31238 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 

toilet, garbage receptacle, parking, 

interpretive sign, security, and if 

implemented, the sixth amenity, a 

picnic table, will be added as well as a 

fee vault. Financial analyses based on 

level of amenities suggest a day-use fee 

of $5.00 per vehicle per day. This site 

is proposed to become a fee site where 

the Northwest Forest Pass ($5.00 per 

day or $30 for an annual pass) or other 

applicable passes would be accepted. 

Fees would be required only during the 

managed season of Memorial Day 

weekend through October. 

Thielsen View Boat Launch, is located 

within the Thielsen View Campground 

and is currently not a fee site. It is one 

of three highly developed boat launches 

on Diamond Lake. A $5.00 per vehicle/ 

boat trailer per day fee is already 

charged at the other two boat launches. 

Improvements and amenities at the boat 

launch include the double-lane paved 

ramp, paved parking, mooring dock, 

toilet, garbage bins, and picnic tables. 

Financial analyses based on level of 

amenities suggest a fee of $5.00 or more 

per vehicle/boat trailer per day. This 

site is proposed to become a fee site 

where the Northwest Forest Pass ($5.00 

per day or $30 for an annual pass) or 

other applicable passes would be 

accepted. Persons already paying 

overnight camping or lodging fees at 

other sites on Diamond Lake would not 

be required to pay a day-use boat launch 

fee. 

DATES: New fees would begin after May 

2010 and contingent upon approval of 

the Recreation Resource Advisory 

Board. Comments concerning this notice 

should be received by July 31, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: 

Bill Blackwell, Umpqua National Forest, 

2900 NW. Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, 

OR 97471. Comments may also be sent 

via e-mail to: 

commentspacificnorthwest-umpqua@fs 

fed. us, or via facsimile to 541–957– 

3495. Comments may be hand-delivered 

to the above address Monday through 

Friday, from 8 a.m. till 4:30 p.m., 

excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill 

Blackwell, Assistant Forest Recreation 

Staff Officer, 541–957–3349. 

Information about proposed fee changes 

can also be found on the Umpqua 

National Forest Web site: http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/r6/umpqua/recreation/ 

index.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement 

Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108–447) directed 

the Secretary of Agriculture to publish 

a six-month advance notice in the 

Federal Register whenever new 

recreation fee areas are established. 

Once public involvement is complete, 

these new fees will be reviewed by a 

Recreation Resource Advisory 

Committee prior to a final decision and 

implementation. 

Dated: June 16, 2009. 

Clifford J. Dils, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. E9–15370 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–855] 

Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results for the 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

SUMMARY: On June 5, 2000, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published in the 

Federal Register the antidumping duty 

order on certain non-frozen apple juice 

concentrate from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’). The Department is 

conducting an administrative review of 

this Order, covering the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) of June 1, 2007, through 

May 31, 2008. 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. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 30, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexis Polovina, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3927. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General Background 

On June 5, 2000, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published in 

the Federal Register the antidumping 

duty order on certain non-frozen apple 

juice concentrate from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See Notice 

of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain NonFrozen Apple Juice Concentrate From 

the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 

35606 (June 5, 2000) (‘‘Order’’). On July 

30, 2008, the Department published a 

notice of initiation of an administrative 

review of certain non-frozen apple juice 

concentrate from the People’s Republic 

of China covering the period June 1, 

2007, through May 31, 2008. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, 

and Deferral of Administrative Review, 

73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008). 

On August 15, 2008, the Department 

issued original questionnaires to Itochu 

Corporation and its wholly-owned 

subsidiaries, Yitian Juice (Shaanxi) Co., 

Ltd. and Laiyang Yitian Co., Ltd., 

(collectively ‘‘Itochu’’). Between 

September 2008 and March 2009, Itochu 

submitted responses to the original 

sections A, C, and D questionnaires and 

supplemental sections A, C, and D 

questionnaires. 

Extension of Time Limits 

On February 5, 2009, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results of this review by 120 

days, to June 30, 2009. See Certain NonFrozen Apple Juice Concentrate From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of Time Limits for the 

Preliminary Results of the 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 6139 

(February 5, 2009) (‘‘Extension’’). 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate 

Values 

On January 16, 2009, the Department 

sent interested parties a letter requesting 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and information pertaining to 

valuing factors of production (‘‘FOP’’). 

On February 24, 2009, the Itochu 

submitted surrogate country comments. 

On March 16, 2009, Itochu submitted 

surrogate value data. No other party is 

active in this review. 

Verification 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), we 

conducted verification of the sales and 

FOPs for Itochu between April 6–10, 

2009. See Memorandum to the File from 

Alexis Polovina, Case Analyst through 

Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, 

Verification of the Sales and Factors 

Response of Itochu Corporation and its 

Affiliate Yitian Juice (Shaanxi) Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Shaanxi Yitian’’) in the Antidumping 

Administrative Review of Non-Frozen 

Apple Juice Concentrate, dated May 5, 

2009 (‘‘Shaanxi Yitian Verification 

Report’’). 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this order is 

certain non-frozen apple juice 

concentrate. Apple juice concentrate is 

defined as all non-frozen concentrated 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 31239 

1See Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting 

Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9: 

Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate 

(‘‘NFAJC’’) from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’), dated January 15, 2009 (‘‘Surrogate 

Country List’’). 

apple juice with a brix scale of 40 or 

greater, whether or not containing 

added sugar or other sweetening matter, 

and whether or not fortified with 

vitamins or minerals. Excluded from the 

scope of this order are: frozen 

concentrated apple juice; non-frozen 

concentrated apple juice that has been 

fermented; and non-frozen concentrated 

apple juice to which spirits have been 

added. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheadings 

2106.90.52.00, and 2009.70.00.20 before 

January 1, 2002, and 2009.79.00.20 after 

January 1, 2002. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

The Department has treated the PRC 

as a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country in all previous antidumping 

cases. In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘Act’’), any determination 

that a foreign country is an NME shall 

remain in effect until revoked by the 

Department. None of the parties to this 

proceeding have contested such 

treatment in this review. Moreover, 

parties to this proceeding have not 

argued that the PRC apple juice 

concentrate industry is a marketoriented industry. Accordingly, we 

calculated normal value (‘‘NV’’) in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, which applies to NME countries. 

Separate Rate Determinations 

In its questionnaire responses, Yitian 

Juice (Shaanxi) Co., Ltd. and Laiyang 

Yitian Co., Ltd., reported that they are 

wholly foreign-owned by Itochu 

Corporation, which is located in Japan. 

Therefore, because there is no PRC 

ownership of Itochu and we have no 

evidence indicating that they are under 

the control of the PRC, a separate rate 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether this company is independent 

from government control. See Certain 

Steel Nails from the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Partial Affirmative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

73 FR 3928 (January 23, 2008) (where 

the respondent was wholly foreignowned, and thus, qualified for a 

separate rate). Accordingly, we 

reviewed all U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise made by Itochu during the 

POR and calculated a dumping margin 

which is assigned to Itochu Corporation. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

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

in most circumstances, on the NME 

producer’s factors of production (FOPs), 

valued in a surrogate market economy 

country or countries considered to be 

appropriate by the Department. In 

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, in valuing the FOPs, the 

Department shall utilize, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in 

one or more market economy countries 

that are: (1) At a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country; and (2) significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

The Department determined that 

India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 

Columbia, Thailand, and Peru are 

countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development.1

Moreover, it is the Department’s 

practice to select an appropriate 

surrogate country based on the 

availability and reliability of data from 

the countries. See Department Policy 

Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy 

Surrogate Country Selection Process 

(March 1, 2004) (‘‘Surrogate Country 

Policy Bulletin’’). 

Absent world apple juice concentrate 

production data, the Department 

considered whether any country listed 

in the Surrogate Country List was a netexporter (i.e., exports more apple juice 

concentrate than it imports) to identify 

producers of apple juice concentrate. 

See Itochu’s Surrogate Country 

Comments, dated February 24, 2009. We 

found that none of the countries listed 

in the Surrogate Country List were netexporters of apple juice concentrate. See 

Memorandum from Alexis Polovina to 

the File: Analysis of the Preliminary 

Results of the Administrative Review of 

Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’): Itochu Corporation, dated June 

23, 2009, at Attachment I. Therefore, the 

Department considered other countries 

not listed in the Surrogate Country List 

and determined that Poland was a netexporter of apple juice concentrate. 

The record also contains surrogate 

value information from Poland for most 

inputs, including juice apples, the main 

input for producing apple juice 

concentrate. In addition, we have 

surrogate financial ratios from Polish 

juice companies. Therefore, for these 

preliminary results, we have selected 

Poland as the surrogate country because 

there are no comparable economies in 

which juice apples are produced. Of the 

countries that are significant producers 

of identical merchandise, the record 

contains reliable surrogate value 

information from Poland. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in 

an antidumping administrative review, 

interested parties may submit publicly 

available information to value FOPs 

within 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

U.S. Price 

A. Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated the export price 

(EP) for sales to the United States 

because the first sale to an unaffiliated 

party was made before the date of 

importation and the use of constructed 

EP (‘‘CEP’’) was not otherwise 

warranted. We calculated EP based on 

the price to unaffiliated purchasers in 

the United States. 

We calculated EP based on the price 

to the unaffiliated purchaser. In 

accordance with section 772(c) of the 

Act, we deducted from this price, where 

appropriate, amounts for international 

freight, other U.S. transportation 

expenses, and U.S. customs duties 

(including merchandise processing and 

harbor maintenance fees). We selected 

Poland as the surrogate country for the 

reasons explained above in the 

‘‘Surrogate Country’’ section. However, 

where we were unable to find Polish 

data to value particular FOPs, we valued 

these inputs using public information 

on the record from India. We valued the 

deductions for foreign inland freight 

using Indian freight costs. Where, as 

here, a significant portion or all of a 

specific company’s ocean freight was 

provided directly by a market-economy 

company and paid for in a marketeconomy currency, we used the 

reported market-economy ocean freight 

values for all United States sales made 

by that company. See 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1) (regulation for the 

information used to value factors of 

production). 

Normal Value 

1. Methodology 

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

provides that the Department shall 

determine the NV using a FOP 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
31240 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 

methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME country and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

the 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. 

During the verification of Itochu, it 

became apparent that Itochu had to 

produce more subject merchandise than 

it had agreed to sell to the United States 

customer due to production equipment 

requirements. See Shaanxi Yitian 

Verification Report at 5–6. Moreover, in 

Itochu’s Second Supplemental 

Response, Itochu explained that the 

differences between the quantity sold 

and the quantity produced were taken 

into account. Itochu also stated that 

unique costs associated with out-ofseason production and packaging were 

incorporated into the final price. See 

Itochu’s Response to Second 

Supplemental Questionnaire: NonFrozen Apple Juice Concentrate from 

the People’s Republic of China, dated 

January 16, 2009. In order to properly 

reflect the commercial value of total 

production of the subject merchandise 

during the POR, where appropriate, the 

Department revised Itochu’s FOP 

calculations by replacing the 

denominator with the quantity sold 

rather than the quantity produced. 

We applied surrogate values based on 

publicly available information from 

Poland for the raw materials, as well as 

packaging, factory overhead, selling, 

general and administrative expenses 

(‘‘SG&A’’), and profit ratios. However, 

because we were unable to obtain Polish 

data to value the energy and 

transportation, we have relied upon 

publicly available information on the 

record from India. Itochu shipped the 

subject merchandise using a market 

economy freight carrier paid for in a 

market economy currency. Therefore, 

the Department is not applying a 

surrogate value for international freight. 

2. Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on 

FOPs reported by Itochu during the 

POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied 

the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available 

Polish and Indian surrogate values. 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 make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Polish import surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory of 

production or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory of 

production where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407– 

1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we did not 

use Polish data, we calculated freight 

costs based on the reported distance 

from the supplier to the factory. 

It is the Department’s practice to 

calculate price index adjustors to inflate 

or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate 

values that are not contemporaneous 

with the POR using the wholesale price 

index (‘‘WPI’’) for the subject country. 

See Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China, 69 

FR 29509 (May 24, 2004). All of the 

Polish surrogate values were 

contemporaneous with the POR. 

However, some Indian surrogate values 

were adjusted using the WPI for India, 

as published in the International 

Financial Statistics of the International 

Monetary Fund. 

Polish and Indian surrogate values 

denominated in foreign currencies were 

converted to U.S. dollars using the 

official exchange rate recorded on the 

date of sale based on exchange rate data 

from the Department’s Web site. 

Juice Apples: We valued juice apples 

using monthly prices of processing 

apples in Poland, covering each month 

of the POR, except for June 2007, for 

which there was no data, from the 

Institute of Agricultural and Food 

Economics, National Research Institute. 

Amylase, Pectinex, Pectinase, and 

Packaging: We valued the amylase 

enzyme, pectinex enzyme, and pectinse 

enzyme, and all packaging using World 

Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’) data for Poland 

during the POR, published by Global 

Trade Information Services, Inc., which 

is sourced from EuroStat data. 

Energy: 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, publiclyavailable information on tax-exclusive 

electricity rates charged to industries in 

India. To value coal, we used the Energy 

& Taxes-Quarterly Statistics (2008) 

published by the International Energy 

Agency. We valued water using data 

from the Maharastra Industrial 

Development Corporation. This source 

provides industrial water rates within 

the Maharashtra province. 

Labor: Pursuant to section 

351.408(c)(3) of the Department’s 

regulations, we valued labor using the 

regression-based wage rate for the PRC 

published by Import Administration on 

its Web site. 

Overhead, SG&A and Profit 

(‘‘Financial Ratios’’): The financial 

ratios were calculated based on the 2007 

financial statements for two Polish juice 

producers, Sokpol Koncentraty sp.zo.o 

(‘‘Sokpol’’), and TAB Koncentraty 

sp.zo.o (‘‘TAB’’). 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

The Department has determined that 

the following preliminary dumping 

margins exist for the period June 1, 

2007, through May 31, 2008: 

Non-frozen apple juice concentrate from the 

PRC 

Exporter Weighted-average 

margin (percent) 

Itochu Corporation ........ 0.00 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose to 

parties of this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within five days of 

the date of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Comments 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of 

this administrative review, interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results. Interested 

parties must provide the Department 

with supporting documentation for the 

publicly available information to value 

each FOP. Additionally, 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 31241 

2See 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. 

rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information 

recently placed on the record.2

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs and/or written comments no later 

than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of this administrative review. 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 deadline for 

submitting the case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). The Department requests 

that interested parties provide an 

executive summary of each argument 

contained within the case briefs and 

rebuttal briefs. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). 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 we receive a 

request for a hearing, we plan to hold 

the hearing seven days after the 

deadline for submission of the rebuttal 

briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, which will include the results of 

its analysis raised in any such 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of this preliminary result, 

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

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the final results, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries on an ad valorem 

basis. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of review. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of review, the Department shall 

determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer-specific (or customer) duty 

assessment rates. 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 is above de minimis, i.e., 

less than 0.50 percent. 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of subject merchandise from Itochu 

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 

subject merchandise exported by Itochu, 

no deposit will be required; (2) for 

companies previously found to be 

entitled to a separate rate in a prior 

segment of the proceeding, and for 

which no review has been requested, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the rate established in the most recent 

review of that company; (3) for all other 

PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will 

be 51.74 percent, the PRC country-wide 

ad valorem rate; and (4) for non-PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise from 

the PRC to the United States, the cash 

deposit rate will be the rate applicable 

to the PRC exporter that supplied that 

non-PRC exporter. These 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 POR. 

Failure to comply with this requirement 

could result in the Secretary’s 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping duties occurred and the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, 

and 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: June 23, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–15454 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of New 

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

a request for a new shipper review of 

the antidumping duty order on fresh 

garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’), received on May 21, 

2009, meets the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for initiation. The period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) of this new shipper 

review is November 1, 2008 through 

April 30, 2009. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 30, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martha Douthit, 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) 

482–5050. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The notice announcing the 

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 

from the PRC was published on 

November 16, 1994. See Antidumping 

Duty Order: Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 59209 

(November 16, 1994) (‘‘Order’’). On May 

21, 2009, we received a timely request 

for a new shipper review from Qingdao 

Sea-line International Trading Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Sea-line’’) in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.214(c) and 351.214(d)(2). Sea-line 

has certified that it is the exporter of all 

of the fresh garlic it exported to the 

United States, which is the basis for its 

request for a new shipper review. 

Pursuant to the requirements set forth 

in 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii), in its 

request for a new shipper review, Sealine, as an exporter, certified that (1) It 

did not export fresh garlic to the United 

States during the period of investigation 

(‘‘POI’’); (2) since the initiation of the 

investigation, it has never been affiliated 

with any company that exported subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POI, including any exporter or 

producer not individually examined 

during the investigation; and (3) its 

export activities are not controlled by 

the central government of the PRC. In 

addition, Jinxiang County Juxinyuan 

Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Juxinyuan 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6