Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices 57597 

1 In its request for review, Golden Banyan 

indicated that it had applied to the Zhangzhou 

Municipal Industrial and Commercial 

Administrative Bureau (Commercial Administrative 

Bureau) to change its name to Fujian Golden 

Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd. On December 

21, 2007, the Commercial Administrative Bureau 

granted Golden Banyan advanced approval for the 

company’s requested name change. At the time it 

submitted the request for new shipper review, 

however, Golden Banyan was still waiting for the 

name change to apply to the company’s business 

license and certificate of approval. 

2As we indicated in the initiation notice, Golden 

Banyan’s shipment entered the United States 

shortly after the anniversary month. Therefore, for 

the reasons given in the initiation notice, we 

extended the POR to include Golden Banyan’s 

shipment. See Initiation Notice at 18772. 

hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Decision Memo 

include the likelihood of continuation 

or recurrence of dumping and the 

magnitude of the margins likely to 

prevail if the orders were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in these reviews and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit, room 

1117 of the main Department building. 

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. 

Final Results of Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on PVA from 

Japan, Korea, and the PRC would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the following 

weighted-average percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/exporters/ 

producers 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Japan: 

Denki Kagaku Kogyo 

Kabushiki Kaisha ............... 144.16 

Japan VAM & POVAL Co., 

Ltd ...................................... 144.16 

Kuraray Co., Ltd .................... 144.16 

The Nippon Synthetic Chemical Industry Co., Ltd ......... 144.16 

All-Others Rate ..................... 76.78 

Korea: 

DC Chemical Company, Ltd 38.74 

All-Others Rate ..................... 32.08 

PRC: 

Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon 

Works ................................ 5.51 

PRC-Wide Rate .................... 97.86 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

is hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 29, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–23455 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–851] 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 2008. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is currently 

conducting a new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC) covering the 

period February 1, 2007, through 

February 29, 2008. We preliminarily 

determine that the sale made by 

Zhangzhou Golden Banyan Foodstuffs 

Industrial Co., Ltd. (Golden Banyan), 

was not made below normal value (NV). 

If these preliminary results are adopted 

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 

any importer-specific assessment rates 

that are above de minimis. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2924 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 19, 1999, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

amended final determination and 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from the PRC. 

See Notice of Amendment of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China, 64 

FR 8308 (February 19, 1999) (Order). On 

February 29, 2008, we received a timely 

new shipper review request in 

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

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Tariff Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(c), from 

exporter and producer, Golden Banyan.1

On April 7, 2008, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register initiating a new shipper review 

for Golden Banyan. See Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of New 

Shipper Review, 73 FR 18772 (April 7, 

2008) (Initiation Notice). 

We issued the standard antidumping 

duty questionnaire, along with the 

standard importer questionnaire for new 

shipper reviews, on April 8, 2008, and 

received responses in May and June 

2008. We issued supplemental 

questionnaires covering sections A, C, 

and D of the original questionnaire on 

July 8, 2008, August 7, 2008, and 

August 22, 2008, respectively, and 

received timely responses to those 

questionnaires. 

Period of Review 

The POR covers February 1, 2007, 

through February 29, 2008.2

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain preserved mushrooms, 

whether imported whole, sliced, diced, 

or as stems and pieces. The certain 

preserved mushrooms covered under 

this order are the species Agaricus 

bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. 

‘‘Certain Preserved Mushrooms’’ refers 

to mushrooms that have been prepared 

or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and 

sometimes slicing or cutting. These 

mushrooms are then packed and heated 

in containers including, but not limited 

to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid 

medium, including, but not limited to, 

water, brine, butter or butter sauce. 

Certain preserved mushrooms may be 

imported whole, sliced, diced, or as 

stems and pieces. Included within the 

scope of this order are ‘‘brined’’ 

mushrooms, which are presalted and 

packed in a heavy salt solution to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

57598 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices 

3On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that 

‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms 

containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are 

within the scope of the antidumping duty order. 

See Recommendation Memorandum—Final Ruling 

of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain 

Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit upheld this decision. See Tak Fat v. United 

States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

provisionally preserve them for further 

processing.3

Excluded from the scope of this order 

are the following: (1) All other species 

of mushroom, including straw 

mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled 

mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or 

‘‘quick blanched mushrooms’’; (3) dried 

mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and 

(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or 

‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are 

prepared or preserved by means of 

vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain 

oil or other additives. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is classifiable under subheadings: 

2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 

2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 

2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 

0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and Customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this order is dispositive. 

Bona Fide Analysis 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, we investigated the bona fide 

nature of the sale made by Golden 

Banyan for this new shipper review. In 

evaluating whether a single sale in a 

new shipper review 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 Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. United 

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

2005). Accordingly, the Department 

considers a number of factors in its bona 

fide 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) (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). 

We preliminarily find that the U.S. 

sale made by Golden Banyan during the 

POR was made on a bona fide basis. 

Specifically, we find: (1) The timing of 

the sale does not indicate the sale might 

not be bona fide; (2) the price and 

quantity of the sale were within the 

range of the prices and quantities of 

other entries of subject merchandise 

from the PRC into the United States 

during the POR, based upon the 

Department’s review of data obtained 

from CBP; (3) Golden Banyan and its 

customer did not incur any 

extraordinary expenses arising from the 

transaction; (4) the sale was resold at a 

profit; and (5) the sale was made 

between unaffiliated parties at arm’slength. See Memorandum from Fred 

Baker, International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, to The File via Robert James, 

Program Manager, Office 7, ‘‘Bona Fide 

Sales Analysis for Zhangzhou Golden 

Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd.,’’ 

dated concurrently with this notice. 

Based on our review of the record 

evidence concerning the bona fide 

nature of this sale, as well as Golden 

Banyan’s eligibility for a separate rate 

(see ‘‘Separate Rates Determination’’ 

section, below) and the Department’s 

determination that the seller was not 

affiliated with any exporter or producer 

that had previously shipped subject 

merchandise to the United States, we 

preliminarily determine that Golden 

Banyan has met the requirements to 

qualify as a new shipper during the 

POR. Therefore, for purposes of these 

preliminary results, we are treating the 

sale of subject merchandise to the 

United States as an appropriate 

transaction for this new shipper review. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, we have 

treated the PRC as a non-market 

economy (NME) country. 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). In accordance with section 

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

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. None of the parties to this 

proceeding have contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, we calculated 

NV in accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Tariff Act, which applies to NME 

countries. 

Separate Rates Determination 

A designation of a country as an NME 

remains in effect until it is revoked by 

the Department. See section 771(18)(C) 

of the Tariff 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 exports. To establish whether a 

company is sufficiently independent to 

be entitled to a separate, companyspecific 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, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991), (Sparklers) 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). 

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, 56 FR at 20589. 

In the instant review, Golden Banyan 

submitted a complete response to the 

separate rates section of the 

Department’s questionnaire. The 

evidence submitted in the instant 

review by Golden Banyan includes 

government laws and regulations on 

corporate ownership and control, 

business licenses, and narrative 

information regarding the company’s 

operations and selection of 

management. The evidence provided by 

Golden Banyan supports a preliminary 

finding of a de jure absence of 

government control over its 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) legislative enactments 

exist decentralizing control of 

companies. See Golden Banyan’s 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices 57599 

4The Department was unable to find world 

production data for subject merchandise and relied 

on export data as a substitute for overall 

production. 

February 29, 2008, submission at pages 

5–7 and Exhibits 3–4. 

Absence of De Facto Control 

The absence of de facto government 

control over exports generally 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, 59 

FR at 22586–87; Sparklers, 56 FR at 

20589; and 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 its February 29, 2008, submission, 

Golden Banyan submitted evidence 

demonstrating an absence of de facto 

government control over its export 

activities. Specifically, this evidence 

indicates: (1) The company sets its own 

export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) the 

company retains the proceeds from its 

sales and makes independent decisions 

regarding the disposition of profits or 

financing of losses; (3) the company has 

a general manager and a sales manager 

with the authority to negotiate and bind 

the company in an agreement; (4) the 

general manager is selected by the board 

of directors, and the general manager 

appoints the manager of each 

department; and (5) there is no 

restriction on the company’s use of 

export revenues. Therefore, we 

preliminarily find that Golden Banyan 

has established prima facie that it 

qualifies for a separate rate under the 

criteria established by Silicon Carbide 

and Sparklers. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department investigates 

imports from an NME country, section 

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

base NV, in most circumstances, on the 

NME producer’s factors of production 

(FOPs), valued in a surrogate marketeconomy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Tariff 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 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 new shipper review 

are discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

section, below. On June 16, 2008, the 

Department determined that India, 

Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia, 

and Thailand are countries comparable 

to the PRC in terms of economic 

development, and requested comments 

from interested parties on selecting the 

appropriate surrogate country for this 

review. See Letter to All Interested 

Parties, RE: New Shipper Review of 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 

People’s Republic of China: Zhangzhou 

Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial 

Co., Ltd., dated July 16, 2008. No party 

submitted surrogate country selection 

comments. 

The Department has examined the 

export levels 4 of subject merchandise 

from the above-mentioned countries and 

found that India and Indonesia are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. See Memorandum from 

Fred Baker, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, to Richard Weible, 

Office Director, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

New Shipper Review of Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China: Selection of a 

Surrogate Country,’’ dated concurrently 

with this notice (Surrogate Country 

Memorandum) at 4. However, since 

India has exports in both of the HTS 

subheadings identified for subject 

merchandise, while Indonesia has 

exports under only one of the HTS 

subheadings, we find that the Indian 

export data are more comprehensive 

and representative of subject 

merchandise than Indonesian export 

data. Id. at 5. 

In selecting the appropriate surrogate 

country, the Department examines the 

availability and reliability of data from 

the countries deemed to be 

economically comparable and 

significant producers of subject 

merchandise. For a description of our 

practice, see Department Policy Bulletin 

No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy 

Surrogate Country Selection Process 

(March 1, 2004). India has been the 

primary surrogate country in numerous 

past segments for this proceeding. In 

those past segments, the Department 

found India’s import statistics to be an 

available and reliable source for 

surrogate values. Id. at 4. Therefore, 

since India: (1) Is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise, whose 

production of subject merchandise is 

more comprehensive than Indonesia’s 

production; (2) is at a similar level of 

economic development as the PRC; (3) 

has publicly available and reliable data, 

which the Department has relied upon 

for numerous segments of this 

proceeding; and, (4) India’s data are 

more comprehensive and more 

representative of the subject 

merchandise than the data provided for 

Indonesia, the Department has selected 

India as the surrogate country, pursuant 

to section 773(c)(4) of the Tariff Act. See 

Surrogate Country Memorandum at 5. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether Golden 

Banyan’s sale of subject merchandise to 

the United States was made at a price 

below NV, we compared its U.S. price 

to NV, as described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ 

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this 

notice, below. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Tariff Act, we based U.S. price on 

the export price (EP) of the sale to the 

United States by Golden Banyan 

because the first sale to an unaffiliated 

party was made before the date of 

importation and the use of constructed 

export price was not otherwise 

warranted. We calculated EP based on 

the free-on-board (FOB) price to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. For this EP sale, we deducted 

foreign inland freight and foreign 

brokerage and handling from the 

starting price (or gross unit price), in 

accordance with section 772(c) of the 

Tariff Act. For Golden Banyan’s U.S. 

sale, each of these services was 

provided by an NME vendor. Thus, we 

based the deduction of these movement 

charges on surrogate values. We valued 

truck freight expenses using a per-unit 

average rate calculated from data on the 

following Web site: http:// 

www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this web site contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. Since this value is not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

deflated the rate using the wholesale 

price index (WPI). See Memorandum 

from Fred Baker, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, through Robert 

James, Program Manager, to the File, 

‘‘New Shipper Review of Certain 

Preserved Mushroom from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Values for 

the Preliminary Results’’ (Surrogate 

Values Memorandum) at Exhibit 6. We 

valued foreign brokerage and handling 

with the publicly summarized brokerage 

and handling expense reported in the 

U.S. sales listing of Indian mushroom 

producer, Agro Dutch Industries, Ltd. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

57600 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices 

(Agro Dutch), in the 2004–2005 

administrative review of Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from India. See 

Surrogate Values Memorandum at 

Exhibit 6. 

Normal Value 

1. Methodology 

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

provides that the Department shall 

determine the NV using an FOP 

methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME 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 Tariff Act. The Department bases 

NV on FOPs 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. See Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 

Unfinished, From the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind 

in Part, 70 FR 39744 (July 11, 2005), 

unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings 

and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of 2003–2004 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517 

(January 17, 2006). 

We calculated NV by adding together 

the value of the FOPs, general expenses, 

profit, and packing costs. The FOPs for 

subject merchandise include: (1) 

Quantities of raw materials employed; 

(2) hours of labor required; (3) amounts 

of energy and other utilities consumed; 

(4) representative capital and selling 

costs; and (5) packing materials. We 

used the FOPs reported by Golden 

Banyan for materials, energy, labor, and 

packing, and valued those FOPs by 

multiplying the amount of the factor 

consumed in producing subject 

merchandise by the average unit 

surrogate value of the factor. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), when a producer sources 

an input from a market-economy 

country and pays for it in a marketeconomy currency, the Department will 

normally value the FOP using the actual 

price paid for the input. See 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal 

Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 

1445–1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming 

the Department’s use of market-based 

prices to value certain FOPs). The 

Department has instituted a rebuttable 

presumption that market economy input 

prices are the best available information 

for valuing an input when the total 

volume of the input purchased from all 

market economy sources during the 

period of investigation or review is 33 

percent or greater of the total volume of 

the input purchased from all sources 

during the period. In such cases, unless 

case-specific facts provide adequate 

grounds to rebut the Department’s 

presumption, the Department will use 

the weighted-average market economy 

purchase price to value the input. 

Alternatively, when the volume of an 

NME firm’s purchases of an input from 

market economy suppliers during the 

period is below 33 percent of its total 

volume of purchases of the input during 

the period, but where these purchases 

are otherwise valid and there is no 

reason to disregard the prices, the 

Department will weight-average the 

market economy purchase price with an 

appropriate surrogate value according to 

their respective shares of the total 

volume of purchases, unless casespecific facts provide adequate grounds 

to rebut the presumption in favor of 

using market-economy prices. When an 

NME firm has made market economy 

input purchases that may have been 

dumped or subsidized, are not bona 

fide, or are otherwise not acceptable for 

use in a dumping calculation, the 

Department will exclude them from the 

total quantity of all market economy 

purchases to ensure a fair determination 

of whether valid market economy 

purchases meet the 33 percent 

threshold. See Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 

Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 

Duty Drawback; and Request for 

Comments, 71 FR 61716 (October 19, 

2006). In this case, Golden Banyan 

reported that it did not purchase any 

inputs from market economy sources. 

In addition, we added freight costs to 

the surrogate costs that we calculated 

for material inputs. We calculated 

freight costs by multiplying surrogate 

freight rates by the shorter of the 

reported distance from the domestic 

supplier to the factory that produced the 

subject merchandise or the distance 

from the nearest seaport to the factory 

that produced the subject merchandise, 

as appropriate. Where there were 

multiple domestic suppliers of a 

material input, we calculated a 

weighted-average distance after limiting 

each supplier’s distance to no more than 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

Golden Banyan. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision by the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 

F.3d 1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

We increased the calculated costs of the 

FOPs for surrogate general expenses and 

profit. See Surrogate Values 

Memorandum. 

2. Selection of Surrogate Values 

In selecting surrogate values, we 

followed, to the extent practicable, the 

Department’s practice of choosing 

public values which are non-export 

averages, representative of a range of 

prices in effect during the POR, or over 

a period as close as possible in time to 

the POR, product-specific, and taxexclusive. See, e.g., Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004). We also 

considered the quality of the source of 

surrogate information in selecting 

surrogate values. See Manganese Metal 

From the People’s Republic of China; 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998). 

Where we could obtain only surrogate 

values that were not contemporaneous 

with the POR, we inflated (or deflated) 

the surrogate values using, where 

appropriate, the Indian WPI as 

published in International Financial 

Statistics by the International Monetary 

Fund. See Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 1. 

In calculating surrogate values from 

import statistics, in accordance with the 

Department’s practice, we disregarded 

statistics for imports from NME 

countries and countries deemed to 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific subsidies which may 

benefit all exporters to all export 

markets (e.g., Indonesia, South Korea, 

and Thailand). See, e.g., Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields From 

The People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

6482 (February 12, 2002) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. See also 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

and Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 66800, 66808 (November 

28, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices 57601 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). 

Additionally, we excluded from our 

calculations imports that were labeled 

as originating from an unspecified 

country because we could not determine 

whether they were from an NME 

country. 

We valued production material inputs 

(mushroom spawn, rice straw, and 

manure) using the fiscal year (FY) 2006– 

2007 (April 2006 through March 2007) 

financial statements of Agro Dutch or 

Flex Foods Ltd. (Flex Foods), Indian 

producers of mushrooms and 

vegetables, as follows. To value the 

input of mushroom spawn, we used 

data from the FY 2004–2005 financial 

statement of Agro Dutch because Agro 

Dutch’s mushroom spawn value is 

specific to the species Agaricus 

bisporous, which is the species used to 

produce subject merchandise. To value 

the input of rice straw, we used the rice 

straw value from the FY 2006–2007 

financial statement of Flex Foods 

because this value is specific to the 

input. Similarly, to value the input of 

manure, we used the manure value from 

the FY 2004–2005 financial statement of 

Agro Dutch because this value is 

specific to the input. See Surrogate 

Values Memorandum at Exhibit 2. 

We valued processing and canning 

material inputs (super calcium 

phosphate, calcium carbonate, spawn, 

refined salt, citric acid, tin plate, copper 

wire, and sealing glue) using weightedaverage Indian import values derived 

from the World Trade Atlas online 

(WTA), for the period February 2007 

through January 2008. See Surrogate 

Values Memorandum at Exhibits 2 and 

3. In addition, we valued packing 

material inputs (corrugated boxes, 

labels, paper board, hard paper board, 

adhesive tape, and glue) with weightedaverage Indian import values derived 

from the WTA for the period February 

2007 through January 2008. Id. at 

Exhibit 5. The Indian import statistics 

obtained from the WTA were published 

by the Indian Directorate General of 

Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, 

Ministry of Commerce of India and are 

contemporaneous with the POR. As the 

Indian surrogate values were 

denominated in rupees, in accordance 

with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act, 

they were converted to U.S. dollars 

using the official exchange rate for India 

recorded on the date of sale of subject 

merchandise in this case. See http:// 

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

index.html. 

To value land rent, the Department 

used data from the 2001 Punjab State 

Development Report, administered by 

the Planning Commission of the 

Government of India. Since the value of 

land rent was not contemporaneous 

with the POR, the Department adjusted 

the value for inflation. See Surrogate 

Values Memorandum at Exhibit 2. 

We valued electricity using price data 

for small, medium, and large industries, 

as published by the Central Electricity 

Authority of the Government of India in 

its publication titled Electricity Tariff & 

Duty and Average Rates of Electricity 

Supply in India, dated July 2006. These 

electricity rates represent actual 

country-wide publicly-available 

information on tax-exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. 

Since the rates are not contemporaneous 

with the POR, we inflated the values 

using the WPI. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Exhibit 3. 

To value water, the Department used 

data from the Maharastra Industrial 

Development Corporation (http:// 

www.midcindia.org) for June 2003, 

which we found to be the best available 

information since it includes a wide 

range of industrial water rates. Since the 

water rates were not contemporaneous 

with the POR, the Department adjusted 

the value for inflation. See Surrogate 

Values Memorandum at Exhibit 4. 

We valued truck freight expenses for 

inputs the same surrogate data we used 

for valuing domestic inland freight for 

Golden Banyan’s U.S. sale (i.e., we used 

data from the Web site http:// 

www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm, which contains inland 

freight truck rates between many large 

Indian cities). Since these values are not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

deflated the rate using the WPI. See 

Surrogate Values Memorandum at 

Exhibit 6. 

The Department’s regulations require 

the use of a regression-based wage rate. 

See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). Therefore, to 

value labor, the Department used the 

regression-based wage rate for the PRC 

published on the Import Administration 

Web site. See the IA Web site: http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/05wages041608.html, and see Corrected 2007 

Calculation of Expected Non-Market 

Economy Wages, 73 FR 27795 (May 14, 

2008). 

To value the surrogate financial ratios 

for factory overhead (OH), selling, 

general & administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, and profit, the Department 

used the 2006–2007 financial statements 

of Agro Dutch and Flex Foods. The 

Department notes that Agro Dutch is a 

producer of mushrooms, and Flex Foods 

is a producer of mushrooms and 

vegetable products. Therefore, Agro 

Dutch’s and Flex Foods’ financial ratios 

for OH and SG&A are comparable to 

Golden Banyan’s financial ratios 

because Agro Dutch’s and Flex Foods’ 

production experience is comparable to 

Golden Banyan’s production experience 

by virtue of each company’s production 

of subject merchandise. Additionally, 

the financial statements of these two 

companies are contemporaneous for two 

months of the POR. Moreover, an 

average of the financial statements of 

Agro Dutch and Flex Foods represents 

a broader spectrum of the Indian 

mushroom industry, than the financial 

statement of a single mushroom 

producer. See Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 8. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

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

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. These exchange rates can 

be accessed at the Web site of Import 

Administration at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

exchange/index.html. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following margin exists during the 

period February 1, 2007, through 

February 29, 2008: 

Manufacturer/exporter Margin 

(percent) 

Zhangzhou Golden Banyan 

Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(Golden Banyan) ................... 0.00 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose to 

parties to this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within five days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Interested parties may submit written 

comments (case briefs) within 30 days 

of publication of the preliminary results 

and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) 

within five days after the time limit for 

filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 351.309(d)(1). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), 

rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs. 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

57602 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices 

containing the public version of those 

comments. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

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 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 the 

briefs. 

Unless the deadline is extended 

pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of 

the Tariff 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 90 

days of publication of these preliminary 

results. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuing the final results of the 

review, the Department shall determine, 

and CBP shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of the final results of 

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. However, the final results of 

this review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of these reviews and for 

future deposits of estimated duties, 

where applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this new shipper review for all 

shipments of subject merchandise 

exported by Golden Banyan entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) 

of the Tariff Act: (1) For subject 

merchandise manufactured and 

exported by Golden Banyan, the cashdeposit rate will be that established in 

the final results of this review; (2) for 

subject merchandise exported by 

Golden Banyan but not manufactured by 

Golden Banyan, the cash deposit rate 

will continue to be the PRC-wide rate 

(i.e., 198.63 percent); and (3) for subject 

merchandise manufactured by Golden 

Banyan but exported by any other party, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the exporter. If the cash 

deposit rate calculated for Golden 

Banyan in the final results is zero or de 

minimis, a zero cash deposit will be 

required for entries of subject 

merchandise both produced and 

exported by Golden Banyan. These cash 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

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)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act 

and 19 CFR 351.214(h)(i). 

Dated: September 29, 2008. 

David Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–23396 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–823–808] 

Suspension of Antidumping 

Investigation: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of revised suspension 

agreement on certain cut-to-length 

carbon steel plate from Ukraine. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 1, 2008. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) has revised the 

agreement suspending the antidumping 

duty investigation involving certain cutto-length carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL 

plate’’) from Ukraine. The basis for this 

action is an agreement between the 

Department and Ukrainian CTL plate 

producers accounting for substantially 

all imports of CTL plate from Ukraine, 

wherein each signatory producer/ 

exporter individually agrees to make 

any necessary price revisions to 

eliminate completely any amount by 

which the normal value (NV) of this 

merchandise exceeds the U.S. price of 

its merchandise subject to the 

Agreement. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Judith Wey Rudman or Jay Carreiro at 

(202) 482–0192 or (202) 482–3674, 

respectively; Office of Policy, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 24, 1997, the Department 

entered into an agreement with the 

Government of Ukraine which 

suspended the antidumping duty 

investigation on certain cut-to-length 

carbon steel plate (CTL plate) from 

Ukraine. See Suspension of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation: 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

from Ukraine, 62 FR 61766 (November 

19, 1997). In accordance with section 

734(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), 

on November 19, 1997, the Department 

also published its final determination of 

sales at less than fair value in this case. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 

Ukraine, 62 FR 61754 (November 19, 

1997). 

On February 17, 2006, based on the 

evidence of economic reforms to that 

date, the Department revoked Ukraine’s 

status as a non-market economy country 

under section 771(18)(B) of the Act, 

effective on February 1, 2006. Based on 

a request by certain Ukrainian 

producers of CTL plate, we are 

converting the current non-market 

economy suspension agreement to a 

market economy agreement. On August 

5, 2008, representatives of OJSC 

Alchevsk Iron & Steel Works, Azovstal 

Iron & Steel Works, and Ilyich Iron & 

Steel Works (collectively the ‘‘Ukrainian 

CTL plate producers’’) initialed a 

proposed, revised suspension 

agreement. We invited interested parties 

to comment on the proposed agreement. 

We received no comments. 

On September 29, 2008, the revised 

Suspension Agreement was signed by 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES