56634 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Notices 

Antidumping Duty Proceedings Period to be Reviewed 

United Power Packaging Limited.

United Power Packaging Ltd.

High Den Enterprises Ltd.

Rally Plastics Co., Ltd.

Sea Lake Polyethylene Enterprise Ltd.

Shanghai Glopack, Inc.

Shanghai New Ai Lian Import & Export Co., Ltd.

Countervailing Duty Proceedings.

CANADA: Alloy Magnesium.

C–122–815 ................................................................................................................................................................ 1/1/04 - 12/31/04 

Magnola Metallurgy Inc.

Norsk Hydro Canada Inc.

CANADA: Pure Magnesium.

C–122–815 ................................................................................................................................................................ 1/1/04 - 12/31/04 

Magnola Metallurgy Inc.

Norsk Hydro Canada Inc.

FRANCE: Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products.

C–427–810 ................................................................................................................................................................ 1/1/04 - 12/31/04 

Duferco Coating SA.

Sorral SA.

REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products.

C–580–818 ................................................................................................................................................................ 1/1/04 - 12/31/04 

Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.

POSCO.

REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils.

C–580–835 ................................................................................................................................................................ 1/1/04 - 12/31/04 

Dai Yang Metal Co., Ltd.

REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors.

C–580–851 ................................................................................................................................................................ 1/1/04 - 12/31/04 

Hynix Semiconductor Inc. (formerly Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., Ltd.).

Suspension Agreements.

None.

1 If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single Vietnam entity of which the 

named exporters are a part. 2 If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of floor-standing metal-top ironing tables from 

the People’s Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporters are a part. 3 If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of petroleum wax candles from the People’s 

Republic of Chinawho have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which 

the named exporters are a part. 4 If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of polyethylene retail carrier bags from the 

People’s Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity 

of which the named exporters are a part. 

During any administrative review 

covering all or part of a period falling 

between the first and second or third 

and fourth anniversary of the 

publication of an antidumping duty 

order under section 351.211 or a 

determination under section 

351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or 

suspended investigation (after sunset 

review), the Secretary, if requested by a 

domestic interested party within 30 

days of the date of publication of the 

notice of initiation of the review, will 

determine, consistant with FAG Italia v. 

United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed Cir. 

2002), as appropriate, whether 

antidumping duties have been absorbed 

by an exporter or producer subject to the 

review if the subject merchandise is 

sold in the United States through an 

importer that is affiliated with such 

exporter or producer. The request must 

include the name(s) of the exporter or 

producer for which the inquiry is 

requested. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective orders in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

These initiations and this notice are 

in accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 USC 

1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). 

Dated: September 20, 2005. 

Holly A. Kuga, 

Senior Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, for Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–19364 Filed 9–27–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–846] 

Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of the Twelfth New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is currently 

conducting the twelfth new shipper 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on brake rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the 

period April 1, 2004, through September 

30, 2004. We preliminarily determine 

that no sales have been made below 

normal value (‘‘NV’’) with respect to the 

exporters who participated fully and are 

entitled to a separate rate in this review. 

If these preliminary results are adopted 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Notices 56635 

in our final results of this review, we 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) for which the importer–

specific assessment rates are above de 

minimis. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Bankhead (Dixion) or Kit Rudd 

(Wally) AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–9068 or 

(202) 482–1385, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

On April 17, 1997, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order: Brake Rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China, 62 

FR 18740 (April 17, 1997) (‘‘Brake 

Rotors Order’’). 

On October 28, 2004, the Department 

received timely requests for new 

shipper reviews under the antidumping 

duty order on brake rotors from the PRC 

in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), and section 351.214(c) of the 

Department’s regulations, from Laizhou 

Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wally’’) 

and Dixion Brake System (Longkou) Ltd. 

(‘‘Dixion’’). 

On November 24, 2004, the 

Department initiated these new shipper 

reviews for the period April 1, 2004, 

through September 30, 2004, for Wally 

and Dixion. See Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

the Twelfth New Shipper Antidumping 

Duty Review, 69 FR 70632 (December 7, 

2004). 

On December 3, 2004, the Department 

requested from the Office of Policy a 

memorandum listing surrogate 

countries. 

On December 6, 2004, the Department 

issued its Section A, C, and D of the 

General Antidumping Duty 

Questionnaire to Wally and Dixion. 

On December 7, 2004, the Department 

received from the Office of Policy a list 

of surrogate countries. On December 8, 

2004, the Department provided all 

interested parties the opportunity to 

submit information pertinent to 

selecting a surrogate country and 

valuing factors of production in this 

review. 

On December 20, 2004, the 

Department requested from CBP copies 

of all customs documents pertaining to 

the entry of brake rotors from the PRC 

exported by Wally and Dixion during 

the period of April 1, 2004, through 

September 30, 2004. See Memorandum 

from James C. Doyle, Office Director, to 

William R. Scopa of CBP, dated 

December 20, 2004. The Department 

also issued Wally and Dixion sales and 

cost reconciliation questionnaires on 

December 20, 2004. 

On January 21, 2005, Wally and 

Dixion submitted Sections A, C, D, and 

importer questionnaire responses along 

with their sales and cost reconciliations. 

On January 24, 2005, Dixion 

submitted an invoice to replace an 

invoice it claimed it inadvertently 

submitted in its January 21, 2005, 

response. 

On February 1, 2005, the Coalition for 

the Preservation of American Brake 

Drum and Rotor Aftermarket 

Manufacturers (‘‘Petitioners’’) submitted 

comments regarding Wally and Dixions’

questionnaire responses. 

On February 2, 2005, the Department 

placed documentation provided by CBP 

on the record pertaining to specific 

entries of brake rotors and/or brake 

drums exported by Wally and Dixion 

during the POR. 

On February 9, 2005, Wally and 

Dixion provided information for valuing 

factors of production in this review. 

On March, 11, 2005, the Department 

sent Dixion a supplemental Sections A, 

C, and D questionnaire, as well as a 

supplemental importer questionnaire. 

On March 14, 2005, the Department 

sent Wally a supplemental Sections A, 

C, D questionnaire, as well as a 

supplemental importer questionnaire. 

On April 8, 2005, Wally and Dixion 

submitted their responses to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaires. 

On April 25, 2005, the Department 

extended the time limit for the 

preliminary results of the instant review 

on brake rotors from the PRC. See Brake 

Rotors from the People’s Republic of 

China: Extension of the New Shipper 

Antidumping Duty Reviews, 70 FR 

22298 (April 29, 2005). 

On June 22, 2005, the Department 

sent Wally and Dixion a second 

supplemental on Sections A, C, and D 

of the antidumping questionnaires and 

on the importer questionnaires. On July 

14, 2005, Dixion submitted its second 

supplemental Sections A, C, and D of 

the antidumping questionnaire and on 

the importer questionnaire. On July 20, 

2005, Wally submitted its response to 

the second supplemental Sections A, C, 

and D questionnaire as well as the 

second importer questionnaire. 

On July 25, 2005, the Department 

issued Dixion a third supplemental 

sections A, C, and D of the antidumping 

questionnaire and the importer 

questionnaire. On July 29, 2005, the 

Department issued Dixion an additional 

questionnaire. 

On August 4, 2005, Wally submitted 

its supplemental questionnaire response 

on August 4, 2005. On August 8, 2005, 

Dixion submitted its third and fourth 

supplemental questionnaire responses. 

On August 10, 2005, Petitioners 

submitted verification comments for 

Wally. 

On August 29, 2005, Wally and 

Dixion submitted their verification 

exhibits to the Department. 

Period of Review 

The POR covers April 1, 2004, 

through September 30, 2004. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, 

whether finished, semifinished, or 

unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 

to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) 

and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 

to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters 

(weight and dimension) of the brake 

rotors limit their use to the following 

types of motor vehicles: automobiles, 

all–terrain vehicles, vans and 

recreational vehicles under ‘‘one ton 

and a half,’’ and light trucks designated 

as ‘‘one ton and a half.’’

Finished brake rotors are those that 

are ready for sale and installation 

without any further operations. Semi–

finished rotors are those on which the 

surface is not entirely smooth, and have 

undergone some drilling. Unfinished 

rotors are those which have undergone 

some grinding or turning. 

These brake rotors are for motor 

vehicles, and do not contain in the 

casting a logo of an original equipment 

manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) which produces 

vehicles sold in the United States. (i.e., 

General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, 

Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in 

this order are not certified by OEM 

producers of vehicles sold in the United 

States. The scope also includes 

composite brake rotors that are made of 

gray cast iron, which contain a steel 

plate, but otherwise meet the above 

criteria. Excluded from the scope of this 

order are brake rotors made of gray cast 

iron, whether finished, semifinished, or 

unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 

inches or greater than 16 inches (less 

than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 

40.64 centimeters) and a weight less 

than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds 

(less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than 

20.41 kilograms). 

56636 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Notices 

Brake rotors are currently classifiable 

under subheading 8708.39.5010 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 scope of this 

order is dispositive. 

Verification 

On August 4, 2005, the Department 

issued verification outlines to Wally and 

Dixion. The Department conducted 

verification of the questionnaire 

responses of Wally during the period 

August 15 through 17, 2005, and Dixion 

from August 18 through August 20, 

2005. On September 20, 2005, the 

Department issued the verification 

reports for Wally and Dixion. 

We used standard verification 

procedures, including on–site 

inspection of the manufacturers’ and 

exporters’ facilities, and examination of 

relevant sales and financial records. Our 

verification results are outlined in the 

verification report for each company. 

For further discussion, see September 

20, 2005, verification reports for Dixion 

and Wally (‘‘Dixion Verification 

Report’’) and (‘‘Wally Verification 

Report’’). 

New Shipper Status - Wally and Dixion 

Consistent with our practice, we 

investigated the bona fide nature of the 

sales made by Wally and Dixion for this 

new shipper review. We found no 

evidence that the sales in question were 

not bona fide sales. Based on our 

investigation into the bona fide nature 

of the sales, the questionnaire responses 

submitted by each company, and our 

verification thereof, we preliminarily 

determine that both respondents have 

met the requirements to qualify as a new 

shipper during the POR, and that 

neither was affiliated with any exporter 

or producer that had previously shipped 

subject merchandise to the United 

States. Therefore, for purposes of these 

preliminary results of the review, we are 

treating both respondents’ sales of brake 

rotors to the United States as 

appropriate transactions for this new 

shipper review. See Memorandum from 

Nicole Bankhead, Case Analyst, through 

Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, 

Office 9, to James C. Doyle, Office 

Director, Office 9, 12th New Shipper 

Review of Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): 

Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the New 

Shipper Review of Dixion Brake System 

(Longkou) Ltd., dated September 20, 

2005; see also Memorandum from 

Nicole Bankhead, Case Analyst, through 

Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, 

Office 9, to James C. Doyle, Office 

Director, Office 9, 12th New Shipper 

Review of Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): 

Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the New 

Shipper Review of Laizhou Wally 

Automobile Co., Ltd., dated September 

20, 2005. 

Separate Rates 

The Department has treated the PRC 

as a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country in all previous antidumping 

cases. See, i.e., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 70997 

(December 8, 2004). In accordance with 

section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. We have no evidence 

suggesting that this determination 

should be changed. Therefore, we 

treated the PRC as an NME country for 

purposes of this review and calculated 

NV by valuing the FOP in a surrogate 

country. It is the Department’s policy to 

assign all exporters of the merchandise 

subject to review that are located in 

NME countries a single antidumping 

duty rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate an absence of governmental 

control, both in law (de jure) and in fact 

(de facto), with respect to its export 

activities. To establish whether an 

exporter is sufficiently independent of 

governmental control to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the Department analyzes 

the exporter using the criteria 

established in the Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Sparklers from the People’s Republic of 

China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) 

(‘‘Sparklers’’), as amplified in the Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). 

Under the separate rates criteria 

established in these cases, the 

Department assigns separate rates to 

NME exporters only if they can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto governmental control over 

their export activities. 

Absence of De Jure Control 

Evidence supporting, though not 

requiring, a finding of de jure absence 

of government control over export 

activities includes: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

the individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers at 20589. 

In the instant review, Wally and 

Dixion submitted complete responses to 

the separate rates section of the 

Department’s questionnaire. The 

evidence submitted in the instant 

review by these Respondents includes 

government laws and regulations on 

corporate ownership, business licences, 

and narrative information regarding the 

companies’ operations and selection of 

management. The evidence provided by 

Wally and Dixion supports a finding of 

a de jure absence of governmental 

control over their export activities 

because: (1) there are no controls on 

exports of subject merchandise, such as 

quotas applied to, or licenses required 

for, exports of the subject merchandise 

to the United States; and (2) the subject 

merchandise does not appear on any 

government list regarding export 

provisions or export licensing. 

Absence of De Facto Control 

The absence of de facto governmental 

control over exports is based on whether 

the Respondent: (1) sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and other exporters; (2) retains the 

proceeds from its export sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

the disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; and (4) has autonomy from 

the government regarding the selection 

of management. See Silicon Carbide at 

22587; Sparklers at 20589; see also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl 

Alcohol from the People’s Republic of 

China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 

1995). 

In their questionnaire responses, 

Wally and Dixion submitted evidence 

indicating an absence of de facto 

governmental control over their export 

activities. Specifically, this evidence 

indicates that: (1) each company sets its 

own export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) each 

company retains the proceeds from its 

sales and makes independent decisions 

regarding the disposition of profits or 

financing of losses; (3) each company 

has a general manager, branch manager 

or division manager with the authority 

to negotiate and bind the company in an 

agreement; (4) the general manager is 

selected by the board of directors or 

company employees, and the general 

manager appoints the deputy managers 

and the manager of each department; 

and (5) there is no restriction on either 

companies use of export revenues. 

Therefore, the Department has 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Notices 56637 

preliminarily found that Wally and 

Dixion have established prima facie that 

they qualify for separate rates under the 

criteria established by Silicon Carbide 

and Sparklers. 

Use of Partial Facts Available for Wally 

and Dixion 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides 

that, if an interested party: (A) 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested, subject to sections 782(c)(1) 

and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly 

impedes a proceeding under the 

antidumping statute; or (D) provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified, the Department 

shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that ‘‘if the administrating 

authority finds that an interested party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information from the 

administering authority or the 

Commission, the administering 

authority or the Commission ..., in 

reaching the applicable determination 

under this title, may use an inference 

that is adverse to the interests of that 

party in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.’’ See also Statement 

of Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’) 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’), H.R. Rep. 

No. 103–316 at 870 (1994). 

For the reasons explained below, and 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the 

Act, the Department has preliminarily 

determined that the use of a partial facts 

available is warranted for the selection 

of certain surrogate values. On January 

21, 2005, Wally and Dixion each 

submitted the material inputs used in 

their production of subject merchandise 

during the POR. See Wally’s January 21, 

2005, Questionnaire Response (‘‘Wally 

QR’’); see also Dixion’s January 21, 

2005, Questionnaire Response (‘‘Dixion 

QR’’). On March, 11, 2005, the 

Department sent Dixion a supplemental 

Sections A, C, and D questionnaire and 

on March 14, 2005, the Department sent 

Wally a supplemental Sections A, C, D 

questionnaire; the Department requested 

material specifications for certain 

material inputs Respondents reported 

using to produce subject merchandise 

during the POR. Wally and Dixion each 

provided the specifications of their 

material inputs as requested by the 

Department. See Wally’s April 8, 2005 

Supplemental Questionnaire Response 

at pages 21 - 23 (‘‘Wally SQR’’); see also 

Dixion’s April 8, 2005 Supplemental 

Questionnaire Response at pages 22 - 23 

(‘‘Dixion SQR’’). Respondents’ provided 

the specifications regarding the 

phosphorous content of the pig iron, the 

carbon and manganese contents of the 

ferromanganese, and the silicon content 

of the ferrosilicon they used to produce 

subject merchandise during the POR. Id. 

Additionally, Wally reported that the 

limestone it used in the production 

process was not limestone flux. See 

Wally SQR at 22. 

The Department conducted 

verification of the questionnaire 

responses of Wally during the period 

August 15 through 17, 2005, and Dixion 

from August 18 through August 20, 

2005. While at verification the 

Department was unable to verify the 

specifications reported by Respondents 

in their questionnaire responses for the 

following material inputs: pig iron, 

ferromanganese, and ferrosilicon. See 

Dixion Verification Report; see also 

Wally verification report. The 

Department was also unable to verify 

Wally’s statement that it did not use 

limestone flux. Id. The Department was 

thus unable to verify certain information 

provided by the Respondents; therefore, 

the use of facts available pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act is 

appropriate. 

The Department, however, finds that 

Respondents acted to the best of their 

ability, and we have not used an adverse 

inference, as provided under section 

776(b) of the Act, to value their factors 

of production. Specifically, though the 

Respondents were unable to support 

their claims regarding the chemical 

content of certain inputs used, the 

Department found that the Respondents 

submitted the highest surrogate values 

as being representative of their actual 

factors of production for pig iron and 

ferrosilicon. See Respondents’ February 

9, 2005, Factor Value submission. Thus, 

for the preliminary results, the 

Department is applying the highest 

surrogate value to these inputs, which is 

the value that Respondents proposed 

the Department use to value these 

inputs, as facts available. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base 

normal value (‘‘NV’’), in most 

circumstances, on the NME producer’s 

factors of production, valued in a 

surrogate market–economy country or 

countries considered to be appropriate 

by the Department. In accordance with 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing 

the factors of production, the 

Department shall utilize, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of factors of 

production in one or more market–

economy countries that are at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country and are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The sources of the 

surrogate values we have used in this 

investigation are discussed under the 

‘‘Normal Value’’ section below. 

The Department determined that 

India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 

Philippines, and Egypt are countries 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development. See 

Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, 

Office of Policy, Acting Director, to 

Brian C. Smith, Program Manager: 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC): 

Request for a List of Surrogate 

Countries, dated December 7, 2004. We 

select an appropriate surrogate country 

based on the availability and reliability 

of data from the countries. See 

Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: 

Non–Market Economy Surrogate 

Country Selection Process (‘‘Policy 

Bulletin’’), dated March 1, 2004. In this 

case, we have found that India is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, is at a similar level of 

economic development pursuant to 

773(c)(4) of the Act, and has publicly 

available and reliable data. See 

Memorandum from Nicole Bankhead, 

Case Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, Office 9 and James C. 

Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, to The 

File, 12th New Shipper Review of Brake 

Rotors from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’): Selection of a Surrogate 

Country, dated September 20, 2005 

(‘‘Surrogate Country Memo’’). 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, the Department calculated 

export prices (‘‘EPs’’) for sales to the 

United States for Wally and Dixion 

because the first sale to an unaffiliated 

party was made before the date of 

importation and the use of constructed 

EP (‘‘CEP’’) was not otherwise 

warranted. We calculated EP based on 

the price to unaffiliated purchasers in 

the United States. In accordance with 

section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, 

we deducted from the starting price to 

unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland 

freight, brokerage and handling, 

international freight, and marine 

insurance. For Wally, each of these 

services was either provided by a NME 

vendor or paid for using a NME 

currency. Thus, we based the deduction 

for these movement charges on 

surrogate values. For Dixion, 

56638 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Notices 

international freight was provided by a 

market economy provider and paid in 

U.S. dollars, and therefore we used the 

actual cost per kilogram of the freight. 

See Memorandum from Nicole 

Bankhead, Case Analyst, through Alex 

Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 

and James C. Doyle, Office Director, 

Office 9, to The File, 12th New Shipper 

Review of Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): 

Surrogate Values for the Preliminary 

Results, dated September 20, 2005 

(‘‘Surrogate Values Memo’’) for details 

regarding the surrogate values for other 

movement expenses. 

Normal Value 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on 

factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) reported 

by the Respondents for the POR. To 

calculate NV, we valued the reported 

FOP by multiplying the per–unit factor 

quantities by publicly available Indian 

surrogate values. In selecting surrogate 

values, we considered the quality, 

specificity, and contemporaneity of the 

available values. As appropriate, we 

adjusted the value of material inputs to 

account for delivery costs. Where 

appropriate, we increased Indian 

surrogate values by surrogate inland 

freight costs. We calculated these inland 

freight costs using the shorter of the 

reported distances from the PRC port to 

the PRC factory, or from the domestic 

supplier to the factory. This adjustment 

is in accordance with the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s (‘‘CAFC’’) decision in Sigma 

Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 

1407–1408 (Fed.Cir. 1997). For those 

values not contemporaneous with the 

POR, we adjusted for inflation or 

deflation using data published in the 

IMF’s International Financial Statistics. 

We excluded from the surrogate country 

import data used in our calculations 

imports from Korea, Thailand, and 

Indonesia due to generally available 

export subsidies. See China Nat’l Mach. 

Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 

CIT 01–1114, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 

2003), aff’d 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. 

Cir. 2004) and Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: 

Notice of Final Results and Final Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 12651 

(March 15, 2005) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 4. Furthermore, we 

disregarded prices from NME countries. 

Finally, imports that were labeled as 

originating from an ‘‘unspecified’’

country were excluded from the average 

value, because the Department could 

not be certain that they were not from 

either an NME or a country with general 

export subsidies. We converted the 

surrogate values to U.S. dollars as 

appropriate, using the official exchange 

rate recorded on the dates of sale of 

subject merchandise in this case, 

obtained from Import Administration’s 

website at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

exchange/index.html. For further detail, 

see the Surrogate Values Memo. 

Preliminary Results of Reviews 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following margins exist during the 

period April 1, 2004, through September 

30, 2004: 

BRAKE ROTORS FROM THE PRC 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Wally’’) .................... 0.00 

Dixion Brake System 

(Longkou) Ltd. 

(‘‘Dixion’’) ................... 6.61 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose to 

parties to this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within ten days of 

the date of announcement of the 

preliminary results. An interested party 

may request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of the preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested 

parties may submit written comments 

(case briefs) within 30 days of 

publication of the preliminary results 

and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), 

which must be limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, within five days after 

the time limit for filing case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit 

arguments are requested to submit with 

the argument: (1) a statement of the 

issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

Further, the Department requests that 

parties submitting written comments 

provide the Department with a diskette 

containing the public version of those 

comments. Unless the deadline is 

extended pursuant to section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department 

will issue the final results of this new 

shipper review, including the results of 

our analysis of the issues raised by the 

parties in their comments, within 120 

days of publication of the preliminary 

results. The assessment of antidumping 

duties on entries of merchandise 

covered by this review and future 

deposits of estimated duties shall be 

based on the final results of this review. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuing the final results of the 

review, the Department shall determine, 

and CBP shall assess and liquidate, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. The Department will issue 

appropriate appraisement instructions 

for the companies subject to this review 

directly to CBP within 15 days of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer–specific ad valorem duty 

assessment rates based on the ratio of 

the total amount of the dumping 

margins calculated for the examined 

sales to the total entered value of those 

same sales. We will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if any importer–specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Upon completion of this review, we 

will require cash deposits at the rate 

established in the final results as further 

described below. 

Bonding will no longer be permitted 

to fulfill security requirements for 

shipments of brake rotors from the PRC 

produced and exported by Wally and 

Dixion that are entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date of the final 

results of the new shipper reviews. The 

following cash deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

final results of the new shipper reviews 

for all shipments of subject merchandise 

from Wally and Dixion entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date: (1) for subject merchandise 

manufactured and exported by Wally 

and Dixion, the cash deposit rate will be 

the rate established in the final results 

of this review, except that no cash 

deposit will be required if the cash 

deposit rate calculated in the final 

results is zero or de minimis; and (2) for 

subject merchandise exported by Wally 

or Dixion but not manufactured by 

Wally or Dixion, respectively, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the PRC 

countrywide rate (i.e., 43.32 percent); 

and (3) for subject merchandise 

produced by Wally or Dixion but not 

exported by the same company, the cash 

deposit rate will be the rate applicable 

to the exporter. These requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until publication of the final results of 

the next administrative review. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Notices 56639 

1The Fresh Garlic Producers Association and its 

individual members (Christopher Ranch L.L.C., The 

Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and 

Company, Inc). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

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 new shipper review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.214. 

Dated: September 20, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–19363 Filed 9–27–05; 8:45 am] 

Billing Code: 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Notice of Amended Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 13, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published the final results 

of its administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’) for the period from November 

1, 2002, through October 31, 2003, in 

the Federal Register. See Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 34082, and 

accompanying ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum,’’ dated June 6, 2005 

(‘‘Final Results’’). We released the 

disclosure documents to the 

respondents on June 14, 2005, and to 

the petitioners1 on June 16, 2005. On 

June 20, 2005, the following parties filed 

timely allegations that the Department 

made various ministerial errors in the 

Final Results: Jinan Yipin Corporation 

Ltd. (‘‘Jinan Yipin’’), Linshu Dading 

Private Agricultural Co., Ltd. (‘‘Linshu 

Dading’’), Sunny Import and Export Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Sunny’’), Taian Fook Huat Tong 

Kee Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (‘‘FHTK’’), 

Taiyan Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Ziyang’’), and Zhengzhou Harmoni 

Spice Co., Ltd. (‘‘Harmoni’’). On June 

23, 2005, the petitioners submitted 

rebuttal comments to one of the 

ministerial error allegations filed 

collectively by Jinan Yipin, Linshu 

Dading, Sunny, and Harmoni. In 

addition, when examining the 

ministerial error allegations raised by 

FHTK and Ziyang, the Department 

found other ministerial errors. Ziyang 

and FHTK filed complaints with the 

Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’), 

challenging the final results of review 

on June 14, and June 15, 2005, 

respectively. On July 26, 2005, Harmoni, 

Jinan Yipin, Linshu Dading, and Sunny 

filed similar complaints with the CIT, 

challenging the final results of review. 

On August 9 and August 10, 2005, 

Jinxiang Dongyun Freezing Storage Co. 

Ltd. and the petitioners, respectively, 

also filed complaints with the CIT, 

challenging the final results of review. 

When the interested parties noted above 

filed their complaints with the CIT the 

Department no longer had jurisdiction 

to correct the ministerial errors. 

Therefore, the Department requested 

leave from the CIT to correct these 

errors. On September 15, 2005, the CIT 

granted the Department leave to correct 

the errors. 

We are amending our Final Results to 

correct ministerial errors for 

respondents Jinan Yipin, Linshu 

Dading, FHTK, Ziyang, and Harmoni 

pursuant to section 751(h) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sochieta Moth, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0168. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this 

antidumping duty order are all grades of 

garlic, whole or separated into 

constituent cloves, whether or not 

peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, 

provisionally preserved, or packed in 

water or other neutral substance, but not 

prepared or preserved by the addition of 

other ingredients or heat processing. 

The differences between grades are 

based on color, size, sheathing, and 

level of decay. 

The scope of this order does not 

include the following: (a) garlic that has 

been mechanically harvested and that is 

primarily, but not exclusively, destined 

for non–fresh use; or (b) garlic that has 

been specially prepared and cultivated 

prior to planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed. 

The subject merchandise is used 

principally as a food product and for 

seasoning. The subject garlic is 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 

0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 

0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 

2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. In order to be 

excluded from the antidumping duty 

order, garlic entered under the HTSUS 

subheadings listed above that is (1) 

mechanically harvested and primarily, 

but not exclusively, destined for non–

fresh use or (2) specially prepared and 

cultivated prior to planting and then 

harvested and otherwise prepared for 

use as seed must be accompanied by 

declarations to the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to that effect. 

Amendment to Final Determination 

In accordance with sections 751(a) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act, on June 13, 

2005, the Department published the 

Final Results. On June 20, 2005, the 

following parties filed timely allegations 

that the Department made various 

ministerial errors in the Final 

Determination: Jinan Yipin, Linshu 

Dading, Sunny Import and Export Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Sunny’’), FHTK, Ziyang, and 

Harmoni. On June 23, 2005, the 

petitioners submitted rebuttal comments 

to one of the ministerial error 

allegations filed by Jinan Yipin, Linshu 

Dading, Sunny, and Harmoni. 

After analyzing all interested parties’

comments and rebuttal comments, we 

have determined, in accordance with 

section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.224(e), that the Department has 

made ministerial errors in the final 

determination calculations for Harmoni, 

Jinan Yipin, Linshu Dading, FHTK, and 

Ziyang. In addition, when examining 

FHTK’s and Ziyang’s ministerial error 

allegations, the Department found 

additional ministerial errors that 

affected our margin calculations in the 

Final Results. For a detailed discussion 

of these ministerial errors, and our 

analysis, see Memorandum from 

Barbara E. Tillman to Joseph A. Spetrini 

re: Issues and Decision Memorandum 

for the Amended Final Determination in 

the Administrative Review on Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China, dated September 22, 2005