Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2022 / Notices 20817 

1See Certain Steel Racks and Parts Thereof from 

the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 

and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 

2019–2020, 86 FR 55575 (October 6, 2021) 

(Preliminary Results), and accompanying 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM). 

2See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Case Brief,’’ dated 

November 5, 2021; see also Dongsheng’s Letter, 

‘‘Steel Racks from the People’s Republic of China— 

Case Brief,’’ dated November 5, 2021; Nanjing 

Kingmore’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Steel Racks and Parts 

Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, Case 

No. A–570–088: Case Brief,’’ dated November 5, 

2021; Jiangsu Nova’s Letter, ‘‘Steel Racks and Parts 

Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: Letter 

in Lieu of Brief,’’ dated November 5, 2021; 

Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Rebuttal Brief,’’ dated 

November 12, 2021; Dongsheng’s Letter, ‘‘Steel 

Racks from the People’s Republic of China— 

Rebuttal Brief,’’ dated November 12, 2021; and 

Nanjing Kingmore’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Steel Racks and 

Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 

Case No. A–570–088: Nanjing Kingmore’s Rebuttal 

Brief,’’ dated November 12, 2021. 

3See Commerce Letter, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Steel Racks and Parts 

Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: 

Hearing Schedule,’’ dated January 7, 2022. 

4See Memoranda, ‘‘Extension of Deadline for 

Final Results,’’ dated January 28, 2022; and 

‘‘Extension of Deadline for Final Results,’’ dated 

March 1, 2022. 

5See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2019– 

2020 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Certain Steel Racks and Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated concurrently 

with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and 

Decision Memorandum). 

6See Certain Steel Racks and Parts Thereof from 

the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final 

Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination and 

Antidumping Duty Order; and Countervailing Duty 

Order, 84 FR 48584 (September 16, 2019) (Order). 

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 

sanctionable violation. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This administrative review and notice 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: April 1, 2022. 

Ryan Majerus, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Negotiations. 

Appendix I 

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Final Determination of No Shipments 

V. Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

VI. Rate for Non-Examined Companies 

VII. Discussion of the Issues 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Particular Market Situation 

Comment 2: Differential Pricing 

Hyundai Steel-Specific Issues 

Comment 3: CV Profit and Selling 

Expenses 

Comment 4: CV Profit Cap 

Comment 5: Source for CEP Profit 

Comment 6: Inland Freight From Port to 

Warehouse 

Comment 7: Adjustment to HSU G&A 

Expense Ratio and Treatment of Scrap 

Comment 8: HSU Financials and AFA 

Comment 9: Reporting of Non-API Grade 

OCTG and AFA 

Comment 10: Further Manufacturing Yield 

Comment 11: Warehousing Expense and 

Facts Available 

Comment 12: Expenses Incurred in the 

United States 

Comment 13: Allocation of Indirect Selling 

Expense Ratio 

Comment 14: Use of Prior POR Cost Data 

Comment 15: Affiliated Ocean Freight 

Costs 

SeAH-Specific Issues 

Comment 16: Constructed Export Price 

(CEP) Offset 

Comment 17: Freight Revenue Cap 

Comment 18: Calculation of General and 

Administrative (G&A) Expenses Incurred 

by SeAH’s U.S. Affiliate 

VII. Recommendation 

Appendix II 

List of Companies Not Individually 

Examined 

1. AJU Besteel Co., Ltd. 

2. DB Inc. 

3. Dong-A Steel Co., Ltd. 

4. FM Oilfield Services Solutions LLC 

5. Hengyang Steel Tube Group International 

Trading Inc. 

6. Husteel Co., Ltd. 

7. Hyundai Corporation 

8. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. 

9. ILJIN Steel Corporation 

10. K Steel Corporation 

11. KASCO 

12. Kenwoo Metals Co., Ltd. 

13. Kukje Steel Co., Ltd. 

14. Kumkang Kind Co., Ltd. 

15. Kumsoo Connecting Co., Ltd. 

16. Master Steel Corporation 

17. NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. 

18. POSCO International Corporation 

19. Pusan Coupling Corporation 

20. Pusan Fitting Corporation 

21. Sang Shin Industrial Co., Ltd. (a.k.a. SIC 

Tube Co., Ltd.) 

22. SeAH Changwon Integrated Special Steel 

Co., Ltd. 

23. Shin Steel Co., Ltd. 

24. Sichuan Y&J Industries Co. Ltd. 

25. Steel-A Co., Ltd. 

26. Sungwon Steel Co., Ltd. 

27. TGS Pipe Co., Ltd. 

28. TJ Glovsteel Co., Ltd. 

29. TPC Co., Ltd. 

30. T-Tube Co., Ltd. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07503 Filed 4–7–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–088] 

Certain Steel Racks and Parts Thereof 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final 

Determination of No Shipments; 2019– 

2020 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) has determined that certain 

exporters under review sold certain 

steel racks and parts thereof (steel racks) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(China) in the United States at prices 

below normal value (NV) during the 

period of review (POR) March 4, 2019, 

through August 31, 2020. Additionally, 

we determined that Hebei Minmetals 

Co., Ltd. (Hebei Minmetals) and 

Guangdong Wireking Housewares and 

Hardware Co., Ltd., (Guangdong 

Wireking) made no shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. 

DATES: Applicable April 8, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Bremer or Jonathan Hill, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement 

and Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–4987 and (202) 482–3518, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 6, 2021, Commerce 

published the Preliminary Results for 

this review in the Federal Register and 

invited interested parties to comment on 

those results.1 In November 2021, 

Commerce received comments and 

rebuttal comments from interested 

parties regarding the Preliminary 

Results.2 On January 12, 2022, 

Commerce held a public hearing 

regarding issues in this administrative 

review.3 On January 28, 2022, and again 

on March 1, 2022, Commerce extended 

the deadline for issuing the final results 

of this review.4 The current deadline for 

issuing the final results of this review is 

April 1, 2022. For further details 

regarding the events that occurred 

subsequent to issuing the Preliminary 

Results, see the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum.5 Commerce conducted 

this administrative review in 

accordance with section 751 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 6

The merchandise covered by this 

Order is steel racks and parts thereof, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
20818 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2022 / Notices 

7See Preliminary Results PDM. 

8See Memorandum, ‘‘First Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Steel Racks and Parts Thereof from China: Final 

Calculation of the Rate for Separate Rate 

Respondents,’’ dated concurrently with this notice. 

9See Order, 84 FR 48584. 

10 In this review, we have determined that the 

companies listed in Appendix II subject to the 

review are now part of the China-wide entity. 

assembled, to any extent, or 

unassembled, including but not limited 

to, vertical components (e.g., uprights, 

posts, or columns), horizontal or 

diagonal components (e.g., arms or 

beams), braces, frames, locking devices 

(e.g., end plates and beam connectors), 

and accessories (including, but not 

limited to, rails, skid channels, skid 

rails, drum/coil beds, fork clearance 

bars, pallet supports, row spacers, and 

wall ties). For a full description of the 

scope, see the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised by interested parties 

in the case and rebuttal briefs are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. A list of the issues that 

parties raised, and to which we 

responded in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, is in Appendix I. The 

Issues and Decision Memorandum is a 

public document and is on file 

electronically via Enforcement and 

Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 

ACCESS is available to registered users 

at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a 

complete version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly at https://access.trade.gov/ 

public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. 

Final Determination of No Shipments 

In the Preliminary Results, we 

determined that Hebei Minmetals and 

Guangdong Wireking made no 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR.7 As we 

have not received any arguments 

identifying information that undermines 

our preliminary finding, we made no 

changes to that determination for the 

final results of review. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

We corrected ministerial errors in our 

preliminary calculations of the 

manufacturing overhead ratio, freight-in 

costs, and certain net U.S. prices for 

Nanjing Kingmore Logistics Equipment 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Nanjing 

Kingmore). We also corrected the draft 

liquidation instructions for Nanjing 

Kingmore. For a discussion of these 

corrections, see the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

Separate Rates 

No parties commented on our 

preliminary separate rates 

determinations. We continue to find 

that Dongsheng and Nanjing Kingmore 

(i.e., the mandatory respondents), and 

the four companies listed in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section below, are 

eligible for a separate rate. Additionally, 

we have continued to deny separate rate 

status to each of the companies listed in 

Appendix II. 

Rate for Non-Examined Separate Rate 

Respondents 

The statue and Commerce’s 

regulations do not address what rate to 

apply to respondents not selected for 

individual examination when 

Commerce limits its examination in an 

administrative review pursuant to 

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

Commerce looks 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 non-selected 

respondents that are not examined 

individually in an administrative 

review. 

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act states 

that the all-others rate should be 

calculated by averaging the weightedaverage dumping margins determined 

for individually-examined respondents, 

excluding rates that are zero, de 

minimis, or based entirely on facts 

available. When the rates determined for 

individually examined respondents are 

all zero, de minimis, or based entirely 

on facts available, section 735(c)(5)(B) of 

the Act provides that Commerce may 

use ‘‘any reasonable method’’ to 

establish the all others rate. 

The final weighted-average dumping 

margins that we calculated for the 

mandatory respondents Dongsheng and 

Nanjing Kingmore are not zero, de 

minimis, or based entirely on facts 

available. Therefore, we assigned a 

weighted-average dumping margin to 

the non-individually examined 

respondents to which we granted 

separate rate status equal to the 

weighted average of the weightedaverage dumping margins that we 

calculated for Dongsheng and Nanjing 

Kingmore, consistent with the guidance 

in section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.8

The China-Wide Entity 

Because no party requested a review 

of the China-wide entity in this segment 

of the proceeding, the entity is not 

under review, and the entity’s rate (i.e., 

144.50 percent) is not subject to 

change.9 Other than the companies for 

which we made a final no-shipment 

determination, Commerce considers all 

other companies for which a review was 

requested that did not demonstrate 

separate rate eligibility, to be part of the 

China entity.10

Final Results of Review 

We are assigning the following 

weighted-average dumping margins to 

the firms listed below for the period 

March 4, 2019, through August 31, 

2020: 

Exporter 

Weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co., Ltd .................................... 9.99 

Nanjing Kingmore Logistics Equipment 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd ...................... 18.87 

Review-Specific Rate Applicable to the 

Following Companies: 

Jiangsu Nova Intelligent Logistics 

Equipment Co., Ltd ........................ 14.03 

Nanjing Ironstone Storage Equipment 

Co., Ltd .......................................... 14.03 

Suzhou (China) Sunshine Hardware 

& Equipment Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd 14.03 

Xiamen Luckyroc Industry Co., Ltd ... 14.03 

Disclosure 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), within 

five days of the publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register, we will 

disclose to the parties to this 

proceeding, the calculations that we 

performed for these final results of 

review. 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 

Commerce will determine, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of this review. Commerce intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP no 

earlier than 35 days after the date of 

publication date of the final results of 

this review in the Federal Register. If a 

timely summons is filed at the U.S. 

Court of International Trade, the 

assessment instructions will direct CBP 

not to liquidate relevant entries until the 

time for parties to file a request for a 

statutory injunction has expired (i.e., 

within 90 days of publication). 

Where the respondent’s weightedaverage dumping margin is zero or de 

minimis, or where an importer- (or 

customer-) specific ad valorem or perunit rate is zero or de minimis, 

Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate 

appropriate entries without regard to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2022 / Notices 20819 

11See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of 

the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and 

Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping 

Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8103 

(February 14, 2012). 

12See Order, 84 FR 48584. 

13 Id. 

antidumping duties.11 For U.S. entries 

that were not reported in the U.S. sales 

database submitted by an exporter 

individually examined during this 

review, but that entered under the case 

number of that exporter (i.e., at the 

individually-examined exporter’s cash 

deposit rate), Commerce will instruct 

CBP to liquidate such entries at the 

China-wide entity rate (i.e., 144.50 

percent).12

For any individually-examined 

respondent whose weighted-average 

dumping margin is above de minimis 

(i.e., 0.50 percent), we will calculate 

importer-specific or customer-specific 

assessment rates on the basis of the ratio 

of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for each importer’s 

examined sales and the total entered 

value of the sales, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1).13

For respondents not individually 

examined in this administrative review 

that qualified for a separate rate, the 

assessment rate will be equal to the 

weighted average of the dumping 

margins assigned to the mandatory 

respondents in the final results of this 

review. 

For the respondents not eligible for a 

separate rate, which we considered to be 

part of the China-wide entity, we intend 

to instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem 

assessment rate of 144.50 percent (i.e., 

the China-wide entity rate) to all U.S. 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR that were exported by these 

companies. 

Additionally, if Commerce determines 

that an exporter under review had no 

shipments of the subject merchandise, 

any suspended entries that entered 

under that exporter’s case number will 

be liquidated at the China-wide entity 

rate. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

review, as provided for by section 

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

exporters listed in the table above, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate listed 

for the exporter in the table; (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed 

China and non-China exporters not 

listed in the table above that have 

separate rates, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the existing exporterspecific rate published for the most 

recent period; (3) for all China exporters 

of subject merchandise that have not 

been found to be entitled to a separate 

rate, the cash deposit rate will be the 

rate previously established for the 

China-wide entity, which is 144.50 

percent; and (4) for all non-China 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the China exporter that 

supplied that non-China exporter. These 

cash deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers Regarding the 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice 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 POR. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in 

Commerce’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order (APO) 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to APO of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. 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. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

We are issuing these final results of 

administrative review and publishing 

this notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 

CFR 351.213(h)(2) and 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: April 1, 2022. 

Ryan Majerus, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Negotiations. 

Appendix I 

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

V. Discussion of Issues 

1. Whether Commerce Selected the 

Appropriate Surrogate Country 

2. Whether Commerce Miscalculated the 

Manufacturing Overhead Ratio 

3. Whether Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Dongsheng) is 

Affiliated with its U.S. Importer 

4. Whether Commerce Miscalculated Direct 

Material and Packing Costs 

5. Whether to Collapse Nanjing Kingmore 

Logistics Equipment Manufacturing Co., 

Ltd. (Nanjing Kingmore) with its Affiliate 

and Apply Total Adverse Facts Available 

6. Whether Commerce Miscalculated Direct 

Material Costs and the Net Prices of 

Certain U.S. Sales 

7. Whether Commerce Omitted a U.S. 

Customer from its Draft Liquidation 

Instructions 

V. Recommendation 

Appendix II 

Companies Determined To Not Be Eligible 

for a Separate Rate 

1. Ateel Display Industries (Xiamen) Co., Ltd 

2. Changzhou Tianyue Storage Equipment 

Co., Ltd 

3. CTC Universal (Zhangzhou) Industrial Co., 

Ltd 

4. David Metal Craft Manufactory Ltd 

5. Fujian Ever Glory Fixtures Co., Ltd 

6. Fujian First Industry and Trade Co., Ltd 

7. Huanghua Hualing Garden Products Co., 

Ltd 

8. Huanghua Hualing Hardware Products Co., 

Ltd 

9. Huanghua Xingyu Hardware Products Co., 

Ltd 

10. Huanghua Xinxing Furniture Co., Ltd 

11. Huangua Haixin Hardware Products Co., 

Ltd 

12. Huangua Qingxin Hardware Products Co., 

Ltd 

13. i-Lift Equipment Ltd 

14. Jiangsu Baigeng Logistics Equipments 

Co., Ltd 

15. Jiangsu Kingmore Storage Equipment 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd 

16. Johnson (Suzhou) Metal Products Co., Ltd 

17. Master Trust (Xiamen) Import and Export 

Co., Ltd 

18. Ningbo Beilun Songyi Warehouse 

Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd 

19. Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd 

20. Qingdao Rockstone Logistics Appliance 

Co., Ltd 

21. Redman Corporation 

22. Redman Import & Export Limited 

23. Tianjin Master Logistics Equipment Co., 

Ltd 

24. Waken Display System Co., Ltd 

25. Xiamen Baihuide Manufacturing Co., Ltd 

26. Xiamen Ever Glory Fixtures Co., Ltd 

27. Xiamen Golden Trust Industry & Trade 

Co., Ltd 

28. Xiamen Huiyi Beauty Furniture Co., Ltd 

29. Xiamen Kingfull Imp and Exp Co., Ltd. 

(d.b.a) Xiamen Kingfull Displays Co., Ltd 

30. Xiamen LianHong Industry and Trade 

Co., Ltd 

31. Xiamen Luckyroc Storage Equipment 

Manufacture Co., Ltd 

32. Xiamen Meitoushan Metal Products Co., 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
20820 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2022 / Notices 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 86 FR 

50034 (September 7, 2021) (Initiation Notice). 

2See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Citric Acid and Certain 

Citrate Salts from Thailand; 2020–2021,’’ dated 

concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this 

notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 

3See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from 

Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand: Antidumping 

Duty Orders, 83 FR 35214 (July 25, 2018) (Order). 

4 In the preliminary results, Commerce applied 

the assessment rate calculation method adopted in 

Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the 

Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and 

Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping 

Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 

(February 14, 2012). 

5See section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. 

Ltd 

33. Xiamen Power Metal Display Co., Ltd 

34. Xiamen XinHuiYuan Industrial & Trade 

Co., Ltd 

35. Xiamen Yiree Display Fixtures Co., Ltd 

36. Yuanda Storage Equipment Ltd 

37. Zhangjiagang Better Display Co., Ltd 

38. Zhangzhou Hongcheng Hardware & 

Plastic Industry Co., Ltd 

[FR Doc. 2022–07501 Filed 4–7–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–833] 

Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts 

From Thailand: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2020–2021 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) preliminarily determines 

that certain producers/exporters subject 

to this administrative review did not 

make sales of subject merchandise at 

less than normal value (NV) during the 

July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, 

period of review (POR). Interested 

parties are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results of review. 

DATES: Applicable April 8, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy 

Zhang or Patrick Barton, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office III, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–1168 or (202) 482–0012, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 7, 2021, based on 

timely requests for review, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on citric acid 

and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from 

Thailand for the POR.1 For a complete 

description of the events that followed 

the initiation of this review, see the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum.2

Scope of the Order 3

The merchandise covered by this 

Order includes all grades and 

granulation sizes of citric acid, sodium 

citrate, and potassium citrate in their 

unblended forms, whether dry or in 

solution, and regardless of packaging 

type. The scope also includes blends of 

citric acid, sodium citrate, and 

potassium citrate; as well as blends with 

other ingredients, such as sugar, where 

the unblended form(s) of citric acid, 

sodium citrate, and potassium citrate 

constitute 40 percent or more, by 

weight, of the blend. 

Citric acid and sodium citrate are 

classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and 

2918.15.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), 

respectively. Potassium citrate and 

crude calcium citrate are classifiable 

under 2918.15.5000 and, if included in 

a mixture or blend, 3824.99.9295 of the 

HTSUS. Blends that include citric acid, 

sodium citrate, and potassium citrate 

are classifiable under 3824.99.9295 of 

the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the merchandise is 

dispositive. For a full description of the 

scope of the Order, see the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum. 

Methodology 

Commerce is conducting this review 

in accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

Export price and constructed export 

price are calculated in accordance with 

section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated 

in accordance with section 773 of the 

Act. For a full description of the 

methodology underlying our 

conclusions, see the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum. The 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a 

public document and is on file 

electronically via Enforcement and 

Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 

ACCESS is available to registered users 

at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a 

complete version of the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly at https://access.trade.gov/ 

public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. A list 

of the topics discussed in the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum is 

attached as an appendix to this notice. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of this review, we 

preliminarily determine the following 

weighted-average dumping margins for 

the period July 1, 2020, through June 30, 

2021: 

Producer/exporter 

Weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

COFCO Biochemical (Thailand) 

Co., Ltd. (COFCO) .................. 0.00 

Sunshine Biotech International 

Co., Ltd ................................... 0.00 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuing the final results, 

Commerce shall determine, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. If the weightedaverage dumping margin for companies 

listed above are not zero or de minimis 

(i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will 

calculate importer-specific ad valorem 

AD assessment rates based on the ratio 

of the total amount of dumping 

calculated for the importer’s examined 

sales to the total entered value of those 

same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1).4 We will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review when the importer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis (i.e., 0.5 percent). Where either 

the respondent’s weighted-average 

dumping margin is zero or de minimis, 

or an importer-specific assessment rate 

is zero or de minimis, we will instruct 

CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries 

without regard to antidumping duties. 

The final results of this review shall be 

the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of this review and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable.5

In accordance with Commerce’s 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ practice, for 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR produced by each respondent 

which did not know that its 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate entries not reviewed at the allothers rate established in the original 

less-than-fair value (LTFV) investigation 

(i.e., 11.25 percent) if there is no rate for 

the intermediate company(ies) involved 

in the transaction. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1