Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
The following events have occurred subsequent to the publication of the
On May 8, 2008, parties submitted SV comments, and on May 19, 2008, Geo Specialty Chemicals Inc. (“Petitioner”) submitted rebuttal comments. On May 19, 2008, Baoding Mantong submitted its case brief, and on May 28, 2008, Petitioner submitted its case brief. On June 3, 2008, Baoding Mantong submitted its rebuttal brief, and on June 4, 2008, Petitioner submitted its rebuttal brief. On June 18, 2008, the Department rejected Baoding Mantong's rebuttal brief for containing new factual information, which Baoding Mantong resubmitted on June 19, 2008. On July 15, 2008, we extended the time limit for the completion of the final results of this review by thirty days until September 2, 2008.
The product covered by the order is glycine, which is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. This review covers glycine of all purity levels. Glycine is currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS
All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the 2006-2007 Administrative Review of Glycine from the People's Republic of China from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary, dated September 19, 2008, (“I&D Memo”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised, all of which are addressed in the I&D Memo, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), room 1117 of the Department of Commerce. In addition, a complete version of the I&D Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at
Baoding Mantong requested a separate, company-specific antidumping duty rate. In the
As noted above, the Department found that Nantong Dongchang did not establish its eligibility for separate rate status, and thus is deemed to be part of the PRC-wide entity. Also, in the
Based on our analysis of information on the record of this review, and comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes to the margin calculations for Baoding Mantong.
We have made modifications to our selecetion of certain SVs used in the
We determine that the following antidumping duty margins exist for the period of March 1, 2006, through February 28, 2007:
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of glycine from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Baoding Mantong, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 155.89 percent, the current PRC-wide rate; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice serves as the final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
This notice of final results is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.