Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 32885 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the preliminary results of 

administrative review by the current 

deadline of July 2, 2009, for several 

reasons. Specifically, the Department 

has granted the respondent several 

extensions to respond to the original 

and supplemental questionnaires. 

Accordingly, the Department needs 

additional time to review and analyze 

the responses submitted by the 

respondent. Further, the Department 

requires additional time to analyze 

corrected data and verification findings. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2), we are extending the time 

period for issuing the preliminary 

results of this review for an additional 

20 days until July 22, 2009. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

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

Dated: July 2, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–16292 Filed 7–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–821] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand: Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 2009 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Case, 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) 

482–3174. 

Background 

At the request of interested parties, 

the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on polyethylene retail carrier bags from 

Thailand for the period August 1, 2007, 

through July 31, 2008. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 56795, 

56796 (September 30, 2008). On April 

16, 2009, we extended the due date for 

the completion of the preliminary 

results of review by 60 days. See 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Malaysia, Thailand, and the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 74 FR 17633 (April 16, 2009). 

Currently, the preliminary results of 

review are due no later than July 2, 

2009. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to make a preliminary 

determination within 245 days after the 

last day of the anniversary month of an 

order for which a review is requested 

and a final determination within 120 

days after the date on which the 

preliminary determination is published. 

If it is not practicable to complete the 

review within these time periods, 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows 

the Department to extend the time limit 

for the preliminary determination to a 

maximum of 365 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month. 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the preliminary results of 

administrative review by the current 

deadline of July 2, 2009, for several 

reasons. Specifically, the Department 

has granted a respondent several 

extensions to respond to the original 

and supplemental questionnaires. 

Accordingly, the Department needs 

additional time to review and analyze 

the responses submitted by the 

respondent. Further, the Department 

needs additional time to analyze minor 

corrections and verification findings. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2), we are extending the time 

period for issuing the preliminary 

results of this review for an additional 

32 days until August 3, 2009. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

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

Dated: July 2, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–16285 Filed 7–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–806] 

Silicon Metal From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 9, 2009. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is currently conducting 

the 2007/2008 administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on silicon 

metal from the People’s Republic of 

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

(‘‘POR’’) is June 1, 2007, through May 

31, 2008. We have preliminarily 

determined that Shanghai Jinneng 

International Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai 

Jinneng’’), and Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon 

Industry Company, Ltd. (‘‘Jiangxi 

Gangyuan’’) made sales to the United 

States of the subject merchandise at 

prices below normal value. 

Furthermore, we are preliminarily 

rescinding the review with respect to 

Datong Jinneng Industrial Silicon Co., 

Inc. (‘‘Datong Jinneng’’); S. AU Trade 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘AU Trade’’), and Lao Silicon 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Lao Silicon’’). If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of this review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise from the POR. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bobby Wong, Susan Pulongbarit, or 

Jerry Huang, 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) 482–0409; 

(202) 482–4031 and (202) 482–4047, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department received a timely 

request from Petitioner, Globe 

Metallurgical Inc. (‘‘Petitioner’’), in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for 

an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on silicon 

metal from the PRC of five companies: 

AU Trade, Datong Jinneng, Jiangxi 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
32886 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 

1 Although we have preliminarily determined to 

rescind the review with respect to Datong Jinneng, 

we will continue to review factors of production 

(‘‘FOP’’) data submitted by the mandatory 

respondent Shanghai Jinneng, which is Datong 

Jinneng’s affiliated exporter. 

Gangyuan, Lao Silicon, and Shanghai 

Jinneng (collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’). 

On July 30, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of an 

antidumping duty administrative review 

on silicon metal from the PRC, in which 

it initiated a review of these 

Respondents. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Request for 

Revocation in Part, and Deferral of 

Administrative Review (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’), 73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008). 

On September 23, 2008, in accordance 

with section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), the 

Department selected Jiangxi Gangyuan 

and Shanghai Jinneng for individual 

examination in this review since they 

were the two largest exporters by 

volume during the POR based on CBP 

data of U.S. imports. See Memorandum 

to James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, 

from Susan Pulongbarit, International 

Trade Analyst, ‘‘Selection of 

Respondents for 2007–2008 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Silicon Metal from the 

People’s republic of China,’’ dated 

September 23, 2008. 

Between October 24, 2008, and April 

22, 2009, Jiangxi Gangyuan, Shanghai 

Jinneng, and Shanghai Jinneng’s 

affiliated producer, Datong Jinneng, 

responded to the Department’s original 

and supplemental questionnaires. 

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

Department conducted verification of 

Shanghai Jinneng and its affiliated 

producer, Datong Jinneng, from May 4– 

8, 2009, and Jiangxi Gangyuan from May 

11–14, 2009. See Memo to the File 

through Scot Fullerton, Program 

Manager, Office 9, Paul Walker, Senior 

International Trade Analyst and Jerry 

Huang, International Trade Analyst, 

‘‘2007–2008 Administrative Review of 

Silicon Metal from the People’s 

Republic of China: Verification of 

Datong Jinneng Industrial Silicon Co., 

Inc.’’ (‘‘Datong Jinneng Verification 

Report’’), dated June 29, 2009; Memo to 

the File through Scot Fullerton, Program 

Manager, Office 9, from Paul Walker, 

Senior International Trade Analyst and 

Jerry Huang International Trade 

Analyst, ‘‘2007–2008 Administrative 

Review of Silicon Metal from the 

People’s Republic of China: Verification 

of Shanghai Jinneng International Trade 

Co., Ltd.’’ (‘‘Shanghai Jinneng 

Verification Report’’), dated June 29, 

2009; and Memo to the File through 

Scot Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 

9, from Susan Pulongbarit, International 

Trade Analyst, ‘‘2007–2008 

Administrative Review of Silicon Metal 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Verification of Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon 

Industry Company, Ltd.’’ (‘‘Jiangxi 

Gangyuan Verification Report’’), dated 

June 29, 2009. 

On June 8, 2009, Petitioner submitted 

comments containing recommendations 

regarding the preliminary results. See 

June 8, 2009 letter from Petitioner to 

Secretary of Commerce, Regarding: 

Silicon Metal From the People’s 

Republic of China; 2007–08 

Administrative Review; Preliminary 

Results Comments (‘‘Jiangxi Gangyuan 

and Shanghai Jinneng Preliminary 

Results Comments’’). On June 11, 2009, 

Jiangxi Gangyuan and Shanghai Jinneng 

submitted comments containing 

recommendations regarding the 

preliminary results. See June 11, 2009 

letter from Respondents, to Secretary of 

Commerce, Regarding: Silicon Metal 

from the People’s Republic of China. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the order is 

silicon metal containing at least 96.00 

but less than 99.99 percent of silicon by 

weight, and silicon metal with a higher 

aluminum content containing between 

89 and 96 percent silicon by weight. 

The subject merchandise is currently 

classifiable under item numbers 

2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) as a chemical 

product, but is commonly referred to as 

a metal. Semiconductor-grade silicon 

(silicon metal containing by weight not 

less than 99.99 percent of silicon and 

provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 

of the HTSUS) is not subject to this 

order. This order is not limited to 

silicon metal used only as an alloy agent 

or in the chemical industry. Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, 

the written description of the 

merchandise is dispositive. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty rate unless an 

exporter can affirmatively demonstrate 

an absence of government control, both 

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

with respect to its export activities. See 

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’’) and 

accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum at Comment 1. In this 

review, we received an untimely filing 

of AU Trade’s Separate Rate Application 

on December 2, 2008, after the 

September 28, 2008 deadline. 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that AU Trade will remain 

part of the PRC-wide entity for the 

purposes of this review, as the 

Department did not a conduct a review 

of its separate rate eligibility. 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2007/ 

2008 Administrative Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we 

have preliminarily determined that Lao 

Silicon and Datong Jinneng made no 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR of this administrative 

review. In making this determination, 

the Department examined PRC silicon 

metal shipment data maintained by 

CBP. See Letter from the Department of 

Commerce, ‘‘2007–2008 Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

of Silicon Metal from the People’s 

Republic of China: CBP Data for 

Respondent Selection,’’ dated August 4, 

2008. Based on the information obtained 

from CBP, we found no entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

exported by Lao Silicon or Datong 

Jinneng to the United States. The 

Department also issued no-shipment 

inquiries to CBP in June 2009 asking 

CBP to provide any information 

contrary to our findings of no entries of 

subject merchandise for merchandise 

manufactured and shipped by Lao 

Silicon and Datong Jinneng during the 

POR. We did not receive any response 

from CBP, thus indicating that there 

were no entries of subject merchandise 

into the United States exported by these 

companies. See Memorandum to The 

File, from Susan Pulongbarit, 

International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, regarding 2007– 

2008 Administrative Review of Silicon 

Metal from the People’s Republic of 

China: CBP No Shipment Email 

Inquiries (June 9, 2009). Consequently, 

as neither company made exports of 

subject merchandise during the POR, we 

are preliminarily rescinding the review, 

in part, with respect to Datong Jinneng 

and Lao Silicon.1

Normal Value Comparisons 

To determine whether the 

respondents’ sales of the subject 

merchandise to the United States were 

made at prices below normal value, we 

compared their U.S. sales prices to 

normal values, as described in the ‘‘U.S. 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 32887 

2See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy 

Surrogate Country Selection Process, (March 1, 

2004), (‘‘Policy Bulletin 04.1’’) from the October 20, 

2008 Letter from the Department, To All Interested 

Parties, Regarding Antidumping Duty Order on 

Silicon Metal From the People’s Republic of China 

at Attachment II, also available at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html. 

U.S. Price 

Export Price 

For Jiangxi Gangyuan and Shanghai 

Jinneng, we based U.S. price on export 

price (‘‘EP’’) in accordance with section 

772(a) of the Act, because the first sale 

to an unaffiliated purchaser was made 

prior to importation, and reliance upon 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) was 

not otherwise warranted by the facts on 

the record. We calculated EP based on 

the packed price from the exporter to 

the first unaffiliated customer in the 

United States. 

Export Tax and Value-Added Tax 

(‘‘VAT’’) 

Pursuant to Section 772(c)(2)(B) of the 

Act, the Department shall reduce the 

U.S. price by ‘‘the amount, if included 

in such price, of any export tax, duty, 

or other charge imposed by the 

exporting country on the exportation of 

the subject merchandise to the United 

States * * *.’’ As record evidence 

clearly indicates that both companies 

reported U.S. sales prices are inclusive 

of an export tax, we are making 

deductions to both companies’ U.S. 

sales prices to account for the export 

tax. See Memorandum to the File 

through Scot T. Fullerton, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

from Jerry Huang, International Trade 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

regarding ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Silicon Metal 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Shanghai Jinneng International Trade 

Co., Ltd. Program Analysis for the 

Preliminary Determination,’’ dated June 

29, 2009, and Memorandum to the File 

through Scot T. Fullerton, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

from Susan Pulongbarit, International 

Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, regarding ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Silicon Metal 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon Industry 

Company, Ltd. Program Analysis for the 

Preliminary Determination,’’ dated June 

29, 2009. 

Although Petitioner has submitted 

comments suggesting that the 

Department adjust U.S. price to account 

for VAT on export sales of silicon metal 

to the United States during the POR, we 

have not determined whether such an 

adjustment is appropriate within the 

context of the Act. Therefore, for the 

preliminary results, the Department has 

not adjusted U.S. price to account for 

VAT imposed on export sales. However, 

subsequent to the issuance of these 

preliminary results, the Department 

intends to place laws with respect to the 

PRC’S VAT system on the record and 

will invite additional factual 

information submissions with respect to 

this issue, in order for interested parties 

to provide comment in case briefs on 

the appropriate treatment of VAT for 

purposes of the final results. 

Normal Value 

Non-Market-Economy Status 

Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. In every case 

conducted by the Department involving 

the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a 

NME country. See, e.g., Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 

and Unfinished, From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of 2001–2002 Administrative Review 

and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 

7500 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of 2001–2002 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 

2003). None of the parties to these 

reviews has contested such treatment. 

Accordingly, we calculated normal 

value in accordance with section 773(c) 

of the Act, which applies to NME 

countries. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) 

of the Act directs it to base normal value 

(‘‘NV’’), in most circumstances, on the 

NME producer’s FOP 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 factors of production, the 

Department shall utilize, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of factors of 

production in one or more marketeconomy countries that are at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country and are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The sources of the 

surrogate values we have used in this 

investigation are discussed under the 

‘‘Normal Value’’ section below. 

The Department’s practice with 

respect to determining economic 

comparability is explained in Policy 

Bulletin 04.1,2 which states that the 

Department’s ‘‘OP {Office of Policy} 

determines per capita economic 

comparability on the basis of per capita 

gross national income, as reported in the 

most current annual issue of the World 

Development Report (The World 

Bank).’’ The Department considers the 

five countries identified in its Surrogate 

Country List as ‘‘equally comparable in 

terms of economic development.’’ See 

Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 2. Thus, we find 

that India, Indonesia, the Philippines, 

Colombia, and Thailand are all at an 

economic level of development equally 

comparable to that of the PRC. 

Second, Policy Bulletin 04.1 provides 

some guidance on identifying 

comparable merchandise and selecting a 

producer of comparable merchandise. 

As stated in the Policy Bulletin, 

‘‘comparable merchandise’’ is not 

defined in the statute or the regulations, 

since it is best determined on a case-bycase basis. See id. As further stated in 

Policy Bulletin 04.1, in all cases, if 

identical merchandise is produced, the 

country qualifies as a producer of 

comparable merchandise. Id. Based on 

the data provided by parties, we find 

that India is a producer of comparable 

merchandise, as both parties have 

provided financial statements of 

multiple Indian producers of silicon 

metal. See April 3, 2009 Letter From 

Martin Schaeffermeier of DLA Piper to 

Secretary of Commerce, Regarding 

Submission of Surrogate Value Data; see 

also April 3, 2009 Letter From Sydney 

Mintzer of Mayer Brown to Secretary of 

Commerce, Regarding Silicon Metal 

from the People’s Republic of China. 

The Policy Bulletin also provides 

some guidance in identifying significant 

producers of comparable merchandise 

and selecting a producer of comparable 

merchandise. The Policy Bulletin notes 

that any determination of what 

constitutes ‘‘significant production’’ 

should be made consistent with the 

characteristics of world production of, 

and trade in, comparable merchandise 

(subject to the availability of data on 

these characteristics). See Policy 

Bulletin 04.1 at 3. Since these 

characteristics are specific to the 

merchandise in question, the standard 

for ‘‘significant producer’’ will be 

determined by the Department on a 

case-by-case basis, and fixed standards 

for making this determination have not 

been adopted. Id. 

With respect to data considerations in 

selecting a surrogate country, it is the 

Department’s practice that, ‘‘* * * if 

more than one country has survived the 

selection process to this point, the 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
32888 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 

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

final determination 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 recently placed on 

the record. The Department generally will not 

accept the submission of additional, previously 

absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value 

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. 

country with the best factors data is 

selected as the primary surrogate 

country.’’ See id. at 4. Currently, the 

record contains surrogate value 

information, including possible 

surrogate financial statements, only 

from India. 

Thus, the Department is preliminarily 

selecting India as the surrogate country 

on the basis that: (1) It is at a 

comparable level of economic 

development to the PRC, pursuant to 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise; and (3) we have reliable 

data from India that we can use to value 

the factors of production. Therefore, we 

have calculated normal value using 

Indian prices, when available and 

appropriate, to value Shanghai Jinneng 

and Jiangxi Gangyuan’s factors of 

production. See Memorandum to the 

File through Scot T. Fullerton, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

from Bobby Wong, Senior International 

Trade Analyst, and Jerry Huang, 

International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, regarding 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Silicon Metal from the 

People’s Republic of China: Selection of 

Factor Values,’’ dated June 29, 2009 

(‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

determination in an antidumping 

administrative review, interested parties 

may submit publicly available 

information to value the factors of 

production within 20 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

determination.3

Factors of Production 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

FOP data reported by Shanghai Jinneng 

and Jiangxi Gangyuan for the POR. To 

calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported-per-unit factor consumption 

rates by publicly available Indian 

values. 

With respect to the application of the 

by-product offset to NV, consistent with 

the Department’s determination in the 

antidumping duty investigation of 

diamond sawblades from the PRC, 

because our surrogate financial 

statements contain no references to the 

treatment of by-products and because 

both companies reported that they sold 

their by-products, we will deduct the 

surrogate value of the by-product from 

NV. This is consistent with accounting 

principles based on a reasonable 

assumption that if a company sells a byproduct, the by-product necessarily 

incurs expenses for overhead, selling, 

general & administrative expenses 

(‘‘SG&A’’), and profit. See e.g., Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 

22, 2006) and accompanying Issues and 

Decisions Memorandum at Comment 9, 

unchanged in Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades and 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 35864 (June 

22, 2006). 

In selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data, in 

accordance with our practice. See, e.g., 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 

(December 4, 2002) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 6; Final Results of First New 

Shipper Review and First Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s 

Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 

11, 2001) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. 

When we used publicly available import 

data from the Ministry of Commerce of 

India (Indian Import Statistics) for June 

2007 through May 2008 to value inputs 

sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, 

we added to the Indian surrogate values 

a surrogate freight cost calculated using 

the shorter of the reported distance from 

the domestic supplier to the factory or 

the distance from the closest seaport to 

the factory. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the CAFC’s decision in 

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

1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When we 

used FOPs sourced domestically by PRC 

suppliers, we based freight for inputs on 

the actual distance from the input 

supplier to the site at which the input 

was used. In instances where we relied 

on Indian import data to value inputs, 

in accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we excluded imports from both 

NME countries and countries deemed to 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific subsidies which may 

benefit all exporters to all export 

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

and Thailand) from our surrogate value 

calculations. See, e.g., Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 

and Unfinished, From the People’s 

Republic of China; Final Results of 

1999–2000 Administrative Review, 

Partial Rescission of Review, and 

Determination Not to Revoke Order in 

Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. See 

‘‘Memorandum to the File: Factors of 

Production Valuation Memorandum for 

the Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Floorstanding, Metal-top Ironing Tables and 

Certain Parts Thereof (Ironing Tables) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC),’’ dated August 31, 2006 (Factor 

Valuation Memo), for a complete 

discussion of the import data that we 

excluded from our calculation of 

surrogate values. This memorandum is 

on file in the Central Records Unit 

(‘‘CRU’’). 

Where we could not obtain publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

with the POR to value factors, we 

adjusted the surrogate values using the 

Indian Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) 

as published in the International 

Financial Statistics of the International 

Monetary Fund, for those surrogate 

values in Indian rupees. We made 

currency conversions, where necessary, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, to U.S. 

dollars using the daily exchange rate 

corresponding to the reported date of 

each sale. We relied on the daily 

exchanges rates posted on the Import 

Administration Web site (http:// 

www.trade.gov/ia/). See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. We valued the FOPs as 

follows: 

The Department used Indian Import 

Statistics to value the raw material and 

packing material inputs that Shanghai 

Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan used to 

produce the merchandise under review 

during the POR, except where listed 

below. For a detailed description of all 

surrogate values used for respondents, 

see Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

We valued quartz using Grade I quartz 

with a silicon dioxide content of 98% or 

higher using the Indian Bureau of 

Mines’ publication: 2007 edition of the 

Indian Minerals Yearbook (‘‘IBM 

Yearbook’’). We inflated the value for 

quartz using the POR average WPI rate. 

Id. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 32889 

We find that Grade A coal is most 

closely matched to the coal 

specifications submitted by 

Respondents in this instant review. We 

valued coal using Grade A coal values 

obtained from the IBM Yearbook. We 

inflated the value for coal using the POR 

average WPI rate. Id. We continued to 

value charcoal using Indian Import 

Statistics. Id. To value polyethylene/ 

polypropylene (‘‘PE/PP’’) bags, we used 

Indian Import Statics. Id. 

We valued electricity using data 

published in Electricity Tariff & Duty 

and Average rates of Electricity Supply 

in India, dated 2006, by the Central 

Electricity Authority of the Government 

of India. We inflated the value using the 

POR average WPI rate. Id. 

To value the surrogate value ratios for 

factory overhead, SG&A, and profit, the 

Department used publicly available 

information to review the financial 

statements of five Indian companies, 

placed on the record by interested 

parties. We find that Balasore Alloys 

Limited, Rohit Ferro Tech Ltd., and 

Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Limited 

received countervailable subsidies. 

Therefore, we have valued SG&A using 

the 2007–2008 annual reports and 

accounts from the remaining two 

companies, Sharp Ferro Alloys Limited 

(‘‘Sharp Alloys’’) and Sova Ispat Alloys 

(Mega Projects) Limited (‘‘Sova Ispat 

Alloys’’), both of which were included 

in Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi 

Gangyuan’s submission on April 3, 

2009, at Exhibit 26. The annual reports 

cover the period April 1, 2007, through 

March 31, 2008, encompassing 10 

months of the POR. We determine that 

the financial statements of Sharp Alloys 

and Sova Ispat Alloys are appropriate 

for use in calculating surrogate value 

ratios for SG&A because both companies 

are producers of comparable 

merchandise. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Because of the variability of wage 

rates in countries with similar levels of 

per capita gross domestic product, 19 

CFR 351.408(c)(3) requires the use of a 

regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to 

value the labor input, we used the PRC’s 

regression-based wage rate published by 

Import Administration on its Web site, 

http://www.trade.gov/ia/. See Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

To value truck freight, we calculated 

a per-unit average rate from data based 

on publicly available information from 

http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm, an international trade 

resource Web site. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

To value rail freight, we calculated a 

per-unit average rate from data based on 

publicly available information from 

http://www.indianrailways.gov.in, the 

Indian Ministry of Railways Web site. 

See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi 

Gangyuan both claimed silica fume as 

by-product offsets as each produced 

silica fume and sold a portion of this 

production during the POR. To value 

silica fume, the Department has 

calculated the surrogate value using 

data obtained from WTA Indian import 

statistics only for countries that have 

significant quantities and demonstrable 

imports of silica fume/microsilica based 

on information contained in Infodrive 

India data, provided by Petitioner in its 

April 3, 2009, submission. For a more 

detailed discussion, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Further, we are preliminarily granting 

a by-product offset to Shanghai Jinneng 

and Jiangxi Gangyuan for silica fume 

based on production volumes, as 

opposed to POR sales, of silica fume. 

Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan 

stated that when silica fume is produced 

it enters a finished goods inventory 

account and a value is assigned to that 

inventory in their books. Moreover, each 

claims that there is no question that all 

of the silica fume produced during POR 

has been or will be sold. See Jiangxi 

Gangyuan and Shanghai Jinneng 

Preliminary Comments at 12–13. In 

other words, there is no indication that 

any of the silica fume produced is not 

ultimately sold. Under such a 

circumstance, the practice of using the 

‘‘lower of’’ the quantity of by-product 

produced or sold in each POR may lead 

to an inconsistent result over multiple 

review periods. The Department notes 

that granting the by-product offset based 

on total production volume during the 

POR is a change from past NME 

practice, i.e., in which by-product 

offsets were based on its total POR sales 

of the by-product that were also 

produced during the POR. See Notice of 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 68 FR 

37116 (June 23, 2003) and 

accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum at Comment 12. However, 

this change brings our NME practice 

into line with normal accounting 

principles which recognizes and records 

the economic value of a by-product 

when it is produced. We are hereby 

notifying parties of this change in 

practice for NME cases and we invite 

interested parties to provide comments 

in their case briefs. 

Jiangxi Gangyuan also claimed slag as 

a by-product offset. However, Jiangxi 

Gangyuan stated that it does not 

maintain an inventory of slag in its 

books because, due to the lack of 

demand for slag, it sells it when it can. 

Furthermore Jiangxi Gangyuan was 

unable to provide source documentation 

for payment of slag sales during 

verification. Therefore, we have not 

granted a by-product offset for slag 

generated by Jiangxi Gangyuan in the 

course of its production of silicon metal. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following dumping margins exist for the 

period June 1, 2007, through May 31, 

2008: 

SILICON METAL FROM THE PRC 

Percent 

Shanghai Jinneng International 

Trade Co., Ltd ........................... 41.81 

Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon Industry 

Company, Ltd ............................ 55.25 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 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 the factors of 

production 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 

rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information 

recently placed on the record. The 

Department generally cannot accept the 

submission of additional, previously 

absent-from-the-record alternative 

surrogate value 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. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
32890 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. Interested parties who wish 

to request a hearing or to participate if 

one is requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration within 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

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

a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 

CFR 351.310(c). 

Issues raised in the hearing will be 

limited to those raised in case and 

rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from 

interested parties may be submitted not 

later than 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, 

limited to issues raised in the case 

briefs, will be due five days later, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit case or rebuttal briefs in 

this proceeding are requested to submit 

with each argument (1) a statement of 

the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. Parties are also encouraged to 

provide a summary of the arguments not 

to exceed five pages and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this review, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any such written briefs or at the hearing, 

if held, not later than 120 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. We will instruct 

CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if any assessment rate calculated 

in the final results of this review is 

above de minimis. The final results of 

this review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of this review and for future 

deposits of estimated duties, where 

applicable. 

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 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 Shanghai 

Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan, the cash 

deposit rate will be established in the 

final results of this review; (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 which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 139.49 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 nonPRC 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 

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 administrative review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.213. 

Dated: June 29, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–16281 Filed 7–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Application(s) for Duty–Free Entry of 

Scientific Instruments 

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 

Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106– 

36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we 

invite comments on the question of 

whether instruments of equivalent 

scientific value, for the purposes for 

which the instruments shown below are 

intended to be used, are being 

manufactured in the United States. 

Comments must comply with 15 CFR 

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and 

be postmarked on or before July 29, 

2009. Address written comments to 

Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 

3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Washington, D.C. 20230. Applications 

may be examined between 8:30 A.M. 

and 5:00 P.M. at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce in Room 3720. 

Docket Number: 09–038. Applicant: 

University of Texas at Austin, 10100 

Burnet Rd., Bldg. 131, Austin, TX 

78758. Instrument: Electron Microscope. 

Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech 

Republic. Intended Use: The instrument 

will be used for high resolution 

cathodoluminescence imaging of quartz 

and carbonate cements in sandstones 

and carbonate rocks. The instrument 

will allow the highest spatial imaging 

resolutions with X–ray spectroscopy 

and CL. Justification for Duty–Free 

Entry: No instruments of same general 

category are manufactured in the United 

States. Application accepted by 

Commissioner of Customs: June 17, 

2009. 

Docket Number: 09–039. Applicant: 

National Institutes of Health, 903 S. 4th

St., Hamilton, MT 59840. Instrument: 

Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI 

Company, Czech Republic. Intended 

Use: The instrument will be used to 

study protein complexes on viral 

surfaces, internal core structures, viral 

docking sites on host cells or tissues, 3– 

dimentional structures of intact viruses 

and high–containment bacteria, 

intracellular relationships between 

viruses and bacteria as they enter, 

replicate and exit cells. Justification for 

Duty–Free Entry: No instruments of 

same general category are manufactured 

in the United States. Application 

accepted by Commissioner of Customs: 

June 17, 2009. 

Docket Number: 09–040. Applicant: 

Stanford University, 450 Serra mall, 

Stanford, CA 94305. Instrument: 

Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI 

Company, the Netherlands. Intended 

Use: The instrument will be used to 

study the nanostructure of materials. 

Justification for Duty–Free Entry: No 

instruments of same general category are 

manufactured in the United States. 

Application accepted by Commissioner 

of Customs: June 18, 2009. 

Dated: July 1, 2009. 

Christopher Cassel, 

Acting Director, IA Subsidies Enforcement 

Office. 

[FR Doc. E9–16286 Filed 7–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES