price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation or review.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See SAA at 870.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ See 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).
    \37\ See 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); Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR 
12181, 12183-84 (March 11, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To corroborate the 72.42 percent petition rate, the Department 
first revisited its pre-initiation analysis of the information in the 
petition. During the initiation of the antidumping investigation of 
HEDP from the PRC, the Department examined evidence supporting the 
calculations in the petition and the supplemental information provided 
by Petitioner to determine the probative value of the margins alleged 
in the petition.\38\ During the Department's pre-initiation analysis, 
it examined the information used as the basis of export price (``EP'') 
and normal value (``NV'') in the petition, and the calculations used to 
derive the alleged margins.\39\ Also during its pre-initiation 
analysis, the Department examined information from various independent 
sources provided either in the petition or in supplements to the 
petition, which corroborated key elements of the EP and NV 
calculations.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the 
Republic of India and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 20023, 20025-26 (April 14, 
2008) (``Investigation Initiation''); 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-
Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 10545, 10547 
(March 11, 2009) (``Final Determination'').
    \39\ See Investigation Initiation, 73 FR at 20025-26; Final 
Determination, 74 FR at 10547.
    \40\ See Final Determination, 74 FR at 10547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further corroborate the 72.42 percent petition rate, the 
Department examined the information on the record of this 
administrative review. Because the Department has, in accordance with 
section 782(d) of the Act, disregarded all of Jiangsu Jianghai's 
responses to the antidumping questionnaire, the Department 
preliminarily determined that the only information on the record of 
this administrative review that can be used for purposes of 
corroboration are the entry documents provided by CBP.\41\ These entry 
documents--particularly the commercial invoice for Jiangsu Jianghai's 
single entry of subject merchandise during the POR--establish that 
Jiangsu Jianghai's U.S. price approximates the U.S. price in the 
petition.\42\ Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined 
that the U.S. price in the petition reflects commercial reality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See CBP Data and Entry Documents at Attachment 1.
    \42\ See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File, ``1-
Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic 
of China: Corroboration Memorandum for Preliminary Results of 
Administrative Review'' (March 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Department has preliminarily determined that 
the 72.42 percent petition rate has probative value and, therefore, is 
corroborated to the extent practicable, in accordance with section 
776(c) of the Act. Moreover, because the information on the record of 
this administrative review that can be used for purposes of 
corroboration approximate the information used as a basis for the 
petition rate, the Department is satisfied that the 72.42 percent 
petition rate reflects commercial reality.

Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department has preliminarily determined that the following 
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 23, 2009, 
through March 31, 2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Antidumping duty
                      Exporter                          percent margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Entity \43\................................               72.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of 
review.\44\ Rebuttal comments must be limited to the issues raised in 
the written comments and may be filed no later than 35 days after the 
date of publication.\45\ Parties submitting written comments or 
rebuttal comments are requested to provide the Department with an 
additional copy of those comments on CD-ROM. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary 
results.\46\ Any hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two 
days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs.\47\ 
Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and

[[Page 19329]]

location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Jiangsu Jianghai is part of the PRC-wide entity.
    \44\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
    \45\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
    \46\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    \47\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised 
in the briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1), unless the time limit 
is extended.

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212, the Department will determine, and CBP 
shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject 
merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The 
Department intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing 
subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide 
rate the Department determines in the final results of this review. The 
Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this 
review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously 
investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above 
that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the 
exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (2) for 
all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to 
be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-
wide rate established in the final results of this review; 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 exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 presuming that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and, subsequently, the 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results 
of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: March 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-8347 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P