Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 37007 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s 

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

2See Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of New 

Shipper Review, 74 FR 5639 (January 30, 2009). 

3See Memorandum regarding ‘‘Request for 

Surrogate Country Selection: 06/2008 - 11/2008 

New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (February 11, 2009). 

4See the Memorandum regarding ‘‘Request for a 

List of Surrogate Countries for a New Shipper 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (February 12, 2009) (‘‘Surrogate 

Country List’’). 

5See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

27104, 27105 (June 8, 2009) (unchanged in the final 

results); and Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from 

the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

32118, 32120 (July 7, 2009) (unchanged in the final 

results). 

[FR Doc. E9–17871 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–898 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of June 2008 

through November 2008 Semi–Annual 

New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 30, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) initiated a new shipper 

review (‘‘NSR’’) of the antidumping 

duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates 

(‘‘chlorinated isos’’) from the People’s 

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

of review (‘‘POR’’) for this NSR is June 

1, 2008, through November 30, 2008. 

This NSR covers one producer/exporter 

of the subject merchandise, Juancheng 

Kangtai Chemical Company, Ltd. 

(‘‘Kangtai’’). We preliminarily determine 

that Kangtai did not make sales in the 

United States at prices below normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

liquidate entries of merchandise 

exported by Kangtai, during the POR 

without regard to antidumping duties. 

We invite interested parties to comment 

on these preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit 

Astvatsatrian or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6412 or (202) 482– 

0650, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 24, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on chlorinated 

isos from the PRC.1 On December 22, 

2008, Kangtai, a foreign producer/ 

exporter of subject merchandise, 

requested that the Department conduct 

an NSR of sales of its subject 

merchandise during the POR. On 

January 30, 2009, the Department 

initiated an NSR of Kangtai.2

On February 2, 2009, the Department 

issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Kangtai. On February 

11, 2009, the Department requested that 

the Office of Policy provide a list of 

surrogate countries for this NSR.3 On 

February 12, 2009, the Office of Policy 

issued its list of surrogate countries.4

On April 24, 2009, the Department 

issued a letter to interested parties 

seeking comments on surrogate country 

selection and surrogate values. On May 

15, 2009, Kangtai submitted comments 

regarding the selection of a surrogate 

country. 

On February 20, 2009, Kangtai 

submitted its section A questionnaire 

response (‘‘AQR’’). On March 11, 2009, 

Kangtai submitted its sections C and D 

questionnaire responses (‘‘CQR and 

DQR’’). On March 27, 2009, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to Kangtai. On April 14, 

2009, Kangtai submitted its 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

On May 29, 2009, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Kangtai. On June 12, 2009, Kangtai 

submitted its supplemental 

questionnaire response. On June 9, 

2009, the Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to Kangtai. 

On June 22, 2009, Kangtai submitted its 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

On June 26, 2009, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Kangtai. On July 6, 2009, Kangtai 

submitted its supplemental 

questionnaire response. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

chlorinated isos, as described below: 

Chlorinated isos are derivatives of 

cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated 

s–triazine triones. There are three 

primary chemical compositions of 

chlorinated isos: (1) 

trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3(NCO)3), 

(2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate 

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

sodium dichloroisocyanurate 

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

isos are available in powder, granular, 

and tableted forms. The order covers all 

chlorinated isos. Chlorinated isos are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, 

2933.69.6050, 3808.40.50, 3808.50.40 

and 3808.94.50.00 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). The tariff classification 

2933.69.6015 covers sodium 

dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and 

dihydrate forms) and 

trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff 

classifications 2933.69.6021 and 

2933.69.6050 represent basket categories 

that include chlorinated isos and other 

compounds including an unfused 

triazine ring. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Non–Market Economy Country 

The Department has treated the PRC 

as a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country in all past antidumping duty 

investigations and administrative 

reviews and continues to do so in this 

case.5 No interested party in this case 

has argued that we should do otherwise. 

Designation as an NME country remains 

in effect until it is revoked by the 

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

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’). 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is reviewing 

imports from an NME country, section 

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

instances, to base NV on the NME 

producer’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOPs’’). The Act further instructs that 

valuation of the FOPs shall be based on 

the best available information in the 

surrogate market economy country or 

countries considered to be appropriate 

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

of the Act. When valuing the FOPs, the 

Department shall utilize, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in 

one or more market economy countries 

that are: (1) at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country; and (2) significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

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

the Department normally values all 

FOPs in a single surrogate country. See 

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

surrogate factor values are discussed 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
37008 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 

6See Memorandum regarding ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of the 2007-2008 Administrative Review of 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum’’ 

(July 20, 2009) (‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). 

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

final results of this administrative review, 

interested parties may submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct factual information 

submitted by an interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for 

submission of such factual information. However, 

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

permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 

clarifies, or corrects information placed on the 

record. The Department generally will not accept 

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

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. 

8See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Sixth New Shipper Review and Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of Fourth Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 10410, 10413 (March 

5, 2004) (unchanged in the final results). 

9 Due to the proprietary treatment of the affiliated 

supplier’s name, we are referring to the supplier as 

Company A. 

10See Memorandum to the File ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of the New Shipper Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China: 

Affiliation and Collapsing of Juancheng Kangtai 

Chemical Co., Ltd and its Supplier.’’ (July 20, 2009) 

(‘‘Affiliation Memo’’). 

under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section 

below and in the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 

1117 of the main Department building.6

In examining which country to select 

as its primary surrogate for this 

proceeding, the Department first 

determined that India, the Philippines, 

Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand, and 

Peru are countries comparable to the 

PRC in terms of economic development. 

See Surrogate Country List. On April 24, 

2009, the Department issued a request 

for interested parties to submit 

comments on surrogate country 

selection. On May 15, 2009, Kangtai 

submitted comments regarding the 

selection of a surrogate country. 

Kangtai argues that the Department 

should continue to use India as a 

surrogate country, as it has in all past 

administrative reviews for chlorinated 

isos. No other party submitted any 

comments regarding the selection of a 

surrogate country. The Department 

determined that India is the appropriate 

surrogate country for use in this NSR. 

The Department based its decision on 

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

of economic development comparable to 

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

producer of comparable merchandise, 

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

provides the best opportunity to use 

quality, publicly available data to value 

the FOPs. On the record of this review, 

we have usable surrogate financial data 

from India, but no such surrogate 

financial data from any other potential 

surrogate country. 

Therefore, because India best 

represents the experience of producers 

of comparable merchandise operating in 

a surrogate country at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

the PRC, we have selected India as the 

surrogate country and, accordingly, 

have calculated NV using Indian prices 

to value the respondent’s FOPs, when 

available and appropriate. See Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. We have obtained 

and relied upon publicly available 

information wherever possible. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

submit publicly available information to 

value FOPs until 20 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

results.7

Affiliation 

Section 771(33) of the Act states that 

the Department considers the following 

entities to be affiliated: (A) Members of 

a family, including brothers and sisters 

(whether by whole or half blood), 

spouse, ancestors, and lineal 

descendants; (B) Any officer or director 

of an organization and such 

organization; (C) Partners; (D) Employer 

and employee; (E) Any person directly 

or indirectly owning, controlling, or 

holding with power to vote, five percent 

or more of the outstanding voting stock 

or shares of any organization and such 

organization; (F) Two or more persons 

directly or indirectly controlling, 

controlled by, or under common control 

with, any person; and (G) Any person 

who controls any other person and such 

other person. 

For purposes of affiliation, section 

771(33) of the Act states that a person 

shall be considered to control another 

person if the person is legally or 

operationally in a position to exercise 

restraint or direction over the other 

person. In order to find affiliation 

between companies, the Department 

must find that at least one of the criteria 

listed above is applicable to the 

respondents. 

To the extent that the affiliation 

provisions in section 771(33) of the Act 

do not conflict with the Department’s 

application of separate rates and the 

statutory NME provisions in section 

773(c) of the Act, the Department will 

determine that exporters and/or 

producers are affiliated if the facts of the 

case support such a finding.8

Based on our examination of the 

evidence presented in Kangtai’s 

submissions, we preliminarily 

determine that Kangtai and its supplier 

(Company A)9 are affiliated parties 

within the meaning of section 771(33) of 

the Act.10 Based on our examination of 

the evidence presented in Kangtai’s 

questionnaire responses, we have 

determined that the owners of Kangtai 

and its supplier of an intermediate 

product are members of a family 

(siblings) and these parties are affiliated 

under 771(33)(A) of the Act. 

19 CFR 351.401(f) requires that 

affiliated producers of subject 

merchandise be treated as a single entity 

where those producers have production 

facilities for similar or identical 

products that would not require 

substantial retooling of either facility in 

order to restructure manufacturing 

priorities, and where there is a 

significant potential for the 

manipulation of price or production. 

Based on record evidence, we find that 

Kangtai’s affiliated supplier has 

production facilities to produce similar 

merchandise without the need for 

substantial retooling of its facility. In 

addition, based on the record evidence, 

we find that there is a significant 

potential for manipulation of price and 

production as: 1) there are significant 

transactions between Kangtai and its 

affiliated supplier; and 2) the operations 

of both entities are closely intertwined. 

Therefore, we have treated these 

companies as a single entity and used 

the affiliated supplier’s upstream FOPs 

to calculate Kangtai’s dumping margin 

for the purposes of these preliminary 

results. Due to the proprietary nature of 

this issue, please see the Affiliation 

Memo for a detailed discussion of the 

facts and our findings. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to review in an NME country 

this single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate 

this independence through the absence 

of both de jure and de facto government 

control over export activities. The 

Department analyzes each entity 

exporting the subject merchandise 

under a test arising from the Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 37009 

11On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act 

of 2006, Public Law 109-280, (‘‘H.R. 4’’), was signed 

into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily 

suspends the authority of the Department to 

instruct CBP to collect a bond or other security in 

lieu of a cash deposit in new shipper reviews 

during the period April 1, 2006, through June 30, 

2009. While this provision is temporary, it was 

lifted only for reviews initiated on or after July 1, 

2009. Therefore, the posting of a bond or other 

security under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in 

lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. 

Importers of chlorinated isocyanurates exported 

and produced by Kangtai must continue to post a 

cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on 

each entry of subject merchandise at the PRC-wide 

rate of 285.63 percent. 

12Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination 

of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 69 FR 

76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10; 

Continued 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 

20588, at Comment 1 (May 6, 1991) 

(‘‘Sparklers’’), as further developed in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon 

Carbide’’). See also Policy Bulletin 03.2: 

Combination Rates in New Shipper 

Reviews, available at <http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull03–2.html>, 

stating: 

The bonding privilege in effect during 

a new shipper review, along with 

the prospective cash deposit rate 

established in that review for the 

new shipper, is applicable only 

with respect to merchandise 

produced/supplied and exported by 

the parties who have met all 

necessary certification 

requirements, who successfully 

participate in the review, and 

whose sales form the basis for the 

Department’s analysis in the new 

shipper review. Where a party 

certifies that it is both the producer 

and exporter of subject merchandise 

pursuant to section 351.214(b)(2)(i) 

of the Department’s regulations, the 

bonding option and post–final new 

shipper cash deposit rate will apply 

only with respect to subject 

merchandise produced and 

exported by this entity. Where a 

party is the exporter but not the 

producer of subject merchandise, 

the bonding option and post–final 

new shipper deposit rate will apply 

only with respect to subject 

merchandise exported by the entity 

requesting the review and produced 

or supplied(9) by those parties that 

provided the necessary certification 

under section 351.214(b)(2)(ii) and 

cooperated in responding to any 

information requests during the 

new shipper review.11

Kangtai is a wholly Chinese–owned 

company and is located in the PRC. 

Therefore, the Department must analyze 

whether it can demonstrate the absence 

of both de jure and de facto government 

control over its export activities. 

Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

The evidence provided by Kangtai 

supports a preliminary finding of de 

jure absence of government control 

based on the following: (1) an absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with the individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) there are 

applicable legislative enactments 

decentralizing control of the companies; 

and (3) there are formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

companies. See Kangtai’s AQR at 

Exhibit A3.1–A3.3. 

Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically, the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). 

With regard to de facto control, 

Kangtai reported that: (1) it 

independently set prices for sales to the 

United States through negotiations with 

customers and these prices are not 

subject to review by any government 

organization; (2) it did not coordinate 

with other exporters or producers to set 

the price or to determine to which 

market the companies will sell subject 

merchandise; (3) the PRC Chamber of 

Commerce did not coordinate the export 

activities of Kangtai; (4) its sales person 

has the authority to contractually bind 

it to sell subject merchandise; (5) its 

general manager is selected by the 

shareholder meeting; (6) there is no 

restriction on its use of export revenues; 

and (7) its shareholders ultimately 

determine the disposition of respective 

profits. Furthermore, our analysis of 

Kangtai’s questionnaire responses 

reveals no information indicating 

government control of its export 

activities. Therefore, based on the 

information on the record, we 

preliminarily determine that there is an 

absence of de facto government control 

with respect to Kangtai’s export 

functions and that Kangtai has met the 

criteria for the application of a separate 

rate. The Department has determined 

that an analysis of de facto control is 

critical in determining whether 

respondents are, in fact, subject to a 

degree of government control which 

would preclude the Department from 

assigning separate rates. See Kangtai’s 

AQR at pages A–7 through A–9. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this administrative review by Kangtai 

demonstrates an absence of de facto 

government control with respect to 

Kangtai’s exports of the merchandise 

under review, in accordance with the 

criteria identified in Sparklers and 

Silicon Carbide. 

Date of Sale 

19 CFR 351.401(i) states that: 

In identifying the date of sale of the 

subject merchandise or foreign like 

product, the Secretary normally 

will use the date of invoice, as 

recorded in the exporter or 

producer’s records kept in the 

normal course of business. 

However, the Secretary may use a 

date other than the date of invoice 

if the Secretary is satisfied that a 

different date better reflects the date 

on which the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of 

sale. 

Kangtai reported the invoice date as 

the date of sale because it claims that all 

sales terms are fixed, i.e., the exact 

quantity of the container load and the 

exact value calculated, when the invoice 

is issued. We have preliminarily 

determined that the invoice date is the 

most appropriate date to use as 

Kangtai’s date of sale in accordance 

with our long–standing practice of 

determining the date of sale as the date 

on which the final terms of sale are 

established.12


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
37010 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 

and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams From 

Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

13See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also, Shakeproof 

Assembly Components Div. of Ill v. United States, 

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

(affirming the Department’s use of market-based 

prices to value certain FOPs). 

14See e.g., Certain Activated Carbon From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary 

Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Extension of Time Limits for the Final 

Results, 74 FR 21317, 21327 (May 7, 2009) 

(unchanged in the final results); and China National 

Machinery Import & Export Corporation v. United 

States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1338-1339 (CIT 2003), 

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

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

chlorinated isos to the United States by 

Kangtai were made at less than NV, the 

Department compared export price 

(‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described in the 

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections of this notice, pursuant to 

section 771(35) of the Act. 

Export Price 

Kangtai sold the subject merchandise 

directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States prior to importation into 

the United States. Therefore, we have 

used EP in accordance with section 

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

constructed export price methodology is 

not otherwise indicated. We calculated 

EP based on the price, including the 

appropriate shipping terms, to the 

unaffiliated purchasers as reported by 

Kangtai. 

To value truck freight, we used the 

freight rates published by 

<www.infobanc.com>, ‘‘The Great 

Indian Bazaar, Gateway to Overseas 

Markets.’’ The logistics section of the 

website contains inland freight truck 

rates between many large Indian cities. 

The truck freight rates are for the period 

August 2008 through September 2008. 

See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

The Department valued brokerage and 

handling using a simple average of the 

brokerage and handling costs that were 

reported in public submissions that 

were filed in three antidumping duty 

cases. Specifically, we averaged the 

public brokerage and handling expenses 

reported by Navneet Publications (India) 

Ltd. in the 2007–2008 administrative 

review of certain lined paper products 

from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 

2006–2007 antidumping duty 

administrative review of hot–rolled 

carbon steel flat products from India, 

and Himalaya International Ltd. in the 

2005–2006 administrative review of 

certain preserved mushrooms from 

India. The Department adjusted the 

average brokerage and handling rate for 

inflation. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Normal Value 

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

that, in the case of an NME, the 

Department shall determine NV using 

an FOP methodology if the merchandise 

is exported from an NME and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home–market 

prices, third–country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. 

The Department will base NV on 

FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of these economies renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under our 

normal methodologies. Therefore, we 

calculated NV based on FOPs in 

accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and 

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

The FOPs include: (1) hours of labor 

required; (2) quantities of raw materials 

employed; (3) amounts of energy and 

other utilities consumed; and (4) 

representative capital costs. We used the 

FOPs reported by respondent for 

materials, energy, labor, and packing. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department will 

normally use publicly available 

information to value the FOPs, but 

when a producer sources an input from 

a market–economy country and pays for 

it in market–economy currency, the 

Department may value the factor using 

the actual price paid for the input.13

Kangtai reported that it did not 

purchase any inputs from market 

economy suppliers for the production of 

the subject merchandise. See Kangtai’s 

DQR at page 5. 

With regard to the Indian import– 

based surrogate values, we have 

disregarded prices that we have reason 

to believe or suspect may be subsidized, 

such as those from Indonesia, South 

Korea, and Thailand. We have found in 

other proceedings that these countries 

maintain broadly available, non– 

industry-specific export subsidies and, 

therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all 

exports to all markets from these 

countries may be subsidized.14 We are 

also guided by the statute’s legislative 

history that explains that it is not 

necessary to conduct a formal 

investigation to ensure that such prices 

are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. No. 

100–576, at 590 (1988). Rather, the 

Department was instructed by Congress 

to base its decision on information that 

is available to it at the time it is making 

its determination. Therefore, we have 

not used prices from these countries in 

calculating the Indian import–based 

surrogate values. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

FOPs reported by Kangtai for the POR. 

To calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per–unit factor consumption 

quantities by publicly available 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 render them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 

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

detailed description of all surrogate 

values used for Kangtai, see the 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

Except as noted below, we valued raw 

material inputs using the weighted– 

average unit import values derived from 

the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign 

Trade of India, as published by the 

Directorate General of Commercial 

Intelligence and Statistics of the 

Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 

Government of India in the World Trade 

Atlas, available at <http:// 

www.gtis.com/wta.htm> (‘‘WTA’’). 

Where we could not obtain publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

with the POR with which to value FOPs, 

we adjusted the surrogate values using, 

where appropriate, the Indian 

Wholesale Price Index as published in 

the International Financial Statistics of 

the International Monetary Fund. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. We 

further adjusted these prices to account 

for freight costs incurred between the 

supplier and respondent. We used the 

freight rates published by 

<www.infobanc.com>, ‘‘The Great 

Indian Bazaar, Gateway to Overseas 

Markets,’’ to value truck freight. See the 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. For a 

complete description of the factor 

values we used, see the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

We valued calcium chloride and 

sodium hydroxide using Chemical 

Weekly. For a detailed discussion of 

these selections, see the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. We adjusted these values 

for taxes and to account for freight costs 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 37011 

15See Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries 

(revised January 2007) (available at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). The source of these wage rate 

data on the Import Administration’s web site is the 

Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2005, ILO, (Geneva: 

2005), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The 

years of the reported wage rates range from 2003 to 

2004. 

incurred between the supplier and the 

respondent. 

To value electricity, we used price 

data for small, medium, and large 

industries, as published by the Central 

Electricity Authority of the Government 

of India in its publication entitled 

Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average 

Rates of Electricity Supply in India,’’ 

dated July 2006. These electricity rates 

represent actual country–wide, 

publicly–available information on tax– 

exclusive electricity rates charged to 

industries in India. As the rates listed in 

this source became effective on a variety 

of different dates, we are not adjusting 

the average value for inflation. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

To value water, we used the revised 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation water rates available at 

<http://www.midcindia.com/water– 

supply> and adjusted for deflation. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

To value coal, we used data obtained 

for categories B and C for coal reported 

in the 2007 Indian Bureau of Mines’ 

Minerals Yearbook adjusted for 

inflation. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

For labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

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

regression–based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s web site.15

Because this regression–based wage rate 

does not separate the labor rates into 

different skill levels or types of labor, 

we have applied the same wage rate to 

all skill levels and types of labor 

reported by the respondent. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

For packing materials, we used the 

per–kilogram values obtained from the 

WTA and made adjustments to account 

for freight costs incurred between the 

PRC supplier and Kangtai’s plants. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

None of the interested parties in this 

review provided financial statements for 

use in calculating a surrogate value for 

factory overhead, selling, general, and 

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

profit for the preliminary results. 

Therefore, for factory overhead, SG&A, 

and profit values, we used information 

from Kanoria Chemicals and Industries 

Limited for the year ending March 31, 

2007, which we obtained from the 

2007–2008 administrative review of 

chlorinated isos and placed on the 

record of this review. From this 

information, we were able to determine 

factory overhead as a percentage of the 

total raw materials, labor and energy 

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

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

manufacture); and the profit rate as a 

percentage of the cost of manufacture 

plus SG&A. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum for a full discussion of 

the calculation of these ratios. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

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

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

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

Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted–average dumping 

margin exists: 

Exporter Producer 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Company, Ltd., or Company A ....... Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Company, Ltd., or Company A 0.00%* 

*de minimis 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this 

proceeding within five days of the 

publication date of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are 

invited to comment on the preliminary 

results and may submit case briefs and/ 

or written comments within 30 days of 

the date of publication of this notice. 

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

briefs and rebuttals to written 

comments, limited to issues raised in 

such briefs or comments, may be filed 

no later than five days after the time 

limit for filing the case briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). The Department 

requests that parties submitting written 

comments provide an executive 

summary and a table of authorities as 

well as an additional copy of those 

comments electronically. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Hearing requests should contain the 

following information: (1) the party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

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

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. If a request for a 

hearing is made, parties will be notified 

of the time and date for the hearing to 

be held at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of this NSR, which will 

include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such comments, 

within 90 days of publication of these 

preliminary results, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.214(i)(1), unless the time 

limit is extended. See 19 CFR 

351.214(i)(1). 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the publication 

date of the final results of this review. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we calculated exporter/ 

producer/importer (or customer)- 

specific assessment rates for the 

merchandise subject to this review. 

Where the respondent has reported 

reliable entered values, we calculated 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rates by aggregating the 

dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

entered value of the sales to each 

importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). 

Where we do not have entered values 

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

unit assessment rate by aggregating the 

antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer (or 

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

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates are de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
37012 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

Where an importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rate is greater than 

de minimis, we will apply the 

assessment rate to the entered value of 

the importers’/customers’ entries during 

the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

Where an importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Further, the following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

NSR 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 the exporter/producer chain 

identified above, the cash deposit rate 

will be the chain–specific rate 

established in the final results of review 

(except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, 

a zero cash deposit will be required); (2) 

for previously investigated or reviewed 

PRC and non–PRC exporters not listed 

above that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC–wide rate of 285.63 percent; 

and (4) for all non–PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that non– 

PRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: July 20, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–17869 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–570–942) 

Certain Kitchen Shelving and Racks 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

kitchen shelving and racks from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). For 

information on the estimated 

countervailing duty rates, please see the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section, 

below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Subler or Scott Holland, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0189 or (202) 482– 

1279, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Petitioner 

Petitioners in this investigation are 

Nashville Wire Products., Inc., SSW 

Holding Company, Inc., United Steel, 

Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied– 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, and the 

International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 

6 (Clinton, IA) (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’). 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, or period of 

investigation, is January 1, 2007, 

through December 31, 2007. 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the announcement of the 

preliminary determination published in 

the Federal Register on January 7, 2009. 

See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination With Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination, 74 FR 683 (January 

7, 2009) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

The Department issued the third and 

fourth supplemental questionnaires to 

respondent Guangdong Wire King 

Housewares and Hardware Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Wire King’’) on December 29, 2008 

and March 17, 2009, respectively. We 

received responses from Wire King to 

the third supplemental questionnaire on 

January 22, 2009, and to the fourth 

supplemental questionnaire on April 3, 

2009. The Department also issued 

second, third, and fourth supplemental 

questionnaires to the Government of the 

PRC (‘‘GOC’’) on February 11, 2009, 

March 19, 2009, and March 25, 2009, 

respectively. We received responses 

from GOC to the second supplemental 

questionnaire on March 11, 2009, and to 

the third and fourth supplemental 

questionnaires on April 9, 2009. 

The GOC, Wire King, Petitioners, and 

interested parties also submitted factual 

information, comments, and arguments 

at numerous instances prior to the final 

determination based on various 

deadlines for submissions of factual 

information and/or arguments 

established by the Department 

subsequent to the Preliminary 

Determination. 

From May 5, 2009 to May 28, 2009, 

we conducted verification of the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

GOC and Wire King. See Memorandum 

from Shane Subler and Scott Holland, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analysts, to Susan H. Kuhbach, Office 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, 

entitled ‘‘Verification Report: 

Guangdong Wireking Housewares and 

Hardware Co., Ltd.’’ (June 19, 2009); and 

Memorandum from The Verification 

Team to Susan H. Kuhbach, Office 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, 

entitled ‘‘Verification Report of the 

Foshan Municipal Government, Shunde 

District Government and the Guangdong 

Provincial Government of the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (June 19, 2009) 

(‘‘Verification Report’’). 

On May 8, 2009, we issued our post– 

preliminary analysis regarding the 

provision of electricity for less than 

adequate remuneration (‘‘LTAR’’). We 

addressed our preliminary findings in a 

May 8, 2009, memorandum to Ronald K. 

Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, entitled 

‘‘Preliminary Findings Regarding 

Electricity Pricing in China: Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES