Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Notices 16843 

1The petitioners in this investigation are Archer 

Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, 

and Tate & Lyle Americas, Inc. 

2See Memorandum to the File through James 

Maeder, Director Office 2 from Rebecca Trainor and 

Kate Johnson International Trade Compliance 

Analysts Office 2, ‘‘Verification of the Sales 

Response of Jungbunzlauer Technology GMBH & 

Co. KG (JBLT) in the Antidumping Investigation of 

Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada,’’ 

dated February 5, 2009 (Sales Verification Report). 

3See Memorandum to the File through Neal M. 

Harper, Director of Office of Accounting from James 

Balog Senior Accountant, Office of Accounting, 

‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Jungbunzlauer 

Technology GMBH & Co. KG in the Antidumping 

Investigation of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts 

from Canada,’’ dated February 24, 2009 (Cost 

Verification Report). 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–122–853 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Citric Acid 

and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: We determine that imports of 

citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric 

acid) are being, or are likely to be, sold 

in the United States at less than fair 

value (LTFV), as provided in section 

735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ 

section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terre Keaton Stefanova or Rebecca 

Trainor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1280 or 

(202) 482–4007, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 20, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (Department) 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV in the antidumping duty 

investigation of citric acid from Canada. 

See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts 

from Canada: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 73 FR 70324 (November 

20, 2008) (Preliminary Determination). 

In November and December 2008, the 

respondent, Jungbunzlauer Technology 

GMBH & Co KG (JBLT), submitted 

revised home market and U.S. sales 

listings and cost data. On December 1, 

2008, we received pre–verification 

comments from the petitioners.1 On 

December 18, 2008, the petitioners 

requested a hearing to discuss issues 

addressed by the interested parties in 

their case and rebuttal briefs. From 

December 9 through December 16, 2008, 

we verified the respondent’s sales data. 

On January 6, 2009, the respondent 

informed the Department that its 

Canadian operations had recently 

undergone a corporate restructuring 

which resulted in JBL Canada, Inc. 

becoming the producer, seller and 

exporter of citric acid from Canada, 

effective December 31, 2008. For further 

discussion, see ‘‘Corporate 

Restructuring’’ section below. 

From January 12 through January 16, 

2009, we verified the respondent’s cost 

data. On February 5, 2009, we issued 

the sales verification report,2 and 

requested that the respondent submit a 

revised home market and U.S. sales 

listing per verification findings. We 

received the revised sales listings on 

February 17, 2009. On February 24, 

2009, we issued the cost verification 

report.3 We provided the interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

the Preliminary Determination and the 

Department’s verification findings. 

On February 26, 2009, the petitioners 

withdrew their request for a hearing. On 

March 3 and March 9, 2009, 

respectively, the petitioners and 

respondent each submitted case and 

rebuttal briefs. Because the petitioners 

were the only interested party to request 

a hearing and it subsequently withdrew 

its request, no hearing was held on 

issues raised in the case and rebuttal 

briefs. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (POI) is 

April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

This period corresponds to the four 

most recent fiscal quarters prior to the 

month of the filing of the petition. 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

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. 

The scope of this investigation also 

includes all forms of crude calcium 

citrate, including dicalcium citrate 

monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate 

tetrahydrate, which are intermediate 

products in the production of citric 

acid, sodium citrate, and potassium 

citrate. The scope of this investigation 

does not include calcium citrate that 

satisfies the standards set forth in the 

United States Pharmacopeia and has 

been mixed with a functional excipient, 

such as dextrose or starch, where the 

excipient constitutes at least 2 percent, 

by weight, of the product. The scope of 

this investigation includes the hydrous 

and anhydrous forms of citric acid, the 

dihydrate and anhydrous forms of 

sodium citrate, otherwise known as 

citric acid sodium salt, and the 

monohydrate and monopotassium forms 

of potassium citrate. Sodium citrate also 

includes both trisodium citrate and 

monosodium citrate, which are also 

known as citric acid trisodium salt and 

citric acid monosodium salt, 

respectively. 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 3824.90.9290 of the 

HTSUS, respectively. Blends that 

include citric acid, sodium citrate, and 

potassium citrate are classifiable under 

3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, 

the written description of the 

merchandise is dispositive. 

Corporate Restructuring 

The respondent reported, and the 

Department verified, that during the 

POI, three subsidiaries of the 

Jungbunzlauer Group (JBL Group) were 

involved in the production and sale of 

citric acid to the United States. The 

production of citric acid in Canada 

involved two separate legal entities, 

JBLT and JBL Canada, Inc. JBLT was 

responsible for citric acid production 

and JBL Canada Inc. was responsible for 

infrastructure and personnel in 

connection with JBLT’s operations. The 

third entity, JBL Inc., located in the 

United States was responsible for selling 

products from the JBL Group (including 

JBLT) to the United States, Canada and 

Mexico. 

As noted above, during the course of 

this investigation JBLT informed the 

Department that it had undergone a 

corporate restructuring. We requested 

that JBLT submit a detailed explanation 

and supporting documentation of the 

corporate restructuring. We also 

provided the petitioners the opportunity 

to file comments. See January 23, 2009 

Memorandum to the File, and the 

16844 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Notices 

4See JBLT’s October 9, 2008, Response to 

Supplemental Questions Regarding Currency 

Conversions and Date of Sale at 3; and JBLT’s 

October 14, 2008, First Supplemental Questionnaire 

Response at 5–6. 

5Because we could not isolate the U.S. inland 

freight expenses that were affected by the 

inappropriate currency conversions, we are 

applying facts available to all reported U.S. inland 

freight expenses. 

January 9 and 14, 2009, submissions 

from JBLT. We did not receive 

comments from the petitioners on this 

matter. At verification we examined the 

corporate restructuring information 

submitted by JBLT (see Cost Verification 

Report at 4). 

Based on the corporate restructuring 

documentation, as verified, JBL Canada 

Inc., rather than JBLT, is the entity 

responsible for all the activities related 

to Canadian citric acid production and 

exportation, effective December 31, 

2008. Therefore, we will assign the final 

determination margin to JBL Canada, 

Inc. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the sales and cost 

information submitted by the 

respondent for use in our final 

determination. We used standard 

verification procedures including an 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, and original source 

documents provided by the respondent. 

Our sales and cost verification results 

are outlined in separate verification 

reports. See Sales Verification Report 

and Cost Verification Report. The 

verification reports are on file and 

available in the Central Records Unit, 

Room 1117 of the Commerce 

Department. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties 

to this investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Determination in the Less– 

Than-Fair–Value Investigation of Citric 

Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from 

Canada’’ from John Anderson, Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration (Decision Memo), dated 

April 6, 2009, which is hereby adopted 

by this notice. A list of the issues that 

parties have raised and to which we 

have responded, all of which are in the 

Decision Memo, is attached to this 

notice as an appendix. Parties can find 

a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this investigation and the 

corresponding recommendations in the 

Decision Memo, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the 

Commerce Department. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision Memo 

can be accessed directly on the Web at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the Decision 

Memo are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received and our findings at 

verification, we have made certain 

changes to the margin calculations for 

JBL Canada Inc. For a discussion of 

these changes, see the ‘‘Margin 

Calculations’’ section of the Decision 

Memo. 

Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department will apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if necessary 

information is not available on the 

record or an interested party: 1) 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; 2) fails to 

provide such information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form or 

manner requested by the Department, 

subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 

section 782 of the Act; 3) significantly 

impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides 

such information, but the information 

cannot be verified. As stated in the 

Preliminary Determination, our 

antidumping questionnaire instructs 

respondents to report prices and 

expenses in the currency in which they 

were incurred. See Preliminary 

Determination at 73 FR 70327. 

Nevertheless, in this case, the 

respondent reported data that had been 

converted from multiple currencies into 

Canadian dollars (CAD) in the home 

market, and into U.S. dollars (USD) in 

the U.S. market because its company– 

wide electronic data processing system 

(SAP) automatically converts all foreign 

currency transactions into the currency 

of the respective JBL Group entity at the 

moment of posting. According to the 

respondent, the entry of data and the 

currency conversion is a simultaneous 

process in its accounting system. As a 

result, SAP does not retain the original 

foreign currency amount in the sales 

database or in the general ledger.4 Based 

on the respondent’s representation that 

the currency conversion process is a 

company–wide procedure that is done 

in the normal course of business, we 

accepted the data as reported for the 

preliminary determination. However, 

we stated our intention to examine the 

reasonableness of the price and expense 

reporting based on this system at 

verification. See Preliminary 

Determination at 73 FR 70327. 

At verification, we found that the SAP 

system does maintain a record of the 

original currency from which entries 

were converted and the exchange rate 

used. Therefore, the price and expense 

data could have been reported in the 

original foreign currency amount as 

incurred. See Sales Verification Report 

at 4 and 5. Based on our verification 

findings, we believe that it was possible 

for the respondent to have reported 

prices and expenses in the currency in 

which they were incurred, contrary to 

the representation in the respondent’s 

questionnaire responses. For these 

reasons, we find that it is appropriate to 

resort to facts otherwise available to 

account for the unreported information. 

See, e.g., Canned Pineapple Fruit from 

Thailand, 68 FR 65247 (November 19, 

2003), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 20b 

where the Department applied facts 

otherwise available to a respondent that 

did not provide requested information. 

Therefore, we have determined that the 

gross unit prices for certain home 

market customers who were invoiced in 

USD during the POI (see the Sales 

Verification Report at Exhibit 4), and all 

U.S inland freight expenses should be 

based on facts available in accordance 

with sections 776(a)(2)(A),(B), and (D) of 

the Act.5

In selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, section 776(b) of 

the Act authorizes the Department to 

use an adverse inference if the 

Department finds that an interested 

party failed to cooperate by not acting 

to the best of its ability to comply with 

a request for information. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Stainless 

Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 

54025–26 (September 13, 2005); see also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Final 

Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon 

and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–96 (August 

30, 2002). The Statement of 

Administrative Action provides 

guidance by explaining that adverse 

inferences are appropriate ‘‘to ensure 

that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See 

Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, 

Vol. 1, at 870 (1994). Furthermore, 

‘‘affirmative evidence of bad faith on the 

part of a respondent is not required 

before the Department may make an 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Notices 16845 

adverse inference.’’ See Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 

27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also 

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 

F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 

(Nippon). Because: 1) the respondent 

had the necessary information within its 

control and it did not report this 

information; and 2) it failed to put forth 

its maximum effort to provide the 

requested information, we find that the 

respondent failed to cooperate to the 

best of its ability. Therefore, for the final 

determination, we are using facts 

available with an adverse inference and 

applying it to the gross unit prices of 

certain home market sales, and to all 

U.S. inland freight expenses. 

Specifically, as adverse facts available, 

we increased both the affected home 

market sales prices and the U.S. freight 

expenses by 1.16 percent, i.e., the 

percentage difference between the 

Department’s weighted–average POI 

exchange rate (used to convert 

comparison–market values to USD in 

the margin program), and JBLT’s POI 

average exchange rate (used by JBLT’s 

SAP system for currency conversion 

purposes). For further discussion, see 

Decision Memo at Comment 4 and the 

April 6, 2009, Memorandum to The File 

from Case Analyst, entitled 

‘‘Calculations Performed for 

Jungbunzlauer Technology GMBH & Co. 

KG for the Final Determination in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts 

from Canada.’’ 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all imports of subject 

merchandise that are entered or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after November 20, 

2008, the date of publication of the 

preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register. We will instruct CBP 

to continue to require a cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond for all companies 

based on the estimated weighted– 

average dumping margins shown below. 

The suspension of liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

weighted–average dumping margins 

exist for the period April 1, 2007, 

through March 31, 2008: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted Average 

Margin (percent) 

JBL Canada, Inc. .......... 23.21 

All Others ...................... 23.21 

All–Others Rate 

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

provides that the estimated ‘‘All– 

Others’’ rate shall be an amount equal 

to the weighted average of the estimated 

weighted–average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero or de minimis margins, and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. In this 

investigation the Department calculated 

a company–specific rate only for JBL 

Canada Inc. Therefore, for purposes of 

determining the all–others rate and 

pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the 

Act, we are using the weighted–average 

dumping margin calculated for JBL 

Canada, Inc., as referenced above. See, 

e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 

Italy, 64 FR 30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999); 

and Coated Free Sheet Paper from 

Indonesia: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination,, 72 FR 30753, 30757 

(June 4, 2007), unchanged in final 

determination, Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper 

from Indonesia, 72 FR 60636 (October 

25, 2007). 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our final determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

imports of the subject merchandise are 

causing material injury, or threat of 

material injury, to an industry in the 

United States. If the ITC determines that 

material injury or threat of injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

This notice will serve as the only 

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 

written notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act. 

Dated: April 6, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memo 

Comments 

Comment 1: Date of Sale and Whether 

to Exclude U.S. Sales Made Pursuant to 

Multiyear Contracts 

Comment 2: Indirect Selling Expenses 

Comment 3: Home Market Billing 

Adjustments 

Comment 4: Currency Conversions 

Reported for Certain Home Market Sales 

Prices and U.S. Freight Expenses 

Comment 5: Electricity Purchased from 

an Affiliate 

Comment 6: General and Administrative 

(G&A) Expense Ratio 

[FR Doc. E9–8357 Filed 4–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of the Census 

2010 Census Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census 

(U.S. Census Bureau) is giving notice of 

a meeting of the 2010 Census Advisory 

Committee. The Committee will address 

policy, research, and technical issues 

related to 2010 Decennial Census 

Programs. Last-minute changes to the 

agenda are possible, which could 

prevent giving advance notification of 

schedule changes. 

DATES: May 7–8, 2009. On May 7, the 

meeting will begin at approximately