21734 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 37781 (June 

28, 2011). 

2Additionally, the petitioners requested a 35 day 

extension in order to review the voluminous 

response data provided by Far Eastern New Century 

Corporation in this administrative review. See the 

petitioners’ March 23, 2012, letter at 2. 

1See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and 

Racks From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of the First Administrative 

Review, Preliminary Rescission, in Part, and 

Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results, 76 

FR 62765 (October 11, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). 

2As explained in the Preliminary Results, the 

abbreviated POR for oven racks, a subset of subject 

merchandise, is September 9, 2009, through August 

31, 2010. See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62766. 

Background 

At the request of interested parties, 

the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on certain polyester staple fiber from 

Taiwan for the period May 1, 2010, 

through April 30, 2011.1 In Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 77 FR 4543 

(January 30, 2012) we extended the 

period of time for issuing the 

preliminary results by 85 days to April 

25, 2012. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

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

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to make a preliminary 

determination within 245 days after the 

last day of the anniversary month of an 

order for which a review is requested 

and a final determination within 120 

days after the date on which the 

preliminary determination is published 

in the Federal Register. If it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within these time periods, section 

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

Department to extend the time limit for 

the preliminary determination to a 

maximum of 365 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month. 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the preliminary results of 

this review by the current deadline of 

April 25, 2012, because we require 

additional time to analyze responses 

with respect to the respondent’s 

reported quarterly cost of production.2

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2), we are further extending 

the time period for issuing the 

preliminary results of this review by an 

additional 35 days to May 30, 2012. 

This notice is published in 

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

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

Dated: April 3, 2012. 

Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8482 Filed 4–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–485–805] 

Certain Small Diameter Carbon and 

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and 

Pressure Pipe From Romania: 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 11, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0410. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

At the request of ArcelorMittal 

Tubular Products Roman S.A. (AMTP), 

Romanian producer and exporter of the 

subject merchandise, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) initiated an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

small diameter carbon and alloy 

seamless standard, line and pressure 

pipe from Romania for the period 

August 1, 2010, through July 31, 2011. 

See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 76 FR 61076 (October 3, 2011). The 

preliminary results of this review are 

currently due no later than May 2, 2012. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

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

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to complete the 

preliminary results within 245 days 

after the last day of the anniversary 

month of an order for which a review 

is requested. If it is not practicable to 

complete the review within this time 

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

allows the Department to extend the 

time limit for the preliminary results to 

a maximum of 365 days after the last 

day of the anniversary month. 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the preliminary results of 

this review within the original time 

limit because we have, subsequent to 

receipt of AMTP’s questionnaire 

responses, initiated a sales-below-cost 

investigation based upon the allegation 

of the petitioner, U.S. Steel. See the 

memorandum to Susan Kuhbach dated 

February 24, 2012. We are still in the 

process of analyzing AMTP’s response 

to section D of our questionnaire and it 

is not practicable to do this, issue a 

supplemental questionnaire, and 

analyze the supplemental response (and 

issue any further supplemental 

questionnaires, as necessary) before the 

current deadline. Therefore, we are 

extending the time period for issuing 

the preliminary results of this review by 

105 days until August 15, 2012. 

This notice is published in 

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). 

Dated: April 5, 2012. 

Edward C. Yang, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8747 Filed 4–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–941] 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 11, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published in the 

Federal Register the preliminary results 

of the first administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

kitchen appliance shelving and racks 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’).1 We gave interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the 

Preliminary Results. Based upon our 

analysis of the comments and 

information received, we have made 

changes to the margin calculations for 

the final results. We continue to find 

that certain exporters have sold subject 

merchandise at less than normal value 

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

March 5, 2009, through August 31, 

2010.2


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 21735 

3Nashville Wire Products Inc. and SSW Holding 

Company, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’) initially 

requested that the Department initiate an 

administrative review of ten companies; however, 

we required additional information concerning 

why, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), Petitioners 

requested a review of five of these companies. See 

Initiation, 75 FR at 66352. Accordingly, the 

Department postponed initiation of this 

administrative review with respect to five 

companies requested by Petitioners. See id., and 

Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews; Correction, 75 FR 69054 

(November 10, 2010). After reviewing additional 

information placed on the record of this 

administrative review by Petitioners, we 

determined that, for three of the five companies, 

Petitioners did not provide any reason, other than 

alleged transshipment, for initiation; therefore, we 

declined to initiate a review for Asia Pacific CIS 

(Thailand) Co., Ltd., Taiwan Rail Company, and 

King Shan Wire Co., Ltd. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 73036, 73039 

(November 29, 2010). However, we did determine 

that it was appropriate to initiate this review with 

respect to two additional companies originally 

requested by Petitioners: Asia Pacific CIS (Wuxi) 

Co., Ltd.; and Hengtong Hardware Manufacturing 

(Huizhou) Co., Ltd. See id. 

4See Memorandum to The File, from Kabir 

Archuletta, Case Analyst, Office 9, Re: Case Brief 

Schedule, dated December 20, 2011. 

5See Memorandum to The File, from Katie 

Marksberry, Case Analyst, Office 9, Re: Petitioners’ 

Rebuttal Brief, dated January 12, 2012. 

6On January 13, 2012, the Department received 

comments from NKS citing the Department’s past 

practice and questioning the acceptance of 

Petitioners’ rebuttal brief. On January 17, 2012, the 

Department received comments from Wireking also 

seeking rejection of Petitioners’ rebuttal brief. On 

January 18, 2012, Petitioners submitted comments 

to the Department requesting that the Department 

reject the comments submitted by NKS and 

Wireking as containing new factual information. On 

January 20, 2012, the Department sent Wireking a 

letter rejecting its submission for containing 

untimely filed new factual information. On January 

24, 2012, Wireking resubmitted its comments 

without inclusion of that new factual information. 

7See Memorandum to the File, through Catherine 

Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Katie 

Marksberry, Case Analyst, Office 9, Re: First 

Administrative Review of Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Final 

Results, dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘Final 

SV Memo’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: April 11, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katie Marksberry, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–7906. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 28, 2010, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of 

certain kitchen appliance shelving and 

racks from the PRC for the period March 

5, 2009, through August 31, 2010. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 75 FR 66349 (October 28, 

2010) (‘‘Initiation’’).3

On November 7, 2011, Guangdong 

Wireking Housewares and Hardware 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wireking’’), a mandatory 

respondent in this review, and 

Petitioners submitted additional 

surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) information. The 

Department set the deadline for 

interested parties to submit case briefs 

and rebuttal briefs to January 6, 2012, 

and January 11, 2012, respectively.4 On 

January 6, 2012, New King Shan (Zhu 

Hai) Co., Ltd. (‘‘NKS’’), a mandatory 

respondent in this review, Wireking, 

and Petitioners each filed case briefs. 

On January 11, 2012, NKS and Wireking 

filed rebuttal briefs. On January 12, 

2012, Petitioners filed a rebuttal brief, 

one day after the established deadline. 

In this instance, to ensure full 

consideration of comments made by all 

parties, the Department has, in its 

discretion, accepted Petitioners’ rebuttal 

brief.5 6

The Department did not hold a public 

hearing, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), 

as it did not receive any hearing 

requests from interested parties. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to these 

reviews are addressed in the ‘‘Certain 

Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Results of the First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice (‘‘Decision Memo’’). A list of the 

issues which parties raised and to 

which we respond in the Decision 

Memo is attached to this notice as an 

Appendix. The Decision Memo 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, 

main Commerce building, Room 7046. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo is accessible on the 

Department’s Web site at http:// 

www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and 

electronic versions of the memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of the order consists of 

shelving and racks for refrigerators, 

freezers, combined refrigerator-freezers, 

other refrigerating or freezing 

equipment, cooking stoves, ranges, and 

ovens (‘‘certain kitchen appliance 

shelving and racks’’ or ‘‘the 

merchandise under order’’). Certain 

kitchen appliance shelving and racks 

are defined as shelving, baskets, racks 

(with or without extension slides, which 

are carbon or stainless steel hardware 

devices that are connected to shelving, 

baskets, or racks to enable sliding), side 

racks (which are welded wire support 

structures for oven racks that attach to 

the interior walls of an oven cavity that 

does not include support ribs as a 

design feature), and subframes (which 

are welded wire support structures that 

interface with formed support ribs 

inside an oven cavity to support oven 

rack assemblies utilizing extension 

slides) with the following dimensions: 

—Shelving and racks with dimensions 

ranging from 3 inches by 5 inches by 

0.10 inch to 28 inches by 34 inches 

by 6 inches; or 

—Baskets with dimensions ranging from 

2 inches by 4 inches by 3 inches to 

28 inches by 34 inches by 16 inches; 

or 

—Side racks from 6 inches by 8 inches 

by 0.1 inch to 16 inches by 30 inches 

by 4 inches; or 

—Subframes from 6 inches by 10 inches 

by 0.1 inch to 28 inches by 34 inches 

by 6 inches. 

The merchandise under the order is 

comprised of carbon or stainless steel 

wire ranging in thickness from 0.050 

inch to 0.500 inch and may include 

sheet metal of either carbon or stainless 

steel ranging in thickness from 0.020 

inch to 0.2 inch. The merchandise 

under this order may be coated or 

uncoated and may be formed and/or 

welded. Excluded from the scope of this 

order is shelving in which the support 

surface is glass. 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical 

reporting numbers 8418.99.8050, 

8418.99.8060, 7321.90.5000, 

7321.90.6090, 8516.90.8000, 

7321.90.6040, 8516.90.8010 and 

8419.90.9520. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on a review of the record as 

well as comments received from parties 

regarding our Preliminary Results, we 

have made revisions to certain SVs and 

the margin calculations for Wireking 

and NKS in the final results. 

Specifically, we have revised the 

surrogate financial ratios. See Decision 

Memo at Comment 2.a and Final SV 

Memo at 2–3.7 We have also corrected 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21736 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 

8See Memorandum to the File, through Catherine 

Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Kabir 

Archuletta, Case Analyst, Office 9, Re: Analysis 

Memorandum for the Final Results of the First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from 

the People’s Republic of China: New King Shan 

(Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd., dated concurrently with this 

notice (‘‘NKS Analysis Memo’’), and Memorandum 

to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, Program 

Manager, Office 9, from Katie Marksberry, Case 

Analyst, Office 9, Re: Analysis Memorandum for 

the Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty 

Review of Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and 

Racks from the People’s Republic of China: 

Guandong Wireking Housewares and Hardware Co., 

Ltd., dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘Wireking 

Analysis Memo’’). 

9See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62767. 

10See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 

FR 53527, 53530 (September 19, 2007), unchanged 

in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 

73 FR 15479, 15480 (March 24, 2008). 

11See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62767; see 

also Memorandum to the File through Catherine 

Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Kabir 

Archuletta, Case Analyst, Office 9, RE: First 

Administrative Review of Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People’s 

Republic of China: Affiliations of New King Shan 

(Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd., dated September 30, 2011, and 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 

From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 

FR 36656 (July 24, 2009) (‘‘LTFV Investigation 

Final’’), amended by Certain Kitchen Appliance 

Shelving and Racks from the People’s Republic of 

China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Notice of Antidumping 

Duty Order, 74 FR 46971 (September 14, 2009) 

(‘‘LTFV Investigation Amended Final’’). 

12While NKS’s affiliated entity is not a producer 

of subject merchandise, where companies are 

affiliated and there exists a significant potential for 

manipulation of prices and/or export decisions, the 

Department has found it appropriate to treat those 

companies as a single entity. See Hontex 

Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 

1323, 1343 (CIT 2003). In this case, not only is 

NKS’s affiliated entity an exporter of subject 

merchandise, but it is an intermediary for all 

transactions of subject merchandise between NKS 

and its unaffiliated U.S. customer(s). Due to the 

proprietary nature of this issue, see Memorandum 

to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, Program 

Manager, Office 9, from Kabir Archuletta, Case 

Analyst, Office 9, RE: First Administrative Review 

of Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 

from the People’s Republic of China: Affiliations of 

New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd. for the Final 

Results, dated concurrently with this notice. 

13See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62769. 

14See, e.g., Certain Steel Nails From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of the First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 

16379, 16381–82 (March 23, 2011); Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 

74 FR 11349, 11350 n.3 (March 17, 2009). 

15See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62769. 

16See Id. 

an error in the Preliminary Results 

alleged by NKS. See Decision Memo at 

Comment 3.a. For all changes to the 

margin calculations, see Decision Memo 

and the company specific analysis 

memoranda.8

Final Partial Rescission 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department preliminarily rescinded this 

review with respect to Hengtong 

Hardware Manufacturer (Huizhou) Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Hengtong Hardware’’) because the 

Department determined that it had no 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR.9

Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, 

no information was submitted on the 

record indicating that Hengtong 

Hardware made sales to the United 

States of subject merchandise during the 

POR and no party provided written 

arguments regarding this issue. Thus, 

there is no basis for the Department to 

reconsider its decision and in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), 

and consistent with our practice, we are 

rescinding this review with respect to 

Hengtong Hardware.10

NKS Affiliation/Single Entity 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department found NKS affiliated with 

certain related entities, pursuant to 

sections 771(33)(A), (E) and (F) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), based on ownership and common 

control, in accordance with our 

determination in the LTFV Investigation 

Final.11 For these final results, based on 

the evidence presented in NKS’s 

questionnaire responses, we find that 

NKS and one of its affiliated entities 

should be treated as a single entity for 

the purposes of this administrative 

review. This finding is based on our 

determination that NKS and its 

affiliated entity are involved in the 

export of subject merchandise sold by 

NKS and that a significant potential for 

manipulation of price or production 

exists between these entities. See 

Decision Memo at Comment 3.b.12

Separate Rates 

In our Preliminary Results, we 

determined that the following 

companies met the criteria for separate 

rate status: Wireking, NKS, and 

Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export Co., 

Ltd.13 We have not received any 

information since the issuance of the 

Preliminary Results that provides a basis 

for reconsideration of these 

determinations. Therefore, the 

Department continues to find that the 

companies listed above meet the criteria 

for a separate rate. 

The separate rate is determined based 

on the calculated weighted-average 

antidumping margins established for 

exporters and producers individually 

investigated, excluding zero and de 

minimis margins or margins based 

entirely on adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’). In this administrative review, 

one mandatory respondent, Wireking, 

has a calculated weighted-average 

antidumping margin which is above de 

minimis and NKS, the other mandatory 

respondent has a calculated margin 

which is zero. Therefore, because there 

is only one weighted-average 

antidumping margin calculated for these 

final results that is neither zero, de 

minimis, nor based entirely on AFA, we 

have assigned Wireking’s margin to the 

companies not selected for individual 

examination.14

The PRC-Wide Entity and Use of 

Adverse Facts Available 

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act 

provide that the Department shall apply 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not on the 

record or an interested party or any 

other person: (A) Withholds information 

that has been requested; (B) fails to 

provide information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form 

and manner requested by the 

Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

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

significantly impedes a proceeding; or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified as provided by section 782(i) of 

the Act. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Section 776(b) 

of the Act also authorizes the 

Department to use as AFA information 

derived from the petition, the final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

Asia Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., and 

Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (aka 

Marmon Retail Services Asia), 

companies upon which the Department 

initiated administrative reviews that 

have not been rescinded, did not submit 

either a separate rate application or 

certification.15 In addition, Jiangsu 

Weixi Group Co. (‘‘Weixi’’), was 

initially selected as a mandatory 

respondent and did not respond to the 

Department’s antidumping duty 

questionnaire.16 Therefore, because 

Weixi did not cooperate with the 

Department’s request for information, 

and Asia Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., 

and Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (aka 

Marmon Retail Services Asia) did not 

demonstrate their eligibility for separate 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 21737 

17See Id., at 62770. 

18See LTFV Investigation Amended Final, 74 FR 

at 46973. 

19See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 

8932 (February 23, 1998). 20See section 776(c) of the Act and the 

‘‘Corroboration of Facts Available’’ section below. 21See SAA at 870; Tapered Roller Bearings and 

Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 

Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, 

From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial 

Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 

57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

22See LTFV Investigation Amended Final, 74 FR 

at 46973. 

23See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final 

Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 

FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (‘‘Fresh Cut 

Flowers from Mexico’’). 

24See e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 

India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 38076, 38077 (July 1, 

2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

25See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and 

Racks from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, signed concurrently with this notice. 

26See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62773–74. 

27See NKS Analysis Memo and Wireking 

Analysis Memo. 

rate status in a timely manner, we have 

determined it is appropriate to consider 

these companies as part of the PRC-wide 

entity.17

The PRC-wide entity did not respond 

to our requests for information. Because 

the PRC-wide entity did not respond to 

our requests for information, we find it 

necessary under section 776(a)(2) of the 

Act to use facts available as the basis for 

these final results. We further find that 

the PRC-wide entity—consisting of 

Weixi, Asia Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., 

and Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (aka 

Marmon Retail Services Asia)—failed to 

respond to the Department’s requests for 

information and, therefore, did not 

cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Therefore, because the PRC-wide entity 

did not cooperate to the best of its 

ability in the proceeding, the 

Department finds it necessary to use an 

adverse inference in making its 

determination, pursuant to section 

776(b) of the Act. 

Selection of the Adverse Facts 

Available Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the 

Department to rely on information 

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

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any other information placed on 

the record. Because of the PRC-wide 

entity’s failure to cooperate in this 

administrative review, we have assigned 

the PRC-wide entity an AFA rate of 

95.99 percent, which is the PRC-wide 

rate determined in the LTFV 

Investigation Amended Final and the 

only rate ever determined for the PRCwide entity in this proceeding.18

The Department determines for these 

final results that this information is the 

most appropriate from the available 

sources to effectuate the purposes of 

AFA, which is to induce respondents to 

provide the Department with complete 

and accurate information in a timely 

manner.19 The Department’s reliance on 

the PRC-wide rate from the original 

investigation to determine an AFA rate 

is subject to the requirement to 

corroborate secondary information.20

Corroboration of Adverse Facts 

Available 

Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, 

where the Department relies on 

secondary information in selecting AFA, 

the Department corroborate such 

information to the extent practicable. To 

be considered corroborated, the 

Department must find the information 

has probative value, meaning that the 

information must be both reliable and 

relevant.21

The Department considers the AFA 

rate calculated for the current review to 

be both reliable and relevant. On the 

issue of reliability, the Department 

corroborated the AFA rate in the LTFV 

Investigation Amended Final.22 No 

information has been presented in the 

current review that calls into question 

the reliability of this information. With 

respect to the relevance, the Department 

will consider information reasonably at 

its disposal to determine whether a 

margin continues to have relevance. 

Where circumstances indicate that the 

selected margin is not appropriate as 

AFA, the Department will disregard the 

margin and determine an appropriate 

margin. For example, in Fresh Cut 

Flowers from Mexico, the Department 

disregarded the highest margin in that 

case as best information available (the 

predecessor to AFA) because the margin 

was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense 

resulting in an unusually high margin.23

Since the investigation, the Department 

has found no other corroborating 

information available in this case, and 

received no comments from interested 

parties as to the relevance or reliability 

of that secondary information. Based 

upon the above, for these final results, 

the Department finds that the rate 

derived from the Petition and assigned 

to the PRC-wide entity in the LTFV 

Investigation Amended Final is 

corroborated to the extent practicable 

for purposes of assigning the PRC-wide 

entity the same 95.99 percent rate as 

AFA in this administrative review. 

Export Subsidy Adjustment 

Section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act states 

that the price used to establish export 

price or constructed export price 

(‘‘CEP’’) ‘‘shall be increased by the 

amount of any countervailing duty 

imposed on the subject merchandise 

* * * to offset an export subsidy.’’ 24

The Department determined in its final 

results of the companion countervailing 

duty administrative review that NKS 

and Wireking’s merchandise benefited 

from export subsidies.25 Therefore, 

because Wireking and NKS both 

reported their POR sales on a CEP 

basis,26 we have increased each 

company’s CEP for countervailing 

duties imposed that are attributable to 

export subsidies, where appropriate.27


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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