Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument. The Department intends to issue the final results of this review no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice.
On April 28, 2009, the Department published the antidumping duty order on HEDP from the PRC in the
On June 7, 2010, the Department issued antidumping questionnaires to Jiangsu Jianghai and Wujin Fine.
In November and December 2010, Jiangsu Jianghai submitted timely responses to Sections A, C, and D of the antidumping questionnaire.
In response to the Department's November 12, 2010, letter providing all interested parties with an opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country and surrogate value selection,
On December 1, 2010, the Department extended the time period for completing the preliminary results of this administrative review until March 31, 2011.
The merchandise subject to the order includes all grades of aqueous, acidic (non-neutralized) concentrations of 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid,
As stated above, Jiangsu Jianghai and Wujin Fine submitted letters certifying that they did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. To test these claims, the Department ran a CBP data query, issued no-shipment inquiries to CBP requesting that it provide any information that contradicted these no-shipment claims, and obtained entry documentation from CBP. After examining this information, the Department has preliminarily determined that Jiangsu Jianghai had a shipment of subject merchandise that entered the United States during the POR.
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding have contested NME treatment.
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department maintains a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control.
On November 19, 2010, Jiangsu Jianghai submitted its response to Section A of the antidumping questionnaire.
Moreover, by submitting incomplete and unverifiable responses to the antidumping questionnaire and not responding to either the Department's December 9, 2010, supplementary Sections A and C questionnaire or its December 17, 2010, supplementary Section D questionnaire, Jiangsu Jianghai did not meet its requirement to fully participate in this administrative review by responding to all information that has been requested by the Department.
Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that Jiangsu Jianghai does not qualify for a separate rate because it has failed to demonstrate an absence of
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if: (1) Necessary information is not on the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
Further, Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record.
As explained above, Jiangsu Jianghai, as part of the PRC-wide entity, submitted incomplete and unverifiable responses to the antidumping questionnaire and did not respond to either the Department's December 9, 2010, supplementary Sections A and C questionnaire or its December 17, 2010 supplementary Section D questionnaire. For these reasons, the Department has preliminarily determined that the PRC-wide entity (1) withheld information that was requested, (2) failed to provide information within the deadlines established and in the form and manner requested by the Department, (3) significantly impeded this proceeding, and (4) provided information that cannot be verified. Therefore, in accordance with subsections 776(a)(2)(A) through (D) of the Act, the Department has preliminarily based the dumping margin of the PRC-wide entity on the facts otherwise available. Further, because the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information, the Department has preliminarily determined, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.
Section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department's adverse inference “may include reliance on information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any other information placed on the record.” In selecting a rate for use as AFA, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 of the Act concerning the subject merchandise.
To corroborate the 72.42 percent petition rate, the Department first revisited its pre-initiation analysis of the information in the petition. During the initiation of the antidumping investigation of HEDP from the PRC, the Department examined evidence supporting the calculations in the petition and the supplemental information provided by Petitioner to determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the petition.
To further corroborate the 72.42 percent petition rate, the Department examined the information on the record of this administrative review. Because the Department has, in accordance with section 782(d) of the Act, disregarded all of Jiangsu Jianghai's responses to the antidumping questionnaire, the Department preliminarily determined that the only information on the record of this administrative review that can be used for purposes of corroboration are the entry documents provided by CBP.
For these reasons, the Department has preliminarily determined that the 72.42 percent petition rate has probative value and, therefore, is corroborated to the extent practicable, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act. Moreover, because the information on the record of this administrative review that can be used for purposes of corroboration approximate the information used as a basis for the petition rate, the Department is satisfied that the 72.42 percent petition rate reflects commercial reality.
The Department has preliminarily determined that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 23, 2009, through March 31, 2010:
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1), unless the time limit is extended.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate the Department determines in the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate established in the final results of this review; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 presuming that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and, subsequently, the assessment of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).