Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 11847 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina 

O’Hern at the Council (see ADDRESSES) 

at least 5 working days prior to the 

meeting. 

Dated: March 9, 2010. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5447 Filed 3–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–954] 

Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

DATES: Effective Date: March 12, 2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) preliminarily determines 

that certain magnesia carbon bricks 

(‘‘bricks’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in 

section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘Act’’), for the period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’) January 1, 2008, 

through June 30, 2009. The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Preliminary Determination’’ section 

of this notice. Interested parties are 

invited to comment on this preliminary 

determination. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Walker or Dana Griffies, 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) 482–0413 or (202) 482– 

3032, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Initiation 

On July 29, 2009, the Department 

received a petition concerning imports 

of bricks from the PRC filed by Resco 

Products, Inc. (‘‘Petitioner’’). See 

‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties: Certain Magnesia 

Carbon Bricks from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ dated July 29, 2009. 

The Department initiated this 

investigation on August 25, 2009. See 

Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from 

the People’s Republic of China and 

Mexico: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 74 FR 42852 (August 25, 

2009) (‘‘Initiation’’). 

On September 22, 2009, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’) issued its affirmative 

preliminary determination that there is 

a reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured by reason of imports from the 

PRC of bricks. See Certain Magnesia 

Carbon Bricks from China and Mexico: 

Investigation Nos. 701–TA–468 and 

731–TA–1166–1167 (Preliminary), 

USITC Publication 4100 (September 

2009). 

Respondent Selection 

In the Initiation, the Department 

stated that it intended to select 

respondents based on quantity and 

value (‘‘Q&V’’) questionnaires. See 

Initiation, 74 FR at 42856. On August 

19, 2009, the Department requested 

Q&V information from 35 companies 

that the Petitioner identified as potential 

exporters, or producers, of bricks from 

the PRC. See Memo to the File, dated 

September 10, 2009. Additionally, the 

Department also posted the Q&V 

questionnaire for this investigation on 

its Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/iahighlights-and-news.html. 

The Department received timely Q&V 

responses from sixteen exporters/ 

producers that shipped merchandise 

under investigation to the United States 

during the POI. 

On October 6, 2009, the Department 

selected Dalian Mayerton Refractories 

Co., Ltd. and Liaoning Mayerton 

Refractories Co., Ltd. (collectively, 

‘‘Mayerton’’) and RHI Refractories 

Liaoning Co., Ltd. (‘‘RHI’’) as mandatory 

respondents in this investigation, based 

on their volume of U.S. entries of bricks 

during the POI. See Memorandum to 

James Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, 

from Paul Walker, Analyst, through Scot 

T. Fullerton, Program Manager, 

regarding the ‘‘Investigation of Magnesia 

Carbon Bricks from the People’s 

Republic of China: Respondent 

Selection,’’ dated October 6, 2009 

(‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). The 

Department sent its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Mayerton and RHI on 

October 6, 2009. Between October 27, 

2009, and February 26, 2010, Mayerton 

and RHI responded to the Department’s 

original and supplemental 

questionnaires. 

Separate Rate Applications 

Between October 12, 2009, and 

October 27, 2009, in addition to those 

filed by Mayerton and RHI, we received 

timely filed separate-rate applications 

(‘‘SRA’’) from twelve companies: 

Dashiqiao City Guancheng Refractor Co., 

Ltd.; Fengchi Imp. And Exp. Co., Ltd. Of 

Haicheng City; Jiangsu Sujia Group New 

Materials Co. Ltd.; Liaoning Fucheng 

Refractories Group Co., Ltd.; Liaoning 

Fucheng Special Refractory Co., Ltd.; 

Liaoning Jiayi Metals & Minerals Co., 

Ltd.; Yingkou Bayuquan Refractories 

Co., Ltd.; Yingkou Dalmond Refractories 

Co., Ltd.; Yingkou Guangyang Co., Ltd.; 

Yingkou Kyushu Refractories Co, Ltd.; 

Yingkou New Century Refractories Ltd.; 

and Yingkou Wonjin Refractory Material 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Separate Rate Respondents’’). 

One company, RHI Refractories (Dalian) 

Co., Ltd., submitted a separate rate 

application, however, a careful review 

of that application indicates that it did 

not sell the merchandise under 

consideration. Therefore, we have not 

considered the separate rate application 

of RHI Refractories (Dalian) Co., Ltd. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value 

Comments 

On November 13, 2009, the 

Department determined that India, the 

Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, 

Thailand, and Peru are countries 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development. See August 19, 

2009, Letter to All Interested Parties, 

regarding ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Magnesia Carbon Bricks 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

attaching October 28, 2009, 

Memorandum to Scot T. Fullerton, 

Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD 

Operations, from Kelly Parkhill, Acting 

Director, Office for Policy, regarding 

‘‘Request for List of Surrogate Countries 

for an Antidumping Duty Investigation 

of Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (‘‘Surrogate 

Country List’’). 

On December 24, 2009, Petitioner and 

RHI submitted surrogate country 

comments. No other interested parties 

commented on the selection of a 

surrogate country. For a detailed 

discussion of the selection of the 

surrogate country, see ‘‘Surrogate 

Country’’ section below. 

On December 3, 2009, and December 

10, 2009, the Department extended until 

January 7, 2010, the deadline for 

interested parties to submit surrogate 

value information. Rebuttal comments 

were due no later than January 12, 2010. 

Consequently, between Januay 8, 2010, 

and February 26, 2010, interested 

parties submitted surrogate value 

comments and multiple rounds of 

surrogate value rebuttal comments. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
11848 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination 

Pursuant to section 733(c) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1), the 

Department extended the preliminary 

determination by 50 days. The 

Department published a postponement 

of the preliminary determination on 

December 17, 2009. See Certain 

Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the 

People’s Republic of China and Mexico: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 74 FR 66954 (December 

17, 2009). As explained in the 

memorandum from the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, the Department has 

exercised its discretion to toll deadlines 

for the duration of the closure of the 

Federal Government from February 5, 

through February 12, 2010. Thus, all 

deadlines in this segment of the 

proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for the 

preliminary determination of this 

investigation is now March 3, 2010. See 

Memorandum to the Record regarding 

‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As 

a Result of the Government Closure 

During the Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated 

February 12, 2010. 

Postponement of Final Determination 

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that a final determination may be 

postponed until not later than 135 days 

after the date of the publication of the 

preliminary determination if, in the 

event of an affirmative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by exporters, 

who account for a significant proportion 

of exports of the subject merchandise, or 

in the event of a negative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by the petitioner. 

The Department’s regulations, at 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2), require that requests by 

respondents for postponement of a final 

determination be accompanied by a 

request for extension of provisional 

measures from a four-month period to 

not more than six months. On February 

17, 2010, and on March 3, 2010, RHI 

and Mayeton, respectively, requested 

that in the event of an affirmative 

preliminary determination in this 

investigation, the Department postpone 

its final determination by 60 days. At 

the same time, RHI requested that the 

Department extend the application of 

the provisional measures prescribed 

under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month 

period to a six-month period. In 

accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2), because 

(1) our preliminary determination is 

affirmative, (2) the requesting exporters 

account for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise, and 

(3) no compelling reasons for denial 

exist, we are granting this request and 

are postponing the final determination 

until no later than 135 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Suspension of liquidation will 

be extended accordingly. 

Period of Investigation 

The POI is January 1, 2009, through 

June 30, 2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of Investigation 

Imports covered by this investigation 

consist of certain chemically bonded 

(resin or pitch), magnesia carbon bricks 

with a magnesia component of at least 

70 percent magnesia (‘‘MgO’’) by weight, 

regardless of the source of raw materials 

for the MgO, with carbon levels ranging 

from trace amounts to 30 percent by 

weight, regardless of enhancements, (for 

example, magnesia carbon bricks can be 

enhanced with coating, grinding, tar 

impregnation or coking, high 

temperature heat treatments, anti-slip 

treatments or metal casing) and 

regardless of whether or not antioxidants are present (for example, antioxidants can be added to the mix from 

trace amounts to 15 percent by weight 

as various metals, metal alloys, and 

metal carbides). Certain magnesia 

carbon bricks that are the subject of this 

investigation are currently classifiable 

under subheadings 6902.10.1000, 

6902.10.5000, 6815.91.0000, and 

6815.99 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). While HTSUS subheadings 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes, the written 

description is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

our regulations, we set aside a period of 

time for parties to raise issues regarding 

product coverage and encouraged all 

parties to submit comments within 20 

calendar days of publication of the 

Initiation. See Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997); see also 

Initiation, 74 FR at 42853. 

On September 8, 2009, Pilkington 

North America Inc. (‘‘PNA’’), a U.S. 

importer of bricks from the PRC and 

Mexico, filed comments concerning the 

scope of this investigation and the 

concurrent antidumping duty 

investigation of bricks from Mexico and 

the countervailing duty investigation of 

bricks from the PRC. In its submission, 

PNA requested that the Department 

amend the scope of these investigations 

to exclude ceramic bonded magnesia 

bricks with or without trace amounts of 

carbon or clarify that this product is 

outside the scope of these 

investigations. According to PNA, the 

ceramic bonded magnesia bricks it 

imports are clearly not within the 

intended scope of these investigations. 

The petitioner did not comment on 

PNA’s submission. On February 24, 

2010, the Department issued a 

memorandum confirming that ceramic 

bonded magnesia bricks are not 

included in the scope of the 

investigations. See Memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Certain Magnesia Carbon 

Bricks from the People’s Republic of 

China and Mexico: Scope Comments,’’ 

dated February 24, 2010. 

Non-Market Economy Country 

For purposes of initiation, Petitioner 

submitted LTFV analyses for the PRC as 

a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’). See 

Initiation, 74 FR at 42855. The 

Department considers the PRC to be a 

NME country. See, e.g., Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper 

from the People’s Republic of China, 72 

FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007), 

unchanged in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated 

Free Sheet Paper from the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 

(October 25, 2007) (‘‘CFS Paper’’). 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. No party has 

challenged the designation of the PRC as 

an NME country in this investigation. 

Therefore, we continue to treat the PRC 

as an NME country for purposes of this 

preliminary determination and 

calculated normal value in accordance 

with Section 773(c) of the Act, which 

applies to all NME countries. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

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

of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 

circumstances, on the NME producer’s 

factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) 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 FOP, the Department shall utilize, to 

the extent possible, the prices or costs 

of FOP in one or more market-economy 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country and are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 11849 

1See, e.g., Mayerton’s October 27, 2009, Separate 

Rate Application at 4. 

2See, e.g., RHI’s October 27, 2009, Separate Rate 

Application at 8. 

3The Policy Bulletin states: ‘‘{w}hile continuing 

the practice of assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the Department 

will now assign in its NME investigations will be 

specific to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 

however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter 

and all of the producers which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period of investigation. 

This practice applies both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an individually calculated 

separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated 

firms receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘‘combination rates’’ 

because such rates apply to specific combinations 

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

to merchandise both exported by the firm in 

question and produced by a firm that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation.’’ See 

Policy Bulletin at 6. 

As noted above, the Department 

determined that India, the Philippines, 

Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand, and 

Peru are countries comparable to the 

PRC in terms of economic development. 

See Surrogate Country List. The sources 

of the surrogate values we have used in 

this investigation are discussed under 

the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section below. 

Based on publicly available 

information placed on the record, the 

Department determines India to be a 

reliable source for surrogate values 

because India is at a comparable level of 

economic development, pursuant to 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a 

significant producer of subject 

merchandise, and has publicly available 

and reliable data. Moreover, we note 

that Petitioner and RHI both argued in 

their surrogate country comments that 

India should be selected as the surrogate 

country. Accordingly, the Department 

has selected India as the surrogate 

country for purposes of valuing the 

factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’) because it 

meets the Department’s criteria for 

surrogate country selection. 

Affiliations 

Section 771(33) of the Act, provides 

that: The following persons shall be 

considered to be ‘affiliated’ or ‘affiliated 

persons’: 

(A) Members of a family, including 

brothers and sisters (whether by the 

whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, 

and lineal descendants. 

(B) Any officer or director of an 

organization and such organization. 

(C) Partners. 

(D) Employer and employee. 

(E) Any person directly or indirectly 

owning, controlling, or holding with 

power to vote, five percent or more of 

the outstanding voting stock or shares of 

any organization and such organization. 

(F) Two or more persons directly or 

indirectly controlling, controlled by, or 

under common control with, any 

person. 

(G) Any person who controls any 

other person and such other person. 

Additionally, section 771(33) of the 

Act stipulates that: ‘‘For purposes of this 

paragraph, a person shall be considered 

to control another person if the person 

is legally or operationally in a position 

to exercise restraint or direction over the 

other person.’’ 

Based on Mayerton’s statements 1 that 

it is affiliated with its U.S. sales office, 

Mayerton Refractories USA LLC 

(‘‘MRU’’), and based on the evidence 

presented in their questionnaire 

responses, we preliminarily find that 

Mayerton is affiliated with MRU, which 

was involved in Mayerton’s sales 

process, pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), 

(F) and (G) of the Act. 

Based on RHI’s statements 2 that they 

are affiliated with its U.S. sales office, 

Veitsch Radex America Inc., and based 

on the evidence presented in their 

questionnaire responses, we 

preliminarily find that RHI is affiliated 

with Veitsch Radex America Inc., which 

was involved in RHI’s sales process, 

pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), (F) and 

(G) of the Act. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, there is a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and thus should be assessed a 

single antidumping duty rate. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 

55040 (September 24, 2008) (‘‘PET 

Film’’). It is the Department’s policy to 

assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to investigation in an NME 

country this single rate unless an 

exporter can demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently independent so as to be 

entitled to a separate rate. See Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 

1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’); see also 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’’), 

and section 351.107(d) of the 

Department’s regulations. However, if 

the Department determines that a 

company is wholly foreign-owned or 

located in a market economy, then a 

separate rate analysis is not necessary to 

determine whether it is independent 

from government control. In this 

investigation, one company, Mayerton, 

provided evidence that it was wholly 

owned by individuals or companies 

located in market economies in their 

separate rate application. Therefore, 

because Mayerton is wholly foreignowned and the Department has no 

evidence indicating that it is under the 

control of the government of the PRC, a 

separate rates analysis is not necessary 

to determine whether Mayerton is 

independent from government control. 

See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven 

Selvedge from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

75 FR 7244 (February 18, 2010) 

(determining that the respondent was 

wholly foreign-owned and, thus, 

qualified for a separate rate). 

Accordingly, the Department has 

preliminarily granted a separate rate to 

Mayeron. 

In the Initiation, the Department 

notified parties of the application 

process by which exporters and 

producers may obtain separate rate 

status in NME investigations. See 

Initiation, 74 FR at 42857. The process 

requires exporters and producers to 

submit a separate-rate status 

application. The Department’s practice 

is discussed further in Policy Bulletin 

05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 

Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving 

Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 

5, 2005), (‘‘Policy Bulletin’’), available at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05– 

1.pdf.3

We have considered whether each 

PRC company that submitted a complete 

application or complete Section A 

Response as a mandatory respondent, is 

eligible for a separate rate. Although the 

Petitioner argues that RHI should not be 

eligible for a separate rate because of 

government pricing guidlines, we note 

that the Department’s separate rate test 

is not concerned, in general, with 

macroeconomic/border-type controls, 

e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices, particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. See Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of the 

2007–2008 Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 8301 

(February 24, 2010) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. 

To establish whether a firm is 

sufficiently independent from 

government control of its export 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
11850 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 

activities to be entitled to a separate 

rate, the Department analyzes each 

entity exporting the merchandise under 

investigation under a test arising from 

Sparklers, as further developed in 

Silicon Carbide. In accordance with the 

separate rate criteria, the Department 

assigns separate rates in NME cases only 

if respondents can demonstrate the 

absence of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over export 

activities. 

1. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

The evidence provided by RHI and 

the Separate Rate Respondents supports 

a preliminary finding of de jure absence 

of governmental control based on the 

following: 1) an absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; 2) the applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies; and 3) other 

formal measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies, 

i.e., each company’s SRA submission, 

dated October 12, 2009, through October 

27, 2009, where each separate-rate 

respondent stated that it had no 

relationship with any level of the PRC 

government with respect to ownership, 

internal management, and business 

operations. 

2. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a governmental agency; (2) whether 

the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

governmental control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. 

We determine that, for RHI and the 

Separate Rate Respondents, the 

evidence on the record supports a 

preliminary finding of de facto absence 

of governmental control based on record 

statements and supporting 

documentation showing the following: 

(1) Each exporter sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; (2) each exporter 

retains the proceeds from its sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) each exporter has the 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; and (4) each 

exporter has autonomy from the 

government regarding the selection of 

management. See, e.g., RHI’s October 

27, 2009, Separate Rate Application at 

13–20. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by RHI and the 

Separate Rate Respondents, 

demonstrates an absence of de jure and 

de facto government control with 

respect to each of the exporter’s exports 

of the merchandise under investigation, 

in accordance with the criteria 

identified in Sparklers and Silicon 

Carbide. As a result, we have granted 

the Separate Rate Respondents a margin 

based on the experience of the 

mandatory respondents and excluding 

any de minimis or zero rates or rates 

based on total adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’) for the purposes of this 

preliminary determination. 

Application of Adverse Facts Available, 

the PRC-Wide Entity and PRC-Wide 

Rate 

The Department has data that indicate 

there were more exporters of bricks from 

the PRC than those indicated in the 

response to our request for Q&V 

information during the POI. See 

Respondent Selection Memorandum. 

We issued our request for Q&V 

information to 35 potential Chinese 

exporters of the merchandise under 

investigation, in addition to posting the 

Q&V questionnaire on the Department’s 

Web site. While information on the 

record of this investigation indicates 

that there are other exporters/producers 

of bricks in the PRC, we received only 

sixteen timely filed Q&V responses. 

Although all exporters were given an 

opportunity to provide Q&V 

information, not all exporters provided 

a response to the Department’s Q&V 

letter. Therefore, the Department has 

preliminarily determined that there 

were exporters/producers of the 

merchandise under investigation during 

the POI from the PRC that did not 

respond to the Department’s request for 

information. We have treated these PRC 

exporters/producers, as part of the PRCwide entity because they did not qualify 

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

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Preliminary Partial 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof From the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 77121, 77128 

(December 29, 2005), unchanged in 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Final Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 

22, 2006). 

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

that, if an interested party (A) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department, (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested, subject to subsections 

782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute, or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to subsection 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Information on the record of this 

investigation indicates that the PRCwide entity was non-responsive. Certain 

companies did not respond to our 

questionnaire requesting Q&V 

information or the Department’s request 

for more information. As a result, 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act, we find that the use of facts 

available (‘‘FA’’) is appropriate to 

determine the PRC-wide rate. See Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986, 4991 (January 

31, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final 

Antidumping Duty Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

37116, 37120 (June 23, 2003). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 11851 

4See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 6479, 6481 

(February 4, 2008), quoting SAA at 870. 

5See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

6See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

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

(‘‘PSF’’), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

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

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Statement of Administrative Action, 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’), H.R. Rep. 

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

also Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality 

Steel Products from the Russian 

Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 

4, 2000). We find that, because the PRCwide entity did not respond to our 

requests for information, it has failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that, in selecting from among the 

facts available, an adverse inference is 

appropriate. 

When employing an adverse 

inference, section 776(b) of the Act 

indicates that the Department may rely 

upon information derived from the 

petition, the final determination from 

the LTFV investigation, a previous 

administrative review, or any other 

information placed on the record. In 

selecting a rate for adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’), the Department 

selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse 

to ensure that the uncooperative party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

fully cooperated. It is the Department’s 

practice to select, as AFA, the higher of 

the (a) highest margin alleged in the 

petition, or (b) the highest calculated 

rate of any respondent in the 

investigation. See Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality 

Steel Products from the People’s 

Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 

31, 2000) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

As AFA, we have preliminarily assigned 

to the PRC-wide entity a rate of 349.00 

percent, a rate calculated in the petition 

which is higher than the highest rate 

calculated for either of the cooperative 

respondents. See Initiation. The 

Department preliminarily determines 

that this information is the most 

appropriate from the available sources 

to effectuate the purposes of AFA. 

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 as facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is described as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning merchandise subject to this 

investigation, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

merchandise subject to this 

investigation.’’ 4 To ‘‘corroborate’’ means 

simply that the Department will satisfy 

itself that the secondary information to 

be used has probative value. 

Independent sources used to corroborate 

may include, for example, published 

price lists, official import statistics and 

customs data, and information obtained 

from interested parties during the 

particular investigation. To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used.5

The AFA rate that the Department 

used is from the Petition. Petitioner’s 

methodology for calculating the United 

States price and NV in the Petition is 

discussed in the Initiation. To 

corroborate the AFA margin that we 

have selected, we compared this margin 

to the margins we found for the 

respondents. We found that the margin 

of 349.00 percent has probative value 

because it is in the range of the modelspecific margins that we found for the 

mandatory respondent, RHI. See 

Memorandum to the File, through Scot 

T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, 

from Paul Walker, Senior Analyst, 

‘‘Investigation of Magnesia Carbon 

Bricks from the People’s Republic of 

China: RHI Refractories Liaoning Co., 

Ltd.,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice (‘‘RHI Analysis Memo’’). 

Accordingly, we find that the rate of 

349.00 percent is corroborated within 

the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

Margin for the Separate Rate 

Companies 

The Department received timely and 

complete separate rate applications from 

the Separate Rate Respondents, who are 

exporters/producers of bricks from the 

PRC, and were not selected as a 

mandatory respondent in this 

investigation. Through the evidence in 

their applications, these companies 

have demonstrated their eligibility for a 

separate rate. See the ‘‘Separate Rates’’ 

section above. Consistent with the 

Department’s practice, as the separate 

rate, we have established a margin for 

the Separate Rate Respondents based on 

the rates we calculated for the 

mandatory respondents, excluding any 

rates that are zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on AFA.6 The companies 

receiving this rate are listed in the 

‘‘Preliminary Determination’’ section of 

this notice. 

Date of Sale 

Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s 

regulations state that, ‘‘{i}n identifying 

the date of sale of the merchandise 

under consideration or foreign like 

product, the Secretary normally will use 

the date of invoice, as recorded in the 

exporter or producer’s records kept in 

the normal course of business.’’ In Allied 

Tube, the Court of International Trade 

(‘‘CIT’’) noted that a party seeking to 

establish a date of sale other than 

invoice date bears the burden of 

producing sufficient evidence to 

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

different date better reflects the date on 

which the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of sale.’’ 

See Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1087, 

1090 (CIT 2001) (quoting 19 CFR 

351.401(i)) (‘‘Allied Tube’’). 

Additionally, the Secretary may use a 

date other than the date of invoice if the 

Secretary is satisfied that a different 

date better reflects the date on which 

the exporter or producer establishes the 

material terms of sale. See 19 CFR 

351.401(i); see also Allied Tube, 132 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1090–1092. The date of sale 

is generally the date on which the 

parties agree upon all substantive terms 

of the sale. This normally includes the 

price, quantity, delivery terms and 

payment terms. See Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and 

Tobago: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

62824 (November 7, 2007) and 

accompanying Issue and Decision 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
11852 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 

Memorandum at Comment 1; Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 

Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel 

Products from Turkey, 65 FR 15123 

(March 21, 2000) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 2. 

Date of Sale; Comment 1. 

Mayerton reported that the date of 

sale was determined by the invoice 

issued by the affiliated importer to the 

unaffiliated United States customer. In 

this case, as the Department found no 

evidence contrary to Mayerton’s claims 

that invoice date was the appropriate 

date of sale, the Department used 

invoice date as the date of sale for this 

preliminary determination. See, e.g., 

Mayerton’s October 27, 2010 

submission. 

RHI reported that the date of sale was 

determined by the invoice issued to the 

unaffiliated United States customer. In 

this case, as the Department found no 

evidence contrary to RHI’s claims that 

invoice date was the appropriate date of 

sale, the Department used invoice date 

as the date of sale for this preliminary 

determination. See, e.g., RHI’s February 

5, 2010 submission at 10. 

Fair Value Comparison 

To determine whether sales of bricks 

to the United States by Mayerton and 

RHI were made at LTFV, we compared 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to NV, 

as described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

In addition to selling bricks to 

unaffiliated customers, RHI claimed that 

it consumes some subject merchandise 

in the U.S. market under ‘‘Full Line 

Service Contracts.’’ Under these 

contracts, RHI or its affiliates ship bricks 

as part of broader service agreements 

with their customers. RHI did not 

include bricks shipped in conjunction 

with these service contracts in its sales 

listings. RHI claimed that the bricks 

quantity shipped in these instances 

constitute a relatively small percentage 

of the total bricks shipped to U.S. 

customers during the POI. RHI also 

claimed that, in fulfilling these 

contracts, it does not generate invoices 

specifying a quantity or price for the 

bricks shipped, and thus does not 

record sales of bricks in its accounting 

system. Rather, customers pay RHI or its 

affiliates based on other terms specified 

in the contracts. 

Our analysis of the information RHI 

provided, including examples of Full 

Line Service Contracts, supports RHI’s 

representations regarding the difficulty 

of assigning values to bricks shipped in 

the fulfillment of these contracts. Based 

on this analysis and RHI’s claim that the 

shipment of bricks under these contracts 

constitutes a relatively small percentage 

of the total bricks shipped to U.S. 

customers during the POI, we have 

preliminarily excluded bricks shipped 

under these circumstances in the U.S. 

market from our margin analysis. We 

will examine these transactions further 

after this preliminary determination and 

at verification. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we based the U.S. price for 

Mayerton’s and RHI’s sales on CEP 

because these sales were made by their 

respective affiliates who purchased the 

merchandise under investigation 

produced by Mayerton and RHI. In 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act, we calculated CEP by 

deducting, where applicable, the 

following expenses from the gross unit 

price charged to the first unaffiliated 

customer in the United States: foreign 

movement expenses, and U.S. 

movement expenses, including U.S. 

duties, brokerage and handling, and 

warehousing costs. Further, in 

accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), where 

appropriate, we deducted from the 

starting price the following selling 

expenses associated with economic 

activities occurring in the United States: 

credit expenses and other indirect 

selling expenses. In addition, pursuant 

to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made 

an adjustment to the starting price for 

CEP profit. We based movement 

expenses on either surrogate values or 

actual expenses. For details regarding 

our CEP calculations, and for a complete 

discussion of the calculation of the U.S. 

price for Mayerton and RHI, see 

Memorandum to the File, through Scot 

T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, 

from Paul Walker, Senior Analyst, 

‘‘Investigation of Magnesia Carbon 

Bricks from the People’s Republic of 

China: Dalian Mayerton Refractories 

Co., Ltd. and Liaoning Mayerton 

Refractories Co., Ltd. (collectively, 

‘‘Mayerton’’),’’ dated concurrently with 

this notice (‘‘Mayerton Analysis 

Memo’’); see also RHI Analysis Memo. 

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine NV 

using a FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

and the information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of non-market economies renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under the 

Department’s normal methodologies. 

See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In 

Part, and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 19695, 19703 (April 17, 

2006) (‘‘CLPP’’) unchanged in Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, and Affirmative 

Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain 

Lined Paper Products From the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 

(September 8, 2006). 

Factor Valuation Methodology 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP 

data reported by Mayerton and RHI. To 

calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor-consumption 

rates by publicly available surrogate 

values. In selecting the surrogate values, 

we considered the quality, specificity, 

and contemporaneity of the data. See, 

e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

67 FR 72139 (December 4, 2002) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final 

Results of First New Shipper Review and 

First Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China, 66 

FR 31204 (June 11, 2001) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

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

(Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed 

description of all surrogate values used 

for Mayerton and RHI, see 

Memorandum to the File through Scot 

Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, 

from Paul Walker, Senior Case Analyst, 

‘‘Investigation of Magnesia Carbon 

Bricks from the People’s Republic of 

China: Surrogate Factor Valuations for 

the Preliminary Results,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice 

(‘‘Surrogate Values Memo’’). 

For this preliminary determination, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we used data from Indian 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 11853 

Import Statistics and other publicly 

available Indian sources in order to 

calculate surrogate values for Mayerton 

and RHI’s raw materials, packing, byproducts, and energy. In selecting the 

best available information for valuing 

FOPs, in accordance with section 

773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department’s 

practice is to select, to the extent 

practicable, surrogate values which are 

non-export average values, most 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, 

e.g., Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances 

and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004). The record 

shows that data in the Indian Import 

Statistics, as well as those from the 

other Indian sources, are 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See 

Surrogate Values Memo. In those 

instances where we could not obtain 

publicly available information 

contemporaneous to the POI with which 

to value factors, we adjusted the 

surrogate values using, where 

appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price 

Index (‘‘WPI’’) as published in the 

International Financial Statistics of the 

International Monetary Fund. See, e.g., 

PSF, 71 FR at 77380 and CLPP, 71 FR 

at 19704. 

Furthermore, with regard to the 

Indian import-based surrogate values, 

we have disregarded import prices that 

we have reason to believe or suspect 

may be subsidized. We have reason to 

believe or suspect that prices of inputs 

from Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand may have been subsidized. We 

have found in other proceedings that 

these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry-specific export 

subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable 

to infer that all exports to all markets 

from these countries may be subsidized. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Negative Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

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

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 7. Further, 

guided by the legislative history, it is 

the Department’s practice not to 

conduct a formal investigation to ensure 

that such prices are not subsidized. See 

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness 

Act of 1988, Conference Report to 

accompany H.R. Rep. 100–576 at 590 

(1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 

1547, 1623–24; see also CFS Paper. 

Rather, the Department bases its 

decision on information that is available 

to it at the time it makes its 

determination. See Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 

24559 (May 5, 2008), unchanged in PET 

Film. Therefore, we have not used 

prices from these countries in 

calculating the Indian import-based 

surrogate values. Additionally, we 

disregarded prices from NME countries. 

Finally, imports that were labeled as 

originating from an ‘‘unspecified’’ 

country were excluded from the average 

value, because the Department could 

not be certain that they were not from 

either an NME country or a country 

with general export subsidies. Id. 

For direct, indirect, and packing 

labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression-based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s home page, 

Import Library, Expected Wages of 

Selected NME Countries, revised in 

October 2009. See 2009 Calculation of 

Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 

74 FR 65092 (December 9, 2009), and 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. 

The source of these wage-rate data on 

the Import Administration’s Web site is 

the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2005, 

ILO (Geneva: 2007), Chapter 5B: Wages 

in Manufacturing. Because this 

regression-based wage rate does not 

separate the labor rates into different 

skill levels or types of labor, we have 

applied the same wage rate to all skill 

levels and types of labor reported by the 

respondents. 

We valued diesel using the June 2007 

diesel prices across four Indian cities 

from the Indian Oil Corporation. Since 

the rates are not contemporaneous with 

the POI, we inflated the values using the 

WPI. See Surrogate Values Memo. 

We valued electricity using price data 

for small, medium, and large industries, 

as published by the Central Electricity 

Authority of the Government of India in 

its publication titled Electricity Tariff & 

Duty and Average Rates of Electricity 

Supply in India, dated March 2008. 

These electricity rates represent actual 

country-wide, publicly available 

information on tax-exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. As 

the rates listed in this source became 

effective on a variety of different dates, 

we are not adjusting the average value 

for inflation. 

Because water is essential to the 

production process of the merchandise 

under consideration, the Department 

considers water to be a direct material 

input, not overhead, and valued water 

with a surrogate value according to our 

practice. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the 

People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 

(October 28, 2003) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 11. The Department valued 

water using data from the Maharashtra 

Industrial Development Corporation 

(http:// 

www.midindia.orgwww.midcindia.org) 

since it includes a wide range of 

industrial water tariffs. This source 

provides 386 industrial water rates 

within the Maharashtra province from 

April 2009 through June 2009, of which 

193 were for the ‘‘inside industrial 

areas’’ usage category and the other 193 

were for the ‘‘outside industrial areas’’ 

usage category. Because the data are 

contemporaneous with the POI, we are 

not adjusting the average value for 

inflation. 

We valued natural gas using April 

through June 2002 data from the Gas 

Authority of India Ltd. (‘‘GAIL’’). Since 

the rates are not contemporaneous with 

the POI, we inflated the values using the 

WPI. See Surrogate Values Memo. 

We valued truck freight expenses 

using a per-unit average rate calculated 

from data on the infobanc Web site: 

http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this Web site contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. Since this value is not 

contemporaneous with the POI, we 

inflated the rate using WPI. 

We continued our recent practice to 

value brokerage and handling using a 

simple average of the brokerage and 

handling costs that were reported in 

public submissions that were filed in 

three antidumping duty cases. 

Specifically, we averaged the public 

brokerage and handling expenses 

reported by Navneet Publications (India) 

Ltd. in the 2007–2008 administrative 

review of certain lined paper products 

from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 

2006–2007 antidumping duty 

administrative review of hot-rolled 

carbon steel flat products from India, 

and Himalaya International Ltd. in the 

2005–2006 administrative review of 

certain preserved mushrooms from 

India. See Surrogate Values Memo. 

Since the resulting value is not 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
11854 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 

contemporaneous with the POI, we 

inflated the rate using the WPI. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) 

expenses, and profit, the Department 

used the audited financial statements of 

Maithan Ceramic Limited and Raasi 

Refractories Limited. We note that both 

financial statements are 

contemporaneous to the POI, and both 

companies produce the merchandise 

under consideration. 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 

Verification 

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

Act, we intend to verify the information 

upon which we will rely in making our 

final determination. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation, the Department 

stated that it would calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Initiation at 42857. This practice is 

described in the Policy Bulletin. 

Preliminary Determination 

Preliminary weighted-average 

dumping margins are as follows: 

Exporter Producer Weighted-average margin 

RHI Refractories Liaoning Co., Ltd ............................................. RHI Refractories Liaoning Co., Ltd ............................................ 304.67 

Liaoning Mayerton Refractories Co., Ltd .................................... Liaoning Mayerton Refractories Co., Ltd ................................... 132.74 

Dalian Mayerton Refractories Co., Ltd ....................................... Dalian Mayerton Refractories Co., Ltd ...................................... 132.74 

Dashiqiao City Guancheng Refractor Co., Ltd ........................... Dashiqiao City Guancheng Refractor Co., Ltd .......................... 218.71 

Fengchi Imp. And Exp. Co., Ltd Of Haicheng City .................... Fengchi Refractories Co., of Haicheng City .............................. 218.71 

Jiangsu Sujia Group New Materials Co. Ltd .............................. Jiangsu Sujia Group New Materials Co. Ltd ............................. 218.71 

Liaoning Fucheng Refractories Group Co., Ltd .......................... Liaoning Fucheng Refractories Group Co., Ltd ......................... 218.71 

Liaoning Fucheng Special Refractory Co., Ltd ........................... Liaoning Fucheng Special Refractory Co., Ltd .......................... 218.71 

Liaoning Jiayi Metals & Minerals Co., Ltd .................................. Liaoning Jiayi Metals & Minerals Co., Ltd ................................. 218.71 

Yingkou Bayuquan Refractories Co., Ltd ................................... Yingkou Bayuquan Refractories Co., Ltd .................................. 218.71 

Yingkou Dalmond Refractories Co., Ltd ..................................... Yingkou Dalmond Refractories Co., Ltd .................................... 218.71 

Yingkou Guangyang Co., Ltd ..................................................... Yingkou Guangyang Co., Ltd .................................................... 218.71 

Yingkou Kyushu Refractories Co, Ltd ........................................ Yingkou Kyushu Refractories Co, Ltd ....................................... 218.71 

Yingkou New Century Refractories Ltd ...................................... Yingkou New Century Refractories Ltd ..................................... 218.71 

Yingkou Wonjin Refractory Material Co., Ltd ............................. Yingkou Wonjin Refractory Material Co., Ltd ............................ 218.71 

PRC-wide Entity .......................................................................... .................................................................................................... 349.00 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of subject 

bricks from the PRC as described in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption from Mayerton and 

RHI, the Separate Rate Respondents, 

and the PRC-wide entity on or after the 

date of publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. 

The Department has determined in 

Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Negative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, 74 FR 68241 

(December 23, 2009) (‘‘CVD PRC Bricks 

Prelim’’), that the product under 

investigation, exported and produced by 

Mayerton and RHI, did not benefit from 

an export subsidy. Normally, where the 

product under investigation is also 

subject to a concurrent countervailing 

duty investigation, we instruct CBP to 

require an antidumping cash deposit or 

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

exceeds the EP, minus the amount 

determined to constitute an export 

subsidy in the companion 

countervailing duty investigation. See, 

e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From 

India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 (November 

17, 2004). However, in this case, 

because Mayerton and RHI, did not 

benefit from an export subsidy, we will 

instruct CBP to require an antidumping 

cash deposit or posting of a bond equal 

to the weighted-average amount by 

which the NV exceeds the CEP, as 

indicated above. 

With respect to the Separate Rate 

Companies in this investigation, we will 

instruct CBP to require an antidumping 

cash deposit or the posting of a bond for 

each entry equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV 

exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. 

For all other entries of bricks from the 

PRC, the following cash deposit/ 

bonding instructions apply: (1) For all 

PRC exporters of bricks which have not 

received their own rate, the cash-deposit 

or bonding rate will be the PRC-wide 

rate; (2) for all non-PRC exporters of 

bricks from the PRC which have not 

received their own rate, the cash-deposit 

or bonding rate will be the rate 

applicable to the exporter/producer 

combinations that supplied that nonPRC exporter. This suspension of 

liquidation will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at less than fair value. Section 

735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to 

make its final determination as to 

whether the domestic industry in the 

United States is materially injured, or 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of imports of bricks, or sales (or 

the likelihood of sales) for importation, 

of the merchandise under investigation 

within 45 days of our final 

determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven business days after the 

date on which the final verification 

report is issued in this proceeding. 

Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised 

in case briefs must be received no later 

than five business days after the 

deadline date for case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(i) and (d). A list of 

authorities used and an executive 

summary of issues should accompany 

any briefs submitted to the Department. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 11855 

1The petitioners are the members of the Ad Hoc 

Shrimp Trade Action Committee (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

2The domestic interested parties are the 

American Shrimp Processors Association and the 

Louisiana Shrimp Association. 

3See Initiation for a listing of these companies. 

4The duplicated companies were: Sanya Dongji 

Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Sanya Shengda Seafood 

Co., Ltd.; Yangjiang Jiangcheng Huanghai Marine 

Food Enterprises Co., Ltd.; Yangxi Add Host 

Aquatic Product Processing Factory; Yantai Aquatic 

Products Supplying and Marketing Co., Aquatic 

Products Haifa Food Branch; and Yantai Aquatic 

Products Supplying and Marketing Co., Aquatic 

Products Fazhan Branch. 

5Companies have the opportunity to submit 

statements certifying that they did not ship the 

subject merchandise to the United States during the 

POR. 

This summary should be limited to five 

pages total, including footnotes. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, and if requested, we will hold a 

public hearing, to afford interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

arguments raised in case or rebuttal 

briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, 

we intend to hold the hearing shortly 

after the deadline of submission of 

rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

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

time and location to be determined. 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

date, time, and location of the hearing 

two days before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. At the hearing, 

each party may make an affirmative 

presentation only on issues raised in 

that party’s case brief and may make 

rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: March 3, 2010. 

Carole A. Showers, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5277 Filed 3–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–893] 

Fourth Administrative Review of 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results, Preliminary Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Intent Not 

To Revoke, In Part 

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 certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp (‘‘shrimp’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’), covering the period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) of February 1, 2008, through 

January 31, 2009. As discussed below, 

the Department preliminarily 

determines that certain respondents in 

this review made sales in the United 

States at prices below normal value 

(‘‘NV’’). 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 

importer-specific assessment rates are 

above de minimis. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 12, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Palmer or Irene Gorelik, 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) 482–9068 and (202) 

482–6905, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department received timely 

requests from both Petitioners,1

domestic interested parties (‘‘DP’’),2 and 

certain PRC companies, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(b), during the 

anniversary month of February, for 

administrative reviews of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

warmwater shrimp from the PRC. On 

March 26, 2009, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of 

483 producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise from the PRC.3 See Notice 

of Initiation of Administrative Reviews 

and Requests for Revocation in Part of 

the Antidumping Duty Orders on 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and 

the People’s Republic of China, 74 FR 

13178 (March 26, 2009) (‘‘Initiation’’). 

However, after accounting for duplicate 

names and additional trade names 

associated with certain exporters, the 

number of companies upon which we 

initiated is actually 477 companies/ 

groups.4

Between April 15, 2009, and April 27, 

2009, the following companies 

submitted ‘‘no shipment certifications’’ 5: 

Allied Pacific Group, Gallant Ocean 

(Lianjiang), Ltd.; Gallant Ocean 

(Nanhai), Ltd.; Shantou Yelin Frozen 

Seafood Co., Ltd. (doing business as 

(‘‘d.b.a’’) Shantou Yelin Quick-Freeze 

Marine Products Co., Ltd.); Fuqing 

Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd.; Fuqing 

Minhua Trade Co., Ltd.; and Yangjiang 

City Yelin Hoitat Quick Frozen Seafood 

Co., Ltd. 

On February 24, 2010, the Department 

received comments from DP regarding 

certain surrogate values and the issue of 

duty adsorption. However, because of 

the close proximity to the preliminary 

results, we are unable to take DP’s 

comments into consideration for the 

preliminary results. DP’s comments will 

be considered for purposes of the final 

results of this review. 

Respondent Selection 

On May 29, 2009, in accordance with 

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

1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), the 

Department selected Hilltop 

International (‘‘Hilltop’’) and Zhanjiang 

Regal Integrated Marine Resources Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Regal’’) for individual 

examination in this review, since they 

were the two largest exporters by 

volume during the POR, based on CBP 

data of U.S. imports. See Memorandum 

to James Doyle, Director, Office IX, from 

Irene Gorelik, Senior International 

Trade Analyst, Office IX, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China: Selection of 

Respondents for Individual Review,’’ 

dated May 29, 2009. 

Questionnaires 

On June 1, 2009, the Department 

issued its initial non-market economy 

(‘‘NME’’) antidumping duty 

questionnaire to the mandatory 

respondents Hilltop and Regal. Hilltop 

and Regal responded to the 

Department’s initial and subsequent 

supplemental questionnaires between 

July 2009 and February 2010. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate 

Values 

On July 10, 2009, the Department sent 

interested parties a letter requesting 

comments on the surrogate country and 

information pertaining to valuing factors 

of production (‘‘FOPs’’). On September 

4, 2009, Hilltop submitted surrogate 

value comments regarding various 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES