81218 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 

1Petitioners are the Laminated Woven Sacks 

Committee and its individual members, Coating 

Excellence International, LLC and Polytex Fibers 

Corporation. 

2The original deadlines for the NME 

questionnaire were October 27, 2010 for the Section 

A response and November 12, 2010 for the Section 

C & D responses. 

3See Letter from Aifudi entitled Laminated 

Woven Sacks from China; Withdrawal from 

Proceeding, dated November 3, 2010. 

thickness, in coils, and annealed or 

otherwise heat treated and pickled or 

otherwise descaled. The subject plate 

may also be further processed (e.g., 

cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that 

it maintains the specified dimensions of 

plate following such processing. 

Excluded from the scope of the order are 

the following: (1) Plate not in coils, (2) 

plate that is not annealed or otherwise 

heat treated and pickled or otherwise 

descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat 

bars. 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at 

subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 

7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05, 

7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.20, 

7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.25, 

7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.50, 

7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.55, 

7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.65, 

7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.70, 

7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.80, 

7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10, 

7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 

7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 

7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 

7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 

7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 

7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 

7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 

7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10, 

7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 

7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

scope of the order remains dispositive. 

Analysis of the Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated concurrently 

with this notice, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. Parties can find 

this public memorandum in the Central 

Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main 

Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that revocation of the CVD 

order will lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. 

The net countervailable subsidy likely 

to prevail if the order were revoked is 

zero percent for AMS and all other 

companies. 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs no later than 50 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(i). Any interested party 

may request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Rebuttal briefs, 

which must be limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, may be filed not later 

than five days after the time limit for 

filing case briefs in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.309(d). A hearing, if requested, 

will be held two days after the date the 

rebuttal briefs are due. The Department 

will issue a notice of final results of this 

sunset review, which will include the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any such comments, no later than 330 

days after the date of publication of the 

notice of initiation (i.e., by April 28, 

2011) in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(f)(3). 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: December 15, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32495 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–916] 

Laminated Woven Sacks From the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of the Second 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is currently 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

laminated woven sacks (‘‘LWS’’) from 

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

covering the period August 1, 2009, 

through July 31, 2010. This review 

covers imports of subject merchandise 

from one manufacturer/exporter: Zibo 

Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Aifudi’’). 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 all appropriate 

entries in accordance with these results. 

We invite interested parties to comment 

on these preliminary review results and 

will issue the final review results no 

later than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 27, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jamie Blair-Walker, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2615. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 7, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on LWS from 

the PRC. See Notice of Antidumping 

Duty Order: Laminated Woven Sacks 

From the People’s Republic of China, 73 

FR 45941 (August 7, 2008). 

On August 26, 2010 and August 31, 

2010, respectively, Aifudi and 

Petitioners 1 submitted a timely request 

for an administrative review. On 

September 29, 2010, in response to 

Aifudi’s and Petitioners’ requests and in 

accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), the 

Department initiated the second 

administrative review of LWS from the 

PRC. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 75 FR 60076, 60081 (September 29, 

2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

On October 6, 2010, the Department 

issued its standard non-market economy 

(‘‘NME’’) questionnaire to Aifudi.2

Aifudi did not submit a response to the 

questionnaire. On November 3, 2010, 

Aifudi submitted a letter to the 

Department notifying the Department of 

its intent to withdraw and its refusal to 

further participate in this instant 

administrative review.3

Period of Review 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is 

August 1, 2009, through July 31, 2010. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 81219 

4 ‘‘Paper suitable for high quality print graphics,’’ 

as used herein, means paper having an ISO 

brightness of 82 or higher and a Sheffield 

Smoothness of 250 or less. Coated free sheet is an 

example of a paper suitable for high quality print 

graphics. 

5See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Intent To Rescind Review in Part, 75 FR 5952, 5959 

(February 5, 2010). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the order 

is laminated woven sacks. Laminated 

woven sacks are bags or sacks consisting 

of one or more plies of fabric consisting 

of woven polypropylene strip and/or 

woven polyethylene strip, regardless of 

the width of the strip; with or without 

an extrusion coating of polypropylene 

and/or polyethylene on one or both 

sides of the fabric; laminated by any 

method either to an exterior ply of 

plastic film such as biaxially-oriented 

polypropylene (‘‘BOPP’’) or to an 

exterior ply of paper that is suitable for 

high quality print graphics; 4 printed 

with three colors or more in register; 

with or without lining; whether or not 

closed on one end; whether or not in 

roll form (including sheets, lay-flat 

tubing, and sleeves); with or without 

handles; with or without special closing 

features; not exceeding one kilogram in 

weight. Laminated woven sacks are 

typically used for retail packaging of 

consumer goods such as pet foods and 

bird seed. 

Effective July 1, 2007, laminated 

woven sacks are classifiable under 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings 

6305.33.0050 and 6305.33.0080. 

Laminated woven sacks were previously 

classifiable under HTSUS subheading 

6305.33.0020. If entered with plastic 

coating on both sides of the fabric 

consisting of woven polypropylene strip 

and/or woven polyethylene strip, 

laminated woven sacks may be 

classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 

3923.21.0080, 3923.21.0095, and 

3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on 

one end or in roll form (including 

sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves), 

laminated woven sacks may be 

classifiable under other HTSUS 

subheadings including 3917.39.0050, 

3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and 

5903.90.2500. If the polypropylene 

strips and/or polyethylene strips making 

up the fabric measure more than 5 

millimeters in width, laminated woven 

sacks may be classifiable under other 

HTSUS subheadings including 

4601.99.0500, 4601.99.9000, and 

4602.90.0000. Although HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as an NME country. 

Pursuant to 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 Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 7013 

(February 10, 2006). None of the parties 

to this proceeding have contested such 

treatment. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty deposit rate (i.e., a PRC-wide rate). 

As Aifudi did not submit any 

information on the record regarding its 

status, we preliminarily determine that 

Aifudi has not demonstrated its 

eligibility for separate-rate status in this 

administrative review. Since Aifudi 

failed to provide information requested 

by the Department that is necessary to 

analyze whether it qualified for a 

separate rate, Aifudi has failed to rebut 

the presumption of PRC government 

control. Therefore, we have 

preliminarily determined that Aifudi 

does not qualify for a separate rate, but 

rather should be treated as part of the 

PRC-wide entity. 

Use of Facts Available and Adverse 

Facts Available (‘‘AFA’’) 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department shall apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if: (1) Necessary 

information is not on the record, or (2) 

an interested party or any other person 

(A) withholds information that has been 

requested, (B) fails to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established, or in the form and manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

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

of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding, or (D) provides information 

that cannot be verified as provided by 

section 782(i) of the Act. 

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 will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits and subject to section 782(e) 

of the Act, the Department may 

disregard all or part of the original and 

subsequent responses, as appropriate. 

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 applicable requirements established 

by the administering authority’’ if the 

information is timely, can be verified, is 

not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 

and if the interested party acted to the 

best of its ability in providing the 

information. Where all of these 

conditions are met, the statute requires 

the Department to use the information 

supplied if it can do so without undue 

difficulties. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Such an adverse 

inference may include reliance on 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

to the PRC-Wide Entity 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that ‘‘If the above 

named company does not qualify for a 

separate rate, all other exporters of 

laminated woven sacks from the PRC 

who have not qualified for a separate 

rate are deemed to be covered by this 

review as part of the single PRC entity 

of which the named exporters are a 

part.’’ See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 

60081. As noted above, Aifudi, for 

which this review was initiated, has not 

qualified for a separate rate. As a result, 

the PRC-wide entity is now under 

review.5

The company that we are treating as 

part of the PRC-wide entity, Aifudi, did 

not respond to the Department’s 

antidumping duty questionnaire. Thus, 

we preliminarily determine that this 

company withheld information 

requested by the Department. 

Furthermore, this company’s refusal to 

participate in the review significantly 

impeded the proceeding and prevented 

the Department from determining its 

dumping margin. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
81220 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 

6See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 

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

From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of the Seventh 

Administrative Review; Final Results of the 

Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 

(November 18, 2005) and the Statement of 

Administrative Action, accompanying the Uruguay 

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

(1994) (‘‘SAA’’) at 870. 

7See Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 15930, 15934 (April 

8, 2009), unchanged in Glycine From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 41121 (August 

14, 2009); see also Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd., 

a.k.a. Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc., et al. v. United 

States, 638 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (Ct. Int’l Trade 

2009) (‘‘Commerce may, of course, begin its total 

AFA selection process by defaulting to the highest 

rate in any segment of the proceeding, but that 

selection must then be corroborated, to the extent 

practicable.’’). 

8See e.g., NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 

2d 1312, 1335 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004) (affirming a 

73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available 

dumping margin from a different respondent in the 

investigation); Kompass Food Trading International 

v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 683–84 (2000) 

(affirming 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 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005) 

(affirming a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the 

highest available dumping margin from a different 

respondent in a previous administrative review). 

9See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 

35646 (June 24, 2008) (‘‘LTFV Final 

Determination’’). 

Thus, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) 

and (C) of the Act (withholds requested 

information and significantly impedes a 

proceeding), the Department has 

preliminarily based the dumping margin 

of the PRC-wide entity on the facts 

otherwise available on the record. 

Furthermore, the company’s refusal to 

provide the requested information 

constitutes circumstances under which 

it is reasonable to conclude that less 

than full cooperation has been shown. 

See Nippon Steel Corporation v. United 

States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 

2003) where the Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’) 

provided an explanation of the ‘‘failure 

to act to the best of its ability’’ standard, 

noting that the Department need not 

show intentional conduct existed on the 

part of the respondent, but merely that 

a ‘‘failure to cooperate to the best of a 

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

information was not provided ‘‘under 

circumstances in which it is reasonable 

to conclude that less than full 

cooperation has been shown’’). Hence, 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 

the Department has determined that, 

when selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is warranted with respect to 

the PRC-wide entity. 

AFA Rate for the PRC-Wide Entity 

In deciding which facts to use as 

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

CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the 

Department may 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. The Department’s practice is to 

select an AFA rate that is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of 

the facts available rule to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner’’ and that ensures 

‘‘that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ 6

Specifically, the Department’s practice 

in reviews, in selecting a rate as total 

AFA, is to use the highest rate on the 

record of the proceeding which, to the 

extent practicable, can be corroborated 

(if the rate is based on secondary 

information).7 The Court of 

International Trade and the Federal 

Circuit have affirmed decisions to select 

the highest margin from any prior 

segment of the proceeding as the AFA 

rate on numerous occasions.8 Therefore, 

as AFA, the Department has 

preliminarily assigned the PRC-wide 

entity a dumping margin of 91.73 

percent. This margin, which is the PRCwide rate from the final determination 

of the investigation of LWS from the 

PRC, is the highest dumping margin on 

the record of any segment of this 

proceeding.9

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. As 

described in the SAA, it is the 

Department’s practice to use secondary 

information from the petition, the final 

determination, or any previous review 

under section 751 of the Act concerning 

the subject merchandise. See SAA at 

870. The Department will satisfy itself 

that the secondary information has 

probative value and, to the extent 

practicable, will examine the reliability 

and relevance of the information to be 

used. 

The AFA rate being assigned to the 

PRC-wide entity (91.73 percent) is the 

highest rate assigned in any segment of 

this proceeding. See LTFV Final 

Determination, 73 FR at 35648. 

Furthermore, no information has been 

presented in the current review that 

calls into question the reliability of this 

information. We note that this is the 

highest rate from any segment of the 

proceeding and the rate is less than four 

years old. Thus, the Department finds 

that the information continues to be 

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. 

For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers From 

Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 

6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996), the 

Department disregarded the highest 

margin in that case as adverse best 

information available (the predecessor 

to ‘‘facts available’’) because the margin 

was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense 

resulting in an unusually high margin. 

Similarly, the Department does not 

apply a margin that has been judicially 

invalidated. 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). 

Pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act, 

the Department corroborated the 

petition rate of 91.73 percent in the 

investigation by comparing the petition 

margin to the individual CONNUM 

margins calculated for Aifudi in the 

investigation. See Memorandum to the 

File from Jamie Blair-Walker regarding 

Corroboration of the Petition Rate, dated 

December 6, 2010 (placing on the record 

of this administrative review the 

Memorandum to the File from Javier 

Barrientos, through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9: Laminated Woven Sacks from 

the People’s Republic of China: Analysis 

of Zibo Aifudi Plastic packaging Co., 

Ltd., for the Final Determination, dated 

June 16, 2008). We found that since the 

petition margin of 91.73 percent was 

within the range of Aifudi’s calculated 

CONNUM margins, the margin of 91.73 

percent has probative value. As no 

company cooperated in this segment of 

the proceeding, we have no new 

calculated margins with which to 

further evaluate the 91.73 percent 

margin applied to the PRC-wide entity 

in the investigation. Accordingly, in 

light of the corroboration of this margin 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 81221 

10Because the mandatory respondent, Zibo 

Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd., did not qualify 

for a separate rate, we have treated this company 

as part of the PRC-wide entity. 

in the investigation, we find that the 

rate of 91.73 percent is corroborated to 

the extent practicable within the 

meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

Moreover, as there is no information on 

the record of this review that 

demonstrates that this rate is not 

appropriate for use as AFA, we 

determine that this rate has relevance. 

As the 91.73 percent rate is both 

reliable and relevant, we determine that 

it has probative value. Accordingly, we 

determine that the calculated rate of 

91.73 percent, which is the current PRCwide rate, is in accordance with the 

requirement of section 776(c) of the Act 

that secondary information be 

corroborated (i.e., that it have probative 

value). Consequently, we have assigned 

this AFA rate to exports of the subject 

merchandise from the PRC-wide entity. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following margin exists during the 

period August 1, 2009, through July 31, 

2010: 

LAMINATED WOVEN SACKS FROM THE

PRC 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted-average 

margin 

(percent) 

PRC-Wide Entity 10 ... 91.73 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose to 

parties of this proceeding the 

information utilized in reaching the 

preliminary results within ten days of 

the date of announcement of the 

preliminary results. An interested party 

may request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of the preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested 

parties may submit written comments 

(case briefs) within 30 days of 

publication of the preliminary results 

and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), 

which must be limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, within five days after 

the time limit for filing case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and (d). Parties 

who submit arguments are requested to 

submit with the argument: (1) A 

statement of the issue; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities. Further, the 

Department requests that parties 

submitting written comments provide 

the Department with a diskette 

containing the public version of those 

comments. Unless the deadline is 

extended pursuant to section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department 

will issue the final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of our analysis of the issues 

raised by the parties in their comments, 

within 120 days of publication of the 

preliminary results. The assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by this review and 

future deposits of estimated duties shall 

be based on the final results of this 

review. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of review, 

the Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer-specific (or customer) ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of the 

dumping margins calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those same sales. We will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review if any importer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date, as provided 

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

For previously investigated or reviewed 

PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed 

above that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (2) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 91.73 percent; 

and (3) the cash deposit rate for all nonPRC exporters of subject merchandise 

which have not received their own rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporters that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice 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 this 

determination in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: December 20, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32475 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–822 ] 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From Mexico; Preliminary Results of 

the Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 2, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated the second 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on stainless steel sheet and strip 

(‘‘SSSS’’) in coils from Mexico, pursuant 

to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

On the basis of the notice of intent to 

participate, and adequate substantive 

responses filed on behalf of the 

domestic and respondent interested 

parties, the Department is conducting a 

full sunset review of the antidumping 

duty order on SSSS in coils from 

Mexico, pursuant to section 751(e)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(i). 

As a result of this sunset review, the 

Department preliminarily finds that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order with respect to SSSS in coils from 

Mexico would likely lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the levels listed below in the section 

entitled ‘‘Preliminary Results of 

Review.’’ 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES