Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 17021 

1See Certain Steel Wheels From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 

Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 76 FR 67703 (November 2, 2011) 

(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). Less Than Fair 

Value, Partial Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 76 FR 67703 

(November 2, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

2See the ‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. 

Benchmark in the Benefit Calculation of 

the HRS for LTAR Program 

Comment 15: Use of HRS Benchmark Data 

That More Accurately Correspond to 

Respondents’ Domestic Purchases of HRS 

Comment 16: Whether the Department 

Should Reduce the HRS Benchmark to 

Account for the Cash Discounts That the 

Jingu Companies Receive From Their HRS 

Suppliers 

Comment 17: Whether the HRS Benchmark 

Prices Should Be Adjusted Downward To 

Reflect the Prices the Jingu Companies 

Paid for Non-Pickled and Non-Oiled HRS 

Comment 18: Whether the Provision of HRS 

for LTAR Is Specific Under the CVD Law 

Comment 19: Whether It Was Appropriate To 

Apply AFA With Regard to the GOC 

Concerning the Provision of Electricity for 

LTAR Program 

Comment 20: Whether the Provision of 

Electricity Is Not Countervailable Because 

the Program Provides General 

Infrastructure Which Does Not Constitute a 

Financial Contribution 

Comment 21: Whether Banks in the PRC Are 

Government Authorities Capable of 

Providing a Financial Contribution 

Comment 22: Whether a Causal Nexus Exists 

Between the GOC’s Industrial Policies and 

Loans Received by Respondents 

Comment 23: Whether the Department 

Should Use a PRC-Based Tier-One or TierTwo Benchmark in the Benefit 

Calculations of the Policy Lending Program 

Comment 24: Whether the Department’s 

Short-Term and Long-Term Benchmark 

Interest Rate Calculations Are Flawed 

Comment 25: Whether Tax Benefits Under 

Article 28 of the Foreign Invested 

Enterprise (FIE) Tax Law Are Specific 

Comment 26: Revision to Import Duty Rate 

for Testing Machinery 

Comment 27: The Sales Denominator To Be 

Used in the Benefit Calculations of the 

Jingu Companies 

Comment 28: Use of Revised Data To 

Calculate Benefits Received by the 

Centurion Companies Under the Two Free, 

Three Half Program 

Comment 29: Whether IPO Grants From the 

Fuyang and Hangzhou City Governments 

Are Countervailable 

Comment 30: Whether the Administrative 

Record of This Case Supports a Finding of 

Critical Circumstances 

Comment 31: Whether the Scope Should 

Exclude Off-Road/Non-Department of 

Transportation Specification Stamped 

Wheels 

[FR Doc. 2012–7055 Filed 3–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–973] 

Certain Steel Wheels From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 23, 2012. 

SUMMARY: On November 2, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of certain 

steel wheels (‘‘steel wheels’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1

We invited interested parties to 

comment on our preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV. Based 

on our analysis of the comments we 

received, we have made changes to our 

margin calculations for the mandatory 

respondents. The final dumping 

margins for this investigation are listed 

in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ 

section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brendan Quinn or Raquel Silva, 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) 482–5848 or (202) 482– 

6475, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department published its 

Preliminary Determination of sales at 

LTFV on November 2, 2011. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), 

we invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Determination. 

On November 3, 2011, the Department 

issued a post-preliminary supplemental 

questionnaire to Zhejiang Jingu 

Company Limited (‘‘Zhejiang Jingu’’) 

and its affiliated exporter Shanghai Yata 

Industry Co., Ltd (‘‘Yata’’) (collectively 

‘‘Jingu’’). On November 14, 2011, Jingu 

submitted its response to the 

Department’s post-preliminary 

supplemental questionnaire. Also on 

November 14, 2011, Jingu and Jining 

Centurion Wheel Manufacturing Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Jining Centurion’’) and its 

affiliated U.S. reseller, Centurion Wheel 

Manufacturing Company (‘‘Centurion 

USA’’) (collectively ‘‘Centurion’’) 

provided additional factual information 

pertaining to respondents’ production 

experience. 

Between November 21, 2011, and 

December 9, 2011, the Department 

conducted verifications of Jining 

Centurion and its affiliated U.S. reseller, 

Centurion USA. Between December 1, 

2011, and December 9, 2011, the 

Department conducted verifications of 

Zhejiang Jingu and its affiliated exporter 

Yata. The Department released 

verification reports for each verification 

of Centurion and Jingu on January 10, 

2012, and January 11, 2012, 

respectively. The Department also 

released an addendum to its verification 

report regarding Centurion on January 

23, 2012. Accuride Corporation and 

Hayes Lemmerz International 

(‘‘Petitioners’’) submitted their 

comments regarding the Department’s 

January 23, 2012, addendum on January 

25, 2012.2

On December 19, 2011, Centurion and 

Jingu submitted publicly available 

surrogate value submissions. On 

December 29, 2011, Petitioners 

submitted rebuttal comments to Jingu’s 

surrogate value submission. Case briefs 

were submitted on January 20, 2012, by 

the following parties: (1) Petitioners; (2) 

the Government of China; (3) 

Blackstone/OTR LLC and OTR Wheel 

Engineering, Inc. (collectively 

‘‘Blackstone’’); (4) Jingu; and (5) 

Centurion. On January 25, 2012, 

Centurion and Petitioners submitted 

rebuttal briefs. On February 29, 2012, 

the Department met with counsel for 

Blackstone/OTR and Super Grip 

Corporation, an interested party in this 

proceeding. The Department met with 

counsel for Petitioners on March 2, 

2012. 

Scope Comments 

Following the Preliminary 

Determination, on December 6, 2011, 

the Department issued a postpreliminary supplemental questionnaire 

to all interested parties requesting 

further information regarding various 

scope issues in this and the concurrent 

countervailing duty investigation on 

certain steel wheels from the PRC 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17022 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 

3See the Department’s letter to all interested 

parties entitled, ‘‘LTFV antidumping duty 

investigation of Certain Steel Wheels from the 

People’s Republic of China: Post-Preliminary 

Request for Information,’’ dated December 6, 2011 

(‘‘scope supplemental questionnaire’’). 

4For a complete discussion of the parties’ 

comments and the Department’s position, see 

Memorandum to Paul Piquado entitled ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination 

in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Steel 

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

March 16, 2012, and incorporated herein by 

reference (‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’) at 

Comment 1. 

5See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

6See Memorandum from the Department entitled, 

‘‘Verification of the Sales Responses of Centurion 

Wheel Manufacturing Company (‘‘Centurion USA’’) 

in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 

Steel Wheels From the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated January 10, 2012 (‘‘Centurion USA’s 

Verification Report’’); Memorandum from the 

Department entitled, ‘‘Verification of the Sales 

Responses of Jining Centurion Wheel 

Manufacturing Company, Ltd. in the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Certain Steel Wheels From the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated January 10, 2012 

(Jining Centurion’s Verification Report’’); 

Memorandum from the Department entitled, 

‘‘Verification of the Sales Information of Yata 

Industry Company, Ltd.’’ dated January 11, 2012 

(Yata’s Verification Report’’); and Memorandum 

from the Department entitled, ‘‘Verification of the 

Sales and Factor Production Information of 

Zhejiang Jingu Company Limited’’ dated January 

11, 2012 (‘‘Jingu’s Verification Report’’). 

7See Comment 4 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum; see also Memorandum to the File 

entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Steel Wheels from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’): Final Determination Surrogate 

Value Memorandum,’’ dated March 16, 2012 

(‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). 

8See Comment 5 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum; see also Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

9See Comment 9 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum; see also Centurion USA’s 

Verification Report, Jining Centurion’s Verification 

Report, Yata’s Verification Report, and Jingu’s 

Verification Report; see also Memorandum from the 

Department entitled, ‘‘Investigation of Certain Steel 

Wheels from the People’s Republic of China: 

Analysis of the Final Determination Margin 

Calculation for Zhejiang Jingu Company Limited 

(‘‘Jingu’’) and Shanghai Yata Industry Company 

Limited (‘‘Yata’’),’’ dated March 16, 2012 (‘‘Jingu’s 

Final Analysis Memorandum’’); and Memorandum 

from the Department entitled, ‘‘Investigation of 

Certain Steel Wheels from the People’s Republic of 

China: Analysis of the Final Determination Margin 

Calculation for Jining Centurion Wheels 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Centurion Wheel 

Manufacturing Company,’’ dated March 16, 2012 

(Centurion’s Final Analysis Memorandum’’). 

related to: (1) The U.S. Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory 

requirements for steel wheels; (2) steel 

wheel product specifications; and (3) 

additional off-highway uses for 

Petitioners’ steel wheels.3

On December 13, 2011, the following 

parties submitted responses to the 

Department’s scope supplemental 

questionnaire: (1) Petitioners; (2) 

Xiamen Sunrise Wheel Group Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Xiamen Sunrise’’) and its affiliate, 

Xiamen Topu Import & Export Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Xiamen Topu’’); (3) Jingu; (4) 

Blackstone; and (5) Jiaxing Stone Wheel 

Co., Ltd (‘‘Jiaxing Stone’’). On December 

22, 2011, Blackstone submitted rebuttal 

comments to the Petitioners’ scope 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

On December 23, 2011, Petitioners and 

Jingu also provided their rebuttal 

comments to parties’ scope 

supplemental questionnaire responses. 

Based on the Department’s analysis of 

these comments and the factual records 

of these investigations, the Department 

continues to find that the scope of the 

investigation should not exclude off-theroad steel wheels.4

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

July 1, 2010, through December 31, 

2010. This period corresponds to the 

two most recent fiscal quarters prior to 

the month of the filing of the petition, 

which was March 2011.5

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

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

we verified the information submitted 

by Centurion and Jingu for use in our 

final determination. The Department 

used standard verification procedures, 

including the examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, as 

well as original source documents 

provided by respondents.6

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum. A list of 

the issues which parties have raised and 

to which we have responded in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum is 

attached to this notice as Appendix I. 

The Issues and Decision Memorandum 

is a public document and is on file 

electronically via Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’). Access to IA ACCESS is 

available in the Central Records Unit 

(‘‘CRU’’), room 7046 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum can 

be accessed directly on the Internet at 

http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

• The Department is using Thai 

import data to value respondents’ pallet 

inputs, rather than the Indonesian data 

used for the Preliminary 

Determination.7

• To value inland truck freight, the 

Department is using an average of 

updated prices from the same source 

used in the Preliminary Determination.8

• The Department has revised 

Centurion and Jingu’s margin 

calculations to incorporate minor 

corrections submitted at their respective 

verifications, as well as other minor 

discrepancies noted in their verification 

reports.9

• The Department finds that critical 

circumstances exist for the PRC-entity. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are steel wheels with a 

wheel diameter of 18 to 24.5 inches. 

Rims and discs for such wheels are 

included, whether imported as an 

assembly or separately. These products 

are used with both tubed and tubeless 

tires. Steel wheels, whether or not 

attached to tires or axles, are included. 

However, if the steel wheels are 

imported as an assembly attached to 

tires or axles, the tire or axle is not 

covered by the scope. The scope 

includes steel wheels, discs, and rims of 

carbon and/or alloy composition and 

clad wheels, discs, and rims when 

carbon or alloy steel represents more 

than fifty percent of the product by 

weight. The scope includes wheels, 

rims, and discs, whether coated or 

uncoated, regardless of the type of 

coating. 

Imports of the subject merchandise 

are provided for under the following 

categories of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’): 8708.70.05.00, 

8708.70.25.00, 8708.70.45.30, and 

8708.70.60.30. Imports of the subject 

merchandise may also enter under the 

following categories of the HTSUS: 

8406.90.4580, 8406.90.7500, 

8420.99.9000, 8422.90.1100, 

8422.90.2100, 8422.90.9120, 

8422.90.9130, 8422.90.9160, 

8422.90.9195, 8431.10.0010, 

8431.10.0090, 8431.20.0000, 

8431.31.0020, 8431.31.0040, 

8431.31.0060, 8431.39.0010, 

8431.39.0050, 8431.39.0070, 

8431.39.0080, 8431.43.8060, 

8431.49.1010, 8431.49.1060, 

8431.49.1090, 8431.49.9030, 

8431.49.9040, 8431.49.9085, 

8432.90.0005, 8432.90.0015, 

8432.90.0030, 8432.90.0080, 

8433.90.1000, 8433.90.5020, 

8433.90.5040, 8436.99.0020, 

8436.99.0090, 8479.90.9440, 

8479.90.9450, 8479.90.9496, 

8487.90.0080, 8607.19.1200, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 17023 

10See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 67708. 

11See Memorandum from the Department 

entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Steel Wheels from the People’s Republic of 

China: Affiliation and Collapsing of Zhejiang Jingu 

Company Limited and Shanghai Yata Industry 

Company Limited,’’ dated October 26, 2011. 

12See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of 

China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as 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) and 

19 CFR 351.107(d). 

13See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 

67709–10. 

14See e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006) 

(unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007)). 

15See e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 

(May 3, 2000). 

16See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 

67710–11. 

8607.19.1500, 8708.70.1500, 

8708.70.3500, 8708.70.4560, 

8708.70.6060, 8709.90.0000, 

8710.00.0090, 8714.19.0030, 

8714.19.0060, 8716.90.1000, 

8716.90.5030, 8716.90.5060, 

8803.20.0015, 8803.20.0030, and 

8803.20.0060. These HTSUS numbers 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes only; the written 

description of the scope is dispositive. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department selected Indonesia as the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation.10 For the final 

determination, since we received no 

comments on our decision, we continue 

to use Indonesia as the primary 

surrogate country. 

Affiliation 

In the Preliminary Determination, 

based on the evidence on the record, the 

Department preliminarily found that 

Zhejiang Jingu and Yata are affiliated, 

pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the 

Act. In addition, based on the evidence 

presented in their respective 

questionnaire responses, we 

preliminarily found that Zhejiang Jingu 

and Yata should be treated as a single 

entity for the purposes of this 

investigation.11 Since the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department has 

found no information to reverse this 

finding, nor have parties provided 

comment to rebut this finding. 

Therefore, the Department continues to 

find Yata and Zhejiang Jingu to be 

affiliated with each other pursuant to 

sections 771(33)(E) of the Act, for this 

final determination. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate.12 In the Preliminary 

Determination, we found that the two 

mandatory respondents (i.e., Centurion 

and Jingu), and the separate-rate 

respondents (i.e., (1) Shandong Land 

Star Import & Export Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Shandong Land Star’’), (2) Shandong 

Jining Wheel Factory (‘‘Shandong 

Jining’’), (3) Wuxi Superior Wheel Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Wuxi Superior’’), (4) Shandong 

Xingmin Wheel Co. Ltd. (‘‘Xingmin 

Wheel’’), (5) Xiamen Sunrise, (6) Jiaxing 

Stone, (7) Xiamen Topu and (8) China 

Dongfeng Motor Industry Imp. & Exp. 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dongfeng Motor’’)) 

demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate-rate status. For the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by these companies 

demonstrates both a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control, with 

respect to their respective exports of the 

merchandise under investigation, and, 

thus are eligible for separate-rate 

status.13

Margin for Non-Examined Separate 

Rate Companies 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, as the rate for non-examined 

entities which qualify for separate rate 

status, we have established a margin 

based on the rate calculated for the 

mandatory respondents, Centurion and 

Jingu.14

Use of Facts Available and Adverse 

Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department shall apply facts 

available (‘‘FA’’) if (1) necessary 

information is not on the record, or (2) 

an interested party or any other person 

(A) withholds information that has been 

requested, (B) fails to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established, or in the form and manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

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

of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding, or (D) provides information 

that cannot be verified as provided by 

section 782(i) of the Act. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying FA 

(i.e., adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’)) 

when a party has failed to cooperate by 

not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request for information. 

Such an adverse inference may include 

reliance on information derived from 

the petition, the final determination, a 

previous administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

For this final determination, in 

accordance with section 776(b) of the 

Act, we have determined that the use of 

AFA is warranted for the PRC-wide 

entity as discussed below. 

The PRC-Wide Rate 

Because the Department begins with 

the presumption that all companies 

within an NME country are subject to 

government control, and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section, below, 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate (i.e., 

the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters 

of subject merchandise from the PRC. 

These other companies did not 

demonstrate entitlement to a separate 

rate.15 The PRC-wide rate applies to all 

entries of subject merchandise except 

for entries from the companies eligible 

for separate rate status. 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department preliminarily determined 

that there were exporters/producers of 

the subject merchandise during the POI 

from the PRC that did not respond to the 

Department’s request for information. 

Further, we treated these PRC 

producers/exporters as part of the PRCwide entity because they did not apply 

for a separate rate. As a result, we found 

that the use of FA was appropriate to 

determine the PRC-wide rate pursuant 

to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.16

Because the PRC-wide entity did not 

respond to our requests for information, 

withheld information requested by the 

Department, and did not allow their 

information to be verified, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the 

Act, we determine, as in the Preliminary 

Determination, that the use of facts 

otherwise available is appropriate to 

determine the PRC-wide rate. 

Thus, in the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department 

determined that, in selecting from 

among the FA, an adverse inference is 

appropriate because the PRC-wide 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17024 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 

17See Id. 18See Id; see also Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 

103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). 19See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 

8932 (February 23, 1998). 20See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the 

Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 

(November 18, 2005); see also SAA at 870. 21See e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the 

People’s Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 

(December 28, 2005)(unchanged in Certain Cased 

Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 10). 

22See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality 

Steel Products from the People’s Republic of China, 

65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Facts 

Available.’’ 

23See Certain Steel Wheels From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 76 FR 23294 (April 26, 2011) 

24See SAA at 870. 

25See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996) (unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997)). 

26See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 69 FR 77216 

(December 27, 2004) (unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 

70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)). 

27See, Certain Steel Wheels From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 76 FR 23294 (April 26, 2011) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

28See Jingu’s Final Analysis Memorandum. 29See also 19 CFR 351.308(d). See, e.g., Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Stainless Steel Bar From the United 

Kingdom, 66 FR 40192 (August 2, 2001) (unchanged 

in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from the 

United Kingdom, 67 FR 3146 (January 23, 2002). 30See SAA at 870. 

entity failed to cooperate by not acting 

to the best of its ability to comply with 

requests for information.17 As AFA, we 

preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide 

entity a rate of 193.54 percent, the 

highest rate from the petition.18

Selection of the Adverse Facts 

Available Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as AFA 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1), the 

Department may rely on information 

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

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the 

Department selects a rate that is 

sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the 

purpose of the facts available rule to 

induce respondents to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

information in a timely manner.’’ 19 It is 

also the Department’s practice to select 

a rate that ensures ‘‘that the party does 

not obtain a more favorable result by 

failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ 20

Generally, the Department finds 

selecting the highest rate on the record 

of the proceeding as AFA to be 

appropriate.21 It is the Department’s 

practice to select, as AFA, the higher of 

the (a) highest margin alleged in the 

petition, or (b) the highest calculated 

rate of any respondent in the 

investigation.22 In the instant 

investigation, as AFA, we have assigned 

to the PRC-wide entity the highest 

petition rate on the record of this 

proceeding that can be corroborated.23

The Department determines that this 

information is the most appropriate 

from the available sources to effectuate 

the purposes of AFA. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as FA, it must, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

reasonably at its disposal. Secondary 

information is described as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning merchandise subject to this 

investigation, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

merchandise subject to this 

investigation.’’ 24 To ‘‘corroborate’’ 

means that the Department will satisfy 

itself that the secondary information to 

be used has probative value. 

Independent sources used to corroborate 

may include, for example, published 

price lists, official import statistics and 

customs data, and information obtained 

from interested parties during the 

particular investigation. To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used.25

It is the Department’s practice to use 

the highest rate from the petition in an 

investigation when a respondent fails to 

act to the best of its ability to provide 

the necessary information.26 Consistent 

with our practice, for the final 

determination we find that the highest 

rate in the petition of 193.54 percent is 

appropriate for the PRC-wide entity.27

For the final determination, in 

accordance with section 776(c) of the 

Act, we corroborated our AFA margin 

using information submitted by Jingu. 

Specifically, we compared the normal 

values and net U.S. prices we calculated 

for Jingu in the final determination to 

the normal value and net U.S. price 

underlying the calculation of the 193.54 

percent rate in the petition. We found 

that certain normal values we calculated 

for Jingu in this investigation were 

higher than or within the range of the 

normal value in the petition; we found 

that certain net U.S. prices we 

calculated for Jingu in this investigation 

were lower than or within the range of 

the U.S. price in the petition.28

Accordingly, we find this rate is 

reliable and relevant, considering the 

record information, and thus, has 

probative value. Additionally, by using 

information that was corroborated in the 

pre-initiation stage of this investigation 

and determining it to be relevant for the 

uncooperative respondent in this 

investigation, we have corroborated the 

AFA rate ‘‘to the extent practicable’’ as 

provided in section 776(c) of the Act.29

Therefore, with respect to the PRC-wide 

entity, for the final determination we 

have used, as AFA, the margin in the 

petition of 193.54 percent, as set forth 

in the notice of initiation. Given that 

numerous PRC-wide entities did not 

respond to the Department’s requests for 

information, the Department concludes 

that the updated petition rate of 193.54 

percent, as total AFA for the PRC-wide 

entity, is sufficiently adverse to prevent 

these respondents from benefitting from 

their lack of cooperation.30

The PRC-wide rate applies to all 

entries of the merchandise under 

investigation except for entries from 

Centurion, Jingu, Shandong Land Star, 

Shandong Jining, Wuxi Superior, 

Xingmin Wheel, Xiamen Sunrise, 

Jiaxing Stone, Xiamen Topu and 

Dongfeng Motor, as they have 

demonstrated eligibility for a separate 

rate. These companies and their 

corresponding antidumping duty cash 

deposit rates are listed below in the 

‘‘Final Determination’’ section of this 

notice. 

Critical Circumstances 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

determined that critical circumstances 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 17025 

31See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 

67706–08. 32See Comment 6 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum; see also Memorandum from the 

Department entitled, ‘‘Critical Circumstances Data 

and Calculations for the Final Determination,’’ 

dated March 16, 2012. 33See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 67708. 34See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination, 74 FR 59117, 59121 

(November 17, 2009)(unchanged in Certain Oil 

Country Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Affirmative Final Determination of 

Critical Circumstances and Final Determination of 

Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010)); 

see also 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, 

51013 (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 1966 (January 11, 

2011); Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 75 FR 28237, 28239 (May 20, 

2010)(unchanged in Certain Magnesia Carbon 

Bricks From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Critical Circumstances, 75 FR 45468 (August 2, 

2010)). 

35See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 24905. 

36See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries’’ dated April 5, 2005, available 

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

do not exist for Jingu, separate rate 

respondents, or the PRC entity, but do 

exist with respect to imports from 

Centurion.31

Centurion, Jingu and the Separate Rate 

Respondents 

On November 8, 2011, the Department 

issued a request to Centurion and Jingu 

for further information regarding 

monthly shipments of subject 

merchandise for the purposes of a final 

determination of critical circumstances. 

On November 14, 2011, both Centurion 

and Jingu submitted the requested 

monthly shipment data. Based on the 

updated shipment data received from 

respondents, the Department continues 

to find that critical circumstances do not 

exist for Jingu or the separate rate 

respondents, but do exist with respect to 

imports from Centurion.32

PRC–Wide Entity 

With respect to the Department’s 

preliminary determination that critical 

circumstances do not exist with respect 

to imports from the PRC entity,33 we 

find that the Preliminary Determination 

was inconsistent with Department 

practice regarding this issue. Therefore, 

we have re-evaluated this issue for the 

final determination. 

Because the PRC-wide entity did not 

cooperate with the Department by not 

responding to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire, we were 

unable to obtain shipment data from the 

PRC-wide entity for purposes of our 

critical circumstances analysis, and thus 

there is no verifiable information on the 

record with respect to its export 

volumes. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act 

provides that, if an interested party or 

any other person (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the administering authority or the 

Commission under this title, (B) fails to 

provide such information by the 

deadlines for submission of the 

information or in the form and manner 

requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the Act, or (D) provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified as provided in section 782(i) 

of the Act, the Department shall, subject 

to section 782(d) of the Act, use the FA 

in reaching the applicable 

determination under this title. 

Furthermore, as noted in the Use of 

Facts Available and Adverse Facts 

Available section above, section 776(b) 

of the Act provides that, if a party has 

failed to act to the best of its ability, the 

Department may apply an adverse 

inference. The PRC-wide entity did not 

respond to the Department’s request for 

information. Thus, we are using FA, in 

accordance with section 776(a) of the 

Act, and, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, we also find that AFA is 

warranted because the PRC-wide entity 

has not acted to the best of its ability in 

not responding to the request for 

information. Accordingly, as AFA we 

find that there were massive imports of 

merchandise from the PRC-wide 

entity.34

Combination Rates 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation.35 This 

practice is described in the Separate 

Rate Policy Bulletin.36

Final Determination 

The simple-average dumping margin 

percentages are as follows: 

Exporter Producer Percent 

margin 

Zhejiang Jingu Company Limited ................................................... Zhejiang Jingu Company Limited ................................................... 82.92 

Shanghai Yata Industry Company Limited ..................................... Zhejiang Jingu Company Limited ................................................... 82.92 

Jining Centurion Wheels Manufacturing Co., Ltd .......................... Jining Centurion Wheels Manufacturing Co., Ltd .......................... 44.96 

Shandong Land Star Import & Export Co., Ltd .............................. Shandong Shengtai Wheel Co., Ltd ............................................... 63.94 

Shandong Jining Wheel Factory .................................................... Shandong Jining Wheel Factory .................................................... 63.94 

Wuxi Superior Wheel Co., Ltd ........................................................ Wuxi Superior Wheel Co., Ltd ........................................................ 63.94 

Shandong Xingmin Wheel Co. Ltd ................................................. Shandong Xingmin Wheel Co. Ltd ................................................. 63.94 

Xiamen Sunrise Wheel Group Co., Ltd .......................................... Jining Centurion Wheels Manufacturing Co., Ltd .......................... 63.94 

Jiaxing Stone Wheel Co., Ltd ......................................................... Jiaxing Stone Wheel Co., Ltd ......................................................... 63.94 

Xiamen Topu Import & Export Co., Ltd .......................................... Xiamen Sunrise Wheel Group Co., Ltd .......................................... 63.94 

Xiamen Topu Import & Export Co., Ltd .......................................... Jining Centurion Wheels Manufacturing Co., Ltd .......................... 63.94 

China Dongfeng Motor Industry Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd ................... Dongfeng Automotive Wheel Co., Ltd ............................................ 63.94 

PRC-Wide Entity ............................................................................. ......................................................................................................... 193.54 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17026 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 

37See Certain Steel Wheels From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, Final Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances Determination and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated 

concurrently with this notice (‘‘CVD Final 

Determination’’). 

38See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances and Final 

Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335, 

20341 (April 19, 2010); see also e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 

67306, 67307 (November 17, 2004). 39The Department notes that it is our practice to 

adjust the separate rate companies by the lesser of 

the export subsidy rate (or average thereof) 

applicable to the mandatory respondents from 

which the separate rate is calculated, or the AllOthers export subsidy rate from the CVD case (with 

exception of Shandong Xingmin Wheel Co. Ltd., 

which has its own calculated export subsidy rate). 

See Galvanized Steel Wire From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 76 FR 68407, 68421 

(November 4, 2011). 

40See id. 

(‘‘CBP’’) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all imports of subject 

merchandise exported by Jingu or the 

separate rate respondents and entered or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination in the Federal Register. 

Further, in accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

CBP to continue to suspend liquidation 

of all imports of subject merchandise 

exported by Centurion on or after 90 

days prior to the date of publication of 

the Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. Additionally, because 

we have found critical circumstances 

exist with respect to the PRC–Entity, we 

are directing CBP to suspend liquidation 

of all imports of subject merchandise 

exported by the PRC-entity on or after 

90 days prior to the date of publication 

of the Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. We will instruct CBP 

to require a cash deposit or the posting 

of a bond equal to the weighted-average 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The 

rates for the exporter/producer 

combinations listed in the chart above 

will be the rates we have determined in 

this final determination as listed in the 

chart; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) 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/producer combination that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

suspension-of-liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

Additionally, as the Department has 

determined in its concurrent 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) steel 

wheels investigation that the 

merchandise under investigation 

exported by Zhejiang Jingu and 

Shanghai Yata benefitted from export 

subsidies,37 we will instruct CBP to 

require an antidumping cash deposit or 

posting of a bond equal to the amount 

by which the normal value exceeds the 

U.S. price for each of these companies, 

as indicated above, reduced by the 

respective amount determined to 

constitute export subsidies for each of 

these companies.38

With respect to Shandong Xingmin 

Wheel Co. Ltd., a separate rate recipient 

in this case, but a mandatory respondent 

in the companion CVD investigation 

that was found to have benefitted from 

export subsidies, we will instruct CBP 

to require an antidumping cash deposit 

or posting of a bond equal to the amount 

by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, 

as indicated above, reduced by the 

lesser of its own CVD export subsidy 

rate or the average of the CVD export 

subsidy rates applicable to the 

mandatory respondents, on which 

Shandong Xingmin Wheel Co. Ltd.’s 

dumping margin is based. For the other 

separate rate recipients 39 in this case, 

excluding Shandong Xingmin Wheel 

Co. Ltd., who are receiving the AllOthers rate in the CVD investigation, we 

will instruct CBP to require an 

antidumping cash deposit or posting of 

a bond equal to the amount by which 

the NV exceeds the U.S. price, as 

indicated above, reduced by the lesser 

of the average of the export subsidy 

rates determined in the CVD 

investigation or the average of the CVD 

export subsidy rates applicable to the 

mandatory respondents, on which the 

separate rate dumping margins are 

based.40

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will, within 

45 days, determine whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: March 16, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—List of Issues 

Case Issues 

Comment 1: Whether the Scope Should 

Exclude Off-Road/Non-DOT Specification 

Stamped Wheels. 

Comment 2: Whether Double Remedies Arise 

From the Concurrent CVD Investigation. 

Comment 3: Use of PT Prima Alloy’s 

Financial Statement for Surrogate 

Financial Ratios. 

Comment 4: Surrogate Value for Pallet 

Inputs. 

Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Inland 

Freight. 

Comment 6: Critical Circumstances. 

Comment 7: Treatment of Administrative 

Expenses in Centurion’s Indirect Selling 

Expense Calculation. 

Comment 8: Hot-Rolled Steel Surrogate 

Value. 

Comment 9: Corrections to Zhejiang Jingu’s 

Databases. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7047 Filed 3–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES