Você está na página 1de 13

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.

31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 7405

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE anniversary month, in accordance with calculating NV.4 See ‘‘Surrogate
19 CFR 351.214(c). In response to the Country’’ section below. On September
INTERNATIONAL TRADE Department’s May 4, 2006, request for 14, 2006, Coalition for the Preservation
ADMINISTRATION information, Golrich provided of American Brake Drum and Rotor
[A–570–846] supplemental information on May 16, Aftermarket Manufacturers
2006. On May 30, 2006, the Department (‘‘petitioners’’) submitted publicly
Brake Rotors From the People’s initiatd a new shipper review of Golrich available information for use as
Republic of China: Preliminary Results covering the period April 1, 2005, surrogate values in the calculation of
of the 2005–2006 Administrative and through March 31, 2006. See Brake NV in the 2005–2006 administrative and
New Shipper Reviews and Partial Rotors From the People’s Republic of new shipper reviews. On November 21,
Rescission of the 2005–2006 China: Initiation of New Shipper 2006, the Department selected India as
Administrative Review Antidumping Duty Review, 71 FR 30655 the most appropriate surrogate country
(May 30, 2006). On May 30, 2006, the for the purpose of this new shipper
AGENCY: Import Administration, Department issued a new shipper review.5 On October 2, 2006, Golrich
International Trade Administration, antidumping duty questionnaire to submitted rebuttal comments on
Department of Commerce. Golrich. petitioners’ September 14, 2006,
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce surrogate value submission.
On July 11, 2006, the Department On October 2, 2006, Golrich agreed to
(‘‘the Department’’) is currently received Golrich’s Sections A, C and D
conducting the 2005–2006 waive the new shipper review time
response. On July 27, 2006, the limits in accordance with 19 CFR
administrative and new shipper reviews Department received Golrich’s Importer-
of the antidumping duty order on brake 351.214(j)(3), to align the new shipper
Specific Questionnaire response. On review with the concurrent 2005–2006
rotors from the People’s Republic of August 18, October 10, and October 27,
China (‘‘PRC’’). We preliminarily administrative review of brake rotors
2006, the Department issued from the PRC. On October 4, 2006, the
determine that sales have been made supplemental questionnaires to Golrich
below normal value (‘‘NV’’) with respect Department aligned the new shipper
and received responses to these review with the 2005–2006
to certain exporters who participated
supplemental questionnaires on administrative review of brake rotors
fully and are entitled to a separate rate
September 15, October 24, and from the PRC.6
in the administrative or new shipper
November 1, 2006, respectively. On On October 25, 2006, the Department
review. If these preliminary results are
August 22, 2006, the Department placed issued a verification agenda to Golrich.7
adopted in our final results of these
on the record of the new shipper review On November 14 through 16, 2006, the
reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs
copies of CBP documents pertaining to Department verified the sales and
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess factors-of-production (‘‘FOP’’) responses
the entry of brake rotors from the PRC
antidumping duties on entries of subject of Golrich at its factory in Qingdao,
exported to the United States by Golrich
merchandise during the period of Shandong, PRC. On January 24, 2007,
during the POR.1
review (‘‘POR’’) for which the importer- the Department issued the verification
specific assessment rates are above de On August 11, 2006, we requested
that the Office of Policy issue a report for Golrich.8
minimis.
Interested parties are invited to surrogate-country memorandum for the 4 See Letter to All Interested Parties from Blanche
comment on these preliminary results. selection of the appropriate surrogate Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office
We will issue the final results no later countries for this new shipper review.2 8, requesting parties to provide surrogate factors-of-
than 120 days from the date of On August 23, 2006, the Office of Policy production values from the potential surrogate
provided a list of five countries at a countries (i.e., India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the
publication of this notice. Philippines and Egypt), dated August 24, 2006, and
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 15, 2007. level of economic development Letter to All Interested Parties from Blanche Ziv,
comparable to that of the PRC for the Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann
POR.3 On August 24 and September 12, regarding surrogate-country selection, dated
Fornaro or Blanche Ziv, AD/CVD September 12, 2006.
2006, the Department invited all
Operations, Office 8, Import 5 See Memorandum to the File from Ryan
interested parties to submit comments Douglas, International Trade Compliance Analyst,
Administration, International Trade
on surrogate-country selection and to through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, Office 8,
Administration, U.S. Department of
submit publicly available information as AD/CVD Operations, through Wendy Frankel,
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, entitled,
surrogate values for purposes of
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; ‘‘Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China:
telephone: (202) 482–3927 or (202) 482– Surrogate-Country Selection Memorandum for the
1 See Memorandum to the File from Ann Fornaro, 2005–2006 Administrative and New Shipper
4207, respectively. International Trade Compliance Analyst, entitled, Reviews,’’ dated November 21, 2006 (‘‘Surrogate
‘‘2005–2006 New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors Country Selection Memo’’).
Background
from the People’s Republic of China, Results of 6 See Memorandum to the File from Ryan A.

On April 17, 1997, the Department Request for Assistance from U.S. Customs and Douglas, International Trade Compliance Analyst,
published in the Federal Register the Border Protection on U.S. Entry Documents,’’ dated through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD
August 22, 2006. Operations, Office 8, entitled ‘‘Brake Rotors from
antidumping duty order on brake rotors 2 See Memorandum to Ronald Lorentzen, the People’s Republic of China: Alignment of 2005–
from the PRC. See Notice of Director, Office of Policy, from Wendy J. Frankel, 2006 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews,’’
Antidumping Duty Order: Brake Rotors Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, dated October 4, 2006.
from the People’s Republic of China, 62 ‘‘Surrogate-Country Selection: 2005–2006 New 7 See Letter from Blanche Ziv, Program Manager,

Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, to Qingdao Golrich
FR 18740 (April 17, 1997) (‘‘the Order’’). Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China,’’ Autoparts Co., Ltd., dated October 25, 2006.
New Shipper Review dated August 11, 2006. 8 See Memorandum to the File from Ann Fornaro
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES

3 See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, Director, and Jennifer Moats, International Trade Compliance
On March 16, 2006, Qingdao Golrich Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, from Ronald Analysts, through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager,
Autoparts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Golrich’’) Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, entitled, ‘‘New AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, and Wendy J.
Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the People’s Frankel, Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations,
requested a new shipper review of the Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors
antidumping duty order on brake rotors Surrogate Countries’’ (‘‘NSR Surrogate-Country Response of Qingdao Golrich Autoparts Co., Ltd. in
from the PRC, which has an April Memo’’). Continued

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:37 Feb 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM 15FEN1
7406 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices

Administrative Review petitioners submitted an amendment to Due to the large number of


On April 3, 2006, the Department this request for an administrative participating firms subject to this
published a notice of opportunity to review, stating that the name China administrative review, and the
request an administrative review of the National Machinery Import & Export Department’s experience regarding the
antidumping duty order on brake rotors Company should be corrected to China administrative burden of reviewing each
from the PRC. See Antidumping or National Industrial Machinery Import & company for which a request was made,
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Export Company and that Laizhou Luqi the Department exercised its authority
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity Machinery Co., Ltd. is the same to limit the number of mandatory
To Request Administrative Review, 71 company as Laizhou Luqi Machinery respondents selected for individual
FR 16549 (April 3, 2006). Co. review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of
On April 28, 2006, the Department On May 31, 2006, the Department the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
received timely requests for an initiated an administrative review of the Act’’), by selecting exporters and
administrative review of this antidumping duty order on brake rotors producers accounting for the largest
antidumping duty order in accordance from the PRC for 27 individually named volume of the subject merchandise that
with 19 CFR 351.213 from Laizhou Auto firms, for the POR of April 1, 2005, can reasonably be examined. On June
Brake Equipment Co., Ltd.9 (‘‘LABEC’’); through March 31, 2006. See Notice of 16, 2006, the Department issued letters
Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Initiation of Antidumping and to all firms named in the AR Initiation
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Winhere’’); Countervailing Duty Administrative Notice requesting information on the
Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. Reviews and Request for Revocation in quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) of sales of
(‘‘Haimeng’’); Laizhou Hongda Auto Part, 71 FR 30864 (May 31, 2006) (‘‘AR subject merchandise to the United
Replacement Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hongda’’); Initiation Notice’’). Of the 27 companies States during the POR. The Department
Hongfa Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd. for which the Department initiated a issued letters to two companies (i.e.,
(‘‘Hongfa’’); Qingdao Meita Automotive review, we received seven requests for Laizhou CAPCO Machinery Co., Ltd.
Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Meita’’); and rescission of review between May 31 and Laizhou Luyuan) to clarify reported
Shandong Huanri Group General Co., and July 6, 2006, based on claims of no Q&V information covered by this
Laizhou Huanri Automobile Parts Co., shipments.11 See ‘‘Preliminary Partial administrative review on September 28
Ltd., and Shandong Huanri Group Co., Rescission of 2005–2006 Administrative and October 12, 2006, respectively. On
Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘Huanri’’). The Review’’ section below. Because the August 18, 2006, based on reported
Department also received a timely Department previously determined that export volumes of subject merchandise
request for an administrative review of Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Co., Ltd. during the POR, the Department
27 companies (or producer/exporter is the successor-in-interest to Laizhou selected the three largest companies by
combinations),10 from petitioners on Auto Brake Equipments Factory,12 for volume, i.e., Haimeng, Winhere and
May 1, 2006. On May 15, 2006, purposes of this proceeding, we Meita, as the three mandatory
continue to consider these two respondents in this review. The
the 2005–2006 New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors companies as the same entity (i.e., remaining 12 respondents are non-
from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated January Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Co., selected respondents.15 See ‘‘Separate
24, 2007 (‘‘Golrich Verification Report’’). Ltd.). Similarly, the Department Rates’’ section below. On August 18,
9 The Department received a request from
determined in a changed circumstances 2006, we issued antidumping duty
petitioners to review Laizhou Auto Brake
Equipment Company. However, we have review that Shandong Huanri Group questionnaires to Haimeng, Meita and
determined from the respondent that the correct Co., Ltd. was the successor-in-interest to Winhere.
name for this company is Laizhou Auto Brake Shandong Huanri Group General On August 24, 2006, the Department
Equipment Co., Ltd. Company for purposes of determining
10 The names of these exporters are as follows: (1) placed on the record of this review
China National Industrial Machinery Import &
antidumping duty liability.13 We also copies of CBP documents pertaining to
Export Corporation (‘‘CNIM’’); (2) Laizhou Auto note that in a prior review, the entries of brake rotors from the PRC
Brake Equipment Co., Ltd. (‘‘LABEC’’); (3) Qingdao Department treated Laizhou Huanri exported to the United States by Hongfa
Gren Co. (‘‘Gren’’); (4) Winhere; (5) Haimeng; (6) Automobile Co., Ltd. as part of the
Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘ZLAP’’); and CAPCO during the POR.16 On
(7) Hongda; (8) Hongfa; (9) Meita; (10) Longkou TLC
Shandong Huanri Group General September 19, 2006, Hongfa submitted
Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Longkou TLC’’); (11) Zibo Company.14 Thus, for purposes of additional information regarding the
Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company determining the pool of respondents in CBP documentation. See ‘‘Preliminary
(‘‘ZGOLD’’); (12) Xianghe Xumingyuan Auto Parts the current review, we consider Laizhou
Co. (‘‘Xumingyuan’’); (13) Xiangfen Hengtai Brake Partial Rescission of 2005–2006
System Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hengtai’’); (14) Laizhou City Luqi
Huanri Automobile Co., Ltd. and Administrative Review’’ section below.
Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Luqi’’); (15) Qingdao Rotec Shandong Huanri Group General
Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Rotec’’); (16) Shenyang Company to be a single respondent. On August 11, 2006, we requested
Yinghao Machinery Co. (‘‘Yinghao’’); (17) Longkou that the Office of Policy issue a
Jinzheng Maxhinery (sic) Co. (‘‘Jinzheng’’); (18) 11 These seven companies are Hongfa, Wally,
surrogate-country memorandum for the
Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wally’’); (19) selection of the appropriate surrogate
Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., Ltd. Xumingyuan, CAIEC, CAPCO, Luyuan, and
(‘‘Zhongding’’); (20) Laizhou Luqi Machinery Co.; Honbase.
12 See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 15 See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel,
(21) Shandong Huanri Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huanri’’);
(22) China National Automotive Industry Import & China: Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, from
Export Corporation (‘‘CAIEC’’), excluding entries Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD
manufactured by Shandong Laizhou CAPCO 37211 (July 17, 2001). Operations, Office 8, entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty
13 See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the
Industry (‘‘CAPCO’’); (23) CAPCO, excluding
entries manufactured by CAPCO; (24) Laizhou China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances People’s Republic of China: Selection of
Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co. (‘‘Laizhou Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR Respondents,’’ dated August 18, 2006.
69941 (November 18, 2005) (‘‘Brake Rotors Changed
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES

Luyuan’’), excluding entries manufactured by 16 See Memorandum to the File from Ann

Laizhou Luyuan or Shenyang Honbase Machinery Circumstances Seventh’’). See also, Brake Rotors Fornaro, International Trade Compliance Analyst,
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Honbase’’); (25) Honbase, excluding From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary entitled, ‘‘2005–2006 Administrative Review of
entries manufactured by Laizhou Luyuan or Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth New Shipper Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China,
Honbase; (26) Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Review, 66 FR 29080 (May 29, 2001). Results of Request for Assistance from U.S. Customs
Factory; and (27) Shandong Huanri Group General 14 See Brake Rotors Changed Circumstances and Border Protection on U.S. Entry Documents,’’
Company. Seventh at 69942. dated August 24, 2006.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:37 Feb 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM 15FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 7407

countries for this review.17 On August On October 25, 2006, the Department (less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than
23, 2006, the Office of Policy provided issued verification outlines to Haimeng 20.41 kilograms).
a list of five countries at a level of and TLC. The Department conducted Brake rotors are currently classifiable
economic development comparable to verification of the responses of Haimeng under subheading 8708.39.5010 of the
that of the PRC for the POR of this from November 6 through 10, 2006, and Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
review.18 On August 24 and September of TLC on November 13, 2006. On United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).22 Although
12, 2006, the Department invited all January 24 and 26, 2007, the the HTSUS subheading is provided for
interested parties to submit comments Department released the verification convenience and customs purposes, the
on surrogate-country selection and to reports for TLC and Haimeng, written description of the scope of this
submit publicly available information as respectively.21 For further information, order is dispositive.
surrogate values for purposes of see the ‘‘Verification’’ section below.
Separate Rates
calculating NV.19 See ‘‘Surrogate Period of Review
Country’’ section below. On November In proceedings involving non-market
21, 2006, the Department selected India The POR is April 1, 2005, through economy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the
as the most appropriate surrogate March 31, 2006. Department begins with a rebuttable
country for the purpose of this Scope of the Order presumption that all companies within
administrative review.20 the country are subject to government
The products covered by this order control, and thus, should be assigned a
On September 14, 2006, petitioners
are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, single antidumping duty deposit rate. It
submitted publicly available
whether finished, semifinished, or is the Department’s policy to assign all
information for use as surrogate values
unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 exporters of subject merchandise subject
in the calculation of NV in the
to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) to review in an NME country a single
administrative and new shipper and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63
reviews. Also, on September 14, 2006, rate unless an exporter can demonstrate
to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters that it is sufficiently independent of
Haimeng, Meita, Winhere, LABEC, (weight and dimension) of the brake
Hongda, and Luqi submitted publicly government control to be entitled to a
rotors limit their use to the following separate rate. See, e.g., Honey from the
available information for use as types of motor vehicles: Automobiles,
surrogate values in the calculation of People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
all-terrain vehicles, vans and Results and Partial Rescission of
NV in the administrative review. On recreational vehicles under ‘‘one ton
September 25, 2006, petitioners Antidumping Duty Administrative
and a half,’’ and light trucks designated Review, 70 FR 74764, 74766 (December
submitted rebuttal comments to the as ‘‘one ton and a half.’’
aforementioned respondents’ September 16, 2005) (unchanged in the final
Finished brake rotors are those that
14, 2006, filing. On October 5, 2006, results).
are ready for sale and installation
Haimeng, Meita, Winhere, LABEC, For the administrative review, in
without any further operations. Semi-
Hongda, and Luqi submitted rebuttal order to demonstrate separate-rate status
finished rotors are those on which the
comments to petitioners’’ comments. eligibility, the Department required
surface is not entirely smooth, and have
On October 3, 2006, we received entities, for whom a review was
undergone some drilling. Unfinished
questionnaire responses from Haimeng, rotors are those which have undergone requested, and that were assigned a
Winhere, and Meita. The Department some grinding or turning. separate-rate in the previous segment of
issued supplemental questionnaires to These brake rotors are for motor this proceeding, to submit a separate-
Haimeng, Meita, and Winhere on vehicles, and do not contain in the rate certification stating that they
October 13, November 30, and casting a logo of an original equipment continue to meet the criteria for
December 12, 2006, respectively. We manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) which produces obtaining a separate rate. For entities
received supplemental questionnaire vehicles sold in the United States. (e.g., that were not assigned a separate rate in
responses from Haimeng, Meita, and General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, the previous segment of this proceeding,
Winhere on October 30, December 14, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in to demonstrate eligibility for such, the
2006, and January 8, 2007, respectively. this order are not certified by OEM Department required a separate-rate
producers of vehicles sold in the United status application. The three mandatory
17 See Memorandum to Ronald Lorentzen,
States. The scope also includes (i.e., Haimeng, Meita, and Winhere) and
Director, Office of Policy, from Wendy J. Frankel,
composite brake rotors that are made of 12 separate-rate respondents (i.e., non-
Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, selected respondents) provided
‘‘Surrogate-Country Selection: 2005–2006 gray cast iron, which contain a steel
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty plate, but otherwise meet the above company-specific information and
Order on Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic criteria. Excluded from the scope of this each 23 stated that it meets the criteria
of China,’’ dated August 11, 2006 (‘‘AR Surrogate-
order are brake rotors made of gray cast for the assignment of a separate-rate.
Country Memo’’). We considered whether the
18 See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, iron, whether finished, semifinished, or
Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, from unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 respondents referenced above were
Ronald Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, inches or greater than 16 inches (less eligible for a separate rate. The
entitled, ‘‘Administrative Review of Brake Rotors than 20.32 centimeters or greater than Department’s separate-rate status test to
from the People’s Republic of China (PRC): Request determine whether the exporters are
for a List of Surrogate Countries,’’ dated August 23, 40.64 centimeters) and a weight less
2006. than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds independent from government control
19 See Letter to All Interested Parties from does not consider, in general,
Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD 21 See ‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors
Operations, Office 8, requesting parties to provide Response of Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. 22 22 As of January 1, 2005, the HTS classification

surrogate factors-of-production values from the in the Antidumping Review of Brake Rotors from for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.50.10
potential surrogate countries (i.e., India, Sri Lanka, to 8708.39.50.30. See Harmonized Tariff Schedule
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES

the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated January 26,


Indonesia, the Philippines and Egypt), dated August 2007 (‘‘Haimeng Verification Report’’), and of the United States (2005), available at
24, 2006, and Letter to All Interested Parties from ‘‘Verification of the Separate Rate Response of <www.usitc.gov>.
Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd. in the 23 The non-selected respondents are as follows:
Operations, Office 8, regarding surrogate-country Antidumping Review of Brake Rotors from the CNIM, LABEC, Gren, ZLAP, Hongda, Longkou TLC,
selection, dated September 12, 2006. People’s Republic of China,’’ dated (January 24, ZGOLD, Luqi, Yinghao, Jinzheng, Zhongding, and
20 See Surrogate Country Selection Memo. 2007 (‘‘TLC Verification Report’’). Huanri.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:37 Feb 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM 15FEN1
7408 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices

macroeconomic/border-type controls Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 102, during the POR does not suggest
(e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 105 (January 3, 2007); Hand Trucks and coordination among exporters.
minimum export prices), particularly if Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Consequently, we preliminarily
these controls are imposed to prevent Republic of China; Preliminary Results determine that Haimeng, Winhere,
dumping. The test focuses, rather, on and Partial Rescission of Administrative Meita, CNIM, LABEC, Gren, ZLAP,
controls over the investment, pricing, Review and Preliminary Results of New Hongda, Longkou TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi,
and output decision-making process at Shipper Review, 72 FR 937, 944 (January Yinghao, Jinzheng, Zhongding, and
the individual firm level.24 9, 2007). We have no new information Huanri have each met the criteria for the
To establish whether an exporter is in this proceeding which would cause application of a separate rate based on
sufficiently independent of government us to reconsider this determination with the documentation each of these
control to be entitled to a separate rate, regard to Haimeng, Winhere, Meita, respondents has submitted on the
the Department analyzes the exporter in CNIM, LABEC, Gren, ZLAP, Hongda, record of these reviews.25
light of select criteria, discussed below. Longkou TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi, Yinghao, We note that in previous segments of
See Final Determination of Sales at Less Jinzheng, Zhongding, and Huanri. this proceeding, the Department
Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the determined that Huanri was not entitled
People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 2. Absence of De Facto Control to a separate rate because it had not
20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) As stated in previous cases, there is demonstrated an absence of de facto
(‘‘Sparklers’’); and Final Determination evidence that certain enactments of the control by the PRC government.26 In the
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon PRC central government have not been instant review, Huanri reported certain
Carbide from the People’s Republic of implemented uniformly among different changes that have resulted in the
China, 59 FR 22585, 22586, 22587 (May sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. Department’s determination to
2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). Under this See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586, preliminarily grant Huanri a separate
test, exporters in NME countries are 22587. Therefore, the Department has rate. See Separate-Rate Memo for further
entitled to separate, company-specific determined that an analysis of de facto details and a full discussion of this
margins when they can demonstrate an control is critical in determining issue. The Department intends to verify
absence of government control over whether the respondents are, in fact, the information provided by Huanri in
exports, both in law (‘‘de jure’’) and in subject to a degree of government its separate-rate application following
fact (‘‘de facto’’). control which would preclude the the preliminary results. We will
Department from assigning separate reexamine Huanri’s eligibility for a
1. Absence of De Jure Control separate rate pending results of
rates.
The Department considers the verification and will continue to
The Department typically considers
following de jure criteria in determining examine this issue for the final results.
four factors in evaluating whether each
whether an individual company may be respondent is subject to de facto Verification
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence government control of its export
of restrictive stipulations associated On August 29, 2006, petitioners
functions: (1) Whether the export prices requested that the Department conduct
with an individual exporter’s business are set by, or subject to the approval of,
and export licenses; (2) any legislative verification of the data submitted by all
a government authority; (2) whether the of the firms for which the Department
enactments decentralizing control of respondent has authority to negotiate
companies; or (3) any other formal initiated an administrative review and
and sign contracts and other the new shipper, Golrich. However, due
measures by the government agreements; (3) whether the respondent
decentralizing control of companies. See has autonomy from the government in 25 See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel,
Sparklers, 56 FR 20589. Haimeng, making decisions regarding the Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, from the
Winhere, Meita, CNIM, LABEC, Gren, selection of management; and (4) Team through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/
ZLAP, Hongda, Longkou TLC, ZGOLD, whether the respondent retains the
CVD Operations, Office 8, entitled ‘‘Preliminary
Luqi, Yinghao, Jinzheng, Zhongding, Results 2005–2006 Antidumping Duty
proceeds of its export sales and makes Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of the
and Huanri each placed on the independent decisions regarding the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the
administrative record documents to disposition of profits or financing of People’s Republic of China Separate-Rate Analysis
demonstrate an absence of de jure for Respondents (Including Exporters Not Being
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at Individually Reviewed,’’ dated February 9, 2007
control (e.g., the 1994 ‘‘Foreign Trade 22586–87; see also Final Determination (‘‘Separate-Rate Memo’’).
Law of the People’s Republic of China,’’ of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 26 In Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of
and the 1999 ‘‘Company Law of the Furfuryl Alcohol from the People’s China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
People’s Republic of China’’). Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545
the Seventh Administrative Review; Preliminary
As in prior cases, we analyzed the Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR
(May 8, 1995). 24382, 24388–89 (May 9, 2005) (‘‘Brake Rotors
laws presented to us and found them to Seventh’’), we found in the course of that review
Haimeng, Winhere, Meita, CNIM,
establish sufficiently an absence of de that Huanri was not entitled to a separate rate
LABEC, Gren, ZLAP, Hongda, Longkou
jure control over joint ventures between because it did not demonstrate an absence of de
TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi, Yinghao, Jinzheng, facto government control. In Brake Rotors Seventh,
the PRC and foreign companies, and
Zhongding, and Huanri each asserted the Department determined that the Panjiacun
limited liability companies in the PRC. Village Committee was a form of local government
the following: (1) It establishes its own
See, e.g., Honey from the People’s in the PRC and that it was involved in export-
export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts
Republic of China: Preliminary Results related decisions at Huanri. Furthermore, in Brake
without guidance from any government Rotors From the People’s Republic of China: Final
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping
entities or organizations; (3) it makes its Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005
own personnel decisions; and (4) it Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of
24 See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304,
retains the proceeds of its export sales,
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES

from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less 66305 (November 14, 2006) (‘‘Brake Rotors 8th
than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, uses profits according to its business Final Results’’), consistent with Department
1997); and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts needs, and has the authority to sell its practice, the Department determined that Huanri
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the was not entitled to a separate rate because Huanri
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
assets and to obtain loans. Additionally, cancelled a scheduled verification, and therefore,
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR each of these companies’ questionnaire the Department was unable to verify Huanri’s
61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). responses indicates that its pricing response with respect to its separate-rate claim.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:37 Feb 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM 15FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 7409

to the Department’s resource constraints Hongfa reaffirmed that it did not make investigated will depend on the
in conducting these reviews, we only any shipments during the POR and circumstances surrounding the sale. See
selected Haimeng, TLC, Golrich, and submitted additional information TTPC, 366 F. Supp at 1263.
Huanri for verification pursuant to relating to its shipments, explaining that For the reasons stated below, we
section 782(i) of the Act and 19 CFR all but one shipment were brake drums preliminarily find that Golrich’s
351.307. incorrectly coded by the importer as reported U.S. sale during the POR
On October 25, 2006, the Department brake rotors and that the one shipment appears to be a bona fide sale, as
issued verification outlines to Haimeng, of brake rotors had been reported to the required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c),
TLC and Golrich. The Department Department and subject to the previous based on the totality of the facts on the
conducted verification of the responses administrative review. We found no record. Specifically, we do not find that
of Haimeng from November 6 through evidence contradicting the statements the difference in quantity or average
10, 2006; of TLC on November 13, 2006; made by any of the above-mentioned price for Golrich’s sale compared to the
and of Golrich from November 15 firms. average quantity and unit value of U.S.
through 17, 2006. For the companies we Based on the record of this review and imports of comparable brake rotors from
verified, we used standard verification the results of our customs query, we the PRC during the POR together with
procedures, including on-site inspection cannot conclude that Hongfa, Wally, the totality of circumstances
of the manufacturers’ and exporters’ Xumingyuan, CAIEC, CAPCO, Luyuan, surrounding the sale at issue indicate
facilities, and examination of relevant or Honbase sold merchandise subject to the sale to be aberrational. We also
sales and financial records. Our the order. For the reasons mentioned examined information placed on the
verification results are outlined in the above, we are preliminarily rescinding record by Golrich, Golrich’s customer
verification report for each company. the administrative review for these for the POR sale, and information
See Haimeng Verification Report, TLC exporters in the following specified developed independently by the
Verification Report and Golrich exporter/producer combinations: (1) Department regarding Golrich’s
Verification Report. Hongfa; (2) Wally; (3) Xumingyuan; (4) customer for the POR sale and
CAIEC/manufactured by any company circumstances surrounding the POR
Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2005–
other than CAPCO; (5) CAPCO/ sale. We found no evidence that the
2006 Administrative Review
manufactured by any company other POR sale under review is not a bona fide
With respect to Hongfa, Wally, than CAPCO; (6) Luyuan/manufactured sale.27 Therefore, for the reasons
Xumingyuan, CAIEC, CAPCO, Luyuan, by any company other than Luyuan or mentioned above, the Department
and Honbase, each informed the Honbase; and (7) Honbase/ preliminarily finds that Golrich’s U.S.
Department that it did not export the manufactured by any company other sale during the POR was a bona fide
subject merchandise to the United than Honbase or Luyuan, because we commercial transaction.
States during the POR in the found no evidence that any of these
combinations described below, where Non-Market Economy Country
exporter/producer combinations made
applicable. Specifically, (1) neither shipments of the subject merchandise In every case conducted by the
Hongfa nor Wally exported subject during the POR, in accordance with 19 Department involving the PRC, the PRC
merchandise to the United States during CFR 351.213(d)(3). has been treated as an NME country.
the POR; (2) CAIEC did not export brake Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the
rotors to the United States that were Bona Fide Sale Analysis—Golrich Act, any determination that a foreign
manufactured by producers other than In evaluating whether or not a single country is an NME country shall remain
CAPCO; (3) CAPCO did not export brake sale is commercially reasonable, and in effect until revoked by the
rotors to the United States that were therefore bona fide, the Department has administering authority. See, e.g.,
manufactured by producers other than considered, inter alia, such factors as: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
CAPCO; (4) Luyuan did not export brake (1) The timing of the sale; (2) the price People’s Republic of China: Notice of
rotors to the United States that were and quantity of the sale; (3) the Final Results of Antidumping Duty
manufactured by producers other than expenses arising from the transaction; Administrative Review, 71 FR 7013
Luyuan or Honbase; and (5) Honbase (4) whether the goods were resold at a (February 10, 2006). None of the parties
did not export brake rotors to the United profit; and (5) whether the transaction to these proceedings has contested such
States that were manufactured by was made on an arm’s-length basis. See treatment. Accordingly, we calculated
producers other than Honbase or Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., NV in accordance with section 773(c) of
Luyuan. In order to corroborate these Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d the Act, which applies to NME
submissions, we reviewed PRC brake 1246 (CIT 2005) (‘‘TTPC’’) at 9, citing countries.
rotor shipment data maintained by CBP. Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States, 110
Surrogate Country
In reviewing the CBP data, we did not F. Supp. 2d 992, 995 (CIT 2000).
find any evidence contradicting Wally, Therefore, the Department examines a Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the
Xumingyuan, CAIEC, Honbase, and number of factors, all of which may Department to base NV on the NME
Luyuan’s claims of no shipments of speak to the commercial realities producer’s factors of production, valued
brake rotors during the POR. surrounding the sale of subject in a surrogate market economy country
On August 24, 2006, the Department merchandise. While some bona fides or countries considered to be
placed on the record of the issues may share commonalities across appropriate by the Department. In
administrative review CBP entry various cases, each case is company-
27 For further information, see Memorandum from
documents relating to certain shipments specific and the analysis may vary with
Ann Fornaro, International Trade Compliance
of subject merchandise exported by the facts surrounding each sale. See, Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager,
Hongfa and CAPCO. The Department e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms for
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES

AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, to Wendy J. Frankel,


analyzed the CBP documents relating to the People’s Republic of China: Final Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, entitled
the CAPCO shipments and determined Results and Partial Rescission of New ‘‘2005–2006 New Shipper Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the
that these documents did not indicate Shipper Review and Administrative People’s Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of
shipments of subject merchandise Reviews, 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 2003). Qingdao Golrich Autoparts Co., Ltd.,’’ dated
during the POR. On September 19, 2006, The weight given to each factor February 9, 2007.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:37 Feb 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM 15FEN1
7410 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the that has been requested; (B) fails to concerning the subject merchandise.’’
Act, in valuing the factors of provide information within the See Statement of Administrative Action
production, the Department shall use, to deadlines established, or in the form (‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the Uruguay
the extent possible, the prices or costs and manner requested by the Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No.
of factors of production in one or more Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870
market economy countries that (1) Are and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) (1994). ‘‘Corroborate’’ means that the
at a level of economic development significantly impedes a proceeding; or Department will satisfy itself that the
comparable to that of the NME country, (D) provides information that cannot be secondary information to be used has
and (2) are significant producers of verified as provided by section 782(i) of probative value. See SAA at 870. To
comparable merchandise. The the Act. corroborate secondary information, the
Department determined that India, Sri Where the Department determines Department will, to the extent
Lanka, Egypt, the Philippines, and that a response to a request for practicable, examine the reliability and
Indonesia are countries comparable to information does not comply with the relevance of the information to be used.
the PRC in terms of economic request, section 782(d) of the Act The SAA emphasizes, however, that the
development.28 Customarily, we select provides that the Department will so Department need not prove that the
an appropriate surrogate country from inform the party submitting the selected facts available are the best
the surrogate-country memo based on response and will, to the extent alternative information. See SAA at 869.
the availability and reliability of data practicable, provide that party the For the reasons discussed below, we
from the countries that are significant opportunity to remedy or explain the determine that, in accordance with
producers of comparable merchandise. deficiency. If the party fails to remedy sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act,
In this case, based on publicly available the deficiency within the applicable the use of AFA is warranted for the
information placed on the record (e.g., time limits, subject to section 782(e) of preliminary results for the PRC-wide
export data), we found that India is a the Act, the Department may disregard entity, including Hengtai and Rotec.
significant producer of the subject all or part of the original and subsequent Rotec did not respond to our June 16,
merchandise.29 Accordingly, we responses, as appropriate. Section 2006, Q&V questionnaire.31 In the AR
selected India as the primary surrogate 782(e) of the Act provides that the Initiation Notice, the Department stated
country for purposes of valuing the Department ‘‘shall not decline to that if one of the named companies does
factors of production in the calculation consider information that is submitted not qualify for a separate rate, all other
of NV because it meets the Department’s by an interested party and is necessary exporters of brake rotors from the PRC
criteria for surrogate-country selection. to the determination but does not meet who have not qualified for a separate
See Id. Where Indian data was not all applicable requirements established rate are deemed to be part of the single
available, the Department calculated the by the administering authority’’ if the PRC-wide entity, of which the named
surrogate value using World Trade Atlas information is timely, can be verified, is exporter is part. See AR Initiation Notice
(‘‘WTA’’), available at http:// not so incomplete that it cannot serve as at n.1. Hengtai responded to our June
www.gtis.com/wta.htm import statistics a reliable basis, and if the interested 16, 2006, Q&V questionnaire but did not
from the Philippines. The Philippines party acted to the best of its ability in respond to our August 4, 2006, separate-
import data represents cumulative providing the information. Where all of rate application/certification letter,
values for fiscal year 2005.30 We these conditions are met, the statute which provided Hengtai an opportunity
obtained and relied upon publicly requires the Department to use the to demonstrate its eligibility for a
available information wherever information if it can do so without separate rate in this administrative
possible. undue difficulties. review.32 Additionally, Hengtai did not
In accordance with 19 CFR Section 776(b) of the Act further respond to the Department’s September
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in provides that the Department may use 19, 2006, letter. Because Rotec and
antidumping administrative and new an adverse inference in applying the Hengtai did not submit any information
shipper reviews, interested parties may facts otherwise available when a party to establish their eligibility for a
submit publicly available information to has failed to cooperate by not acting to separate rate, we find they are deemed
value factors of production within 20 the best of its ability to comply with a to be part of the PRC-wide entity. See
days after the date of publication of request for information. Section 776(b) ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section above. See
these preliminary results. of the Act also authorizes the also, AR Initiation Notice at n1.
Department to use as adverse facts At verification, Golrich provided
Facts Available—Rotec, Hengtai, and available (‘‘AFA’’) information derived minor corrections for the reported
Golrich from the petition, the final weights of 11 of the 18 boxes used to
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act determination, a previous pack the subject merchandise it sold
provide that the Department shall apply administrative review, or other during the POR. For each of these 11
‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, information placed on the record.
necessary information is not on the Section 776(c) of the Act provides 31 See Memorandum from Ann Fornaro,

record or an interested party or any that, when the Department relies on International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Blanche
secondary information rather than on Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office
other person: (A) Withholds information 8, entitled, ‘‘2005–2006 Administrative Review of
information obtained in the course of an the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors From
28 See NSR Surrogate-Country Memo and AR investigation or review, it shall, to the the People’s Republic of China: Responses to
Surrogate-Country Memo (collectively, ‘‘Surrogate- extent practicable, corroborate that Questionnaire,’’ dated August 11, 2006.
Country Memos’’). 32 In the Department’s September 19, 2006, letter
29 See Surrogate Country Selection Memo.
information from independent sources
to Hengtai, we stated that, due to the lack of
30 For further information, see Memorandum to that are reasonably at its disposal. cooperation and responsiveness from Hengtai in
Secondary information is defined as
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES

the File from the Team through Blanche Ziv, providing the information we requested, we may
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, ‘‘information derived from the petition resort to the use of facts available with an adverse
entitled, ‘‘2005–2006 Administrative and New that gave rise to the investigation or inference for purposes of this administrative
Shipper Reviews of Brake Rotors from the People’s review, pursuant to sections 776(1) and 776(b) of
Republic of China: Factor Valuations for the
review, the final determination the Act. See Letter from Wendy J. Frankel, Director,
Preliminary Results,’’ dated February 9, 2007 concerning the subject merchandise, or Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, to Hengtai, dated
(‘‘Factor Valuation Memo’’). any previous review under section 751 September 19, 2006.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:37 Feb 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM 15FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 7411

boxes, we were able to verify the revised China; Notice of Preliminary Results of less.’’ See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F. 2d at
weights presented as minor corrections Antidumping Duty Administrative 1190.
by Golrich. However, we could not Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 Due to Hengtai’s and Rotec’s failure to
verify the reported weights of the FR 76755, 76761 (December 28, 2005). cooperate in this administrative review,
remaining seven boxes used because The Court of International Trade we have preliminarily assigned the PRC-
Golrich could not present these boxes to (‘‘CIT’’) and the Court of Appeals for the wide entity, of which they are deemed
the Department at verification. We were, Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’) have to be a part, an AFA rate of 43.32
therefore, unable to verify the reported consistently upheld the Department’s percent, which is the PRC-wide rate
unit weights of these seven boxes. To practice. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. determined in the investigation and the
value these seven boxes, we adjusted United States, 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 rate currently applicable to the PRC-
the reported weight amounts of those (Fed. Cir. 1990) (upholding the wide entity. See Brake Rotors 8th Final
boxes by the company’s largest Department’s presumption that the Results at 66307.
percentage increase presented at highest margin was the best information The Department preliminarily
verification for the other boxes.33 of current margins) (‘‘Rhone Poulenc’’); determines that this information is the
NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. most appropriate from the available
The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of AFA 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a sources to effectuate the purposes of
Because we have determined that 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest AFA. The Department’s reliance on the
Hengtai and Rotec are not entitled to available dumping margin from a PRC-wide rate from the original
separate rates and are now part of the different respondent in a less-than-fair- investigation to determine an AFA rate
PRC-wide entity, the PRC-wide entity value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation); Kompass is subject to the requirement to
(including Hengtai and Rotec) is now Food Trading International v. United corroborate secondary information. See
under review. The PRC-wide entity did States, 24 CIT 678, 683 (2000) Section 776(c) of the Act and the
not respond to our requests for (upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA ‘‘Corroboration of Facts Available’’
information. Because the PRC-wide rate, the highest available dumping section below.
entity did not respond to our requests margin from a different, fully Corroboration of Facts Available
for information, we find it necessary cooperative respondent); and Shanghai
under section 776(a)(2) of the Act to use Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. Section 776(c) of the Act provides
facts available as the basis for these United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, that, where the Department selects from
preliminary results. Because the PRC- 1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 among the facts otherwise available and
wide entity provided no information, percent total AFA rate, the highest relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the
we determine that sections 782(d) and available dumping margin from a Department shall, to the extent
(e) of the Act are not relevant to our different respondent in a previous practicable, corroborate that information
analysis. We further find that the PRC- administrative review). from independent sources reasonably at
wide entity (including Hengtai and The Department’s practice when the Department’s disposal. Secondary
Rotec) failed to respond to the selecting an adverse rate from among information is described in the SAA as
Department’s requests for information the possible sources of information is to ‘‘information derived from the petition
and, therefore, did not cooperate to the ensure that the margin is sufficiently that gave rise to the investigation or
best of its ability. Therefore, because the adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of review, the final determination
PRC-wide entity did not cooperate to the facts available role to induce concerning the subject merchandise, or
the best of its ability in the proceeding, respondents to provide the Department any previous review under section 751
the Department finds it necessary to use with complete and accurate information concerning the subject merchandise.’’
an adverse inference in making its in a timely manner.’’ See Notice of Final See SAA at 870. The SAA states that
determination, pursuant to section Determination of Sales at Less than Fair ‘‘corroborate’’ means to determine that
776(b) of the Act. Value: Static Random Access Memory the information used has probative
Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR value. The Department has determined
Selection of the Adverse Facts that to have probative value,
8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The
Available Rate information must be reliable and
Department’s practice also ensures ‘‘that
In deciding which facts to use as the party does not obtain a more relevant. See Tapered Roller Bearings
AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 favorable result by failing to cooperate and Parts Thereof, Finished and
CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered
Department to rely on information SAA at 870. See also, Brake Rotors From Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final the People’s Republic of China: Final Outside Diameter, and Components
determination in the investigation, (3) Results and Partial Rescission of the Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary
any previous review or determination, Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
or (4) any other information placed on Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Administrative Reviews and Partial
the record. It is the Department’s Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November Termination of Administrative Reviews,
practice to select, as AFA, the highest 18, 2005). In choosing the appropriate 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996).
calculated rate in any segment of the balance between providing respondents The SAA also states that independent
proceeding. See, e.g., Certain Cased with an incentive to respond accurately sources used to corroborate such
Pencils from the People’s Republic of and imposing a rate that is reasonably evidence may include, for example,
related to the respondents’ prior published price lists, official import
33 For further information on the valuation of
commercial activity, selecting the statistics and customs data, and
Golrich’s boxes, see Golrich Verification Report and
Memorandum to the File from Ann Fornaro, highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common information obtained from interested
sense inference that the highest prior parties during the particular
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES

International Trade Compliance Analyst, through


Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD margin is the most probative evidence of investigation. See SAA at 870. See also,
Operations, Office 8, entitled, ‘‘Analysis for the current margins because, if it were not Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Preliminary Results of the 2005–2006 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from
so, the importer, knowing of the rule, Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and
the People’s Republic of China: Qingdao Golrich would have produced current Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post
Autoparts Co., Ltd.’’ (‘‘Golrich Calculation Memo’’). information showing the margin to be Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:37 Feb 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM 15FEN1
7412 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices

35629 (June 16, 2003); and Notice of Accordingly, we determine that the inland freight, foreign brokerage and
Final Determination of Sales at Less highest rate from any segment of this handling fees, or marine insurance were
Than Fair Value: Live Swine From administrative proceeding, 43.32 provided by PRC service providers or
Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183 (March 11, percent, meets the corroboration paid for in renminbi, we based those
2005). criterion established in section 776(c) of charges on surrogate rates from India.
With respect to the relevance aspect the Act that secondary information has For those expenses that were provided
of corroboration, the Department will probative value. by a market-economy provider and paid
consider information reasonably at its Because these are the preliminary for in market-economy currency, we
disposal to determine whether a margin results of review, the Department will used the reported expense. See ‘‘Factor
continues to have relevance. Where consider all margins on the record at the Valuation’’ section below for further
circumstances indicate that the selected time of the final results of review for the discussion of surrogate rates.
margin is not appropriate as AFA, the purpose of determining the most In determining the most appropriate
Department will disregard the margin appropriate final margin for the PRC- surrogate values to use in a given case,
and determine an appropriate margin. wide entity. See Notice of Preliminary the Department’s stated practice is to
For example, the Department Determination of Sales at Less Than use review period-wide price averages,
disregarded the highest margin as Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade prices specific to the input in question,
adverse best information available (the Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian prices that are net of taxes and import
predecessor to facts available) because it Federation, 65 FR 1139, 1141 (January 7, duties, prices that are contemporaneous
was based on another company’s 2000). with the period of review, and publicly
uncharacteristic business expense that available data. See e.g., Certain Cased
resulted in an unusually high margin. Fair Value Comparisons
Pencils from the People’s Republic of
See Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; To determine whether sales of the China; Final Results and Partial
Final Results of Antidumping Duty subject merchandise by Haimeng, Meita, Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, Winhere, and Golrich to the United Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366
6814 (February 22, 1996). Similarly, the States were made at prices below NV, (July 6, 2006), and accompanying Issues
Department does not apply a margin we compared each company’s export and Decision Memorandum at Comment
that has been discredited. See D&L prices (‘‘EPs’’) to NV, as described in the 1. The data we used for brokerage and
Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F. 3d ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ handling expenses fulfill all of the
1220, 1223–4 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (finding sections of this notice below, pursuant foregoing criteria except that they are
that the Department will not use a to section 773 of the Act. not specific to the subject merchandise.
margin that has been judicially There is no information of that type on
invalidated). Export Price
the record of these reviews. Therefore,
With regard to the relevance of the For each respondent, we used EP consistent with the most recently
rate used, the Department notes that the methodology, in accordance with completed administrative review,36 we
rate used is the rate currently applicable section 772(a) of the Act, for sales in used ranged brokerage and handling
to the PRC-wide entity and there is no which the subject merchandise was first data from the February 28, 2005, public
information that indicates this rate is no sold prior to importation by the exporter version of the Section C response of
longer relevant to the PRC-wide entity. outside the United States directly to an Essar Steel Limited in Certain Hot-
In addition, we compared the margin unaffiliated purchaser in the United Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
calculations of Haimeng, Winhere, and States and for sales in which India: Preliminary Results of
Meita in this administrative review with constructed export price was not Antidumping Duty Administrative
the PRC-wide entity margin from the otherwise indicated. We made the Review, 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006),
LTFV investigation and used in following company-specific which covers the period December 1,
previous administrative reviews of this adjustments: 2003, through November 30, 2004. We
case. The Department found that the also used ranged brokerage and
margin of 43.32 percent was within the A. Haimeng, Meita, Winhere, and
Golrich handling data from Agro Dutch
range of the highest margins calculated Industries Ltd., taken from Certain
for the respondents on the record of this We calculated EP based on the Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final
administrative review, further support delivery method reported to the first Results of Antidumping Duty
that this rate continues to be relevant for unaffiliated purchaser in the United Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646
use in this administrative review.34 States. Where appropriate, we made (March 2, 2006), for which the POR was
As we have determined, to the extent deductions from the starting price (gross
practicable, that the margin selected is unit price) for foreign inland freight and Preliminary Results of the 2005–2006 Antidumping
both reliable and relevant, we determine foreign brokerage and handling charges Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from
that it has probative value. As a result, in the PRC,b and international freight, the People’s Republic of China: Yantai Winhere
Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd., dated February
the Department determines that the and air freight, pursuant to section 9, 2007 (‘‘Winhere Calculation Memo’’); and
margin is corroborated within the 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.35 Where foreign Memorandum to the file from Frances Veith,
meaning of section 776(c) of the Act for International Trade Compliance Analyst, through
the purposes of this administrative 35 See Golrich Calculation Memo; Memorandum Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD
to the File from Jennifer Moats, International Trade Operations, Office 8, entitled, ‘‘Analysis for the
review and may reasonably be applied Preliminary Results of the 2005–2006 Antidumping
Compliance Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program
to the PRC-wide entity as AFA. Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, entitled, Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from
‘‘Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the the People’s Republic of China: Qingdao Meita
34 See Memorandum to the File from Ann Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Automotive Industry Co., Ltd.,’’ dated February 9,
2007 (‘‘Meita Calculation Memo’’).
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES

Fornaro, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Order on Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic
through Wendy J. Frankel, Director, Office 8, AD/ of China: Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd.,’’ 36 See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of

CVD Operations, entitled ‘‘2005–2006 Antidumping dated February 9, 2007 (‘‘Haimeng Calculation China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Memo’’); Memorandum to the file through Blanche the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and
Review of Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office Preliminary Notice of Intent To Rescind the 2004/
of China (‘‘PRC’’): Corroboration of the PRC-Wide 8, from Frances Veith, International Trade 2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 26736, 26742
Adverse Facts-Available Rate.’’ Compliance Analyst, Subject: Analysis for the (May 8, 2006).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:37 Feb 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM 15FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 7413

February 1, 2004, through January 31, shipment. Additionally, we found that remuneration. On January 23, 2007,
2005. Because these values were not Haimeng erroneously shipped certain Winhere provided payment
concurrent with the POR of these brake rotors not ordered by its customer. documentation for the freight
administrative and new shipper Haimeng shipped the correct information reported in its January 8,
reviews, we adjusted these rates for merchandise, but allowed the customer 2007, supplemental response and
inflation using the Wholesale Price to keep the shipments sent in error at no limited warehouse withdrawal
Indices (‘‘WPI’’) for India as published charge. Because Haimeng provided documentation. Winhere did not
in the International Monetary Fund’s documentation from its customer at provide any of the documentation
International Financial Statistics, verification demonstrating that such requested by the Department noted
available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf, and claims were made by its customer, and above and stated that it does not
then calculated a simple average of the the ad valorem effect on export price is generate these types of documents when
two companies’ brokerage expense data. less than one percent, and thus shipping samples to its U.S. customers,
Two respondents (i.e., Haimeng and insignificant pursuant to section but it also did not provide any other
Winhere) reported that their U.S. 777A(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR information in the alternative to support
customers provided ball bearing cups 351.413, we did not correct for these its claims.
and lug bolts free-of-charge which were adjustments in Haimeng’s margin The Courts have consistently ruled
incorporated into certain brake rotor calculation. See, e.g., Brake Rotors from that the burden rests with a respondent
models exported to the United States the People’s Republic of China: Final to demonstrate that it received no
during the POR. Both companies Results of the Twelfth New Shipper consideration in return for its provision
reported that their U.S. customers Review, 71 FR 4112 (January 25, 2006), of purported samples. See, e.g., NTN
purchased ball bearing cups and lug and the accompanying Issues and Bearing Corp. of America v. United
bolts from PRC producers that were Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1286 (CIT
delivered to Haimeng and Winhere in 2003) and Zenith Electronics Corp. v.
specific quantities free-of-charge, and Zero-Priced Transactions United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1583
that the components were then During the course of this review, (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that the
incorporated into models shipped to Winhere reported a number of ‘‘sample’’ burden of evidentiary production
U.S. customers during the POR. transactions to its U.S. customer that it belongs ‘‘to the party in possession of
Section 773(c)(3) of the Act states that claimed to be zero-priced transactions. the necessary information’’). See also,
‘‘factors of production utilized in See Winhere’s October 3, 2006, sections NTN Bearing Corp. of America v. United
producing merchandise include, but are A, C, D, and Reconciliations submission States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1286 (CIT
not limited to the quantities of raw at Exhibit C–2 and Winhere’s January 8, 2003), and Tianjin Machinery Import &
materials employed.’’ See, e.g., Brake 2007, supplemental questionnaire Export Corp. v. United States, 806 F.
Rotors 8th Final Results and the response at Exhibits 8 and 9 (‘‘Winhere Supp. 1008, 1015 (CIT 1992) (‘‘The
accompanying Issues and Decisions Supplemental Response’’). On burden of creating an adequate record
Memorandum at Comment 9. See also December 12, 2006, we issued a lies with respondents and not with {the
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the supplemental questionnaire requesting Department}.’’) (citation omitted).
People’s Republic of China: Final that Winhere provide documentation, Winhere bears the burden of
Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of (e.g., commercial invoice, packing list, demonstrating that there was no
Antidumping Duty Administrative bill of lading, and PRC customs form) to monetary or non-monetary
Review, 70 FR 54361 (September 14, support Winhere’s claim that the sample consideration for the transactions in
2005), and the accompanying Issues and transactions were in fact samples question. Winhere failed to provide any
Decisions Memorandum at Comment 13. provided for no remuneration to its U.S. evidence that no monetary or non-
Therefore, to reflect the U.S. customers’ customer. On January 8, 2007, Winhere monetary consideration was given for its
expenditures for these items, we provided a summary of the total claimed sample sales. Therefore, based
adjusted the U.S. price of applicable quantity and value of the products on Winhere’s failure to show that no
sales of these models by adding the shipped ‘‘for no remuneration’’ and the consideration was given for these sales
Indian surrogate value for each total amount ‘‘purchased’’ by its in question, we have not excluded these
component (i.e., the ball bearing cups customer during an approximate three- transactions from the margin calculation
and lug bolts) used to the U.S. price of year period (i.e., January 2003 through for Winhere. Instead, we have treated
such brake rotors sold to the United March 2006). Winhere also provided a the transactions at issue as zero-priced
States during the POR. For further freight carrier shipment bill showing a sales and, therefore, included them in
information, see Winhere Calculation summary (not itemized) of the cost to Winhere’s margin calculation for the
Memo and Haimeng Calculation Memo. ship some of the claimed samples of preliminary results.
At Haimeng’s verification, we found subject merchandise and non-subject Winhere reported its FOPs for
there were several unreported price merchandise. Winhere did not, materials, labor, and energy based on an
adjustments to certain U.S. sale however, provide any of the other allocation formula determined by the
transactions. We adjusted the documentation requested in the weight of the final product. Therefore,
appropriate U.S. sales in Haimeng’s Department’s December 12, 2006, to value the claimed sample products
margin calculations to account for the supplemental questionnaire nor did it for which no FOPs were provided by
price deductions granted by Haimeng to explain why it did not provide the Winhere, we used the same allocation
its customer. For details of this documentation requested. On January formula reported by Winhere to assign
adjustment, see Haimeng Verification 16, 2007, we issued a second FOPs for materials, labor, and energy
Report and Haimeng Calculation Memo. supplemental questionnaire to Winhere based on the weights of those products.
At verification, we also found requesting again that it provide the To value packing materials for these
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES

instances where Haimeng sent documentation noted above and the products, we applied Winhere’s
additional brake rotors at zero value in U.S. Customs 7501 entry forms and pro reported packing FOP information
response to claims by the U.S. customer forma invoices to demonstrate that the submitted for other control numbers of
that it had not received the requested subject merchandise it provided to its the same type of brake rotor (i.e., solid
merchandise with the original U.S. customers were transactions for no or vented) with the same weight, where

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:37 Feb 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM 15FEN1
7414 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices

available, or closest in weight. See Factor Valuations WPI for India. See Factor Valuation
Winhere’s Calculation Memo at Exhibit Memo.
4, for more information on the facts- In accordance with section 773(c) of Furthermore, with regard to the
available methodology and values the Act, we calculated NV based on the Indian import-based surrogate values,
applied. FOPs reported by the respondents for we have disregarded prices from NME
the POR. We relied on the factor- countries and those that we have reason
Normal Value specific data submitted by the to believe or suspect may be subsidized
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides respondents for the above-mentioned (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and
that the Department shall determine NV inputs in their questionnaire and Thailand). We have found in other
using an FOP methodology if the supplemental questionnaire responses, proceedings that these countries
merchandise is exported from an NME where applicable, for purposes of maintain broadly available, non-
country and the information does not selecting surrogate values. industry-specific export subsidies and,
permit the calculation of NV using To calculate NV, we multiplied the therefore, there is reason to believe or
home-market prices, third-country reported per-unit factor quantities by suspect all exports to all markets from
prices, or constructed value under publicly available Indian surrogate these countries may be subsidized. See
section 773(a) of the Act. The values (except where noted below). In Final Determination of Sales at Less
Department will base NV on the FOPs selecting the surrogate values, we Than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring
because the presence of government considered the quality, specificity, and Lock Washers From The People’s
controls on various aspects of these contemporaneity of the data. See, e.g., Republic of China, 61 FR 66255
economies renders price comparisons Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from (December 17, 1996), and accompanying
and the calculation of production costs the People’s Republic of China; Final Issues and Decision Memorandum at
invalid under its normal methodologies. Results of Antidumping Duty Comment 1.
For purposes of calculating NV, we Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 Finally, we excluded imports that
valued the PRC FOPs in accordance (December 11, 2006), and accompanying were labeled as originating from an
with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. FOPs Issues and Decision Memorandum at ‘‘unspecified’’ country from the average
include, but are not limited to, hours of Comment 9. As appropriate, we value, because we could not be certain
labor required, quantities of raw adjusted input prices by including that they were not from either an NME
materials employed, amounts of energy freight costs to make them delivered or a country with general export
and other utilities consumed, and subsidies.
prices. Specifically, we added to Indian
representative capital costs, including To value lubricating oil, we used
import surrogate values a surrogate
depreciation. See section 773(c)(3) of January through December 2005 WTA
freight cost using the shorter of the
the Act. In examining surrogate values, weighted-average import values from
reported distance from the domestic
we selected, where possible, the the Philippines because no data was
supplier to the factory or the distance
publicly available value which was an available for this input from WTA
from the nearest seaport to the factory,
average non-export value, representative Indian import data. We adjusted the
where appropriate. This adjustment is
of a range of prices within the POR or WTA weighted-average value for this
in accordance with the Federal Circuit’s
most contemporaneous with the POR, input for inflation.
decision in Sigma Corp. v. United We valued electricity using the 2000
product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See,
e.g., Notice of Preliminary States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). average price per kilowatt hour for
Determination of Sales at Less Than For a detailed description of all ‘‘Electricity for Industry’’ as reported in
Fair Value and Postponement of Final surrogate values used for respondents, the International Energy Agency’s
Determination: Chlorinated see Factor Valuation Memo. (‘‘IEA’s’’) publication, Energy Prices and
Isocyanurates from the People’s Except where discussed below, we Taxes, Fourth Quarter, 2003. Because
Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 valued raw material inputs using April the value was not contemporaneous
(December 16, 2004) (‘‘Chlorinated 2005, through March 2006 weighted- with the POR, we adjusted the average
Isocyanurates’’) (unchanged in final average unit import values derived from cost of electricity for inflation.
determination). We used the usage rates the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Section 351.408(c)(3) of the
reported by the respondents for Trade of India (MSFTI) as published by Department’s regulations requires the
materials, energy, labor, and packing. the Directorate General of Commercial use of a regression-based wage rate.
For a detailed explanation of the Intelligence and Statistics of the Therefore, to value the labor input, the
methodology used to calculate surrogate Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department used the regression-based
values, see Factor Valuation Memo. Government of India and used in the wage rate for the PRC published by
Regarding the components supplied WTA, available at <http:// Import Administration on our Web site.
free of charge to Haimeng and Winhere www.gtis.com/wta.htm>. The Indian The source of the wage rate data is the
noted above, section 773(c)(3) of the Act import statistics we obtained from the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2004,
states that the ‘‘factors of production WTA were reported in rupees. Indian published by the International Labour
include but are not limited to the surrogate values denominated in foreign Office (‘‘ILO’’), (Geneva: 2004), Chapter
quantities of raw materials employed.’’ currencies were converted to U.S. 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. See the
Therefore, consistent with the dollars using the applicable daily Expected Wages of Selected NME
corresponding adjustment to U.S. price exchange rate for India for the POR. The Countries (revised January 2007)
discussed above, we valued the ball average exchange rate was based on available at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages.
bearing cups and lug bolts usage exchange rate data from the Because the regression-based wage rate
amounts reported by these two Department’s Web site. See <http:// does not separate the labor rates into
respondents for specific brake rotor www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ different skill levels or types of labor,
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES

models by using an Indian surrogate index.html>. Where we could not obtain we applied the same wage rate to all
value for each input. See Haimeng publicly available information skill levels and types of labor reported
Calculation Memorandum and Winhere contemporaneous with the POR with by each respondent.
Calculation Memorandum. See also which to value factors, we adjusted the To value corrugated plastic bags,
Factor Valuation Memo. surrogate values for inflation using the plastic wrap, cartons, adhesive tape,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:37 Feb 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM 15FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 7415

particle board, plywood, pallet wood, adjusted these rates, as appropriate, for which to calculate financial ratios
nails, steel strap, plastic strap and inflation. because they appear to be complete, are
buckles, we used April 2005 through Two respondents (i.e., Winhere and publicly available, and are
March 2006 weighted-average import Meita) reported transportation expenses contemporaneous with the POR. See
values from WTA Indian import data. from their casting facilities to their Final Determination of Sales at Less
At verification, Golrich provided finishing workshops. To value PRC Than Fair Value and Final Partial
minor corrections for the reported freight for the distance between the Affirmative Determination of Critical
weights of 11 of the 18 boxes used to respondents’ casting facility and their Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades
pack the subject merchandise it sold finishing workshop, we used the inland and Parts Thereof from the People’s
during the POR. For each of these 11 freight surrogate value calculated for Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May
boxes, we were able to verify the revised inputs shipped by truck in which we 22, 2006), and the accompanying Issues
weights presented as minor corrections used Indian freight rates, as discussed and Decision Memorandum at Comment
by Golrich. However, we could not above. Meita did not report 1. Where appropriate, we did not
verify the reported weights of the transportation distances from its casting include in the surrogate overhead and
remaining seven boxes used because facility to its finishing workshop. selling, general and administrative
Golrich could not present these boxes to Therefore, for purposes of these expenses (‘‘SG&A’’) calculations the
the Department at verification. We were, preliminary results, as facts available, excise duty amount listed in the
therefore, unable to verify the reported we are using the surrogate value for financial reports. From these financial
unit weights of these seven boxes. To inland freight to value this foreign statements we were able to determine
value these seven boxes, we adjusted inland transportation expense for Meita factory overhead as a percentage of the
the reported weight amounts of those using distance information noted in the total raw materials, labor, and energy
boxes by the company’s largest verification report issued by the (‘‘MLE’’) costs; SG&A as a percentage of
percentage increase presented at Department in the eighth review of MLE plus overhead (i.e., cost of
verification for the other boxes. For brake rotors from the PRC.37 See manufacture); and the profit rate as a
further information on the valuation of Winhere Calculation Memorandum and percentage of the cost of manufacture
Golrich’s boxes, see Golrich Verification Meita Calculation Memorandum. plus SG&A. See Factors Valuation
Report and Golrich Calculation Memo. Petitioners submitted financial Memorandum for a full discussion of
information for two Indian producers of the calculation of these ratios.
The Department valued truck freight identical and comparable merchandise: To value coking coal, coke, and
using Indian freight rates published by Bosch Chassis Systems India Ltd. firewood we applied surrogate values
Indian Freight Exchange available at (‘‘Bosch’’) for the year ending March 31, using Indian import prices by HTS
www.infreight.com. This source 2006, and Rico Auto Industries Limited classification for the POR reported in
provided daily rates from six major (‘‘Rico’’) for the year ending March 31, the MSFTI, and available from WTA.
points of origins to six destinations in 2005.38 Because both Bosch’s and Rico’s See Factors Valuation Memo for a full
India for the period April 2005, through financial statements were missing a discussion of the calculation of these
October 2005. Since these values are significant number of pages, and Rico’s ratios.
contemporaneous with the POR, we did financial statements were not We made currency conversions into
not need to make an adjustment for contemporaneous with the POR, the U.S. dollars, in accordance with section
inflation. We averaged the monthly rates Department placed on the record of 773A(a) of the Act, based on the
for each rate observation to obtain a these reviews the public information exchange rates in effect on the dates of
surrogate value. from the financial statements of Bosch the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal
Because there are no known Indian air and Rico for the year ending March 31, Reserve Bank.
freight providers that ship merchandise 2006, to be considered for valuing
from the PRC to the United States, we FOPs.39 Preliminary Results of Reviews
valued air freight, where applicable, We preliminarily determine that both We preliminarily determine that the
using the rates published on the UPS Bosch’s and Rico’s financial statements following margins exist for the period
Web site: http://www.ups.com and are the best available information with April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006:

BRAKE ROTORS FROM THE PRC


Weighted-average
percent margin

Individually Reviewed Exporters 2005–2006 Administrative Review

Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................... 3.43


Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................... * 0.02
Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................................... 0.00

Separate-Rate Applicant Exporters 2005–2006 Administrative Review

China National Industrial Machinery Import & Export Corporation ........................................................................................... 3.43
Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................................. 3.43
Qingdao Gren (Group) Co. ........................................................................................................................................................ 3.43
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES

37 See Memorandum to the File from Frances Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 39 See Memorandum to the File from Frances

Veith, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Order on Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic Veith, International Trade Compliance Analyst,
through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD of China,’’ dated January 25, 2007. through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, entitled, ‘‘Qingdao Meita 38 See Petitioners’ submission dated September Operations, Office 8, entitled, ‘‘Brake Rotors from
Automotive Industry Co., Ltd.’s 2004–2005 the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated December 6,
14, 2006.
Verification Report: 2005–2006 Antidumping Duty 2006.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:37 Feb 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM 15FEN1
7416 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices

BRAKE ROTORS FROM THE PRC—Continued


Weighted-average
percent margin

Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................................... 3.43


Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................. 3.43
Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................ 3.43
Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company .................................................................................................................. 3.43
Laizhou City Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................................................... 3.43
Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co. ............................................................................................................................................ 3.43
Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................... 3.43
Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................... 3.43
Shandong Huanri Group Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................. 3.43

2005–2006 New Shipper Review

Qingdao Golrich Autoparts Co., Ltd. ......................................................................................................................................... 0.78

PRC-Wide Rate

PRC-Wide Rate ** ...................................................................................................................................................................... 43.32


* De Minimus.
** This includes Rotec and Hengtai.

Disclosure Assessment Rates The following cash deposit


requirements will be effective upon
We will disclose the calculations used Upon issuance of the final results, the publication of the final results of the
in our analysis to parties to these Department will determine, and CBP administrative review for all shipments
proceedings within five days of the date shall assess, antidumping duties on all of brake rotors from the PRC entered, or
of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR appropriate entries. The Department withdrawn from warehouse, for
351.224(b). intends to issue appropriate assessment consumption on or after the publication
Interested parties are invited to instructions directly to CBP 15 days date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of
comment on the preliminary results and after the date of publication of the final the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for
may submit case briefs and/or written results of these new shipper and CNIM, LABEC, GREN, Winhere,
comments within 30 days of the date of administrative reviews. In accordance Haimeng, ZLAP, Hongda, Meita, TLC,
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have ZGOLD, Luqi Yinghao, Longkou
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
calculated an exporter/importer- or Jinzheng, Zhongding and Huanri will be
351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to
customer-specific assessment rate or the rates determined in the final results
issues raised in the case briefs, will be of review (except that if a rate is de
value for merchandise subject to these
due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR reviews. For these preliminary results, minimis, i.e., less than 0.50 percent, no
351.309(d). Parties who submit case or we divided the total dumping margins cash deposit will be required); (2) the
rebuttal briefs in these proceedings are for the reviewed sales by the total cash deposit rate for previously
requested to submit with each argument entered quantity of those reviewed sales investigated or reviewed PRC and non-
(1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a for each applicable importer. In these PRC exporters who received a separate
brief summary of the argument. Parties reviews, if these preliminary results are rate in a prior segment of the proceeding
are also encouraged to provide a adopted in our final results of review, (which were not reviewed in this
summary of the arguments not to exceed we will direct CBP to assess the segment of the proceeding) will
five pages and a table of statutes, resulting rate against the entered continue to be the rate assigned in that
regulations, and cases cited. Interested customs value or per-unit assessment, as segment of the proceeding; (3) the cash
parties who wish to request a hearing or appropriate, for the subject merchandise deposit rate for all PRC exporters of
to participate if one is requested, must on each importer’s/customer’s entries subject merchandise that have not been
submit a written request to the Assistant during the POR. found to be entitled to a separate rate
Secretary for Import Administration (including Rotec and Hengtai) will be
within 30 days of the date of publication Cash Deposit Requirements the PRC-wide rate of 43.32 percent; and
of this notice. Requests should contain: (4) the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC
The following cash deposit exporters of subject merchandise which
(1) The party’s name, address, and requirements will be effective upon have not received their own rate will be
telephone number; (2) the number of publication of the final results of the the rate applicable to the PRC exporter
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be new shipper review for all shipments of that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues subject merchandise from Golrich These requirements, when imposed,
raised in the hearing will be limited to entered or withdrawn from warehouse, shall remain in effect until publication
those raised in case and rebuttal briefs. for consumption on or after publication of the final results of the next
The Department will issue the final date: (1) For subject merchandise administrative review.
results of these reviews, including the manufactured and exported by Golrich,
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES

results of its analysis of issues raised in the cash deposit rate will be 2.15 Notification to Importers
any such written briefs or at the hearing, percent; and (2) for subject merchandise This notice serves as a preliminary
if held, not later than 120 days after the exported by Golrich but not reminder to importers of their
date of publication of this notice. manufactured by Golrich, the cash responsibility under 19 CFR
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate. 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:37 Feb 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM 15FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 7417

regarding the reimbursement of 54021 (September 13, 2006) Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
antidumping duties prior to liquidation (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). On January 10, Commerce.
of the relevant entries during this 2007, the Department extended the time ACTION: Notice of availability.
review period. Failure to comply with period for completion of the final results
this requirement could result in the of this review. See Polyethylene Retail SUMMARY: NMFS announces the
Secretary’s presumption that Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic availability of a revised list of
reimbursement of antidumping duties of China: Notice of Extension of Time equipment models that NMFS has
occurred and the subsequent assessment Limit for the Final Results of the approved as meeting the minimum
of double antidumping duties. Antidumping Duty Administrative design specifications for the careful
These administrative and new shipper Review, 72 FR 1216 (January 10, 2007). release of sea turtles caught in hook and
reviews and notice are in accordance The final results are currently due by line fisheries. The revised list is
with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and February 12, 2007. available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 Extension of Time Limit for Final sfa/hms/Protected%20Resources/
and 351.214. Results of Review RequiredlGear.pdf. The list is not a list
Dated: February 9, 2007. of required gears, but is a list of NMFS
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the approved models of equipment that may
Stephen J. Claeys, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import be used as options to meet the
Act’’), the Department shall make a final
Administration. requirements for gear that must be
determination in an administrative
[FR Doc. 07–713 Filed 2–14–07; 8:45 am] carried on board vessels participating in
review of an antidumping duty order
the Atlantic pelagic and bottom longline
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P within 120 days after the date on which
fisheries. Equipment may also be
the preliminary determination is
fabricated and used by individuals
published. The Act further provides,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE according to the minimum design
however, that the Department may
specifications. The benefit of using
extend that 120-day period to 180 days
International Trade Administration these gears is to maximize safe and
if it determines it is not practicable to
complete the review within the efficient gear removal from incidentally
(A–570–886)
foregoing time period. captured sea turtles thereby minimizing
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from The Department finds that it is not the potential for serious injury or
the People’s Republic of China: Notice practicable to complete the final results mortality.
of Extension of Time Limit for the Final of the administrative review of PRCBs ADDRESSES: For copies of the list of
Results of the Antidumping Duty from the PRC by February 12, 2007, due NMFS approved equipment models for
Administrative Review to the extra time necessary to give the careful release of sea turtles caught
parties an opportunity to comment on in hook and line fisheries, the Final
AGENCY: Import Administration,
the Department’s revised calculations to Supplemental Environmental Impact
International Trade Administration,
expected non–market economy wages. Statement (FSEIS) (issued by NMFS in
Department of Commerce.
Therefore, in accordance with section June 2004) that provides for the
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 15, 2007. 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department approval of new or additional
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: is extending the time period for equipment for careful release of sea
Laurel LaCivita or Matthew Quigley, completion of the final results of this turtles caught in hook and line fisheries
AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import review to 165 days after publication of and the Final Environmental Impact
Administration, International Trade the Preliminary Results. However, Statement that the FSEIS supplements
Administration, U.S. Department of because February 25, 2007, falls on a (issued by NMFS in April 1999), contact
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Sunday, the final results will be due on Margo Schulze-Haugen, Chief, Highly
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; February 26, 2007, the next business Migratory Species Management
telephone: (202) 482–4243 or (202) 482– day. Division, 1315 East-West Highway,
4551, respectively. This notice is published in Silver Spring, MD 20910 or at (301)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 713–1917 (fax). These documents are
and 777(i) of the Act. also available at http://
Background
Dated: February 7, 2007. www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.
On September 28, 2005, the
Stephen J. Claeys, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import Randy Blankinship, Greg Fairclough,
Department’’) published in the Federal
Administration. Richard A. Pearson or Russell Dunn at
Register a notice of initiation of the
[FR Doc. E7–2684 Filed 2–14–07; 8:45 am] 727–570–5447 or 727–570–5656 (fax).
antidumping duty administrative review
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
(‘‘PRCBs’’) from the People’s Republic of Atlantic tuna and swordfish fisheries
China (‘‘PRC’’) for the period January are managed under the authority of the
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
26, 2004, through July 31, 2005. See Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Atlantic
Initiation of Antidumping and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Atlantic
Countervailing Duty Administrative Administration sharks are managed under the authority
Reviews and Request for Revocation in of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The
Part, 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). [I.D. 010307C] Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory
On September 13, 2006, the Department Species Fishery Management Plan,
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species


published the preliminary results. See finalized in 2006, is implemented by
(HMS); Pelagic and Bottom Longline
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from regulations at 50 CFR part 635. The
Fisheries
the People’s Republic of China: Atlantic pelagic and bottom longline
Preliminary Results of Antidumping AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries fisheries are also subject to the
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and requirements of the Endangered Species

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:37 Feb 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM 15FEN1

Você também pode gostar