80458 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

from Japan. See Initiation of Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 67082 

(November 1, 2010) (Initiation Notice). 

Because no domestic interested party 

responded to the notice of initiation of 

the sunset review by the applicable 

deadline, the Department is revoking 

the antidumping duty order on SDC 

from Japan. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 22, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerrold Freeman at (202) 482–0180 or 

Minoo Hatten at (202) 482–1690, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 22, 2005, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register the antidumping duty order on 

SDC from Japan. See Antidumping Duty 

Order: Superalloy Degassed Chromium 

from Japan, 70 FR 76030 (December 22, 

2005). 

On November 1, 2010, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the 

antidumping duty order on SDC from 

Japan pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

See Initiation Notice. We received no 

response to the notice of initiation from 

domestic interested parties by the 

applicable deadline date. See 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). As a result, the 

Department has concluded that no 

domestic party intends to participate in 

the sunset review. See 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(iii)(A). On November 22, 

2010, we notified the International 

Trade Commission, in writing, that we 

intend to revoke the antidumping duty 

order on SDC from Japan. See 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(2). 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the order is 

all forms, sizes, and grades of SDC from 

Japan. SDC is a high-purity form of 

chrome metal that generally contains at 

least 99.5 percent, but less than 99.95 

percent, chromium. SDC contains very 

low levels of certain gaseous elements 

and other impurities (typically no more 

than 0.005 percent nitrogen, 0.005 

percent sulphur, 0.05 percent oxygen, 

0.01 percent aluminum, 0.05 percent 

silicon, and 0.35 percent iron). SDC is 

generally sold in briquetted form, as 

‘‘pellets’’ or ‘‘compacts,’’ which typically 

are 1.5 inches x 1 inch x 1 inch or 

smaller in size and have a smooth 

surface. SDC is currently classifiable 

under subheading 8112.21.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). The order 

covers all chromium meeting the above 

specifications for SDC regardless of 

tariff classification. 

Certain higher-purity and lowerpurity chromium products are excluded 

from the scope of the order. Specifically, 

the order does not cover electronicsgrade chromium, which contains a 

higher percentage of chromium 

(typically not less than 99.95 percent), 

a much lower level of iron (less than 

0.05 percent), and lower levels of other 

impurities than SDC. The order also 

does not cover ‘‘vacuum melt grade’’ 

chromium, which normally contains at 

least 99.4 percent chromium and 

contains a higher level of one or more 

impurities (nitrogen, sulphur, oxygen, 

aluminum and/or silicon) than specified 

above for SDC. 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Revocation 

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), 

if no domestic interested party files a 

notice of intent to participate, the 

Department shall issue a final 

determination revoking the order within 

90 days of the initiation of the review. 

Because no domestic interested party 

filed a timely notice of intent to 

participate in this sunset review, the 

Department finds that no domestic 

interested party is participating in this 

sunset review. Therefore, we are 

revoking the antidumping duty order on 

SDC from Japan. The effective date of 

revocation is December 22, 2010, the 

fifth anniversary of the antidumping 

duty order. 

Effective Date of Revocation 

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the 

Department intends to issue instructions 

to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

15 days after publication of this notice, 

to terminate the suspension of 

liquidation of the merchandise subject 

to the order which was entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after December 22, 

2010. Entries of subject merchandise 

prior to the effective date of revocation 

will continue to be subject to the 

suspension of liquidation and 

antidumping duty deposit requirements. 

The Department is not conducting any 

administrative reviews of this order 

currently but it will conduct an 

administrative review of the order with 

respect to subject merchandise entered 

prior to the effective date of revocation 

in response to appropriately filed 

requests for review. 

This five-year (sunset) review and 

notice are published in accordance with 

sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: December 16, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32172 Filed 12–21–10; 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, Partial Rescission of, and Intent to 

Rescind, in Part, the 15th Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) covering the period of review 

(POR), November 1, 2008 through 

October 31, 2009. The Department 

initiated this review for 84 producers/ 

exporters (companies). Based on timely 

withdrawal of requests for review, the 

Department is now rescinding the 

review with respect to 54 companies 

which are listed in Attachment I. As 

such, this review covers the 30 

companies listed in Attachment II. 

One producer/exporter selected as a 

mandatory respondent has participated 

fully and has demonstrated its eligibility 

for a separate rate. We preliminarily 

determine that the respondent sold 

subject merchandise to the United 

States at prices below normal value 

(NV). The Department has also 

preliminarily determined that total 

adverse facts available (AFA) is 

warranted for two mandatory 

respondents who each failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability in this 

proceeding. The Department 

preliminarily grants a separate rate to 

four companies which demonstrated the 

eligibility for separate rate status. The 

rates assigned to each of these 

companies, can be found in the 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section 

of this notice. The Department also 

intends to rescind preliminarily the 

review with respect to seven companies 

which each timely submitted a ‘‘no 

shipment’’ certification. The remaining 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80459 

1Sea-line has an active new shipper review that 

covers the first six months of the POR covered by 

this administrative review, November 1, 2008 

through April 30, 2009. 

2On March 11, 2010, Petitioners subsequently 

withdrew their requests to review Tianheng, 

Chenglong, and Yuanli. 

3The individual members of the FGPA are 

Christopher Ranch L.L.C., The Garlic Company, 

Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, Inc. 

4Petitioners subsequently withdrew their 

requests to review Henan Weite and Harmoni. 

5The Department granted several extensions for 

various sections of the initial questionnaire. 

fourteen companies for which a review 

was requested but which failed to 

timely submit a no-shipment 

certification, or separate rate 

certification or application, are part of 

the PRC-wide entity. A more detailed 

explanation of the disposition of each of 

the above companies can be found 

below. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

our final results of review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties on entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR for which assessment 

rates are above de minimis. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 22, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Lindsay, David Lindgren, or 

Lingjun Wang, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0780, (202) 482–3870, and (202) 

482–2316, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 16, 1994, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register the antidumping duty order on 

fresh garlic from the PRC. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic 

From the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 59209 (November 16, 1994) (Order). 

On November 2, 2009, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 

from the PRC for the period November 

1, 2008 through October 31, 2009. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 56573 

(November 2, 2009). On November 25, 

2009 and November 30, 2009, various 

interested parties timely requested 

administrative reviews of 84 garlic 

producers/exporters. 

On December 23, 2009, the 

Department initiated an administrative 

review for 84 companies. See Initiation 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 

68229, 68230–68231 (December 23, 

2009) (Initiation Notice). 

On November 25, 2009, Hebei Golden 

Bird Trading Co., Ltd. (Golden Bird), 

Jining Yongjia Trade Co., Ltd. (Yongjia), 

Jinxiang Tianheng Trade Co., Ltd. 

(Tianheng), Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods 

Co., Ltd. (QTF), Weifang Chenglong 

Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Chenglong), 

each timely certified that it had no 

shipments during the POR. Also, 

Qingdao Sea-line International Trading 

Co. Ltd. (Sea-line) timely certified that 

it had no shipments during the period 

of May 1, 2009 through October 31, 

2009.1 On January 22, 2010, Jinan Yipin 

Corporation Ltd. (Yipin), Shandong 

Chenhe International Trading Co., Ltd. 

(Chenhe), Shanghai LJ International 

Trading Co. (Shanghai LJ), Zhengzhou 

Yuanli Trading Co. (Yuanli) each timely 

certified that it had no shipments during 

the POR.2 On March 10, 2010, the Fresh 

Garlic Producers Association (FGPA) 

and its individual members 3

(collectively, Petitioners) commented on 

Yongjia and QTF’s no shipment 

representations based on publicly 

available information through the Port 

Import Export Reporting Services 

(PIERS). On March 19, 2010, Yongjia 

and QTF responded to Petitioners’ 

comments. 

On January 12, 2010, the Department 

released CBP data to interested parties. 

Comments on the CBP data were due on 

January 25, 2010. On January 22, 2010, 

Golden Bird and Tianheng reiterated to 

the Department that they did not have 

any shipments during the POR. See 

Intent to Rescind, In Part, the 

Administrative Review section below. 

On January 22, 2010, Henan Weite 

Industrial Co., Ltd. (Henan Weite), Jinan 

Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd. (Farmlady), 

Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods Co., Ltd. 

(QXF), Shandong Longtai Fruits and 

Vegetables Co., Ltd. (Longtai), Weifang 

Hongqiao International Logistic Co., Ltd. 

(Hongqiao), and Zhenzhou Harmoni 

Spice Co., Ltd. (Harmoni) each timely 

submitted a separate rate certification.4

On January 13, 2010, Shenzhen 

Greening Trading Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen 

Greening) timely submitted a separate 

rate certification. On February 28, 2010, 

Shenzhen Greening also timely 

submitted a separate rate application. 

On February 12, 2010, the Department 

issued a memorandum that tolled the 

deadlines for all Import Administration 

cases by seven calendar days due to the 

Federal Government closure. See 

Memorandum for the Record from 

Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 

Administration, Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines as a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm, dated February 12, 

2010. On March 1, 2010, in accordance 

with section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), the 

Department selected the following four 

companies as mandatory respondents 

for individual examination in this 

review: Jinxiang Tianma Freezing 

Storage Co., Ltd. (Tianma Freezing), 

Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(Shenzhen Xinboda), Shenzhen 

Greening and Harmoni. See 

Memorandum from Scott Lindsay, 

International Trade Analyst, Office 6, 

Re: Antidumping Administrative 

Review of Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Respondent 

Selection Memorandum (March 1, 2010) 

(Respondent Selection Memorandum), 

available on file in the Central Records 

Unit, Room 7046 of the Department’s 

main building. 

On March 8, 2010, the Department 

issued antidumping questionnaires 

(initial questionnaire) to the four 

mandatory respondents. On March 11, 

2010 and March 30, 2010, Petitioners 

timely withdrew their requests to 

review 54 companies. See Attachment I. 

Jinxiang Hejia Co. Ltd. (Hejia) withdrew 

its own review request on January 13, 

2010. However, since Petitioners also 

requested a review of Hejia, that review 

continues. On March 30, 2010, 

Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co. Ltd. 

(Harmoni) withdrew its own review 

request in addition to Petitioners’ 

withdrawal request. Shenzhen Greening 

and Tianma Freezing did not respond to 

the initial questionnaire, nor did they 

request any extension or state that they 

were having difficulty in responding to 

the questionnaire. On April 19, 2010, 

April 26, 2010, and May 4, 2010, 

Shenzhen Xinboda submitted responses 

to the initial questionnaire.5 On July 21, 

2010, Petitioners commented on these 

responses. On September 17, 2010, and 

November 17, 2010, Shenzhen Xinboda 

submitted responses to the first and 

second supplemental questionnaires. 

On April 9, 2010, Petitioners 

requested that the Department conduct 

verification of the factual information 

placed on the record of this proceeding 

by the mandatory respondents. On June 

8, 2010, the Department extended the 

deadline for the preliminary results of 

this administrative review until 

December 7, 2010. See Fresh Garlic 

From The People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80460 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

6On August 16, 2010, Farmlady urged the 

Department to determine whether Harmoni had any 

business dealings with Petitioners before any final 

rescission. The regulations are clear that so long as 

the parties that requested the review withdrew the 

request, the Secretary will rescind the review. Since 

both withdrawal requests were timely, the 

Department has no basis to evaluate the reasoning 

behind party’s decision to withdraw its request. 

Furthermore, Farmlady provided no evidence to 

support its claim that there have been business 

dealings between Petitioners and Harmoni. 

7Petitioners subsequently withdrew their request 

to review Tianheng, so it became unnecessary to 

further examine Tianheng’s no-shipment 

certification. 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 32361 

(June 8, 2010). 

On July 20, 2010, the Department 

provided all interested parties the 

opportunity to submit any information 

they wanted the Department to consider 

when selecting the surrogate country 

and surrogate values. On October 19, 

2010, Petitioners and Shenzhen 

Xinboda submitted their respective 

surrogate data. On October 29, 2010, 

both parties commented on the other 

parties’ surrogate data. 

Period of Review 

The POR is November 1, 2008 through 

October 31, 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

all grades of garlic, whole or separated 

into constituent cloves, whether or not 

peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, 

provisionally preserved, or packed in 

water or other neutral substance, but not 

prepared or preserved by the addition of 

other ingredients or heat processing. 

The differences between grades are 

based on color, size, sheathing, and 

level of decay. The scope of this order 

does not include the following: (a) 

Garlic that has been mechanically 

harvested and that is primarily, but not 

exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; 

or (b) garlic that has been specially 

prepared and cultivated prior to 

planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed. The 

subject merchandise is used principally 

as a food product and for seasoning. The 

subject garlic is currently classifiable 

under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 

0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 

0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 

0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. In order to be 

excluded from the order, garlic entered 

under the HTSUS subheadings listed 

above that is (1) mechanically harvested 

and primarily, but not exclusively, 

destined for non-fresh use or (2) 

specially prepared and cultivated prior 

to planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed must 

be accompanied by declarations to CBP 

to that effect. 

Partial Rescission of the Administrative 

Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if a party 

that requested the review withdraws the 

request within 90 days of the date of 

publication of the initiation notice of 

the requested review. Further, pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department 

is permitted to extend this time if it is 

reasonable to do so. 

For all but one of the 54 companies 

listed in Attachment II, Petitioners were 

the only party that requested the review. 

With respect to one other company, 

Harmoni, both Harmoni and Petitioners 

requested a review of Harmoni. On 

March 30, 2010, both Petitioners and 

Harmoni timely withdrew their 

respective review requests.6 Therefore, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this 

review with respect to all 54 companies 

named in the Attachment II. 

Intent To Rescind, in Part, the 

Administrative Review 

Under 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the 

Department may rescind a review where 

there are no exports, sales, or entries of 

subject merchandise during the 

respective period of review listed below. 

In the Initiation Notice, the Department 

stated that any company named in the 

notice of initiation that had no exports, 

sales, or entries during the period of 

review should notify the Department 

within 30 days of publication of the 

Initiation Notice in the Federal Register. 

The Department stated that it would 

consider rescinding the review only if 

the company submitted a properly filed 

and timely statement certifying that it 

had no exports, sales, or entries of 

subject merchandise during the period 

of review. See Initiation Notice. The 

deadline to submit ‘‘no shipment’’ 

certifications was January 22, 2010. 

As noted above, Golden Bird, Yipin, 

Yongjia, QTF, Chenhe, and Shanghai LJ 

each timely certified that it had no 

shipments during the POR. Also, Sealine timely certified that it had no 

shipments during the period May 1, 

2009 through October 31, 2009. The 

Department issued ‘‘no-shipment’’ 

inquires to CBP and received one 

response regarding Golden Bird. 

On January 22, 2010, Golden Bird and 

Tianheng reiterated that their 

certifications are accurate.7 The 

Department examined Golden Bird’s 

detailed transaction information 

provided by CBP, and also invited 

parties to comment. See Memorandum 

from Scott Lindsay, Re: Antidumping 

Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Placing Additional Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) Data on the Record 

(November 10, 2010). On November 29, 

2010, Golden Bird submitted comments 

continuing to argue that its no-shipment 

certification was accurate. Based on the 

evidence on the record, the Department 

preliminarily determines that Golden 

Bird did not have any garlic shipments 

enter the United States during the POR. 

On March 10, 2010, Petitioners 

questioned the accuracy of Yongjia and 

QTF’s no-shipment statement based on 

PIERS data. On March 19, 2010, Yongjia 

and QTF responded to Petitioners’ 

comments by challenging the accuracy 

of PIERS data. The Department 

examined the detailed transaction 

information provided by CBP. See 

Memorandum from Scott Lindsay, Re: 

Antidumping Administrative Review of 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China: Placing Additional Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) Data on the 

Record (November 24, 2010). Based on 

the evidence on the record, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that Yongjia and QTF did not have any 

garlic shipments enter the United States 

during the POR. 

When examining a no-shipment 

certification, the Department’s practice 

is to: (1) Review the respondent’s no 

shipment claim; (2) examine CBP entry 

data to determine whether these data are 

consistent with the claim; and (3) send 

a ‘‘No Shipment Inquiry’’ to CBP 

requesting that CBP notify the 

Department if it has evidence of 

shipments from the company making 

the claim. After taking these three steps, 

the Department has found no evidence 

on the record to indicate that these 

companies had exports, entries, or sales 

of subject merchandise under this order 

during the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3). Therefore, the 

Department is preliminarily rescinding 

the review with respect to Golden Bird, 

Yipin, Yongjia, QTF, Chenhe, Sea-line, 

and Shanghai LJ. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non-market 

economy (NME) country. In accordance 

with section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. See, e.g., Brake Rotors From 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80461 

8The most recently completed segment of this 

proceeding in which Xintianfeng and Hongqiao 

participated and were granted separate rate status 

was Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 

14th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 

FR 34976 (June 21, 2010). The most recently 

completed segment of this proceeding in which 

Longtai and Farmlady participated and was granted 

separate rate status was Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the 12th Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 34251 (June 17, 2008). 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

2004/2005 Administrative Review and 

Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New 

Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 

(November 14, 2006). None of the 

parties to this proceeding have 

contested such treatment. Accordingly, 

we calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Separate Rates 

As noted above, designation of a 

country as an NME remains in effect 

until it is revoked by the Department. 

See section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act. 

Accordingly, there is a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the PRC are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assessed a 

single antidumping duty rate. 

It is the Department’s standard policy 

to assign all exporters of the 

merchandise subject to review in NME 

countries a single rate unless an 

exporter can affirmatively demonstrate 

an absence of government control, both 

in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), 

with respect to its exports. To establish 

whether a company is sufficiently 

independent to be eligible for a separate, 

company-specific rate, the Department 

analyzes each exporting entity in an 

NME country under the test established 

in the Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Sparklers From 

the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 

20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as 

amplified by the Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that all firms that 

wish to qualify for separate-rate status 

in the administrative reviews involving 

NME countries must complete, as 

appropriate, either a separate-rate 

application or certification, as described 

below. For these administrative reviews, 

in order to demonstrate separate-rate 

eligibility, the Department requires 

entities for which a review was 

requested, that were assigned a separate 

rate in the most recent segment of this 

proceeding in which they participated, 

to certify that they continue to meet the 

criteria for obtaining a separate rate. In 

this administrative review, Farmlady, 

QXF, Longtai, and Hongqiao each 

submitted a separate-rate certification. 

Although Shenzhen Xinboda did not 

submit a separate rate certification, as a 

cooperating mandatory respondent, it 

did answer all the separate rate 

questions in our questionnaires. As 

such, Shenzhen Xinboda, Farmlady, 

QXF, Longtai, and Hongqiao each 

provided company-specific information 

and each stated that it met the criteria 

for the assignment of a separate rate. We 

considered whether Shenzhen Xinboda, 

Farmlady, QXF, Longtai, and Hongqiao 

were eligible for a separate rate. 

The Department’s separate-rate status 

test to determine whether the exporter 

is independent from government control 

does not consider, in general, 

macroeconomic/border-type controls 

(e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices), particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on 

controls over the investment, pricing, 

and output decision-making process at 

the individual firm level. See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine, 62 FR 

61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of Antidumping Administrative 

Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 

17, 1997). 

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. 

Shenzhen Xinboda, Farmlady, QXF, 

Longtai, and Hongqiao each certified 

that, consistent with the most recent 

segment of this proceeding in which it 

participated and was granted a separate 

rate, there is an absence of de jure 

government control of its exports.8 Each 

of these companies certified to its 

separate-rate status, and stated, where 

applicable, that the company had no 

relationship with any level of the PRC 

government with respect to ownership, 

internal management, and business 

operations. In this segment, we have no 

new information on the record that 

would cause us to reconsider the 

previous de jure control determinations 

with regard to these companies. Thus, 

we find that evidence on the record 

supports a preliminary finding of an 

absence of de jure government control 

with regard to the export activities of 

Shenzhen Xinboda, Farmlady, QXF, 

Longtai, and Hongqiao. 

B. Absence of De Facto Control 

As stated in previous cases, there is 

evidence that certain enactments of the 

PRC central government have not been 

implemented uniformly among different 

sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. 

See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87. 

Therefore, the Department has 

determined that an analysis of de facto 

control is critical in determining 

whether the respondents are, in fact, 

subject to a degree of government 

control which would preclude the 

Department from assigning separate 

rates. 

The absence of de facto government 

control over exports is based on whether 

a company: (1) Sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and other exporters; (2) retains the 

proceeds from its export sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

the disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; and (4) has autonomy from 

the government regarding the selection 

of management. See, e.g., Silicon 

Carbide, 59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers, 

56 FR at 20589; 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). 

Shenzhen Xinboda, Farmlady, QXF, 

Longtai, and Hongqiao each timely 

submitted a certification of its separaterate eligibility which stated that, as with 

the previous period where each 

company was granted a separate rate; 

there is an absence of de facto 

government control of each company’s 

exports. Their separate rate 

certifications, stated, where applicable, 

that they had no relationship with any 

level of the PRC government with 

respect to ownership, internal 

management, and business operations. 

In this segment, we have no new 

information on the record that would 

cause us to reconsider the previous 

period’s de facto control determinations 

with regard to these companies. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that Shenzhen Xinboda, Farmlady, 

QXF, Longtai, and Hongqiao have 

established, prima facie, that they 

qualify for separate rates under the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80462 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

9See e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Eleventh Administrative Review and New Shipper 

Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 2007); Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of the 12th Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 34251 (June 17, 2008) (12th AR); 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results and Rescission, In Part, of Twelfth 

New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 56550 (September 29, 

2008); and Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 

13th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 29174 (June 19, 2009) 

(13th Administrative Review). 

criteria established by Silicon Carbide 

and Sparklers. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department investigates 

imports from an NME country, section 

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

on the NME producer’s factors of 

production (FOPs), valued in a surrogate 

market economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to 

the extent possible, the prices or costs 

of FOPs in one or more market economy 

countries that are: (1) At a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country; and (2) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. Moreover, it is the 

Department’s practice to select an 

appropriate surrogate country based on 

the availability and reliability of data 

from the countries. See Department 

Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market 

Economy Surrogate Country Selection 

Process (March 1, 2004) (Policy 

Bulletin). 

As discussed in the ‘‘Non-Market 

Economy Country Status’’ section above, 

the Department considers the PRC to be 

an NME country. Pursuant to section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department 

determined that India, Philippines, 

Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru 

are countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development. See 

Memorandum to All Interested Parties 

Re: 15th Administrative Review of Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China (July 20, 2010) at Attachment 1. 

Also, in accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department has 

found that India is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise. 

Moreover, the Department finds India to 

be a reliable source for surrogate values 

(SVs) because India is at a similar level 

of economic development, is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, and has publicly available 

and reliable data. Furthermore, the 

Department notes that India has been 

the primary surrogate country in past 

segments of this proceeding, and the 

only SV data submitted on the record 

are from Indian sources. Given the 

above facts, the Department has selected 

India as the primary surrogate country 

for this review. The sources of the SVs 

are discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

section below and in the Memorandum 

from Scott Lindsay, Re: Preliminary 

Results of the 2008–2009 

Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Surrogate Values Memorandum 

(December 7, 2010) (SV Memorandum). 

No parties submitted comments 

concerning selection of the surrogate 

country. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated export prices (EP) 

for Shenzhen Xinboda’s sales to the 

United States because they were made 

to unaffiliated parties before the date of 

importation. We calculated Shenzhen 

Xinboda’s EP based on its price to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. In accordance with section 

772(c) of the Act, where appropriate, we 

deducted movement expenses (e.g. 

foreign inland freight, international 

freight, brokerage and handling, marine 

insurance, warehousing, and U.S. 

customs duties) from the starting price 

to unaffiliated purchasers. For the 

expenses that were either provided by 

an NME vendor or paid for with an 

NME currency, we used SVs as 

appropriate. See the ‘‘Factor Valuations’’ 

section below for details regarding the 

SV for movement expenses. 

Normal Value 

A. Methodology 

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

provides that the Department shall 

determine NV using an FOP 

methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME country 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 calculates 

NV using each of the FOPs that a 

respondent consumes in the production 

of a unit of the subject merchandise 

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. However, there are 

circumstances in which the Department 

will modify its standard FOP 

methodology, choosing to apply SVs to 

an intermediate input instead of the 

individual FOPs used to produce that 

intermediate input. In some cases, a 

respondent may report factors used to 

produce an intermediate input that 

accounts for an insignificant share of 

total output. When the potential 

increase in accuracy to the overall 

calculation that results from valuing 

each of the FOPs is outweighed by the 

resources, time, and burden such an 

analysis would place on all parties to 

the proceeding, the Department has 

valued the intermediate input directly 

using SVs. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from the 

People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 47538 

(August 11, 2003), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1 (PVA) (citing to 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)). 

For the final results of several prior 

administrative reviews (ARs) and new 

shipper reviews (NSRs) under the garlic 

order,9 the Department found that garlic 

industry producers in the PRC do not 

generally track actual labor hours 

incurred for growing, tending, and 

harvesting activities and, thus, do not 

maintain appropriate records which 

would allow most, if not all, 

respondents to quantify, report, and 

substantiate this information. In the 

preliminary results of the eleventh AR 

and NSRs, the Department also stated 

that ‘‘should a respondent be able to 

provide sufficient factual evidence that 

it maintains the necessary information 

in its internal books and records that 

would allow us to establish the 

completeness and accuracy of the 

reported FOPs, we will revisit this issue 

and consider whether to use its reported 

FOPs in the calculation of NV.’’ See 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China: Partial Rescission and 

Preliminary Results of the Eleventh 

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 71510, 71520 

(December 11, 2006). 

In the course of this review, 

Zhengzhou Dadi Garlic Industry Co., 

Ltd. (Zhengzhou Dadi), Shenzhen 

Xinboda’s producer, did not report 

FOPs related to growing whole garlic 

bulbs. As such, for the reasons outlined 

in the Memorandum from Scott 

Lindsay, Re: 15th Administrative 

Review of Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Intermediate Input Methodology 

(December 7, 2010) (Intermediate Input 

Methodology Memorandum), the 

Department is applying an 

‘‘intermediate-input product valuation 

methodology’’ to calculate Shenzhen 

Xinboda’s NV. Using this methodology, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80463 

10Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act states that ‘‘the 

valuation of the factors of production shall be based 

on the best available information regarding the 

values of such factors in a market economy country 

or countries considered to be appropriate by the 

administering authority.’’ 

the Department calculated NV by 

starting with an SV for the garlic bulb 

(i.e., the ‘‘intermediate product’’), 

adjusting for yield losses during the 

processing stages, and adding Shenzhen 

Xinboda’s costs, which were calculated 

using its reported usage rates for 

processing fresh garlic. See Intermediate 

Input Methodology Memorandum. 

B. Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, the Department calculated NV 

based on the FOP data reported by 

Shenzhen Xinboda for the POR. We 

relied on the factor-specific data 

submitted by Shenzhen Xinboda for the 

production inputs in their questionnaire 

responses, where applicable, for 

purposes of selecting SVs. To calculate 

NV, the Department multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor consumption 

rates by publicly available India SVs. 

In selecting the SVs, consistent with 

our past practice, the Department 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

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

Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from 

the People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 

(December 11, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 9. As appropriate, the 

Department adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, the 

Department added to the SVs, as 

appropriate, a surrogate freight cost 

using the shorter of the reported 

distance from the domestic suppliers to 

the factory or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit (CAFC). See Sigma 

Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 

1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where necessary, 

we adjusted the SVs for inflation/ 

deflation using the Wholesale Price 

Index (WPI) as published in the 

International Monetary Fund’s 

International Financial Statistics, 

available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf. For 

more information regarding the 

Department’s valuation for the various 

FOPs, see SV Memorandum. 

Garlic Bulb Valuation 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting the ‘‘best available 

information’’ for valuing FOPs, in 

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

Act,10 is to select, to the extent 

practicable, SVs which are publicly 

available, product-specific, 

representative of a broad market 

average, tax-exclusive and 

contemporaneous with the POR. See 

e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas 

from the People’s Republic of China, 71 

FR 16116 (March 30, 2006) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

As discussed above, the Department is 

applying an intermediate input 

methodology for Shenzhen Xinboda. 

Therefore, we sought to identify the best 

available SV for the garlic bulb input 

into production. See Petitioners’ 

Submission Concerning Surrogate 

Values for Factors of Production and 

Shenzhen Xinboda’s Surrogate Value 

Submission; see also, SV Memorandum. 

For the preliminary results of this 

review, we find that data from the 

Azadpur APMC’s ‘‘Market Information 

Bulletin’’ are the most appropriate 

information available to value Shenzhen 

Xinboda’s garlic bulb input. 

In its responses to the first and second 

supplemental questionnaires, Shenzhen 

Xinboda stated that its ‘‘document 

system, including inventory system and 

accounting system, does not record the 

different sizes of garlic bulbs;’’ and 

‘‘normally uses garlic bulbs of 5 cm to 

5.5 cm for the production of peeled 

garlic.’’ Consistent with our findings in 

the twelfth AR, the Department 

continues to find that garlic bulb sizes 

that range from 55 mm and above are 

Grade Super-A, and garlic bulb sizes 

that range between 40 mm and 55 mm 

are Grade A and Grade Super-A. We 

have used Grade A and Grade Super A 

for garlic bulb valuation. See SV 

Memorandum. Because the Grade 

Super-A prices reported by the APMC 

which are on the record of this review 

are from 2007–2008, we inflated them to 

make them contemporaneous to our 

POR. See SV Memorandum. 

Other Factors of Production 

In past cases, it has been the 

Department’s practice to value various 

FOPs using import statistics of the 

primary selected surrogate country from 

World Trade Atlas (WTA), as published 

by Global Trade Information Services 

(GTIS). See Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

74 FR 50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009) 

(unchanged in Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520 

(December 10, 2009)). However, in 

October 2009, the Department learned 

that Indian import data obtained from 

the WTA, as published by GTIS, began 

identifying the original reporting 

currency for India as the U.S. Dollar. 

The Department then contacted GTIS 

about the change in the original 

reporting currency for India from the 

Indian Rupee to the U.S. Dollar. 

Officials at GTIS explained that while 

GTIS obtains data on imports into India 

directly from the Ministry of Commerce, 

Government of India, as denominated 

and published in Indian Rupees, the 

WTA software is limited with regard to 

the number of significant digits it can 

manage. Therefore, GTIS made a 

decision to change the original reporting 

currency for Indian data from the Indian 

Rupee to the U.S. Dollar in order to 

reduce the loss of significant digits 

when obtaining data through the WTA 

software. GTIS explained that it 

converts the Indian Rupee to the U.S. 

Dollar using the monthly Federal 

Reserve exchange rate applicable to the 

relevant month of the data being 

downloaded and converted. See Certain 

Oil Country Tubular Goods from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances 

and Final Determination of Targeted 

Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. 

However, the data reported in the 

Global Trade Atlas (GTA) software 

published by GTIS reports import 

statistics, such as those from India, in 

the original reporting currency and, 

thus, these data correspond to the 

original currency value reported by each 

country. Additionally, the data reported 

in the GTA software are reported to the 

nearest digit and, thus, there is not a 

loss of data by rounding, as there is with 

the data reported by the WTA software. 

Consequently, the Department has 

obtained import statistics from GTA for 

valuing various FOPs because the GTA 

import statistics are in the original 

reporting currency of the country from 

which the data are obtained, and have 

the same level of accuracy as the 

original data released. 

Furthermore, with regard to the GTA 

Indian import-based SVs, in accordance 

with the Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988 legislative 

history, the Department continues to 

apply its long-standing practice of 

disregarding SVs if it has a reason to 

believe or suspect the source data may 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80464 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

11Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 

1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. 

No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) at 590. 

12The NME countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, 

Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, North 

Korea, the People’s Republic of China, Tajikistan, 

Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. 

be subsidized.11 In this regard, the 

Department has previously found that it 

is appropriate to disregard such prices 

from Indonesia, South Korea and 

Thailand, because we have determined 

that these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry specific export 

subsidies. See, e.g., Certain Cut-toLength 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 4; CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

From the Republic of Korea: Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 

(January 15, 2009), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 

19–20; and 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 23. 

Based on the existence of these subsidy 

programs that were generally available 

to all exporters and producers in 

Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand at 

the time of the POR, the Department 

finds that it is reasonable to infer that 

all exporters from these countries may 

have benefitted from these subsidies. 

We also disregarded prices from NME 

countries 12 and those imports that were 

labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country from the average 

Indian import values, because we could 

not be certain that they were not from 

either an NME or a country with general 

export subsidies. 

We valued the packing material 

inputs using weighted-average unit 

import values derived from the Monthly 

Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India 

(MSFTI), as published by the Directorate 

General of Commercial Intelligence and 

Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce 

and Industry, Government of India, and 

compiled by the GTA. 

The Department valued surrogate 

truck freight cost by using a per-unit 

average rate calculated from April 2009 

data on the following Web site: http:// 

www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. See Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags From the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 52282, 52286 (September 

9, 2008) (unchanged in Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 6857 (February 11, 

2009)); and SV Memorandum at 

Attachment 9. 

To value electricity, the Department 

used March 2008 electricity price rates 

from Electricity Tariff & Duty and 

Average Rates of Electricity Supply in 

India, published by the Central 

Electricity Authority of the Government 

of India. Because these data are not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

inflated March 2008 prices to make 

them contemporaneous to our POR. See 

SV Memorandum. 

We valued brokerage and handling 

expenses using a price list of export 

procedures necessary to export a 

standardized cargo of goods in India. 

The price list is compiled based on a 

survey case study of the procedural 

requirements for trading a standard 

shipment of goods by ocean transport in 

India that is published in Doing 

Business 2010: India, published by the 

World Bank. See SV Memorandum. 

The Department is continuing to 

evaluate options for determining labor 

values in light of the recent Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 

decision. See Dorbest Ltd. v. United 

States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 

2010). For these preliminary results, we 

have calculated an hourly wage rate to 

use in valuing respondent reported 

labor input by averaging industryspecific earnings and/or wages in 

countries that are economically 

comparable to the PRC and that are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. 

For the preliminary results of this AR, 

the Department is valuing labor using a 

simple average industry-specific wage 

rate using earnings or wage data 

reported under Chapter 5B by the 

International Labor Organization (ILO). 

To achieve an industry-specific labor 

value, we relied on industry-specific 

labor data from the countries we 

determined to be both economically 

comparable to the PRC, and significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

Specifically, for this review, the 

Department has calculated the wage rate 

using a simple average of the data 

provided to the ILO under SubClassification 15 of the ISIC–Revision 3 

standard by countries determined to be 

both economically comparable to the 

PRC and significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. The 

Department finds the two-digit 

description under ISIC–Revision 3 

(‘‘Manufacture of Food Products and 

Beverages’’) to be the best available wage 

rate SV on the record because it is 

specific and derived from industries 

that produce merchandise comparable 

to the subject merchandise. A full 

description of the industry-specific 

wage rate calculation methodology is 

provided in the SV Memorandum. 

Consequently, we averaged the ILO 

industry-specific wage rate data or 

earnings data available from the 

following countries found to be 

economically comparable to the PRC 

and to be significant producers of 

comparable merchandise: Ecuador, 

Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, 

Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine. 

Further information on the calculation 

of the wage rate can be found in the SV 

Memorandum. The resulting wage rate 

is $1.36. 

Financial Ratios 

Petitioners and Shenzhen Xinboda 

submitted factual information regarding 

surrogate financial ratios. See 

Petitioners’ Submission Concerning 

Surrogate Values for Factors of 

Production and Shenzhen Xinboda’s 

Surrogate Value Submission. After 

analyzing these comments and factual 

information, the Department has 

preliminarily determined that it is 

appropriate to calculate a single set of 

surrogate financial ratios applicable to 

the production and sales of all subject 

merchandise (both whole and peeled 

garlic) for these preliminary results 

using both Tata Tea Ltd.’s (Tata Tea) 

and Limtex Ltd.’s (Limtex) financial 

data. Since the 2002–2003 

administrative review, the Department 

has considered tea processing to be 

sufficiently similar to garlic processing 

in that neither product is highly 

processed or preserved prior to sale. See 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 

34082 (June 13, 2005), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at 34–35. Moreover, we 

note that it is the Department’s 

preference to use financial data from 

more than one surrogate producer to 

reflect the broader experience of the 

surrogate industry. See, e.g., Brake 

Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of the Sixth Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Final 

Results of the Ninth New Shipper 

Review, 69 FR 42039 (July 13, 2004), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2; see also 

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 3, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80465 

and Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances 

and Final Determination of Targeted 

Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 13. We find 

that calculating an average of these two 

Indian tea processors’ data provides 

financial ratios that best reflect the 

broader experience of the garlic industry 

and that are consistent with our practice 

during previous reviews. See Fresh 

Garlic From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of New Shipper 

Review, 75 FR 61130 (October 4, 2010), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. The 

Department finds that both Tata Tea’s 

and Limtex’s non-integrated production 

process is similar to that of the garlic 

industry. We find that the resulting 

financial ratios from the average of Tata 

Tea’s and Limtex’s financial data 

provide the best surrogate for the garlic 

industry in the PRC as a whole, based 

on the information on the record of this 

review. See SV Memorandum. 

Margin for the Separate Rate 

Companies 

As discussed above, the Department 

has preliminarily determined that 

Farmlady, QXF, Longtai, and Hongqiao 

have demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate rate status. The statute and the 

Department’s regulations do not address 

the establishment of a rate to be applied 

to individual companies not selected for 

examination where the Department 

limited its examination in an 

administrative review pursuant to 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, 

we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of 

the Act, which provides instructions for 

calculating the all-others rate in an 

investigation, for guidance when 

calculating the rate for respondents we 

did not examine in an administrative 

review. For the exporters subject to a 

review that were determined to be 

eligible for separate rate status, but were 

not selected as mandatory respondents, 

the Department generally weightaverages the rates calculated for the 

mandatory respondents, excluding any 

rates that are zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on facts available (FA). See, e.g., 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, Preliminary 

Results of New Shipper Review and 

Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 8273, 8279 (February 13, 

2008) (unchanged in Wooden Bedroom 

Furniture From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 

20, 2008)). For this administrative 

review, the Department has calculated a 

positive margin for the single mandatory 

respondent, Shenzhen Xinboda. 

Accordingly, for the preliminary results, 

consistent with our practice, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that the margin to be 

assigned to Farmlady, QXF, Longtai, 

and Hongqiao should be the rate 

calculated for the single mandatory 

respondent, Shenzhen Xinboda. 

PRC-Wide Entity 

The Initiation Notice states ‘‘{F}or 

exporters and producers who submit a 

separate-rate status application or 

certification and subsequently are 

selected as mandatory respondents, 

these exporters and producers will no 

longer be eligible for separate-rate status 

unless they respond to all parts of the 

questionnaire as mandatory 

respondents.’’ Shenzhen Greening, who 

after timely submitting separate rate 

documents did not respond to the initial 

questionnaire, will remain part of the 

PRC-wide entity. Tianma Freezing, who 

also did not respond to the initial 

questionnaire, will remain part of the 

PRC-wide entity. In addition, the 

Initiation Notice specifically initiated 

reviews by name for 16 companies 

which were not selected as mandatory 

respondents and which did not submit 

separate rate documentation. The 

Department finds these companies 

failed to demonstrate their eligibility for 

separate rate status. Accordingly, the 

Department considers these companies 

part of the PRC-wide entity. See 

Attachment III. 

Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse 

Facts Available 

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act 

provide that, if necessary information is 

not available on the record, or if an 

interested party or any other person (A) 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the administering 

authority; (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely matter or in the 

form or manner requested subject to 

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute; or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified as 

provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the 

administering authority shall, subject to 

section 782(d) of the Act, use facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department shall 

promptly inform the party submitting 

the response of the nature of the 

deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party with an 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. Section 782(d) of the Act 

additionally states that if the party 

submits further information that is 

unsatisfactory or untimely, the 

administering authority may, subject to 

subsection (e), disregard all or part of 

the original and subsequent responses. 

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all the applicable requirements 

established by the administering 

authority if: (1) The information is 

submitted by the deadline established 

for its submission; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability in 

providing the information and meeting 

the requirements established by the 

administering authority with respect to 

the information; and (5) the information 

can be used without undue difficulties. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that, if the Department finds 

that an interested party has failed to 

comply by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request of 

information, the Department may use an 

adverse inference in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available. 

Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes 

the Department to use as AFA 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

For the reasons discussed below, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that, in accordance with sections 

776(a)(1), 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the 

Act, the use of AFA is appropriate for 

the preliminary results with respect to 

the PRC-wide entity, which includes 

Shenzhen Greening and Tianma 

Freezing. 

Shenzhen Greening and Tianma 

Freezing were selected as mandatory 

respondents, but neither responded to 

the initial questionnaire. Thus, the 

information necessary for the 

Department to conduct its analysis is 

not available in the record. Moreover, 

the decision by these companies to not 

respond to the initial questionnaire 

constitutes a refusal to provide the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80466 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

Department with information necessary 

to conduct its antidumping analysis. See 

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

As these companies have withheld 

necessary information that has been 

requested by the Department, the 

Department shall, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), and (a)(2)(B) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available to 

reach the applicable determination. 

In addition, because Shenzhen 

Greening and Tianma Freezing did not 

respond to the initial questionnaire and 

did not request any extension, the 

Department finds that each of these 

companies has failed to cooperate by 

not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with the Department’s request 

for information. By withholding the 

requested information, these companies 

prevented the Department from 

conducting any company-specific 

analysis or calculating dumping margins 

for the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that an inference that is adverse to the 

interests of Shenzhen Greening and 

Tianma Freezing is warranted. 

Because we have determined 

Shenzhen Greening and Tianma 

Freezing to be part of the PRC-wide 

entity, the PRC-wide entity is now 

under review. The Department 

preliminarily finds that the PRC-wide 

entity did not respond to the 

Department’s request for information 

and that necessary information is not 

available on the record. Moreover, the 

Department preliminarily finds that the 

PRC-wide entity significantly impeded 

the proceeding by withholding 

information and failing to respond to 

the Department’s request for 

information within the specified 

deadlines. Therefore, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act, 

the Department preliminarily 

determines that the application of facts 

otherwise available is warranted for the 

PRC-wide entity. 

In addition, because Shenzhen 

Greening and Tianma Freezing failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability, the PRC-wide entity did not 

provide the requested information, 

which was in the sole possession of the 

respondents and could not be obtained 

otherwise. Pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, we preliminarily determine that 

in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is warranted for the PRC-wide 

entity. By using an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide 

entity, we ensure the companies that are 

part of the PRC-wide entity will not 

obtain a more favorable result by failing 

to cooperate than had they cooperated 

fully in this review. 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.308(c) authorize the 

Department to rely on information 

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

determination in the investigation; (3) 

any previous review or determination; 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In reviews, the Department 

normally selects, as AFA, the highest 

rate on the record of any segment of the 

proceeding. See, e.g., Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504, 

19506 (April 21, 2003). The U.S. Court 

of International Trade (CIT) and the 

CAFC have consistently upheld the 

Department’s practice in this regard. See 

Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 

899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) 

(Rhone Poulenc); NSK Ltd. v. United 

States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 

2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total 

AFA rate, the highest available dumping 

margin from a different respondent in a 

less-than-fair-value investigation); see 

also Kompass Food Trading Int’l v. 

United States, 24 CIT 678, 683–84 

(2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent total 

AFA rate, the highest available dumping 

margin from a different, fully 

cooperative respondent); and Shanghai 

Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 

1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 

percent total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in a previous 

administrative review). 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting an adverse rate from among 

the possible sources of information is to 

ensure that the margin is ‘‘sufficiently 

adverse so as to effectuate the statutory 

purposes of the adverse facts available 

rule to induce respondents to provide 

the Department with complete and 

accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 

63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 

The Department’s practice also ensures 

‘‘that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See 

Statement of Administrative Action 

Accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 

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

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

Brazil, 69 FR 76910, 76912 (December 

23, 2004). In choosing the appropriate 

balance between providing respondents 

with an incentive to respond accurately 

and imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondent’s prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common 

sense inference that the highest prior 

margin is the most probative evidence of 

current margins, because, if it were not 

so, the importer, knowing of the rule, 

would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less.’’ See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 

1190. 

Consistent with the statute, court 

precedent, and its normal practice, the 

Department has preliminarily assigned 

the rate of $4.71 per kilogram, the 

highest rate determined in any segment 

of this proceeding, to the PRC-wide 

entity, which includes the companies 

named in Attachment III. See 13th 

Administrative Review. As discussed 

further in the ‘‘Corroboration of 

Secondary Information Used as Adverse 

Facts Available’’ section below, this rate 

has been corroborated. 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information Used as Adverse Facts 

Available 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, where the Department selects from 

among the facts otherwise available and 

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the 

Department shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that information 

from independent sources reasonably at 

the Department’s disposal. Secondary 

information is described in the SAA as 

‘‘{i}nformation derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination covering 

the subject merchandise, or any 

previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise.’’ 

See SAA at 870. The SAA states that 

‘‘corroborate’’ means to determine that 

the information used has probative 

value. Id. The Department has 

determined that to have probative value, 

information must be reliable and 

relevant. See, e.g., Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 

and Unfinished, From Japan, and 

Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 

Less in Outside Diameter, and 

Components Thereof, From Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Partial Termination of Administrative 

Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 

6, 1996) (unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 

and Unfinished, From Japan, and 

Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 

Less in Outside Diameter, and 

Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80467 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and 

Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997)). The SAA also states 

that independent sources used to 

corroborate such evidence may include, 

for example, published price lists, 

official import statistics and customs 

data, and information obtained from 

interested parties during the particular 

investigation or review. See SAA at 870; 

see also Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage 

Ceramic Station Post Insulators from 

Japan, 68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 

2003) (unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage 

Ceramic Station Post Insulators from 

Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 2003); 

and Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live 

Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181, 

12183 (March 11, 2005). 

To be considered corroborated, 

information must be found to be both 

reliable and relevant. Unlike other types 

of information, such as input costs or 

selling expenses, there are no 

independent sources for calculated 

dumping margins. The only sources for 

calculated margins are administrative 

determinations. The per-unit AFA rate 

we are applying for the current review 

was calculated using the ad valorem 

rate contained in the petition in the 

original investigation of garlic from the 

PRC and was applied as the per-unit 

AFA rate in the most recently 

completed administrative reviews of 

this order. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

14th Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 34976 (June 21, 2010) 

(Garlic 14). Furthermore, no information 

has been presented in the current 

review that calls into question the 

reliability of this information. Thus, the 

Department finds that the information is 

reliable. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers From 

Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 

6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996). 

Similarly, the Department does not 

apply a margin that has been 

discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. 

United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use 

a margin that has been judicially 

invalidated). None of these unusual 

circumstances are present with respect 

to the rate being used here. Moreover, 

the rate selected, i.e., $4.71 per 

kilogram, is the rate currently applicable 

to the PRC-wide entity. The Department 

assumes that if an uncooperative 

respondent could have obtained a lower 

rate, it would have cooperated. See 

Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190–91 

and Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. 

v. United States, 24 CIT 841, 848 (2000) 

(respondents should not benefit from 

failure to cooperate). As there is no 

information on the record of this review 

that demonstrates that this rate is not 

appropriate to use as AFA for the PRCwide entity in the current review, we 

determine that this rate has relevance. 

As this AFA rate is both reliable and 

relevant, we determine that it has 

probative value, and is thus in 

accordance with the requirement, under 

section 776(c) of the Act, that secondary 

information be corroborated to the 

extent practicable (i.e., that it has 

probative value). 

Currency Conversion 

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. See http:// 

www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ 

index.html. 

Verification 

Following the publication of these 

preliminary results, we intend to verify, 

as provided in section 782(i)(3) of the 

Act, sales and FOP information 

submitted by the Shenzhen Xinboda, as 

appropriate. At verification, we will use 

standard verification procedures, 

including on-site inspection of the 

manufacturer’s facilities, the 

examination of relevant sales and 

financial records, and the selection of 

original source documentation 

containing relevant information. We 

will prepare verification reports 

outlining our verification results and 

place these reports on file in the Central 

Records Unit, room 7046 of the main 

Commerce building. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following margins exist for the period 

November 1, 2008 through October 31, 

2009: 

FRESH GARLIC FROM THE PRC 2008–2009 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted-average 

margin 

(dollars per kilogram) 

Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................................ $0.72 

Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................................................ 0.72 

Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................................. 0.72 

Shandong Longtai Fruits and Vegetables Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................ 0.72 

Weifang Hongqiao International Logistic Co., Ltd. .............................................................................................................. 0.72 

PRC-wide Entity (see Attachment III) .................................................................................................................................. 4.71 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. For the companies 

listed above which had a separate rate 

granted in a previously completed 

segment of this proceeding that was in 

effect during the instant review period, 

antidumping duties shall be assessed on 

entries subject to the separate rate at 

rates equal to the cash deposit of 

estimated antidumping duties required 

at the time of entry, or withdrawal from 

warehouse, for consumption, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions for such companies directly 

to CBP 15 days after the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register. For 

any of the companies listed above that 

do not currently have a separate rate 

(and thus remain a part of the PRC-wide 

entity), the Department will issue 

assessment instructions upon the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80468 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

13 f/k/a Jinxian County Huaguang Food Import & 

Export Co., Ltd. in the Initiation Notice. 

completion of this administrative 

review. 

Consistent with the final results of 

Garlic 14, we will direct CBP to assess 

importer-specific assessment rates based 

on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per 

kilogram) amount on each entry of the 

subject merchandise during the POR. 

Specifically, we will divide the total 

dumping margins for each importer by 

the total quantity of subject 

merchandise sold to that importer 

during the POR to calculate a per-unit 

assessment amount. We will direct CBP 

to assess importer-specific assessment 

rates based on the resulting per-unit 

(i.e., per kilogram) amount on each 

entry of the subject merchandise during 

the POR if any importer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Consistent with the final results of 

Garlic 14, we will establish and collect 

a per-kilogram cash-deposit amount 

which will be equivalent to the 

company-specific dumping margin 

published in the final results of this 

review. Specifically, the following cash 

deposit requirements will be effective 

upon publication of the final results of 

this review for all shipments of the 

subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results, as provided by 

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For 

subject merchandise exported by 

Shenzhen Xinboda, the cash deposit 

rate will be the per-unit rate determined 

in the final results of this administrative 

review and; (2) for subject merchandise 

exported by Farmlady, QXF, Longtai, or 

Hongqiao, the cash deposit rates will be 

the per-unit rate determined in the final 

results of this administrative review; (3) 

for subject merchandise exported by 

PRC exporters subject to this 

administrative review that have not 

been found to be entitled to a separate 

rate (see Attachment III), the cash 

deposit rate will be the per-unit PRCwide rate determined in the final results 

of administrative review; (4) for subject 

merchandise exported by all other PRC 

exporters that have not been found to be 

entitled to a separate rate, the cash 

deposit rate will be the per-unit PRCwide rate determined in the final results 

of administrative review; (5) for 

previously-investigated or previouslyreviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters 

who received a separate rate in a prior 

segment of the proceeding and which 

were not under review in this segment 

of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate 

will continue to the rate assigned in that 

prior segment of the proceeding; (6) the 

cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters 

of subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporter that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this 

proceeding not later than ten days after 

the date of public announcement, or if 

there is no public announcement within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Comments 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results and 

may submit case briefs and/or written 

comments within 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice, unless 

otherwise notified by the Department. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, will be due five days later, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit case or rebuttal briefs in 

this proceeding are requested to submit 

with each argument: (1) A statement of 

the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. Parties are requested to 

provide a summary of the arguments not 

to exceed five pages and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

Additionally, parties are requested to 

provide their case and rebuttal briefs in 

electronic format (e.g., preferably 

Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat). 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration within 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 

CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in case and rebuttal briefs. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this review, including the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any such 

written briefs not later than 90 days 

after these preliminary results are 

issued, unless the final results are 

extended. See 19 CFR 351.241(i). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results in accordance with 

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

Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 

351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: December 17, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Attachment I 

Companies Being Rescinded 

The following companies were named 

in our Initiation Notice. Subsequently, 

interested parties withdrew all relevant 

requests for review for these companies. 

Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this 

administrative review with respect to 

these companies. 

1. American Pioneer Shipping 

2. Anhui Dongqian Foods Ltd. 

3. Anqiu Haoshun Trade Co., Ltd. 

4. APS Qingdao 

5. Chiping Shengkang Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 

6. Hangzhou Guanyu Foods Co., Ltd. 

7. Henan Weite Industrial Co., Ltd. 

8. Hongqiao International Logistics Co. 

9. IT Logistics Qingdao Branch 

10. Jinan Solar Summit International Co., 

Ltd. 

11. Jining Highton Trading Co., Ltd. 

12. Jining Jiulong International Trading Co., 

Ltd. 

13. Jining Tiankuang Trade Co., Ltd. 

14. Jinxiang County Huaguang Food Import 

& Export Co., Ltd.13

15. Jinxiang Dacheng Food Co., Ltd. 

16. Jinxiang Fengsheng Import & Export Co., 

Ltd. 

17. Jinxiang Jinma Fruits Vegetables Products 

Co., Ltd. 

18. Jinxiang Tianheng Trade Co., Ltd. 

19. Juye Homestead Fruits and Vegetables 

Co., Ltd. 

20. Kingwin Industrial Co., Ltd. 

21. Laiwu Fukai Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 

22. Laizhou Xubin Fruits and Vegetables 

23. Linyi City Heding District Jiuli Foodstuff 

Co. 

24. Ningjin Ruifeng Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 

25. Qingdao Apex Shipping Co., Ltd. 

26. Qingdao Lianghe International Trade Co., 

Ltd. 

27. Qingdao Sino-World International 

Trading Co., Ltd. 

28. Qingdao Winner Foods Co., Ltd. 

29. Qingdao Yuankang International 

30. Rizhao Huasai Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 

31. Samyoung America (Shanghai) Inc. 

32. Shandong Chengshun Farm Produce 

Trading Co., Ltd. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80469 

33. Shandong China Bridge Imports 

34. Shandong Dongsheng Eastsun Foods Co., 

Ltd. 

35. Shandong Garlic Company 

36. Shandong Jinxiang Zhengyang Import & 

Export Co., Ltd. 

37. Shandong Sanxing Food Co., Ltd. 

38. Shandong Xingda Foodstuffs Group Co., 

Ltd. 

39. Shandong Yipin Agro (Group) Co., Ltd. 

40. Shanghai Goldenbridge International Co., 

Ltd. 

41. Shanghai Great Harvest International Co., 

Ltd. 

42. T&S International, LLC 

43. Taian Eastsun Foods Co., Ltd. 

44. Taian Solar Summit Food Co., Ltd. 

45. V.T. Impex (Shandong) Limited 

46. Weifang Chenglong Import & Export Co., 

Ltd. 

47. Weifang Naike Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. 

48. WSSF Corporation (Weifang) 

49. Xiamen Huamin Import Export Company 

50. Xiamen Keep Top Imp. and Exp. Co., Ltd. 

51. You Shi Li International Trading Co., Ltd. 

52. Zhangzhou Xiangcheng Rainbow 

Greenland Food Co., Ltd. 

53. Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. 

54. Zhengzhou Yuanli Trading Co., Ltd. 

Attachment II 

Companies Subject to the 

Administrative Review 

1. Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd. 

2. Chengwu County Yuanxiang Industry & 

Commerce Co., Ltd. 

3. Hebei Golden Bird Trading Co., Ltd. 

4. Heze Ever-Best International Trade Co., 

Ltd. (f/k/a Shandong Heze International 

Trade and Developing Company) 

5. Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd. 

6. Jinan Yipin Corporation Ltd. 

7. Jining Yongjia Trade Co., Ltd. 

8. Jinxiang Dongyun Freezing Storage Co., 

Ltd. (a/k/a Jinxiang Eastward Shipping 

Import and Export Limited Company) 

9. Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd. 

10. Jinxiang Shanyang Freezing Storage Co., 

Ltd. 

11. Jinxiang Tianma Freezing Storage Co., 

Ltd. 

12. Linshu Dading Private Agricultural 

Products Co., Ltd. 

13. Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co., 

Ltd. 

14. Qingdao Sea-Line International Trading 

Co., Ltd. 

15. Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd. 

16. Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods Co., Ltd. 

17. Qufu Dongbao Import & Export Trade Co., 

Ltd. 

18. Shandong Chenhe Int’l Trading Co., Ltd. 

19. Shandong Longtai Fruits and Vegetables 

Co., Ltd. 

20. Shandong Wonderland Organic Food Co., 

Ltd. 

21. Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company 

22. Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., 

Ltd. 

23. Shenzhen Fanhui Import & Export Co., 

Ltd. 

24. Shenzhen Greening Trading Co., Ltd. 

25. Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. 

26. Taian Fook Huat Tong Kee Pte. Ltd. 

27. Taiyan Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. 

28. Weifang Hongqiao International Logistic 

Co., Ltd. 

29. Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 

30. XuZhou Simple Garlic Industry Co., Ltd. 

Attachment III 

Companies Under Review Subject to the 

PRC-Wide Rate 

1. Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd. 

2. Chengwu County Yuanxiang Industry & 

Commerce Co., Ltd. 

3. Heze Ever-Best International Trade Co., 

Ltd. (f/k/a Shandong Heze International 

Trade and Developing Company) 

4. Jinxiang Dongyun Freezing Storage Co., 

Ltd. (a/k/a Jinxiang Eastward Shipping 

Import and Export Limited Company) 

5. Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd. 

6. Jinxiang Shanyang Freezing Storage Co., 

Ltd. 

7. Linshu Dading Private Agricultural 

Products Co., Ltd. 

8. Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co., 

Ltd. 

9. Qufu Dongbao Import & Export Trade Co., 

Ltd. 

10. Shandong Wonderland Organic Food Co., 

Ltd. 

11. Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company 

12. Shenzhen Fanhui Import & Export Co., 

Ltd. 

13. Taian Fook Huat Tong Kee Pte. Ltd. 

14. Taiyan Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. 

15. Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 

16. XuZhou Simple Garlic Industry Co., Ltd. 

17. Jinxiang Tianma Freezing Storage Co., 

Ltd. 

18. Shenzhen Greening Trading Co., Ltd. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32166 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA102 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Council to convene public 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council will convene a 

meeting of the Vessel Monitoring 

System (VMS) Advisory Panel. 

DATES: The meeting will convene at 8:30 

a.m. on Thursday, January 13, 2011 and 

conclude by 4 p.m. on Thursday, 

January 13, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Crowne Plaza Hotel 5303 West 

Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33609; 

telephone: (813) 289–1950. 

Council address: Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. 

Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 

33607. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

John Froeschke, Fishery BiologistStatistician; Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council; telephone: (813) 

348–1630 x235. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) 

Advisory Panel will meet to discuss 

operation, design, usage of vessel 

monitoring systems, and resulting data 

from these systems. The Advisory Panel 

will discuss the potential role of VMS 

in enhanced seafood traceability in Gulf 

of Mexico fisheries. This will include 

status and review of existing seafood 

traceability programs and potential 

mechanisms to enhance seafood safety 

in the future. The Advisory Panel will 

also consider technical issues with VMS 

and consider potential solutions to use 

VMS more effectively, increase userfriendliness of VMS units including 

enhanced communication for reporting 

fishing activities. Finally, the Advisory 

Panel will also consider future roles and 

potential applications of VMS software 

in Gulf of Mexico fisheries. The meeting 

will conclude with draft 

recommendations presented to the Gulf 

of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

at its February 7–10, 2011 meeting in 

Gulfport, MS. 

Copies of the agenda and other related 

materials can be obtained by calling 

(813) 348–1630. 

Although other non-emergency issues 

not on the agenda may come before the 

Advisory Panel for discussion, in 

accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, those issues may not be the subject 

of formal action during this meeting. 

Actions of the Advisory Panel will be 

restricted to those issues specifically 

identified in the agenda and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Trish Kennedy at the Council (see 

ADDRESSES) at least 5 working days prior 

to the meeting. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES