Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
DOCUMENT ID: [A-570-831]
NOTICE: NOTICES
ACTION: Antidumping:
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of the Twelfth Administrative Review
EFFECTIVE DATES: December 10, 2007.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') covering the period of
review (``POR'') of November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006. As
discussed below, we preliminarily determine that certain respondents in
this review made sales in the United States at prices below [[Page 69653]]
normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the POR for which importerspecific assessment rates
are above de minimis.
SUMMARY: Fresh garlic from—; China,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
General BackgroundOn November 16, 1994, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 59209 (November 16, 1994) (``Order''). On November 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC for the period November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 64240 (November 1, 2006).
On November 30, 2006, we received requests from both Petitioners
\1\ and certain PRC companies to conduct administrative reviews for a
total of 52 companies. On December 27, 2006, the Department initiated
an administrative review of 52 \2\ producers/exporters of subject
merchandise from the PRC. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 77720 (December 27, 2006) (``Initiation Notice'').
\1\ Petitioners are the members of the Fresh Garlic Producers
Association: Christopher Ranch L.L.C.; The Garlic Company; Valley
Garlic; and Vessey and Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioners'').
\2\ Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd. (``Anqiu''); APS Qingdao; Fujian
Meitan Import & Export Xiamen Corporation (``Fujian Meitan'');
Golden Bridge International, Inc. (``Golden Bridge''); Henan Weite
Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Henan Weite''); Heze EverBest International
Trade Co., Ltd. (``Heze EverBest''); Hongchang Fruits & Vegetable
Products (``Hongchang''); Huaiyang Hongda Dehydrated Vegetable
Company (``Huaiyang Hongda''); Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd.
(``Jinan Farmlady''); Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. (``Jinan
Yipin''); Jining Haijiang Trading Co., Ltd. (``Jining Haijiang'');
Jining Solar Summit Trade Co., Ltd. (``Jining Solar''); Jining
TransHigh Trading Co., Ltd. (``Jining TransHigh''); Jinxian County Huaguang Food Import & Export Co., Ltd. (``Jinxian County
Huaguang''); Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. (aka
Jinxiang Eastward Shipping Import and Export Limited Company)
(``Jinxiang Dong Yun''); Jinxiang Shanyang Freezing Storage Co.,
Ltd. (``Jinxiang Shanyang''); Laiwu Hongyang Trading Company Ltd.
(``Laiwu Hongyang''); Linshu Dading Private Agricultural Products
Co., Ltd. (``Linshu Dading''); Omni D[eacute]cor China Ltd.
(``Omni''); Pizhou Guangda Import and Export Co., Ltd. (``Pizhou
Guangda''); Qingdao Bedow Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (``Qingdao Bedow'');
Qingdao Camel Trading Co., Ltd.; (``Qingdao Camel''); Qingdao H&T
Food Co., Ltd. (``Qingdao H&T''); Qingdao Potenza Imp & Exp Co.,
Ltd. (``Qingdao Potenza''); Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co.,
Ltd. (``Qingdao Saturn''); Qingdao Shiboliang Food Co., Ltd.
(``Qingdao Shiboliang''); Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd.
(``Qingdao Tiantaixing''); Qingdao Titan Shipping LLC (``Qingdao
Titan''); Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods (``Qingdao Xintianfeng''); Qufu
Dongbao Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. (``Qufu Dongbao''); Rizhao
Xingda Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (``Rizhao Xingda''); Shandong Chengshun
Farm Produce Trading Co., Ltd. (``Shandong Chengshun''); Shandong
Dongsheng Eastsun Foods Co., Ltd. (``Shandong Dongsheng''); Shandong
Garlic Company (``Shandong Garlic
On March 8, 2007, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(1) of the
Department's regulations, we rescinded the administrative review with
respect to nine companies. See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic
of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of the Twelfth Administrative
Review, 72 FR 10491 (March 8, 2007) (``Rescission Notice''). Therefore,
this review covers 43\3\ producers/exporters of the subject merchandise and the PRCwide entity.
\3\ Anqiu; APS Qingdao; Fujian Meitan; Golden Bridge; Henan
Weite; Heze EverBest; Hongchang; Huaiyang Hongda; Jinan Farmlady;
Jining Haijiang; Jining Solar; Jining TransHigh; Jinxian County
Huaguang; Jinxiang Dong Yun; Jinxiang Shanyang; Laiwu Hongyang;
Pizhou Guangda; Qingdao Bedow; Qingdao Camel; Qingdao H&T; Qingdao
Potenza; Qingdao Saturn; Qingdao Shiboliang; Qingdao Tiantaixing;
Qingdao Xintianfeng; Qufu Dongbao; Rizhao Xingda; Shandong
Chengshun; Shandong Dongsheng; Shandong Garlic; Shandong Longtai; Shanghai BaShi; Shanghai Ever Rich; Shanghai LJ; Shanghai
McCormick; Shenzhen Fanhui; Sunny; T&S; Taian Ziyang; Weifang
Shennong; Xiang Cheng; Zhangqiu Qingyuan; and Zhengzhou Harmoni.
On August 2, 2007, the Department extended the preliminary results of this administrative review until November 30, 2007. See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Twelfth Administrative Review, 72 FR 42390 (August 2, 2007).
Respondent Selection
On January 23, 2007, the Department issued a quantity and value
(``Q&V'') questionnaire to the 43 named firms that still had an active
request for review. See Letter with Attachments from Alex Villanueva,
Program Manager, to All Interested Parties, RE: Quantity and Value
Questionnaire for Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China,
(January 23, 2007) (``Q&V questionnaire''). Additionally, on January
23, 2007, Petitioners withdrew their request for review for nine named
firms.\4\ See Rescission Notice. Between February 2, 2007, and March 2,
2007, the Department received responses to the Q&V questionnaire from 23 firms.\5\
\4\ Jinan Yipin; Lindshu Dading; Omni; Qingdao Titan; Shandong
Wonderland; Shenzhen Xinboda; Taian Fook; Weifang Hongqiao; and Xuzhou Simple.
\5\ Jinxiang Dong Yun; Huaiyang Hongda; Shanghai LJ; Qufu Dong
Bao; Weifang Shennong; Zhengzhou Harmoni; Sunny; Jinxiang Shanyang;
Qingdao Xintianfeng; Shandong Longtai; Jining TransHigh; Shenzhen
Fanhui; Taian Ziyang; Anqiu; Heze EverBest; Qingdao Saturn; Henan
Weite; Qingdao Tiantaixing; Xiang Cheng (producer for Shanghai LJ);
Shanghai Ever Rich; Xuzhou Simple; Shanghai McCormick; and Jinan
Farmlady. In their responses, both Xuzhou Simple and Shanghai
McCormick responses stated that they had no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR. Moreover, between
March 1314, 2007, the Department received revised Q&V questionnaire
responses from the following 10 firms: Anqiu; Henan Weite; Jinan Farmlady; Jinxiang Dong Yun; Qingdao Tiantaixing; Qingdao
Xintianfeng; Qufu Dongbao; Shanghai LJ; Taiyan Ziyang; and Weifang Shennong.
On February 13, 2007, Qingdao Camel withdrew its request for an
administrative review.\6\ On February 14, 2007, the Department received
a letter from Qingdao Camel stating that it would not be responding to the Q&V questionnaire.
\6\ However, Petitioners did not withdraw their request for a review of Qingdao Camel.
On February 15, 2007, the Department issued a second Q&V
questionnaire to the 20 firms \7\ that did not respond to the
Department's original Q&V questionnaire. See Letter with Attachments from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, to All Interested
[[Page 69654]]
Parties, RE: Second Quantity and Value Questionnaire for Fresh Garlic
from the People's Republic of China, (February 15, 2007) (``Second Q&V Questionnaire'').
\7\ APS Qingdao; Fujian Meitan; Hongchang Fruits; Jining
Haijiang; Jining Solar; Jinxian County Huaguang; Laiwu Hongyang;
Pizhou Guangda; Qingdao Bedow; Qingdao H&T; Qingdao Potenza; Qingdao
Shiboliang; Rizhao Xingda; Shandong Chengshun; Shandong Dongsheng;
Shandong Garlic; Shanghai BaShi; T&S; Golden Bridge; and Zhangqiu Qingyuan.
Between February 16, 2007, and February 27, 2007, the Department
received separate rate certifications from 18 firms \8\ and between
March 23 and 26, 2007, the Department received separate rate
applications from 2 firms.\9\ Additionally, between February 27, 2007,
and March 2, 2007, the Department received responses from Zhangqiu
Qingyuan and Golden Bridge that each company did not have shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
\8\ Jinxiang Dong Yun; Huaiyang Hongda; Shanghai LJ; Qufu Dong
Bao; Weifang Shennong; Zhengzhou Harmoni; Sunny; Jinxiang Shanyang;
Qingdao Xintianfeng; Shandong Longtai; Jining TransHigh; Shenzhen
Fanhui; Taian Ziyang; Anqiu; Shanghai Ever Rich; Heze EverBest; Qingdao Saturn; and Henan Weite.
\9\ Qingdao Tiantaixing and Jinan Farmlady.
As discussed below in ``Preliminary Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review,'' on March 16, 2007, the Department received letters from Petitioners and Zhengzhou Harmoni withdrawing their requests for review of Zhengzhou Harmoni and thus, the Department did not consider Zhengzhou Harmoni in the selection of respondents.
On April 11, 2007, after receiving comments from interested parties, the Department selected Jinxiang Dong Yun, Huaiyang Hongda, and Shanghai LJ as the three mandatory respondents since they were the three largest exporters, by volume, of the remaining companies. See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, re: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents, (April 11, 2007) (``Respondent Selection Memo''). There are 15 companies, based on withdrawals and appropriately submitted Q&V questionnaire responses, that were not selected as mandatory respondents, but which qualified for separate rates: Sunny; Qufu Dong Bao; Weifang Shennong; Jinxiang Shanyang; Qingdao Xintianfeng; Shandong Longtai; Jining TransHigh; Shenzhen Fanhui; Taian Ziyang; Anqiu; Shanghai Ever Rich; Heze Ever Best; Qingdao Saturn; Henan Weite; and Jinan Farmlady (collectively known as the ``separate rate companies'').
Questionnaires
There are 37\10\ companies that remain in the administrative review, after the rescission of the reviews for Qingdao Tiantaixing, Zhengzhou Harmoni, Golden Bridge, Shanghai McCormick, and Zhangqiu Qingyuan, for these preliminary results, as discussed below in ``Preliminary Partial Rescission of the Administrative Reviews.'' \10\ Anqiu; APS Qingdao; Fujian Meitan; Henan Weite; Hongchang; Huaiyang Hongda; Jinan Farmlady; Jining Haijiang; Jining Solar; Jining TransHigh; Jinxian County Huaguang; Jinxiang Dong Yun; Jinxiang Shanyang; Laiwu Hongyang; Pizhou Guangda; Qingdao Bedow; Qingdao Camel; Qingdao H&T; Qingdao Potenza; Qingdao Saturn; Qingdao Shiboliang; Qingdao Xintianfeng; Qufu Dongbao; Rizhao Xingda; Shandong Chengshun; Shandong Dongsheng; Shandong Garlic; Shandong Longtai; Shanghai BaShi; Shanghai Ever Rich; Shanghai LJ; Shenzhen Fanhui; Sunny; T&S; Taian Ziyang; Weifang Shennong; and Xiang Cheng.
On April 16, 2007, the Department issued antidumping duty
questionnaires to Jinxiang Dong Yun, Huaiyang Hongda, and Shanghai LJ.
Between May 14, 2007, and June 4, 2007, Huaiyang Hongda responded to
the Department's nonmarket economy (``NME'') questionnaire but did not
respond to the Department's subsequent supplemental questionnaires.
Between May 21, 2007, and November 15, 2007, Shanghai LJ responded to
the Department's NME questionnaire and subsequent supplemental
questionnaires. Between May 21, 2007, and November 13, 2007, Jinxiang
Dong Yun responded to the Department's NME questionnaire and subsequent
supplemental questionnaires. Between May 7, 2007, and May 23, 2007,
Qingdao Saturn submitted voluntary responses to the Department's NME questionnaire.
Preliminary Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review
On March 22, 2007, Petitioners requested that the Department extend the deadline for the withdrawal of review requests. On March 27, 2007, the Department extended the deadline to withdraw a request for review to July 11, 2007.
Qingdao Tiantaixing
On July 9, 2007, Qingdao Tiantaixing withdrew its request for an administrative review. No other party requested a review of Qingdao Tiantaixing. Therefore, because Qingdao Tiantaixing's request was timely, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we have rescinded this review with respect to Qingdao Tiantaixing.
Qingdao Xintianfeng
On February 6, 2007, Qingdao Xintianfeng withdrew its request for an administrative review. Nonetheless, as previously noted, on February 22, 2007, Qingdao Xintianfeng submitted both a Q&V questionnaire response and a separate rate certification. On July 25, 2007, which was 14 days after the withdrawal deadline, Petitioners submitted a letter withdrawing their request for an administrative review of Qingdao Xintianfeng. On July 31, 2007, Qingdao Xintianfeng submitted a letter stating that due to its cooperative efforts it wished to remain an active respondent in this administrative review. On August 22, 2007, the Department issued a letter stating that it extended the time limit for withdrawing a request for review by 20 days to July 31, 2007. However, the Department also requested that Qingdao Xintianfeng submit a letter clarifying whether its July 31, 2007, letter, was in fact a retraction of its February 6, 2007, withdrawal of its review request. On August 24, 2007, Qingdao Xintianfeng submitted a letter stating that it was retracting its February 6, 2007, withdrawal request and wished to remain an active respondent in this administrative review. Therefore, because Qingdao Xintianfeng still has an active request for a review, we have not rescinded this review with respect to Qingdao Xintianfeng.
Zhengzhou Harmoni
On March 16, 2007, the Department received letters from Petitioners
and Zhengzhou Harmoni withdrawing their requests for review of
Zhengzhou Harmoni. Therefore, because Petitioners' and Zhenghzhou Harmoni's requests were timely, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1), we have rescinded this review with respect to Zhengzhou Harmoni.
NoShipment Companies
Three companies, Golden Bridge, Shanghai McCormick, and Zhangqiu
Qingyuan, reported in their Q&V questionnaire responses that they made
no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR. Additionally, the Department's examination of shipment data from
CBP for these 3 companies confirmed that there were no entries of
subject merchandise from them during the POR. Consequently, because
there is no evidence on the record to indicate that these three
companies had sales of subject merchandise under this Order during the
POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department is preliminarily
rescinding the review with respect to these three respondents: Golden Bridge, Shanghai McCormick, and Zhangqiu Qingyuan.
[[Page 69655]]
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values
On June 7, 2007, the Department sent interested parties a letter requesting comments on the surrogate country and information pertaining to valuing factors of production. On August 2, 2007, September 20, 2007, and October 31, 2007, Petitioners submitted surrogate value comments from various Indian sources. No other interested party submitted comments on the surrogate country and information pertaining to valuing factors of production.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this Order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of this order does not include the following: (a) garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for nonfresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the Order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for nonfresh use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to CBP to that effect.
Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'')
Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act''), provides that, if an interested party: (A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party ``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time} for information, notifies {the Department{time} that such party is unable to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, together with a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in which such party is able to submit the information,'' the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party.
Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 782(d) if: (1) the information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the Department; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department ``finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission ..., in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.'' See also Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103316 at 870 (1994). Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See id. An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act.
Huaiyang Hongda
As discussed in the ``General Background'' section above, Huaiyang Hongda did not respond to the supplemental questionnaires issued by the Department on August 10, 2007, and August 22, 2007. The deadline for Huaiyang Hongda to file a response to the supplemental Section A questionnaire and the supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire were August 24, 2007, and September 4, 2007, respectively. Huaiyang Hongda failed to respond to either of these supplemental questionnaires. Additionally, the Department issued letters to Huaiyang Hongda on August 24, 2007, and September 13, 2007, and confirmed delivery for both letters. In both letters, the Department noted that responses to its supplemental questionnaires were past due and requested that Huaiyang Hongda notify the Department whether it intended to participate further in this administrative review. Huaiyang Hongda did not respond to either of these letters. Therefore, the Department finds that Huaiyang Hongda's nonresponsiveness necessitates the use of facts available, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act.
Based upon Huaiyang Hongda's failure to submit responses to the
Department's supplemental questionnaires and followup letters, the
Department finds that Huaiyang Hongda withheld requested information,
failed to provide the information in a timely manner and in the form
requested, and significantly impeded this proceeding, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act. Because Huaiyang Hongda
failed to provide a response to the Department's supplemental
questionnaires, critical data relevant to its separate rate
determination remains outstanding. Therefore, the Department was
prevented from conducting a complete separate rate analysis.
Additionally, Huaiyang Hongda's failure to provide a response to the Department's supplemental questionnaires means that
[[Page 69656]]
critical information necessary to calculate an antidumping margin for
Huaiyang Hongda is absent from the record. Therefore, Huaiyang Hongda
withheld requested information, failed to provide the information in a
timely manner and in the form requested, and has significantly impeded
this proceeding. Thus, the Department has no choice but to rely on the
facts otherwise available in order to determine a margin for Huaiyang
Hongda, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act. See
NonMalleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
69546 (December 1, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
For these preliminary results, the Department finds that Huaiyang Hongda has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Specifically, the Department finds that Huaiyang Hongda did not respond to the Department's request for clarification on certain issues, including its separate rate information and reported sales and cost information, as requested in the Department's supplemental questionnaires. See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F. 3d 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon Steel''). Because Huaiyang Hongda refused to answer the Department's supplemental questionnaires and letters, the Department finds that Huaiyang Hongda has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
Because of Huaiyang Hongda's refusal to cooperate in the instant proceeding, the Department was unable to calculate a companyspecific margin or even to determine Huaiyang Hongda's separate rate status. Thus, the Department could not determine whether Huaiyang Hongda is eligible for a separate rate. Accordingly, we are not granting Huaiyang Hongda a separate rate and consider Hongda to be part of the PRCwide entity, subject to the PRCwide rate.
19 Companies
As mentioned in the ``General Background'' section above, the Department initiated this administrative review with respect to 52 companies, including among them APS Qingdao, Fujian Meitan, Hongchang, Jining Haijiang, Jining Solar, Jinxian County Huaguang, Laiwu Hongyang, Pizhou Guangda, Qingdao Bedow, Qingdao Camel, Qingdao H&T, Qingdao Potenza, Qingdao Shiboliang, Rizhao Xingda, Shandong Chengshun, Shandong Dongsheng, Shandong Garlic, Shanghai BaShi, and T&S (collectively referred to as the ``19 Companies''). See Initiation Notice. On January 23, 2007, the Department rescinded, in part, the review on nine of the 52 companies, but noted that 43 companies, including the 19 Companies, were still subject to review. See Rescission Notice. Additionally, on January 23, 2007, and on February 15, 2007, the Department issued a Q&V questionnaire and a Second Q&V questionnaire to the 19 companies. None of the 19 Companies responded to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, nor did these 19 Companies respond to the Department's Second Q&V questionnaire.
Because these 19 Companies were nonresponsive to the Department's two requests for Q&V information, the Department finds that they are not entitled to a separate rate. Additionally, by not responding to the Department's first or second Q&V questionnaire, each company failed to provide critical information to be used for the Department's respondent selection process. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act, the Department finds that the application of facts available is appropriate. In addition, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may apply adverse facts available if it finds a respondent has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the Department. By failing to respond to the Department's first and second Q&V questionnaire, these 19 Companies have failed to act to the best of their ability in this segment of the proceeding. Moreover, because these 19 Companies did not participate in the respondent selection exercise, the Department did not send them a questionnaire and was unable to determine whether or not they qualified for a separate rate. Therefore, these 19 Companies are not eligible to receive a separate rate and will be part of the PRCwide entity, subject to the PRCwide rate.
PRCwide Entity
Because Huaiyang Hongda and the 19 Companies, which are part of the PRCwide entity, failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in providing the requested information, as discussed above, we find it appropriate, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), as well as section 776(b), of the Act, to assign total AFA to the PRCwide entity. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 (March 9, 2007) (decision to apply total AFA to the NMEwide entity was unchanged for the final results). By doing so, we ensure that the companies that are part of the PRCwide entity will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this review.
As discussed above, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use, as AFA, information derived from the petition, the final determination in the LTFV investigation, any previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. Section 776(b)(4) of the Act permits the Department to use as AFA information derived in the LTFV investigation or any prior review. In selecting an AFA rate, the Department's practice has been to assign noncooperative Respondents the highest margin determined for any party in the lessthanfairvalue (``LTFV'') investigation or in any administrative review. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789 (February 7, 2002). As AFA, we are assigning the PRCwide entity, which includes Huaiyang Hongda and the 19 Companies, the highest rate from any segment of this proceeding, which in this case is 376.67 percent assigned to the PRCwide entity in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 49058, 49060 (September 26, 1994) (``Garlic LTFV Final Determination'').
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts available. 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 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103316 at 870 (1994); see also 19 CFR 351.308(d).
The SAA further provides that the term ``corroborate'' means that
the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value. See SAA at 870. Thus, to corroborate
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable,
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. The AFA
rate we are applying for the current review of fresh garlic was corroborated
[[Page 69657]]
in the LTFV investigation. See Garlic LTFV Final Determination, 59 FR
at 49060. No information has been presented in the current review that
calls into question the reliability of the information used for this
AFA rate. Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Flowers from Mexico, the Department did not use the highest margin in the proceeding as best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because that margin was based on another company's aberrational business expenses and was unusually high. See Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (``Flowers from Mexico''). In other cases, the Department has not used the highest rate in any segment of the proceeding as the AFA rate because the highest rate was subsequently discredited, or the facts did not support its use. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are present with respect to the rate being used here. Moreover, the rate selected, (i.e., 376.67 percent), is the rate currently applicable to the PRCwide entity. The Department assumes that if an uncooperative respondent could have obtained a lower rate, it would have cooperated. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. V. United States, 899 F. 2d 1185, 119091 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. V. United States, 24 CIT 841, 848 (2000) (respondents should not benefit from failure to cooperate). As there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriate to use as AFA in the current review, we determine that this rate has relevance.
As this rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value, and is thus in accordance with section 776(c)'s requirement that secondary information be corroborated to the extent practicable (i.e., that it has probative value).
Voluntary Respondents
Section 782(a) of the Act provides that the Department, in any investigation under subtitle A or B or a review under section 751(a) in which the administering authority has, under section 777A(c)(2), limited the number of exporters or producers examined, or determined a single countrywide rate, the administering authority shall establish an individual weighted average dumping margin for any exporter or producer not initially selected for individual examination under such sections who submits to the administering authority the information requested from exporters or producers selected for examination, if (1) such information is so submitted by the date specified for exporters and producers that were initially selected for examination; and (2) the number of exporters or producers who have submitted such information is not so large that individual examination of such exporters or producers would be unduly burdensome and inhibit the timely completion of the investigation.
Qingdao Saturn
As discussed in the ``General Background'' section above, between May 7 and 23, 2007, Qingdao Saturn submitted voluntary responses to the Department's NME questionnaire. In Qingdao Saturn's questionnaire responses, Qingdao Saturn requested that the Department calculate an individual weightedaverage dumping margin for Qingdao Saturn, pursuant to section 782(a) of the Act. Additionally, between October 2 and 15, 2007, Qingdao Saturn requested that the Department calculate an individual weightedaverage dumping margin for Qingdao Saturn, pursuant to section 782(a) of the Act, arguing that the Department has the resources and time to review Qingdao Saturn as a voluntary respondent due to Huaiyang Hongda's lack of participation in this proceeding. Moreover, on October 9, 2007, Petitioners submitted comments requesting that the Department not review Qingdao Saturn as a voluntary respondent, pursuant to section 782(a) of the Act, because Department does not have the additional resources to consider Qingdao Saturn's data so late in the proceeding. Furthermore, in their comments, Petitioners stated that the Department has not yet determined how it will treat Huaiyang Hongda in the preliminary results.
For these preliminary results, the Department has not examined any of the submissions by Qingdao Saturn because of the Department's resource constraints and the Department's decision to only review three exporters. Although Qingdao Saturn is correct that Huaiyang Hongda has not responded to the Department's supplemental questionnaires, as discussed above in the ``Huaiyang Hongda'' section, the Department has not received communication from Huaiyang Hongda that it is not going to participate as an active respondent in this proceeding. In certain circumstances, the Department has determined to review a voluntary respondent because (1) another respondent notified the Department that it was not going to participate; and (2) reviewing this voluntary respondent would not be unduly burdensome, given time and resource constraints. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results and Rescission, in Part, 2004/2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 52049 (September 12, 2007) and accompany Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 15; see also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2006 Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent to Rescind 2004/2006 New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10645, 10647, and 10655 (March 9, 2007). However, in this proceeding, although Huaiyang Hongda has chosen to not respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaires, Huaiyang Hongda is still under review. Thus, the Department has devoted time and resources to the consideration of Huaiyang Hongda for these preliminary results.
Additionally, the Department finds that, while Qingdao Saturn is correct that the Department can choose to review a voluntary respondent, section 782(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department may do so if reviewing such an exporter or producer is not ``unduly burdensome and inhibit the timely completion of the investigation.'' However, the Department finds that, given the limited amount of time remaining after Huaiyang Hongda stopped responding to the Department's questionnaires, the Department did not have an adequate amount of time to examine Qingdao Saturn's responses for these preliminary results.
The Department notes that the analysis of initial questionnaire
responses makes up only a limited portion of the work performed with
respect to any given respondent. The Department frequently issues
supplemental questionnaires, collects surrogate value data for the
factors of production (``FOPs'') used by each individual respondent,
identifies and resolves any issues with respect to such data, and
calculates a separate margin for each company. See Notice of Final [[Page 69658]]
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16,
2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
Each of these activities requires the expenditure of significant
resources. Given the limited amount of time available, the Department
lacks the resources to analyze Qingdao Saturn as a voluntary respondent
for these preliminary results, pursuant to section 782(a) of the Act.
Moreover, in addition to the caseload identified in the Respondent
Selection Memo as a factor to limit the number of respondents, the
office responsible for this proceeding, AD/CVD Operations Office 9, is
responsible for conducting five new antidumping investigations
initiated subsequent to the selection of respondents in this review.
Thus, it does not have significant additional resources to apply to Qingdao Saturn.
NME Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.
Separate Rate Determinations
A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 (September 8, 2006); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate, companyspecific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). A. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
Throughout the course of this administrative review, only two of
the mandatory respondents, Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ, have
placed sufficient evidence on the record that demonstrate absence of de
jure control. Additionally, all of the separate rate companies have
placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of de
jure control including the ``Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic
of China'' and the ``Administrative Regulations of the People's
Republic of China Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations.''
The Department has analyzed such PRC laws and has found that they
establish an absence of de jure control. See Preliminary Results of New
Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic
of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001). We have no information in
this proceeding that would cause us to reconsider this determination.
Thus, we believe that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary
finding of an absence of de jure government control based on: (1) an
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the exporter's
business license; (2) the legal authority on the record decentralizing
control over the respondent, as demonstrated by the PRC laws placed on
the record of this review; and (3) other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\11\
\11\ This preliminary finding applies to (1) two of the selected
respondents of this administrative review: Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ; and (2) the separate rate companies of this
administrative review: Sunny; Qufu Dong Bao; Weifang Shennong;
Jinxiang Shanyang; Qingdao Xintianfeng; Shandong Longtai; Jining
TransHigh; Shenzhen Fanhui; Taian Ziyang; Anqiu; Shanghai Ever
Rich; Heze EverBest; Qingdao Saturn; Henan Weite; and Jinan Farmlady.
B. Absence of De Facto Control
As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 1998). Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of its export functions: (1) whether the exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) whether the respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
The Department conducted a separate rates analysis for (1) two of the mandatory respondents chosen for an administrative review: Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ; and (2) the separate rate companies upon which an administrative review was requested but which were not chosen as mandatory respondents.
These companies have all asserted the following: (1) there is no
government participation in setting export prices; (2) sales managers
and authorized employees have the authority to create binding sales contracts; (3) they do not
[[Page 69659]]
have to notify any government authorities of management selections; (4)
there are no restrictions on the use of export revenue; and (5) each is
responsible for financing its own losses. The questionnaire responses
of two of the mandatory respondents, Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ,
and the separate rate companies do not suggest that pricing is
coordinated among exporters. During our analysis of the information on
the record, we found no information indicating the existence of
government control of export activities. Consequently, we preliminarily
determine that Jinxiang Dong Yun, Shanghai LJ, and the separate rate
companies have met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.
However, as discussed previously, the Department is not granting one of the mandatory respondents, Huaiyang Hongda, a separate rate because Huaiyang Hongda failed to respond to the supplemental questionnaire issued by the Department that contained several questions regarding Huaiyang Hongda's eligibility for a separate rate. As a result, we cannot confirm or verify the separate rate information that Huaiyang Hongda submitted in its questionnaire responses.
Surrogate Country
When the Department investigates imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are: (1) at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section below and in the Memorandum to the File through James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9 and Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 from Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9: Surrogate Factor Valuations for the Preliminary Results of the 12th Administrative Review (November 30, 2007) (``Surrogate Values Memo'').
As discussed in the ``NME Country Status'' section, the Department considers the PRC to be an NME country. The Department determined that India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries (June 1, 2007) (``Surrogate Country List''). Moreover, it is the Department's practice to select an appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries. See Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: NonMarket Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004) (``Policy Bulletin''). In this case, the Department has found that India and Egypt are both significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department finds India to be a reliable source for surrogate values because India is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and has publically available and reliable data. Furthermore, the Department notes that India has been the primary surrogate country in past segments, and the only surrogate value data based submitted on the record are from Indian sources. Given the above facts, the Department has selected India as the primary surrogate country for this review. See Memorandum to the File, through James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, Import Administration, and Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, Subject: 12th Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country (November 30, 2007) (``Surrogate Country Memo'').
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated the
export price (``EP'') for sales to the United States for Jinxiang Dong
Yun and Shanghai LJ because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was
made before the date of importation and the use of constructed EP
(``CEP'') was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on the
price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance
with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, we deducted from the
starting price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland freight,
brokerage and handling, and marine insurance. For Jinxiang Dong Yun and
Shanghai LJ, each of these services was either provided by an NME
vendor or paid for using an NME currency. Thus, we based the deduction
of these movement charges on surrogate values. See Surrogate Values
Memo for details regarding the surrogate values for movement expenses.
Additionally, Jinxiang Dong Yun reported that its international freight
was provided by a market economy carrier and paid in U.S. dollars, so
we used the actual cost per kilogram of the freight. Moreover, Jinxiang
Dong Yun reported certain U.S. Customs and other expenses that must be
deducted from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers.
Accordingly, we will deduct these expenses from the starting price to
unaffiliated purchasers, as reported by Jinxiang Dong Yun. See
Memorandum to the File, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager,
Office 9, from Michael Holton, Senior Analyst, Office 9; Company
Analysis Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh
Garlic from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''): Jinxiang Dong Yun (November 30, 2007).
Normal Value
1. Methodology
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported
from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV
using homemarket prices, thirdcountry prices, or constructed value
under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department calculates NV using
each of the FOPs that a respondent consumes in the production of a unit
of the subject merchandise because the presence of government controls
on various aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the
calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal
methodologies. However, there are circumstances in which the Department
will modify its standard FOP methodology, choosing to apply a surrogate
value to an intermediate input instead of the individual FOPs used to
produce that intermediate input. In some cases, a respondent may report
factors used to produce an intermediate input that accounts for an
insignificant share of total output. When the potential increase in
accuracy to the overall calculation that results from valuing each of
the FOPs is outweighed by the resources, time, and burden such an
analysis would place on all parties to the proceeding, the Department
has valued the intermediate input directly using a surrogate value. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 47538 (August 11, 2003), and
[[Page 69660]]
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (``PVA'')
(citing to Final Results of First New Shipper Review and First
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms
from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001)).
In the 9th Review Final Results, the Department recognized that
there were serious discrepancies between the reported FOPs of the
different respondents and that the standard FOP methodology might not
be adequate to apply in future reviews.\12\ In the 10th administrative
review, the Department conducted a ``harvest verification'' of several
garlic producers in the PRC, interviewing farmers, studying farming
techniques, and reviewing standard PRC garlic production record
keeping.\13\ In analyzing the questionnaire responses and ``harvest
verification'' reports in the 10th administrative review, the
Department determined that, to capture the complete costs of producing
fresh garlic, the methodology of valuing the intermediate product, the
fresh garlic bulb, would more accurately capture the complete costs of
producing subject merchandise.\14\ In the two previous administrative
reviews, the Department also stated that ``should a respondent be able
to provide sufficient factual evidence that it maintains the necessary
information in its internal books and records that would allow us to
establish the completeness and accuracy of the reported FOPs, we will
revisit this issue and consider whether to use its reported FOPs in the
calculation of NV.'' 10th Review Final Results, 71 FR at 26331; Fresh
Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission and
Preliminary Results of the Eleventh Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 71510, 71520 (December 11, 2006).
\12\ See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 34082 (June 13, 2005) (``9th Review Final Results'').
\13\ See Memorandum to the File from Matthew Renkey, Senior Case
Analyst; 12th Administrative Review of Fresh Garlic from the
People's Republic of China: Intermediate Input Methodology Memoranda
from the 10th Administrative Review Final Results and 11th
Administrative Review Preliminary Results, (November 30, 2007), in
which the Department placed the Intermediate Input Methodology memos
from the tenth and eleventh Administrative Reviews on the record of
this proceeding, inclusive of the verification reports resulting from the ``harvest verification.''
\14\ See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Final Results of New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 26329 (May 4,
2006) (``10th Review Final Results''), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
In the course of this review, the Department has requested and obtained a vast amount of detailed information from the respondents with respect to each company's garlic production practices. However, based on our analysis of the information on the record and for the reasons outlined in the Memorandum to the File through James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9 and Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 from Matthew Renkey, Senior Case Analyst, and Michael Holton, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9: 12th Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Intermediate Input Methodology (November 30, 2007) (``Intermediate Product Memo''), we continue to believe that the respondents were unable to accurately record and substantiate the complete costs of growing garlic during the POR.
Thus, in the preliminary results for this administrative review, in order to eliminate the distortions in our calculation of NV, for all of the reasons identified above and described in the Intermediate Product Memo, the Department applied an ``intermediateproduct valuation methodology'' to the 2 mandatory companies, Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ, for which we are calculating an antidumping duty margin in these preliminary results. Using this methodology, the Department calculated NV by starting with a surrogate value for the garlic bulb (i.e., the ``intermediate product''), adjusted for yield losses during the processing stages, and adding the respondents' processing costs, which were calculated using their reported usage rates for processing fresh garlic. For a complete explanation of the Department's analysis, and for a more detailed analysis of these issues with respect to each respondent, see the Intermediate Product Memo.
2. Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department calculated NV based on the intermediate product value and processing FOPs reported by the respondents for the POR. To calculate NV, the Department multiplied the reported perunit factor quantities by publicly available surrogate values in India with the exception of the surrogate value for ocean freight, which we obtained from an international freight company. In selecting the surrogate values, the Department considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. The Department calculated these freight costs based on the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the port in accordance with the decision in Sigma Corporation v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (``Sigma''). The Department made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sale(s) as certified by the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank. Garlic Bulb Value
In applying the intermediate input methodology, the Department sought foremost to identify the best available surrogate value for the fresh garlic bulb input to production, as opposed to identifying a surrogate value for garlic seed. Therefore, the Department has valued the fresh garlic bulb using prices for the size ranges of ``A'' and ``superA'' grade garlic bulb in India, as published by Azadpur Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (``APMC'') in its ``Market Information Bulletin'' (the ``Bulletin''). Azadpur APMC is the largest fruit and vegetable market in Asia and has become a ``National Distribution Centre'' for important Indian agricultural products such as garlic. The Bulletin is published by the Azadpur APMC on each trading day and contains, among other things, a list of all fruits and vegetables sold on the previous trading day, the amount (by weight) of each fruit or vegetable sold on that day, and a low, high and modal price for each commodity sold. The Department notes that the ``A'' grade garlic typically ranges from 40 55 millimeters (``mm'') in diameter, and the ``superA'' grade garlic ranges 40 mm and above in diameter. See Petitioners' Second Surrogate Value Submission, (September 20, 2007) at Attachment 1; Petitioners' First Surrogate Value Submission, (August 2, 2007) at Exhibits 45.
As the Department determined in past reviews, the price at which
garlic is sold is heavily dependent upon physical characteristics, such
as bulb size and number of cloves. See 9th Review Final Results, 70 FR
34082 at Comment 2; 10th Review Final Results, 71 FR 26329 at Comment
2. Accordingly, the Department finds that it is important to use
surrogate Indian garlic values reflecting sales of garlic bulbs of
similar diameter to that of Jinxiang Dong Yun's and Shanghai LJ's
merchandise during the POR. Therefore, for these preliminary results,
the Department finds that the ``A'' grade and ``superA'' grade garlic data from Azadpur APMC
[[Page 69661]]
are the best available and most appropriate information on the record
to value the garlic bulb input, pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act,
for the reasons stated below. The Department has found that the data
from Azadpur APMC satisfy the Department's surrogate value selection
criteria. See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of the Eleventh Administrative Review
and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 34438, 34440 (June 22, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
Because the Department is able to determine the size of ``A'' and ``superA'' grade garlic and Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ provided the size of the garlic bulb, the Department is calculating the surrogate value for the garlic bulb using a simple average of the Azadpur data for ``A'' and ``superA'' grade garlic for Jinxiang Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ. For further discussion of the Department's calculation for the surrogate value for the garlic bulb, as well as other surrogate values used, see the Surrogate Values Memo. Preliminary Results of the Reviews
The Department has determined that the following preliminary
dumping margins exist for the period November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006:
Fresh Garlic from the PRC
WeightedAverage
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent)
Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., Ltd.......... 35.05
Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd......... 23.21
Qufu Dongbao Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd......... 27.49
Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd................. 27.49
Jinxiang Shanyang Freezing Storage Co., Ltd......... 27.49
Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods........................... 27.49
Shandong Longtai Fruits and Vegetables Co., Ltd..... 27.49
Jining TransHigh Trading Co., Ltd.................. 27.49
Shenzhen Fanhui Import & Export Co., Ltd............ 27.49
Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd.......................... 27.49
Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd.......................... 27.49
Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company.................... 27.49
Heze EverBest International Trade Co., Ltd......... 27.49
Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co., Ltd......... 27.49
Sunny Import & Export Co., Ltd...................... 27.49
Henan Weite Industrial Co., Ltd..................... 27.49
Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd..................... 27.49
PRCwide Rate\15\................................... 376.67
\15\ The PRCWide entity includes Huaiyang Hongda, APS Qingdao, Fujian
Meitan, Hongchang, Jining Haijiang, Jining Solar, Jinxian County
Huaguang, Laiwu Hongyang, Pizhou Guangda, Qingdao Bedow, Qingdao
Camel, Qingdao H&T, Qingdao Potenza, Qingdao Shiboliang, Rizhao
Xingda, Shandong Chengshun, Shandong Dongsheng, Shandong Garlic, Shanghai BaShi, and T&S.
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties must provide the Department with supporting documentation for the publicly available information to value each FOP. Additionally, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. The Department generally cannot accept the submissio
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Julia Hancock, Michael Holton, or Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 4821394, (202) 4821324, and (202) 4822312, respectively.
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 47 CFR Part 73 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 33 CFR Part 117 50 CFR Part 17 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 40 CFR Part 63 33 CFR Part 100 50 CFR Part 622 50 CFR Part 660 26 CFR Part 301 44 CFR Part 65 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 6 CFR Part 5 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 50 CFR Part 665 10 CFR Part 50 44 CFR Part 64 49 CFR Part 571 39 CFR Part 3020