24578 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting a new 

shipper review (NSR) of Qingdao Sea– 

line International Trade Co. Ltd. 

(Qingdao Sea–line) under the 

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) covering the period of review 

(POR) of November 1, 2008 through 

April 30, 2009. As discussed below, we 

preliminarily determine that Qingdao 

Sea–line has made sales in the United 

States at prices below normal value 

(NV). Qingdao Sea–line has participated 

fully in the review and has 

demonstrated its eligibility for a 

separate rate in this NSR. The dumping 

margin is set forth in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of the Review’’ section below. If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

our final results of review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties on entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR for which importer– 

specific assessment rates are above de 

minimis. We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

See ‘‘Comments’’ section below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0780. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 21, 2009, pursuant to section 

751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.214(c), the Department received a 

NSR request from Qingdao Sea–line. On 

June 24, 2009, the Department 

determined that the request submitted 

by Qingdao Sea–line met the threshold 

requirements for initiation of a NSR and 

initiated Qingdao Sea–line’s NSR. See 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic 

of China: Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 31241 

(June 30, 2009). 

On October 29, 2009, the Department 

placed a copy of the CBP data run on 

the record of this review, which 

contains all entries of subject 

merchandise exported from the PRC to 

the United States during the POR. See 

Memorandum to the File, from The 

Team, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Re: 

New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Customs Entries from November 1, 2008 

through April 30, 2009 (October 29, 

2009). On April 20, 2010, the 

Department placed copies of CBP 

documents on the record of this review 

pertaining to Qingdao Sea–line’s 

shipment of garlic from the PRC 

exported to the United States during the 

POR. See Memorandum to the File, from 

Scott Lindsay, Senior Case Analyst, Re: 

New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Customs Entry Package (April 20, 2010). 

Since the initiation of this review, the 

Department has issued original and 

supplemental questionnaires to Qingdao 

Sea–line, which Qingdao Sea–line has 

responded to in a timely manner. On 

October 13, 2009, the Department sent 

interested parties a letter requesting 

comments on the surrogate country 

selection and information pertaining to 

valuing factors of production. See Letter 

to Interested Parties, from the 

Department, Re: New Shipper Review of 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’) (October 13, 2009). On 

November 19, 2009, the Department 

extended the preliminary results of this 

NSR to no later than April 20, 2010. See 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China: Extension of Time Limit for 

the Preliminary Results of the New 

Shipper Review, 74 FR 59962 

(November 19, 2009). As explained in 

the memorandum from the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary (DAS) for Import 

Administration, the Department 

exercised its discretion to toll deadlines 

for the duration of the closure of the 

Federal Government from February 5 

through February 12, 2010. Thus, all 

deadlines in this segment of the 

proceeding were extended by seven 

days. See Memorandum to the Record 

from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 

Administration, Re: Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm (February 12, 2010). 

Therefore, the deadline for the 

preliminary results of this review was 

extended to April 27, 2010. 

On January 15, 2010, Qingdao Sea– 

line submitted comments on the 

surrogate country selection and 

information pertaining to valuing factors 

of production. See Letter to the 

Department, from Qingdao Sea–line, Re: 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China Surrogate Value Information 

for 15th New Shipper Review (January 

15, 2010) (Qingdao Sea–line’s Surrogate 

Value Submission). The Fresh Garlic 

Producers Association (FGPA) and its 

individual members (Christopher Ranch 

L.L.C., the Garlic Company, Valley 

Garlic, and Vessey and Company, Inc.) 

(collectively, Petitioners) also submitted 

comments regarding surrogate values for 

this NSR. See Letter to the Department, 

from Petitioners, Re: 15th New Shipper 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China (January 14, 2010) 

(Petitioners’ Surrogate Value Data). No 

other party has submitted surrogate 

values or surrogate country comments 

on the record of this proceeding. 

On March 26, 2010, Petitioners 

submitted on the record documents and 

data that, it maintains, call into question 

the U.S. price reported by Qingdao Sea– 

line for its garlic. On April 13, 2010, 

Qingdao Sea–line submitted a response 

to Petitioners’ March 26, 2010, 

submission. In its response, Qingdao 

Sea–line argued that the U.S. sales 

information it placed on the record was 

complete, accurate, and supported by 

third party documentation. Therefore, 

Qingdao Sea–line argued, it is 

appropriate for the Department to utilize 

its reported U.S. sales information for 

these preliminary results. On April 16, 

2010, the Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire regarding 

the information contained in 

Petitioners’ submission. A response to 

this questionnaire was received on April 

22, 2010. The Department notes that this 

questionnaire response was received too 

late to be considered for this 

preliminary determination. The 

Department will therefore consider 

these submissions in its analysis for the 

final results. 

Period of Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g), the 

POR covered by this NSR is November 

1, 2008 through April 30, 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Notices 24579 

1See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less 

than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 

1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 

61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). 

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 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 CBP 

to that effect. 

Non–Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non–market 

economy (NME) country. 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. See, e.g., Brake Rotors From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

2004/2005 Administrative Review and 

Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New 

Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 

(November 14, 2006). None of the 

parties to this proceeding have 

contested such treatment. Accordingly, 

we calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Separate Rates 

As noted above, designation of a 

country as an NME remains in effect 

until it is revoked by the Department. 

See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. 

Accordingly, there is a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the PRC are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assessed a 

single antidumping duty rate. 

It is the Department’s standard policy 

to assign all exporters of the 

merchandise subject to review in NME 

countries a single rate unless an 

exporter can affirmatively demonstrate 

an absence of government control, both 

in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), 

with respect to its exports. To establish 

whether a company is sufficiently 

independent to be entitled to a separate, 

company–specific rate, the Department 

analyzes each exporting entity in an 

NME country under the test established 

in the Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China (Sparklers), 

56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified 

by the Notice of 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). 

The Department’s separate–rate status 

test to determine whether the exporter 

is independent from government control 

does not consider, in general, 

macroeconomic/border–type controls 

(e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices), particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on 

controls over the investment, pricing, 

and output decision–making process at 

the individual firm level.1

A. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

an individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; and (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies. 

Throughout the course of this 

proceeding, Qingdao Sea–line has 

placed documentation on the record to 

demonstrate absence of de jure control 

including business licenses, financial 

statements, and narrative information 

regarding government laws and 

regulations on corporate ownership and 

the companies’ operations and selection 

of management. In addition, Qingdao 

Sea–line has placed on the record 

copies of certain laws and regulations, 

including the ‘‘Company Law of the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ the 

‘‘Foreign trade Law of the PRC,’’ and 

‘‘Regulations of the PRC on the 

Administration of Company 

Registration.’’ The Department has 

analyzed these PRC laws and found that 

they establish an absence of de jure 

control. See, e.g., Honey from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 102, 105 (January 3, 

2007), unchanged in Honey from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 37715, 37716 (July 11, 

2007). We have no information in this 

proceeding that would cause us to 

reconsider this determination. Thus, we 

determine that the evidence on the 

record supports a preliminary finding of 

an absence of de jure government 

control of Qingdao Sea–line based on: 

(1) an absence of restrictive stipulations 

associated with the exporter’s business 

license; and (2) the legal authority on 

the record decentralizing control over 

the respondent. 

B. Absence of De Facto Control 

As stated in previous cases, there is 

evidence that certain enactments of the 

PRC central government have not been 

implemented uniformly among different 

sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. 

See, e.g., Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87. Therefore, the Department 

has determined that an analysis of de 

facto control is critical in determining 

whether the respondents are, in fact, 

subject to a degree of government 

control which would preclude the 

Department from assigning separate 

rates. 

The absence of de facto governmental 

control over exports is based on whether 

a company: (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, e.g., Silicon 

Carbide, 59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers, 

56 FR 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 Qingdao Sea–line’s questionnaire 

responses, it submitted evidence 

indicating an absence of de facto 

governmental control over its export 

activities. Specifically, this evidence 

indicates that: (1) Qingdao Sea–line sets 

its own export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) Qingdao 

Sea–line retains the proceeds from its 

sales and makes independent decisions 

regarding the disposition of profits or 

financing of losses; (3) Qingdao Sea–line 

has an executive director and general 

manager with the authority to negotiate 

and bind the company in an agreement; 

(4) the general manager is selected by 

the owners of the company, and the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
24580 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Notices 

general manager appoints the manager 

of each department; and (5) there is no 

restriction on Qingdao Sea–line’s use of 

export revenues. The questionnaire 

responses of Qingdao Sea–line do not 

suggest that pricing is coordinated 

among exporters. The Department 

conducted a separate rate analysis for 

Qingdao Sea–line. During our analysis 

of the information on the record, we 

found no information indicating the 

existence of de facto government 

control. Therefore, the Department 

preliminarily finds that Qingdao Sea– 

line has established, prima facie, that it 

qualifies for separate rate status under 

the criteria established by Silicon 

Carbide and Sparklers. 

Bona Fides Analysis 

Consistent with Department practice, 

we examined the bona fides of the new 

shipper sale at issue. In evaluating 

whether or not a sale in a NSR is 

commercially reasonable, and therefore 

bona fide, the Department considers, 

inter alia, such factors as: (1) the timing 

of the sale; (2) the price and quantity; (3) 

the expenses arising from the 

transaction; (4) whether the goods were 

resold at a profit; and (5) whether the 

transaction was made on an arm’s– 

length basis. See Tianjin Tiancheng 

Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 

(Court of International Trade (CIT) 2005) 

(TTPC). Accordingly, the Department 

considers a number of factors in its bona 

fides analysis, ‘‘all of which may speak 

to the commercial realities surrounding 

an alleged sale of subject merchandise.’’ 

See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid 

Co., Ltd. v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 

2d 1333, 1342 (CIT 2005) (New 

Donghua) (citing Fresh Garlic From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Administrative 

Review and Rescission of New Shipper 

Review, 67 FR 11283 (March 13, 2002) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum: New Shipper Review of 

Clipper Manufacturing Ltd.). In TTPC, 

the court also affirmed the Department’s 

decision that ‘‘any factor which 

indicates that the sale under 

consideration is not likely to be typical 

of those which the producer will make 

in the future is relevant,’’ (TTPC, 366 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1250), and found that ‘‘the 

weight given to each factor investigated 

will depend on the circumstances 

surrounding the sale.’’ TTPC, 366 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1263. Finally, in New 

Donghua, the CIT affirmed the 

Department’s practice of evaluating the 

circumstances surrounding a NSR sale, 

so that a respondent does not unfairly 

benefit from an atypical sale and obtain 

a lower dumping margin than the 

producer’s usual commercial practice 

would dictate. 

We preliminarily find that the sale 

made by Qingdao Sea–line during the 

POR was a bona fide commercial 

transaction based on the totality of 

circumstances, namely: (1) the price 

reported by Qingdao Sea–line; (2) 

neither Qingdao Sea–line nor its 

customer incurred any extraordinary 

expenses arising from the transaction; 

(3) the sale was made between 

unaffiliated parties at arm’s length; and 

(4) the timing of the sale does not 

indicate that this sale was not bona fide. 

However, we note that the Department 

will continue to examine all aspects of 

Qingdao Sea–line’s POR sale including 

whether it is atypical, and, as such, not 

indicative of what its future sales may 

be. Since much of our analysis regarding 

the evidence of the bona fides of the 

transaction involves business 

proprietary information, a full 

discussion of the bases for our 

preliminary decision is set forth in the 

Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, 

Director Office 6, Re: Bona Fides 

Analysis of the Sale in the Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’): Qingdao Sea–line 

International Trading Co., Ltd. New 

Shipper Review (April 27, 2010) 

(Qingdao Sea–line’s Preliminary Bona 

Fides Memorandum). As discussed 

above, we will continue to examine the 

bona fides of Qingdao Sea–line’s sale. 

Based on our preliminary findings 

that: 1) Qingdao Sea–line’s sale is bona 

fide; 2) Qingdao Sea–line is eligible for 

a separate rate (see the ‘‘Separate Rates’’ 

section above); 3) Qingdao Sea–line is 

not affiliated with any exporter or 

producer that had previously shipped 

subject merchandise to the United 

States; and 4) Jinxiang County 

Juxinyuan Trading Co. Ltd. (Jinxiang 

Juxinyuan), the producer of the subject 

merchandise, did not export the subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POI, we preliminarily determine 

that Qingdao Sea–line has met the 

requirements to qualify as a new 

shipper during the POR. Therefore, for 

purposes of these preliminary results, 

we are treating the single sale of subject 

merchandise exported to the United 

States by Qingdao Sea–line and 

produced by Jinxiang Juxinyuan during 

the POR, to be an appropriate 

transaction for this review. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department investigates 

imports from an NME country, section 

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

Normal Value (NV) on the NME 

producer’s factors of production (FOPs), 

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 FOPs, the 

Department shall utilize, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in 

one or more market economy countries 

that are: (1) at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country; and (2) significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

Moreover, it is the Department’s 

practice to 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 

(March 1, 2004) (Policy Bulletin). 

As discussed in the ‘‘Non–Market 

Economy Country Status’’ section above, 

the Department considers the PRC to be 

an NME country. Pursuant to section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department 

determined that India, Colombia, 

Indonesia, the Philippines, Peru, and 

Thailand are countries comparable to 

the PRC in terms of economic 

development. See Memorandum to 

Thomas Gilgunn, Program Manager, 

from Kelly Parkhill, Acting Director 

Office of Policy, Subject: Request for a 

List of Surrogate Countries for a New 

Shipper Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order on Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China (September 

15, 2009). Also in accordance with 

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

Department has found that India is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise. Moreover, the Department 

finds India to be a reliable source for 

surrogate values because India is at a 

similar level of economic development, 

pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, 

is a significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, and has publicly available 

and reliable data. Furthermore, the 

Department notes that India has been 

the primary surrogate country in past 

segments of this proceeding, and the 

only surrogate value data submitted on 

the record are from Indian sources. 

Given the above facts, the Department 

has selected India as the primary 

surrogate country for this review. The 

sources of the surrogate factor values are 

discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

section below and in the Memorandum 

from Scott Lindsay, Re: Preliminary 

Results of the 2008–2009 New Shipper 

Review of Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Surrogate 

Values (April 27, 2010) (Surrogate 

Values Memorandum). 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Notices 24581 

2See e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China: Partial Rescission and Preliminary Results 

of the Eleventh Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 71510 (December 11, 2006) 

(unchanged in the final results); Fresh Garlic from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the 12th Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 34251 (June 17, 2008) ; Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results 

and Rescission, In Part, of Twelfth New Shipper 

Reviews, 73 FR 56550 (September 29, 2008); and 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 13th 

Antidumping Duty Administrative and New 

Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 29174 (June 19, 2009). 

3Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act states that . . . the 

valuation of the factors of production shall be based 

on the best available information regarding the 

values of such factors in a market economy country 

or countries considered to be appropriate by the 

administering authority. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated the export price 

of Qingdao Sea–lines sale to the United 

States because it made its sale to an 

unaffiliated party before the date of 

importation and the use of constructed 

export price was not otherwise 

warranted. We calculated Qingdao Sea– 

line’s export price based on its price to 

an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. In accordance with section 

772(c) of the Act, where appropriate, we 

deducted from the starting price to the 

unaffiliated purchaser the expenses for 

foreign inland freight, brokerage and 

handling, marine insurance, 

warehousing, and U.S. customs duties. 

For the expenses that were either 

provided by an NME vendor or paid for 

using an NME currency, we used 

surrogate values as appropriate. See the 

‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section below for 

details regarding the surrogate values for 

movement expenses. 

Normal Value 

1. Methodology 

Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act 

provides that the Department shall 

determine NV using an FOP 

methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME country and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home–market 

prices, third–country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department calculates 

NV using each of the FOPs that a 

respondent consumes in the production 

of a unit of the subject merchandise 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of NMEs 

renders price comparisons and the 

calculation of production costs invalid 

under the Department’s normal 

methodologies. However, there are 

circumstances in which the Department 

will modify its standard FOP 

methodology, choosing to apply a 

surrogate value to an intermediate input 

instead of the individual FOPs used to 

produce that intermediate input. See, 

e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl 

Alcohol from the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 47538 (August 11, 2003), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1 (PVA) 

(citing to Final Results of First New 

Shipper Review and First Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 

11, 2001)). 

For the final results of certain prior 

administrative reviews (ARs) and 

NSRs,2 the Department found that garlic 

industry producers in the PRC do not 

generally track actual labor hours 

incurred for growing, tending, and 

harvesting activities and, thus, do not 

maintain appropriate records which 

would allow most, if not all, 

respondents to quantify, report, and 

substantiate this information. In the 

11th AR and NSRs, the Department also 

stated that ‘‘should a respondent be able 

to provide sufficient factual evidence 

that it maintains the necessary 

information in its internal books and 

records that would allow us to establish 

the completeness and accuracy of the 

reported FOPs, we will revisit this issue 

and consider whether to use its reported 

FOPs in the calculation of NV.’’ See 11th 

AR and NSRs at 71520. In the course of 

this review, Jinxiang Juxinyuan, 

Qingdao Sea–line’s garlic producer, did 

not report FOPs related to growing 

whole garlic bulbs. As such, for the 

reasons outlined in Memorandum from 

Scott Lindsay, Re: 2008–2009 New 

Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Intermediate Input Methodology (April 

27, 2009) (Intermediate Input 

Methodology Memorandum), the 

Department is applying an 

‘‘intermediate–product valuation 

methodology’’ to Qingdao Sea–line. 

Using this methodology, the Department 

calculated NV by starting with a 

surrogate value for the garlic bulb (i.e., 

the ‘‘intermediate product’’), adjusting 

for yield losses during the processing 

stages, and adding Jinxiang County 

Juxinyuan Trading Co. Ltd.’s costs, 

which were calculated using its 

reported usage rates for processing fresh 

garlic. See Intermediate Input 

Methodology Memorandum. 

2. Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

FOP data reported by Jinxiang 

Juxinyuan for the POR. We relied on the 

factor–specific data submitted by 

Jinxiang Juxinyuan for the production 

inputs in its questionnaire responses, 

where applicable, for purposes of 

selecting SVs. To calculate NV, we 

multiplied the reported per–unit factor 

consumption rates by publicly–available 

Indian SVs. 

In selecting the SVs, consistent with 

our past practice, we considered the 

quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. See, e.g., 

Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from 

the People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 

(December 11, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 9. As appropriate, we 

adjusted input prices by including 

freight costs to make them delivered 

prices. Specifically, we added to Indian 

import SVs a surrogate freight cost using 

the shorter of the reported distance from 

the domestic supplier to the factory or 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

the factory, where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). See 

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

1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where 

necessary, we adjusted the SVs for 

inflation/deflation using the Wholesale 

Price Index (WPI) as published in the 

International Monetary Fund’s 

International Financial Statistics, 

available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf. 

For more information regarding the 

Department’s valuation for the various 

FOPs, see Surrogate Values 

Memorandum. 

Garlic Bulb Valuation 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting the ‘‘best available 

information’’ for valuing FOPs, in 

accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the 

Act,3 is to select, to the extent 

practicable, surrogate values which are 

publicly available, product–specific, 

representative of a broad market 

average, tax–exclusive, and 

contemporaneous with the POR. See, 

e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas 

from the People’s Republic of China, 71 

FR 16116 (March 30, 2006) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

As discussed above, the Department is 

applying an intermediate input 

methodology for Qingdao Sea–line. 

Therefore, we sought to identify the best 

available surrogate value for the garlic 

bulb input for production, as opposed to 

finding surrogate values for the steps 

involved in planting, growing, and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
24582 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Notices 

4See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 

Attachment 1. 5The NME countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, 

Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, PRC, 

Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. 6See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s 

Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998-1999 

Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 

Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in 

Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the 

People’s Republic of China; Final Results of 1999- 

2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 

Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in 

Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1; and China National Machinery Imp. & 

Exp. Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 

1339 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal Circuit, 

104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

harvesting raw garlic (such as seeds, 

water, fertilizer, etc.). See Petitioners’ 

Surrogate Value Data; see also Surrogate 

Values Memorandum. For the 

preliminary results of this review, we 

find that data from the Azadpur APMC’s 

‘‘Market Information Bulletin’’ are the 

most appropriate information available 

to value Qingdao Sea–line’s garlic bulb 

input. 

In its FOP database, Qingdao Sea–line 

reported garlic bulb input size for the 

garlic produced and sold to the U.S. 

during the POR. Consistent with our 

findings in Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

12th Administrative Review, 73 FR 

34251 (June 17, 2008) (Final Results 

Twelfth Administrative Review), the 

Department continues to find that garlic 

bulb sizes that range from 55 mm and 

above are Grade Super–A, and garlic 

bulb sizes that range between 40 mm 

and 55 mm are Grade A and Grade 

Super–A. See Surrogate Values 

Memorandum. Because there were no 

Grade Super–A prices reported by the 

APMC during the POR, we inflated the 

2007–2008 APMC prices for ‘‘Super A’’ 

grade garlic to make them 

contemporaneous to our POR. See 

Surrogate Values Memorandum. 

Financial Ratios 

Petitioners and Qingdao Sea–line 

submitted comments and factual 

information regarding surrogate 

financial ratios. See Petitioners’ 

Surrogate Value Data and Qingdao Sea– 

line’s Surrogate Value Submission. After 

analyzing these comments and factual 

information, the Department has 

determined that it is appropriate to use 

Tata Tea Ltd.’s (Tata Tea) and Limtex 

Tea Limited’s (Limtex) financial data. 

We find that calculating an average of 

these two Indian tea processors provides 

financial ratios that best reflect the 

broader experience of the garlic industry 

and is consistent with our practices 

during the last three reviews. For these 

preliminary results, we are using Tata 

Tea’s and Limtex’s financial data, since 

tea is comparable to subject 

merchandise (i.e., whole and peeled 

garlic) and each company’s non– 

integrated production process is similar 

to that of Jinxiang Juxinyan. We find 

that the resulting financial ratios from 

the average of Tata Tea’s and Limtex’s 

financial data provide the best surrogate 

for the garlic industry in the PRC as a 

whole, based on the information on the 

record of this review. See Surrogate 

Values Memorandum. 

Other Factors of Production 

We valued the packing material 

inputs using weighted–average unit 

import values derived from the Monthly 

Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India 

(MSFTI), as published by the Directorate 

General of Commercial Intelligence and 

Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce 

and Industry, Government of India, and 

compiled by the World Trade Atlas 

(WTA), available at http:// 

www.gtis.com/wta.htm. The Indian 

WTA import data are reported in dollars 

and are contemporaneous with the 

POR.4 Indian SVs denominated in 

Indian rupees were converted to U.S. 

dollars using the applicable daily 

exchange rate for India for the POR. See 

http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/

index.html. Where appropriate, we 

converted the units of measure to 

kilograms. See Surrogate Values 

Memorandum. 

Furthermore, with regard to the WTA 

Indian import–based SVs, we 

disregarded prices from NME countries5

and those we have reason to believe or 

suspect may be subsidized, because we 

have found in other proceedings that 

these exporting countries maintain 

broadly available, non–industry-specific 

export subsidies and, therefore, there is 

reason to believe or suspect that all 

exports to all markets from such 

countries may be subsidized.6 We are 

also guided by the statute’s legislative 

history that explains that it is not 

necessary to conduct a formal 

investigation to ensure that such prices 

are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. No. 

576 100th Cong., 2. Sess. 590–91 (1988). 

Rather, the Department was instructed 

by Congress to base its decision on 

information that is available to it at the 

time it is making its determination. 

Therefore, we excluded export prices 

from Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, 

and India when calculating the Indian 

import–based SVs. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. Finally, we excluded 

imports that were labeled as originating 

from an ‘‘unspecified’’ country from the 

average Indian import values, because 

we could not be certain that they were 

not from either an NME or a country 

with general export subsidies. 

As discussed above, the Department 

valued surrogate truck freight cost by 

using a per–unit average rate calculated 

from August 2008 data on the following 

Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/

logistics/logtruck.htm. See Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 52282, 52286 (September 

9, 2008) (and unchanged in 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 

(February 11, 2009)); and Surrogate 

Value Memorandum at Attachment 9. 

To value electricity, the Department 

used March 2008 electricity price rates 

from Electricity Tariff & Duty and 

Average Rates of Electricity Supply in 

India, published by the Central 

Electricity Authority of the Government 

of India. Because these data were 

contemporaneous with the POR, we did 

not adjust the average value. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum at 

Attachment 4. 

For direct labor, indirect labor and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression–based wage rates reflective of 

the observed relationship between 

wages and national income in ME 

countries as reported on Import 

Administration’s Web site. See 

‘‘Expected Wages of Selected NME 

Countries’’ (revised December 2009) 

(available at http://www.trade.gov/ia/). 

For further details on the labor 

calculation, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 5. Because 

the regression–based wage rates do not 

separate the labor rates into different 

skill levels or types of labor, we applied 

the same wage rate to all skill levels and 

types of labor reported by Jinxiang 

Jininyuan. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the date of 

the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. See http:// 

www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/

index.html. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily find that the following 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Notices 24583 

margin exists for Qingdao Sea–line 

during the period November 1, 2008 

through April 30, 2009: 

FRESH GARLIC FROM THE PRC 

Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

Exported by Qingdao 

Sea–line International 

Trading Co., Ltd. and 

Produced by Jinxiang 

County Juxinyuan 

Trading Co. Ltd. ........ 171.20 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Consistent with 

the Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the 13th 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and New Shipper Reviews, 74 

FR 29174 (June 19, 2009) (Final Results 

Garlic Thirteenth Review), we will 

direct CBP to assess importer–specific 

assessment rates based on the resulting 

per–unit (i.e., per kilogram) amount on 

each entry of the subject merchandise 

during the POR. See Final Results Garlic 

Thirteenth Review. Specifically, we will 

divide the total dumping margins for 

each importer by the total quantity of 

subject merchandise sold to that 

importer during the POR to calculate a 

per–unit assessment amount. We will 

direct CBP to assess importer–specific 

assessment rates based on the resulting 

per–unit (i.e., per kilogram) amount on 

each entry of the subject merchandise 

during the POR if any importer–specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. The Department will issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after publication 

of the final results of this review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Consistent with the final results of the 

Final Results Garlic Thirteenth Review, 

we will establish and collect a per– 

kilogram cash–deposit amount which 

will be equivalent to the company– 

specific dumping margin published in 

the final results of this review. 

Specifically, the following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

review for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date of the final 

results, as provided by section 751(a)(1) 

of the Act: (1) for subject merchandise 

produced by Jinxiang Juxinyuan and 

exported by Qingdao Sea–line, the cash 

deposit rate will be the per–unit rate 

determined in the final result of this 

new shipper review and; (2) for subject 

merchandise exported by Qingdao Sea– 

line but not produced by Jinxiang 

Juxinyuan, the cash deposit rate will be 

the per–unit PRC–wide rate. These 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this 

proceeding not later than ten days after 

the date of public announcement, or if 

there is no public announcement within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Comments 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results 

and may submit case briefs and/or 

written comments within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice, unless 

otherwise notified by the Department. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, will be due five days later, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit case or rebuttal briefs in 

these proceedings are requested to 

submit with each argument: (1) a 

statement of the issue; and (2) a brief 

summary of the argument. Parties are 

requested to provide a summary of the 

arguments not to exceed five pages and 

a table of statutes, regulations, and cases 

cited. Additionally, parties are 

requested to provide their case and 

rebuttal briefs in electronic format (e.g., 

preferably in Microsoft Word). 

Interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration within 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain: (1) the party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 

CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in case and rebuttal briefs. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this review, including the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any such 

written briefs not later than 90 days 

after these preliminary results are 

issued, unless the final results are 

extended. See 19 CFR 351.214(i). 

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. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h). 

Dated: April 27, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10610 Filed 5–04–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1675] 

Reorganization/Expansion of Foreign– 

Trade Zone 21 

Charleston, South Carolina, Area 

Pursuant to its authority under the 

Foreign–Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign– 

Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

WHEREAS, the South Carolina State 

Ports Authority, grantee of Foreign– 

Trade Zone 21, submitted an 

application to the Board for authority to 

reorganize and expand its zone to delete 

Sites 3 and 10 in their entirety, remove 

acreage from Sites 5 and 7, and add 

eight new sites (proposed Sites 16–23) 

in the Charleston, South Carolina, area 

within and adjacent to the Charleston 

Customs and Border Protection port of 

entry (FTZ Docket 15–2009, filed 4/8/ 

09); 

WHEREAS, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (74 FR 17452–17453, 4/15/09) 

and the application has been processed 

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations; and, 

WHEREAS, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendation of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal, with respect to Sites 

3, 5, 7 and 10 and Sites 16, 17, 18, 21, 

22 and 23, is in the public interest; 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby 

orders: 

The application to reorganize and 

expand FTZ 21 is approved in part 

(with respect to Sites 3, 5, 7 and 10 and 

Sites 16, 17, 18, 21, 22 and 23), subject 

to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES