Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 69403 

1The Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade 

Committee is comprised of Aerolite Extrusion 

Company, Alexandria Extrusion Company, Benada 

Aluminum of Florida, Inc., William L. Bonnell 

Company, Inc., Frontier Aluminum Corporation, 

Futura Industries Corporation, Hydro Aluminum 

North America, Inc., Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, 

Profile Extrusions Company, Sapa Extrusions, Inc., 

and Western Extrusions Corporation. 

2See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duties: Aluminum Extrusions 

from the People’s Republic of China, dated March 

31, 2010 (‘‘Petition’’). 

3See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 75 FR 22109 (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

Country Company 

France ...................................................... Edwards Ltd. and Edwards High Vacuum Int’l. Ltd., Microturbo SAS, Pratt & Whitney, Ringball Corporation. 

Germany .................................................. Avio (formerly known as FiatAvio), Cerobear GmbH, Edwards Ltd. and Edwards High Vacuum Int’l. 

Ltd., Fitchel & Sachs AG, Neuwig Fertigung GmbH, Pratt & Whitney, Ringball Corporation, RWG 

Frankenjura-Industrie Flugwerklager GmbH, SNR Walzlager GmbH. 

Italy ........................................................... Avio, S.p.A. (formerly known as FiatAvio), Meter S.p.A., Ringball Corporation. 

Japan ....................................................... Aisin Seiki Co. Ltd., Avio (formerly known as (Avio), Canon Inc., Fukuyama Shoji Co., Ltd., IKO 

Nippon Thompson Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Nippon Thompson Co., Ltd.), Inoue Jukuuke 

Kogyo Co., Ltd., Izumoto Seiko Co., Ltd., Makino Milling Machine Company, Nankai Seiko Co., 

Ltd., Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd., Nippon Pillow Block Sales Co., Osaka Pump Co. Ltd., Sapporo 

Precision, Inc., and Tokyo Precision, Inc., Takeshita Seiko Co., Ltd., Univance Corp. 

The United Kingdom ................................ Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce PLC. 

In addition, on September 1, 2010, the 

Department revoked, in part, the 

antidumping duty order on ball bearings 

and parts thereof from the United 

Kingdom as it applies to all subject 

merchandise exported and/or sold by 

The Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited 

and Schaeffler (U.K.) Limited. See Ball 

Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, et al.: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Final Results of ChangedCircumstances Review, and Revocation 

of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661 

(September 1, 2010). The effective date 

of the revocation is May 1, 2009. 

Therefore, we are also rescinding the 

review of the 2009/2010 period with 

respect to The Barden Corporation 

(U.K.) Limited and Schaeffler (U.K.) 

Limited. 

Because there are no other requests 

for review of the above-named firms, we 

are rescinding the reviews with respect 

to these companies in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). We will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to liquidate entries not still 

subject to the ongoing review at the rate 

required at the time of entry. See 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1). 

With respect to entries of subject 

merchandise produced by The Barden 

Corporation (U.K.) Limited or Schaeffler 

(U.K.) Limited which do not meet the 

terms of the revocation and which were 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption between May 1, 2009, 

and April 30, 2010, we will instruct CBP 

to liquidate applicable entries at the 

cash-deposit rate for merchandise 

produced by The Barden Corporation 

(U.K.) Limited or Schaeffler (U.K.) 

Limited in effect at the time of entry 

unless such entries concern imports of 

subject merchandise from entities (e.g. 

resellers of merchandise produced by 

The Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited 

or Schaeffler (U.K.) Limited) which 

continue to be subject to the ongoing 

review of the order on subject 

merchandise from the United Kingdom. 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions to 

CBP 15 days after publication of this 

notice. 

Notification 

This notice serves as a final 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 Department’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: November 4, 2010. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28567 Filed 11–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–967] 

Aluminum Extrusions From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, and Preliminary 

Determination of Targeted Dumping 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 12, 

2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) preliminarily determines 

that aluminum extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 733 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at 

LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Stolz or Lori Apodaca, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4474 or (202) 482– 

4551, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 31, 2010, the Department 

received a petition concerning imports 

of aluminum extrusions from the PRC 

filed in proper form by the Aluminum 

Extrusions Fair Trade Committee,1 and 

the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’).2 Between April 6 and 

April 19, 2010, the Department issued 

several requests for information and 

clarification of certain areas of the 

Petition, to which Petitioners timely 

filed additional responses. 

The Department initiated this 

investigation on April 27, 2010.3 In the 

Initiation Notice, the Department 

notified parties of the application 

process by which exporters and 

producers may obtain separate-rate 

status in non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

69404 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 

4See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice 

and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 

05.1’’), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/ 

bull05-1.pdf. 

5See Investigation Nos. 701–TA–475 and 731– 

TA–1177 (Preliminary): Aluminum extrusions from 

China, USITC Publication 4153 (June 2010). 

6See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s 

Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 75 FR 51243 (August 19, 2010). 

investigations. The process requires 

exporters and producers to submit a 

separate-rate status application 

(‘‘SRA’’) 4 and to demonstrate an absence 

of both de jure and de facto government 

control over their export activities. The 

SRA for this investigation was posted on 

the Department’s Web site, http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html, on April 27, 2010. The due 

date for filing an SRA was June 28, 

2010. 

On May 17, 2010, the International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) determined 

that there is a reasonable indication that 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury by reason of imports of 

aluminum extrusions from the PRC.5

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

July 1, 2009, through December 31, 

2009. This period corresponds to the 

two most recent fiscal quarters prior to 

the month of the filing of the petition, 

which was March 2009. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination 

On August 4, 2010, Petitioners made 

a timely request pursuant to section 

733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.205(b)(2) and (e) for a 50-day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determination. On August 19, 2010, the 

Department published a postponement 

of the preliminary AD determination on 

aluminum extrusions from the PRC.6

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is aluminum extrusions 

which are shapes and forms, produced 

by an extrusion process, made from 

aluminum alloys having metallic 

elements corresponding to the alloy 

series designations published by The 

Aluminum Association commencing 

with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or 

proprietary equivalents or other 

certifying body equivalents). 

Specifically, the subject merchandise 

made from aluminum alloy with an 

Aluminum Association series 

designation commencing with the 

number 1 contains not less than 99 

percent aluminum by weight. The 

subject merchandise made from 

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum 

Association series designation 

commencing with the number 3 

contains manganese as the major 

alloying element, with manganese 

accounting for not more than 3.0 

percent of total materials by weight. The 

subject merchandise made from an 

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum 

Association series designation 

commencing with the number 6 

contains magnesium and silicon as the 

major alloying elements, with 

magnesium accounting for at least 0.1 

percent but not more than 2.0 percent of 

total materials by weight, and silicon 

accounting for at least 0.1 percent but 

not more than 3.0 percent of total 

materials by weight. The subject 

aluminum extrusions are properly 

identified by a four-digit alloy series 

without either a decimal point or 

leading letter. Illustrative examples from 

among the approximately 160 registered 

alloys that may characterize the subject 

merchandise are as follows: 1350, 3003, 

and 6060. 

Aluminum extrusions are produced 

and imported in a wide variety of 

shapes and forms, including, but not 

limited to, hollow profiles, other solid 

profiles, pipes, tubes, bars, and rods. 

Aluminum extrusions that are drawn 

subsequent to extrusion (‘‘drawn 

aluminum’’) are also included in the 

scope. 

Aluminum extrusions are produced 

and imported with a variety of finishes 

(both coatings and surface treatments), 

and types of fabrication. The types of 

coatings and treatments applied to 

subject aluminum extrusions include, 

but are not limited to, extrusions that 

are mill finished (i.e., without any 

coating or further finishing), brushed, 

buffed, polished, anodized (including 

bright-dip anodized), liquid painted, or 

powder coated. Aluminum extrusions 

may also be fabricated, i.e., prepared for 

assembly. Such operations would 

include, but are not limited to, 

extrusions that are cut-to-length, 

machined, drilled, punched, notched, 

bent, stretched, knurled, swedged, 

mitered, chamfered, threaded, and spun. 

The subject merchandise includes 

aluminum extrusions that are finished 

(coated, painted, etc.), fabricated, or any 

combination thereof. 

Subject aluminum extrusions may be 

described at the time of importation as 

parts for final finished products that are 

assembled after importation, including, 

but not limited to, window frames, door 

frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or 

furniture. Such parts that otherwise 

meet the definition of aluminum 

extrusions are included in the scope. 

The scope includes aluminum 

extrusions that are attached (e.g., by 

welding or fasteners) to form 

subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled 

merchandise. 

Subject extrusions may be identified 

with reference to their end use, such as 

heat sinks, door thresholds, or carpet 

trim. Such goods are subject 

merchandise if they otherwise meet the 

scope definition, regardless of whether 

they are finished products and ready for 

use at the time of importation. 

The following aluminum extrusion 

products are excluded: Aluminum 

extrusions made from aluminum alloy 

with an Aluminum Association series 

designations commencing with the 

number 2 and containing in excess of 

1.5 percent copper by weight; aluminum 

extrusions made from aluminum alloy 

with an Aluminum Association series 

designation commencing with the 

number 5 and containing in excess of 

1.0 percent magnesium by weight; and 

aluminum extrusions made from 

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum 

Association series designation 

commencing with the number 7 and 

containing in excess of 2.0 percent zinc 

by weight. 

The scope also excludes finished 

merchandise containing aluminum 

extrusions as parts that are fully and 

permanently assembled and completed 

at the time of entry, such as finished 

windows with glass, doors, picture 

frames, and solar panels. The scope also 

excludes finished goods containing 

aluminum extrusions that are entered 

unassembled in a ‘‘kit.’’ A kit is 

understood to mean a packaged 

combination of parts that contains, at 

the time of importation, all of the 

necessary parts to fully assemble a final 

finished good. 

The scope also excludes aluminum 

alloy sheet or plates produced by other 

than the extrusion process, such as 

aluminum products produced by a 

method of casting. Cast aluminum 

products are properly identified by four 

digits with a decimal point between the 

third and fourth digit. A letter may also 

precede the four digits. The following 

Aluminum Association designations are 

representative of aluminum alloys for 

casting: 208.0, 295.0, 308.0, 355.0, 

C355.0, 356.0, A356.0, A357.0, 360.0, 

366.0, 380.0, A380.0, 413.0, 443.0, 

514.0, 518.1, and 712.0. The scope also 

excludes pure, unwrought aluminum in 

any form. 

The scope also excludes collapsible 

tubular containers composed of metallic 

elements corresponding to alloy code 

1080A as designated by the Aluminum 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 69405 

7See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 

62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 

8See Notice of Initiation, 75 FR at 22110. 

9See the Department’s memorandum entitled 

‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic 

of China, Preliminary Determinations: Comments 

on the Scope of the Investigations, dated October 

27, 2010. 

10See id. 

Association where the tubular container 

(excluding the nozzle) meets each of the 

following dimensional characteristics: 

(1) Length of 37 mm or 62 mm, (2) outer 

diameter of 11.0 mm or 12.7 mm, and 

(3) wall thickness not exceeding 0.13 

mm. 

Imports of the subject merchandise 

are provided for under the following 

categories of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’): 

7604.21.0000, 7604.29.1000, 

7604.29.3010, 7604.29.3050, 

7604.29.5030, 7604.29.5060, 

7608.20.0030, and 7608.20.0090. The 

subject merchandise entered as parts of 

other aluminum products may be 

classifiable under the following 

additional Chapter 76 subheadings: 

7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 

7616.99 as well as under other HTS 

chapters. While HTS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope in this proceeding is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

our regulations,7 the Department set 

aside a period of time for parties to raise 

issues regarding product coverage and 

encouraged all parties to submit 

comments within twenty calendar days 

of publication.8

On May 10, 2010, Petitioners 

submitted comments concerning the 

scope of the investigation. On this same 

date, Toagosei America, Inc. 

(‘‘Toagosei’’), an importer of aluminum 

extrusions, and Shanghai Canghai 

Aluminum Tube Packing Co. (‘‘Shanghai 

Canghai’’), its Chinese exporter and 

supplier, submitted a product exclusion 

request for collapsible tubular 

containers. Also on May 10, 2010, Kam 

Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd and 

Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium 

Extrusion Co., Ltd. (collectively ‘‘Kam 

Kiu’’) submitted a request to exclude 

drawn aluminum products from the 

scope. On May 10, 2010, Brazeway, Inc. 

(‘‘Brazeway’’) submitted comments 

arguing that all shapes, forms, 

fabrications and subassemblies extruded 

from soft aluminum alloys (Aluminum 

Association series 1000, 3000, 6000) be 

included in the scope. On the same 

date, Eagle Metal Distributors, Inc. 

(‘‘Eagle Metals’’) also submitted 

comments requesting that certain 

aluminum extrusions that have a 

particular chemistry, wall thickness and 

length be excluded from the scope. On 

May 11, 2010, Shenyang Yuanda 

Aluminium Industry Engineering Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘CNYD’’), a Chinese exporter of 

assorted aluminum components, made a 

request for its unitized curtain walls and 

component parts to be considered kits 

excluded from the scope of the 

investigation. Also on May 11, 2010, the 

Department received scope comments 

from Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. 

(‘‘HPS’’), a U.S. importer of aluminum 

extrusions from the PRC, requesting a 

product exclusion for insulators and 

connectors used in the electric 

transmission industry. On May 20, 

2010, Petitioners responded to scope 

comments submitted by Eagle Metals, 

CNYD, Kam Kiu, Toagosei, Shanghai 

Canghai and HPS. 

On June 14, 2010, Toagosei clarified 

its May 20, 2010 scope comments 

regarding collapsible tubular containers. 

On June 15, 2010, the Department 

received scope comments from AlumiGuard, Inc. (‘‘Alumi-Guard’’), a domestic 

manufacturer of fences and gates, 

proposing to modify the scope exclusion 

regarding fully assembled finished 

merchandise and kits so that such items 

comprised of at least 70 percent 

aluminum extrusions by weight would 

not be excluded from the scope of the 

investigation. On June 22, 2010, the 

Department received scope comments 

from Jerith Manufacturing Co., Inc. 

(‘‘Jerith’’), proposing to revise the scope 

exclusion regarding fully assembled 

finished merchandise and kits so that 

fully assembled finished merchandise 

and kits comprised of at least 75 percent 

aluminum extrusions by weight would 

not be excluded from the scope of the 

proceeding. On June 23, 2010, the 

Department received scope comments 

from Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum Factory 

Co. Ltd. (‘‘ZAA’’), an exporter of 

aluminum extrusions from the PRC and 

ZAA’s U.S. purchaser of aluminum 

extrusions, Shapes Unlimited, Inc. 

(‘‘Shapes Unlimited’’), requesting that 

certain aluminum extrusions with 

specific chemistry, wall thickness, 

finish and weight be excluded from the 

scope. On June 24, 2010, Elite Fence 

Products, Inc. (‘‘Elite Fence’’) proposed a 

modification of the scope language 

mimicking the request made by Jerith. 

On July 22, 2010, Delair Group, LLC 

(‘‘Delair’’), submitted a scope language 

modification requesting the exclusion 

for finished products and kits be 

modified so that finished products and 

complete kits comprised of at least 75 

percent aluminum extrusions by weight 

would not be excluded from the scope 

of the investigations. On August 20, 

2010, Petitioners submitted a request to 

amend the scope to exclude certain 

collapsible tubular containers meeting 

specific dimensions. On August 23, 

2010, Toagosei and Shanghai Canghai 

submitted comments in support of 

Petitioners’ August 20, 2010, scope 

amendment request. On August 26, 

2010, Digger Specialties, Inc. (‘‘DSI’’) 

requested a revision of scope language 

also mimicking the request made by 

Jerith. 

On September 15, 2010, Nexxt Show, 

LLC (‘‘Nexxt Show’’), an importer of 

aluminum exhibition kits, inquired as to 

whether its imports would be covered 

by the ‘‘kit’’ exclusion. On September 17, 

2010, the Department received scope 

comments from the Shower Door 

Manufacturers and Shower Enclosures 

Alliance (‘‘Shower Door 

Manufacturers’’), in which they 

requested clarification of the scope 

language covering ‘‘kits’’ and ‘‘finishes.’’ 

On September 27, 2010, Petitioners filed 

their rebuttal, objecting to the proposals 

made by the Shower Door 

Manufacturers. On September 29, 2010, 

the Department received scope 

comments from Aavid Thermalloy, LLC 

(‘‘Aavid’’), requesting a scope exclusion 

for heat sinks manufactured for 

electronic equipment. 

On October 1, 2010, Eagle Metals 

submitted additional scope comments 

covering its May 10, 2010 submission. 

On October 6, 2010, the Department 

received comments from Brazeway, 

objecting to Aavid’s request to exclude 

heat sinks. On this same date, 

Petitioners filed pre-preliminary scope 

comments, requesting that the 

Department not amend the scope 

language in a manner contrary to 

Petitioners’ intent. 

The Department has summarized the 

submitted comments and has made 

preliminary determinations with regard 

to the issues.9 Based on our analysis of 

the comments, we preliminarily 

determine to amend the scope language 

by adding the following exclusion: ‘‘the 

scope also excludes collapsible tubular 

containers composed of metallic 

elements corresponding to alloy code 

1080A as designated by the Aluminum 

Association where the tubular container 

(excluding the nozzle) meets each of the 

following dimensional characteristics: 

(1) Length of 37 mm or 62 mm, (2) outer 

diameter of 11.0 mm or 12.7 mm, and 

(3) wall thickness not exceeding 0.13 

mm.’’ 10 No other changes to the scope 

language have been made for this 

preliminary determination. Comments 

received on or after October 7, 2010, 

were not submitted in time for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

69406 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 

11See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 22111. 

12See Memorandum for David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Lined 

Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘China’’): China’s Status as a Non-Market Economy 

(‘‘NME’’’) (August 30, 2006) (memorandum is on file 

in the CRU on the record of case number A–570– 

901). 

13See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9593 (March 5, 2009) 

(‘‘Kitchen Racks Prelim’’) (unchanged in Certain 

Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 

24, 2009) (‘‘Kitchen Racks Final’’)) and Certain Tow 

Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 4929, 

4931 (January 28, 2009) (unchanged in Certain Tow 

Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 

FR 29167 (June 19, 2009)). 

14 See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Aluminum 

extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: 

Selection of Mandatory Respondents,’’ dated July 

16, 2010 (‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). Of the 

companies that filed Q&Vs, 34 were named in the 

Petition, 15 were not. Some companies submitted 

one Q&V for multiple entities, resulting in 45 

submissions in total, covering 49 companies. 

15See ZAA’s September 10, 2010, letter to the 

Department stating that it would no longer 

participate in the investigation. 

16See The Department’s October 1, 2010 

supplemental questionnaire to New Zhongya. 

17See Memorandum to Eugene Degnan from 

Carole Showers, ‘‘Request for a List of Surrogate 

Countries for an Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’) (‘‘Office of Policy Surrogate 

Countries Memorandum’’), dated July 26, 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. 

18See id. 

19See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, 

‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic 

of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum’’ (October 

27, 2010) (‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). 

consideration for the preliminary 

determination; however, we will fully 

consider them for the final 

determination. Interested parties may 

address these comments in their case 

briefs, and rebuttal briefs as appropriate. 

Non-Market Economy Country 

For purposes of initiation, Petitioners 

submitted an LTFV analysis for the PRC 

as an NME.11 The Department’s most 

recent examination of the PRC’s market 

status determined that NME status 

should continue for the PRC.12

Additionally, in two recent 

investigations, the Department also 

determined that the PRC is an NME 

country.13 In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the NME status 

remains in effect until revoked by the 

Department. The Department has not 

revoked the PRC’s status as an NME 

country, and we have therefore treated 

the PRC as an NME in this preliminary 

determination and applied our NME 

methodology. 

Selection of Respondents 

In accordance with section 777A(c)(2) 

of the Act, the Department selected the 

two largest exporters (by quantity) of 

aluminum extrusions (Guang Ya 

Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd., Foshan 

Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd., Kong 

Ah International Company Limited, and 

Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong 

Kong) Limited, (collectively, ‘‘Guang Ya 

Group’’); and ZAA as the mandatory 

respondents in this investigation based 

on the information contained in the 

timely submitted Quantity &Value 

(‘‘Q&V’’) questionnaire responses filed 

by 49 exporters/producers.14

On April 16, 2010, and September 8, 

2010, Zhaoqing New Zhongya 

Aluminum Co., Ltd. (‘‘ZNZ’’), Zhongya 

Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding 

Limited (‘‘Shaped Aluminum’’) and 

Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd. 

(‘‘Karlton’’) (collectively ‘‘New Zhongya’’) 

filed an Original Questionnaire response 

to sections A and sections C and D, 

respectively, requesting to be 

considered as a voluntary respondent. 

Further, on June 29, 2010, ZNZ, Shaped 

Aluminum and Karlton each filed 

SRA’s. 

The Department issued its 

antidumping questionnaire to Guang Ya 

Group and ZAA on July 16, 2010. The 

Department requested that the 

respondents provide a response to 

section A of the Department’s 

questionnaire on August 6, 2010, and a 

response to sections C and D of the 

questionnaire on August 23, 2010. From 

August 5, 2010, until the present, the 

Department has granted both 

respondents several extensions for their 

submissions. 

Guang Ya Group submitted its 

responses to the section A and sections 

C and D questionnaires on August 16, 

2010 and September 8, 2010, 

respectively. The Department issued 

several supplemental questionnaires 

and Guang Ya Group submitted 

responses to these supplemental 

questionnaires on September 22, 24, 27, 

29, October 15, and 21, 2010. 

ZAA submitted its section A response 

on August 13, 2010. ZAA submitted 

responses to section C and D on 

September 3, 2010. On September 10, 

2010, ZAA informed the Department 

that it would no longer participate in 

the investigation.15 The Department 

subsequently determined that it did not 

have sufficient time to investigate New 

Zhongya as a voluntary respondent.16

However, as described in the Affiliation 

section below, New Zhongya is being 

examined in the context of its 

relationship to the Guang Ya Group. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) 

of the Act directs it to base normal 

value, in most circumstances, on the 

NME producer’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOPs’’) valued in a surrogate marketeconomy 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 at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country and are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

The sources of the surrogate values we 

have used in this investigation are 

discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

section below. 

The Department determined that 

India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 

Thailand, Ukraine and Peru are 

countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development.17 Once 

the countries that are economically 

comparable to the PRC have been 

identified, we select an appropriate 

surrogate country by determining 

whether an economically comparable 

country is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise and whether 

the data for valuing FOPs is both 

available and reliable.18 No parties 

provided comments on the record 

concerning the surrogate country. 

We have determined that it is 

appropriate to use India as a surrogate 

country pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of 

the Act based on the following: (1) It is 

at a similar level of economic 

development pursuant to section 

773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise; 

and (3) we have reliable data from India 

that we can use to value the FOPs. Thus, 

we have calculated normal value (‘‘NV’’) 

using Indian prices when available and 

appropriate to value the FOPs of the 

aluminum extrusion producers under 

investigation. We have obtained and 

relied upon contemporaneous publicly 

available information wherever 

possible.19

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 

determination in an antidumping 

investigation, interested parties may 

submit publicly available information to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 69407 

20 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for 

the final determination of this investigation, 

interested parties may submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct factual information 

submitted by an interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for 

submission of such factual information. However, 

the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) 

permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 

clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on 

the record. The Department generally will not 

accept the submission of additional, previously 

absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value 

information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See 

Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 

(October 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

21See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, 

Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination Regarding Affiliation and Collapsing 

of Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd., 

Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd., Kong Ah 

International Company Limited, and Guang Ya 

Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Limited, and 

Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd., 

Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited; 

Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. 

and Dayang Aluminum Co., Ltd. (October 27, 2010) 

(‘‘Affiliation and Collapsing Memo’’). 

22 Id. 

23See October 1, 2010 supplemental 

questionnaire. 

24New Zhongya requested, and the Department 

granted, an extension to the submission of the 

response to the October 12, 2010 supplemental 

questionnaire until October 28, 2010. Additionally, 

the U.S. sales and FOP databases submitted 

pursuant to the October 1, 2010 supplemental 

questionnaire were consolidated with Guang Ya 

Group data and due to the Department on October 

19, 2010. However, Guang Ya Group requested an 

extension for the submission of the consolidated 

database to October 21, 2010. The Department 

granted this extension request, but informed Guang 

Ya Group that as a result of the extension, the 

Department may not be able to use this data for the 

preliminary determination. In fact, due to the need 

to make multiple formatting changes to the 

consolidated database to render it usable for margin 

calculation, the Department was unable to use this 

data for the preliminary determination. See 

Analysis Memo. 

25See Affiliation and Collapsing Memo. 

26 Id. 

27 Id. 

28 Id. 

29On October 22, 2010, the Department sent 

letters to Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya asking 

them to provide an explanation of why certain 

company names and company ownership 

information should be accorded business 

proprietary (‘‘BPI’’) treatment, in light of the fact that 

this information was previously submitted as public 

information on the record of the countervailing 

duty investigation of aluminum extrusions and/or 

found to be publicly available on the Internet. 

Specifically, the Department requested that New 

Zhongya address the fact that it had previously 

submitted the names and shareholdings of each of 

its intermediate and ultimate owners as public 

information, but was now treating this information 

as BPI. In regard to Guang Ya Group, the 

Department requested that Guang Ya Group also 

provide an explanation of why it was treating the 

ownership information referenced above as BPI. On 

October 25, 2010, both companies responded that 

they agree to the treatment of this information as 

public information. See October 25, 2010 letter to 

the Department from New Zhongya: Aluminum 

Extrusions from China: Antidumping, and October 

25, 2010 letter to the Department from Guang Ya 

Group: Aluminum Extrusions from the PRC: 

Comments by the Guang Ya Group Regarding 

Treatment of Affiliated Party Information as BPI. 

Accordingly, we have determined to treat this 

information as public information going forward in 

this investigation. See October 27, 2010 

memorandum to the file: Reclassification of 

Business Proprietary Information (placing the 

public version of New Zhongya’s August 6, 2010, 

supplemental questionnaire response and certain 

publicly available information found on the 

Internet, on the record of the AD investigation). 

30See Affiliation and Collapsing Memo. 

value the FOPs within 40 days after the 

date of publication of the preliminary 

determination.20

Surrogate Value Comments 

Surrogate factor valuation comments 

and surrogate value information with 

which to value the FOPs for the 

preliminary determination in this 

proceeding were originally due August 

24, 1010. On August 4, 2010, Petitioners 

requested an extension to submit 

surrogate values. On August 6, 2010, the 

Department granted this request 

extending the deadline for submission 

of surrogate value information for all 

interested parties until 7 days after both 

mandatory respondents had submitted 

their section D questionnaire responses. 

Surrogate value submissions were filed 

September 10, 2010, by Petitioners and 

Guang Ya Group, respectively. 

Petitioners filed rebuttal surrogate 

values comments on September 28, 

2010. For a detailed discussion of the 

surrogate values used in this LTFV 

proceeding, see the ‘‘Factor Valuation’’ 

section below and the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Affiliation 

Based on the evidence presented in 

Guang Ya Group’s questionnaire 

responses, we preliminarily find 

affiliation between the entities 

comprising Guang Ya Group pursuant to 

section 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act.21

In addition, based on the evidence 

presented in Guang Ya Group’s 

questionnaire responses, we find that 

Guang Ya Group should be collapsed 

and treated as a single entity for 

purposes of this investigation, pursuant 

to sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act, 

and 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2).22

Further, while we have not accepted 

New Zhongya as a voluntary respondent 

in this investigation, we have 

determined to examine New Zhongya in 

the context of its relationship to Guang 

Ya Group.23 In that context, we issued 

supplemental questionnaires to New 

Zhongya on October 1, 2010, and 

October 12, 2010.24 Based on the 

evidence on the record, we have 

preliminarily determined that the New 

Zhongya entities are affiliated and 

should be collapsed and treated as a 

single entity pursuant to sections 

771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2).25

Additionally, we have preliminarily 

determined that Guang Ya Group and 

New Zhongya are also affiliated with 

each other pursuant to section 

771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act.26

Similarly, we also find that the Guang 

Ya Group and New Zhongya should be 

collapsed and treated as a single entity 

(collectively ‘‘Guang Ya Group/New 

Zhongya’’) for purposes of this 

investigation, pursuant to sections 

771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act, and 19 

CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2).27

Furthermore, we find that Guang Ya 

Group/New Zhongya is affiliated with 

another exporter/producer of aluminum 

extrusions: Xinya Aluminum & 

Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Xinya’’), pursuant to sections 

771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act.28

Although neither Guang Ya Group nor 

New Zhongya provided the full 

ownership information of this entity, as 

requested by the Department, Guang Ya 

Group stated on the record of this 

antidumping (‘‘AD’’) investigation that a 

sibling of its owner was ‘‘shareholder’’ of 

Xinya, and New Zhongya stated on the 

public record of the companion 

countervailing duty investigation of 

aluminum extrusions from the PRC 

(‘‘CVD investigation’’) that a sibling of its 

owner was ‘‘owner’’ of Xinya. Because 

this information was provided on the 

public record of that proceeding, it is 

deemed to be public information.29

Accordingly, we find it reasonable to 

infer, as facts available, that the family 

members identified in the AD response 

as ‘‘shareholder’’ of Xinya, and the 

public CVD investigation response as 

the ‘‘owner’’ of Xinya, holds full 

ownership of his or her respective 

company. Therefore, because Xinya is 

owned by members of the same family 

that has ownership interests in Guang 

Ya Group and New Zhongya, we have 

determined to preliminarily treat Xinya 

as owned by the family grouping. Thus, 

we also find Xinya to be affiliated with 

Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya, based 

on common family ownership, pursuant 

to sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act. 

Finally, we determine that Guang Ya 

Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya should 

be collapsed and treated as a single 

entity for the purposes of this 

investigation, pursuant to sections 19 

CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2).30 This finding 

is based on the determination that 

Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and 

Xinya are affiliated, that each are 

exporters/producers of similar or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

69408 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 

31See Guang Ya Group August 16, 2010, section 

A response at 16. 

32See October 27, 2010, memorandum to the file: 

Reclassification of Business Proprietary 

Information. 

33See, e.g., Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 47198 (September 15, 2009), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. 

34 Drill Pipe From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 75 FR 51004 (August 18, 2010) 

stating ‘‘although all exporters/producers were 

given an opportunity to submit Q&V responses, we 

only received seven timely filed Q&V responses in 

response to our request. Therefore, the Department 

has preliminarily determined that there were 

exporters/producers of the merchandise under 

investigation during the POI from the PRC that did 

not respond to the Department’s request for 

information and that it is appropriate to treat these 

non-responsive PRC exporters/producers as part of 

the PRC-wide entity because they did not qualify 

for a separate rate.’’ 

35See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 22113. 

36See Policy Bulletin 05.1: ‘‘While continuing the 

practice of assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the Department 

will now assign in its NME investigations will be 

specific to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 

however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter 

and all of the producers which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period of investigation. 

This practice applied both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an individually calculated 

separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated 

firms receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘combination rates’ 

because such rates apply to specific combinations 

of exporters and one or more producers. The cashdeposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only 

to merchandise both exported by the firm in 

question and produced by a firm that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation.’’ See 

Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6. 

identical products and no retooling 

would be necessary in order to 

restructure manufacturing priorities,31

and that there is significant potential for 

manipulation of price or production 

between the parties based on the 

familial ownership of these companies. 

In considering the level of common 

ownership pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.401(f)(2)(i), we find common 

ownership of Guang Ya Group, New 

Zhongya, and Xinya by the family 

grouping. In this context, the family in 

question is the ‘‘person’’ jointly owning 

these entities. In regards to 19 CFR 

351.401(f)(2)(ii), the record of this 

proceeding shows that family members 

are directors and managers of each of 

the three companies.32 Given that (1) the 

family grouping has ownership interests 

in both Guang Ya Group and New 

Zhongya, and we are concluding based 

on facts available that the family 

grouping holds ownership over Xinya, 

(2) the family grouping has directors 

and senior managers at each company, 

and (3) all of the companies produce 

and or export merchandise under 

consideration in this investigation, we 

find that the family grouping is in a 

position to have significant influence 

over the production and sales decisions 

of all three companies. We find that 

these factors support a finding of 

significant potential for manipulation 

such that all three companies should be 

treated as a single entity for purposes of 

margin calculation and assessment.33

For further discussion of the 

Department’s affiliation and collapsing 

decision, see the Affiliation and 

Collapsing Memo. 

The calculation of the margin for the 

preliminary determination will 

necessarily be based only on the data 

submitted by Guang Ya Group/New 

Zhongya. However, we will request that 

the single entity of Guang Ya Group/ 

New Zhongya/Xinya provide additional 

information and data pursuant to a postpreliminary determination 

supplemental questionnaire, including 

but not limited to, separate rate 

information, U.S. sales data and FOP 

data relating to Xinya. We will recalculate the margin for the final 

determination using this information, as 

appropriate. 

We note that record evidence shows 

that Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/ 

Xinya are also potentially affiliated 

through family ownership with another 

company that produces and/or exports 

aluminum extrusions: Da Yang 

Aluminum Co., Ltd. (‘‘Da Yang’’). Da 

Yang was named in the petition of this 

investigation, and the Department 

issued a Q&V questionnaire to Da Yang 

on April 27, 2010. Our records show 

that the Q&V questionnaire was 

delivered to Da Yang on May 5, 2010. 

Da Yang never responded to our Q&V 

questionnaire. Our practice is to treat 

companies who did not respond to the 

Department’s request for information as 

part of the PRC-wide entity.34 Therefore, 

Da Yang is already considered part of 

the PRC-wide entity and is not eligible 

for consideration in the collapsing 

analysis of the other individually 

reviewed respondents. See The PRCWide Entity and PRC-Wide Rate, below. 

Targeted Dumping 

On September 17 and September 30, 

2010, respectively, the Department 

received Petitioners’ allegations of 

targeted dumping by Guang Ya Group 

and New Zhongya using the 

Department’s methodology as 

established in Certain Steel Nails from 

the United Arab Emirates: Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Not Less 

Than Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 16, 

2008) (‘‘Steel Nails’’). Based on our 

examination of the targeted dumping 

allegations filed by Petitioners, and 

pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, the Department has determined 

that Petitioners’ allegations sufficiently 

indicate that there is a pattern of export 

prices (or constructed export prices) for 

comparable merchandise that differ 

significantly among purchasers, time 

periods, and regions. 

As a result, the Department has 

applied the targeted dumping analysis 

established in Steel Nails to the Guang 

Ya Group/New Zhongya’s U.S. sales to 

targeted purchasers, time periods, and 

regions. The methodology we employed 

involves a two-stage test; the first stage 

addresses the pattern requirement and 

the second stage addresses the 

significant-difference requirement. See 

section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and 

Steel Nails. In this test we made all 

price comparisons on the basis of 

comparable merchandise (i.e., by 

control number or CONNUM). The test 

procedures are the same for the 

customer, time period and region 

targeted-dumping allegations. We based 

all of our targeted-dumping calculations 

on the net U.S. price which we 

determined for U.S. sales by Guang Ya 

Group/New Zhongya in our standard 

margin calculations. For further 

discussion of the test and the results, 

see Analysis Memo. As a result of our 

analysis, we preliminarily determine 

that there is a pattern of sales for 

comparable merchandise that differ 

significantly among certain purchasers, 

time periods, and regions for Guang Ya 

Group/New Zhongya in accordance 

with section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, 

and our practice as discussed in Steel 

Nails. For the preliminary 

determination, however, we find that in 

this investigation the result using the 

standard average-to-average 

methodology is not substantially 

different from that using the alternative 

average-to-transaction methodology. 

Accordingly, for this preliminary 

determination we have applied the 

standard average-to-average 

methodology to all U.S. sales that Guang 

Ya Group/New Zhongya reported. 

Separate Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department notified parties of the 

application process by which exporters 

and producers may obtain separate-rate 

status in NME investigations.35 The 

process requires exporters and 

producers to submit a SRA.36 The 

standard for eligibility for a separate rate 

is whether a firm can demonstrate an 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 69409 

37The 39 separate-rate applicants are: (1) Alnan 

Aluminium Co., Ltd.; (2) Changshu Changsheng 

Aluminium Products Co., Ltd.; (3) China Square 

Industrial Limited; (4) Cosco (J.M) Aluminium 

Developments Co., Ltd.; (5) First Union Property 

Limited/Top-Wok Metal Co., Ltd.; (6) Foshan 

Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd.; (7) Foshan Jinlan 

Non-ferrous Metal Product Co.; Ltd.; (8) Foshan 

Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium Co., Ltd.; (9) Guang Ya 

Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Limited; (10) 

Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd.; (11) 

Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium Co., Ltd/Hao Mei 

Aluminium Co., Ltd./Hao Mei International Co., 

Ltd..; (12) Guangdong Weiye Aluminium Factory 

Co., Ltd.; (13) Guangdong Xingfa Aluminum Co., 

Ltd.; (14) Hanwood Enterprises Limited; (15) 

Honsense Development Company; (16) Innovative 

Aluminium (Hong Kong) Limited; (17) Jiangyin 

Trust International Inc.; (18) JMA (HK) Company 

Limited; (19) Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn 

Bhd; (20) Karlton Aluminium Company Limited; 

(21) Kong Ah International Company Limited; (22) 

Longkou Donghai Trade Co., Ltd.; (23) Ningbo Yili 

Import and Export Co., Ltd.; (24) North China 

Aluminum Co., Ltd.; (25) PanAsia Aluminium 

(China) Limited; (26) Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., 

Ltd.; (27) Popular Plastics Co., Ltd.; (28) Press Metal 

Huasheng Aluminum Extrusion Co., Ltd.; (29) Press 

Metal International Ltd.; (30) Shanghai Canghai 

Aluminium Tube Packing Co., Ltd.; (31) Shenyang 

Yuanda Aluminium Industry Engineering Co. Ltd.; 

(32) Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd.; (33) 

Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat Transmission 

Technology Co., Ltd.; (34) USA Worldwide Door 

Components (Pinghu) Co., Ltd./Worldwide Door 

Components (Pinghu) Co.; (35) Zhaoqing Asia 

Aluminum Factory Co., Ltd.; (36) Zhaoqing New 

Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd.; (37) Zhejiang 

Yongkang Listar Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd.; (38) 

Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminium Factory 

Ltd.; and (39) Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) 

Holding Limited. 

38See the Department’s June 25, 2010, letter to 

Shanghai Canghai granting the company’s request 

to extend the deadline for its SRA submission to 

July 2, 2010. 

39All separate-rate applicants receiving a separate 

rate are hereby referred to collectively as the ‘‘SR 

Recipients;’’ this includes the mandatory 

respondents. 

40The wholly foreign-owned SR Applicants are: 

(1) Cosco (J.M.) Aluminium Developments Co., Ltd.; 

(2) Guangdong Xingfa Aluminum Co., Ltd.; (3) 

PanAsia Aluminum (China) Limited; (4) Pingguo 

Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd.; (5) Popular Plastics 

Company Limited; (6) Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) 

Co., Ltd.; (7) USA Worldwide Door Components 

(Pinghu) Co., Ltd., and (8) Worldwide Door 

Components Co. 

41 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine 

Monohydrate from the People’s Republic of China, 

64 FR 71104, 71104–05 (December 20, 1999) (where 

the respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, 

thus, qualified for a separate rate). 

absence of both de jure and de facto 

government control over its export 

activities. In the instant investigation, 

the Department received timely-filed 

SRAs from 39 companies.37

Because ZAA did not cooperate in 

this investigation, we find that ZAA did 

not demonstrate that it was eligible for 

a separate rate, and it is thus part of the 

PRC-entity. One SR applicant, Press 

Metal Huasheng Aluminum Extrusion 

Co. Ltd., did not have any shipments of 

the merchandise under investigation 

during the POI, and so is not eligible for 

consideration for a separate rate. 

One SR applicant, Shanghai Canghai 

Aluminum Tube Packing Co., submitted 

an SRA on June 30, 2010 (pursuant to 

an extension granted by the 

Department).38 On August 18, 2010, the 

Department issued a Supplemental 

Questionnaire (‘‘SQ’’) to Shanghai 

Canghai. On September 8, 2010, 

Shanghai Canghai improperly filed its 

response to the SQ and the Department 

was not able to analyze the information 

contained in the response. Therefore, 

Shanghai Canghai will not be 

considered for a separate rate in the 

preliminary determination. However, 

we are providing Shanghai Canghai an 

additional opportunity to correct these 

deficiencies after the preliminary 

determination. 

The remaining 36 SR applicants have 

all stated that they are wholly foreignowned enterprises or located in a 

market economy, are joint ventures 

between Chinese and foreign 

companies, or are wholly Chineseowned companies. Therefore, the 

Department must analyze whether these 

respondents are wholly foreign-owned 

or located in a market economy as 

claimed or demonstrated an absence of 

both de jure and de facto governmental 

control over export activities, as 

appropriate. 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country 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 merchandise 

subject to investigation in an NME 

country this single rate unless an 

exporter can demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently independent so as to be 

entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can 

demonstrate this independence through 

the absence of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over export 

activities. The Department analyzes 

each entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

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 further 

developed in 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’’). In accordance with 

the separate-rates criteria, the 

Department assigns separate rates in 

NME cases only if respondents can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto governmental control over 

export activities. 

A. Separate-Rate Recipients 39

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned or Located in 

a Market Economy 

Thirteen separate rate applicants, i.e., 

the three New Zhongya entities, the two 

Guang Ya Group entities and eight other 

separate rate companies, provided 

evidence in their SRAs that they are 

wholly owned by individuals or 

companies located in a market economy 

(‘‘ME’’), (collectively ‘‘Foreign-Owned SR 

Applicants’’).40 Therefore, because they 

are wholly foreign-owned or located in 

a market economy, and we have no 

evidence indicating that they are under 

the control of the PRC, a separate-rate 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether these companies are 

independent from government 

control.41 Accordingly, we have 

preliminarily granted a separate rate to 

these companies. 

2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and 

Foreign Companies or Wholly ChineseOwned Companies 

Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., 

Ltd., Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium 

Co., Ltd. and twenty-one of the separaterate companies in this investigation 

stated that they are either joint ventures 

between Chinese and foreign companies 

or are wholly Chinese-owned 

companies (collectively ‘‘PRC SR 

Applicants’’). Therefore, the Department 

must analyze whether these respondents 

can demonstrate the absence of both de 

jure and de facto governmental control 

over export activities. 

a. 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 an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

The evidence provided by the PRC SR 

Recipients supports a preliminary 

finding of de jure absence of 

governmental control based on the 

following: (1) An absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporters’ business and 

export licenses; (2) there are applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies; and (3) and 

there are formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

companies. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

69410 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 

42Several of the Q&V responses provided Q&V 

data for more than one company. As a result, the 

45 Q&V responses provided quantity and value for 

49 entities. 

43 Da Yang is one of the companies identified in 

the Petition to whom we issued a Q&V 

questionnaire but received no response. 

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically, the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of 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). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

government control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. 

In this investigation, the separate rate 

applicants each asserted the following: 

(1) That the export prices are not set by, 

and are not subject to, the approval of 

a governmental agency; (2) they have 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; (3) they have 

autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) they 

retain the proceeds of their export sales 

and make independent decisions 

regarding disposition of profits or 

financing of losses. Additionally, each 

of these companies’ SRA responses 

indicates that its pricing during the POI 

does not involve coordination among 

exporters. 

Evidence placed on the record of this 

investigation by 36 of the SR Applicants 

demonstrate an absence of de jure and 

de facto government control with 

respect to their respective exports of the 

merchandise under investigation, in 

accordance with the criteria identified 

in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. 

Therefore, we are preliminarily granting 

a separate rate to these entities and have 

identified each of them in the 

Preliminary Determination section of 

this notice, below. 

Application of Facts Otherwise 

Available and Adverse Facts Available 

The PRC-Wide Entity and PRC-Wide 

Rate 

We issued our request for Q&V 

information to 130 potential Chinese 

exporters of the subject merchandise, in 

addition to posting the Q&V 

questionnaire on the Department’s 

website. See Respondent Selection 

Memo. While information on the record 

of this investigation indicates that there 

are numerous producers/exporters of 

aluminum extrusions in the PRC, we 

received 45 timely filed Q&V 

responses.42 Although all exporters 

were given an opportunity to provide 

Q&V information, not all exporters 

provided a response to the Department’s 

Q&V letter. Therefore, the Department 

has preliminarily determined that there 

were exporters/producers of the subject 

merchandise during the POI from the 

PRC that did not respond to the 

Department’s request for information 

(including Da Yang).43 We have treated 

these non-responsive PRC producers/ 

exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity 

because they did not demonstrate their 

eligibility for a separate rate. See, e.g., 

Kitchen Racks Prelim, unchanged in 

Kitchen Racks Final. 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department, (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections 782(c)(1) and (F) of the Act, 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute, or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to subsection 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Information on the record of this 

investigation indicates that the PRCwide entity was non-responsive. 

Specifically, certain companies did not 

respond to our questionnaire requesting 

Q&V information. Additionally, on 

September 10, 2010, ZAA informed the 

Department that it would no longer 

participate in the investigation. 

Accordingly, we find that the PRCentity withheld information requested 

by the Department; failed to provide 

information in a timely manner and 

neither indicated that it was having 

difficulty providing the information nor 

requested that it be allowed to submit 

the information in an alternate form; 

significantly impeded the proceeding by 

not submitting the requested 

proceeding, and in the case of ZAA, 

submitted information that cannot be 

verified as a result of its determination 

to discontinue participation in the 

proceeding. As a result, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find 

that the use of facts available (‘‘FA’’) is 

appropriate to determine the PRC-wide 

rate. See Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

of Critical Circumstances and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 

2003). 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Statement of Administrative Action, 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’), H.R. Rep. 

No. 103–316, 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’); see 

also Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality 

Steel Products from the Russian 

Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 

4, 2000). We find that, because the PRCwide entity (including ZAA) did not 

respond to our requests for information, 

it has failed to cooperate to the best of 

its ability. Furthermore, the PRC-wide 

entity’s refusal to provide the requested 

information constitutes circumstances 

under which it is reasonable to 

conclude that less than full cooperation 

has been shown. See Nippon Steel 

Corporation v. United States, 337 F.3d 

1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (‘‘Nippon 

Steel’’) where the Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit provided an 

explanation of the ‘‘failure to act to the 

best of its ability’’ standard noting that 

the Department need not show 

intentional conduct existed on the part 

of the respondent, but merely that a 

‘‘failure to cooperate to the best of a 

respondent’s ability’’ existed (i.e., 

information was not provided ‘‘under 

circumstances in which it is reasonable 

to conclude that less than full 

cooperation has been shown’’). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 69411 

44See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality 

Steel Products from the People’s Republic of China, 

65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, at ‘‘Facts 

Available.’’ 

45See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d) and section 

776(c) of the Act; see also Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: 

Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 35652, 35653 

(June 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at 1. 

46See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), 

unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007). 

47See, e.g., the Guang Ya Group’s section A 

response at page 29, and New Zhongya’s section A 

response at 29. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that, in selecting from among the 

facts available, an adverse inference is 

appropriate. 

When employing an adverse 

inference, section 776 of the Act 

indicates that the Department may rely 

upon information derived from the 

petition, the final determination from 

the LTFV investigation, a previous 

administrative review, or any other 

information placed on the record. In 

selecting a rate for adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’), the Department 

selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse 

to ensure that the uncooperative party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

fully cooperated. It is the Department’s 

practice to select, as AFA, the higher of 

the (a) highest margin alleged in the 

petition, or (b) the highest calculated 

rate of any respondent in the 

investigation.44 With respect to adverse 

facts available (‘‘AFA’’), for the 

preliminary determination, we have 

assigned the PRC-wide entity the rate of 

59.31 percent, which is the dumping 

margin calculated for Guang Ya Group/ 

New Zhongya/Xinya in the preliminary 

determination. No corroboration of this 

rate is necessary because we are relying 

on information obtained in the course of 

this investigation, rather than secondary 

information.45

Partial AFA for Guang Ya Group/New 

Zhongya 

New Zhongya did not provide a 

sufficient description of the FOP inputs 

named: Additive, Aluminum sealant, 

Chromaking agent, Deslagging agent, 

Long life additive for alkaline etching, 

and Refining agent for the Department 

to determine an appropriate source with 

which to value these inputs. However, 

information contained in New 

Zhongya’s questionnaire responses, 

identified these as broadly as various 

‘‘additives.’’ Because New Zhongya did 

not provide us with sufficient means to 

identify an appropriate surrogate value 

for these inputs as requested by the 

Department, as adverse facts available, 

we have applied the highest surrogate 

value on the record for any input 

described as an ‘‘additive.’’ We intend to 

address these FOP valuations further in 

post-preliminary determination 

supplemental questionnaires. 

Margin for the Separate Rate 

Companies 

As discussed above, the Department 

has preliminarily determined that in 

addition to the individually reviewed 

entities, 29 other companies have 

demonstrated their eligibility for a 

separate rate. The Department’s practice 

is to establish a margin, as the separate 

rate, for these entities based on the 

average of the rates we calculated for the 

mandatory respondents, excluding any 

rates that were zero, de minimis, or 

based entirely on AFA.46 In the instant 

investigation we have only one 

mandatory respondent, Guang Ya 

Group/New Zhongya/Xinya. As the rate 

for Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/ 

Xinya is not zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on AFA, we are using its margin 

to establish the separate rate margin. 

Date of Sale 

19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, ‘‘in 

identifying the date of sale of the 

merchandise under consideration or 

foreign like product, the Secretary 

normally will use the date of invoice, as 

recorded in the exporter or producer’s 

records kept in the normal course of 

business.’’ In Allied Tube, the CIT noted 

that a ‘‘party seeking to establish a date 

of sale other than invoice date bears the 

burden of producing sufficient evidence 

to ‘satisf{y}’ the Department that ‘a 

different date better reflects the date on 

which the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of sale.’ ’’ 

Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United 

States 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (CIT 

2001) (quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)) 

(‘‘Allied Tube’’). Additionally, the 

Secretary may use a date other than the 

date of invoice if the Secretary is 

satisfied that a different date better 

reflects the date on which the exporter 

or producer establishes the material 

terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see 

also Allied Tube, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 

1090–1092. The date of sale is generally 

the date on which the parties agree 

upon all substantive terms of the sale. 

This normally includes the price, 

quantity, delivery terms and payment 

terms. See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 62824 

(November 7, 2007), and accompanying 

Issue and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1; Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon Quality Steel Products 

from Turkey, 65 FR 15123 (March 21, 

2000), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

For sales by Guang Ya Group/New 

Zhongya, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.401(i), we used the commercial 

invoice date as the sale date because 

record evidence indicates that the terms 

of sale were not set until the issuance 

of the commercial invoice.47

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

aluminum extrusions to the United 

States by the respondents were made at 

LTFV, we compared export price (‘‘EP’’) 

and constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to 

normal value (‘‘NV’’), as described in the 

‘‘Constructed Export Price,’’ ‘‘Export 

Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice. 

U.S. Price 

Constructed Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, CEP is the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) in the United States 

before or after the date of importation by 

or for the account of the producer or 

exporter of such merchandise or by a 

seller affiliated with the producer or 

exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 

with the producer or exporter, as 

adjusted under subsections (c) and (d). 

In its questionnaire responses, Guang Ya 

Group stated that it made CEP sales 

through its U.S. affiliate, Guangcheng 

Aluminum Industries (USA) Inc. 

(‘‘Guangcheng USA’’). In accordance 

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

CEP for Guang Ya Group’s U.S. sales 

where the merchandise subject to this 

investigation was sold directly to an 

affiliated purchaser located in the 

United States. 

For sales reported by Guang Ya Group 

as CEP sales, we calculated CEP based 

on delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. We 

made deductions from the U.S. sales 

price, where applicable, for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included 

such expenses as foreign inland freight 

from the plant to the port of exportation 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

69412 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 

48See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 49See 19 CFR 351.408(d); see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, 71 

FR 2183 (January 13, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 6. 

50See October 20, 2010, letter to New Zhongya: 

Extension of Deadline to submit supplemental 

questionnaire. 

51See the memorandum to the file: Preliminary 

Determination Analysis Memorandum for Guang Ya 

Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd., Foshan 

Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd., Kong Ah 

International Company Limited, and Guang Ya 

Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Limited, 

(collectively, the ‘‘Guang Ya Group’’) dated October 

27, 2010, for a complete listing of all such 

adjustments. 

and marine insurance. In accordance 

with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the 

Department deducted commissions, 

credit expenses, inventory carrying 

costs and indirect selling expenses from 

the U.S. price, all of which relate to 

commercial activity in the United 

States. Finally, we deducted CEP profit, 

in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) 

and 772(f) of the Act.48

New Zhongya also reported that it had 

CEP sales, but requested that the 

Department not require it to submit data 

for these sales based on the fact that 

they comprised a very small percentage 

of its total sales. Where the percentage 

of CEP sales is less than five percent, the 

Department practice is to not require 

that the sales be reported.49

Accordingly, the Department has 

permitted New Zhongya not to report 

these sales.50

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we used EP for certain U.S. 

sales reported by Guang Ya Group and 

all sales reported by New Zhongya. We 

calculated EP based on the packed 

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or 

for exportation to, the United States. We 

made deductions, as appropriate, for 

any movement expenses (e.g., foreign 

inland freight from the plant to the port 

of exportation, domestic brokerage, 

international freight to the port of 

importation, etc.) in accordance with 

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

foreign inland freight or foreign 

brokerage and handling fees were 

provided by PRC service providers or 

paid for in renminbi, we based those 

charges on surrogate value rates from 

India. See ‘‘Factor Valuation’’ section 

below for further discussion of surrogate 

value rates. 

Adjustments to Guang Ya Group and 

New Zhongya Data 

For the preliminary determination, 

using information from Guang Ya 

Group’s narrative questionnaire/ 

supplemental questionnaire responses, 

the Department made adjustments to 

Guang Ya Group’s and New Zhongya’s 

FOP and U.S. sales data to resolve 

multiple flaws with respect to 

formatting, variable names, and 

spreadsheet reference errors. For 

example, where values for credit 

expenses were lost in Guang Ya Group’s 

Excel version of its U.S. sales database 

due to broken cell links, resulting in 

‘‘reference’’ errors, the Department used 

data found in Guang Ya Group’s 

questionnaire/supplemental 

questionnaire response narratives to 

calculate the missing values using SAS 

programming language.51

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine the 

NV using an FOP methodology if the 

merchandise 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 

the FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NMEs renders price comparisons and 

the calculation of production costs 

invalid under the Department’s normal 

methodologies. Therefore, for this 

preliminary determination we have 

calculated NV based on FOPs in 

accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and 

(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). 

The FOPs include: (1) Hours of labor 

required; (2) quantities of raw materials 

employed; (3) amounts of energy and 

other utilities consumed; and (4) 

representative capital costs. See, e.g., 

Kitchen Racks Prelim, 71 FR at 19703 

(unchanged in Kitchen Racks Final). In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), 

the Department will normally use 

publicly available information to find an 

appropriate surrogate value to value 

FOPs, but when a producer sources an 

input from a ME and pays for it in a ME 

currency, the Department may value the 

factor using the actual price paid for the 

input. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see 

also Shakeproof Assembly Components 

Div of Ill v. United States, 268 F.3d 

1376, 1382–1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 

(affirming the Department’s use of 

market-based prices to value certain 

FOPs). 

Factor Valuation Methodology 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP 

data reported by respondents during the 

POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor-consumption 

rates by publicly available surrogate 

values (except as discussed below). In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. See, e.g., 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 

(December 4, 2002), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 6; and Final Results of First 

New Shipper Review and First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China, 66 

FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

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

(Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description 

of all surrogate values used for Guang 

Ya Group/New Zhongya can be found in 

the Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

For the preliminary determination, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we used data from the Indian 

Import Statistics and other publicly 

available Indian sources in order to 

calculate surrogate values for Guang Ya 

Group and New Zhongya’s FOPs (direct 

materials, energy, and packing 

materials) and certain movement 

expenses. In selecting the best available 

information for valuing FOPs in 

accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the 

Act, the Department’s practice is to 

select, to the extent practicable, 

surrogate values which are non-export 

average values, most contemporaneous 

with the POI, product-specific, and taxexclusive. See, 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). The record 

shows that data in the Indian Import 

Statistics, as well as those from the 

other Indian sources, are 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 69413 

52See, also e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 

India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-year 

(Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 

75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages 4–5; 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate 

from Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

page 4; Corrosion-Resistant 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 pages 17, 19– 

20; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 

2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at page 23. 

53See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 

1997). 54See 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: Market Economy 

Inputs’’). 

55See Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, 71 FR at 61718. 

56See Analysis Memo: Market Economy 

Purchases section. 

57See Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, 71 FR at 61718, and Exhibit D.18 

of the Guang Ya Groups September 29, 2010 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

58The ILO industry-specific data is reported 

according to the International Standard Industrial 

Classification of all Economic Activities (‘‘ISIC’’) 

code, which is maintained by the United Nations 

Statistical Division and is periodically updated. 

These updates are referred to as ‘‘Revisions.’’ The 

ILO, an organization under the auspices of the 

United Nations, utilizes this classification for 

reporting purposes. Currently, wage and earnings 

data are available from the ILO under the following 

revisions: ISIC–Rev.2, ISIC–Rev.3, and most 

recently, ISIC–Rev.4. The ISIC code establishes a 

two-digit breakout for each manufacturing category, 

and also often provides a three- or four-digit subcategory for each two-digit category. Depending on 

the country, data may be reported at either the 

two-, three- or four-digit subcategory. 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. In those 

instances where we could not obtain 

publicly available information 

contemporaneous to the POI with which 

to value factors, we adjusted the 

surrogate values using, where 

appropriate, the Indian WPI as 

published in the IMF’s International 

Financial Statistics. See, e.g., Kitchen 

Racks, 74 FR at 9600. 

Furthermore, with regard to the 

Indian import-based surrogate values, 

we have disregarded import prices that 

we have reason to believe or suspect 

may be subsidized. We have reason to 

believe or suspect that prices of inputs 

from Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand may have been subsidized. We 

have found in other proceedings that 

these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry-specific export 

subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable 

to infer that all exports to all markets 

from these countries may be subsidized. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Negative Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 7.52

Further, guided by the legislative 

history, it is the Department’s practice 

not to conduct a formal investigation to 

ensure that such prices are not 

subsidized. See Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988, 

Conference Report to accompany H.R. 

Rep. 100–576 at 590 (1988) reprinted in 

1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623–24; see 

also Preliminary Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free 

Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic 

of China, 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 2007) 

unchanged in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated 

Free Sheet Paper from the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 

(October 25, 2007). Rather, the 

Department bases its decision on 

information that is available to it at the 

time it makes its determination. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 

24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), unchanged 

in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 

55039 (September 24, 2008). Therefore, 

we have not used prices from these 

countries in calculating the Indian 

import-based surrogate values. 

Additionally, we disregarded prices 

from NME countries. Finally, imports 

that were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded 

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. See id. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), 

when a respondent sources inputs from 

an ME supplier in meaningful quantities 

(i.e., not insignificant quantities), we 

use the actual price paid by respondent 

for those inputs, except when prices 

may have been distorted by findings of 

dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.53

Where we find ME purchases to be of 

significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent or 

more), in accordance with our statement 

of policy as outlined in Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy 

Inputs,54 we use the actual purchases of 

these inputs to value the inputs. Where 

the quantity of the reported input 

purchased from ME suppliers is below 

33 percent of the total volume of the 

input purchased from all sources during 

the POI, and were otherwise valid, we 

weight-average the ME input’s purchase 

price with the appropriate surrogate 

value for the input according to their 

respective shares of the reported total 

volume of purchases.55 Where 

appropriate, we add freight to the ME 

prices of inputs. 

Both Guang Ya Group and New 

Zhongya claimed that certain of their 

reported raw material inputs were 

sourced from an ME country and paid 

for in ME currencies. Record evidence 

indicates, however, that New Zhongya’s 

purchases were not from an NME 

country. Accordingly, we valued these 

purchases with a surrogate value.56

With respect to the Guang Ya Group’s 

claim that it had certain purchases of 

inputs from an ME country(ies), record 

evidence brings into question the 

quantities and types of merchandise that 

may have been imported from market 

economy countries.57 Thus, we valued 

these inputs with surrogate values for 

the preliminary determination. 

As a consequence of the decision of 

the Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 

604 F. 3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the 

Department is no longer relying on the 

regression-based wage rate described in 

19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). The Department is 

continuing to evaluate options for 

determining labor values in light of the 

recent Federal Circuit decision. For 

these preliminary results, we have 

calculated an hourly wage rate to use in 

valuing the reported labor input by 

averaging earnings and/or wages in 

countries that are economicallycomparable to the PRC and that are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. To calculate the hourly 

wage data, we used wage rate data 

reported by the International Labor 

Organization (‘‘ILO’’).58 Because an 

industry-specific dataset relevant to this 

proceeding exists within the 

Department’s preferred ILO source, we 

used industry-specific data to calculate 

a surrogate wage rate for this review, in 

accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the 

Act. 

For this review, the Department has 

calculated the wage rate using a simple 

average of the data provided to the ILO 

under Sub-Classification 28 

(‘‘Manufacture of fabricated metal 

products, except machinery and 

equipment’’) of the ISIC–Revision 3 by 

countries determined to be both 

economically-comparable and 

significant producers to the PRC. The 

Department finds the two-digit 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

69414 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 

59See Analysis Memo: Surrogate Financial 

Statements, for a discussion of the selection of these 

financial statements. 

60See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 22113–14. 

description under Sub-Classification 28 

is 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. For further 

information on the calculation of the 

wage rate, see the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

We valued truck freight expenses 

using a per-unit average rate calculated 

from data on the Infobanc 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. 

We valued electricity using price data 

for small, medium, and large industries, 

as published by the Central Electricity 

Authority of the Government of India in 

its publication titled Electricity Tariff & 

Duty and Average Rates of Electricity 

Supply in India, dated March 2008. 

These electricity rates represent actual 

country-wide, publicly available 

information on tax-exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. To 

value water, we used the revised 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation water rates available at 

http://www.midcindia.com/watersupply. We valued natural gas using 

April through June 2002 data from the 

Gas Authority of India Ltd. Consistent 

with the Department’s recent 

determination in Polyvinyl Alcohol, we 

averaged the base and ceiling gas prices 

of 2,850 rupees per 1000 cubic meters 

(‘‘m3’’) and 2,150 rupees per 1000 m3, 

and added a transmission charge of 

1,150 rupees per 1000 m3 to calculate a 

value of Rs 3.650/cubic meter. We used 

the Indian Bureau of Mines’ publication: 

2007 Edition of the Indian Minerals 

Yearbook (‘‘IBM Yearbook’’) to value 

coal. For this preliminary 

determination, we find that the IBM 

Yearbook’s reported Grade C coal most 

closely matches the coal consumed by 

respondents during the POI. We valued 

diesel using the June 2007 diesel prices 

across four Indian cities from the Indian 

Oil Corporation. Since the rates are not 

contemporaneous with the POI, we 

inflated the values using the WPI. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses, 

and profit, we used audited financial 

statements of Indian aluminum 

extrusions producers Bhoruka 

Aluminum, Ltd., and Sudal Industries 

Ltd., each covering the fiscal period 

April 1, 2009, through March 31, 

2010.59 The Department may consider 

other publicly available financial 

statements for the final determination, 

as appropriate. 

Currency Conversion 

Where necessary, we made currency 

conversions into U.S. dollars, in 

accordance with section 773A(a) of the 

Act, based on the exchange rates in 

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

from Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/ 

Xinya upon which we will rely in 

making our final determination. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation.60 This 

practice is described in Policy Bulletin 

05.1. 

Preliminary Determination 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

Exporter Producer 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd.; Foshan 

Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Kong Ah International 

Company Limited; Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong 

Kong) Limited; Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd.; 

Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited; Karlton 

Aluminum Company Ltd.; Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel 

Product Co., Ltd.

Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd.; Foshan 

Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Kong Ah International 

Company Limited; Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong 

Kong) Limited; Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd.; 

Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited; Karlton 

Aluminum Company Ltd.; Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel 

Product Co., Ltd.

59.31 

Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd ........................................................... Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd .......................................................... 59.31 

Changshu Changsheng Aluminium Products Co., Ltd ............... Changshu Changsheng Aluminium Products Co., Ltd .............. 59.31 

China Square Industrial Limited ................................................. Zhaoqing China Square Industry Limited .................................. 59.31 

Cosco (J.M) Aluminium Co., Ltd ................................................. Cosco (J.M) Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Jiangmen Qunxing Hardware Diecasting Co., Ltd.59.31 

First Union Property Limited ....................................................... Top-Wok Metal Co., Ltd ............................................................. 59.31 

Foshan Jinlan Non-ferrous Metal Product Co.; Ltd .................... Foshan Jinlan Aluminium Co. Ltd .............................................. 59.31 

Foshan Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium Co., Ltd .............................. Foshan Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium Co., Ltd ............................. 59.31 

Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium Co., Ltd ................................... Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium Co., Ltd .................................. 59.31 

Guangdong Weiye Aluminium Factory Co., Ltd ......................... Guangdong Weiye Aluminium Factory Co., Ltd ........................ 59.31 

Guangdong Xingfa Aluminium Co., Ltd ...................................... Guangdong Xingfa Aluminium Co., Ltd ..................................... 59.31 

Hanwood Enterprises Limited ..................................................... Pingguo Aluminium Company Limited ....................................... 59.31 

Honsense Development Company ............................................. Kanal Precision Aluminium Product Co., Ltd ............................ 59.31 

Innovative Aluminium (Hong Kong) Limited ............................... Taishan Golden Gain Aluminium Products Limited ................... 59.31 

Jiangyin Trust International Inc ................................................... Jiangyin Xinhong Doors and Windows Co., Ltd ........................ 59.31 

JMA (HK) Company Limited ....................................................... Guangdong Jianmei Aluminum Profile Company Limited; 

Foshan JMA Aluminium Company Limited.

59.31 

Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd ...................................... Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd .............. 59.31 

Longkou Donghai Trade Co., Ltd ............................................... Shandong Nanshan Aluminum Co., Ltd .................................... 59.31 

Ningbo Yili Import and Export Co., Ltd ....................................... Zhejiang Anji Xinxiang Aluminum Co., Ltd ................................ 59.31 

North China Aluminum Co., Ltd .................................................. North China Aluminum Co., Ltd ................................................. 59.31 

PanAsia Aluminium (China) Limited ........................................... PanAsia Aluminium (China) Limited .......................................... 59.31 

Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd ................................................ Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd ............................................... 59.31 

Popular Plastics Co., Ltd ............................................................ Hoi Tat Plastic Mould & Metal Factory ...................................... 59.31 

Press Metal International Ltd ...................................................... Press Metal International Ltd ..................................................... 59.31 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 69415 

Exporter Producer 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium Industry Engineering Co. Ltd ..... Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum Factory Company Limited; Guang 

Ya Aluminum Industries Co., Ltd.

59.31 

Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd ......................................... Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd ........................................ 59.31 

Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat Transmission Technology Co., Ltd Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat Transmission Technology Co., Ltd 59.31 

USA Worldwide Door Components (Pinghu) Co., Ltd.; Worldwide Door Components (Pinghu) Co.USA Worldwide Door Components (Pinghu) Co., Ltd .............. 59.31 

Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd ............. Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd ............ 59.31 

Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminium Factory Ltd .................... Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminium Factory Ltd ................... 59.31 

PRC-wide Entity* ........................................................................ .................................................................................................... 59.31 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed to parties in this proceeding 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

aluminum extrusions from the PRC as 

described in the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ 

section, entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. We will instruct 

CBP to require a cash deposit or the 

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the normal 

value exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) 

The rate for the exporter/producer 

combinations listed in the chart above 

will be the rate we have determined in 

this preliminary determination; (2) for 

all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) for all 

non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter/producer combination that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

suspension-of-liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

Additionally, as the Department has 

determined in its Aluminum Extrusions 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, 75 FR 54302 

(September 7, 2010) (‘‘CVD Prelim’’) that 

the merchandise under investigation 

exported by Guang Ya Group, and that 

exported by New Zhongya, benefitted 

from export subsidies, we will instruct 

CBP to require an antidumping cash 

deposit or posting of a bond equal to the 

amount by which the NV exceeds the 

U.S. price for Guang Ya Group/New 

Zhongya/Xinya, as indicated above, 

minus the amount determined to 

constitute an export subsidy. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole 

Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 

67306, 67307 (November 17, 2007). 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act requires the ITC to make its final 

determination as to whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

aluminum extrusions, or sales (or the 

likelihood of sales) for importation, of 

the merchandise under consideration 

within 45 days of our final 

determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date on 

which the final verification report is 

issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in case 

briefs, may be submitted no later than 

five days after the deadline date for case 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309. A table of 

contents, list of authorities used and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. This summary should be 

limited to five pages total, including 

footnotes. The Department also requests 

that parties provide an electronic copy 

of its case and rebuttal brief submissions 

in either a ‘‘Microsoft Word’’ or a ‘‘pdf’’ 

format. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. 

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, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. If a request for 

a hearing is made, we intend to hold the 

hearing at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a 

time and location to be determined. See 

19 CFR 351.310. Parties should confirm 

by telephone the date, time, and 

location of the hearing two days before 

the scheduled date. 

We will make our final determination 

no later than 135 days after the date of 

publication of this preliminary 

determination, pursuant to section 

735(a)(2) of the Act. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: October 27, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28539 Filed 11–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of New Shipper Reviews and 

Preliminary Rescission, in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting new shipper 

reviews (NSRs) of Jinxiang Chengda Imp 

& Exp Co., Ltd. (Chengda), Jinxiang 

Yuanxin Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. (Yuanxin), 

and Zhengzhou Huachao Industrial Co., 

Ltd. (Huachao) under the antidumping 

duty order on fresh garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC) 

covering the period of review (POR) of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES