11486 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Notices 

1The Department initiated this review for 113 

producers/exporters. Based on timely withdrawal of 

requests for review, the Department rescinded the 

review with respect to 84 producers/exporters in 

the First Partial Preliminary Results. These final 

results and final rescission cover 21 companies. 

2The second partial preliminary results covered 

the remaining companies subject to the review. See 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of the 2009–2010 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 76375 

(December 7, 2011). The final results for these 

companies are currently due no later than April 5, 

2012. 

3The individual members of the FGPA are 

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

Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, Inc. 

120 days. Therefore, the preliminary 

results are now due no later than July 

30, 2012. The final results continue to 

be due 120 days after publication of the 

preliminary results. 

This notice is published pursuant to 

sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: February 17, 2012. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4483 Filed 2–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Partial Final Results 

and Partial Final Rescission of the 

2009–2010 Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 20, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce (Department) 

published the partial preliminary results 

of the administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) covering the period of review 

(POR) of November 1, 2009, through 

October 31, 2010. The Department is 

issuing these partial final results for the 

PRC-wide entity only. 

Based on the analysis of the record 

and the comments received, the 

Department finds that seven companies 

subject to this review, including 

mandatory respondents, Shandong 

Longtai Fruits and Vegetables Co., Ltd. 

(Longtai) and Weifang Hongqiao 

International Logistic Co., Ltd. 

(Hongqiao), did not demonstrate their 

eligibility for separate rate status and, 

thus, will be considered part of the PRCwide entity for purposes of these final 

results. These companies are listed in 

Appendix I. The Department is also 

rescinding the review with respect to 14 

exporters who had ‘‘no shipments’’ 

during the POR. A list of these 

companies is found in Appendix II. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 27, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lingjun Wang, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–2316. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 20, 2011, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

partial preliminary results of the 2009– 

2010 administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 

from the PRC. See Fresh Garlic From the 

People’s Republic of China: Partial 

Preliminary Results, Rescission of, and 

Intent To Rescind, in Part, the 2009– 

2010 Administrative Review, 76 FR 

65172 (October 20, 2011) (First Partial 

Preliminary Results).1 On December 7, 

2011, the Department issued its second 

partial preliminary results.2 Since the 

First Partial Preliminary Results, the 

following events have occurred. 

On November 21, 2011, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

submission of case briefs to December 1, 

2011 and rebuttal briefs to December 6, 

2011. On November 30, 2011, the Fresh 

Garlic Producers Association (FGPA) 

and its individual members 3

(collectively, Petitioners) submitted a 

document called ‘‘Petitioners’ 

Comments on Certain No Shipment 

Claims and Department’s Partial 

Preliminary Results’’ (No Shipment 

Comments). On December 9, 2011, the 

Department rejected Petitioners’ No 

Shipment Comments as untimely new 

factual information. See the 

Department’s December 9, 2011 letter to 

Petitioners. On December 1, 2011, 

Petitioners, and Hongqiao, Sunny 

Import & Export Co. Ltd., and Shenzhen 

Greening Trading Co., Ltd. (collectively, 

Respondents) submitted case briefs. On 

December 6, 2011, Petitioners submitted 

their rebuttal brief. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

all grades of garlic, whole or separated 

into constituent cloves, whether or not 

peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, 

provisionally preserved, or packed in 

water or other neutral substance, but not 

prepared or preserved by the addition of 

other ingredients or heat processing. 

The differences between grades are 

based on color, size, sheathing, and 

level of decay. The scope of the order 

does not include the following: (a) 

Garlic that has been mechanically 

harvested and that is primarily, but not 

exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; 

or (b) garlic that has been specially 

prepared and cultivated prior to 

planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed. The 

subject merchandise is used principally 

as a food product and for seasoning. The 

subject garlic is currently classifiable 

under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 

0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 

0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 

0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. In 

order to be excluded from the order, 

garlic entered under the HTSUS 

subheadings listed above that is (1) 

mechanically harvested and primarily, 

but not exclusively, destined for nonfresh use or (2) specially prepared and 

cultivated prior to planting and then 

harvested and otherwise prepared for 

use as seed must be accompanied by 

declarations to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to that effect. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues addressed in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties in this review 

are discussed in the Memorandum from 

Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

regarding ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Partial Final 

Results and Partial Final Rescission of 

the 2009–2010 Administrative Review,’’ 

dated concurrently with this notice 

(Decision Memorandum), which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. A list of 

the issues that parties raised and to 

which we responded in the Decision 

Memorandum follows as Appendix III 

to this notice. The Decision 

Memorandum is a public document, 

which is on file electronically via 

Import Administration’s Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Services System (IA 

ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is 

available in the Central Records Unit 

(CRU) of the main Commerce Building, 

Room 7046. In addition, a complete 

version of the Decision Memorandum is 

also accessible on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The signed Decision 

Memorandum and the electronic 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Notices 11487 

4See 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). 

5See Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, 

337 F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003), where the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 

provided an explanation of the ‘‘failure to act to the 

best of its ability’’ standard noting that the 

Department need not show intentional conduct 

existed on the part of the respondent, but merely 

that a ‘‘failure to cooperate to the best of a 

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

not provided ‘‘under circumstances in which it is 

reasonable to concluded that less than full 

cooperation has been shown’’). 

versions of the Decision Memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Changes Since the First Partial 

Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made no 

changes to the First Partial Preliminary 

Results 

Final Partial Rescission Based on No 

Shipments 

As discussed in the First Partial 

Preliminary Results, the 14 companies 

listed in Appendix II each timely 

certified that it had no shipments during 

the POR. After we checked the claims 

with CBP and examined CBP shipment 

data, the Department announced its 

intent to rescind the administrative 

review with respect to these companies 

in the First Partial Preliminary Results. 

No parties commented on our 

preliminary intent to rescind. Thus, 

there is no information or argument on 

the record of the current review that 

warrants reconsidering our preliminary 

decision to rescind. Therefore, we are 

rescinding this administrative review 

with respect to all 14 companies listed 

in Appendix II. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non-market 

economy (NME) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit 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 

eligible for a separate rate.4

As discussed in the First Partial 

Preliminary Results, neither Longtai nor 

Hongqiao, the two mandatory 

respondents, responded to the initial 

questionnaire. Thus, neither of these 

two companies demonstrated its 

eligibility for separate rate status and 

each will be considered part of the PRCwide entity for purposes of this review. 

See ‘‘Application of Total AFA to the 

PRC-wide entity’’ section, below. In 

addition, in the First Partial Preliminary 

Results, the Department found five other 

companies were part of the PRC-wide 

entity because, although each company 

was subject to the review, none of these 

companies submitted separate rate 

certifications or applications. There is 

no information on the record of this 

review that warrants reconsideration of 

our preliminary decision to consider 

each of these five companies to be part 

of the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, the 

Department has found that each of these 

five companies and the two 

uncooperative mandatory respondents 

to be part of the PRC-wide entity for 

these final results. See Appendix I. 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 

Adverse Facts Available (AFA) 

Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act) provides 

that the Department shall apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if (1) necessary 

information is not on the record, or (2) 

an interested party or any other person 

(A) withholds information that has been 

requested, (B) fails to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established, or in the form and manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

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

of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding, or (D) provides information 

that cannot be verified as provided by 

section 782(i) of the Act. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits and subject to section 782(e) 

of the Act, the Department may 

disregard all or part of the original and 

subsequent responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that 

the Department ‘‘shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all applicable requirements established 

by the administering authority’’ if the 

information is timely, can be verified, is 

not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 

and if the interested party acted to the 

best of its ability in providing the 

information. Where all of these 

conditions are met, the statute requires 

the Department to use the information 

supplied if it can do so without undue 

difficulties. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Such an adverse 

inference may include reliance on 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. For 

the reasons discussed below, the 

Department determines that, in 

accordance with sections 776(a)(1), 

776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, the use 

of AFA is appropriate for the final 

results with respect to the PRC-wide 

entity, which includes Longtai and 

Hongqiao. 

Application of Total AFA to the PRCWide Entity 

Because Longtai and Hongqiao were 

selected as mandatory respondents, but 

did not respond to the initial 

questionnaire, neither company 

demonstrated its eligibility for separate 

rate status. Thus, for purposes of these 

final results, Longtai and Hongqiao are 

considered part of the PRC-wide entity. 

Further, because these two companies, 

which are part of the PRC-wide entity, 

did not respond to the questionnaire, 

the Department determines that the 

PRC-wide entity withheld information 

requested by the Department in 

accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) 

and (B) of the Act, and significantly 

impeded the proceeding in accordance 

with section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. 

As a result, the Department is basing 

the dumping margin of the PRC-wide 

entity on the facts otherwise available 

on the record. No other party provided 

any additional information regarding 

the PRC-wide entity. In addition, 

because Longtai and Hongqiao, which 

are part of the PRC-wide entity, failed to 

cooperate to the best of their ability, we 

find the PRC-wide entity did not 

provide the requested information, 

which was in the sole possession of the 

respondents and could not be obtained 

otherwise.5 Hence, pursuant to section 

776(b) of the Act, the Department has 

determined that, when selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available, an 

adverse inference is warranted with 

respect to the PRC-wide entity. 

Selection of AFA Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

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

CFR § 351.308(c)(1) provide that the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11488 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Notices 

6See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 

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

From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of the Seventh 

Administrative Review; Final Results of the 

Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 

(November 18, 2005), and the Statement of 

Administrative Action accompany the Uruguay 

Round Agreement Act, H.R. Rep. No. 316, 103d 

Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (SAA). 

7See Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 15930, 15934 (April 

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

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 41121 (August 

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

v. United States, 638 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (CIT 

August 10, 2009) (‘‘Commerce may, of course, begin 

its total AFA selection process by defaulting to the 

highest rate in any segment of the proceeding, but 

that selection must then be corroborated, to the 

extent practicable.’’). 

8See, e.g., KYD, Inc. v United States, 607 F.3d 

760, 766–767 (CAFC 2010) (KYD); NSK Ltd. v. 

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

2004) (affirming a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the 

highest available dumping margin calculated for a 

different respondent in the investigation); Kompass 

Food Trading International v. United States, 24 CIT 

678, 683–84 (2000) (affirming a 51.16 percent total 

AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin for 

a different, fully cooperative respondent); and 

Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 

2005) (affirming a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the 

highest available dumping margin for a different 

respondent in a previous administrative review). 

9See KYD, 607 F.3d at 766, citing Rhone Poulenc, 

Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (CAFC 

1990). 10See SAA. 11See id. 12See 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 Outsider Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

13See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High 

Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 

68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003), unchanged in Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic 

Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 62560 

(November 5, 2003); and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183–84 

(March 11, 2005). 

14See Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 

13th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

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

(Garlic 13) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

15We converted the 376.67 percent rate to the 

$4.71 per-unit rate by multiplying it by the CBPderived average unit value for subject merchandise 

entries during the Garlic 13 POR (excluding the 

entries from our mandatory and separate rate 

respondents). 

16See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews, 70 FR 

69942 (November 18, 2005), unchanged in Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final Results of New 

Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 26329 (May 4, 2006). 

17See, e.g., Watanabe Group v. United States, 

Court No. 09–00520 Slip Op. 10–139 (CIT December 

22, 2010) and Peer Bearing Company—Changshan 

v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (CIT 

December 8, 2008). 

Department may rely on information 

derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. The Department’s practice is to 

select an AFA rate that is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of 

the facts available rule to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner’’ and that ensures 

‘‘that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ 6

Specifically, the Department’s practice 

in reviews, in selecting a rate as total 

AFA, is to use the highest rate on the 

record of the proceeding which, to the 

extent practicable, can be corroborated 

(assuming the rate is based on 

secondary information).7 The Court of 

International Trade (CIT) and the CAFC 

have affirmed decisions to select the 

highest margin from any prior segment 

of the proceeding as the AFA rate on 

numerous occasions.8 In choosing the 

appropriate balance between providing 

a respondent with an incentive to 

respond accurately and imposing a rate 

that is reasonably related to the 

respondent’s prior commercial activity, 

selecting the highest prior margin 

reflects ‘‘a common sense inference that 

the highest prior margin is the most 

probative evidence of current margins, 

because, if it were not so, the importer, 

knowing of the rule, would have 

produced current information showing 

the margin to be less.’’ 9 Therefore, as 

AFA, the Department has assigned the 

PRC-wide entity a dumping margin of 

$4.71 per kilogram, the highest 

calculated per-unit rate on the record of 

any segment of this proceeding. 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information Used as AFA 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

of the Act concerning the subject 

merchandise.10 To corroborate means 

that the Department will satisfy itself 

that the secondary information to be 

used has probative value.11 To 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information to be 

used.12 Independent sources used to 

corroborate such evidence may include, 

for example, published price lists, 

official import statistics and customs 

data, and information obtained from 

interested parties during the particular 

investigation.13

The Department has corroborated the 

$4.71 per-unit rate, the highest rate on 

the record of any segment of this 

proceeding applied to the PRC-wide 

entity. The Department notes that this 

per-unit rate was calculated in Garlic 

13 14 using the 376.67 percent ad 

valorem rate contained in the 

underlying petition 15 and applied in the 

final results of every subsequent review 

as the PRC-wide entity rate. 

Specifically, to assess the probative 

value of the total AFA rate selected for 

the PRC-wide entity in an earlier 

review, the Department compared this 

376.67 percent rate to transactionspecific margins of other respondents. 

This ad valorem rate from the petition 

was corroborated in previously 

completed administrative review in 

which the Department found that the 

376.67 percent rate for the PRC-wide 

entity was in the ‘‘range of the highest 

margins calculated on the record of 

these reviews.16

Similar to the reasons the CIT found 

the PRC-wide entity rate corroborated in 

other cases 17 here the Department finds 

the PRC-wide entity rate to be 

corroborated. The Department finds this 

rate to be reliable and relevant, because 

it (1) constitutes the highest rate from 

any segment of the proceeding, (2) was 

applied as the PRC-wide entity rate in 

the immediately preceding review and 

has been applied as the PRC-wide entity 

rate in over a dozen completed reviews, 

and (3) was corroborated in a prior 

review using transaction specific 

margins of the respondents in that 

review. A more fulsome examination of 

the Department’s corroboration of the 

PRC-wide entity rate can be found in the 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1: 

Selection and Corroboration of the PRCwide rate as to the PRC-wide entity. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Notices 11489 

18As discussed in the First Partial Preliminary 

Results, the Department selected four mandatory 

respondents. In the First Partial Preliminary 

Results, the Department found Longtai and 

Hongqiao to be part of the PRC-wide entity. 

Final Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

determine that the following margin 

exists for the PRC-wide entity during 

the period November 1, 2009, through 

October 31, 2010.18

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted-average margin (dollars per kilogram) 

PRC-wide entity (see Appendix I) ........................ 4.71 

Assessment and Cash Deposit Rates 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise in accordance with these 

partial final results of review. The 

Department will direct CBP to assess a 

$4.71 per-unit (i.e., per kilogram) 

assessment rate amount on each entry of 

the subject merchandise, entered, or 

withdrawn for entry, during the POR, by 

companies subject to these partial final 

results. The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions for 

such companies directly to CBP 15 days 

after the publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these final results of 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide entity rate of $4.71 per 

kilogram; and (2) for all non-PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporter that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a final 

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 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to an administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with regulations and 

terms of an APO is a violation which is 

subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice of these final results in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 17, 2012. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

1. Linshu Dading Private Agricultural 

Products Co., Ltd. 

2. Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co., 

Ltd. 

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

4. Shenzhen Greening Trading Co., Ltd. 

5. Sunny Import & Export Limited 

6. Shandong Longtai Fruits and Vegetables 

Co., Ltd. 

7. Weifang Hongqiao International Logistic 

Co., Ltd. 

Appendix II 

1. Jining Yifa Garlic Produce Co., Ltd. 

2. Jining Yongjia Trade Co., Ltd. 

3. Jinxiang Chengda Import & Export Co., Ltd. 

4. Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd. 

5. Jinxiang Yuanxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. 

6. Qingdao Sea-Line International Trading 

Co., Ltd. 

7. Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd. 

8. Shandong Wonderland Organic Food Co., 

Ltd. 

9. Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., Ltd. 

10. Shenzhen Bainong Co., Ltd. 

11. Weifang Chenglong Import & Export Co., 

Ltd. 

12. XuZhou Simple Garlic Industry Co., Ltd. 

13. Zhengzhou Huachao Industrial Co., Ltd. 

14. Zhengzhou Yuanli Trading Co., Ltd. 

Appendix III 

Comment 1: Selection and Corroboration of 

the PRC-wide entity rate as to the PRCentity 

Comment 2: Respondent Selection Process in 

Reviews 

[FR Doc. 2012–4486 Filed 2–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–863] 

Honey From the People’s Republic of 

China: Extension of Time Limit for 

Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 27, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Bertrand, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3207. 

Background 

On January 3, 2012, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published 

the notice preliminarily rescinding the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

on honey from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’), covering the period 

December 12, 2009, through November 

30, 2010. See Honey From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Rescission of the Administrative Review, 

77 FR 79 (January 3, 2012). The final 

results are currently due on May 2, 

2012. 

Extension of Time Limits for Final 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), requires 

the Department to issue the final results 

in an administrative review of an 

antidumping duty order 120 days after 

the date on which the preliminary 

results are published. The Department 

may, however, extend the deadline for 

completion of the final results of an 

administrative review to 180 days if it 

determines it is not practicable to 

complete the review within the 

foregoing time period. See section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2). 

The Department requires additional 

time to complete this review because 

the Department must fully analyze and 

consider significant issues regarding 

whether the respondent’s sales were 

bona fide. Further, the Department 

extended the due date for submission of 

the rebuttal comments to the case briefs 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES