Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Notices 5333 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: NonMalleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From the People’s 

Republic of China, 68 FR 16765 (April 7, 2003). 

2See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 

29976, 29983 (May 28, 2010). 

3See Memorandum from Carole Showers, 

Director, Office of Policy to Robert Bolling, Program 

Manager, Operations, NME unit, Office 4, ‘‘Request 

for a List of Surrogate Countries for and 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated October 

22, 2010 (‘‘Surrogate Countries Memorandum’’). 

4See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From 

the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

75964 (December 7, 2010). 

Duty New Shipper Review: Honey from 

Argentina,’’ dated January 25, 2011. 

Accordingly, we are initiating a new 

shipper review of the antidumping duty 

order on honey from Argentina exported 

by Villamora, for the period December 

1, 2009, through November 30, 2010. 

We intend to issue the preliminary 

results of this review no later than 180 

days after the date on which this review 

is initiated, and the final results within 

90 days after the date on which we issue 

the preliminary results. See section 

751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(h)(i). 

We will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to allow, at the 

option of the importer, the posting, until 

the completion of the review, of a bond 

or security in lieu of a cash deposit for 

certain entries of the subject 

merchandise exported by Villamora in 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). 

Because Villamora certified that it 

exports the subject merchandise, the 

sale of which forms the basis for its new 

shipper review request, we will instruct 

CBP to permit the use of a bond only for 

entries of subject merchandise which 

Villamora exported. 

Interested parties may submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective order in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 

351.306. 

This initiation and this notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i). 

Dated: January 25, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2087 Filed 1–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–875] 

Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a timely 

request from NEP Tianjin Machinery 

Company (‘‘NEP Tianjin’’) the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) is conducting the 2009– 

2010 administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on nonmalleable cast iron pipe fittings (‘‘pipe 

fittings’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). The Department has 

reviewed shipments of subject 

merchandise made by NEP Tianjin and 

has determined that NEP Tianjin made 

sales below normal value (‘‘NV’’) during 

the period of review (‘‘POR’’). If the 

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 the importer-specific 

assessment rates are above de minimis. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results of 

review. Parties who submit comments 

are requested to submit with each 

argument a statement of the issue and a 

brief summary of the argument. We 

intend to issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 31, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karine Gziryan, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4081. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 7, 2003, the Department 

published an antidumping duty order 

on pipe fittings from the PRC.1 The 

Department received a timely request 

for review of this antidumping order in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2) 

from NEP Tianjin. On May 28, 2010, the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation of an antidumping duty 

administrative review on pipe fittings 

from the PRC, in which it initiated a 

review of NEP Tianjin.2

On June 7, 2010, the Department 

issued the antidumping duty 

questionnaire to NEP Tianjin. We 

received a timely questionnaire 

response from NEP Tianjin. We issued 

supplemental questionnaires for 

sections A, C, and D to NEP Tianjin in 

September and October 2010, followed 

with secondary supplemental 

questionnaires for sections C and D in 

November 2010. We received timely 

responses from NEP Tianjin to our 

supplemental questionnaires between 

October 20, 2010, and December 8, 

2010. 

On October 22, 2010, the Department 

identified India, the Philippines, 

Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru 

as a non-exhaustive list of countries that 

are at a level of economic development 

comparable to the PRC and for which 

good quality data is most likely 

available.3 In response to the 

Department’s October 22, 2010, letter 

providing parties with an opportunity to 

submit comments regarding surrogate 

country and surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) 

selection, NEP Tianjin submitted 

surrogate country and SV comments on 

November 9, 2010, and December 8, 

2010, respectively. 

On December 7, 2010, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results of administrative 

review until January 31, 2011.4

Period of Review 

The POR is April 1, 2009, through 

March 31, 2010. 

Scope of Order 

The products covered by the order are 

finished and unfinished non-malleable 

cast iron pipe fittings with an inside 

diameter ranging from 1⁄4 inch to 6 

inches, whether threaded or 

unthreaded, regardless of industry or 

proprietary specifications. The subject 

fittings include elbows, ells, tees, 

crosses, and reducers as well as flanged 

fittings. These pipe fittings are also 

known as ‘‘cast iron pipe fittings’’ or 

‘‘gray iron pipe fittings.’’ These cast iron 

pipe fittings are normally produced to 

ASTM A–126 and ASME B.16.4 

specifications and are threaded to 

ASME B1.20.1 specifications. Most 

building codes require that these 

products are Underwriters Laboratories 

(UL) certified. The scope does not 

include cast iron soil pipe fittings or 

grooved fittings or grooved couplings. 

Fittings that are made out of ductile 

iron that have the same physical 

characteristics as the gray or cast iron 

fittings subject to the scope above or 

which have the same physical 

characteristics and are produced to 

ASME B.16.3, ASME B.16.4, or ASTM 

A–395 specifications, threaded to ASME 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
5334 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Notices 

5On April 21, 2009, in consultation with CBP, the 

Department added the following HTSUS 

classification to the AD/CVD module for pipe 

fittings: 7326.90.8588. See Memorandum from 

Abdelali Elouaradia, Office Director, Import 

Administration, Office 4 to Stephen Claeys, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary, Import Administration 

regarding the Final Scope Ruling on Black Cast Iron 

Cast, Green Ductile Flange and Twin Tee, 

antidumping duty order on non-malleable iron cast 

pipe fittings from China, dated September 19, 2008. 

See also Memorandum to the file from Karine 

Gziryan, Financial Analyst, Office 4, regarding 

Module Update adding Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

Number for twin tin fitting included in the scope 

of antidumping order on non-malleable iron cast 

pipe fittings from China, dated April 22, 2009. 

6See, 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). 

7See Surrogate Countries Memorandum. 

8See Memorandum from Karine Gziryan, Senior 

Financial Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program 

Manager, to the File, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Non-Malleable Cast Iron 

Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China— 

Surrogate Values Memorandum,’’ dated January 24, 

2011 (‘‘Surrogate Values Memorandum’’) at 1–6. 

9See Letter from NEP (Tianjin) Machinery to the 

Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Non-Malleable Cast Iron 

Pipe Fittings from China: Surrogate Country 

Selection Response’’ (November 9, 2010). 

10See Surrogate Values Memorandum. 

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

the final results of this administrative review, 

interested parties may submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct factual information 

submitted by an interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for 

submission of such factual information. However, 

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

permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 

clarifies, or corrects information placed on the 

record. The Department generally will not accept 

the submission of additional, previously absentfrom-the-record alternative SV information 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 

2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

12See Separate Rates and Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries, 70 FR 17233 (April 5, 2005), 

also available at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/ 

index.html. 

B1.20.1 specifications and UL certified, 

regardless of metallurgical differences 

between gray and ductile iron, are also 

included in the scope of the order. 

These ductile fittings do not include 

grooved fittings or grooved couplings. 

Ductile cast iron fittings with 

mechanical joint ends (MJ), or push on 

ends (PO), or flanged ends and 

produced to the American Water Works 

Association (AWWA) specifications 

AWWA C110 or AWWA C153 are not 

included. 

Imports of subject merchandise are 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers 

7307.11.00.30, 7307.11.00.60, 

7307.19.30.60, 7307.19.30.85. HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive.5

Non-Market-Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country.6 In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

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

Act’’), any determination that a country 

is an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. None of the parties to this 

proceeding has contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, the Department 

calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Selection of a Surrogate Country 

When the Department conducts an 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of imports from an NME country, 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the 

Department to base NV, in most cases, 

on the NME producer’s factors of 

production (‘‘FOPs’’) valued in a 

surrogate market-economy country or 

countries considered appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

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

value FOPs using ‘‘to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of factors of 

production in one or more marketeconomy countries that are—(A) at a 

level of economic development 

comparable to that of the NME country, 

and (B) significant producers of 

comparable merchandise.’’ Further, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the 

Department will normally value FOPs in 

a single country. 

In the instant review, the Department 

has identified India, the Philippines, 

Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru 

as a non-exhaustive list of countries that 

are at a level of economic development 

comparable to the PRC and for which 

good quality data is most likely 

available.7 We use the per capita Gross 

National Income (‘‘GNI’’) as the primary 

basis for determining economic 

comparability. Once the countries that 

are economically comparable to the PRC 

have been identified, the Department 

selects an appropriate surrogate country 

by determining whether an 

economically comparable country is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise and whether data for 

valuing FOPs are both available and 

reliable. Like the PRC, India has a broad 

and diverse production base, and the 

Department has reliable data from India 

that it can use to value the FOPs.8

Therefore, the Department has 

determined that it is appropriate to use 

India as a surrogate country for the 

purposes of this administrative review, 

pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, 

based on the following: (1) It is at a 

similar level of economic development 

to the PRC; (2) it is a significant 

producer of identical merchandise; and 

(3) the Department has reliable data 

from India that it can use to value the 

FOPs. Thus, the Department calculated 

NV using Indian prices when available 

and appropriate to the FOPs of NEP 

Tianjin. The Department obtained and 

relied upon publicly available 

information wherever possible. In 

response to the Department’s selection 

of a surrogate country, NEP Tianjin 

stated that it has no information to 

indicate that any country other than 

India should be the surrogate country.9

The sources of the surrogate factor 

values are discussed under the ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ section below.10 In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested 

parties may submit publicly-available 

information to value FOPs until 20 days 

after the date of publication of the 

preliminary results.11

Separate Rate 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of subject 

merchandise 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.12 Exporters can 

demonstrate this independence through 

the absence of both de jure and de facto 

government control over export 

activities. The Department analyzes 

each entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test set out in the 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from 

the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 

20588 (May 6, 1991), as further 

developed in 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). 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Notices 5335 

13See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From 

the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 

71104–71105 (December 20, 1999) (where the 

respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus, 

qualified for a separate rate). 

14See NEP Tianjin’s July 7, 2010 Section A 

Questionnaire Response. 

15Memorandum from Karine Gziryan, Senior 

Financial Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program 

Manager, to the File, ‘‘Analysis Memorandum for 

NEP (Tianjin) Machinery Company,’’ dated January 

24, 2011 (‘‘NEP Tianjin Analysis Memo’’). 

16See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished or Unfinished, From the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to 

Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744, 39754 (July 11, 2005), 

unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 2003– 

2004 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission 

of Review, 71 FR 2517, 2521 (January 17, 2006). 

17We applied SVs to the FOP, as indicated in the 

‘‘Selected Surrogate Values’’ section below. 

18See Surrogate Values Memorandum at 5 and 

Exhibit 6. 

19See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades at Comment 9. 

20See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2007– 

2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 

FR 27090, 27094 (June 8, 2009), unchanged in Pure 

Magnesium from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 66089 (December 14, 2009). 

government control.13 NEP Tianjin 

submitted information indicating that it 

is a wholly foreign-owned enterprise 

under Chinese law.14 Therefore, for the 

purposes of these preliminary results, 

the Department finds that it is not 

necessary to perform a separate-rate 

analysis with respect to NEP Tianjin. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

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

of the Act, to determine whether NEP 

Tianjin sold pipe fittings to the United 

States at less than NV, we compared the 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) of 

individual transactions of pipe fittings 

to the NV of pipe fittings, as described 

in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections of this notice. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we based NEP Tianjin’s U.S. 

price on CEP because the first sale to 

unaffiliated purchasers were made post 

importation through its affiliated U.S. 

company, and export price was not 

otherwise warranted by the facts on the 

record. In accordance with section 

772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at 

which the merchandise under review is 

first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the 

United States before or after the date of 

importation by or for the account of the 

producer or exporter of such 

merchandise or by a seller affiliated 

with the producer or exporter, to a 

purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter, as adjusted under 

sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act. The 

Department calculated CEP for NEP 

Tianjin based on delivered prices to 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States and made deductions, where 

applicable, from the U.S. sales price for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

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

movement expenses included foreign 

inland freight from the plant to the port 

of exportation, foreign brokerage and 

handling fees, international freight, and 

U.S. customs duty. In accordance with 

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

Department deducted credit expenses 

and indirect selling expenses for the 

U.S. price, all of which relate to 

commercial activity in the United 

States. Finally, the Department 

deducted CEP profit, in accordance with 

section 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. 

For details regarding the CEP 

calculation, see NEP Tianjin Analysis 

Memo.15

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine NV 

using an FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

country and the available 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. When 

determining NV in an NME context, the 

Department uses an FOP methodology 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of NMEs 

renders price comparisons and the 

calculation of production costs invalid 

under its normal methodologies.16

Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs 

include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours 

of labor required; (2) quantities of raw 

materials employed; (3) amounts of 

energy and other utilities consumed; 

and (4) representative capital costs. The 

Department based NV on FOPs reported 

by the respondent for materials, energy, 

labor and packing. 

Thus, in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV by 

adding together the values of the FOPs, 

overhead, selling, general and 

administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses, 

profit, and packing costs.17 We 

calculated FOP values by multiplying 

the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available 

SVs (except as discussed below). 

Specifically, we valued material, labor, 

energy, and packing by multiplying the 

amount of the factor consumed in 

producing subject merchandise by the 

average unit SV of the factor. In 

addition, we added freight costs to the 

surrogate costs that we calculated for 

material inputs. We calculated freight 

costs by multiplying surrogate freight 

rates by the shorter of the reported 

distance from the domestic supplier to 

the factory that produced the subject 

merchandise or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory that 

produced the subject merchandise, as 

appropriate. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘CAFC’’) decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

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

(Fed. Cir. 1997). We calculated surrogate 

overhead expenses, SG&A expenses, 

and profit, and added these to the FOP 

costs.18

Consistent with the Department’s 

determination 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), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 9 (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’), 

unchanged in Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades and 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 35864 (June 

22, 2006), we will deduct the SV of byproducts from NV for the following 

reasons. First, in the instant 

administrative review, a careful analysis 

of the surrogate financial statements 

reveals that there is no reference to byproducts in these statements. Therefore, 

the Department determines how to treat 

by-products based on whether the 

respondent sold or reused by-products. 

Second, because NEP Tianjin reported 

that they sold certain by-products, such 

as scrap iron, the Department has 

applied the by-product offset to NV. 

This deduction of scrap iron sold is 

consistent with accounting principles 

based on the reasonable assumption that 

if a company sells a by-product, the byproduct necessarily incurs expenses for 

overhead, SG&A, and profit.19

Selected Surrogate Values 

In selecting the SVs, we considered 

the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. In 

selecting the best available information 

for valuing FOP in accordance with 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the 

Department’s practice is to select, to the 

extent practicable, SVs which are nonexport average values, most 

contemporaneous with the POR, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive.20

The record shows that the Indian import 

statistics represent import data that are 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
5336 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Notices 

21See Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews 

and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, 75 FR 69415, 

69420 (November 12, 2010); Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review, 74 FR 50946, 50950 (October 2, 

2009), unchanged in Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 

65520 (December 10, 2009). 

22See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 

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

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

1988’’). 

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

India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-year 

(Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 

75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4–5; Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from 

Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

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

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

4; see Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 

FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19–20; see 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 

2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at 23. 

24See Surrogate Values Memorandum at 2 and 

Exhibit 2. 

25Available online at: http://www.gtis.com/ 

gta.html. 

26See Surrogate Values Memorandum at 2. 

27Available at: http://www.infobanc.com/ 

logistics/logtruck.html. 

28See Surrogate Values Memorandum at 5. 

29See Surrogate Values Memorandum at 4. 

contemporaneous with the POR, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. 

The Department used Indian import 

statistics to value the raw material and 

packing material inputs that NEP 

Tianjin used to produce the 

merchandise under review during the 

POR, except where listed below. It is the 

Department’s practice to calculate a SV 

for various FOP using import statistics 

of the primary selected surrogate 

country from Global Trade Atlas 

(‘‘GTA’’), as published by Global Trade 

Information Services.21

In accordance with the OTCA 1988 

legislative history, the Department 

continues to apply its long-standing 

practice of disregarding SVs if it has a 

reason to believe or suspect the source 

data may be subsidized.22 In this regard, 

the Department has previously found 

that it is appropriate to disregard such 

prices from India, Indonesia, South 

Korea and Thailand because we have 

determined that these countries 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry specific export subsidies.23

Based on the existence of these subsidy 

programs that were generally available 

to all exporters and producers in these 

countries at the time of the POR, the 

Department finds that it is reasonable to 

infer that all exporters from India, 

Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand 

may have benefitted from these 

subsidies. Additionally, we excluded 

from our calculations imports that were 

labeled as originating from an 

unspecified country because we could 

not determine whether they were from 

either an NME country, or from a 

country with generally available subsidy 

programs. Where we could only obtain 

SVs that were not contemporaneous 

with the POR, we inflated (or deflated) 

the SVs using the Indian Wholesale 

Price Index as published in the 

International Financial Statistics of the 

International Monetary Fund.24

We valued FOPs in the preliminary 

results of this review using SVs, as 

follows (see Surrogate Values 

Memorandum for more specific details). 

Except as noted below, we valued raw 

materials (e.g., pig iron, antirust, scrap 

steel, ferrosilicon) and packing materials 

using April 2009 through March 2010 

weighted-average Indian import values 

derived from GTA.25 The Indian import 

statistics that we obtained from GTA 

were published by the Directorate 

General of Commercial Intelligence and 

Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce 

of India and are contemporaneous with 

the POR.26

The Department valued truck freight 

expenses using a per-unit average rate 

calculated from data on the Infobanc 

Web site.27 The logistics section of this 

Web site contains inland freight truck 

rates between many large Indian cities. 

We only selected rates for this value 

which were contemporaneous with the 

POR.28

We valued electricity using the 

updated electricity price data for small, 

medium, and large industries, as 

published by the Central Electricity 

Authority, an administrative body 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 small, medium, and 

large industries in India. We did not 

inflate this value because utility rates 

represent current rates, as indicated by 

the effective dates listed for each of the 

rates provided.29

On May 14, 2010, the CAFC, in 

Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 

1363, 1372 (CAFC 2010), found that the 

‘‘{regression-based} method for 

calculating wage rates {as stipulated by 

19 CFR 351.408(c)(3)} uses data not 

permitted by {the statutory 

requirements laid out in section 773 of 

the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c))}.’’ The 

Department is continuing to evaluate 

options for determining labor values in 

light of the recent CAFC decision. 

However, for these preliminary results, 

we have calculated an hourly wage rate 

to use in valuing the respondent’s 

reported labor input by averaging 

industry-specific earnings and/or wages 

in countries that are economically 

comparable to the PRC and that are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. 

For the preliminary results of this 

administrative review, the Department 

is valuing labor using a simple average 

industry-specific wage rate using 

earnings or wage data reported under 

Chapter 5B by the International Labor 

Organization (‘‘ILO’’). To achieve an 

industry-specific labor value, we relied 

on industry-specific labor data from the 

countries we determined to be both 

economically comparable to the PRC, 

and significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. A full description of the 

industry-specific wage rate calculation 

methodology is provided in the 

Surrogate Values Memorandum. The 

Department calculated a simple average 

industry-specific wage rate of $1.36 for 

these preliminary results. Specifically, 

for this review, the Department has 

calculated the wage rate using a simple 

average of the data provided to the ILO 

under Sub-Classification 28 of the ISIC– 

Revision 3 standard by countries 

determined to be both economically 

comparable to the PRC and significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

The Department finds the two-digit 

description under ISIC–Revision 3 

(‘‘Manufacture of Fabricated Metal 

Products, Except Machinery and 

Equipment’’) to be the best available 

wage rate SV on the record because it is 

specific and derived from industries 

that produce merchandise comparable 

to the subject merchandise. 

Consequently, we averaged the ILO 

industry-specific wage rate data or 

earnings data available from the 

following countries found to be 

economically comparable to the PRC 

and are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise: Ecuador, 

Egypt Arab Rep., Indonesia, Jordan, 

Peru, the Philippines, Thailand, and 

Ukraine. For further information on the 

calculation of the wage rate, see 

Surrogate Values Memorandum. 

The Department valued brokerage and 

handling using a fee schedule of 

brokerage and handling charges for a 

standardized cargo of goods in India. 

The fee schedule was compiled based 

on a survey case study of the procedural 

requirements for a standard shipment of 

goods by ocean transport in India that 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Notices 5337 

30See Surrogate Values Memorandum at 5–6 and 

Exhibit 8. 

31The water rates are available online at: http:// 

www.midcindia.com/water-supply. 

32See Surrogate Values Memorandum at 4 and 

Exhibit 4. 

33See Surrogate Values Memorandum at 5 and 

Exhibit 6. 

34The Import Administration Web site is 

available at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ 

index.html. 

35See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

36See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

37See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

38See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

39See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

38563, 38563 (July 13, 2007). 

is published in Doing Business 2010: 

India, by the World Bank. The price list 

data is contemporaneous with the 

POR.30

We valued water using the revised 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation water rates.31 We only 

selected rates for this value which were 

contemporaneous with the POR.32

Lastly, we valued SG&A expenses, 

factory overhead costs, and profit using 

the 2009–2010 financial statements of 

three Indian producers of comparable 

merchandise, namely ductile iron 

fittings, cast iron products and pipe 

fittings. These producers are: Vishal 

Malleables Ltd., Truform Techno 

Products Limited, and Lokesh 

Foundries (P) Limited. From this 

information, we were able to determine 

factory overhead as a percentage of the 

total raw materials, labor and energy 

(‘‘ML&E’’) costs; SG&A as a percentage of 

ML&E plus overhead (i.e., cost of 

manufacture); and profit as a percentage 

of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A.33

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

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

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. These exchange rates can 

be accessed at the Web site of Import 

Administration.34

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following margin exists for NEP Tianjin 

during the period April 1, 2009, through 

March 31, 2010. 

Company 

Antidumping 

Duty Margin 

(percent) 

NEP (Tianjin) Machinery Company .................................... 00.00 

Disclosure, Briefs and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose the 

calculations used in our analysis to 

parties to this administrative review 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice.35 Case briefs 

from interested parties may be 

submitted not later than 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, will be due five days later, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit case or rebuttal briefs in 

this proceeding are requested to submit 

with each argument: (1) A statement of 

the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. The Department also requests 

that interested parties provide a 

summary of the arguments not to exceed 

five pages and a table of statutes, 

regulations, and cases cited. The 

Department requests that parties 

submitting written comments also 

provide the Department with an 

additional copy of those comments on 

diskette. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice.36 Interested parties, who 

wish to request a hearing or to 

participate if one is requested, must 

submit a written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

(1) The party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed.37 Issues raised in the hearing 

will be limited to those raised in the 

briefs. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this review, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any such written briefs or at the hearing, 

if held, not later than 120 days after the 

date of publication of this notice.38

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 the 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 ad valorem 

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 

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 will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

review for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date, as provided 

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

For the exporters listed above, the cash 

deposit rate will be that established in 

the final results of this review (except, 

if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash 

deposit will be required); (2) 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 recently completed review; (3) 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 PRCwide rate of 75.50 percent; 39 and (4) for 

all non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

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. 

This administrative review and this 

notice are published in accordance with 

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

19 CFR 351.213, and 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: January 24, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2085 Filed 1–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES