21532 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Notices 

1See Antidumping Duty Order: Glycine From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 16116 (March 29, 

1995) (Order). 

2See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Glycine from India, 73 FR 

16640 (March 28, 2008) (Indian Investigation) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 5. We note that this investigation did not 

result in an antidumping duty order because the 

International Trade Commission made a final 

negative injury determination. See Glycine From 

India; Determination, 73 FR 26413 (May 9, 2008); 

Glycine From India Investigation No. 731–TA–1111 

(Final) Publication 3997 (United States 

International Trade Commission May 2008). 

3See Domestic Interested Parties’ request for an 

anti-circumvention inquiry entitled ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Order on Glycine from the People’s Republic 

of China—Circumvention of Antidumping Duty 

Order,’’ dated December 18, 2009 (AntiCircumvention Allegation). 

4See Letter from the domestic interested parties 

to the Department, dated January 22, 2010. 

5See Letter from domestic interested parties to 

the Department, entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty Order 

on Glycine from the People’s Republic of China— 

Supplement to Domestic Industry’s Request for 

Circumvention Inquiry,’’ dated August 19, 2010. 

6See the Memorandum to the File, entitled 

‘‘Antidumping Circumvention Inquiry: Telephone 

Interview with the Foreign Market Researcher,’’ 

dated October 5, 2010 (Telephone Interview Memo). 

7See Letter from domestic interested parties, 

entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC): Antidumping 

Circumvention Inquiry—Amendment to Domestic 

Industry’s Circumvention Allegation based on 

Department’s Memorandum to File,’’ dated October 

6, 2010, at 2 (Amendment Letter). 

8See Glycine From the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Antidumping 

Anticircumvention Inquiry, 75 FR 66352 (October 

28, 2010) (Initiation Notice). 

3. Selection of Adverse Facts Available 

Rate 

[FR Doc. 2012–8601 Filed 4–9–12; 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 Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Circumvention of the 

Antidumping Duty Order and Initiation 

of Scope Inquiry 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine 

that glycine processed by Salvi 

Chemical Industries Limited (Salvi) and 

AICO Laboratories India Ltd. (AICO) 

and exported to the United States from 

India is circumventing the antidumping 

duty order on glycine from the People’s 

Republic of China (China), as provided 

in section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act).1 With 

respect to Paras Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. 

(Paras), we preliminarily find that Paras 

is not circumventing the Order because 

it is producing glycine from raw 

materials of Indian origin and exporting 

such merchandise to the United States. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 10, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Cordell, Dena Crossland, or 

Angelica Mendoza, 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) 482–0408, (202) 482– 

3362, or (202) 482–3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department of Commerce (the 

Department) issued the antidumping 

duty order on glycine from China in 

1995. See Order. The Department 

conducted a less-than-fair value 

investigation on glycine from India in 

2007 through 2008, covering the period 

of investigation of January 1 through 

December 31, 2006, where we found 

that certain Chinese glycine further 

processed in India did not change the 

country of origin of such glycine.2

On December 18, 2009, GEO Specialty 

Chemicals, Inc. and Chattem Chemicals, 

Inc., domestic interested parties, 

requested that the Department initiate 

an anti-circumvention inquiry, pursuant 

to section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.225(h), to determine whether U.S. 

imports of glycine exported by AICO 

and Paras, and made from Chineseorigin glycine, are circumventing the 

Order.3 In their request, domestic 

interested parties allege that AICO and 

Paras are circumventing the Order 

through completion and assembly in 

India of the same class or kind of 

merchandise that is subject to the Order 

and by labeling the merchandise as 

Indian origin. Id. 

On January 15, 2010, the Department 

requested that domestic interested 

parties resubmit legible copies of 

AICO’s financial statements and of the 

Port Import Export Reporting Service 

(PIERS) report regarding AICO’s 

shipments to the United States, which 

they provided in their original AntiCircumvention Allegation at Exhibits A 

and B, respectively. The legible copies 

of the requested documents were 

submitted by the domestic interested 

parties on January 22, 2010.4 On 

February 22, 2010, the Department 

requested additional information from 

the domestic interested parties in the 

form of a supplemental questionnaire. 

On August 19, 2010, the domestic 

interested parties submitted additional 

information to supplement their 

December 18, 2009 Anti-Circumvention 

Allegation and included another 

allegation against a third company, 

Salvi, and its exporter/affiliate, 

Nutracare International. As part of their 

supplemental submission and allegation 

against Salvi, domestic interested 

parties included a market survey from a 

foreign market researcher, at Exhibit 12 

of its submission.5 In their August 19, 

2010 supplemental circumvention 

allegation, the domestic interested 

parties alleged that all three Indian 

companies, i.e., AICO, Paras and Salvi, 

are importing technical-grade glycine 

from companies in China, processing 

and/or repackaging the Chinese-origin 

glycine, and then exporting the finished 

product to the United States, marked as 

Indian-origin glycine. Id. 

On September 23, 2010, the 

Department conducted a telephone 

interview with the foreign market 

researcher to corroborate the 

information in the market survey that 

the domestic interested parties 

submitted on August 19, 2010.6 On 

October 6, 2010, the domestic interested 

parties amended their request for the 

initiation of an anti-circumvention 

inquiry with respect to AICO, citing the 

Telephone Interview Memo.7 Therein, 

the domestic interested parties alleged 

that, based on the telephone interview, 

AICO is both repackaging and refining 

glycine of Chinese origin. Id. 

On October 22, 2010, based on 

sufficient record evidence, the 

Department initiated an anticircumvention inquiry on imports of 

glycine produced and/or exported by 

AICO, Paras, and Salvi.8 In the Initiation 

Notice, the Department explicitly stated 

that ‘‘{t}hese anticircumvention 

inquiries pertain solely to Paras, Salvi, 

and AICO.’’ Id. at 66356. The 

Department further stated that ‘‘{i}f, 

within sufficient time, the Department 

receives a formal request from an 

interested party regarding potential anticircumvention of the PRC Glycine Order 

by other Indian companies, we will 

consider conducting additional 

inquiries concurrently.’’ Id. 

As discussed below in the 

‘‘Questionnaires’’ section, from 

December 2010 through October 2011, 

AICO, Paras, and Salvi responded to the 

Department’s initial and supplemental 

questionnaires. 

On October 3, 2011, the domestic 

interested parties submitted comments, 

in which they requested that the 

Department preliminarily determine 

that all glycine exported from India is 

within the scope of the Order unless 

U.S. importers certify that the product 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Notices 21533 

9The domestic interested parties submitted 

further comments on the issue of its proposed 

remedy, with respect to Paras, on October 17, 2011, 

and November 4, 2011. Paras subsequently rebutted 

these comments on October 28, 2011, and 

November 8, 2011. 

10Avid, an Indian producer and exporter of 

glycine to the United States, entered a notice of 

appearance on December 7, 2011, in response to the 

domestic interested parties’ October 3, 2011, and 

November 23, 2011, comments alleging that Avid 

was affiliated with AICO. 

11Section 781(f) of the Act states that the 

Department shall, to the maximum extent 

practicable, make determinations under section 781 

of the Act within 300 days from the date of the 

initiation of an antidumping circumvention inquiry. 

See also 19 CFR 351.225(f)(5). The Department 

deadline’s for the preliminary and final 

determinations were initially October 17, 2011, and 

February 14, 2012, respectively. See Letter to the 

Interested Parties from Richard Weible, Office 

Director, entitled ‘‘Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of 

the Anti-Dumping Order on Glycine from the 

People’s Republic of China: Extension of Final 

Determination,’’ dated April 25, 2011. On October 

11, 2011, the Department notified parties that the 

new deadline for the preliminary determination 

was December 16, 2011. See Letter to the Interested 

Parties from Richard Weible, Office Director, 

entitled ‘‘Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the AntiDumping Order on Glycine from the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Preliminary 

Determination,’’ dated October 11, 2011. 

12See Memorandum to File, entitled ‘‘Ex Parte 

meeting with Petitioners and Petitioner Counsel,’’ 

dated February 2, 2012. 

13The domestic interested parties did not specify 

an inquiry period in their December 18, 2009, anticircumvention inquiry request. 

they are importing from India is: (1) Not 

Chinese-origin or processed from 

Chinese-origin glycine, and (2) is Indian 

in origin. On October 3, 2011, Paras 

submitted a response to the domestic 

interested parties’ request to include 

Paras in any remedy that the 

Department may apply, arguing that it 

should not be subject to any remedy 

because it is not circumventing the 

Order.9

On November 23, 2011, the domestic 

interested parties submitted additional 

comments, in which they asked the 

Department to, based on record 

evidence, affirmatively determine that 

glycine shipments from India to the 

United States of the named respondents, 

including their affiliates and third-party 

business partners, have circumvented 

the Order. The domestic interested 

parties also requested the Department to 

require a U.S. importer certification 

scheme for all imports of Indian glycine, 

with the exception of imports from 

Salvi, AICO, and their related entities, 

for which the domestic interested 

parties requested the Department apply 

the current China-wide dumping rate of 

155.89 percent. 

On November 28, 2011, Paras 

submitted comments rebutting the 

domestic interested parties’ request for 

a circumvention finding with respect to 

Paras, to which the domestic interested 

parties submitted a response on 

November 29, 2011. Paras submitted a 

rebuttal to the domestic interested 

parties’ response on November 30, 2011, 

reiterating their request with respect to 

Paras, and also arguing against an 

importer-based certification for 

circumvention findings with respect to 

further processing in a third country. 

On December 5, 2011, AICO and Avid 

Organics Pvt. Ltd. (Avid) 10 both 

responded to the domestic interested 

parties’ November 23, 2011, comments. 

On December 16, 2011, the domestic 

interested parties responded to AICO’s 

December 5, 2011, comments and on 

January 12, 2012, the domestic 

interested parties submitted comments 

responding to Avid Organics’ December 

5, 2011 comments. 

On December 15, 2011, the 

Department notified parties that the 

deadlines for the preliminary and final 

determinations were March 30, 2012, 

and July 30, 2012, respectively.11

On February 2, 2012, Department 

officials met with counsel for the 

domestic interested parties concerning 

the alleged circumvention of the Order 

and the appropriate remedy.12 On 

February, 3, 2012, the domestic 

interested parties filed materials from 

the February 2, 2012, meeting on the 

record of the proceeding. On February 7, 

2012, Paras submitted comments in 

response to the domestic interested 

parties’ submission of February 3, 2012. 

On February 10, 2012, the domestic 

interested parties submitted comments 

on the need for a country-wide remedy 

in this case, and on February 14, 2012, 

Paras submitted its response to those 

comments. 

Questionnaires 

On November 12, 2010, the 

Department issued questionnaires to 

AICO, Paras, and Salvi, requesting sales 

and production information with 

respect to the period January 1, 2005, to 

December 31, 2010, to which AICO, 

Paras, and Salvi responded in December 

2010. Between February and October 

2011, the Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires to AICO, 

Paras, and/or Salvi, to which timely 

responses were received. 

Period of Inquiry 

The inquiry period covers six years 

(i.e., 2005 through 2010), which 

includes the period covered by the 

Indian Investigation.13 In this case, the 

Department decided to use a broad 

period in order to better understand the 

glycine markets and how they operate. 

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order 

The product covered by the 

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. This order covers 

glycine of all purity levels. Glycine is 

currently classified under subheading 

2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

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 and Anticircumvention 

Inquiries, 62 FR 62288 (November 21, 

1997). 

Scope of the Anti-Circumvention 

Inquiry 

The product covered by this inquiry 

is glycine, as described in the ‘‘Scope of 

the Antidumping Duty Order’’ section, 

above, which is exported from India, but 

processed using Chinese-origin inputs 

(e.g., technical-grade glycine). This 

inquiry covers glycine produced by 

AICO, Paras, and Salvi. Salvi and Paras 

have stated on the record that they also 

self-produce glycine from Indian-origin 

inputs. The focus of this proceeding is 

to determine whether the glycine is: (1) 

Manufactured in China; (2) processed by 

AICO, Paras, or Salvi in India; and (3) 

then exported to the United States as 

Indian-origin glycine that constitutes 

circumvention of the Order under 

section 781(b) of the Act. 

Statutory Provisions Regarding 

Circumvention 

Section 781(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may find 

circumvention of an antidumping duty 

order when merchandise of the same 

class or kind of merchandise that is 

subject to the order is completed or 

assembled in a foreign country other 

than the country to which the order 

applies. In conducting anticircumvention inquiries under section 

781(b) of the Act, the Department relies 

upon the following criteria: (A) 

Merchandise imported into the United 

States is of the same class or kind as any 

merchandise produced in a foreign 

country that is subject to an 

antidumping duty order; (B) before 

importation into the United States, such 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21534 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Notices 

imported merchandise is completed or 

assembled in another foreign country 

from merchandise which is subject to 

the order or produced in the foreign 

country that is subject to the order; (C) 

the process of assembly or completion 

in the foreign country referred to in (B) 

is minor or insignificant; (D) the value 

of the merchandise produced in the 

foreign country to which the 

antidumping duty order applies is a 

significant portion of the total value of 

the merchandise exported to the United 

States; and (E) the administering 

authority determines that action is 

appropriate to prevent evasion of such 

order. 

Section 781(b)(2) of the Act provides 

the criteria for determining whether the 

process of assembly or completion is 

minor or insignificant. These criteria 

are: (a) The level of investment in the 

foreign country; (b) the level of research 

and development (R&D) in the foreign 

country; (c) the nature of the production 

process in the foreign country; (d) the 

extent of the production facilities in the 

foreign country; and (e) whether the 

value of the processing performed in the 

foreign country represents a small 

proportion of the value of the 

merchandise imported into the United 

States. 

The Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103– 

316, vol. 1 at 893 (1994), provides some 

guidance with respect to these criteria. 

It explains that no single factor listed in 

section 781(b)(2) of the Act will be 

controlling and that the Department will 

evaluate each of the factors as they exist 

in the foreign country depending on the 

particular circumvention scenario. Id.; 

19 CFR 351.225(h). Therefore, none of 

the factors listed under section 781(b)(2) 

of the Act are dispositive as they vary 

from case to case, depending on the 

particular circumstances unique to each 

circumvention inquiry. 

Section 781(b)(3) of the Act further 

provides that, in determining whether to 

include merchandise assembled or 

completed in a foreign country in an 

antidumping duty order, the 

Department shall consider: (A) The 

pattern of trade, including sourcing 

patterns; (B) whether the manufacturer 

or exporter of the merchandise 

described in section 781(b)(1)(B) of the 

Act is affiliated with the person who 

uses the merchandise described in 

section 781(b)(1)(B) of the Act to 

assemble or complete in the foreign 

country the merchandise that is 

subsequently imported into the United 

States; and (C) whether imports into the 

foreign country of the merchandise 

described in section 781(b)(1)(B) of the 

Act have increased after the initiation of 

the investigation which resulted in the 

issuance of such order. 

Statutory Analysis 

A discussion of the record evidence 

pertaining to each company and the 

Department’s analyses are in the 

following analysis memoranda: (1) 

‘‘Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for 

the Circumvention Inquiry of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(China), for the Producer known as 

AICO Laboratories India Ltd. ’’ from 

Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul 

Piquado, Assistant Secretary, for Import 

Administration, dated March 30, 2012 

(AICO Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum); (2) ‘‘Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum for the 

Circumvention Inquiry of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(China), for the Producer known as 

Paras Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. (Paras) 

from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul 

Piquado, Assistant Secretary, for Import 

Administration,’’ dated March 30, 2012 

(Paras Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum); and (3) ‘‘Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum for the 

Circumvention Inquiry of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(China), for the Producer known as Salvi 

Chemicals (Salvi)’’ from Christian 

Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary, for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant 

Secretary, for Import Administration,’’ 

dated March 30, 2012 (Salvi Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum). Parties can 

find public versions of these analysis 

memoranda on file electronically via 

Import Administration’s Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (IA ACESS). 

Access to IA ACCESS is available in the 

Central Records Unit, room 7046, of the 

main Department of Commerce 

building. The signed analysis 

memoranda and the electronic versions 

of the analysis memoranda are identical 

in content. 

Preliminary Determinations 

With respect to AICO, the Department 

finds it necessary to rely on facts 

available, as AICO failed to provide 

necessary information in its 

questionnaire responses upon which the 

Department could rely and, thereby 

impeded this inquiry. Further, as 

discussed in detail the AICO 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum, we 

find that AICO possessed the necessary 

information but failed to provide it, 

thus, it did not act to the best of its 

ability to comply with our requests for 

information. Therefore, we find it 

appropriate in this inquiry to apply facts 

available with an adverse inference as 

AICO failed to cooperate by not acting 

to the best of its ability in providing the 

necessary information. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily find, as facts otherwise 

available with an adverse inference 

pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of 

the Act, that AICO is circumventing the 

Order because it has withheld 

information by not fully responding to 

our requests for information and, when 

it has responded, provided ambiguous 

or contradictory responses, thereby 

impeding this proceeding. See sections 

776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act. 

Specifically, the record lacks 

information necessary to complete a 

proper analysis with respect to AICO. In 

addition and contrary to AICO’s claim, 

we find that there is no record evidence 

that AICO self produces glycine from 

Indian raw materials. Consequently, 

because AICO has not fully complied 

with the Department’s request for 

information, we find that it failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability, and, 

therefore, that an adverse inference is 

warranted pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act. Accordingly, as an adverse 

inference the Department preliminarily 

finds that all glycine produced by AICO, 

regardless of exporter or U.S. importer, 

should be included within the scope of 

the Order. For a complete discussion of 

the Department’s analysis, see AICO 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. 

With respect to Salvi, for the reasons 

discussed in the Salvi Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum, we 

preliminarily find that Salvi has 

circumvented the Order pursuant to 

section 781(b) of the Act. Specifically, 

pursuant to sections 781(b)(1)(A) and 

(B) of the Act, we find that the 

merchandise sold to the United States is 

within the same class or kind of 

merchandise that is subject to the Order 

and was assembled or completed in a 

third country. Additionally, pursuant to 

sections 781(b)(1)(C) and 781(b)(2) of 

the Act, we find that the processing of 

the Chinese-origin glycine into the 

glycine sold by Salvi is minor and 

insignificant. Furthermore, in 

accordance with section 781(b)(1)(D) of 

the Act, we find that the value of the 

merchandise produced in China is a 

significant portion of the total value of 

the merchandise exported to the United 

States. We also find that, in accordance 

with section 781(b)(1)(E) of the Act, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Notices 21535 

14See Memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman to 

Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Final Scope Ruling; 

Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine from the 

People’s Republic of China (A–570- 836); (Watson 

Industries Inc.), dated May 3, 2002; placed on the 

record by domestic interested parties in their 

December 18, 2009, submission at Exhibit D. 

15See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Glycine from India, 73 FR 

16640 (March 28, 2008), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. 

16See Glycine From India; Determination, 73 FR 

26413 (May 9, 2008); Glycine From India 

Investigation No. 731–TA–1111 (Final) Publication 

3997 (United States International Trade 

Commission) May 2008. 

action is appropriate to prevent evasion 

of the Order by Salvi. Moreover, we find 

that record evidence pertaining to the 

factors outlined in section 781(b)(3) of 

the Act support a finding of 

circumvention of the Order. For a 

complete discussion of the Department’s 

analysis, see Salvi Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

With respect to Paras, the Department 

preliminarily determines that Paras is 

not circumventing the Order. Although 

it has admitted to exporting processed 

Chinese-origin glycine in the past, the 

Department is satisfied that Paras 

understood that the processing it carried 

out was deemed by the Department in 

the original less-than-fair-value 

investigation as not substantial enough 

to transform the product into Indian 

origin. Also, once Paras became aware 

that such processing did not change the 

product into an Indian product, as a 

result of the less-than-fair-value 

investigation, it took steps to ensure that 

it would not continue to export Chineseorigin glycine to the United State. The 

record reflects that for approximately 

the past four years, Paras has only sold 

and/or exported to the United States 

glycine that it produced only from 

Indian raw materials. For a complete 

discussion of the Department’s analysis, 

see Paras Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

Scope Inquiry Initiation 

The Department has previously 

determined that the type of processing 

described by Salvi does not change the 

country of origin of glycine and 

therefore the glycine remains within the 

scope of the Order. Specifically, in a 

2002 scope ruling, the Department 

concluded that processing Chineseglycine into refined glycine in a third 

country does not substantially transform 

the glycine and therefore does not 

change the country of origin or take 

such glycine out of the Order.14

In addition, in the Department’s lessthan-fair-value investigation of glycine 

from India, the Department determined 

that the further processing of imported 

Chinese-origin technical grade glycine 

to U.S. Pharmaceutical (USP) grade 

glycine in India did not substantially 

transform the glycine in India and, thus, 

the glycine remained Chinese in 

origin.15 It is important to note that 

although the investigation of glycine 

from India did not go to order because 

of a negative injury determination by 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (the Commission) the 

Department’s decision with respect to 

the transformation of Chinese-origin 

glycine in India remains relevant.16

Notwithstanding, the Department 

recognizes that its scope determination 

in the original investigation was 

company- and fact-specific. As a result 

of the comments made by the parties in 

the instant proceeding with respect to 

substantial transformation and country 

of origin, and, as a result of our 

affirmative circumvention findings in 

light of prior scope determinations, we 

find that a broader scope inquiry in this 

case is warranted. Therefore, we are 

initiating a scope inquiry of Chineseorigin glycine processed into a purer 

grade glycine in India, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.225(b), and invite interested 

parties to submit comments and 

supporting factual information 

regarding glycine exported from India 

and the scope of the Order. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(iii), 

interested parties may submit comments 

within 20 days of the publication of this 

notice. Additionally, interested parties 

may file rebuttals to written comments, 

limited to issues raised in such 

comments, no later than 10 days after 

the date on which the comments are 

due. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

As stated above, the Department has 

made a preliminary affirmative finding 

of circumvention of the Order by both 

AICO and Salvi. In accordance with 19 

CFR 351.225(l)(2), the Department will 

direct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation 

and require a cash deposit of estimated 

duties at the applicable rate on all 

unliquidated entries of glycine 

produced by AICO or Salvi, regardless 

of exporter or U.S. importer, that were 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after October 22, 

2010, the date of initiation of the anticircumvention inquiry. We will require 

a cash deposit of estimated duties on all 

entries of glycine produced and/or 

exported by AICO and Salvi, at the 

China-wide rate of 155.89 percent, 

unless AICO or Salvi can demonstrate to 

CBP that the Chinese glycine, which 

was processed by AICO or Salvi, was 

supplied by a Chinese manufacturer 

with its own rate. In that instance, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate of the 

Chinese glycine manufacturer that has 

its own rate. In light of our preliminary 

determination that Paras is not 

circumventing the Order, the 

Department will not instruct CBP to 

suspend liquidation of any unliquidated 

entries of glycine produced by Paras for 

purposes of this preliminary 

determination. 

As stated above, in its October 3, 

2011, submission, the domestic 

interested parties recommended that the 

Department determine that all Indian 

glycine is within the scope of the Order 

unless U.S. importers certify that the 

product they are importing is: (1) Not 

Chinese origin or processed from 

Chinese-origin glycine, and (2) is Indian 

in origin. Based on (i) our findings that 

not all Indian companies are 

circumventing the Order, (ii) the fact 

that our analysis only focused on three 

companies as requested by the domestic 

interested parties, (iii) record evidence 

indicating that certification may have 

unintended effects in this particular 

case, and (iv) lack of evidence on the 

record demonstrating that 

circumvention is occurring more 

broadly, we preliminarily find that a 

certification requirement is not 

supported by the record. We invite 

parties to comment on a country-wide 

exporter or importer certification 

process for glycine exported from India, 

and how such a certification program 

might be implemented. 

Notification to the U.S. International 

Trade Commission 

The Department, consistent with 

section 781(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.225(f)(7)(i)(B), will notify the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

this preliminary determination to 

include merchandise subject to this 

inquiry (i.e., glycine) within the Order. 

The ITC may request consultations 

concerning the Department’s proposed 

inclusion of the subject merchandise. 

See section 781(e)(2) of the Act. Upon 

the request of the ITC, the administering 

authority shall consult with the ITC and 

any such consultation shall be 

completed within 15 days after the date 

of the request. Id. If, after consultations, 

the ITC believes that a significant injury 

issue is presented by the proposed 

inclusion, it will have 60 days to 

provide written advice to the 

Department. See section 781(e)(3) of the 

Act. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21536 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Notices 

1See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Rescission 

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 77 FR 

1456 (January 10, 2012) (‘‘Preliminary Rescission’’). 

2See Preliminary Rescission. 

may submit case briefs and/or written 

comments within 20 days of the 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.225(f)(3). Interested parties may file 

rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written 

comments, limited to issues raised in 

such briefs or comments, no later than 

10 days after the date on which the case 

briefs are due. Id. Interested parties may 

request a hearing within 20 days of the 

publication of this notice. Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. At the hearing, 

each party may make an affirmative 

presentation only on issues raised in 

that party’s case brief and may make 

rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. Interested parties will be 

notified by the Department of the 

location and time of any hearing, if one 

is requested. 

Final Determination 

The final determination with respect 

to this circumvention inquiry, including 

the results of the Department’s analysis 

of any written comments, will be issued 

no later than July 30, 2012, unless 

extended. See section 781(f) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.302(b). 

This preliminary partial affirmative 

circumvention determination is 

published in accordance with section 

781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225. 

Dated: March 30, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8597 Filed 4–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–890] 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 10, 2012, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published the 

preliminary rescission of the new 

shipper review (‘‘NSR’’) of wooden 

bedroom furniture (‘‘WBF’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 

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

January 1, 2011, through June 30, 2011.1

After analyzing the comments submitted 

by parties with respect to Marvin 

Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Marvin 

Furniture’’), the Department continues 

to find that Marvin Furniture failed to 

satisfy the requirements for an NSR. 

Therefore, the Department is rescinding 

Marvin Furniture’s NSR. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 10, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick O’Connor, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0989. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 10, 2012, the Department 

published the Preliminary Rescission of 

this NSR.2 On February 9, 2012, we 

received case briefs and a request for a 

hearing from Marvin Furniture. On 

February 16, 2012, the Department 

rejected Marvin Furniture’s case brief 

because it contained untimely factual 

information. The Department informed 

Marvin Furniture that it could re-file its 

case brief by February 17, 2012, after 

removing the untimely factual 

information in the brief. On February 

17, 2012, Marvin Furniture re-filed its 

case brief after removing the 

information at issue but protested the 

finding that its case brief contained 

untimely factual information. On 

February 17, 2012, we received rebuttal 

briefs from the American Furniture 

Manufacturers Committee for Legal 

Trade and Vaughan-Basset Furniture 

Company, Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’). On March 7, 2012, the 

Department held a closed hearing. 

Analysis of the Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs submitted by parties in 

this review are addressed in the 

memorandum from Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Rescission of the New Shipper 

Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture 

from the People’s Republic of China for 

Marvin Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.’’ 

(‘‘I&D Memorandum’’), which is dated 

concurrently with this notice and which 

is hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issue which parties raised, and to which 

we respond, in the I&D Memorandum is 

whether to rescind the NSR for Marvin 

Furniture. The I&D Memorandum is a 

public document and is on file 

electronically via Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Services System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’). Access to IA ACCESS is 

available in the Central Records Unit of 

the main Commerce Building, Room 

7046. In addition, a complete version of 

the I&D Memorandum is accessible on 

the Department’s web site at http:// 

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

electronic versions of the I&D 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the order is 

wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden 

bedroom furniture is generally, but not 

exclusively, designed, manufactured, 

and offered for sale in coordinated 

groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the 

individual pieces are of approximately 

the same style and approximately the 

same material and/or finish. The subject 

merchandise is made substantially of 

wood products, including both solid 

wood and also engineered wood 

products made from wood particles, 

fibers, or other wooden materials such 

as plywood, strand board, particle 

board, and fiberboard, with or without 

wood veneers, wood overlays, or 

laminates, with or without non-wood 

components or trim such as metal, 

marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other 

resins, and whether or not assembled, 

completed, or finished. 

The subject merchandise includes the 

following items: (1) Wooden beds such 

as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; 

(2) wooden headboards for beds 

(whether stand-alone or attached to side 

rails), wooden footboards for beds, 

wooden side rails for beds, and wooden 

canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night 

stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, 

mule chests, gentlemen’s chests, 

bachelor’s chests, lingerie chests, 

wardrobes, vanities, chessers, 

chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets; 

(4) dressers with framed glass mirrors 

that are attached to, incorporated in, sit 

on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chestsVerDate Mar<15>2010 16:26 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10APN1.SGM 10APN1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES