27104 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 36561 (June 24, 2005). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 32557 

(June 9, 2008). 

3See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 

Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of 

Administrative Review 73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

4See Memorandum regarding ‘‘Request for 

Surrogate-Country Selection: 2007-2008 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (October 31, 2008); see 

also Memorandum regarding ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China: 

Request for a List of Surrogate Countries’’ 

(November 3, 2008) (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’). 

Rescission of Review 

Section 351.213(d)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations provide that 

the Department will rescind an 

administrative review if the party that 

requested the review withdraws its 

request for review within 90 days of the 

date of publication of the notice of 

initiation of the requested review, or 

withdraws its request at a later date if 

the Department determines that it is 

reasonable to extend the time limit for 

withdrawing the request. Fiskars 

properly withdrew its request before the 

90-day deadline. Therefore, we are 

rescinding this review of the 

antidumping duty order on HFHTs, 

with or without handles from the PRC 

covering the period February 1, 2008 

through January 31, 2009. 

Assessment 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

15 days after publication of this 

rescission notice. The Department will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties at rates equal to the cash deposit 

of estimated antidumping duties 

required at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). 

Notification to Parties 

This notice also serves as a 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, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: June 1, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–13341 Filed 6–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–898] 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

chlorinated isocyanurates (‘‘chlorinated 

isos’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). The period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) for this administrative review 

is June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008. 

This administrative review covers one 

producer/exporter of the subject 

merchandise, i.e., Hebei Jiheng 

Chemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jiheng’’). 

We preliminarily determine that 

Jiheng made sales in the United States 

at prices below normal value (‘‘NV’’). 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 

the importer–specific assessment rates 

are above de minimis. We invite 

interested parties to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Moats or Charles Riggle, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5047 or (202) 482– 

0650, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 24, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on chlorinated 

isos from the PRC.1 On June 9, 2008, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on chlorinated isos from the PRC for the 

period June 1, 2007, through May 31, 

2008.2 On June 30, 2008, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), Jiheng, a 

foreign producer/exporter of subject 

merchandise, requested that the 

Department review its sales of subject 

merchandise. On June 30, 2008, Clearon 

Corporation (‘‘Clearon’’) and Occidental 

Chemical Corporation (‘‘OxyChem’’), 

Petitioners in the underlying 

investigation, requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of Jiheng’s sales and entries 

during the POR. 

On July 30, 2008, the Department 

initiated the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

chlorinated isos from the PRC covering 

the period June 1, 2007 through May 31, 

2008.3 On September 5, 2008, the 

Department issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Jiheng. On October 31, 

2008, the Department requested that the 

Office of Policy provide a list of 

surrogate countries for this review 

which it did on November 3, 2008.4

On November 6, 2008, the Department 

issued a letter to interested parties 

seeking comments on surrogate country 

selection and surrogate values. On 

November 21, 2008, Jiheng submitted 

comments regarding the selection of a 

surrogate country. On December 1, 

2008, Petitioners submitted publicly 

available information in order to value 

Jiheng’s factors of production (‘‘FOP’’). 

On December 5, 2008, Jiheng submitted 

comments on Petitioners’ December 1, 

2008, surrogate value information. On 

May 5, 2009, Jiheng submitted 

additional surrogate value information 

from Chemical Weekly for certain 

chemicals used in its production of the 

subject merchandise. 

On October 8, 2008, Jiheng submitted 

its section A questionnaire response 

(‘‘AQR’’). On October 23, 2008, Jiheng 

submitted its sections C and D 

questionnaire responses (‘‘CQR and 

DQR’’, respectively). On October 29, 

2008, Jiheng submitted its cost 

reconciliation. On November 5, 2008, 

Petitioners submitted comments on 

Jiheng’s AQR, CQR, and DQR. On 

December 16, 2008, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 27105 

5See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time limit for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administration Review, 74 FR 9385 (March 4, 

2009). 

6See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

52645 (September 10, 2008); and Folding Metal 

Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 3560 (January 21, 

2009). 

7See Memorandum regarding ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of the 2007-2008 Administrative Review of 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum’’ 

(June 1, 2009) (‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). 

8 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the 

final results of this administrative review, 

interested parties may submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct factual information 

submitted by an interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for 

submission of such factual information. However, 

the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) 

permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 

clarifies, or corrects information placed on the 

record. The Department generally will not accept 

the submission of additional, previously absentfrom-the-record alternative surrogate value 

Continued 

Jiheng. On January 8, 2009, Jiheng 

submitted its supplemental 

questionnaire response (‘‘1st SQR’’). 

On February 10, 2009, Petitioners 

submitted comments on Jiheng’s 1st

SQR. On February 24, 2009, the 

Department issued a second 

supplemental questionnaire to Jiheng. 

On March 4, 2009, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register extending the time limit for the 

preliminary results of review until June 

1, 2009.5 On March 18, 2009, Jiheng 

submitted its second supplemental 

questionnaire response (‘‘2nd SQR’’). 

The Department verified the accuracy 

of Jiheng’s submissions in Hengshui, 

China from March 30, 2009, through 

April 3, 2009. On May 5, 2009, the 

Department requested that Jiheng 

submit a corrected U.S. sales database to 

include changes that Jiheng had 

reported as minor corrections prior to 

verification. On May 8, 2009, Jiheng 

submitted its revised U.S. sales 

database. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are chlorinated isos, as described below: 

Chlorinated isos are derivatives of 

cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated 

s–triazine triones. There are three 

primary chemical compositions of 

chlorinated isos: (1) 

trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3(NCO)3), 

(2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate 

(dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3(2H2O), and (3) 

sodium dichloroisocyanurate 

(anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated 

isos are available in powder, granular, 

and tableted forms. This order covers all 

chlorinated isos. Chlorinated isos are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, 

2933.69.6050, 3808.40.50, 3808.50.40 

and 3808.94.50.00 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). The tariff classification 

2933.69.6015 covers sodium 

dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and 

dihydrate forms) and 

trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff 

classifications 2933.69.6021 and 

2933.69.6050 represent basket categories 

that include chlorinated isos and other 

compounds including an unfused 

triazine ring. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. 

Non–Market Economy Country 

The Department has treated the PRC 

as a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country in all past antidumping duty 

investigations and administrative 

reviews and continues to do so in this 

case.6 No interested party in this case 

has argued that we should do otherwise. 

Designation as an NME country remains 

in effect until it is revoked by the 

Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’). 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it, in most 

instances, to base NV on the NME 

producer’s FOPs. The Act further 

instructs that valuation of the FOPs 

shall be based on the best available 

information in the surrogate market 

economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. See section 773(c)(1) of the 

Act. When 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. 

See section 773(c)(4) of the Act. Further, 

the Department normally values all 

FOPs in a single surrogate country. See 

19 CFR 351.408(c)(2). The sources of the 

surrogate factor values are discussed 

under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section 

below and in the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 

1117 of the main Department building.7

In examining which country to select 

as its primary surrogate for this 

proceeding, the Department first 

determined that India, Indonesia, the 

Philippines, Colombia and Thailand are 

countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development. See 

Surrogate Country List. On November 6, 

2008, the Department issued a request 

for interested parties to submit 

comments on surrogate country 

selection. On November 21, 2008, Jiheng 

submitted comments regarding the 

selection of a surrogate country. On 

December 1, 2008, Petitioners submitted 

FOP surrogate value information that 

included several values obtained from 

India. 

Jiheng argues that the Department 

should continue to use India as a 

surrogate country for this segment of the 

proceeding, as it has in previous 

segments, because India produces 

comparable merchandise and there are 

publicly available data with which to 

value the reported FOP information in 

this case. All parties which submitted 

surrogate value data submitted Indian 

sourced data for the majority of their 

data. 

After evaluating interested parties’ 

comments, the Department determined 

that India is the appropriate surrogate 

country for use in this review. The 

Department based its decision on the 

following facts: (1) India is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise, 

i.e., calcium hypochlorite; and (3) India 

provides the best opportunity to use 

quality, publicly available data to value 

the FOPs. On the record of this review, 

we have usable surrogate financial data 

from India, but no such surrogate 

financial data from any other potential 

surrogate country. Additionally, a vast 

majority of the data submitted by both 

Jiheng and the Petitioners for our 

consideration as potential surrogate 

values is sourced from India. 

Therefore, because India best 

represents the experience of producers 

of comparable merchandise operating in 

a surrogate country, we have selected 

India as the surrogate country and, 

accordingly, have calculated NV using 

Indian prices to value the respondents’ 

FOPs, when available and appropriate. 

See Surrogate Value Memorandum. We 

have obtained and relied upon publicly 

available information wherever 

possible. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may 

submit publicly available information to 

value FOPs until 20 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

results.8


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
27106 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 

information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See 

Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 

(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

9See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 10; and Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel 

Beams from Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

10See Jiheng’s CQR at page C-13. 

11See, e.g., Notice of Final Determinations of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Durum 

Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada, 

68 FR 52741 (September 5, 2003), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 3. 

12See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

24943 (May 6, 2008) (unchanged in Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 52645 (September 10, 2008)). 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to review in an NME country 

this single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate 

this independence through the absence 

of both de jure and de facto government 

control over export activities. The 

Department analyzes each entity 

exporting the subject merchandise 

under a test arising from the Notice of 

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 further 

developed in 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’’). 

However, if the Department determines 

that a company is wholly foreign– 

owned or located in a market economy 

country, then a separate–rate analysis is 

not necessary to determine whether it is 

independent from government control. 

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; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

The evidence provided by Jiheng 

supports a preliminary finding of de 

jure absence of government control 

based on the following: (1) an absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with the individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) there are 

applicable legislative enactments 

decentralizing control of the companies; 

and (3) there are formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

companies. See Jiheng’s AQR at Exhibit 

A3.1–A3.3. 

Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically, the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; 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). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

government control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this administrative review by Jiheng 

demonstrates an absence of de facto 

government control with respect to 

Jiheng’s exports of the merchandise 

under review, in accordance with the 

criteria identified in Sparklers and 

Silicon Carbide. See Jiheng’s AQR at 

pages A–13 through A–19 and Jiheng’s 

Verification Report dated May 11, 2009, 

at pages 7–8. 

Date of Sale 

Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s 

regulations states that: 

In identifying the date of sale of the 

subject merchandise or foreign like 

product, the Secretary normally 

will use the date of invoice, as 

recorded in the exporter or 

producer’s records kept in the 

normal course of business. 

However, the Secretary may use a 

date other than the date of invoice 

if the Secretary is satisfied that a 

different date better reflects the date 

on which the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of 

sale. 

Jiheng reported the shipment date as 

the date of sale because it claims that, 

for its U.S. sales of subject merchandise 

made during the POR, the material 

terms of sale were established on the 

shipment date, and for many of its sales 

the shipment date occurs on or before 

the invoice date. Jiheng also stated that 

selecting the shipment date as the date 

of sale insures a consistent methodology 

for selecting the date of sale with 

previous segments in which Jiheng has 

participated. We have preliminarily 

determined that the shipment date is the 

most appropriate date to use as Jiheng’s 

date of sale in accordance with our 

long–standing practice of determining 

the date of sale as the date on which the 

final terms of sale are established.9

Evidence on the record demonstrates 

that sometimes the shipment date 

occurs prior to the invoice date10 and it 

is the Department’s practice to use 

shipment date as the date of sale when 

the shipment date occurs prior to the 

invoice date.11 Finally, we applied the 

shipment date as the sale date in the 

prior POR.12

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

chlorinated isos to the United States by 

Jiheng were made at less than NV, we 

compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as 

described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice, 

pursuant to section 771(35) of the Act. 

Export Price 

Jiheng sold the subject merchandise 

directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States prior to importation into 

the United States. Therefore, we have 

used EP in accordance with section 

772(a) of the Act because the use of the 

constructed export price methodology is 

not otherwise indicated. We calculated 

EP based on the price including the 

appropriate shipping terms to the 

unaffiliated purchasers reported by 

Jiheng. To this price, we added amounts 

for components that were supplied free 

of charge or reimbursed by the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 27107 

13See Memorandum regarding ‘‘Analysis for the 

Preliminary Results of the 2007-2008 

Administrative Review of Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China: 

Hebei Jiheng Chemical Company Ltd. (June 1, 

2009). 

14 Jiheng stated that its customer sourced 

materials from both market-economy and NME 

suppliers. Jiheng further stated that it does not 

know the names of the market-economy suppliers. 

See Jiheng’s DQR at D-8. 

15See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of sales 

at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of China, 71 

FR 53079 (September 8, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17. 

16See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof 

Assembly Components Div. of Ill v. United States, 

268 F.3d 1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 

(affirming the Department’s use of market-based 

prices to value certain FOPs). 

17See, e.g., Frontseating Service Valves from the 

People’s Republic of China; Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 73 FR 62952 (October 22, 2008) 

(unchanged in Frontseating Service Valves from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, 74 FR 

10886 (March 13, 2009); and China National 

Machinery Import & Export Corporation v. United 

States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), affirmed 

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

customer, where applicable, pursuant to 

section 772(c)(1)(A) of the Act.13

Jiheng reported that its U.S. 

customer(s) provided it with certain raw 

materials and packing materials free of 

charge. For Jiheng’s products that 

contained inputs provided free of charge 

by a customer,14 consistent with the 

Department’s practice, we added to the 

U.S. price paid by the Jiheng’s customer 

the built–up cost (i.e., the surrogate 

value for these raw materials and 

packing materials multiplied by the 

reported FOPs for these items).15

Normal Value 

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

that, in the case of an NME, the 

Department shall determine 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 Act. 

The Department will base NV on 

FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of these economies renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under our 

normal methodologies. Therefore, we 

calculated NV based on FOPs in 

accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and 

(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). 

The FOPs include: (1) hours of labor 

required; (2) quantities of raw materials 

employed; (3) amounts of energy and 

other utilities consumed; and (4) 

representative capital costs. We used the 

FOPs reported by the respondent for 

materials, energy, labor, by–products, 

and packing. These reported FOPs 

included various FOPs provided free of 

charge by a customer as discussed in the 

‘‘Export Price’’ section, above. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department will 

normally use publicly available 

information to value the FOPs, but 

when a producer sources an input from 

a market–economy country and pays for 

it in market–economy currency, the 

Department may value the factor using 

the actual price paid for the input.16

Jiheng reported that it did not purchase 

any inputs from market economy 

suppliers for the production of the 

subject merchandise. See Jiheng’s DQR 

at page D–9. 

With regard to the Indian import– 

based surrogate values, we have 

disregarded prices that we have reason 

to believe or suspect may be subsidized, 

such as those from Indonesia, South 

Korea, and Thailand. We have found in 

other proceedings that these countries 

maintain broadly available, non– 

industry-specific export subsidies and, 

therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all 

exports to all markets from these 

countries may be subsidized.17 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. 

100–576, at 590 (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 have 

not used prices from Indonesia, South 

Korea, and Thailand in calculating the 

Indian import–based surrogate values. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

FOPs reported by Jiheng for the POR. To 

calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per–unit factor quantities by 

publicly available Indian surrogate 

values (except as noted below). In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to render them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import surrogate values 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. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 

3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a 

detailed description of all surrogate 

values used for Jiheng, see the Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

Except as noted below, we valued raw 

material inputs using the weighted– 

average unit import values derived from 

the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign 

Trade of India, as published by the 

Directorate General of Commercial 

Intelligence and Statistics of the 

Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 

Government of India in the World Trade 

Atlas, available at http://www.gtis.com/ 

wta.htm (‘‘WTA’’). Where we could not 

obtain publicly available information 

contemporaneous with the POR with 

which to value FOPs, we adjusted the 

surrogate values using, where 

appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price 

Index (‘‘WPI’’) as published in the 

International Financial Statistics of the 

International Monetary Fund. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. We 

further adjusted these prices to account 

for freight costs incurred between the 

supplier and respondent. 

To value truck freight, we used the 

freight rates published by 

www.infobanc.com, ‘‘The Great Indian 

Bazaar, Gateway to Overseas Markets.’’ 

The logistics section of the website 

contains inland freight truck rates 

between many large Indian cities. The 

truck freight rates are for the period 

August 2008 through September 2008. 

Since these dates are not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

deflated the rates using Indian WPI. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

We used the rail freight rates as used 

in the preceding administrative review 

published by www.indianrailways.com 

to value rail freight. Since the rail 

freight rates are not contemporaneous 

with the POR, we inflated the rail 

freight rates using Indian WPI. See the 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

We valued calcium chloride, 

hydrochloric acid, barium chloride and 

sulfuric acid using Chemical Weekly 

because we did not have reliable Indian 

import statistics from the WTA for these 

factors. We adjusted these values for 

taxes and to account for freight costs 

incurred between the supplier and the 

respondent. 

Jiheng reported that its U.S. 

customer(s) provided certain raw 

materials and packing materials free of 

charge. For Jiheng’s products that 

included raw materials and packing 

materials provided free of charge by its 

customer, consistent with the 

Department’s practice and section 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
27108 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 

18See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of China, 71 

FR 53079 (September 8, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17. 

19See Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries 

(May 14, 2008) (available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

wages). The source of these wage rate data on the 

Import Administration’s web site is the Yearbook of 

Labour Statistics 2005, ILO, (Geneva: 2005), Chapter 

5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of the 

reported wage rates range from 2004 to 2005. 

773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we used the 

built–up cost (i.e., the surrogate value 

for these raw materials and packing 

materials multiplied by the reported 

FOPs for these items) in the NV 

calculation.18 Where applicable, we also 

adjusted these values to account for 

freight costs incurred between the port 

of exit and Jiheng’s plants. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum, and 

Jiheng’s Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

To value electricity, we used price 

data for small, medium, and large 

industries, as published by the Central 

Electricity Authority of the Government 

of India in its publication entitled 

‘‘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. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

To value water, we used the revised 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation (‘‘MIDC’’) water rates 

available at http://www.midcindia.com/ 

water–supply, which we deflated using 

Indian WPI. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

To value steam coal, we used data 

obtained for categories B and C for coal 

reported in the 2007 Indian Bureau of 

Mines’ Minerals Yearbook adjusted for 

inflation. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

To value steam, we used data 

obtained from the Indian financial 

statements of Hindalco Industries 

Limited. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Jiheng reported chlorine, hydrogen 

gas, ammonia gas, and sulfuric acid as 

by–products in the production of 

subject merchandise. We found in this 

administrative review, as confirmed at 

verification, that Jiheng has 

appropriately reported its by–products 

and, therefore, we have granted Jiheng 

a by–product offset for the quantities of 

these reported by–products. We valued 

chlorine and hydrogen gas with data 

obtained from Indian financial 

statements for companies that produce 

and sell both chlorine and hydrogen gas. 

See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

For direct labor, indirect labor and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

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

regression–based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s web site.19

Because this regression–based wage rate 

does not separate the labor rates into 

different skill levels or types of labor, 

we have applied the same wage rate to 

all skill levels and types of labor 

reported by each respondent. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

For packing materials, we used the 

per–kilogram values obtained from the 

WTA and made adjustments to account 

for freight costs incurred between the 

PRC supplier and Jiheng’s plants. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

None of the interested parties in this 

review provided financial statements for 

use in calculating a surrogate value for 

factory overhead, selling, general, and 

administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), and 

profit for the preliminary results. 

Therefore, for factory overhead, SG&A, 

and profit values, we used information 

from Kanoria Chemicals and Industries 

Limited for the year ending March 31, 

2007, which was used in the preceding 

administrative review and which we 

placed on the record of this 

administrative review. From this 

information, we were able to determine 

factory overhead as a percentage of the 

total raw materials, labor and energy 

(‘‘ML&E’’) costs; SG&A as a percentage 

of ML&E plus overhead (i.e., cost of 

manufacture); and the profit rate as a 

percentage of the cost of manufacture 

plus SG&A. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum for a full discussion of 

the calculation of these ratios. 

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 dates of 

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

Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted–average dumping 

margin exists: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin 

(Percent) 

Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. 3.05 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this 

proceeding within five days of the 

publication date of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are 

invited to comment on the preliminary 

results and may submit case briefs and/ 

or written comments within 30 days of 

the date of publication of this notice. 

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

briefs and rebuttals to written 

comments, limited to issues raised in 

such briefs or comments, may be filed 

no later than five days after the time 

limit for filing the case briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). The Department 

requests that parties submitting written 

comments provide an executive 

summary and a table of authorities as 

well as an additional copy of those 

comments electronically. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Hearing requests should contain the 

following information: (1) the party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

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

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. If a request for a 

hearing is made, parties will be notified 

of the time and date for the hearing to 

be held at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, which will include the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the publication date of the final 

results of this review. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 

calculated exporter/importer (or 

customer)-specific assessment rates for 

the merchandise subject to this review. 

Where the respondent has reported 

reliable entered values, we calculated 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rates by aggregating the 

dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

entered value of the sales to each 

importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 

greater than de minimis, we will apply 

the assessment rate to the entered value 

of the importers’/customers’ entries 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 27109 

during the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). 

Where we do not have entered values 

for all U.S. sales, we calculated a per– 

unit assessment rate by aggregating the 

antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer (or 

customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates are de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

Where an importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Further, the following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for Jiheng, the 

cash deposit rate will be the company– 

specific rate established in the final 

results of review (except, if the rate is 

zero or de minimis, a zero cash deposit 

will be required); (2) for previously 

investigated or reviewed PRC and non– 

PRC exporters not listed above that have 

separate rates, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the exporter–specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

for all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise that have not been found 

to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 

deposit rate will be the PRC–wide rate 

of 285.63 percent; and (4) for all non– 

PRC exporters of subject merchandise 

which have not received their own rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporters that 

supplied that non–PRC exporter. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also 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 determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: June 1, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–13340 Filed 6–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–848] 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Intent 

to Rescind Review in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to timely 

requests, the Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on freshwater 

crawfish tail meat from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). The period of 

review (POR) is September 1, 2007, 

through August 31, 2008. 

We have preliminarily determined 

that sales have not been made below 

normal value by the exporter covered by 

the administrative review. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of this review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to liquidate entries of 

merchandise exported by Xiping Opeck 

Food Co., Ltd., during the POR without 

regard to antidumping duties. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit comments in this 

review are requested to submit with 

each argument (1) a statement of the 

issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0665 and (202) 

482–1690, respectively. 

Background 

On September 15, 1997, the 

Department published an amended final 

determination and antidumping duty 

order on freshwater crawfish tail meat 

from the PRC. See Notice of Amendment 

to Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 

From the People’s Republic of China, 62 

FR 48218 (September 15, 1997). On 

September 2, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

order. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 51272 (September 2, 2008). 

On September 17, 2008, Xiping Opeck 

Food Co., Ltd. (Xiping Opeck), a 

producer and exporter of crawfish tail 

meat from the PRC, requested an 

administrative review. On September 

30, 2008, the petitioner, the Crawfish 

Processors Alliance, requested an 

administrative review of Shanghai Now 

Again International Trading Co., Ltd. 

(Shanghai Now Again), Xiping Opeck, 

and Yancheng Hi–King Agriculture 

Developing Co., Ltd. (Hi–King). 

On October 29, 2008, based on timely 

requests for an administrative review, 

the Department published a notice of 

initiation of an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

freshwater crawfish tail meat from the 

PRC. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Deferral of Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 64305 (October 29, 2008). 

The review was initiated with respect to 

Xiping Opeck, Shanghai Now Again, 

and Hi–King. 

The POR is September 1, 2007, 

through August 31, 2008. We are 

conducting this review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the 

antidumping duty order is freshwater 

crawfish tail meat, in all its forms 

(whether washed or with fat on, 

whether purged or unpurged), grades, 

and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or 

chilled; and regardless of how it is 

packed, preserved, or prepared. 

Excluded from the scope of the order are 

live crawfish and other whole crawfish, 

whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. 

Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of 

any type and parts thereof. Freshwater 

crawfish tail meat is currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 

1605.40.10.90, which are the HTSUS 

numbers for prepared foodstuffs, 

indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and 

other, as introduced by CBP in 2000, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES