29174 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 

make an adverse inference.’’ See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 

(May 19, 1997). See also Nippon Steel 

Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 

1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

As discussed in detail in the 

Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at 

20916–20918, Sunlake refused to 

respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire despite being given ample 

opportunity to do so by the Department. 

Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), 

(B), and (C) of the Act, the Department 

found that the use of facts available was 

appropriate for Sunlake in this 

circumvention proceeding. 

Furthermore, the Department found that 

Sunlake had not acted to the best of its 

ability in this circumvention proceeding 

within the meaning of section 776(b) of 

the Act. Accordingly, we preliminarily 

applied adverse facts available (AFA) to 

Sunlake. Specifically, we preliminarily 

considered all of Sunlake’s exports of 

tissue paper products from Thailand to 

be of PRC origin and concluded that 

Sunlake is circumventing the Order. We 

also assigned Sunlake a margin of 

112.64 percent, which is the highest 

corroborated rate on the record in any 

completed segment of the tissue paper 

proceeding. 

No party filed comments objecting to 

the Department’s Preliminary 

Determination and no further 

information has come to the 

Department’s attention warranting 

reconsideration of that determination. 

Therefore, we continue to find that the 

application of facts available is 

necessary pursuant to section 776(a) of 

the Act, and that Sunlake has failed to 

act to the best of its ability in this 

circumvention proceeding, warranting 

the use of an adverse inference under 

section 776(b) of the Act. Thus, as AFA, 

we continue to determine that all of 

Sunlake’s exports of tissue paper 

products from Thailand to the United 

States are, in fact, of PRC origin, and 

that Sunlake is circumventing the 

Order. 

Accordingly, for this final 

determination, we are applying to 

Sunlake a margin of 112.64 percent, as 

AFA. This margin is the highest rate on 

the record in any completed segment of 

this proceeding (i.e., the LTFV 

investigation, and the first and second 

administrative reviews) and it has been 

corroborated in accordance with section 

776(c) of the Act, as discussed in detail 

in the Preliminary Determination, 74 FR 

at 20918. 

Suspension of Liquidation and Cash 

Deposit Requirement 

In accordance with section 19 CFR 

351.225(l), the Department will direct 

CBP to continue to suspend liquidation 

and to require a cash deposit of 

estimated duties, at the rate of 112.64 

percent, on all unliquidated entries of 

certain tissue paper products produced 

in and exported from Thailand by 

Sunlake that were entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after October 21, 

2008, the date of initiation of the 

circumvention inquiry. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with section 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulation and terms of an APO 

is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This affirmative final circumvention 

determination is published in 

accordance with section 781(b) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.225. 

Dated: June 12, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–14359 Filed 6–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the 13th 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and New Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting the 

administrative review (AR) and new 

shipper reviews (NSRs) of the 

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) covering the period of review 

(POR) of November 1, 2006 through 

October 31, 2007. As discussed below, 

we determine that sales have been made 

in the United States at prices below 

normal value (NV) with respect to 

certain exporters who participated fully 

and are entitled to a separate rate in the 

AR or NSRs. In addition, we are 

rescinding the NSRs for two companies. 

Finally, the Department is rescinding 

the antidumping duty AR of companies 

that timely certified that they had no 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. We 

intend to instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR for which 

importer-specific assessment rates are 

above de minimis. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 19, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Lindsay, Nicholas Czajkowski, or 

Summer Avery, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0780, (202) 482–1395, and (202) 

482–4052, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 8, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of the AR and NSRs 

of the antidumping duty order on fresh 

garlic from the PRC. See Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews and Intent to Rescind, in Part, 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

and New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 74462 

(December 8, 2008) (Preliminary 

Results). Since the Preliminary Results, 

the following events have occurred. 

Shandong Chenhe International 

Trading Co., Ltd. (Chenhe) filed letters 

on December 12 and December 31, 

requesting that the Department rescind 

this AR with respect to Chenhe and 

remove it from the list of companies 

subject to the PRC-wide rate, as 

determined in the Preliminary Results. 

On December 15, Shenzhen Greening 

Trading Co., Ltd. (Greening) also filed a 

letter seeking removal from the list of 

companies subject to the PRC-wide rate 

and revised publication of the 

Preliminary Results. On December 18, 

the Department notified parties that case 

briefs would be due seven days after the 

last verification report was issued. On 

December 19 and 23, the Fresh Garlic 

Producers Association (FGPA) and its 

individual members (Christopher Ranch 

LLC, the Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, 

and Vessey and Company, Inc.) 

(collectively, Petitioners), filed letters in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 29175 

1 In addition, due to the proprietary nature of 

much of the information involved in companyspecific discussions, the Department has found it 

necessary to address certain issues in separate 

memoranda. See Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review of Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China (PRC): Bona Fides Comments 

Memorandum for Ningjin Ruifeng Foodstuff Co., 

Ltd. (Ningjin Ruifeng Comments Memorandum), 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of China (PRC): 

Bona Fides Comments Memorandum for Anqiu 

Haoshun Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (Haoshun Comments 

Memorandum), and the three company-specific 

memoranda referenced in the ‘‘Bona Fides 

Analysis’’ section below. 

response to those filed by Chenhe and 

Greening. On January 14, 2009, 

Petitioners filed additional surrogate 

value information. 

On February 26, the Department 

extended the time limit for completion 

of the final results of this administrative 

review by 60 days. See Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of Time Limits for Final 

Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 8774 (February 

26, 2009). 

On March 18, the Department issued 

a memorandum proposing, and inviting 

interested parties to comment in their 

case briefs on, revised assessment and 

cash deposit methodologies with respect 

to the separate rate companies and PRCwide entity in these reviews. See Letter 

to All Interested Parties Re: The 2006/ 

2007 Administrative Review of Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(March 18, 2009) (Per Unit 

Memorandum). 

The Department conducted 

verification of the AR and NSR 

respondents from March 2 through 

March 14. On April 20 and 21, the 

Department issued its verification 

reports. On April 21, the Department 

notified parties that case briefs were due 

April 28. In response to requests filed by 

the AR and NSR respondents and 

Petitioners on April 23 and 24, 

respectively, the Department extended 

the deadlines for case briefs to May 1. 

On April 29, Chenhe submitted a case 

brief. On May 1, 2009, Petitioners, 

Zhengzhou Yuanli Trading Co. Ltd. 

(Yuanli), Ningjin Ruifeng Foodstuff Co., 

Ltd. (Ningjin Ruifeng), as well as 

Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 

(Weifang Shennong), Anqiu Friend 

Food Co. Ltd. (Anqiu Friend), and 

Anqiu Haoshun Trade Co., Ltd. 

(Haoshun) (collectively, WAA), 

submitted case briefs. After reviewing 

the case briefs, the Department 

instructed WAA to re-file their case 

briefs because they contained untimely 

new factual information. WAA filed the 

final versions of their redacted case 

briefs on May 7. On May 6 and May 8, 

Yuanli, Petitioners, and WAA submitted 

rebuttal briefs. On May 28, the 

Department instructed Yuanli to re-file 

its case brief and Petitioners to re-file 

their rebuttal brief because they 

contained untimely new factual 

information. Yuanli and Petitioners refiled their case and rebuttal briefs, 

respectively, on May 29. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this Order 

are all grades of garlic, whole or 

separated into constituent cloves, 

whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, 

frozen, provisionally preserved, or 

packed in water or other neutral 

substance, but not prepared or 

preserved by the addition of other 

ingredients or heat processing. The 

differences between grades are based on 

color, size, sheathing, and level of 

decay. The scope of this order does not 

include the following: (a) Garlic that has 

been mechanically harvested and that is 

primarily, but not exclusively, destined 

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

been specially prepared and cultivated 

prior to planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed. The 

subject merchandise is used principally 

as a food product and for seasoning. The 

subject garlic is currently classifiable 

under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 

0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 

0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 

0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. In order to be 

excluded from the Order, garlic entered 

under the HTSUS subheadings listed 

above that is (1) mechanically harvested 

and primarily, but not exclusively, 

destined for non-fresh use or (2) 

specially prepared and cultivated prior 

to planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed must 

be accompanied by declarations to CBP 

to that effect. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

Issues raised in the case and rebuttal 

briefs by parties to this proceeding and 

to which we have responded are listed 

in Appendix 1 to this notice and 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (Issues and Decision 

Memorandum), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice.1 Parties can find 

a complete discussion of the issues 

raised in these AR and NSRs and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 

1117 of the main Department building. 

In addition, a copy of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on our Web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Final Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Review 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department preliminarily rescinded the 

administrative review with respect to 

the following three companies: Jinan 

Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd. (Jinan 

Farmlady), Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods 

Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Tiantaixing), and 

Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods Co., Ltd. 

(Qingdao Xintianfeng). Jinan Farmlady, 

Qingdao Tiantaixing, and Qingdao 

Xintianfeng reported that they had no 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 74465. As 

we stated in the Preliminary Results, our 

examination of shipment data from CBP 

for the three no-shipment companies 

confirmed that there were no entries of 

subject merchandise which they 

exported during the POR. Id. We also 

received no comments or information to 

change our preliminary rescission. 

Therefore, we are rescinding this 

administrative review with respect to all 

three aforementioned companies. 

Final Rescission of New Shipper 

Review With Respect to Anqiu Haoshun 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department preliminarily rescinded 

Haoshun’s new shipper review. See 

Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 74465. 

Based on our analysis of arguments 

made by the parties, the Department 

will not change its preliminary 

rescission. Therefore, we are rescinding 

this new shipper review with respect to 

Haoshun. (See ‘‘Bona Fides Analysis’’ 

section below; Comment 10 of the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum; and the memorandum 

from Scott Lindsay to Barbara Tillman, 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Bona Fide 

Analysis of Anqiu Haoshun Trade Co., 

Ltd.’s Sale (June 8, 2009) (Haoshun 

Final Bona Fide Memorandum), and 

Haoshun Comments Memorandum.) 

Bona Fides Analysis 

As noted in the Preliminary Results, 

while conducting a review, particularly 

a review where a company’s margin 

would be based on a single sale, the 

Department examines price, quantity, 

and other circumstances associated with 

the sale under review, and must 

determine if the sale was based on 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

29176 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 

normal commercial considerations and 

presents an accurate representation of 

the company’s normal business 

practices. If the Department determines 

that the price was not based on normal 

commercial considerations or is atypical 

of the respondent’s normal business 

practices, including other sales of 

comparable merchandise, the sale may 

be considered non-bona fide. 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department preliminarily concluded 

that the single sale made by Haoshun 

during the POR was a not a bona fide 

commercial transaction and 

preliminarily rescinded the NSR with 

respect to Haoshun. In addition, the 

Department preliminarily found the 

sales made by Yuanli and Ningjin 

Ruifeng to be bona fide commercial 

transactions. Petitioners, Respondents, 

Yuanli, and Ningjin Ruifeng have 

submitted extensive arguments 

regarding the Department’s preliminary 

bona fides analyses of Haoshun’s, 

Yuanli’s and Ningjin Ruifeng’s new 

shipper sales. In addition, these parties 

have submitted arguments as to whether 

the Department should rescind each 

company’s NSR in these final results. 

Most of the parties’ arguments are based 

on information which is business 

proprietary. Thus, the parties’ 

comments are fully discussed in the 

Haoshun Comments Memorandum, 

Ningjin Ruifeng Comments 

Memorandum, and Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review 

of Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis 

of Zhengzhou Yuanli Trading Co. Ltd’s 

Sale (June 8, 2009) (Yuanli Final Bona 

Fide Memorandum). 

Based on the totality of the 

circumstances as discussed in the 

memoranda addressing bona fides 

issues, for these final results, the 

Department continues to find the price 

and quantity of Haoshun’s single POR 

sale to be unreasonable and atypical, 

and therefore find the sale to be not 

bona fide. Thus, the Department has 

rescinded the NSR with respect to 

Haoshun. In addition, we determine that 

the new shipper sale made by Ningjin 

was not a bona fide commercial 

transaction because Ningjin failed to 

establish payment terms while 

negotiating its U.S. sale, the quantity of 

garlic sold was unreasonably low, and 

there is other evidence that this 

transaction may not have been made on 

an arm’s-length basis. Thus, the 

Department has also rescinded the NSR 

with respect to Ningjin. Finally, we 

continue to find that Yuanli’s sales was 

bona fide. Given the proprietary nature 

of the underlying data used to formulate 

the Department’s analysis and 

determinations, see the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 10, 

Haoshun Final Bona Fide 

Memorandum, Haoshun Comments 

Memorandum, Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review 

of Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis 

of Ningjin Ruifeng Foodstuff Co., Ltd.’s 

Sale (June 8, 2009), Ningjin Ruifeng 

Comments Memorandum, and Yuanli 

Final Bona Fide Memorandum, for 

details of the proprietary data that 

support the decisions contained herein. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on a review of the record as 

well as comments received from parties 

regarding our Preliminary Results, we 

have made revisions to the margin 

calculations for Anqiu Friend, Weifang 

Shennong, and Yuanli. Specifically, the 

Department will use an average of the 

financial ratios of ADF Foods Ltd. 

(ADF); Tata Tea Ltd. (Tata Tea); and 

Limtex to value the factory overhead 

(FOH), selling, general & administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and profit used to 

calculate NV. (See 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(4).) We note that using an 

average of three Indian processors’ data 

will allow us to calculate financial 

ratios that better reflect the broader 

experience of the surrogate industry. 

Moreover, as ADF’s and Tata Tea’s 

production processes are more 

comparable to that of peeled garlic, 

which comprises an increasing share of 

all PRC garlic imports, and Limtex’s 

production process is comparable to 

that of non-processed whole garlic 

bulbs, which continue to comprise a 

large share of PRC garlic imports 

nonetheless, the resulting financial 

ratios will be a better surrogate for the 

garlic industry in the PRC as a whole. 

See Issues and Decision Memorandum 

at Comment 3. See also Administrative 

Review and New Shipper Review of 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China: Surrogate Values for the Final 

Results (Final Surrogate Values 

Memorandum). 

As a result of the revisions made to 

Anqiu Friend’s and Weifang Shennong’s 

company-specific margins, the margin 

calculated for the four separate rate 

companies, Jinxiang Dongyun Freezing 

Storage Co., Ltd. (Jinxiang Dongyun), 

Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co., 

Ltd. (Qingdao Saturn), Qufu Dongbao 

Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. (Qufu 

Dongbao), and Shanghai LJ International 

Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai LJ), has also 

changed. For all changes to the 

calculations for Anqiu Friend, Weifang 

Shennong, and Yuanli, see the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum and the 

company-specific analysis memoranda. 

With respect to the surrogate value for 

paper labels, information on the record 

indicates that the paper labels used by 

respondents appear to be a self-adhesive 

rectangular sheet, similar to the 

description of the Indian HTS 

#4811.41.00. Thus, in accordance with 

our surrogate value selection criteria, 

the Department finds that in this case 

the Indian HTS #4811.41.00 represents 

the best surrogate value based on the 

available information on the record and 

we have changed our surrogate value 

calculations accordingly. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. 

See also Final Surrogate Values 

Memorandum. 

Lastly, following the methodologies 

established in the aforementioned PerUnit Memorandum and consistent with 

the Department’s practice, we are 

calculating per-unit cash deposit and 

assessment rates for the separate rate 

companies and companies that are part 

of the PRC-wide entity. See Per-Unit 

Memorandum, Final Results of the 

Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Separate Rate Companies and PRCWide Entity—Per-Unit Assessment Rates 

(June 8, 2009), and Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 8. See also 

Honey from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Rescission, In 

Part, of Aligned Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review, 73 FR 42321 (July 21, 

2008). 

Final Results of Reviews 

As a result of our reviews, we 

determine that the following margins 

exist for the period November 1, 2006 

through October 31, 2007: 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

WeightAveraged margin (percent) 

Fresh Garlic from the PRC 2006–2007 

Administrative Review 

Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd. 64.78 

Weifang Shennong Foodstuff 

Co., Ltd ............................. 80.69 

Jinxiang Dongyun Freezing 

Storage Co., Ltd ................ 72.74 

Qingdao Saturn International 

Trade Co., Ltd ................... 72.74 

Qufu Dongbao Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd ........... 72.74 

Shanghai LJ International 

Trading Co., Ltd ................ 72.74 

PRC-wide Rate .....................

(see Appendix 2) .................. 376.67 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 29177 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

WeightAveraged margin (percent) 

Fresh Garlic from the PRC 2006–2007 New 

Shipper Review 

Exported and Produced by 

Zhengzhou Yuanli Trading 

Co., Ltd ............................. 120.18 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to these 

proceedings within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

Assessment Rates 

Consistent with the final results of the 

12th NSR review of Fresh Garlic from 

the PRC, we will direct CBP to assess 

importer-specific assessment rates based 

on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per 

kilogram) amount on each entry of the 

subject merchandise during the POR. 

See Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Rescission, in Part, of Twelfth New 

Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 56550, 56552 

(September 29, 2008) (12th NSR of 

Fresh Garlic from the PRC). Therefore, 

the Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries pursuant to section 

751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). The Department will 

issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

this review. For assessment purposes, 

we calculated importer-specific 

assessment rates for fresh garlic from the 

PRC. Specifically, we divided the total 

dumping margins for each importer by 

the total quantity of subject 

merchandise sold to that importer 

during the POR to calculate a per-unit 

assessment amount. We will direct CBP 

to assess importer-specific assessment 

rates based on the resulting per-unit 

(i.e., per kilogram) amount on each 

entry of the subject merchandise during 

the POR if any importer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. 

Moreover, as noted above, the 

Department is calculating per-unit cash 

deposit and assessment rates for 

separate rate companies and companies 

that are part of the PRC-wide entity. 

Using CBP data, we totaled the quantity 

and value of the entries made by the 

four separate rate companies to derive a 

weighted average unit value (AUV), 

which we then multiplied by the 

separate rate to calculate a per-unit 

assessment amount. For companies 

determined to be part of the PRC-wide 

entity, the Department employed the 

methodology discussed above, except 

we calculated an AUV exclusive of 

entries from the two mandatory 

respondents and the four separate rate 

companies, and then multiplied the 

AUV by the PRC-wide rate. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Consistent with the final results of the 

12th NSR of Fresh Garlic from the PRC, 

we have established and will collect a 

per kilogram cash-deposit amount 

which will be the per-unit equivalent of 

the company-specific dumping margin 

published in the final results of these 

reviews. The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of these 

reviews for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date of the final 

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

of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise 

exported by Anqiu Friend and exported 

by Weifang Shennong the cash deposit 

rates will be the per unit rates 

determined in the final results of the 

administrative review; (2) for subject 

merchandise produced and exported by 

Yuanli, the cash deposit rates will be 

the per unit rate determined in the final 

results of the new shipper review; (3) for 

subject merchandise exported by but not 

produced by Yuanli, the cash deposit 

rate will be the PRC-wide rate; (4) for 

subject merchandise exported by 

Jinxiang Dongyun, Qingdao Saturn, 

Qufu Dongbao, and Shanghai LJ, the 

cash deposit rates will be the per unit 

rates determined in the final results of 

the administrative review; (5) for 

previously-investigated or previouslyreviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters 

who received a separate rate in a prior 

segment of the proceeding (which were 

not reviewed in this segment of the 

proceeding), the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the rate assigned in that 

segment of the proceeding; (6) for 

subject merchandise exported by 

Haoshun, Ningjin, Chenhe, Greening 

and all other PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise that have not been found 

to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 

deposit rate will be the per-unit PRCwide rate; and (7) the cash deposit rate 

for non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate will be the rate applicable 

to the PRC exporter that supplied that 

non-PRC exporter. These requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final 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. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

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. 

These administrative and new shipper 

reviews and notice are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214. 

Dated: June 8, 2009. 

Carole Showers, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy 

and Negotiations. 

Appendix 1 

Comment 1: Intermediate Input 

Methodology. 

Comment 2: Garlic Bulb Surrogate 

Value. 

Comment 3: Surrogate Financial Ratios. 

Comment 4: Timing of Petitioners’ 

Surrogate Value Submission. 

Comment 5: Water Valuation. 

Comment 6: Paper Label Valuation. 

Comment 7: Yield Factor Valuation. 

Comment 8: Per Unit Assessment. 

Comment 9: Anqiu Friend’s Affiliations. 

Comment 10: Bona Fides of New 

Shipper Companies. 

Comment 11: Rescission of Chenhe and 

Greening. 

Appendix 2 

The following companies subject to 

this antidumping duty administrative 

review did not apply for a separate rate 

and thus have been assigned the PRCwide rate for their imports of subject 

merchandise during the POR. 

1. APS Qingdao. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

29178 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 

2. American Pioneer Shipping. 

3. Beijing Jim International Food Co., 

Ltd. 

4. Burgeon International Inc. 

5. Fujian Meitan Import & Export 

Xiamen Corporation. 

6. Jining Meiya Foods Co., Ltd. 

7. Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd. 

8. Jinxian County Huaguang Food 

Import & Export Co., Ltd. 

9. Junan Auto Imp and Exp Co., Ltd. 

10. Linyi Futai Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 

11. Marnex (HongKong) Company. 

12. New Future International Trading 

Co. 

13. Omni Decor China Ltd. 

14. Qingdao Rock-It Sports Inc. 

15. Sea Trade International 

Incorporated. 

16. Shandong Chengshun Farm Produce 

Trading Co., Ltd. 

17. Shandong Chenhe Int’l Trading Co., 

Ltd. 

18. Shandong Dongsheng Eastsun Foods 

Co., Ltd. 

19. Shandong Garlic Company. 

20. Shanghai New Long March 

International Trade Co., Ltd. 

21. Shenzhen Greening Trading Co., 

Ltd. 

22. Shenzhen Imp & Exp. Ltd. 

23. T&S International, LLC. 

24. Taiwan Wachine Co., Ltd. 

25. Taizhou Overseas Int’l Ltd. 

[FR Doc. E9–14358 Filed 6–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–570–891) 

Notice of Partial Rescission, Intent To 

Rescind and Extension of Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Hand Trucks 

and Certain Parts Thereof From the 

People’s Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

Gleason Industrial Products, Inc., and 

Precision Products, Inc. (collectively, 

petitioners), the U.S. Department of 

Commerce (the Department) initiated an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on hand trucks 

and certain parts thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China for the 

companies listed below for the period 

December 1, 2007, through November 

30, 2008. No other interested party 

requested a review for this period of 

review. For the reasons discussed 

below, the Department is partially 

rescinding this administrative review 

with respect to two companies and 

intends to rescind the review with 

respect to a third company. 

EFFECTIVE DATES: June 19, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Cordell 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) 482–0408 or (202) 482– 

0649 respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 1, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register its 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on hand trucks 

and certain parts thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 72764 

(December 1, 2008). On December 30, 

2008, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1), petitioners requested that 

the Department conduct an 

administrative review for the following 

exporters of the subject merchandise: 

Qingdao Huatian Hand Truck Co., Ltd. 

(Huatian); True Potential Co., Ltd. (True 

Potential); Since Hardware (Guangzhou) 

Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware); and NewTec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (NewTec). 

On February 2, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of the initiation of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of hand trucks from the PRC for the 

period December 1, 2007, through 

November 30, 2008, with respect to the 

four companies named above. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 74 FR 5821 (February 2, 2009) 

(Initiation Notice). 

On February 19, 2009, the Department 

issued a memorandum indicating its 

intention to select mandatory 

respondents based upon U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection data for U.S. 

imports of hand trucks from the PRC 

during the POR. On February 13, 2009 

petitioners provided comments to the 

Department in which they requested 

that the Department select Huatian and 

True Potential as mandatory 

respondents. On March 4, 2009, Huatian 

and True Potential both provided the 

Department with separate rate 

certifications, thereby meeting the 30- 

day deadline for submission of such 

certifications as detailed in the 

Initiation Notice. On March 16, 2009, 

the Department determined that it was 

not practicable to examine individually 

all of the companies covered by the 

2007–2008 administrative review. The 

Department stated it was limiting its 

examination to the largest producers/ 

exporters that could reasonably be 

reviewed, pursuant to section 

777A(c)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Tariff Act). The 

Department selected Huatian and True 

Potential as the two respondents 

required to submit a full questionnaire 

response in the administrative review. 

See memorandum titled ‘‘Respondent 

Selection Memorandum: Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Hand 

Trucks and Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ dated 

March 16, 2009. 

Huatian and True Potential filed their 

section A responses on April 13, 2009 

and their section C and D responses on 

April 28, 2009. On May 1, 2009, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), 

petitioners withdrew their requests for 

review of Huatian and True Potential 

but did not withdraw the request with 

respect to Since Hardware and New-Tec 

On March 4, 2009, New-Tec provided 

certification that New-Tec did not ship 

to the United States any subject 

merchandise during the POR and 

requested the Department rescind the 

review with respect to New-Tec. On 

April 21, 2009, the Department’s no 

shipments inquiry with respect to NewTec was posted by CBP. See message 

number 9120201 dated April 21, 2009. 

The Department has received no 

information from that inquiry, and has 

found no evidence of shipments of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States by New-Tec of subject 

merchandise during the POR. 

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 at a later date if the 

Department determines that it is 

reasonable to extend the time limit for 

withdrawing the request. The 

Department initiated the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on February 2, 2009. Petitioners 

withdrew their request for review of 

Huatian and True Potential on May 1, 

2009. As the party that requested this 

review has timely withdrawn the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES