19322 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of the 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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(1). 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. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy 

Notice. This clarification will apply to 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise they 

sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

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

The cash deposit rate for each specific 

company listed above will be that 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

if the exporter is not a firm covered in 

this review, or the original less than fair 

value (LTFV) investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and (4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters of NFC, and for FCOJM 

produced and/or exported by Cargill 

Citrus Limitada and Coinbra-Frutesp 

will continue to be 16.51 percent, the 

all-others rate made effective by the 

LTFV investigation. See OJ Order, 71 FR 

at 12184. 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’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: March 31, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8324 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Garlic From the People’s Republic of 

China: Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 12, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (Department) 

published preliminary results for the 

new shipper reviews (NSRs) of fresh 

garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC) covering the period of 

review (POR) November 1, 2008, 

through October 31, 2009. See Fresh 

Garlic From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of New 

Shipper Reviews and Preliminary 

Rescission, in Part, 75 FR 69415 

(November 12, 2010) (Preliminary 

Results). The reviews covered three 

respondents: Jinxiang Chengda Imp & 

Exp Co., Ltd. (Chengda), Zhengzhou 

Huachao Industrial Co., Ltd. (Huachao), 

and Jinxiang Yuanxin Imp & Exp Co., 

Ltd. (Yuanxin). 

As discussed below, we preliminarily 

found that Yuanxin’s and Huachao’s 

sales were bona fide and that these sales 

were made in the United States at prices 

below normal value (NV). In addition, 

we found Chengda’s sales to be not bona 

fide, and announced our preliminary 

intent to rescind Chengda’s new shipper 

review. For the final results of this 

review, we are finding the sales of all 

three respondents, Chengda, Huachao, 

and Yuanxin, to be not bona fide. 

Therefore, because there were no other 

shipments or entries by these three 

companies during the POR, we are 

rescinding these new shipper reviews. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 7, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0780. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Since the Preliminary Results, the 

following events have occurred. On 

December 2, 2010, surrogate value 

information was placed on the record by 

Huachao. On December 30, 2010, the 

Department extended the time limit for 

the final results of this new shipper 

review. On January 26, 2011, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to Yuanxin. On January 

27, 2011, the Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to Huachao. 

On February 4, 2011, the Department 

issued a letter to Yuanxin concerning 

the business proprietary designation of 

the company’s Web site address. 

On February 4, 2011, the Department 

issued the briefing schedule for briefs 

addressing all issues except the bona 

fides of Huachao’s and Yuanxin’s 

respective sales. On February 8, 2011, 

Yuanxin requested an extension to the 

deadlines as established in the February 

4, 2011 briefing schedule. On February 

9, 2011, the Department issued an 

extension of this briefing schedule, with 

briefs due February 17, 2011, and 

rebuttal briefs due February 22, 2011. 

On February 14, 2011, the Department 

placed information related to Jinxiang 

Hejia Co., Ltd.’s NSR sale to the United 

States, from the 2007/2008 NSR, on the 

record of this review. Huachao and 

Yuanxin submitted supplemental 

questionnaire responses on February 14, 

2011. Yuanxin also submitted its case 

brief on February 14, 2011. On February 

15, 2011, the Department placed 

memoranda on the record of this review 

that included information related to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 19323 

Yuanxin’s domain name registration 

and the corporate records of the 

importers and customers of each of the 

exporters involved in this review. On 

February 17, 2011, Huachao and 

Chengda submitted case briefs. 

On February 18, 2011, the Department 

issued the briefing schedule for briefs 

addressing only the bona fides of 

Huachao’s and Yuanxin’s respective 

sales. Additionally, on February 18, 

2011, the Fresh Garlic Producers 

Association and its individual members 

(Christopher Ranch L.L.C., the Garlic 

Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and 

Company, Inc.) (collectively, 

Petitioners) requested an extension of 

the February 22, 2011 deadline for 

rebuttal briefs not related to the bona 

fides of Huachao’s and Yuanxin’s 

respective sales. On February 22, 2011, 

the Department granted Petitioners’ 

February 18, 2011 request for an 

extension to the rebuttal briefs deadline, 

the new deadline becoming February 

25, 2011. On February 24, 2011, 

Petitioners submitted a rebuttal to 

Huachao’s February 14, 2011 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

On February 25, 2011, Petitioners 

submitted rebuttal briefs for all three 

respondents. Also, on February 25, 

2011, Petitioners submitted a brief 

regarding whether Huachao’s POR sale 

was bona fide. 

On March 1, 2011, Huachao requested 

an extension to the deadline of the bona 

fides rebuttal briefs as established in the 

Department’s February 18, 2011 briefing 

schedule. On March 2, 2011, the 

Department granted Huachao’s March 1, 

2011 request for an extension, the new 

deadline for bona fides rebuttal briefs 

becoming March 7, 2011. On March 3, 

2011, Huachao submitted a letter 

requesting that the Department reject 

Petitioners’ February 24, 2011 

submission on the grounds that it 

contained untimely new factual 

information. Further, Huachao argued 

that Petitioners’ February 25, 2011 case 

brief also be rejected, as it relies upon 

information contained in the February 

24, 2011 submission. The information in 

question involves the nature of the 

United States garlic market and the 

appropriate benchmark to be used in 

determining the bona fide nature of 

Huachao’s sale. The Department found 

this information to be relevant to the 

information provided by Huachao in its 

supplemental response, which 

addressed Department questions 

regarding whether Huachao’s sale was 

bona fide. Thus, the Department 

concluded that Petitioners’ submission 

was timely rebuttal information allowed 

for under 19 CFR 351.301(c). Finally, on 

March 7, 2011, Huachao submitted a 

rebuttal brief to the February 25, 2011 

case brief submitted by Petitioners 

regarding the bona fides of its sale. 

On March 16, 2011, Department 

officials met with Chengda’s counsel to 

discuss issues related to the case briefs. 

See Memorandum for the File from 

Lingjun Wang, Case Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, ‘‘Meeting with 

Counsel for the Jinxiang Chengda 

Import & Export Co., Ltd.: New Shipper 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Fresh Garlic from China’’ (March 16, 

2011). On March 17, 2011, Department 

officials met with Petitioners’ counsel to 

discuss issues related to the case briefs. 

See Memorandum for the File from 

David Lindgren, Case Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, ‘‘Meeting with 

Counsel for the Petitioners: New 

Shipper Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order on Fresh Garlic from China’’ 

(March 17, 2011). 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

all grades of garlic, whole or separated 

into constituent cloves, whether or not 

peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, 

provisionally preserved, or packed in 

water or other neutral substance, but not 

prepared or preserved by the addition of 

other ingredients or heat processing. 

The differences between grades are 

based on color, size, sheathing, and 

level of decay. The scope of this order 

does not include the following: (a) garlic 

that has been mechanically harvested 

and that is primarily, but not 

exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; 

or (b) garlic that has been specially 

prepared and cultivated prior to 

planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed. The 

subject merchandise is used principally 

as a food product and for seasoning. The 

subject garlic is currently classifiable 

under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 

0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 

0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 

0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. In order to be 

excluded from the order, garlic entered 

under the HTSUS subheadings listed 

above that is (1) mechanically harvested 

and primarily, but not exclusively, 

destined for non-fresh use or (2) 

specially prepared and cultivated prior 

to planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed must 

be accompanied by declarations to CBP 

to that effect. 

Analyses of Comments Received 

In addition to commenting on the 

bona fides of Chengda’s and Huachao’s 

U.S. sales (see Bona Fides Analysis 

section below), the parties addressed, in 

their case and rebuttal briefs, three 

surrogate valuation issues: (1) What to 

use as the surrogate value for raw garlic 

bulbs; (2) which financial statements to 

use as the surrogate financial ratios; and 

(3) how to properly calculate the wage 

rate. Since, as discussed below, we are 

rescinding these reviews, the 

Department need not address the 

parties’ comments on these issues 

pertaining to the calculation of the 

dumping margin. 

Bona Fides Analysis 

In conducting an NSR, the 

Department examines price, quantity, 

and other circumstances associated with 

the sale to determine if the sale was 

based on normal commercial 

considerations and presents an accurate 

representation of the company’s normal 

business practices, and provides a 

future indicator of its future selling 

practice. See Shandong Chenhe Int’l 

Trading Co. v. United States, No. 08– 

00373, slip op. at 19 (Ct. Int’l Trade 

Nov. 22, 2010); see also Tianjin 

Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 

1250 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005); and Hebei 

New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 

1342 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005). If the 

Department determines that the price 

was not based on normal commercial 

considerations or is atypical of the 

respondent’s normal business practices, 

including other sales of comparable 

merchandise, the sale may be 

considered not bona fide, and, as such, 

cannot serve as a reasonable or reliable 

basis for calculating a dumping margin. 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department found Chengda’s POR sales 

to be not bona fide. The Department 

found that Huachao’s POR sale, 

however, was made on a bona fide basis, 

noting that it would continue to 

examine all factors relating to the bona 

fides of that sale given the Department’s 

concerns regarding the price, quantity, 

and payment terms of the sale. 

Likewise, the Department found that 

Yuanxin’s POR sale was also made on 

a bona fide basis, noting that it would 

continue to examine the bona fides of 

the sale given the Department’s 

concerns regarding the price, quantity, 

and atypicality of the product and 

transaction. Based on our continuing 

analyses of all aspects of the parties’ 

sales, summarized below, and our 

analyses of supplemental questionnaire 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

19324 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 

responses, of information and 

documentation from a prior NSR placed 

on the record of this review, and of 

comments made by interested parties, 

the Department continues to find that 

Chengda’s sales are not bona fide, and 

now finds that the sales of Yuanxin and 

Huachao are not bona fide as well. As 

such, the sales made by all three parties 

do not provide reasonable or reliable 

bases for calculating dumping margins. 

Chengda 

For the Preliminary Results, the 

Department analyzed the bona fides of 

Chengda’s sales and preliminarily found 

Chengda’s sales to the United States to 

be not bona fide. See ‘‘Bona Fide Nature 

of the Sale in the Antidumping Duty 

New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC): Jinxiang Chengda Imp & Exp Co., 

Ltd.’’ (November 1, 2010). Since the 

Preliminary Results, both Chengda and 

Petitioners have submitted arguments 

regarding whether Chengda’s POR 

shipment was bona fide. Significant 

portions of these arguments involve 

discussion of business proprietary 

information (BPI). Therefore, the 

Department’s summaries of, and 

positions on, these arguments, in 

addition to our full analysis of the bona 

fides of Chengda’s sales, are included in 

the memorandum, ‘‘Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review of Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Bona Fides 

Analysis of Chengda Imp & Exp Co., 

Ltd.,’’ issued concurrently with this 

Federal Register notice. Based on the 

Department’s complete analysis of all 

the information on the record of this 

review regarding the bona fides of 

Chengda’s NSR sales, the Department 

continues to find Chengda’s sales not 

bona fide because (1) Chengda’s sale 

prices are so high that they are atypical, 

aberrational, commercially 

unreasonable, and not indicative of 

future sales, and (2) Chengda’s sales 

quantities are too small to reflect normal 

commercial practices of the garlic 

industry. 

Huachao 

For the Preliminary Results, the 

Department analyzed the bona fides of 

Huachao’s sale and preliminarily found 

Huachao’s sale to the United States to be 

bona fide, noting that we would 

continue to examine all factors relating 

to the bona fides of that sale given the 

Department’s concerns regarding the 

price, quantity, and payment terms of 

the sale. See ‘‘Bona Fide Nature of the 

Sale in the Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC): 

Zhengzhou Huachao Industrial Co., 

Ltd.’’ (November 1, 2010). After the 

Preliminary Results, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Huachao. In addition, Petitioners filed a 

case brief and Huachao filed a rebuttal 

brief on whether Huachao’s sale should 

be considered bona fide. Significant 

portions of these arguments involve 

discussion of BPI. Therefore, the 

Department’s summaries of, and 

positions on, these arguments, in 

addition to our full analysis of the bona 

fides of Huachao’s sale, are included in 

the memorandum ‘‘Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review of Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Bona Fides 

Analysis of Zhengzhou Huachao 

Industrial Co., Ltd.,’’ issued 

concurrently with this Federal Register 

notice. Based on the Department’s 

complete analysis of all the information 

on the record of this review regarding 

the bona fides of Huachao’s NSR sale, 

the Department finds Huachao’s sale to 

be not bona fide because (1) Huachao’s 

sale price is so high as to be 

commercially unreasonable and not 

indicative of the garlic industry, (2) 

Huachao’s sales quantity is not 

commercially reasonable, (3) Huachao’s 

function as the processor of its U.S. sale 

is atypical of its normal business 

practice, and (4) there are 

inconsistencies in the information 

provided by Huachao’s customer in the 

United States, raising doubts about 

Huachao’s description of the sale’s 

structure. 

Yuanxin 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department found that Yuanxin’s POR 

sale was made on a bona fide basis, 

noting that it would continue to 

examine the bona fides of the sale given 

the Department’s concerns regarding the 

price, quantity, and atypical nature of 

the product and transaction. See ‘‘Bona 

Fide Nature of the Sale in the 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review of Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC): 

Jinxiang Yuanxin Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.’’ 

(November 1, 2010). As noted in the 

background section, after the 

Preliminary Results, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Yuanxin. In addition, new information 

with respect to the bona fides of 

Yuanxin’s sale was placed on the record 

of this review. See the Department’s 

February 14, 2011 memorandum to the 

file regarding Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd.’s 

NSR and Yuanxin’s February 14, 2011 

supplemental questionnaire response; 

see also the Department’s February 15, 

2011 memorandum to the file regarding 

Yuanxin’s domain name registration 

and the Department’s February 15, 2011 

memorandum to the file regarding the 

corporate records of the importers and 

customers of each of the exporters 

involved in this review. 

Significant portions of the issues 

involved in Yuanxin’s bona fides 

include BPI. Therefore, we have 

addressed all of the arguments in a 

separate memorandum as part of our 

full bona fides analysis. See ‘‘Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Bona Fides 

Analysis of Jinxiang Yuanxin Imp & Exp 

Co., Ltd.,’’ issued concurrently with this 

Federal Register notice. Based on the 

Department’s complete analysis of all 

the information on the record of this 

review regarding the bona fides of 

Yuanxin’s NSR sale, the Department 

finds Yuanxin’s sale to be not bona fide 

because (1) Yuanxin’s sale price is so 

high as to be commercially 

unreasonable and not indicative of 

future sales, (2) Yuanxin’s sales quantity 

is not representative of the garlic 

industry, and (3) the structure of 

Yuanxin’s U.S. sale is of an unusual 

nature. 

Rescission of New Shipper Reviews 

For the foregoing reasons, the 

Department finds that the sales of all 

three new shippers are not bona fide 

and that these sales do not provide a 

reasonable or reliable basis for 

calculating a dumping margin. Because 

these non-bona fide sales were the only 

sales of subject merchandise during the 

POR, the Department is rescinding all 

three new shipper reviews in their 

entirety. 

Notification to Importers 

The Department will notify U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection that 

bonding is no longer permitted to fulfill 

security requirements for shipments by 

Chengda, Huachao, and Yuanxin of 

fresh garlic from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption in the United States on or 

after the publication of this rescission 

notice in the Federal Register, and that 

a cash deposit of $4.71 per kilogram 

should be collected for all shipments of 

the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of this notice, as provided for by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, by 

Chengda, Huachao, and Yuanxin. 

This notice is the only reminder to 

parties subject to the administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 19325 

1See 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’’). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 16426 

(April 1, 2010). 

3See 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). 

4See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 

29976 (May 28, 2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

5 Id., 75 FR at 29976–77. 

6See, 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’’). 

7See 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). 

8See 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’’). 

9See 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). 

disclosed under the APO in accordance 

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

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

These new shipper reviews and notice 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.214. 

Dated: March 31, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8323 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

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

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES