[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11486-11489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4486]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 PRC-wide 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.
    \2\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The individual members of the FGPA are Christopher Ranch 
L.L.C., The Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, 
Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 non-fresh 
use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then 
harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by 
declarations to 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

[[Page 11487]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PRC-wide 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 PRC-Wide 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of AFA Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR Sec.  351.308(c)(1) provide that the

[[Page 11488]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 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).
    \7\ See 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.'').
    \8\ See, 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).
    \9\ See KYD, 607 F.3d at 766, citing Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. 
United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (CAFC 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See SAA.
    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See 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).
    \13\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 transaction-specific 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 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.
    \15\ We converted the 376.67 percent rate to the $4.71 per-unit 
rate by multiplying it by the CBP-derived average unit value for 
subject merchandise entries during the Garlic 13 POR (excluding the 
entries from our mandatory and separate rate respondents).
    \16\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PRC-wide rate as to the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, 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).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 11489]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-average
                Manufacturer/exporter                   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 PRC-entity
Comment 2: Respondent Selection Process in Reviews
[FR Doc. 2012-4486 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P