Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17413 

Dated: March 16, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

I. Summary 

II. Subsidy Valuation Information 

A. Period of Investigation 

B. Cross-Ownership and Attribution of 

Subsidies 

C. Allocation Period 

D. Discount Rates and Interest Rate 

Benchmarks For Loans 

E. Equityworthiness of DWJ and DWE 

III. Application of Facts Available, Including 

the Application of Adverse Inferences 

IV. Analysis of Programs 

A. Programs Determined To Be 

Countervailable 

1. Restructuring of Daewoo Electronics 

Corporation 

a. GOK Equity Infusions under the Daewoo 

Workout 

b. GOK Preferential Lending under the 

Daewoo Workout 

2. KDB and IBK Short-Term Discounted 

Loans for Export Receivables 

3. K–SURE Short-term Export Insurance 

4. Tax Programs 

a. Tax Reduction for Research and 

Manpower Development: RSTA 10(1)(3) 

b. RSTA Article 25(2) Tax Deductions for 

Investments in Energy Economizing 

Facilities 

c. RSTA Article 26 Tax Deduction for 

Facilities Investment 

d. Gwangju Metropolitan City Production 

Facilities Subsidies: Tax Reductions/Tax 

Exemptions 

e. Gyeongsangnam Province Production 

Facilities Subsidies: Tax Reductions/Tax 

Exemptions 

5. Grant Programs 

a. GOK Subsidies for ‘‘Green Technology 

R&D’’ and its Commercialization 

b. GOK 21st Century Frontier R&D 

Program/Information Display R&D 

Center Program 

c. R&D Grants Discovered at Verification 

B. Program Determined To Be Not 

Countervailable 

Gyeongsangnam Province and KEMCO 

Energy Savings Subsidies/ESF Program 

C. Programs Determined To Be Not Used 

1. KEXIM Programs 

A. KEXIM Short-Term Export Credit 

B. KEXIM Export Loan Guarantees 

C. KEXIM Trade Bill Rediscounting 

Program 

D. KEXIM Export Factoring 

2. K–SURE—Export Credit Guarantees 

3. Gwangju Metropolitan City Programs 

A. Relocation Grants 

B. Facilities Grants 

C. Employment Grants 

D. Training Grants 

E. Consulting Grants 

F. Preferential Financing for Business 

Restructuring 

G. Interest Grants for the Stabilization of 

Management Costs 

H. ‘‘Special Support’’ for Large Corporate 

Investors 

I. Research and Development and Other 

Technical Support Services 

4. Changwon City Subsidy Programs 

A. Relocation Grants 

B. Employment Grants 

C. Training Grants 

D. Facilities Grants 

E. Grant for ‘‘Moving Metropolitan AreaBase Company to Changwon’’ 

F. Preferential Financing for Land Purchase 

G. Financing for the Stabilization of 

Business Activities 

H. Special Support for Large Companies 

5. Other GOK Programs 

A. Research, Supply, or Workforce 

Development Investment Tax Deductions 

for ‘‘New Growth Engines’’ Under RSTA 

Art. 10(1)(1) 

B. Research, Supply, or Workforce 

Development Expense Tax Deductions 

for ‘‘Core Technologies’’ Under RSTA 

Art. 10(1)(2) 

C. Targeted Facilities Subsidies through 

Korea Finance Corporation (KoFC), KDB, 

and IBK ‘‘New Growth Engines Industry 

Fund’’ 

D. GOK Green Fund Subsidies 

E. IBK Preferential Loans to Green 

Enterprises 

F. Gwangju ‘‘Photonics Industry Promotion 

Project’’ (PIPP) Product Development 

Support 

V. Analysis of Comments 

Comment 1: Whether RSTA Article 25(2) is 

De Facto Specific 

Comment 2: Whether RSTA Article 25(2) 

relates to Subject Merchandise 

Comment 3: Whether RSTA Article 26 

Benefits are Specific 

Comment 4: Whether RSTA Article 

10(1)(3) is De Facto Specific 

Comment 5: Whether the Gwangju 

Metropolitan City and Gyeongsangnam 

Province Production Facilities Tax 

Reductions/Tax Exemptions are Specific 

Comment 6: Whether KDB/IBK Short-Term 

Discounted Loans for Export Receivables 

are Specific 

Comment 7: Whether SEC Received KDB/ 

IBK Short-Term Discounted Loans for 

Export Receivables 

Comment 8: Whether D/A and O/A 

Financing Were Provided in Accordance 

With Market Interest Rates 

Comment 9: Whether K–SURE Charged 

Adequate Premiums in a Way that 

Covers Its Long-Term Costs and Losses 

Comment 10: Whether the Department 

Should Apply AFA to Calculate a Benefit 

to SEC from the K–SURE Export 

Insurance Program 

Comment 11: Whether SEC’s K–SURE 

Payouts Relate to Subject Merchandise 

Comment 12: Whether K–SURE Benefits 

Granted to SEC’s U.S. Affiliate Are 

Countervailable 

Comment 13: Whether the Green 

Technology R&D Program is 

Countervailable 

Comment 14: Whether Green Technology 

R&D Grants are tied to Non-Subject 

Merchandise 

Comment 15: Whether AFA Should be 

Applied to Grants Received by LGE from 

the 21st Century Frontier R&D Program 

Comment 16: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Denominator Used to 

Calculate the Subsidy Rate for LGE’s Use 

of the ‘‘Green Technology R&D’’ Program 

Comment 17: Whether Grants Received by 

SGEC for Refrigerator Compressor R&D 

are Countervailable 

Comment 18: Whether the Department 

Should Apply AFA to Grants Received 

by SGEC for Refrigerator Compressor 

R&D 

Comment 19: Whether the Department 

Should Revise Sales Denominators to 

Reflect Changes from Verification 

Comment 20: Whether there is Cross 

Ownership Among All of the Companies 

in the Samsung Group 

Comment 21: Whether the Attribution 

Rules Were Correctly Applied to the 

Calculation of Benefits to SGEC, SEL and 

SEC 

Comment 22: Whether the Department 

Should Attribute Any Subsidies 

Received by ServeOne to LGE 

Comment 23: Whether the Department 

Should Continue to Find that SEC did 

not Use Other Programs 

Comment 24: Whether Government 

Ownership Alone Transforms a 

Financial Institution Into a Government 

Authority 

Comment 25: Whether the Department 

Properly Analyzed DWJ’s Restructuring 

and Debt Adjustment under CRPA 

Comment 26: Whether Private Investor 

Participation on DWJ/DWE’s Creditors’ 

Council Provides a Benchmark 

Comment 27: Whether the Department’s 

Analysis of the 2001 and 2002 Debt 

Restructuring Was Correct 

Comment 28: Equityworthiness of DWJ/ 

DWE at the Time of the 2001 and 2002 

Debt-to- Equity Conversions 

Comment 29: Whether the GOK and FSS 

Used KAMCO to Gain Control of DWJ/ 

DWE’s Creditors’ Council 

Comment 30: Whether the Department 

Should Establish a Zero Cash Deposit 

Rate for DWE 

Comment 31: Whether the GOK-owned 

Creditors Held a Supermajority in DWE’s 

29th Creditors’ Council Meeting 

Comment 32: Whether the Reclassification 

of the KAMCO–Held Debentures to 

Long- Term Loans Results in a 

Countervailable Benefit 

Comment 33: Whether Private Creditors 

Restructured Their Loans on the Same 

Basis and on the Same Terms 

[FR Doc. 2012–7217 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–865] 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Negative 

Critical Circumstances Determination: 

Bottom Mount Combination 

Refrigerator-Freezers From the 

Republic of Korea 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17414 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 

1See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Negative Critical 

Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount 

Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from the 

Republic of Korea, 76 FR 67675 (Nov. 2, 2011) 

(Preliminary Determination). 

2See March 16, 2012, Memoranda to the File 

entitled, ‘‘Calculations Performed for Daewoo 

Electronics Corporation (Daewoo) for the Final 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Bottom Mount Combination 

Refrigerator-Freezers from the Republic of Korea,’’ 

‘‘Calculations Performed for LG for the Final 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Bottom Mount Combination 

Refrigerator-Freezers from the Republic of Korea’’ 

(LG Calculation Memo), and ‘‘Calculations 

Performed for Samsung Electronics Corporation 

(Samsung) for the Final Determination in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of Bottom Mount 

Refrigerators from Korea’’ (Samsung Calculation 

Memo), which contain the revised preliminary 

antidumping duty margin program log and output 

for each respondent. 

3The existence of an interior sub-compartment 

for ice-making in an upper-most storage 

compartment does not render an upper-most storage 

compartment a freezer compartment. 

SUMMARY: We determine that imports of 

narrow bottom mount combination 

refrigerator-freezers (bottom mount 

refrigerators) from the Republic of Korea 

(Korea) are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value (LTFV), as provided in section 

735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). In addition, we 

determine that there is no reasonable 

basis to believe or suspect that critical 

circumstances exist with respect to the 

subject merchandise exported from 

Korea. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the margin calculations. 

Therefore, the final determination 

differs from the preliminary 

determination. The final weightedaverage dumping margins for the 

investigated companies are listed below 

in the section entitled ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Eastwood or Henry Almond, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3874 and (202) 

482–0049, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 2, 2011, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV in the antidumping duty 

investigation of bottom mount 

refrigerators from Korea.1 Since the 

preliminary determination, the 

following events have occurred. 

In November 2011, we issued 

supplemental questionnaires to two 

respondents, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), 

and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 

(Samsung), and we received responses 

to these supplemental questionnaires in 

this same month. 

In November and December 2011, we 

verified the questionnaire responses of 

three respondents in this case, Daewoo 

Electronics Corporation (Daewoo), LG, 

and Samsung, in accordance with 

section 782(i) of the Act. 

In January 2012, the Government of 

Korea submitted comments on certain 

aspects of the Department’s preliminary 

determination. 

In February 2012, Whirlpool 

Corporation (hereafter, the petitioner) 

and two of the three respondents 

submitted case and rebuttal briefs. 

Daewoo submitted only a rebuttal brief. 

Also in February 2012, the Department 

held a public hearing at the request of 

the petitioner and the three 

respondents. 

Subsequent to the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department revised 

the computer programs used to calculate 

the respondents’ dumping margins to 

ensure that they accurately reflected the 

methodological choices made in that 

determination. These revisions to the 

programming, had they been included 

in the preliminary determination, would 

not have altered the weighted-average 

dumping margins calculated there.2

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (POI) is 

January 1, 2010, through December 31, 

2010. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by the 

investigation are all bottom mount 

combination refrigerator-freezers and 

certain assemblies thereof from Korea. 

For purposes of the investigation, the 

term ‘‘bottom mount combination 

refrigerator-freezers’’ denotes 

freestanding or built-in cabinets that 

have an integral source of refrigeration 

using compression technology, with all 

of the following characteristics: 

• The cabinet contains at least two 

interior storage compartments accessible 

through one or more separate external 

doors or drawers or a combination 

thereof; 

• An upper-most interior storage 

compartment(s) that is accessible 

through an external door or drawer is 

either a refrigerator compartment or 

convertible compartment, but is not a 

freezer compartment; 3 and 

• There is at least one freezer or 

convertible compartment that is 

mounted below an upper-most interior 

storage compartment(s). 

For purposes of the investigation, a 

refrigerator compartment is capable of 

storing food at temperatures above 32 

degrees F (0 degrees C), a freezer 

compartment is capable of storing food 

at temperatures at or below 32 degrees 

F (0 degrees C), and a convertible 

compartment is capable of operating as 

either a refrigerator compartment or a 

freezer compartment, as defined above. 

Also covered are certain assemblies 

used in bottom mount combination 

refrigerator-freezers, namely: (1) Any 

assembled cabinets designed for use in 

bottom mount combination refrigeratorfreezers that incorporate, at a minimum: 

(a) An external metal shell, (b) a back 

panel, (c) a deck, (d) an interior plastic 

liner, (e) wiring, and (f) insulation; (2) 

any assembled external doors designed 

for use in bottom mount combination 

refrigerator-freezers that incorporate, at 

a minimum: (a) An external metal shell, 

(b) an interior plastic liner, and (c) 

insulation; and (3) any assembled 

external drawers designed for use in 

bottom mount combination refrigeratorfreezers that incorporate, at a minimum: 

(a) An external metal shell, (b) an 

interior plastic liner, and (c) insulation. 

The products subject to the 

investigation are currently classifiable 

under subheadings 8418.10.0010, 

8418.10.0020, 8418.10.0030, and 

8418.10.0040 of the Harmonized Tariff 

System of the United States (HTSUS). 

Products subject to this investigation 

may also enter under HTSUS 

subheadings 8418.21.0010, 

8418.21.0020, 8418.21.0030, 

8418.21.0090, and 8418.99.4000, 

8418.99.8050, and 8418.99.8060. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise subject to this scope is 

dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

did not modify the description of the 

scope of this investigation in the 

manner requested by certain interested 

parties. Specifically, we did not modify 

the scope to be consistent with the 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) definition, nor 

did we exclude kimchi refrigerators or 

Quatro Cooling Refrigerators from the 

scope. We did, however, clarify the 

scope to eliminate any ambiguity with 

respect to the inclusion of Quatro 

Cooling Refrigerators in the scope of the 

investigation. See Preliminary 

Determination, 76 FR at 67677. No party 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17415 

4These investigations include Certain Coated 

Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics 

Using Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 

FR 59223 (Sept. 27, 2010), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1, 

and Multilayered Wood Flooring From the Peoples’ 

Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318 (Oct. 18, 2011), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. 

commented on our preliminary scope 

determination. Therefore, we made no 

further changes to the description of the 

scope, as stated in the Preliminary 

Determination. 

Cost of Production 

As discussed in the preliminary 

determination, we conducted an 

investigation to determine whether the 

respondents made comparison market 

sales of the foreign like product during 

the POI at prices below their COP 

within the meaning of section 773(b) of 

the Act. See Preliminary Determination, 

76 FR 67684–85 (Nov. 2, 2011). For this 

final determination, we performed the 

cost test following the same 

methodology as in the Preliminary 

Determination. 

We found that 20 percent or more of 

each respondent’s sales of a given 

product during the POI were at prices 

less than the weighted-average COP for 

this period. Thus, we determined that 

these below-cost sales were made in 

‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an 

extended period of time and at prices 

which did not permit the recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time 

in the normal course of trade. See 

sections 773(b)(1)–(2) of the Act. 

Therefore, for purposes of this final 

determination, we found that each 

respondent made below-cost sales not in 

the ordinary course of trade. 

Consequently, we disregarded these 

sales and used the remaining sales as 

the basis for determining normal value 

for each respondent pursuant to section 

773(b)(1) of the Act. 

Targeted Dumping 

The Act allows the Department to 

employ the average-to-transaction 

margin calculation methodology under 

the following circumstances: (1) There 

is a pattern of export prices that differ 

significantly among purchasers, regions 

or periods of time; and (2) the 

Department explains why such 

differences cannot be taken into account 

using the average-to-average or 

transaction-to-transaction methodology. 

See section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

conducted time-period targeted 

dumping analyses for LG and Samsung 

based on timely allegations of targeted 

dumping filed by the petitioner, using 

the methodology adopted in Certain 

Steel Nails from the United Arab 

Emirates: Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value, 73 

FR 33985 (June 16, 2008), and Certain 

Steel Nails from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 

2008), and applied in more recent 

investigations.4 As a result, we 

preliminarily determined that there was 

a pattern of U.S. prices for comparable 

merchandise that differed significantly 

among certain time periods for Samsung 

and LG, in accordance with section 

777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. 

Further, for both Samsung and LG, we 

found that the standard average-toaverage methodology did not take into 

account the price differences because 

the alternative average-to-transaction 

methodology yielded a material 

difference in the margin. Accordingly, 

we preliminarily applied the average-totransaction methodology to all U.S. 

sales made by LG and Samsung. See 

Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 

67678–67679. 

For purposes of the final 

determination, we performed our 

targeted-dumping analysis following the 

methodology employed in the 

Preliminary Determination, after taking 

into account the petitioner’s revised 

targeted dumping allegation with 

respect to Samsung, and making certain 

revisions to LG’s and Samsung’s 

reported U.S. sales data based on 

verification findings and other 

comments submitted by the parties, as 

enumerated in the ‘‘Margin 

Calculations’’ section of the ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum’’ (Decision 

Memorandum) from Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, Import Administration, to 

Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, dated March 16, 

2012. In so doing, we found that the 

results of our final targeted-dumping 

analysis were generally consistent with 

those of our preliminary targeteddumping analysis. Therefore, we 

continued to apply the alternative 

average-to-transaction methodology for 

LG’s and Samsung’s U.S. sales, in the 

final determination. See the LG 

Calculation Memo and the Samsung 

Calculation Memo for further 

discussion. 

Critical Circumstances 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that critical circumstances do not 

exist with respect to imports of bottom 

mount refrigerators produced in, and 

exported from, Korea. See Preliminary 

Determination, 76 FR at 67686–67687. 

Samsung submitted comments in 

support of our preliminary negative 

critical circumstances determination 

with respect to it, and reiterated, among 

other things, that its imports have not 

been massive since the filing of the 

petition. 

For the final determination, we relied 

on updated shipment data provided by 

Daewoo, LG, and Samsung, which we 

examined at verification. Based on our 

analysis of these data and the comments 

submitted by the parties, we continue to 

find that critical circumstances do not 

exist with respect to imports of bottom 

mount refrigerators from Korea, as 

explained below. 

Section 735(a)(3) of the Act provides 

that the Department will determine that 

critical circumstances exist if there is a 

reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping 

and material injury by reason of 

dumped imports in the United States or 

elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or 

(ii) the person by whom, or for whose 

account, the merchandise was imported 

knew or should have known that the 

exporter was selling the subject 

merchandise at less than its fair value 

and that there was likely to be material 

injury by reason of such sales; and (B) 

there have been massive imports of the 

subject merchandise over a relatively 

short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of 

the Department’s regulations provides 

that, in determining whether imports of 

the subject merchandise have been 

‘‘massive,’’ the Department normally 

will examine: (i) The volume and value 

of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and 

(iii) the share of domestic consumption 

accounted for by the imports. In 

addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides 

that an increase in imports of 15 percent 

during the ‘‘relatively short period’’ of 

time may be considered ‘‘massive.’’ 

Section 351.206(i) of the Department’s 

regulations defines ‘‘relatively short 

period’’ as normally being the period 

beginning on the date the proceeding 

begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) 

and ending at least three months later. 

The regulations also provide, however, 

that if the Department finds that 

importers, exporters, or producers had 

reason to believe, at some time prior to 

the beginning of the proceeding, that a 

proceeding was likely, the Department 

may consider a period of not less than 

three months from that earlier time. 

In determining whether the above 

criteria have been satisfied, we 

examined: (1) The evidence placed on 

the record by the respondents and the 

petitioner; and (2) the International 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17416 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 

5See e.g., Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 75 FR 28237 (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 (Aug. 2, 2010). 

6See e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 

Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain 

Orange Juice from Brazil, 70 FR 49557 (Aug. 24, 

2005), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: 

Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, 71 FR 2183 (Jan. 

13, 2006) (Certain Orange Juice from Brazil). 

7See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Silicon Metal From the 

Russian Federation, 67 FR 59253, 59256 (Sept. 20, 

2001), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal 

From the Russian Federation, 68 FR 6885 (Feb. 11, 

2003). 

Trade Commission’s (ITC’s) preliminary 

determination of injury (see Bottom 

Mount Refrigerator Freezers from 

Mexico and Korea, Investigation Nos. 

701–TA–477 and 731–TA–1180–1181 

(Preliminary), 76 FR 29791 (May 23, 

2011) (ITC Preliminary Determination)). 

To determine whether there is a 

history of injurious dumping of the 

merchandise under investigation, in 

accordance with section 735(a)(3)(A)(i) 

of the Act, the Department normally 

considers evidence of an existing 

antidumping duty order on the subject 

merchandise in the United States or 

elsewhere to be sufficient.5 As 

mentioned in the Preliminary 

Determination, while the petitioner 

noted that New Zealand imposed 

antidumping duties on the subject 

merchandise produced in Korea in 

2001, this order was terminated in 2006. 

Moreover, the petitioner did not identify 

any additional proceedings with respect 

to Korean-origin products, nor are we 

aware of any antidumping duty order in 

any country on bottom mount 

refrigerators from Korea. For this reason, 

the Department does not find a history 

of injurious dumping of the subject 

merchandise from Korea pursuant to 

section 735(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Act. 

To determine whether the person by 

whom, or for whose account, the 

merchandise was imported knew or 

should have known that the exporter 

was selling the subject merchandise at 

LTFV, and that there was likely to be 

material injury by reason of such sales 

in accordance with section 

735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, the 

Department normally considers margins 

of 25 percent or more for export price 

(EP) sales or 15 percent or more for 

constructed export price (CEP) 

transactions sufficient to impute 

knowledge of dumping.6

The final dumping margin calculated 

for LG exceeds the threshold sufficient 

to impute knowledge of dumping (i.e., 

15 percent for CEP sales, which are the 

vast majority of the sales on which the 

calculation is based). Therefore, we 

determine that there is sufficient basis 

to find that importers should have 

known that LG was selling the subject 

merchandise at LTFV pursuant to 

section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act. For 

Daewoo and Samsung, we calculated 

final margins of de minimis and 5.16 

percent, respectively, which do not 

meet the 15- and 25-percent thresholds 

necessary to impute knowledge of 

dumping for either CEP or EP sales. 

Finally, for the companies covered by 

the ‘‘All Others’’ rate, the final 

calculated dumping margin of 10.29 

percent also does not meet the 15- 

percent threshold necessary to impute 

knowledge of dumping for CEP sales, 

which are the vast majority of the sales 

on which the calculation of the ‘‘All 

Others’’ rate is based. Therefore, we find 

that the importer knowledge criterion, 

as set forth in section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, has been met for LG, but has 

not been met for Daewoo, Samsung, and 

the companies covered by the ‘‘All 

Others’’ rate. 

In determining whether an importer 

knew or should have known that there 

was likely to be material injury by 

reason of dumped imports, the 

Department normally will look to the 

preliminary injury determination of the 

ITC. If the ITC finds a reasonable 

indication of present material injury to 

the relevant U.S. industry, the 

Department will determine that a 

reasonable basis exists to impute 

importer knowledge that material injury 

is likely by reason of such imports. See 

e.g., Certain Orange Juice from Brazil. In 

the present case, the ITC preliminarily 

found reasonable indication that an 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured by imports of bottom 

mount refrigerators from Korea. See ITC 

Preliminary Determination. Based on 

the ITC’s preliminary determination of 

injury, and the final antidumping 

margin for LG, the Department finds 

that there is a reasonable basis to 

conclude that the importer knew or 

should have known that there was likely 

to be injurious dumping of subject 

merchandise for these companies. 

In determining whether there are 

‘‘massive imports’’ over a ‘‘relatively 

short period,’’ pursuant to section 

735(a)(3)(B) of the Act, the Department 

normally compares the import volumes 

of the subject merchandise for at least 

three months immediately preceding the 

filing of the petition (i.e., the base 

period) to a comparable period of at 

least three months following the filing 

of the petition (i.e., the comparison 

period). Accordingly, in determining 

whether imports of the subject 

merchandise have been massive, we 

based our analysis for each of the three 

companies on shipment data for 

comparable seven-month periods 

preceding and following the filing of the 

petition. 

Specifically, the Department 

requested and obtained from each of the 

respondents monthly shipment data 

from January 2008 to October 2011. To 

determine whether imports of subject 

merchandise have been massive over a 

relatively short period, we compared, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1)(i), the 

respondents’ export volumes for the 

seven months before the filing of the 

petition (i.e., September 2010–March 

2011) to those during the seven months 

after the filing of the petition (i.e., April 

through October 2011). These periods 

were selected based on the Department’s 

practice of using the longest period for 

which information is available up to the 

date of the preliminary determination.7

According to the monthly shipment 

information, we found the volume of 

shipments of bottom mount refrigerators 

increased by more than 15 percent for 

LG. 

For purposes of our ‘‘massive 

imports’’ determination, we also 

considered the impact of seasonality on 

imports of bottom mount refrigerators 

based on interested party comments and 

information contained in the ITC’s 

preliminary determination. In order to 

determine whether the seasonality 

factor accounted for the increase in 

imports observed for each of the 

respondents in the post-petition filing 

period (the comparison period), we 

analyzed company-specific shipment 

data for a historical three-year period, 

where possible, using the same base and 

comparison time periods noted above. 

As a result of this analysis, we found 

that there is a consistent pattern of 

seasonality in the industry, and that 

seasonal trends account for the increase 

in imports subsequent to the filing of 

the petition from each of the 

respondents. Specifically, with respect 

to LG, we found that the percentage 

increase in shipments during the 

comparison period is not related to the 

filing of the petition but rather to the 

consistent seasonal trends in the 

industry because shipments during the 

April–October time period were 

consistently higher than those in the 

September–March time period, and the 

shipment increases observed in the 

April–October time period from year to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17417 

8See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 

23 From India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 (Nov. 17, 2004). 

9See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Final Results of ChangedCircumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order 

in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (Sept. 1, 2010). 

year decreased. Therefore, for purposes 

of the final determination, we find that 

imports from LG during the period after 

the filing of the petition have not been 

massive in accordance with section 

735(a)(3)(B) of the Act. 

In summary, we find that there is a 

reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

importers had knowledge of dumping 

and the likelihood of material injury 

with respect to bottom mount 

refrigerators produced and exported 

from Korea by LG. However, we do not 

find that there have been massive 

imports of bottom mount refrigerators 

over a relatively short period from LG 

due to seasonality. Therefore, for the 

reasons stated above, the Department 

finds that critical circumstances do not 

exist for imports of the subject 

merchandise from Korea. For a complete 

discussion of our final critical 

circumstances analysis, see the Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2 and the 

March 16, 2012, Memorandum to James 

P. Maeder, Jr., Director, Office 2, from 

The Team entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Bottom Mount 

Refrigerator Freezers from Korea—Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances.’’ 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties in this 

investigation are addressed in the 

Decision Memorandum, which is 

adopted by this notice. Parties can find 

a complete discussion of the issues 

raised in this investigation and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of 

the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received and our findings at 

verification, we have made certain 

changes to the margin calculations. For 

a discussion of these changes, see the 

‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the 

Decision Memorandum. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the sales and cost 

information submitted by the 

respondents for use in our final 

determination. We used standard 

verification procedures including an 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, and original source 

documents provided by the 

respondents. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

Pursuant to 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of subject 

merchandise from Korea, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after November 2, 

2011, the date of publication of the 

preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register. CBP shall require a 

cash deposit or the posting of a bond 

equal to the estimated amount by which 

the normal value exceeds the U.S. price 

as shown below, adjusted for export 

subsidies found in the final 

determination of the companion 

countervailing duty investigation of this 

merchandise. Specifically, consistent 

with our practice, where the product 

under investigation is also subject to a 

concurrent countervailing duty 

investigation, we instruct CBP to require 

a cash deposit or posting of a bond 

equal to the amount by which the 

normal value exceeds the EP or CEP, as 

indicated below, less the amount of the 

countervailing duty determined to 

constitute an export subsidy.8

Accordingly, for cash deposit 

purposes, we are subtracting from the 

applicable cash deposit rate that portion 

of the rate attributable to the export 

subsidies found in the affirmative 

countervailing duty determination for 

each respondent with a final dumping 

margin above de minimis (i.e., 1.65 

percent for Samsung and 1.60 percent 

for the companies covered by the ‘‘All 

Others’’ rate). After the adjustment for 

the cash deposit rates attributed to 

export subsidies, the resulting cash 

deposit rates will be 3.51 percent for 

Samsung and 8.69 percent for the 

companies covered by the ‘‘All Others’’ 

rate. For LG, although its final dumping 

margin is above de minimis, the 

Department found no export subsidies 

for this company and therefore we have 

not adjusted LG’s final cash deposit rate. 

For Daewoo, because its estimated 

weighted-average final dumping margin 

is zero, we are not directing CBP to 

suspend liquidation of entries of bottom 

mount refrigerators produced and 

exported by this company. These 

instructions suspending liquidation will 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Final Determination Margins 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average 

margin percentage 

Critical 

circumstances 

Daewoo Electronics Corporation .................................................................................................................... 0.00 No. 

LG Electronics, Inc ......................................................................................................................................... 15.41 No. 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................ 5.16 No. 

All Others ........................................................................................................................................................ 10.29 No. 

‘‘All Others’’ Rate 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we have based 

the ‘‘All Others’’ rate on the simple 

average of the dumping margins 

calculated for the exporters/ 

manufacturers investigated in this 

proceeding. The ‘‘All Others’’ rate is 

calculated exclusive of all de minimis 

margins and margins based entirely on 

AFA. Because we cannot apply our 

normal methodology of calculating a 

weighted-average margin due to 

requests to protect business-proprietary 

information, we find this rate to be the 

best proxy of the actual weightedaverage margin determined for the 

mandatory respondents.9

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). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17418 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 

1See Galvanized Steel Wire From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment 

of Final Determination With Final Antidumping 

Determination, 76 FR 55031 (September 6, 2011) 

(Preliminary Determination). 

2Public versions of all business proprietary 

documents and all public documents are 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. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

final determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

imports of the subject merchandise are 

causing material injury, or threat of 

material injury, to an industry in the 

United States. If the ITC determines that 

material injury or threat of 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. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

This notice will serve as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/ 

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. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

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

Act. 

Dated: March 16, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix—Issues in Decision 

Memorandum 

General Issues 

1. Targeted Dumping 

2. Zeroing in Average-to-Transaction 

Comparisons 

3. Adjustments to Expenses Paid to Affiliated 

Parties 

4. Classification of Return Freight Expenses 

Company-Specific Issues 

Daewoo 

5. General and Administrative Expenses for 

Daewoo 

LG 

6. LG’s Corrected Control Numbers 

7. LG’s Home Market Rebates 

8. LG’s Home Market Advertising Expenses 

9. LG’s Home Market Payment Dates 

10. LG’s U.S. Payment Dates 

11. LG’s U.S. Billing Adjustments 

12. LG’s U.S. Lump Sum and Sell-Out 

Rebates 

13. LG’s Non-Product-Specific Accruals for 

U.S. Rebates 

14. LG’s U.S. Freight Expenses 

15. LG’s U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 

16. LG’s U.S. Inventory Carrying Costs 

17. LG’s Materials Purchased from Affiliated 

Parties 

18. LG’s Research and Development (R&D) 

Expenses 

Samsung 

19. Critical Circumstances 

20. Use of Total Adverse Facts Available 

(AFA) for Samsung 

21. Samsung’s Early Payment Discounts in 

the Home Market 

22. Samsung’s Home Market Rebates on 

Discontinued Models and Kimchi 

Refrigerators 

23. Samsung’s Remaining Home Market 

Rebates 

24. Samsung’s Home Market Advertising 

Expenses 

25. Samsung’s Home Market Warranty 

Expenses 

26. Corrections Presented at the Start of 

Samsung’s Sales Verifications 

27. Samsung’s U.S. Rebates 

28. Treatment of Payments for Defective 

Samsung Merchandise 

29. The Denominator of Various Expense 

Calculations for Samsung 

30. Samsung’s U.S. Credit Periods 

31. Samsung’s U.S. Interest Rate 

32. Samsung’s U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 

33. Classification of Certain Costs as 

Packaging or Packing for Samsung 

34. Corrections Presented at the Start of 

Samsung’s Cost Verification 

35. SEC’s G&A Ratio 

36. Samsung’s Scrap Sales 

37. Samsung’s Financing Costs 

38. Samsung’s Materials Purchased from 

Affiliated Parties 

39. Samsung’s R&D Expenses 

[FR Doc. 2012–7237 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–976] 

Galvanized Steel Wire From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

galvanized steel wire (galvanized wire) 

from the People’s Republic of China (the 

PRC). For information on the estimated 

subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicholas Czajkowski or David Lindgren, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room 7866, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–1395 or 

202–482–3870, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The U.S. producers that filed the 

petition for this investigation are Davis 

Wire Corporation, Johnstown Wire 

Technologies, Inc., Mid-South Wire 

Company, Inc., National Standard, LLC, 

and Oklahoma Steel & Wire Company, 

Inc. (collectively, Petitioners). This 

investigation covers 40 programs. The 

mandatory respondents in this 

investigation are: (1) M&M Industries 

Co. Ltd. (M&M); (2) Shandong Hualing 

Hardware and Tool Co., Ltd. (Hualing); 

(3) Shanghai Bao Zhang Industry Co. 

Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliated 

companies Anhui Bao Zhang Metal 

Products Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Li Chao 

Industry Co., Ltd. (collectively, the Bao 

Zhang Companies); and, (4) Tianjin 

Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd. 

and its cross-owned affiliated 

companies Tianjin Tianxin Metal 

Products Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Mei Jia 

Hua Trade Co., Ltd. (collectively, the 

Huayuan Companies). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation for which 

we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 

2010, through December 31, 2010. 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the Department published the 

Preliminary Determination 1 on 

September 6, 2011.2 The Huayuan 

Companies filed a ministerial error 

allegation on September 7, 2011, and, 

on September 12, 2011, Petitioners filed 

responses to the Huayuan Companies’ 

allegation. On September 29, 2011, the 

Department released its analysis of the 

ministerial error allegation, finding that 

no ministerial errors were made in the 

Preliminary Determination. Petitioners, 

the Huayuan Companies and the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES