Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Notices 21529 

2See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 2036, and 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 

Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

19046, 19048 (April 27, 2009). 

1 In publishing the Preliminary Results, the 

Federal Register distorted the title of the notice; the 

Federal Register thereafter published the correct 

title of the notice in 76 FR 65497 (October 21, 

2011). 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. See Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties for a full 

discussion of this clarification. 

The Department will issue 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

publication of the final results of 

review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

review for all shipments of CTL plate 

from Korea entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act): (1) The cash 

deposit rate for DSM will be the 1.64 

percent; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company-specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the less-thanfair-value investigation but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer has its 

own rate, the cash deposit rate will be 

0.98 percent,2 the all-others rate 

established in the less-than-fair-value 

investigation, adjusted for the exportsubsidy rate in the companion 

countervailing duty investigation. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importer 

This notice 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 review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Department’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO as explained in 

the APO itself. See 19 CFR 

351.305(a)(3). Timely written 

notification of the 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 sanctionable 

violation. 

These final results of administrative 

review are issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: April 4, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8604 Filed 4–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–848] 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Rescission 

of Review in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 7, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce published the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on freshwater crawfish tail meat from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC). 

The review covers five exporters. The 

period of review is September 1, 2009, 

through August 31, 2010. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the margin calculations for 

one company. Therefore, the final 

results differ from the preliminary 

results. The final weighted-average 

dumping margins for the reviewed firms 

are listed below in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Results of the Review.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: April 10, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, 

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) 482–0665 or (202) 482– 

1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 7, 2011, the Department 

of Commerce (the Department) 

published Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Intent To Rescind Review in 

Part, 76 FR 62349 (October 7, 2011) 

(Preliminary Results),1 in the Federal 

Register. The administrative review 

covers Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. 

(Xiping Opeck), Shanghai Ocean Flavor 

International Trading Co., Ltd. 

(Shanghai Ocean Flavor), China 

Kingdom (Beijing) Import & Export Co., 

Ltd. (China Kingdom), Xuzhou Jinjiang 

Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Xuzhou Jinjiang), 

and Nanjing Gemsen International Co., 

Ltd. (Nanjing Gemsen). 

On January 25, 2012, we published 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Extension of 

Time Limit for Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 77 FR 3730 (January 25, 2012), 

in which we extended fully the deadline 

for the final results to April 4, 2012. 

On February 13, 2012, we determined 

a rate for Xiping Opeck, the sole 

mandatory respondent in this review, 

on the basis of adverse facts available 

(AFA). See memorandum to Paul 

Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, entitled ‘‘Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China—Post-Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum—The Use of 

Adverse Facts Available,’’ dated 

February 13, 2012 (AFA Memo). We 

invited interested parties to comment on 

the Preliminary Results and the AFA 

Memo. 

We received case and rebuttal briefs 

from Xiping Opeck and the petitioner, 

the Crawfish Processors Alliance. No 

interested party requested a hearing. 

The Department has conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the 

antidumping duty order is freshwater 

crawfish tail meat, in all its forms 

(whether washed or with fat on, 

whether purged or un-purged), grades, 

and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or 

chilled; and regardless of how it is 

packed, preserved, or prepared. 

Excluded from the scope of the order are 

live crawfish and other whole crawfish, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21530 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Notices 

2We are withholding the identity of Company A 

because Xiping Opeck’s U.S. customer claimed 

business-proprietary treatment of this information. 

3See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United 

Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews 

in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision (I&D) 

Memorandum at Comment 16. 

whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. 

Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of 

any type, and parts thereof. 

Freshwater crawfish tail meat is 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under item numbers 

1605.40.10.10 and 1605.40.10.90, which 

are the HTSUS numbers for prepared 

foodstuffs, indicating peeled crawfish 

tail meat and other, as introduced by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) in 2000, and HTSUS numbers 

0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00.00, which 

are reserved for fish and crustaceans in 

general. The HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes only. The written description 

of the scope of the order is dispositive. 

Rescission of Administrative Review in 

Part 

In the Preliminary Results, we 

preliminarily found that Shanghai 

Ocean Flavor, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and 

Nanjing Gemsen had no shipments of 

subject merchandise during the period 

of review and we stated our intent to 

rescind the administrative review with 

respect to these companies. See 

Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62350. We 

have received no comments concerning 

our intent to rescind this administrative 

review in part. We continue to find that 

Shanghai Ocean Flavor, Xuzhou 

Jinjiang, and Nanjing Gemsen had no 

shipments of freshwater crawfish tail 

meat from the PRC during the period of 

review. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding the 

review of Shanghai Ocean Flavor, 

Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Nanjing Gemsen. 

Adverse Facts Available 

In the Preliminary Results, we stated 

that the record evidence suggests a lack 

of commercial soundness in the 

transactions reported by Xiping Opeck 

in this review and that another entity 

(hereinafter, Company A) 2 plays a role 

in the pricing associated with the 

entries of subject merchandise in this 

review. See Preliminary Results, 76 FR 

at 62350. For a detailed discussion on 

this issue, see the memorandum entitled 

‘‘Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from 

the People’s Republic of China— 

Evaluation of an Allegation of 

Middleman Dumping and Nature of 

Transactions Pertaining to the Entries 

Under Review,’’ dated September 30, 

2011. In the Preliminary Results, we 

also stated that further inquiry on this 

issue is necessary. See Preliminary 

Results, 76 FR at 62350. Consequently, 

on October 3, 2011, we issued a nonmarket economy questionnaire to 

Company A. Company A did not answer 

the non-market economy questionnaire, 

arguing that it was not required to 

submit a response. See AFA Memo at 2. 

We determined that Company A 

significantly impeded the proceeding 

because it did not provide any of the 

information which we determined to be 

critical and necessary for the 

completion of an administrative review 

of the entries and sales made by Xiping 

Opeck. See AFA Memo at 3. We found 

it necessary, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(1), (2)(A) and (C) of the Act, to 

use facts otherwise available to calculate 

the dumping margin for Xiping Opeck 

in this review. See AFA Memo at 4. 

Because Company A did not cooperate 

to the best of its ability in this review, 

in relying on facts otherwise available, 

we found that pursuant to section 776(b) 

of the Act an adverse inference is 

warranted in determining a dumping 

margin for Xiping Opeck in this review. 

See AFA Memo at 4. In determining the 

AFA rate for Xiping Opeck in this 

review, we relied on primary 

information on the record. Using this 

information, we calculated an AFA rate 

of 70.12 percent for Xiping Opeck in 

this review. See AFA Memo at 4. 

After our consideration of the 

comments on this issue, for the final 

results of this review, we continue to 

find that the use of AFA is warranted for 

Xiping Opeck in this review pursuant to 

sections 776(a) (1), (2)(A) and (C) and 

776(b) of the Act. 

Non-Market-Economy Country Status 

In the Preliminary Results, we treated 

the PRC as a non-market-economy 

(NME) country. See Preliminary Results, 

76 FR at 62350. No interested party 

commented on our designation of the 

PRC as an NME country. Therefore, for 

the final results of review, we have 

continued to treat the PRC as an NME 

country in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to 

review in an NME country this single 

rate unless an exporter can demonstrate 

that it is sufficiently independent so as 

to be entitled to a separate rate. 

In the Preliminary Results, we found 

that Xiping Opeck and China Kingdom 

demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate-rate status. See Preliminary 

Results, 76 FR at 62351–62352. We 

received no comments from interested 

parties regarding the separate-rate status 

of these companies. Therefore, in these 

final results of review, we continue to 

find that the evidence placed on the 

record of this review by Xiping Opeck 

and China Kingdom demonstrates an 

absence of government control, both in 

law and in fact, with respect to these 

companies’ exports of the subject 

merchandise. Thus, we have determined 

that Xiping Opeck and China Kingdom 

are eligible to receive a separate rate. 

Separate Rate for a Non-Selected 

Company 

China Kingdom is the only exporter of 

crawfish tail meat from the PRC that 

demonstrated its eligibility for a 

separate rate which was not selected for 

individual examination in this review. 

The statute and the Department’s 

regulations do not address the 

establishment of a rate to be applied to 

individual companies not selected for 

examination when the Department 

limits its examination in an 

administrative review pursuant to 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, 

we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of 

the Act, which provides instructions for 

calculating the all-others rate in an 

investigation, for guidance when 

calculating the rate for respondents we 

did not examine in an administrative 

review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

articulates a preference that we are not 

to calculate an all-others rate using any 

zero or de minimis margins or any 

margins based entirely on facts 

available. Accordingly, the 

Department’s usual practice has been to 

average the margins for the selected 

companies, excluding margins that are 

zero, de minimis, or based entirely on 

facts available.3 Section 735(c)(5)(B) of 

the Act also provides that, where all 

margins are zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on facts available, we may use 

‘‘any reasonable method’’ for assigning 

the rate to non-selected respondents, 

including ‘‘averaging the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins 

determined for the exporters and 

producers individually investigated.’’ 

In previous cases, the Department has 

determined that a ‘‘reasonable method’’ 

to use when, as here, the rate of the 

respondent selected for individual 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Notices 21531 

4See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of Fifth Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 8338, 8342 

(February 14, 2011) (unchanged in Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 51940 (August 19, 

2011)); see also Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 49460, 49463 (August 13, 2010), and 

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 774 

F. Supp. 2d 1286 (CIT April 14, 2011). 

5 See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review and 

Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 

and Partial Rescission of the Fourth Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 52015 (September 8, 2008), 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 (March 17, 2009) (changing rate for 

non-selected respondents because the final 

calculated rate for the selected respondent was 

above de minimis) (unchanged in Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Amended Final Results of the Fourth Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 17816 (April 17, 

2009)); see also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 

Results and Final Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

47191, 47195 (September 15, 2009), and 

accompanying I&D Memorandum at Comment 16. 

6See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative and NewShipper Reviews, 75 FR 79337 (December 20, 2010). 

examination is based entirely on facts 

available is to apply to those companies 

not selected for individual examination 

(but eligible for a separate rate in NME 

cases) the average of the most recently 

determined rates that are not zero, de 

minimis, or based entirely on facts 

available (which may be from a prior 

administrative review or a new shipper 

review).4 If any such non-selected 

company had its own calculated rate 

that is contemporaneous with or more 

recent than such prior determined rates, 

however, the Department has applied 

such individual rate to the non-selected 

company in the review in question, 

including when that rate is zero or de 

minimis.5 In this case, there is only one 

non-selected company under review 

that is eligible for a separate rate and 

this company received its own 

calculated rate that is contemporaneous 

with or more recent than the most 

recent rates determined for other 

companies that are not zero, de minimis, 

or based entirely on facts available. 

Accordingly, we have concluded that in 

this case a reasonable method for 

determining the rate for the nonselected company, China Kingdom, is to 

apply its most recent individually 

calculated rate. Pursuant to this method, 

we have assigned a rate of 18.87 percent 

to China Kingdom, its calculated rate in 

the previous administrative review.6 In 

assigning this separate rate, we did not 

impute the actions of any other 

companies to the behavior of the 

company not individually examined but 

based this determination on record 

evidence that may be deemed 

reasonably reflective of the potential 

dumping margin for the nonindividually examined company, China 

Kingdom, in this administrative review. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

administrative review are addressed in 

the I&D Memorandum which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. A list of the 

issues raised is attached to this notice as 

an appendix. The I&D Memorandum is 

a public document and is on file 

electronically via Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 

Access to IA ACCESS is available in the 

Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 

of the main Department of Commerce 

building. In addition, a complete 

version of the I&D Memorandum can be 

accessed directly on the internet at 

http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed 

I&D Memorandum and the electronic 

versions of the I&D Memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

We determined the margin for Xiping 

Opeck based on AFA. 

Final Results of the Review 

As a result of the administrative 

review, we determine that the following 

percentage weighted-average dumping 

margins exist for the period September 

1, 2009, through August 31, 2010: 

Company Margin 

(percent) 

Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. .... 70.12 

China Kingdom (Beijing) Import 

& Export Co., Ltd. ................. 18.87 

Assessment 

For Xiping Opeck and China 

Kingdom, we will instruct CBP to apply 

the rates listed above to all entries of 

subject merchandise exported 

respectively by these companies. We 

intend to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these final results of this 

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 Xiping 

Opeck and China Kingdom, the cash 

deposit rate will be the rate established 

in this final results of review, as listed 

above, for each exporter; (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 PRC-wide 

rate of 223.01 percent; (4) for all nonPRC exporters of subject merchandise 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC entity that 

supplied that exporter. These deposit 

requirements shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notifications 

This notice also serves as a final 

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 notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

notification of the 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 sanctionable 

violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results 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 

1. Determination that Company A is an 

Interested Party 

2. Application of Adverse Facts Available 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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