21738 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 

28 In the LTFV Investigation Final, the 

Department found that Wireking was a single entity 

with Company G (the name of this company is 

business proprietary). See Wireking Analysis 

Memo. The information placed on the record of this 

review demonstrates that there have not been any 

changes to the ownership structure. Therefore, we 

continue to find Wireking and Company G to 

constitute a single entity. 

29The PRC-wide entity includes Weixi, Asia 

Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., and Leader Metal 

Industry Co., Ltd. (aka Marmon Retail Services 

Asia), as well as any company that does not have 

a separate rate. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department has determined that 

the following final dumping margins 

exist for the period March 5, 2009, 

through August 31, 2010: 

Exporter Margin 

(percent) 

Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Foshan Shunde Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd.) 28 ..... 7.89 

New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.00 

Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................... 7.89 

PRC-Wide Entity 29 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 95.99 

Assessment 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), the Department will 

calculate importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates based on the ratio of 

the total amount of the dumping 

margins calculated for the examined 

sales to the total entered value of those 

same sales. The Department will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review if any importer-specific 

assessment rate is above de minimis. 

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). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 

exporters listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established in these 

final results of review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 206.00 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this POR. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Department’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties has occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely written notification of the return 

or destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: April 4, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Decision Memorandum 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Zeroing 

Comment 2: Surrogate Values 

a. Surrogate Financial Ratios 

b. Brokerage and Handling 

Company Specific Issues 

Comment 3: Issues Regarding NKS 

a. Conversion of Gross Unit Price 

b. Inclusion of Affiliate’s Name in Cash 

Deposit and Liquidation Instructions 

[FR Doc. 2012–8736 Filed 4–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–836] 

Glycine From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to timely 

requests, the Department of Commerce 

is conducting an administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC). The period of review is 

March 1, 2010, through February 28, 

2011. We have preliminarily determined 

that Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry 

Co., Ltd. (Baoding Mantong), made sales 

of subject merchandise at or above 

normal value during the period of 

review and invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

In addition, we are rescinding this 

administrative review with respect to 29 

other companies. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 11, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edythe Artman or Angelica Mendoza, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 21739 

1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 11197 

(March 1, 2011). 

2See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 

23545 (April 27, 2011) (Initiation). 

3See Glycine From the People’s Republic of 

China; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 76 FR 72388 (November 23, 2011). 

4See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review 

and Preliminary Notice of Intent To Rescind the 

2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 26736, 

26739 (May 8, 2006) (unchanged in Brake Rotors 

From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 

Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 

2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 

(November 14, 2006)). 

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) 482–3931 and (202) 

482–3019, respectively. 

Background 

On March 1, 2011, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on glycine in 

the Federal Register.1 Baoding Mantong 

requested a review of its own sales on 

March 23, 2011, and GEO Specialty 

Chemicals, Inc. (GEO), a domestic 

interested party, requested a review of 

the sales of Baoding Mantong and 29 

other firms on March 31, 2011. Based on 

these requests, we initiated a review of 

the 30 companies on April 27, 2011.2

On July 1, 2011, however, GEO 

withdrew its request for review of all 

companies except that of Baoding 

Mantong. 

Baoding Mantong filed timely 

responses to our original antidumping 

questionnaire and supplemental 

questionnaires. GEO filed comments on 

Baoding Mantong’s submissions and, on 

July 25, 2011, GEO filed a request that 

we verify the responses. 

On November 23, 2011, we extended 

the due date for the preliminary results 

of review by 120 days to March 30, 

2012.3

Verification 

We conducted a verification of 

Baoding Mantong’s responses from 

February 6 through February 10, 2012. 

We used standard verification 

procedures, including examination of 

relevant accounting and production 

records, as well as source 

documentation provided by the 

respondent. See Memorandum to the 

File regarding ‘‘Verification of the Sales 

and Factors-Of-Production Responses of 

Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., 

Ltd., in the Antidumping 

Administrative Review of Glycine from 

the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated 

March 30, 2012 (Verification Report). 

Partial Rescission 

Under 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Department will rescind an 

administrative review if the party that 

requested the review withdraws its 

request for review within 90 days of the 

date of publication of the notice of 

initiation of the requested review, or 

withdraws it at a later date if the 

Department determines it is reasonable 

to extend the time limit for withdrawing 

the request. 

Because GEO withdrew its request for 

review of 29 companies on July 1, 2011, 

within 90 days of publication of our 

notice of initiation on April 27, 2011, 

we find GEO’s withdrawal to be timely. 

Thus, we are rescinding this review 

with respect to the following 

companies: (1) A&A Pharmachem Inc., 

(2) Advance Exports, (3) AICO 

Laboratories Ltd., (4) Avid Organics, (5) 

Beijing Onlystar Technology Co. Ltd., 

(6) China Jiangsu International, (7) 

Chiyuen International Trading Ltd., (8) 

E-Heng Import & Export Co., Ltd., (9) 

General Ingredient Inc., (10) Hebei 

Donghua Chemical General Corporation, 

(11) Hebei Donghua Jiheng Fine 

Chemical, (12) H.K. Tangfin Chemicals 

Co., Ltd., (13) Jizhou City Huayang 

Chemical Co., Ltd., (14) Kissner Milling 

Co. Ltd., (15) Long Dragon Company 

Ltd., (16) Nantong Dongchang Chemical 

Industry Corp., (17) Nutracare 

International, (18) Paras Intermediates 

Pvt. Ltd., (19) Qingdao Samin Chemical 

Co., Ltd., (20) Ravi Industries, (21) Salvi 

Chemical Industries, (22) Shaanxi 

Maxsun Trading Co., Ltd., (23) 

Shijiazhuang Green Carbon Products 

Co., Ltd., (24) Showa Denko K.K., (25) 

Sinochem Qingdao Company, Ltd., (26) 

Sino-Siam Resources Imp. & Exp. Co., 

Ltd., (27) Tianjin Tiancheng 

Pharmaceutical Company, (28) 

Universal Minerals, and (29) Yuki Gosei 

Kogyo Co., Ltd. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this 

antidumping duty order is glycine, 

which is a free-flowing crystalline 

material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is 

produced at varying levels of purity and 

is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, a 

buffering agent, reabsorbable amino 

acid, chemical intermediate, and a metal 

complexing agent. Glycine is currently 

classified under subheading 

2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

This proceeding includes glycine of all 

purity levels. 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise under the order is 

dispositive. 

In a separate scope ruling, the 

Department determined that D(-) 

Phenylglycine Ethyl Dane Salt is outside 

the scope of the order. See Notice of 

Scope Rulings, 62 FR 62288 (November 

21, 1997). 

Non-Market-Economy Country Status 

The Department considers the PRC to 

be a non-market-economy (NME) 

country. In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act), any determination 

that a foreign country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority.4

Separate Rates 

A designation of a country as a NME 

remains in effect until it is revoked by 

the Department. See section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. We maintain 

that there is a rebuttable presumption 

that all companies within the PRC are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s 

standard policy to assign all exporters of 

the merchandise subject to review 

involving an NME country a single rate 

unless an exporter can affirmatively 

demonstrate an absence of government 

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

(de facto), with respect to exports. To 

establish whether a company is 

sufficiently independent to be entitled 

to a separate, company-specific rate, the 

Department analyzes each exporting 

entity in an NME country under the test 

established in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

From the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), and 

amplified by Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). 

To establish separate-rate eligibility, 

the Department requires entities, for 

which a review was requested and that 

were assigned separate rates in the most 

recent segment of the proceeding in 

which they participated, to certify that 

they continue to meet the criteria for 

obtaining a separate rate unless there 

were changes to a company’s corporate 

structure, acquisitions of new 

companies or facilities, or changes to 

their official company name. Initiation 

at 23546. In the current review, Baoding 

Mantong filed a response to Section A 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21740 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 

5See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1: 

Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection 

Process (March 1, 2004) available on the 

Department’s Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

policy/index.html. 

of the antidumping questionnaire in 

which it described recent changes in its 

corporate structure and ownership and 

responded to all items concerning the 

assignment of a separate rate. In doing 

so, it provided company-specific 

information and stated that it met the 

criteria for the assignment of a separate 

rate. 

Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

The information provided by Baoding 

Mantong supports a finding of a de jure 

absence of governmental control over its 

export activities based on: (1) An 

absence of restrictive stipulations 

associated with the exporter’s business 

license and certificate of approval; and 

(2) the legal authority on the record 

decentralizing control over Baoding 

Mantong, including the provisions of 

the relevant PRC law. Furthermore, no 

party submitted information to the 

contrary. Thus, we preliminarily find an 

absence of de jure control. 

Absence of De Facto Control 

The Department typically considers 

the following four factors in evaluating 

whether a respondent is subject to de 

facto government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by, or subject to the approval of, 

a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has the authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding the 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; 

see also Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Furfuryl Alcohol From the People’s 

Republic of China, 60 FR 22544–45, n.3 

(May 8, 1995). The Department has 

determined that an analysis of de facto 

control is critical in determining 

whether respondents are, in fact, subject 

to a degree of governmental control 

which would preclude the Department 

from assigning separate rates. 

The evidence provided by Baoding 

Mantong supports a preliminary finding 

of de facto absence of government 

control based on the following: (1) Its 

export price is not set by or subject to 

the approval of a governmental agency; 

(2) the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) the respondent has 

autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of its management; and (4) the 

respondent retains the proceeds of its 

export sales and makes independent 

decisions regarding disposition of 

profits or financing of losses. Based on 

this information, the Department 

preliminarily finds that there is an 

absence of de facto governmental 

control over the export activities of 

Baoding Mantong. 

Therefore, given the findings that the 

company operates free of de jure and de 

facto governmental control, we 

preliminarily determine that Baoding 

Mantong satisfies the criteria for a 

separate rate established in Silicon 

Carbide and Sparklers. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

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

normal value, in most circumstances, on 

the NME producer’s factors of 

production, valued in a surrogate 

market-economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

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

factors of production, the Department 

shall utilize, to the extent possible, the 

prices or costs of the factors in one or 

more market-economy countries that 

are: (1) At a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country; and (2) significant 

producers of comparable merchandise.5

Once the Department has identified the 

countries that are economically 

comparable to the PRC, it identifies 

those countries which are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

From the countries which are both 

economically comparable and 

significant producers, the Department 

will then select a primary surrogate 

country based upon whether the data for 

valuing the factors of production are 

both available and reliable. 

Economic Comparability 

For this administrative review, the 

Department has identified Colombia, 

Indonesia, the Philippines, South 

Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine as 

countries that are comparable to the 

PRC in terms of economic development. 

See Memorandum to Angelica Mendoza 

from Carole Showers regarding ‘‘Request 

for a List of Surrogate Countries for an 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated August 15, 2011 (Surrogate 

Country List). Thus, we consider all of 

the countries on the Surrogate Country 

List as having satisfied the comparableeconomic-development prong of the 

surrogate selection criteria. 

Furthermore, the Department has 

previously stated that: 

{U}nless we find that all of the countries 

determined to be equally economically 

comparable are not significant producers of 

comparable merchandise, do not provide a 

reliable source of publicly available surrogate 

data or are unsuitable for use for other 

reasons, we will rely on data from one of 

these countries. 

See Certain Steel Wheels From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Partial 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

of Critical Circumstances, and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

76 FR 67703, 67708 (November 2, 2011). 

Because, as explained below, we find 

that one of the countries from the 

Surrogate Country List meets the 

selection criteria, the Department need 

not consider another country as the 

primary surrogate country. 

Significant Producers of Identical or 

Comparable Merchandise 

In its comments on surrogate-country 

selection, Baoding Mantong argued that, 

as in previous segments of the 

proceeding, India should be used as the 

surrogate country because it remained at 

a level of economic development 

comparable to China, it was a significant 

producer of merchandise identical to 

the subject merchandise, and it offered 

publicly available information to value 

the factors of production. See Baoding 

Mantong’s Letter regarding ‘‘Surrogate 

Country Comments and the Submission 

of Proposed Surrogate Values’’, dated 

November 1, 2011 at 2. Baoding 

Mantong acknowledged that, based on 

export data, Indonesia could be 

considered a producer of merchandise 

comparable to glycine but argued that 

there were no publicly available data 

upon which to base the financial-ratio 

calculations. Id. at 3–4 and exhibit 1. In 

its comments, GEO argued that 

Indonesia was the most appropriate 

country to be selected as the surrogate 

because: (1) Based on export data, it had 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 21741 

6 GEO’s assertions are made in reference to an 

ongoing anti-circumvention inquiry involving the 

antidumping duty order on glycine from the PRC 

and shipments of glycine from India. See Glycine 

From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Anticircumvention Inquiry, 75 FR 

66352 (October 28, 2010). No final determination 

has been made in this inquiry. 

7Although Baoding Mantong relied on the United 

Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database for its 

export data and GEO retrieved its data from the 

Global Trade Atlas, as published by the Global 

Trade Information Services (GTA), we note that 

they obtained identical results. 

8See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 13172–73 (March 18, 1998); 

see also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From the Republic of Korea; Final Results and 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, 72 FR 4486 (January 31, 2007), and 

the accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comments 4 and 5. 

the most robust glycine and amino acid 

industry of the six countries identified 

by the Department; (2) U.S. import data 

showed that Indonesia had shipped 

glycine to the United States in the 

recent past; and (3) the Department had 

recently selected Indonesia as the 

surrogate country in the less-than-fairvalue investigation of citric acid and 

certain citric salts from the PRC. See 

GEO’s Letter regarding ‘‘GEO Specialty 

Chemicals’ Comments on Selection of 

Surrogate Country for Valuing Factors of 

Production and Surrogate Value Data for 

Valuing Baoding Mantong’s Factors of 

Production’’, dated November 1, 2011 

(GEO’s Comments), at 3 and exhibit 3. 

GEO asserted that the Department could 

value inputs based on data obtained 

from the World Trade Atlas (WTA), as 

published by the Global Trade 

Information Services, and the public 

financial information of five Indonesian 

companies. Id. at 5–6 and exhibits 5 and 

6. 

In rebuttal, Baoding Mantong asserted 

that India should remain the surrogate 

country for the proceeding, noting that 

Indonesia’s 2010 exports of glycine were 

small in comparison with those of India. 

Baoding Mantong’s Letter regarding 

‘‘Submission of Rebuttal Surrogate 

Country and Surrogate Value 

Comments,’’ dated November 8, 2011 at 

2. GEO rebutted, however, that India 

was not a significant producer of 

merchandise identical to the subject 

merchandise, alleging that most glycine 

shipments from India to the United 

States are transshipments of Chineseorigin glycine 6 and noting that, in the 

history of the proceeding, no financial 

information of an Indian glycine 

producer had been placed on the record. 

See GEO’s Letter regarding ‘‘Rebuttal to 

Baoding Mantong’s Surrogate Country 

Comments and Submission of Proposed 

Surrogate Values,’’ dated November 10, 

2011 at 2–3. GEO added that the 

Indonesian export data showed 

Indonesia to be a producer of 

merchandise both identical and 

comparable to the subject merchandise. 

Id. at 4. 

As a principal matter and as 

discussed above, because the 

Department finds that one of the 

countries from the Surrogate Country 

List meets the selection criteria, the 

Department is not considering India as 

the primary surrogate country. 

Specifically, based on the export data 

submitted by the parties,7 we find that 

Indonesia is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise. Baoding 

Mantong observes that the data for 

exports of amino acids, including 

glycine, show that the exports from 

India far exceeded those from Indonesia. 

However, of the six economicallycomparable countries identified by the 

Department, Indonesia exported the 

largest amount of comparable 

merchandise. Thus, although the data 

show that Indonesia is not as large an 

exporter as India, it nevertheless 

supports the finding that Indonesia is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise. 

Therefore, we find that Indonesia 

meets both prongs of the surrogateselection criteria; it is at a comparable 

level of economic development to the 

NME country, pursuant to section 

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

significant producer of the subject 

merchandise, pursuant to section 

773(c)(4)(B) of the Act. Furthermore, we 

have found Indonesian data to value the 

inputs to be publicly available in the 

GTA and, as noted above, in the 

financial information of several 

Indonesian companies placed on the 

record by the domestic interested party. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily 

determine that it is appropriate to use 

Indonesia as the primary surrogate 

country for this review and, 

consequently, we have used it as the 

source for data for valuing all surrogate 

values. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

submit additional publicly-available 

information to value factors of 

production for the final results of this 

administrative review within 20 days 

after the date of publication of the 

preliminary results. 

Date of Sale 

Normally, the Department considers 

invoice date as the date of sale in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i). 

However, it is the Department’s practice 

to use shipment date as the date of sale 

when shipment date precedes invoice 

date.8

In its Section C questionnaire 

response, Baoding Mantong reported the 

sales invoice date as the date of sale for 

both its export-price and constructedexport-price (CEP) sales. However, in a 

supplemental questionnaire response, 

the company stated that, for exportprice sales, it usually issued its invoice 

prior to the date of shipment and that, 

in the case of CEP sales, its U.S. affiliate, 

Glycine & More, Inc. (Glycine & More), 

usually issued its invoice upon delivery 

of the product to the customer. See 

Baoding Mantong’s supplemental 

questionnaire response, dated 

November 7, 2011, at 14. Statements at 

verification were consistent with the 

latter response. See Verification Report 

at 11–12. Thus, we have determined 

that, for export-price sales, the earliest 

of the invoice date or shipment date is 

the appropriate date of sale and that, for 

CEP sales, the date of shipment is the 

date of sale for purposes of our 

preliminary results. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine if sales of glycine from 

the PRC to the United States were made 

at less than normal value, we compared 

the export price or CEP of each sale to 

the normal value, as described in the 

‘‘U.S. Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections of this notice below. In 

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

the Act, we compared the export prices 

and the CEPs of individual U.S. 

transactions to the normal value of the 

product. 

U.S. Price 

A. Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we based the U.S. price for 

sales on export price where Baoding 

Mantong made the first sale to an 

unaffiliated purchaser prior to 

importation, and the use of CEP was not 

otherwise warranted by the facts on the 

record. We calculated export price 

based on either the packed freight-onboard or cost-and-freight price to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. In accordance with section 

772(c) of the Act, we calculated net 

export price by deducting foreign 

inland-freight expenses, foreign 

brokerage and handling expenses and, if 

applicable, ocean-freight expenses from 

the starting price (gross unit price). We 

based all movement expenses on 

surrogate values because the movement 

services were provided by PRC 

companies (see the ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

section of this notice for further details). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21742 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 

9See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished or Unfinished, From the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to 

Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744, 39754 (July 11, 2005) 

(unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 2003– 

2004 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission 

of Review, 71 FR 2517 (January 17, 2006)). 

10See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 

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

(unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 

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

B. Constructed Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we based the U.S. price for 

sales on CEP where Glycine & More 

made the first sale to an unaffiliated 

customer. We calculated CEP based on 

the packed freight-on-board or delivered 

price to the first unaffiliated purchaser 

in the United States. In accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we 

calculated CEP by deducting foreign 

movement expenses, international 

freight, and U.S. movement expenses, 

including brokerage and handling, from 

the starting price (gross unit price). 

Further, in accordance with section 

772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.402(b), we deducted the following 

selling expenses associated with 

economic activities occurring in the 

United States from the starting price: 

Credit expenses and indirect selling 

expenses, including inventory carrying 

costs. In addition, pursuant to section 

772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an 

adjustment to the starting price for CEP 

profit. We based foreign movement 

expenses, incurred on services provided 

by PRC companies, on surrogate values 

and international movement expenses 

on the U.S.-dollar amount in which they 

were incurred. 

Normal Value 

Sections 773(c)(1)(A)–(B) of the Act 

provides that the Department shall 

determine normal value using a factorsof-production methodology if the 

merchandise under review is exported 

from an NME country and the available 

information does not permit the 

calculation of normal value using homemarket prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department uses a 

factors-of-production methodology 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of NMEs 

renders price comparisons and the 

calculation of production costs invalid 

under its normal methodologies.9 Thus, 

the Department based normal value on 

factor information supplied by Baoding 

Mantong in its questionnaire responses 

or obtained at verification. 

We valued material, labor, energy, 

and packing by multiplying the reported 

per-unit rates for the factors consumed 

in producing the subject merchandise 

by the average per-unit surrogate value 

of the factor. In addition, we added 

freight costs to the surrogate costs that 

we calculated for material inputs. 

Normally, we calculate freight costs by 

multiplying surrogate freight rates by 

the shorter of the reported distance from 

the domestic supplier to the factory that 

produced the subject merchandise or 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

the factory that produced the subject 

merchandise. Also, where there are 

multiple domestic suppliers of a 

material input, we calculate a weightedaverage distance after limiting each 

supplier’s distance to no more than the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory. These distance adjustments are 

in accordance with the decision by the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United 

States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997) (Sigma). However, since we 

found the supplier information (with 

the exception of the factor for coal) 

reported by Baoding Mantong to be 

inaccurate at verification, we found it 

appropriate to assign partial facts 

available for the supplier freight 

distances (other than that of coal). 

Specifically, as a result of verification, 

we found Baoding Mantong to have 

omitted identifying an input supplier 

and to have inaccurately reported the 

distances between the suppliers of 

inputs and the factory for all inputs 

except coal. See Verification Report at 

34. Because we could not verify the 

reported information, we found it 

appropriate to rely on partial facts 

available for this information pursuant 

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

Furthermore, because we found that 

Baoding Mantong possessed the 

supplier information (i.e., the sales 

receipts from suppliers) and could have 

obtained the correct supplier distances 

for reporting purposes but failed to do 

so, we found that it did not act to the 

best of its ability to comply with our 

requests for information. For a detailed 

discussion of this issue, see 

Memorandum to the File from Edythe 

Artman regarding ‘‘Baoding Mantong 

Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd.—Analysis 

Memorandum for the Preliminary 

Results of the 2010/2011 Administrative 

Review of Glycine from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ dated March 30, 

2012 (Baoding Mantong Analysis 

Memorandum), at 6. 

Accordingly, because Baoding 

Mantong failed to cooperate in the 

reporting of its supplier information, we 

find that use of information adverse to 

the interests of the company, as facts 

otherwise available, is appropriate 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As 

partial adverse facts available we have 

applied the distance from the nearest 

seaport to the factory in the calculation 

of freight costs (other than coal), since, 

for each affected input, this distance 

exceeds that distance between the 

suppliers and the factory. 

Finally, we calculated normal value 

by adding the values of the factors of 

production with surrogate values for 

overhead, selling, general and 

administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit 

and packing costs. 

Selection of Surrogate Values 

In selecting surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. For these 

preliminary results, in selecting the best 

available data for valuing factors of 

production in accordance with section 

773(c)(1) of the Act, we followed our 

practice of choosing publicly available 

values which are non-export average 

values, most contemporaneous with the 

POR, product-specific, and taxexclusive.10 We also considered the 

quality of the source of surrogate 

information in selecting surrogate 

values. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cased Pencils From 

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

55625, 55633 (November 8, 1994). 

It is the Department’s practice to 

calculate price index adjustors to inflate 

or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate 

values that are not contemporaneous 

with the period of review using the 

wholesale price index for the subject 

country. But these data were not 

available for Indonesia. Therefore, 

where we could not obtain publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

with the period of review to value 

factors, we adjusted surrogate values by 

using the Consumer Price Index rate for 

Indonesia, as published in the 

International Monetary Fund’s 

International Financial Statistics. See 

Silicon Metal From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 77 FR 13534 (March 7, 2012); 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Preliminary Results of Administrative 

Review, 77 FR 13547 (March 7, 2012). 

In accordance with these guidelines, 

we calculated surrogate values, except 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 21743 

11See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables 

and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 

55357 (September 7, 2011) (unchanged in FloorStanding, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain 

Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 77 FR 14499 (March 12, 2012)). 

12See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 

50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009) (unchanged in 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520 (December 

10, 2009)). 

as noted below, from import statistics 

obtained from the GTA for Indonesia.11

Our use of GTA import data is in 

accordance with past practice and 

satisfies all of our criteria for surrogate 

values stated above.12 For further details 

regarding the specific surrogate values 

used for direct materials, energy inputs, 

and packing materials in these 

preliminary results, see the 

Memorandum to the File from Edythe 

Artman through Angelica Mendoza 

regarding ‘‘Factors Valuation 

Memorandum,’’ dated March 30, 2012 

(Factors Valuation Memorandum). 

To calculate the labor input, we based 

our calculation on the methodology 

enunciated by the Department in 

Antidumping Methodologies in 

Proceedings Involving Non-Market 

Economies: Valuing the Factor of 

Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June 

21, 2011) (Labor Methodologies). We 

explained that the best methodology to 

value the labor input is to use industryspecific labor rates from the primary 

surrogate country. Labor Methodologies, 

76 FR at 36093. We further determined 

that the best data source for industryspecific labor rates is Chapter 6A: Labor 

Cost in Manufacturing, from the 

International Labor Organization’s 

Yearbook of Labor Statistics (ILO’s 

Yearbook). Labor Methodologies, 76 FR 

at 36093–36094. 

However, ILO’s Yearbook does not 

provide labor data for Indonesia under 

Chapter 6A and, thus, we have relied 

upon Chapter-5B data, or wage-rate 

data, for Indonesia in order to calculate 

surrogate labor costs. We found the twodigit description under ISIC-Revision 

2–3 (Manufacture of Other Chemical 

Products) to be the best available 

information on the record because it is 

specific to the industry being examined 

and thus derived from industries that 

produce comparable merchandise. 

Because these data reflect direct 

compensation and bonuses and none of 

the indirect costs reflected in Chapter6A data, we found that the facts and 

information on the record do not 

warrant or permit an adjustment to the 

surrogate financial statements. A more 

detailed description of the wage-ratecalculation methodology is provided in 

the Factors Valuation Memorandum at 

4. 

For export-price sales in which 

Baoding Mantong paid for international 

freight from a NME provider, we relied 

upon the freight expenses reported for a 

CEP sale in which the product was 

shipped to the same port of destination 

as the export-price sales. See Baoding 

Mantong Analysis Memorandum at 4. 

Baoding Mantong generates and sells 

two by-products—hydrochloric acid and 

ammonium chloride—as a result of its 

manufacturing process. We offset its 

material costs by revenue it obtained 

from the sales of the byproducts. See 

Valuation Memorandum at 4. 

To value overhead, SG&A expenses, 

and profit, we have preliminarily 

determined that the audited 2010 

financial statements of three Indonesian 

companies constitute the best 

information publicly available and that 

these companies make products 

comparable to the subject merchandise. 

GEO submitted the financial 

information for five companies with a 

presence in Indonesia. See GEO’s 

Comments at exhibit 6. Two financial 

reports were for those of subsidiaries of 

international companies specializing in 

pharmaceutical, personal and 

household care products, whereas the 

other three reports were for companies 

involved in the production of amino 

acids (used in pharmaceutical 

products). We found the information for 

the subsidiaries to be inappropriate due 

to the wide range of products made by 

the companies. Furthermore, we found 

the products made by the other three 

companies to be comparable to glycine. 

Accordingly, we based our calculation 

of the surrogate financial ratios on the 

reports of these three companies—PT 

Darya-Varia Laboratoria Tbk, PT 

Pyridam Farma Tbk, and PT Kalbe 

Farma Tbk. We were able to segregate 

and, therefore, able to exclude direct 

energy costs from the calculation of the 

surrogate financial ratios. Accordingly, 

for the preliminary results, we have 

disregarded the direct energy 

components of the surrogate financial 

ratios in the calculation of normal value 

in order to avoid double-counting 

energy costs and have relied upon the 

energy inputs reported by Baoding 

Mantong. See Valuation Memorandum 

at 5. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. These exchange rates are 

available on the Department’s Web site 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ 

index.html. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of the administrative 

review, we preliminarily determine that 

the following weighted-average per-unit 

dumping margin exists for the period 

March 1, 2010, through February 28, 

2011: 

Company Margin 

(per-unit) 

Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd .......................... 0.00 

Comments 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to interested parties to 

this review within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

Case briefs from interested parties 

may be submitted within 30 days of 

publication of the preliminary results 

and rebuttal briefs from interested 

parties, limited to the issues raised in 

the case briefs, may be submitted within 

five days after the time limit for filing 

the case briefs or comments. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs 

in this review are requested to submit 

with each argument a statement of the 

issue, a summary of the arguments not 

exceeding five pages, and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Interested parties, who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate in a hearing 

if it is requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, and electronically file the 

request via the Department’s Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 

See 19 CFR 351.303(b). An 

electronically-filed document must be 

received successfully in its entirety by 

5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). Id. Requests 

should contain the following 

information: (1) The party’s name, 

address, and telephone number; (2) the 

number of participants; (3) a list of 

issues to be discussed. Issues raised in 

the hearing will be limited to those 

raised in the case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). If requested, any hearing 

will be held two days after the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21744 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 

1For further explanation of this period, see 

‘‘Period of Review’’ section of this notice. 

2See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and 

Racks from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 62364 (October 7, 

2011) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 

scheduled date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, including the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

written briefs or at the hearing, if held, 

within 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. See section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Deadline for Submission of Publicly 

Available Surrogate Value Information 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), the deadline for 

submission of publicly available 

information to value factors of 

production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) is 

20 days after the date of publication of 

the preliminary determination. In 

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

an interested party submits factual 

information less than ten days before, 

on, or after (if the Department has 

extended the deadline) the applicable 

deadline for submission of such factual 

information, an interested party has ten 

days to submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct the factual 

information no later than ten days after 

such factual information is served on 

the interested party. However, the 

Department notes that 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(1) permits new information 

only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or 

corrects information placed on the 

record. See, e.g., Glycine from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final 

Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 

(October 17, 2007), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. Furthermore, the 

Department generally will not accept 

business proprietary information in 

either the surrogate value submissions 

or the rebuttals thereto, as the regulation 

regarding the submission of surrogate 

values allows only for the submission of 

publicly available information. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of this 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) shall 

assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. In accordance with 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates for the merchandise 

subject to this review. Because Baoding 

Mantong could not report the entered 

value for all U.S. sales, we calculated a 

per-unit assessment rate by aggregating 

the antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer or customer and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer or 

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

Where the duty assessment rates are 

above de minimis, we will instruct CBP 

to assess duties on all entries of subject 

merchandise by that importer in 

accordance with the requirements set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). Where an 

importer- or customer-specific rate is 

zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP 

to liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 

19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

We intend to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of the final results of 

review. For those companies for which 

this review has been rescinded but for 

which we do not have a separate rate at 

this time (and which thus remain part 

of the PRC-wide entity), the Department 

will issue assessment instructions for 

the PRC-wide entity upon the 

completion of this administrative 

review. 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following cash-deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of review 

for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for 

subject merchandise exported by 

Baoding Mantong, the cash-deposit rate 

will be that established in the final 

results of review; (2) for previously 

reviewed or investigated companies not 

listed above that have separate rates, the 

cash-deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all other PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 155.89 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash-deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC entity that supplied that exporter. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This review and notice are in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 

751(a)(3), and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March 30, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8732 Filed 4–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–942] 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of the 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) has completed its 

administrative review of the 

countervailable duty order on certain 

kitchen appliance shelving and racks 

(‘‘Kitchen Racks’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) for the 

period January 7, 2009, through 

December 31, 2009.1 On October 7, 

2011, we published the preliminary 

results of this review.2 We provided 

interested parties with an opportunity to 

comment on the Preliminary Results. 

Our analysis of the comments submitted 

as well as incorporation of our postpreliminary analyses led to a change in 

the net subsidy rates. This review covers 

multiple exporters/producers, two of 

which are being individually reviewed 

as mandatory respondents. We find that 

the mandatory respondents, Guangdong 

Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Wireking’’) and New King Shan 

(Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd. (‘‘NKS’’), received 

countervailable subsidies during the 

POR. Their countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

rates have been used to calculate the 

rate applied to other firms subject to this 

review, as listed below in the section 

entitled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: April 11, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Meek or Nancy Decker, Office 

of AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES