13264 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

1See Notice of Amendment of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China, 

64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999) (‘‘the Order’’). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 5559 

(February 1, 2011). 

3See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 

Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 17825 (March 31, 

2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

Road in the Jefferson County Industrial 

Park (Site 1). The facility is used to 

produce pressure-sensitive adhesive 

athletic tape with textile fabric backing 

material for the U.S. market and export. 

JCIDA has now amended the 

application to provide updated and 

corrected information regarding the 

domestic availability and technical 

specifications of the textile fabric that 

would be used as an input to NAT’s 

manufacturing process. 

Public comment on the amended 

application is invited from interested 

parties. Submissions (original and 3 

copies) shall be addressed to the Board’s 

Executive Secretary at the following 

address: Office of the Executive 

Secretary, Room 2111, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230–0002. The 

closing period for receipt of comments 

is April 5, 2012. Rebuttal comments in 

response to material submitted during 

the foregoing period may be submitted 

during the subsequent 15-day period to 

April 20, 2012. 

A copy of the amended application 

will be available for public inspection at 

the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address listed above and in the 

‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s 

Web site, which is accessible via 

www.trade.gov/ftz. For further 

information, contact Pierre Duy at or 

(202) 482–1378. 

Dated: February 29, 2012. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5418 Filed 3–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–851] 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, and 

Rescission in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 2012. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is currently 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the 

period February 1, 2010, through 

January 31, 2011. We preliminarily 

determine that sales made by Blue Field 

(Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(Blue Field), and Dujiangyan Xingda 

Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Xingda) were made 

below normal value (‘‘NV’’). We invite 

interested parties to comment on these 

preliminary results. In addition, we are 

also rescinding this administrative 

review with respect to China National 

Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & 

Export Corp. (China National), China 

Processed Food Import & Export Co. 

(China Processed), Fujian Pinghe 

Baofeng Canned Foods (Fujian Pinghe), 

Fujian Yuxing Fruits and Vegetables 

Foodstufs Development Co., Ltd. (Fujian 

Yuxing), Fujian Zishan Group Co., Ltd. 

(Fujian Zishan), Guangxi Eastwing 

Trading Co., Ltd. (Guangxi Eastwing), 

Guangxi Hengyong Industrial & 

Commercial Dev. Ltd. (Guangxi 

Hengyong), Guangxi Jisheng Foods, Inc. 

(Jisheng), Linyi City Kangfu Foodstuff 

Drinkable Co.Ltd. (Linyi City), Longhai 

Guangfa Food Co., Ltd.(Longhai 

Guangfa), Primera Harvest (Xingfan) Co., 

Ltd. (Primera Harvest), Shandong 

Fengyu Edible Fungus Corporation Ltd. 

(Shangdong Fengyu), Sun Wave Trading 

Co., Ltd. (Sun Wave Trading), Xiamen 

Greenland Import & Export Co., Ltd. 

(Xiamen Greenland), Xiamen Gulong 

Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Xiamen 

Gulong), Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export 

Trading Co., Ltd. (Xiamen Jiahua), 

Xiamen International Trade & Industrial 

Co., Ltd. (XITIC), Xiamen Longhuai 

Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Xiamen 

Longhuai), Zhangzhou Ganchang Foods 

Co., Ltd. (Zhangzhou Ganchang), 

Zhangzhou Hongda Import & Export 

Trading Co., Ltd. (Zhangzhou Hongda), 

and Zhangzhou Tongfa Foods Industry 

Co., Ltd. (Zhangzhou Tongfa). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael J. Heaney, or Robert James, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 19, 1999, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms (‘‘mushrooms’’) 

from the PRC.1 On February 1, 2011, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register its notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on mushrooms 

from the PRC.2 On February 25, 2011, 

Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co.,Ltd. 

(Ayecue) filed a request for review. On 

February 28, 2011, Blue Field also filed 

a review request. Finally, on February 

28, 2011, Petitioner, Monterey 

Mushrooms, Inc., requested reviews for 

the following exporters: (1) Ayecue, (2) 

Blue Field, (3) China National, (4) China 

Processed, (5) Dujiangyan Xingda 

Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Xingda), (6) Fujian 

Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. 

(Golden Banyan), (7) Fujian Pinghe, (8) 

Fujian Yuxing, (9) Fujian Zishan, (10) 

Guangxi Eastwing, (11) Guangxi 

Hengyong, (12) Jisheng, (13) Linyi City, 

(14) Longhai Guangfa, (15) Primera 

Harvest, (16) Shandong Fengyu, (17) 

Shandong Jiufa, (18) Sun Wave Trading, 

(19) Xiamen Greenland, (20) Xiamen 

Gulong, (21) XITIC, (22) Xiamen Jiahua, 

(23) XITIC, (24) Xiamen Longhuai, (25) 

Zhangzhou Ganchang, Ltd. (Zhangzhou 

Ganchang), (26) Zhangzhou Golden 

Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(Zhangzgou Golden), (27) Zhangzhou 

Hongda, (28) Zhangzhou Tongfa Foods 

Industry Co., Ltd., (Zhangzhou Tongfa) 

and (29) Zhejiang Iceman Food Co., Ltd 

(Zhejiang Iceman). On March 31 2011, 

the Department published in the 

Federal Register a notice of initiation of 

the antidumping duty administrative 

review of mushrooms from the PRC for 

the period February 1, 2010, through 

January 31, 2011, with respect to the 28 

companies named in the review 

requests specified above.3

On April 8, 2011, we received a 

separate rate certification from Ayecue. 

On April 28, 2010, we received a 

separate rate certification from Jisheng. 

On May 27, 2011, Shandong Jiufa 

submitted a separate rate certificaton. 

On May 31, 2011, Golden Banyan filed 

a separate rate certification. 

On June 27, 2011 the petitioner filed 

a letter withdrawing its request for Linyi 

City and for Zhangzhou Ganchang. 

Finally, on June 29, 2011, the petitioner 

filed a letter withdrawing its request for 

review of XITIC. As the review request 

was timely withdrawn for one of the 

exporters previously selected for 

examination (i.e., XITIC), the 

Department selected an additional 

exporter for individual examination in 

this administrative review according to 

the methodology specified below. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 13265 

4See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, from Michael J. 

Heaney, Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, 

Subject: ‘‘Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China: 

Respondent Selection Memorandum,’’ dated May 

18, 2011. 

5See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, from Michael J. 

Heaney, Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, 

Subject: ‘‘Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China: 

Respondent Selection Memorandum,’’ dated July 

22, 2011. 

6See ‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors 

Response of Blue Field in the Antidumping Review 

of Certain Preserved Mushrooms’’ (‘‘Blue Filed 

Verification Report’’), dated February 14, 2012. 

7On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that 

‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms 

containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are 

within the scope of the antidumping duty order. 

See Recommendation Memorandum—Final Ruling 

of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for ‘‘Exclusion of 

Certain Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the 

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China’’, dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 

2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit upheld this decision. See Tak Fat 

v. United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

8See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Continued 

Respondent Selection 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), directs 

the Department to calculate individual 

dumping margins for each known 

exporter or producer of the subject 

merchandise. However, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 

Department discretion to limit its 

examination to a reasonable number of 

exporters or producers if it is not 

practicable to examine all exporters or 

producers involved in the review. 

On April 4, 2011, the Department 

released U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data for entries of 

the subject merchandise during the 

period of review (‘‘POR’’) under 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

to all interested parties having an APO, 

inviting comments regarding the CBP 

data and respondent selection. The 

Department received comments from 

Ayecue on April 8, 2011, and XITIC, 

Shandong Jiufia, and Blue Field on 

April 13, 2011. 

Based on the large number of 

potential exporters or producers 

involved in this administrative review 

and, after considering our resources, we 

determined that it was not practicable to 

individually examine all 28 companies. 

Accordingly, on May 18, 2011, we 

issued our first respondent selection 

memorandum indicating that, pursuant 

to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, we 

could reasonably examine only the two 

largest producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise by volume. Therefore, we 

selected Blue Field and XITIC as 

mandatory respondents.4 As noted, 

previously, on June 29, 2011, the 

petitioner filed a letter withdrawing its 

request for review of XITIC. 

Accordingly, on July 22, 2011, we 

issued a second respondent selection 

memorandum in which we selected 

Xingda, the second largest exporter of 

the remaining respondents for which 

the Department had a continuing 

request for review, as the second 

respondent in this review.5

We issued our antidumping 

questionnaire to Blue Field and Xingda 

on June 1, 2011, and July 25, 2011, 

respectively. On October 26, 2011, we 

issued supplemental questionnaires to 

Blue Field and Xingda. Blue Field and 

Xingda filed their responses to our 

request for supplemental information on 

November 10, 2011. 

Verification 

From January 9 through January 13, 

we conducted a verification of Blue 

Field. We used standard verification 

procedures, including examination of 

relevant accounting and production 

records, as well as source 

documentation provided by the 

respondents.6

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value 

Data 

Partial Rescission 

Section 351.213(d)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations provide that 

the Department will rescind an 

administrative review if the party that 

requested the review withdraws its 

request for review within 90 days of the 

date of publication of the notice of 

initiation of the requested review, or 

withdraws it at a later date if the 

Department determines it is reasonable 

to extend the time limit for withdrawing 

the request. The Department initiated 

this administrative review on March 31, 

2011. See Initiation Notice, 76 FR 

17825. 

Petitioner withdrew its request for 

review for 18 exporters on May 6, 2011. 

Additionally, on June 27, 2011 

petitioner withdrew its request for 

review of Linyi City and for Zhangzhou 

Ganchang. Finally, on June 29, 2011, the 

petitioner filed a letter withdrawing its 

request for review of XITIC. Because the 

party that requested this review has 

timely withdrawn the request for 

review, we are rescinding this review 

with respect to the following 

companies: (1) China National, (2) 

China Processed, (3) Fujian Pinghe, (4) 

Fujian Yuxing, (5) Fujian Zishan, (6) 

Guangxi Eastwing, (7) Guangxi 

Hengyong, (8) Jisheng, (9) Linyi City, 

(10) Longhai Guangfa, (11) Primera 

Harvest, (12) Shandong Fengyu, (13) 

Sun Wave Trading, (14) Xiamen 

Greenland, (15) Xiamen Gulong, (16) 

Xiamen Jiahua, (17) XITIC, (18) Xiamen 

Longhuai, (19) Zhangzhou Ganchang, 

(20) Zhangzhou Hongda, and (21) 

Zhangzhou Tongfa. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain preserved mushrooms, 

whether imported whole, sliced, diced, 

or as stems and pieces. The certain 

preserved mushrooms covered under 

this order are the species Agaricus 

bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. 

‘‘Certain Preserved Mushrooms’’ refers 

to mushrooms that have been prepared 

or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and 

sometimes slicing or cutting. These 

mushrooms are then packed and heated 

in containers including, but not limited 

to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid 

medium, including, but not limited to, 

water, brine, butter or butter sauce. 

Certain preserved mushrooms may be 

imported whole, sliced, diced, or as 

stems and pieces. Included within the 

scope of this order are ‘‘brined’’ 

mushrooms, which are presalted and 

packed in a heavy salt solution to 

provisionally preserve them for further 

processing.7

Excluded from the scope of this order 

are the following: (1) All other species 

of mushroom, including straw 

mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled 

mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or 

‘‘quick blanched mushrooms;’’ (3) dried 

mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and 

(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or 

‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are 

prepared or preserved by means of 

vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain 

oil or other additives. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is classifiable under subheadings: 

2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 

2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 

2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, and 

0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and Customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this order is dispositive. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, we have 

treated the PRC as a non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country.8 In 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13266 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 76336 

(December 16, 2008); and Frontseating Service 

Valves from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Final Negative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 12, 2009). 

9See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review 

and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper 

Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). 

10See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 

Steel Plate From Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758 

(November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller Bearings and 

Parts Thereof, finished and Unfinished, From the 

People’s Republic of China; Final Results of 

Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 

61279 (November 17, 1997). 

11The most recently completed segment of this 

proceeding in which Fujian Golden Banyan 

Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd. participated and was 

granted separate rate status was Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review, 73 FR 75083 (December 10, 2008). The 

most recently completed segment of this proceeding 

in which Ayecue participated and was granted 

separate rate status was Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review, 73 FR 21904 (April 23, 2008). The most 

recently completed segment of this proceeding in 

which Blue Field participated and was granted 

separate rate status was Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China: 

Notice of Final Results of the Eighth New Shipper 

Review, 70 FR 60789 (October 19, 2005). The most 

recently completed segment of this proceeding in 

which Shandong Jiufa participated and was granted 

separate rate status was Notice of Amended Final 

Results of Antidumping duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 

People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 60280 (October 

17, 2005). The most recently completed segment of 

this proceeding in which Xingda participated and 

was granted separate rate status was Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review, 73 FR 45402 (August 5, 2008). 

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

the Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

Department.9

Separate Rates Determination 

It is the Department’s policy to assign 

all exporters of the merchandise subject 

to review in NME countries a single rate 

unless an exporter can affirmatively 

demonstrate an absence of government 

control, both in law (de jure) and in fact 

(de facto), with respect to exports. To 

establish whether a company is 

sufficiently independent to be entitled 

to a separate, company-specific rate, the 

Department analyzes each exporting 

entity in an NME country under the test 

established in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), 

and amplified by Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that all firms that 

wish to qualify for separate-rate status 

must complete, as appropriate, either a 

separate-rate application or certification. 

See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 17826. To 

establish separate-rate eligibility, the 

Department requires entities for which a 

review was requested that were assigned 

a separate rate in the most recent 

segment of the proceeding in which 

they participated to certify that they 

continue to meet the criteria for 

obtaining a separate rate. In this 

administrative review, Ayecue, Fujian 

Golden Banyan Foodstuffs, and 

Shandong Juifa (‘‘the separate-rate 

applicants’’) each submitted a separaterate certification indicating they 

continued to meet the criteria for 

obtaining a separate rate. Additionally, 

Blue Field and Xingda both submitted a 

separate-rate certification and answered 

all the separate-rate questions in our 

questionnaires. As such, we have 

determined that Blue Field, Xingda, and 

the separate-rate applicants each 

provided company-specific information 

and each stated that it met the criteria 

for the assignment of a separate rate. 

The Department’s separate-rate test to 

determine whether the exporter is 

independent from government control 

does not consider, in general, 

macroeconomic/border-type controls 

(e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices), particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on 

controls over the investment, pricing, 

and output decision-making process at 

the individual firm level.10

Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with the individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

In this administrative review, Blue 

Field and Xingda demonstrated, and the 

separate-rate applicants certified, that 

consistent with the most recent segment 

of this proceeding in which the entities 

participated and were granted a separate 

rate, there is an absence of de jure 

government control of their respective 

exports.11 Each of the separate-rate 

applicants certified to its separate-rate 

status. Additionally, Blue Field, Xingda, 

and the separate-rate applicants stated 

that their companies had no 

relationship with any level of the PRC 

government with respect to ownership, 

internal management, and business 

operations. In this segment, we have no 

new information on the record that 

would cause us to reconsider our 

previous determinations of the absence 

of de jure government control with 

regard to these companies. Thus, we 

find that evidence on the record 

supports a preliminary finding of an 

absence of de jure government control 

with regard to the export activities of 

Blue Field, XITIC, and the separate-rate 

applicants. 

Absence of De Facto Control 

As stated in previous cases, there is 

some evidence that certain enactments 

of the PRC central government have not 

been implemented uniformly among 

different sectors and/or jurisdictions in 

the PRC. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 

1998). Therefore, the Department has 

determined that an analysis of de facto 

control is critical in determining 

whether the respondents are, in fact, 

subject to a degree of government 

control which would preclude the 

Department from assigning separate 

rates. 

The Department typically considers 

the following four factors in evaluating 

whether a respondent is subject to de 

facto government control over its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by, or subject to the approval of, 

a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent retains the proceeds from its 

export sales and makes independent 

decisions regarding the disposition of 

profits or financing of losses; (3) 

whether the respondent has the 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; (4) whether the 

respondent has autonomy from the 

government regarding the selection of 

management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR 

at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From 

the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). 

The evidence provided by Blue Field, 

Xingda, and the separate-rate applicants 

supports a preliminary finding of 

absence of de facto government control 

based on the following facts: (1) The 

companies set their own export prices 

independent of the government and 

without the approval of a government 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 13267 

12See, e.g., Blue Field’s June 21, 2011, Section A 

response at A–1 through A–8; Xingda’s September 

6, 2011, Section A response at A–1 through A–8, 

Ayecue April 18, 2011, separate rate certification at 

3–5; Golden Banyan May 27, 2011, separate rate 

certification at 4–7, and Shandong Juifa separate 

rates certification at 4–7. 

13See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 

04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country 

Selection Process (March 1, 2004) (‘‘Policy 

Bulletin’’), available on the Department’s Web site 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html. 

14 Id. 

15See Memoandum from Carole Showers, Office 

of Policy to Richard Weible, Office Director, Office 

7, AD/CVD Operations RE: Request for a List of 

Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review 

of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Preserved Mushrroms (Mushrooms) from the 

People’s Republic of China (China) dated October 

12, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’). 

16See section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act. 

17See Certain Steel Wheels From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary 

Deterrmination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 

Critical Circumstances, and Postponent of Final 

Determination, 76 FR 67703, 67708 (November 2, 

2011) (‘‘Steel Wheels’’). 

18See Memorandum to the File through Robert 

James, Program Manager Office 7 from Michael J. 

Heaney International Trade Analyst: Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Certain Preserved 

Mushrroms from the People’s Republic of China, 

dated February 28, 2012 (‘‘Factors Valuation 

Memorandum’’). 

authority; (2) there is no restriction on 

any of the companies’ use of export 

revenue, nor the disposition of profits or 

financing of losses; (3) the companies 

have authority to negotiate and sign 

contracts and other agreements; (4) the 

companies have autonomy from the 

government in making decisions 

regarding the selection of 

management.12

Additionally, in this administrative 

review we have no new information on 

the record that would cause us to 

reconsider our previous determinations 

of the absence of de facto government 

control with regard to these companies. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that Blue Field, Xingda and the 

separate-rate applicants have 

established that they qualify for separate 

rates under the criteria established by 

Silicon Carbide and Sparklers. 

The PRC-Wide Entity 

In addition to the separate-rate 

applications discussed above, there was 

one company, Golden Banyan, for 

which we initiated a review in this 

proceeding and which did not 

previously have a separate rate. Because 

this company did not file a separate rate 

application to demonstrate eligibility for 

a separate rate in this administrative 

review or certify that it had no 

shipments, we preliminarily determine 

that this company will remain part of 

the PRC-wide entity. See Initiation 

Notice, 75 FR at 15680. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, 

in most circumstances, on the NME 

producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate 

market economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to 

the extent possible, the prices or costs 

of FOPs in one or more market economy 

countries that are: (1) At a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country; and (2) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise.13 From the countries that 

are both economically comparable and 

significant producers, the Department 

will select a primary surrogate country 

based upon whether the data for valuing 

FOPs are both available and reliable.14

Economic Comparability 

As explained in our surrogate country 

list, the Department considers 

Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, 

South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine all 

comparable to the PRC in economic 

development.15 Therefore, we consider 

all six counties on the Surrogate 

Country List as having satisfied the 

comparable economic development 

prong of the surrogate selection 

criteria.16 Furthermore, in Steel 

Wheels,17 the Department stated: 

{U}nless we find that all of the countries 

determined to be equally economically 

comparable are not significant producers of 

comparable merchandise, do not provide a 

reliable source of publicly available surrogate 

data or are unsuitable for use for other 

reasons, we will rely on data from one of 

these countries. 

Because the Department finds that one 

of these countries from the Surrogate 

Country List meets the selection criteria, 

as explained below, the Department will 

not consider India as the primary 

surrogate country. 

Significant Producers of Identical or 

Comparable Merchandise 

Based on publicly available 

information placed on the record by 

interested parties (e.g., production data), 

the Department determines that 

Colombia, Ukraine, and the Philippines 

to be significant producers of identical 

or comparable merchandise. Because 

Colombia has publicly available and 

reliable data for all but two of the factors 

of production, the Department has 

determined to use Colombia as the 

primary surrogate country. Colombia is 

at a comparable level of economic 

development pursuant to section 

773(c)(4)(A) of the Act, and is a 

significant producer of the subject 

merchandise pursuant to section 

773(c)(4)(B) of the Act. See Petitioner’s 

January 6, 2012, submission at 

Exhibit 1.18 Accordingly because 

Colombia meets all of the criteria for 

selection as a surrogate country, the 

Department has selected Colombia as 

the primary source for valuing surrogate 

values. With the exception of mushroom 

spawn and land rent discussed below, 

the Department used Colombia as the 

source of surrogate values in this 

proceeding. 

For mushroom spawn and land rent, 

the Department was unable to find 

surrogate value information from 

Colombia. For mushroom spawn, the 

Department used mushroom data 

derived from Ukraine because, among 

the six countries on the Surrogate 

Country List, Ukraine represented by 

HTS category the most specific and 

reliable source of data for the input 

among the six countries listed on the 

Surrogate Country List. For land rent, 

the Department used data derived from 

the Philippines, since these data were 

publicly available, specific to the 

production input in question, and 

Philippine land rent was the only 

available source of data among the six 

countries comprising our Surrogate 

Country List. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of 

this administrative review, interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we based Blue Field’s and 

Xingda’s U.S. prices on export prices 

(‘‘EP’’) because their first sales to 

unaffiliated purchasers were made 

before the date of importation and the 

use of constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) 

was not otherwise warranted by the 

facts on the record. As appropriate, we 

deducted foreign inland freight and 

foreign brokerage and handling from the 

starting price (or gross unit price), in 

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

Act. Where these services were 

provided by NME vendors, we based the 

deduction on surrogate values. 

Both respondents used foreign inland 

freight via truck and train. As 

previously stated, where applicable, we 

made deductions for these expenses 

from the U.S. price. We valued truck 

and train freight using a per-unit, PORwide, average rate calculated from the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13268 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

19See, e.g., 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 

(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 

(January 17, 2006). 

20See, e.g., Drill Pipe From the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 51004 

(August 18, 2010), unchanged in Drill Pipe From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical 

Circumstances, 76 FR 196 (January 11, 2011). 

21See, e.g., 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). 

World Bank’s Doing Business in 

Colombia study. See Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at page 11. We valued 

foreign brokerage and handling using 

the publicly summarized brokerage and 

handling expense reported in the World 

Bank’s Doing Business in Colombia 

study. See Petitioner’s January 6 

Submission, at Exhibit 42; Surrogate 

Values Memorandum at page 11. 

Because the record indicates that the 

material terms of Blue Field’s and 

Xingda’s U.S. sales were established on 

the date of invoice, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.401(i), we determine that invoice 

date is the appropriate date to use as the 

date of sale for these two respondents. 

See Blue Field July 6, 2011, Section C 

response at C–8; Xingda September 19, 

2011, Section C response at C–8. 

Normal Value 

1. Methodology 

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

provides that the Department shall 

determine the NV using an FOP 

methodology if the merchandise under 

review is exported from an NME and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NMEs renders price comparisons and 

the calculation of production costs 

invalid under the Department’s normal 

methodologies.19 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, including 

depreciation. The Department based NV 

on FOPs reported by the respondents for 

materials, energy, labor, and packing. 

Thus, in accordance with section 

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

adding the values of the FOPs, 

overhead, selling, general and 

administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses, 

profit, and packing costs. 

2. Selection of Surrogate Values 

In selecting the ‘‘best available 

information for surrogate values,’’ 

consistent with the Department’s 

preference, we considered whether the 

potential surrogate value data on the 

record were: Publicly available; 

product-specific; representative of broad 

market average prices; contemporaneous 

with the POR; and free of taxes and 

import duties.20 Where only surrogate 

values that were not contemporaneous 

with the POR were available on the 

record of this administrative review, we 

inflated the surrogate values using, 

where appropriate, the Colombian WPI 

as published in International Financial 

Statistics by the International Monetary 

Fund. See Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 2. 

In accordance with these guidelines, 

we calculated surrogate values, except 

as noted below, from import statistics of 

the primary selected surrogate country, 

Colombia, from Global Trade Atlas 

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

Information Services. Our use of GTA 

import data is in accordance with past 

practice and satisfies all of our criteria 

for surrogate values noted above.21

After identifying appropriate 

surrogate values, we calculated NV by 

multiplying the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by the surrogate 

values. As appropriate, we also added 

freight costs to the surrogate values that 

we calculated for the respondents’ 

material inputs to make these prices 

delivered prices. We calculated these 

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. Where there were 

multiple domestic suppliers of a 

material input, we calculated a 

weighted-average distance after limiting 

each supplier’s distance to no more than 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

the factory of each of the two 

respondents. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 

117 F. 3d 1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. Cir. 

1997). We increased the calculated costs 

of the FOPs for surrogate general 

expenses and profit. See Surrogate 

Values Memorandum at page 12. 

Because Colombian surrogate values 

were denominated in Colombian Pesos, 

we converted these data to U.S. dollars 

(‘‘USD’’) using the applicable average 

exchange rate based on exchange rate 

data from the Department’s Web site. 

For further details regarding the 

specific surrogate values used for direct 

materials, energy inputs, and packing 

materials in these preliminary results, 

see the Surrogate Values Memorandum 

at Exhbit 1. 

To calculate the labor input, we based 

our calculation on the methodology 

which the Department enunciated on 

June 21, 2011, in Antidumping 

Methodologies in Proceedings Involving 

Non-Market Economies: Valuing the 

Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 

36092 (June 21, 2011) (‘‘Labor 

Methodologies’’). Prior to 2010, the 

Department used regression-based 

wages that captured the worldwide 

relationship between per capita Gross 

National Income and hourly 

manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.408(c)(3). On May 14, 2010, the 

Federal Circuit in Dorbest Ltd. v. United 

States, 604 F. 3d 1363, 1372–73 (Fed 

Cir. 2010) (‘‘Dorbest’’), invalidated part 

of that regulation. As a consequence of 

the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Dorbest, 

the Department no longer relies on the 

regression-based methodology described 

in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). 

In Labor Methodologies, the 

Department explained that the best 

methodology to value the labor input is 

to use industry-specific labor rates from 

the primary surrogate country. See 

Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093. 

Additionally, the Department 

determined that the best data source for 

industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 

6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from 

the International Labor Organization’s 

(‘‘ILO’’) Yearbook of Labor Statistics 

(‘‘Yearbook’’). See Labor Methodologies, 

76 FR at 36093–36094. 

Consistent with this methodology, to 

calculate labor expense in this review, 

we used 2005 data from Colombia that 

falls under International Standard 

Industrial Classification (‘‘ISIC’’) 15 

‘‘Manufacture of Food Products and 

Beverages’’ in Chapter 6A of the ILO’ 

Yearbook. We used Colombian WPI data 

to inflate these values to POR amounts. 

This results in a calculated labor rate of 

10,863 Colombia pesos per hour. Based 

on the reporting of financial ratios in 

this review, we find that the facts and 

information on the record do not 

warrant or permit an adjustment to the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 13269 

surrogate financial statements. See 

Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36094. 

Accordingly, we made no offset to the 

surrogate financial statements in this 

review. A more detailed description of 

the wage rate calculation methodology 

is provided in the Factors Valuation 

Memorandum at page 9–10. 

We offset the respondents’ material 

costs for revenue generated from the 

sale of tin scrap. See Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at page 12. 

Finally, to value overhead, SG&A, and 

profit, we have preliminarily 

determined that the 2010 financial 

statements of the Setas Colombianas 

S.A. constitute the best information 

available. See Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at page 12. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

The Department has determined that 

the following preliminary dumping 

margins exist for the period February 1, 

2010, through January 31, 2011. 

Respondents other than mandatory 

respondents will receive the weightedaverage of the margins calculated for 

those companies selected for individual 

review (i.e., mandatory respondents), 

excluding de minimis margins or 

margins based entirely on adverse facts 

available. 

Exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Blue Field .................................... 215.10 

Xingda ......................................... 222.78 

Ayecue ........................................ 215.41 

Golden Banyan ........................... 215.41 

Shandong Jiufa ........................... 215.41 

PRC-wide rate * .......................... 198.63 

* Includes Zhangzhou Golden. 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose to 

parties to this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within five days of 

the date of publication of these 

preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Interested parties may 

submit written comments (case briefs) 

within 30 days of publication of the 

preliminary results and rebuttal 

comments (rebuttal briefs) within five 

days after the time limit for filing case 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 

351.309(d)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must be 

limited to issues raised in the case 

briefs. Parties who submit arguments are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities. Further, the 

Department requests that parties 

submitting written comments 

concurrently provide a public version of 

those comments. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Any 

interested party may request a hearing 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, and electronically file the 

request via the Department’s Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’). Id. An electronically filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

(ET). 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. 

See id. Issues raised in the hearing will 

be limited to those raised in the briefs. 

Unless the deadline is extended 

pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of 

the Act, the Department will issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, including the results of our 

analysis of the issues raised by the 

parties in their comments, within 120 

days after issuance of these preliminary 

results. 

Deadline for Submission of Publicly 

Available Surrogate Value Information 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3), the deadline for 

submission of publicly available 

information to value factors of 

production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) is 

20 days after the date of publication of 

the preliminary determination. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), if 

an interested party submits factual 

information less than ten days before, 

on, or after (if the Department has 

extended the deadline) the applicable 

deadline for submission of such factual 

information, an interested party has ten 

days to submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct the factual 

information no later than ten days after 

such factual information is served on 

the interested party. However, the 

Department notes that 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(1) permits new information 

only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or 

corrects information recently placed on 

the record. See, e.g., 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. Furthermore, the 

Department generally will not accept 

business proprietary information in 

either the surrogate value submissions 

or the rebuttals thereto, as the regulation 

regarding the submission of surrogate 

values allows only for the submission of 

publicly available information. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after the date of publication of 

the final results of this review. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 

we calculated exporter/importer (or 

customer)-specific assessment rates for 

the merchandise subject to this review. 

Where the respondent has reported 

reliable entered values, we calculated 

importer or customer-specific ad 

valorem rates by aggregating the 

dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 

sales to each importer or customer, and 

dividing this amount by the total 

entered value of the sales to each 

importer or customer. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). Where an importer or 

customer-specific ad valorem rate is 

greater than de minimis, we will apply 

the assessment rate to the entered value 

of the importers’/customers’ entries 

during the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). 

Where we do not have entered values 

for all U.S. sales, we calculated a perunit assessment rate by aggregating the 

antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer or customer and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer or 

customer. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates are de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer or 

customer-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

Where an importer or customer-specific 

ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, 

we will instruct CBP to liquidate 

appropriate entries without regard to 

antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2). 

For the companies that were not 

selected for individual review, we 

calculated an assessment rate based on 

the weighted-average of the cash deposit 

rates calculated for companies selected 

for individual review, where those rates 

were not de minimis or based on 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13270 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

adverse facts available, in accordance 

with Department practice. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided 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, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (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 recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 198.63 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise that have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These cash 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 notice 

are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 28, 2012. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5413 Filed 3–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–810] 

Stainless Steel Bar From India: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel bar (SSBar) from India. The period 

of review (POR) is February 1, 2010, 

through January 31, 2011. This review 

covers three exporters/producers, one of 

which is being individually reviewed as 

a mandatory respondent. We 

preliminarily determine that the 

mandatory respondent made sales of the 

subject merchandise at prices below 

normal value (NV). We have assigned 

the second respondent the margin 

calculated for the mandatory 

respondent. In addition, we have 

rescinded the review with respect to the 

remaining company. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on appropriate 

entries. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Shuler or Yasmin Nair, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–1293 or (202) 482– 

3813, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 21, 1995, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on SSBar from 

India. See Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India 

and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 

1995) (the Order). On February 1, 2011, 

the Department published its notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the Order on SSBar from 

India. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 76 

FR 5559, 5560 (February 1, 2011). 

In February 2011, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), the Department 

received self-requests to conduct 

administrative reviews of the Order 

from two producers/exporters of the 

subject merchandise: Venus Industries, 

Pvt. Ltd (Venus) and Chandan Steel 

Limited (Chandan). Additionally, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), 

domestic interested parties Carpenter 

Technology Corp.; Electralloy Co., (a 

division of G.O. Carlson, Inc.); 

Outokumpu Stainless Bar, Inc.; 

Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, 

Inc.; and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. 

(collectively, Petitioners), requested that 

the Department conduct an 

administrative review of the following 

producers/exporters: Venus, Ambica 

Steels Limited (Ambica), Atlas Stainless 

Corporation (Atlas), Bhansali Bright 

Bars Pvt. Ltd. (Bhansali), FACOR Steels 

Limited (Facor), Grand Foundry, Ltd. 

(Grand Foundry), India Steel Works, 

Ltd. (India Steel), Meltroll Engineering 

Pvt. Ltd. (Meltroll), Mukand Ltd. 

(Mukand), Sindia Steels Limited 

(Sindia), Snowdrop Trading Pvt. Ltd. 

(Snowdrop), and their respective 

affiliates. 

On March 31, 2011, in accordance 

with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation of an administrative review 

for all twelve companies. See Initiation 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Requests for Revocation in 

Part, and Deferral of Administrative 

Review, 76 FR 17825 (March 31, 2011) 

(Initiation Notice). We indicated that we 

would select mandatory respondents for 

review based upon CBP data in the 

event we limited the number of 

respondents selected for individual 

review in accordance with section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act. See Initiation 

Notice. 

In our respondent selection memo, we 

determined that it was not practicable to 

examine all twelve producers/exporters 

for which a review was requested and, 

therefore, we limited the number of 

respondents selected for individual 

review. See Memorandum to Susan 

Kuhbach from Seth Isenberg, 

‘‘Respondent Selection Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Stainless 

Steel Bar from India’’ (April 19, 2011). 

As a result, we selected the two largest 

producers/exporters of SSBar from India 

during the POR for individual review, 

pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the 

Act. The mandatory respondents 

selected were Mukand and Venus. 

Chandan had requested individual 

review, but was not selected. 

On April 26, 2011, Petitioners timely 

withdrew their request for 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES