17422 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 Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount 

Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from Mexico, 76 

FR 67688 (Nov. 2, 2011) (Preliminary 

Determination). 

2See Memorandum to The File entitled 

‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Electrolux 

Home Products, Corp. N.V. and Electrolux Home 

Products, Inc. (collectively ‘‘Electrolux’’) in the 

Antidumping Investigation of Bottom Mount. 

Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from Mexico,’’ 

dated December 22, 2011; Memorandum to The File 

entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of 

Electrolux Home Products, Corp. N.V. and 

Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (collectively 

‘‘Electrolux’’) in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Bottom Mount Combination 

Refrigerator-Freezers (BMRFs) from Mexico,’’ dated 

February 1, 2012; Memorandum to The File entitled 

‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of LG 

Electronics, Inc. in the Antidumping Investigation 

of Bottom-Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers 

from the Republic of Korea, dated December 22, 

2011; Memorandum to the File entitled 

‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of LG Electronics 

Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V. in the Antidumping 

Investigation of Bottom Mount Combination 

Refrigerator-Freezers from Mexico,’’ dated 

December 22, 2011; Memorandum to The File 

entitled ‘‘Verification of the Third Country Sales 

Response of LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A, 

de C.V, and LG Electronics Canada,’’ February 1, 

2012; Memorandum to The File entitled 

‘‘Verification of the U.S. Sales Response of LG 

Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V. and LG 

Electronics USA, Inc.,’’ dated February 2, 2012; 

Memorandum to the File entitled ‘‘Verification of 

the Sales Response of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd 

in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of 

Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers from Korea,’’ 

dated February 2, 2012; Memorandum to the File 

entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of 

Controladora Mabe S.A. de C.V. Mabe S.A. de C.V., 

and Leiser S. de R.L. in the Antidumping 

Investigation of Bottom-Mount Combination 

Refrigerator-Freezers from Mexico,’’ dated January 

4, 2012; Memorandum to The File entitled 

‘‘Verification of the Sales Responses of General 

Electric Company,’’ dated January 13, 2012; 

Memorandum to The File entitled ‘‘Verification of 

the Sales Responses of Controladora Mabe S.A. de 

C.V., and Mabe S.A. de C.V. (collectively, 

‘‘Mabe’’),’’ dated January 25, 2012; Memorandum to 

The File entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response 

of Samsung Electronics Mexico S.A. de C.V. in the 

Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Bottom 

Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from 

Mexico’’, dated December 21, 2011; Memorandum 

to The File entitled ‘‘Verification of the U.S. Sales 

Response of Samsung Electronics Mexico, S.A. de 

C.V.,’’ dated January 9, 2012; and Memorandum to 

The File entitled ‘‘Verification of Samsung 

Electronics America Inc.,’’ dated January 26, 2012. 

Comment 11: Whether the Department 

Should Apply the Same Electricity 

Benchmark to both ABZ and SBZ 

Comment 12: Application of AFA to the 

Huayuan Companies and M&M 

VI. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2012–7214 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–839] 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances 

Determination: Bottom Mount 

Combination Refrigerator-Freezers 

From Mexico 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: We determine that imports of 

bottom mount combination refrigeratorfreezers (bottom mount refrigerators) 

from Mexico 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 critical circumstances 

exist with respect to the subject 

merchandise exported from Mexico by 

Samsung Electronics Mexico, S.A. de 

C.V. (Samsung). 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we made changes 

in the margin calculations. Therefore, 

the final determination differs from the 

preliminary determination. The final 

weighted-average 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: 

David Goldberger or Katherine Johnson, 

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) 482–4136 and (202) 

482–4929, 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 Mexico.1 Since the 

preliminary determination, the 

following events have occurred. 

In November 2011, we issued 

supplemental questionnaires to, and 

received responses from, all four 

respondents: Electrolux Home Products 

Corp. NV/Electrolux Home Products De 

Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Electrolux), LG 

Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de 

C.V. (LGEMM), Controladora Mabe, S.A. 

de C.V./Mabe, S.A. de C.V. (Mabe), and 

Samsung. Also, in November 2011, we 

received updated shipment information 

for our critical circumstances analysis 

from Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung. 

On December 5, 2011, Whirlpool 

Corporation (hereafter, the petitioner) 

amended its targeted dumping 

allegation with respect to Samsung to 

reflect the revised U.S. sales data 

submitted by Samsung in response to 

the Department’s November 2011, 

supplemental questionnaire. 

In November and December 2011, we 

verified the questionnaire responses of 

the four respondents in this case, in 

accordance with section 782(i) of the 

Act. In December, January and February 

2012, we issued our verification 

findings for each respondent.2

In February 2012, the Department 

requested, and the respondents 

submitted, revised U.S. and/or 

comparison-market sales listings to 

reflect certain verification findings. 

Also, in February 2012, the petitioner 

and the respondents (except for 

Electrolux) submitted case and rebuttal 

briefs. On February 22, 2012, the 

Government of Mexico submitted 

comments on certain aspects of the 

Department’s preliminary 

determination. On February 24, 2012, 

the Department held a hearing in this 

case. 

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. See 

March 16, 2012, Memoranda to The File 

entitled ‘‘Final Determination Margin 

Calculation for LG Electronics 

Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V. 

(LGEMM)’’ (LGEMM Calculation 

Memo); ‘‘Final Determination Margin 

Calculation for Samsung Electronics 

Mexico S.A. de C.V. (SEM)’’ (Samsung 

Calculation Memo); ‘‘Final 

Determination Margin Calculation for 

Electrolux Home Products, Corp. N.V./ 

Electrolux Home Products de Mexico, 

S.A. de C.V’’ (Electrolux Calculation 

Memo); and ‘‘Final Determination 

Margin Calculation for Controladora 

Mabe S.A. de C.V., Mabe S.A. de C.V., 

and Leiser S. de R.L. (collectively, 

Mabe),’’ which contain the revised 

preliminary antidumping duty margin 

program log and output for each 

respondent. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (POI) is 

January 1, 2010, through December 31, 

2010. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17423 

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. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by the 

investigation are all bottom mount 

combination refrigerator-freezers and 

certain assemblies thereof from Mexico. 

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 67690–67691. 

No party commented on our preliminary 

scope determination. Therefore, we 

made no further changes to the 

description of the scope, as stated in the 

Preliminary Determination. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties in this 

investigation are addressed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum (Decision 

Memorandum), which is adopted by 

this notice. A list of the issues raised is 

attached to this notice as Appendix I. 

The 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 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the internet at http:// 

www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Decision 

Memorandum and the electronic 

version of the Decision Memorandum 

are identical in content. 

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. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received and our findings at 

verification, we made certain changes to 

the margin calculations for each 

respondent. For a discussion of these 

changes, see the ‘‘Margin Calculations’’ 

section of the Decision Memorandum. 

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 cost of 

production (COP) within the meaning of 

section 773(b) of the Act. See 

Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 

67698–67699. For this final 

determination, we performed the cost 

test following the same methodology as 

in the Preliminary Determination, after 

making certain adjustments to the 

reported comparison-market cost and 

sales data based on our analysis of the 

comments received and our findings at 

verification, where appropriate. 

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. 

MNC Provision 

As we discussed in the Preliminary 

Determination, we applied the Special 

Rule for Certain Multinational 

Corporations (MNC Provision) in the 

calculation of normal value (NV) for 

LGEMM because, based on the record 

evidence, LGEMM satisfied each of the 

three criteria enumerated under section 

773(d) of the Act. In so doing, we based 

NV for LGEMM on the prices of sales 

made by LG Electronics, Inc. (LGE) in 

Korea. See Preliminary Determination, 

76 FR at 67692–67693. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17424 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 

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. 

5The petitioner did not make a critical 

circumstances allegation with respect to imports 

from Mabe or All Others. 

We have continued to apply the MNC 

Provision to the calculation of LGEMM’s 

NV for purposes of the final 

determination because all three criteria 

enumerated in the Act have been met. 

Specifically, we verified that LGEMM is 

owned in part by LGE, which produces 

bottom mount refrigerators, and that 

LGEMM’s home market sales are not 

viable for comparison to its U.S. sales. 

Furthermore, using the same 

methodology as that employed in the 

Preliminary Determination, after taking 

into account adjustments made to 

LGEMM’s and LGE’s sales and cost data 

based on our analysis of other 

comments received and our findings at 

verification, we continue to find that the 

NV of the foreign like product produced 

in Korea is higher than the NV of the 

foreign like product produced in 

Mexico. Therefore, we compared 

LGEMM’s U.S. prices to the prices of 

sales made by LGE in Korea. For further 

discussion of this issue, see Comment 3 

of the Decision Memorandum. 

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 Electrolux, 

LGEMM, 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) (Nails), 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 LGEMM, in accordance with 

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

also preliminarily determined that no 

such pattern existed for Electrolux. 

Furthermore, for Samsung, we found 

that the standard average-to-average 

methodology took into account the price 

differences because the alternative 

average-to-transaction methodology 

yielded no difference in the margin or 

yielded a difference in the margin that 

was so insignificant relative to the size 

of the resulting margin as to be 

immaterial. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily applied the standard 

average-to-average methodology to all 

U.S. sales made by Samsung. For 

LGEMM, we found that that the 

standard average-to-average 

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 LGEMM. For Electrolux, 

because we did not find a pattern of 

prices that differed significantly for 

certain time periods, we applied our 

standard average-to-average price 

comparison methodology to all U.S. 

sales made by Electrolux. See 

Preliminary Determination at 76 FR 

67691–67692. 

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 Electrolux’s, LGEMM’s and 

Samsung’s reported U.S. sales data 

based on verification findings and our 

evaluation of other comments submitted 

by the parties, as enumerated in the 

‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the 

Decision Memo. In so doing, we found 

that the results of our final targeteddumping analysis were consistent with 

those of our preliminary targeteddumping analysis with respect to 

Electrolux. Therefore, we continued to 

apply the standard average-to-average 

methodology to all of Electrolux’s U.S. 

sales. For Samsung and LGEMM, while 

we found a pattern of price differences 

that differed significantly for certain 

time periods pursuant to section 

777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined 

that the differences can be taken into 

account using the average-to-average 

methodology. Therefore, we applied the 

standard average-to-average 

methodology to all U.S. sales made by 

Samsung and LGEMM. See LGEMM 

Calculation Memo, Samsung 

Calculation Memo, and Electrolux 

Calculation Memo. For further 

discussion, see Comment 2 of the 

Decision Memorandum. 

Critical Circumstances 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that critical circumstances exist 

with respect to imports of the subject 

merchandise from Samsung but not 

with respect to imports of subject 

merchandise from Electrolux or 

LGEMM.5 See Preliminary 

Determination, 76 FR at 67701–67702. 

Samsung objected to our preliminary 

affirmative critical circumstances 

determination with respect to it, arguing 

among other things, that its imports 

have not been massive since the filing 

of the petition. 

In conducting our critical 

circumstances analysis for the final 

determination, we relied on updated 

shipment data provided by Electrolux, 

LGEMM, and Samsung which we 

examined at verification. Based on our 

analysis of these data and the criteria 

enumerated under section 735(a)(3) of 

the Act, we continue to find that critical 

circumstances exist only with respect to 

imports of bottom mount refrigerators 

from Samsung, 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.’’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17425 

6See 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 (August 2, 2010). 

7See 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 (August 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 

(January 13, 2006) (Certain Orange Juice from 

Brazil). 

8See e.g., 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, 

2002), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal 

From the Russian Federation, 68 FR 6885 (February 

11, 2003). 

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 

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.6 As 

mentioned in the Preliminary 

Determination, the petitioner did not 

identify any proceeding with respect to 

bottom mount refrigerators from 

Mexico, nor are we aware of any 

existing antidumping duty order in any 

country on bottom mount refrigerators 

from Mexico. For this reason, the 

Department does not find a history of 

injurious dumping of the subject 

merchandise from Mexico 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.7

Electrolux made only CEP sales and 

the vast majority of LGEMM’s sales are 

CEP. Samsung had both EP and CEP 

sales, a majority of which are CEP sales. 

The final dumping margins calculated 

for Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung 

exceed the threshold sufficient to 

impute knowledge of dumping (i.e., 15 

percent for CEP sales). Therefore, we 

determine that there is sufficient basis 

to find that importers should have 

known that each of these companies 

was selling the subject merchandise at 

LTFV pursuant to section 

735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act. 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 Mexico. See ITC Preliminary 

Determination. Based on the ITC’s 

preliminary determination of injury, 

and the final antidumping margins for 

Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung, 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.8

According to the monthly shipment 

information, we found the volume of 

shipments of bottom mount refrigerators 

increased by more than 15 percent for 

Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung. 

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 except one. Specifically, 

with respect to Electrolux and LGEMM, 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17426 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 

time period from year to year, and the 

shipment increases observed in the 

April–October time period from year to 

year decreased. Therefore, for purposes 

of the final determination, we find that 

imports from these companies during 

the period after the filing of the petition 

have not been massive in accordance 

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

However, with respect to Samsung, we 

found that the percentage increase in 

shipments during the comparison 

period is not related to seasonal trends 

but associated with the filing of the 

petition because shipments in the 

April–October 2010 time period were 

lower than those in the September 

2009–March 2010 time period, and the 

shipment increase observed in the 

April–October period between 2010 and 

2011 was substantial. Accordingly, for 

purposes of the final determination, we 

find that imports from Samsung during 

the period after the filing of the petition 

have 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 Mexico by Electrolux, LGEMM, 

and Samsung. In addition, we find that 

there have been massive imports of 

bottom mount refrigerators over a 

relatively short period from Samsung, 

irrespective of seasonality. However, we 

do not find that there have been massive 

imports of bottom mount refrigerators 

over a relatively short period from 

Electrolux and LGEMM 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 

Electrolux and LGEMM, but continues 

to find that critical circumstances exist 

for imports of the subject merchandise 

from Samsung in the final 

determination. For a complete 

discussion of our final critical 

circumstances analysis, see the Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 34 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 Mexico— 

Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances.’’ 

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 Mexico, produced/ 

exported by Electrolux, LGEMM, Mabe, 

and ‘‘All Others’’ and 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. 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 Mexico, produced/ 

exported by Samsung and entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after August 4, 2011, 

which is 90 days prior to the date of 

publication of the preliminary 

determination in the Federal Register, 

i.e., November 2, 2011. 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. These 

instructions suspending liquidation will 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Final Determination Margins 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

Exporter/manufacturer 

WeightedAverage 

margin 

percentage 

Critical 

circumstances 

Electrolux Home Products, Corp. NV/Electrolux Home Products De Mexico, S.A. de C.V ..................................... 22.94 No. 

LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V. ....................................................................................................... 30.34 No. 

Controladora Mabe S.A. de C.V./Mabe S.A. de C.V. ................................................................................................ 6.00 NA. 

Samsung Electronics Mexico, S.A. de C.V. .............................................................................................................. 15.95 Yes. 

All Others ................................................................................................................................................................... 20.26 NA. 

‘‘All Others’’ Rate 

In accordance with section 

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

‘‘All Others’’ rate on the weighted 

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. 

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). 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17427 

1See Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 76 FR 68422 (November 4, 2011) 

(Preliminary Determination). 

2See Letter from Deacero, regarding ‘‘Galvanized 

Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated November 8, 2011. 

Petitioners did not comment on Deacero’s 

ministerial error allegations. 

3See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, 

Director, Office 7, from Patrick Edwards and Ericka 

Ukrow, Case Analysts, through Angelica Mendoza, 

Program Manager, Office 7, entitled ‘‘Ministerial 

Error Allegation in the Preliminary Determination 

of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico: Deacero S.A. 

de C.V.,’’ dated December 5, 2011 (Ministerial Error 

Memorandum). 

4See Deacero’s Fourth Supplemental 

Questionnaire Response, dated December 8, 2011. 

5The Petitioners in this investigation are Davis 

Wire Corporation, Johnston Wire Technologies, 

Inc., Mid-South Wire Company, Inc., National 

Standard, LLC, and Oklahoma Steel & Wire 

Company, Inc. (collectively, Petitioners). 

6 Deacero, also on December 5, 2011, requested to 

participate in a hearing in the event that another 

party requested a hearing. 

7See Memorandum to the File from Christopher 

J. Zimpo and Frederick W. Mines, Case 

Accountants, through Theresa C. Deeley, Lead 

Accountant, and Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value Data Submitted 

by Deacero S.A. de C.V. in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from 

Mexico,’’ dated January 13, 2012 (Deacero Cost 

Verification Report); Memorandum to the File from 

Frederick W. Mines and Christopher J. Zimpo, Case 

Accountants, through Theresa C. Deeley, Lead 

Accountant, and Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost 

Response of Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized 

Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated January 13, 2012 

(Camesa Cost Verification Report); Memorandum to 

the File from Christopher J. Zimpo and Frederick 

W. Mines, Case Accountants, through Theresa C. 

Deeley, Lead Accountant, and Neal M. Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled 

‘‘Verification of the Further Manufacturing Data 

Submitted by Deacero S.A. de C.V. for Deacero USA 

Inc. and Stay-Tuff Fence Manufacturing, Inc. in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized 

Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated January 27, 2012 

(Deacero Further-Manufacturing Verification 

Report); Memorandum to the File from Patrick 

Edwards, Case Analyst, through Angelica Mendoza, 

Program Manager, Office 7, entitled ‘‘Verification of 

the Sales Responses of Aceros Camesa, S.A. de C.V. 

in the Antidumping Duty Investigation on 

Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated 

February 13, 2012 (Camesa Verification Report); 

Memorandum to the File from Ericka Ukrow and 

Patrick Edwards, Case Analysts, through Angelica 

L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, entitled 

‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of Deacero USA 

Inc. (Deacero USA) and Stay-Tuff Fence 

Manufacturing, Inc. (Stay-Tuff) in the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from 

Mexico,’’ dated February 15, 2012 (Deacero CEP 

Verification Report); Memorandum to the File from 

Patrick Edwards and Ericka Ukrow, Case Analysts, 

through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, 

Office 7, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales 

Responses of Deacero S.A. de C.V. in the 

Continued 

2. Zeroing in Average-to-Transaction 

Comparisons 

Company-Specific Issues 

LGEMM 

3. Application of MNC Provision 

4. Lump Sum and Sell-Out Rebates on U.S. 

Sales 

5. Non-Product-Specific Accrual Rebates on 

U.S. Sales 

6. Warehouse-to-Customer U.S. Inland 

Freight Expenses 

7. Billing Adjustments on U.S. Sales 

8. Interest Rate for U.S. Inventory Carrying 

Costs 

9. Payment Dates on Certain U.S. Sales 

10. Payment Dates on Certain Canadian Sales 

11. Lump Sum and Sell-Out Rebates on 

Canadian Sales 

12. Direct Advertising Expense Ratio for 

Canadian Sales 

13. Conversion Cost Allocation Error 

14. Research and Development Costs 

15. Global Costs 

16. Affiliated Party Input Purchases 

Samsung 

17. Corrections Presented at Start of Sales 

Verifications 

18. U.S. Rebates 

19. CEP Offset 

20. The Denominator for Certain Selling 

Expense Ratios 

21. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 

22. Classification of Certain Costs as 

Packaging or Packing 

23. Treatment of Payments for Defective 

Merchandise 

24. Unreported Bank Charges 

25. Comparison Market Viability 

26. Calculation of CV Selling Expenses and 

Profit 

27. Research and Development Costs 

28. Certain Affiliated Party Purchases 

29. Affiliated Party Compressors Purchases 

30. Erroneously Reported Input Quantities 

31. General and Administrative Expense 

Ratio 

32. Interest Expense Offset 

33. Understatement of Input Freight Costs 

34. Critical Circumstances 

Mabe 

35. Costs Excluded From Cost of Production 

36. Fees Related to Agreements Between 

Mabe and GEA 

37. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 

38. U.S. Rebates 

39. U.S. Advertising Expenses 

40. Cost Verification Corrections 

41. Home Market Rebate Identified at 

Verification 

Electrolux 

42. Verification Findings 

[FR Doc. 2012–7271 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–840] 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Galvanized 

Steel Wire From Mexico 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012. 

SUMMARY: On November 4, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published its preliminary 

determination in the investigation of 

sales at less than fair value of galvanized 

steel wire (galvanized wire) from 

Mexico.1

The Department has determined that 

galvanized wire from Mexico is being, 

or is likely to be, sold in the United 

States at less than fair value, as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final 

margins of sales at less than fair value 

are listed below in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Determination of Investigation.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Edwards or Ericka Ukrow, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–8029 or (202) 482– 

0405, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The preliminary determination in this 

investigation was published on 

November 4, 2011. See Preliminary 

Determination. We invited parties to 

comment on the Preliminary 

Determination. On November 8, 2011, 

we received timely-filed allegations 

from Deacero S.A. de C.V. (Deacero) that 

the Department made several ministerial 

errors in calculating its dumping margin 

for the preliminary determination.2

On November 10 and 23, 2011, the 

Department issued Deacero 

supplemental questionnaires. 

On December 5, 2011, the Department 

released its memorandum addressing 

Deacero’s ministerial error allegations, 

finding that no amendment to the 

preliminary determination was 

warranted. See Ministerial Error 

Memorandum.3

On December 5, 2011, Deacero 

submitted its response to the November 

23, 2011, questionnaire.4 Also on 

December 5, 2011, Petitioners 5 and 

respondent Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. 

(Camesa) timely filed a request for a 

public hearing.6

We conducted cost and sales 

verifications of the responses submitted 

by Deacero and Camesa (collectively, 

respondents).7 All verification reports 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES