13534 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 

1See Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 26649 

(June 10, 1991). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 31586 

(June 1, 2011). 

3See letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of 

Commerce, regarding ‘‘Silicon Metal From the 

People’s Republic of China; Request for 2010–11 

Administrative Review,’’ dated June 30, 2011. 

4See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 

Requests for Revocations in Part and Deferral of 

Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 45227 (July 28, 

2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

5See Letter from Howard Smith, Program 

Manager, Office 4, to All Interested Parties, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Silicon Metal from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated September 15, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate Country and 

Values Letter’’). 

6See letter from Petitioner to the Honorable John 

Bryson, Secretary of Commerce, regarding, ‘‘Silicon 

Metal from the People’s Republic of China; 2010– 

11 Administrative Review; Request for 

Verification,’’ dated November 7, 2011. The 

Department responded to this request in a 

memorandum to the file from Rebecca Pandolph, 

International Trade Analyst, Office 4, AD/CVD 

Operations, regarding, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Silicon Metal from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated concurrently 

with this notice. 

7See letter from Petitioner to the Honorable John 

Bryson, Secretary of Commerce, regarding, ‘‘Silicon 

Metal from the People’s Republic of China; 2010– 

11 Administrative Review; Preliminary Results 

Comments,’’ dated February 15, 2012 and letter 

from Shanghai Jinneng to the Honorable John 

Bryson, Secretary of Commerce, regarding, ‘‘Silicon 

Metal from the People’s Republic of China: 

Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd.— 

Rebuttal to Petitioner’s Comments on the 

Preliminary Results,’’ dated February 21, 2012. 8See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9593 (March 5, 2009) 

(unchanged in Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009)). 

9See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper 

Products From the People’s Republic of China, 71 

FR 53079 (September 8, 2006), and Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts 

Thereof From the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 

29303 (May 22, 2006). 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–806] 

Silicon Metal From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on silicon 

metal from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). The period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) is June 1, 2010, through May 

31, 2011. The Department has 

preliminarily determined that the 

mandatory respondent, Shanghai 

Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Shanghai Jinneng’’), made sales of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States at prices below normal value 

(‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of review, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR for which 

the importer-specific assessment rates 

are above de minimis. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We intend to issue the final results no 

later than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

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

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebecca Pandolph or Howard Smith, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3627, and (202) 

482–5193, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On June 10, 1991, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on silicon metal from the PRC.1 On June 

1, 2011, the Department published a 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the order for 

the June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011 

POR.2 On June 30, 2011, the Department 

received a timely request from Globe 

Metallurgical Inc. (‘‘Petitioner’’) for an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on silicon 

metal from the PRC for Shanghai 

Jinneng.3 On July 28, 2011, the 

Department initiated the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on silicon metal from the PRC for the 

2010–2011 POR.4

On August 2, 2011, the Department 

issued the antidumping questionnaire to 

Shanghai Jinneng. Between September 

2011 and January 2012, Shanghai 

Jinneng responded to the Department’s 

questionnaire and supplemental 

questionnaires and Petitioner 

commented on Shanghai Jinneng’s 

responses. 

In response to the Department’s 

September 15, 2011, letter providing 

parties with an opportunity to submit 

comments regarding surrogate country 

and surrogate value selection,5 Shanghai 

Jinneng and Petitioner filed surrogate 

country and surrogate value comments 

on November 4, 2011 and rebuttal 

comments on November 14, 2011. 

On November 7, 2011, the Department 

received a request from Petitioner to 

verify the information submitted by 

Shanghai Jinneng pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.307(b)(1)(v) and for good cause.6 On 

February 15, 2012, Petitioner submitted 

comments for the Department’s 

consideration in the preliminary results 

and on February 21, 2012, Shanghai 

Jinneng submitted rebuttal comments.7

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of silicon metal containing at 

least 96.00 but less than 99.99 percent 

of silicon by weight. Also covered by 

the order is silicon metal from the PRC 

containing between 89.00 and 96.00 

percent silicon by weight but which 

contain a higher aluminum content than 

the silicon metal containing at least 

96.00 percent but less than 99.99 

percent silicon by weight. Silicon metal 

is currently provided for under 

subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) as a 

chemical product, but is commonly 

referred to as a metal. Semiconductorgrade silicon (silicon metal containing 

by weight not less than 99.99 percent of 

silicon and provided for in subheading 

2804.61.00 of the HTSUS) is not subject 

to the order. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes, 

the written description of the 

merchandise is dispositive. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country.8 In 

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

the Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. Accordingly, 

we calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, there is a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the PRC are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assessed a 

single antidumping duty rate.9

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department notified parties of the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13535 

10See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 45228. 

11See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’). 

12See 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’’). 

13See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles 

From the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 52355, 

52356 (September 13, 2007). 

14See Letter from Shanghai Jinneng to Rebecca M. 

Blank, Acting Secretary of Commerce, regarding, 

‘‘Silicon Metal from the People’s Republic of China: 

Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd.— 

Section A Questionnaire Response,’’ dated August 

30, 2011 (‘‘Section A Response’’) at 2. 

15See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

16See Section A Response at 5–10. 

17See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see 

also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 

(May 8, 1995). 

18See Section A Response at 5–10. 

19See Surrogate Country and Values Letter at 

Attachment 1. 

20See letter from Shanghai Jinneng to Rebecca M. 

Blank, Acting Secretary of Commerce regarding, 

‘‘Silicon Metal from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ dated November 4, 2011 (‘‘Shanghai 

Jinneng’s SV Comments’’) at 1–2 and letter from 

Petitioner to John Bryson, Secretary of Commerce 

regarding, ‘‘Silicon Metal from the People’s 

Republic of China; 2010–11 Administrative Review; 

Comments on Surrogate Country Selection and 

Submission of Surrogate Value Data’’ dated 

November 4, 2011 (‘‘Petitioner’s SV Comments’’). 

21See Petitioner’s SV Comments at 4 and Exhibit 

4. 

22See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy 

Surrogate Country Selection Process, (March 1, 

2004) available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. 

application process by which exporters 

and producers may obtain separate rate 

status in NME proceedings.10 It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to a 

proceeding involving an NME country 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, companyspecific rate, the Department analyzes 

each exporting entity in an NME 

country under the test established in 

Sparklers,11 as amplified by Silicon 

Carbide.12 However, if the Department 

determines that a company is wholly 

foreign-owned or located in a market 

economy (‘‘ME’’), then a separate rate 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether it is independent from 

government control.13

Wholly Chinese-Owned 

Shanghai Jinneng stated that it is a 

wholly Chinese-owned company.14

Therefore, the Department must analyze 

whether this respondent can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto governmental control over 

its export activities. 

1. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies.15

The evidence provided by Shanghai 

Jinneng supports a preliminary finding 

of a de jure absence of governmental 

control based on the following: (1) 

There is an absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

company’s business and export licenses; 

(2) there are applicable legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

PRC companies; and (3) there are formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of PRC 

companies.16

2. Absence of De Facto Control 

The Department considers four factors 

in evaluating whether each respondent 

is subject to de facto governmental 

control of its export functions: (1) 

Whether the export prices are set by or 

are subject to the approval of a 

governmental agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses.17 The Department has 

determined that an analysis of de facto 

control is critical in determining 

whether respondents are, in fact, subject 

to a degree of governmental control 

which would preclude the Department 

from assigning separate rates. 

We determine that the evidence on 

the record supports a preliminary 

finding of a de facto absence of 

governmental control with respect to 

Shanghai Jinneng based on record 

statements and supporting 

documentation showing that the 

company: (1) Sets its own export prices 

independent of the government and 

without the approval of a government 

authority; (2) has the authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) has autonomy from the 

government regarding the selection of 

management; and (4) retains the 

proceeds from its sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses.18

The evidence placed on the record of 

this administrative review by Shanghai 

Jinneng demonstrates an absence of de 

jure and de facto government control 

with respect to the company’s exports of 

the merchandise under review, in 

accordance with the criteria identified 

in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. 

Therefore, we have preliminarily 

granted Shanghai Jinneng separate rate 

status. 

Selection of a Surrogate Country 

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

Department to base NV, in most cases, 

on the NME producer’s factors of 

production (‘‘FOP’’) valued in a 

surrogate ME country or countries 

considered appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

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

value FOP using ‘‘to the extent possible, 

the prices or costs of factors of 

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

level of economic development 

comparable to that of the nonmarket 

economy country, and (B) significant 

producers of comparable merchandise.’’ 

Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(2), the Department will 

normally value FOP in a single country. 

In the instant review, the Department 

identified Colombia, Indonesia, the 

Philippines, South Africa, Thailand and 

Ukraine as a non-exhaustive list of 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to the PRC 

and for which good quality data is most 

likely available.19 On January 13, 2010, 

Petitioner and Shanghai Jinneng 

proposed selecting Thailand as the 

surrogate country because it is at a level 

of economic development comparable to 

the PRC and is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise.20 Petitioner 

provided export data from Global Trade 

Atlas (‘‘GTA’’) demonstrating that 

during the POR, Thailand exported 

14,022 metric tons of silicon metal 

worldwide.21 With respect to data 

considerations, in selecting a surrogate 

country, it is the Department’s practice 

that, ‘‘* * * if more than one country 

has survived the selection process to 

this point, the country with the best 

factors data is selected as the primary 

surrogate country.’’22 Currently, the 

record contains surrogate value 

information, including a surrogate 

financial statement, only from Thailand. 

The Department is preliminarily 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13536 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 

23See Memorandum to the File through Howard 

Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, from Rebecca Pandolph, International 

Trade Compliance Analyst, regarding 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Silicon Metal from the People’s Republic of China: 

Factor Valuation Memorandum,’’ dated March 1, 

2012 (‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). 

24 Interested parties must provide the Department 

with supporting documentation for the publicly 

available information to value each FOP. 

Additionally, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this 

administrative review, interested parties may 

submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or 

correct factual information submitted by an 

interested party less than ten days before, on, or 

after, the applicable deadline for submission of 

such factual information. However, the Department 

notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new 

information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or 

corrects information recently placed on the record. 

The Department generally cannot accept the 

submission of additional, previously absent-fromthe-record alternative surrogate value information 

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

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

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

2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘IDM’’) at Comment 2. Additionally, 

for each piece of factual information submitted with 

surrogate value rebuttal comments, the Department 

is hereby requesting that the interested party 

provide a written explanation of what information 

that is already on the record of the ongoing 

proceeding the factual information is rebutting, 

clarifying, or correcting. 

25See the ‘‘Factor Valuation Methodology’’ 

section for further discussion of surrogate values. 

26See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from 

the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703 

(April 17, 2006) (unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: 

Certain Lined Paper Products From the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 (September 8, 

2006)). 

27See, e.g., New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires 

from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008), 

and accompanying IDM at Comment 9. 

28See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004) 

(unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004)). 

29See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 3–6. 

30See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 1–2 and 

Attachment 1. 

31See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2 and 

Attachment 3. 

selecting Thailand as the surrogate 

country on the basis that: (1) It is at a 

comparable level of economic 

development to the PRC, pursuant to 

section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act; (2) it is 

a significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, pursuant to section 

733(c)(4)(B) of the Act; and (3) we have 

reliable data from Thailand that we can 

use to value the FOP. Therefore, we 

have calculated NV using Thai prices, 

when available and appropriate, to 

value Shanghai Jinneng’s FOP.23 In 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may 

submit publicly available information to 

value FOP until 20 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

results.24

Fair Value Comparisons 

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

of the Act, to determine whether 

Shanghai Jinneng sold silicon metal to 

the United States at less than fair value, 

we compared the export price (‘‘EP’’) of 

the silicon metal to the NV of the silicon 

metal, as described in the ‘‘Export 

Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice. 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we used EP for all sales 

reported by Shanghai Jinneng. We 

calculated EP based on the packed 

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or 

for exportation to, the United States. We 

made deductions, as appropriate, for 

any movement expenses (e.g., foreign 

inland freight from the plant to the port 

of exportation, domestic brokerage, 

international freight to the port of 

importation) in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Where foreign 

inland freight or foreign brokerage and 

handling fees were provided by PRC 

service providers or paid for in 

renminbi, we based those charges on 

surrogate values.25

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine NV 

using an FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

country and the available information 

does not permit the calculation of NV 

using home-market prices, third-country 

prices, or constructed value under 

section 773(a) of the Act. When 

determining NV in an NME context, the 

Department uses an FOP methodology 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of NMEs 

renders price comparisons and the 

calculation of production costs invalid 

under its normal methodologies.26

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

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

of labor required; (2) quantities of raw 

materials employed; (3) amounts of 

energy and other utilities consumed; 

and (4) representative capital costs. The 

Department based NV on FOP reported 

by Shanghai Jinneng for materials, 

energy, labor and packing. 

Factor Valuation Methodology 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV by adding 

together the values of the FOPs, general 

expenses, profit, and packing costs. We 

calculated FOP values by multiplying 

the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available 

surrogate values (except as discussed 

below). In selecting the surrogate values, 

we considered the quality, specificity, 

and contemporaneity of the data.27 As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Thai import surrogate values a Thai 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s (‘‘CAFC’’) decision in Sigma 

Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 

1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed 

description of all surrogate values used 

for Shanghai Jinneng can be found in 

the Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

In selecting the best available 

information for valuing FOP in 

accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the 

Act, the Department’s practice is to 

select, to the extent practicable, 

surrogate values which are non-export 

average values, contemporaneous or 

closest in time with the POR, productspecific, and tax-exclusive.28 The record 

shows that import data from Thailand’s 

Customs Department, as published by 

the GTA, as well as data from other Thai 

sources used, are typically 

contemporaneous with the POR, 

product-specific or for similar products, 

and tax-exclusive.29 Thus, for these 

preliminary results, in accordance with 

its practice, the Department used data 

from the Thailand Customs Department 

and other publicly available sources 

from Thailand in order to calculate 

surrogate values for Shanghai Jinneng’s 

FOP (direct materials and packing 

materials) and certain movement 

expenses.30 In those instances where we 

could not obtain publicly available 

surrogate values contemporaneous with 

the POR with which to value FOPs, we 

adjusted the surrogate values using, 

where appropriate, the International 

Monetary Fund’s Consumer Price Index 

(‘‘CPI’’) for Thailand.31

Furthermore, with regard to 

Thailand’s import-based surrogate 

values, we have disregarded import 

prices that we have reason to believe or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13537 

32See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Color Television Receivers From the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004), 

and accompanying IDM at Comment 7; see also 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final 

Results of the Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review 

of the Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 

(March 19, 2010), and accompanying IDM at 4–5; 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate 

from Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

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

accompanying IDM at 4; Corrosion-Resistant 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of 

Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 

2009), and accompanying IDM at 17, 19–20. 

33See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 

1988, Conference Report to accompany H.R. Rep. 

100–576 at 590 (1988) reprinted in 1988 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623–24; see also Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic 

of China, 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 2007) (unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007)). 

34See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008) 

(unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008)). 

35 Id. 

36See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9, 

2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. 

37See Antidumping Methodologies in 

Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies: 

Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, Request for 

Comment, 76 FR 9544 (February 18, 2011). 

38See Antidumping Methodologies in 

Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies: 

Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 

36092 (June 21, 2011) (‘‘Labor Methodologies’’). 

39See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 4. 

40See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6. 

41See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7. 

suspect may be subsidized. We have 

reason to believe or suspect that prices 

of inputs from India, Indonesia, South 

Korea, and Thailand may have been 

subsidized. We have found in other 

proceedings that these countries 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies and, 

therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all 

exports to all markets from these 

countries may be subsidized.32

Further, guided by the legislative 

history, it is the Department’s practice 

not to conduct a formal investigation to 

ensure that such prices are not 

subsidized.33 Rather, the Department 

bases its decision on information that is 

available to it at the time it makes its 

determination.34 Therefore, we have not 

used prices from India, Indonesia, or 

South Korea in calculating Thailand’s 

import-based surrogate values. 

Additionally, we disregarded prices 

from NME countries. Furthermore, 

imports that were labeled as originating 

from an ‘‘unspecified’’ country were 

excluded from the average value, 

because the Department could not be 

certain that they were not from either an 

NME country or a country with general 

export subsidies.35 Lastly, the 

Department has also excluded imports 

from Thailand into Thailand because 

there is no evidence on the record 

regarding what these data represent 

(e.g., re-importations, another category 

of unspecified imports, or the result of 

an error in reporting). Thus, these data 

do not represent the best available 

information upon which to rely for 

valuation purposes.36

Previously to value the respondent’s 

cost of labor, the Department used 

regression-based wages that captured 

the worldwide relationship between per 

capita Gross National Income (‘‘GNI’’) 

and hourly manufacturing wages, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). 

However, on May 14, 2010, the CAFC, 

in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 

F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 

(‘‘Dorbest’’), invalidated 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3). As a consequence of the 

CAFC’s ruling in Dorbest, the 

Department no longer relies on the 

regression-based wage rate methodology 

described in its regulations. On 

February 18, 2011, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

request for public comment on the 

interim methodology, and the data 

sources.37

On June 21, 2011, the Department 

revised its methodology for valuing the 

labor input in NME antidumping 

proceedings.38 In Labor Methodologies, 

the Department determined that the best 

methodology to value the labor input is 

to use industry-specific labor rates from 

the primary surrogate country. 

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 

(‘‘ILO’’) Yearbook of Labor Statistics 

(‘‘Yearbook’’). 

In these preliminary results, the 

Department calculated the labor input 

using the data on industry specific labor 

cost from the primary surrogate country 

(i.e., Thailand), as described in Labor 

Methodologies. The Department relied 

on Chapter 6A labor cost data for 

Thailand from the ILO’s Yearbook. The 

Department used ILO Chapter 6A labor 

cost data for the year 2000 because this 

is the most recent Chapter 6A data 

available for Thailand. The Department 

further determined that the two-digit 

description under ISIC–Revision 3–D 

(‘‘Manufacture of Basic Metals’’) is the 

best available information because it is 

specific to the industry being examined 

and, therefore, is derived from 

industries that produce comparable 

merchandise. Accordingly, relying on 

Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the 

Department calculated the labor input 

using labor cost data reported by 

Thailand to the ILO under SubClassification 27 of the ISIC–Revision 3– 

D, in accordance with section 773(c)(4) 

of the Act. For these preliminary results, 

the calculated industry-specific wage 

rate is 81.96 baht per hour. The 

Department inflated this value to the 

POR using Thai CPI data. For further 

information on the calculation of the 

wage rate, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at 5. 

The ILO data from Chapter 6A of the 

Yearbook, which was used to value 

labor, reflects all costs related to labor, 

including wages, benefits, housing, 

training, etc. The financial statement 

used to calculate the surrogate financial 

ratios does not include itemized details 

regarding the indirect labor costs 

incurred. Therefore, the Department has 

not made adjustments to the surrogate 

financial ratios. 

We valued all packing and direct 

materials, except quartz, using Thai 

import data from the GTA that are 

contemporaneous with the POR. We 

valued quartz using the price of 

unground quartz in 2010 from Mineral 

Statistics of Thailand 2006–2010 report 

issued by the Thai Department of 

Primary Industries and Mines.39

We valued electricity using data from 

the Thai Provincial Electricity Authority 

and Electricity Generating Authority of 

Thailand as reported by the Thailand 

Board of Investment in its 2011 

publication Costs of Doing Business in 

Thailand for large general services at a 

voltage of 22–33 kilovolts. These 

electricity rates represent actual 

country-wide, publicly available 

information on tax-exclusive electricity 

rates in Thailand. As the rates were in 

effect during the POR, we are not 

adjusting the average value for 

inflation.40

We valued truck freight expenses 

using a per-unit average rate from the 

Express Transportation Organization of 

Thailand as reported in Thailand Board 

of Investment’s 2011 publication, Costs 

of Doing Business in Thailand.41

Because the rate is from August 2005, 

we inflated this rate to a POR rate using 

Thai CPI data. 

We valued railway freight using price 

data from State Railway of Thailand as 

reported in Thailand Board of 

Investment’s 2011 publication, Costs of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13538 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 

42See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8. 

43See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8. 

44See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6. 

45See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 10. 

46See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2. 

47See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 

48See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

49See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

50See 19 CFR 351.310. 

51See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

52See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

53See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Metal from the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 18570, 18571–2 (April 23, 

1991). 

Doing Business in Thailand.42 Because 

the rate is from August 2011, we 

deflated it to the POR using Thai CPI 

data. 

We valued ocean freight using price 

data from Profreight International Co., 

Ltd., as reported in Thailand Board of 

Investment’s 2011 publication, Costs of 

Doing Business in Thailand.43

We valued brokerage and handling 

using a price list of export procedures 

necessary to export a standardized cargo 

of goods in Thailand for a 20 foot 

container published in the World Bank 

publication, Doing Business 2012: 

Thailand.44

Lastly, we valued selling, general and 

administrative expenses, factory 

overhead costs, and profit using the 

contemporaneous 2010 financial 

statement of GS Energy Co., Ltd., a Thai 

producer of silicon metal, which is 

identical to subject merchandise.45

Currency Conversion 

Where necessary, we made currency 

conversions into U.S. dollars, in 

accordance with section 773A(a) of the 

Act, based on the exchange rates in 

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.46

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following dumping margin exists for the 

period June 1, 2010 through May 31, 

2011. 

SILICON METAL FROM THE PRC 

Exporter Margin 

(percentage) 

Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd. .... 5.5 

Disclosure 

The Department intends to disclose 

calculations performed for these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

10 days of the date of the public 

announcement of the results of this 

review in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

Comments 

Interested parties may submit written 

comments no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review.47 Rebuttal comments 

must be limited to the issues raised in 

the written comments and may be filed 

no later than five days after the time 

limit for filing the case briefs.48

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, filed electronically using 

Import Administration’s Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’). An electronically filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by the Department’s 

electronic records system, IA ACCESS, 

by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 

30 days after the date of publication of 

this notice.49 Requests should contain 

the party’s name, address, and 

telephone number, the number of 

participants, and a list of the issues to 

be discussed. If a request for a hearing 

is made, we will inform parties of the 

scheduled date for the hearing which 

will be held at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at 

a time and location to be determined.50

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

date, time, and location of the hearing. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of the administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in the briefs, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results, in accordance with 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless 

the time limit is extended. 

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 to CBP 15 days 

after the publication date of the final 

results of this review. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are 

calculating customer-specific 

assessment rates for the merchandise 

subject to this review. Because we do 

not have entered values for all U.S. sales 

to a particular importer/customer, we 

calculate a per-unit assessment rate by 

aggregating the antidumping duties due 

for all U.S. sales to that importer (or 

customer) and dividing this amount by 

the total quantity sold to that importer 

(or customer).51 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 customerspecific ad valorem ratios based on the 

estimated entered value. Where a 

customer-specific ad valorem rate is 

zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP 

to liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties.52

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

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 the 

exporter listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established in the 

final results of this review (except, if the 

rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 

0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate 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 139.49 53

percent; and (4) for all non-PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) 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. 

The Department is issuing and 

publishing these preliminary results of 

administrative review in accordance 

with sections751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13539 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 

30912 (May 27, 2011). 

2See Frontseating Service Valves from the 

People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time for 

the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 77479 (December 13, 

2011). 

3See Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next 

Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative 

Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act 

of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 

1See Antidumping Duty Order: Folding Metal 

Tables and Chairs From the People’s Republic of 

China, 67 FR 43277 (June 27, 2002). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 31586 

(June 1, 2011). 

Dated: March 1, 2012. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5582 Filed 3–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–933] 

Frontseating Service Valves From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Second Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel LaCivita or Brooke Kennedy, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4243 or (202) 482– 

3818, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 27, 2011, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of initiation of an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on frontseating service valves from the 

People’s Republic of China for the 

period April 1, 2010, through March 31, 

2011.1 On December 13, 2011, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

the preliminary results by 90 days, to 

March 30, 2012.2

Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary 

Results 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), the Department shall make a 

preliminary determination in an 

administrative review of an 

antidumping duty order within 245 

days after the last day of the anniversary 

month of the date of publication of the 

order. The Act further provides, 

however, that the Department may 

extend that 245-day period to 365 days 

if it determines it is not practicable to 

complete the review within the 

foregoing time period. 

We determine that completion of the 

preliminary results of this review by 

March 30, 2012, is not practicable 

because the Department requires 

additional time to analyze information 

pertaining to the respondents’ sales 

practices, factors of production, as well 

as issue and review responses to 

supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, 

in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act, we are extending the time 

limit for completion of the preliminary 

results of this administrative review by 

30 additional days, until April 29, 2012. 

However, because April 29, 2012, falls 

on a weekend, the preliminary results 

are now due no later than April 30, 

2012.3

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

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

Dated: March 1, 2012. 

Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5580 Filed 3–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–868] 

Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on folding 

metal tables and chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is June 1, 

2010, through May 31, 2011. The 2010– 

2011 administrative review covers Feili 

Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd. and Feili 

Furniture Development Limited 

Quanzhou City (collectively, ‘‘Feili’’). 

We have preliminarily determined that 

Feili made sales in the United States at 

prices below normal value (‘‘NV’’) 

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

these preliminary results are adopted in 

our final results of the review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We intend to issue the final results no 

later than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

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

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit 

Astvatsatrian or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6412 and (202) 

482–0650, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 27, 2002, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on folding metal tables and chairs from 

the PRC.1 On June 1, 2010, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of this order for the period June 

1, 2009, through May 31, 2010.2 In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), 

interested parties made the following 

requests for an administrative review: 

(1) On June 28, 2011, Meco Corporation 

(‘‘Meco’’), a domestic producer of the 

like product, requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of Feili and of New-Tec 

Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (NewTec), a producer and exporter of subject 

merchandise to the United States; (2) on 

June 29, 2011, Feili requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of its sales; (3) on June 30, 2011, 

Cosco Home & Office Products 

(‘‘Cosco’’), a U.S. importer of subject 

merchandise, requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of Feili and New-Tec; and (4) on 

June 30, 2011, New-Tec requested that 

the Department revoke the antidumping 

duty order with respect to exports of 

subject merchandise manufactured and 

exported by New-Tec and defer the 

initiation of its review for the current 

POR. On July 28, 2011, the Department 

initiated the 2010–2011 review for Feili 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES