AGENCY:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY:
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders with February anniversary dates. In accordance with Commerce's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
DATES:
Applicable April 11, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brenda E. Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–4735.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Commerce has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various AD and CVD orders with February anniversary dates.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
Notice of No Sales
With respect to antidumping administrative reviews, if a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify Commerce within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . All submissions must be filed electronically at https://access.trade.gov, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Such submissions are subject to verification, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on Commerce's service list.
See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures,76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).
Respondent Selection
In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 35 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted within seven days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this review. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments within five days after the deadline for the initial comments.
In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, the following guidelines regarding collapsing of companies for purposes of respondent selection will apply. In general, Commerce has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” ( e.g., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, Commerce will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this AD proceeding ( e.g., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review, or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if Commerce determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, Commerce will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, Commerce will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection.
Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value (Q&V) Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general, each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where Commerce considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.
Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Deadline for Particular Market Situation Allegation
Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of a particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act. Section 773(e) of the Act states that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.
See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of initial responses to section D of the questionnaire.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, Commerce begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is Commerce's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, Commerce analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, Commerce assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a Separate Rate Application or Certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, Commerce requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on Commerce's website at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to Commerce no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name, should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Application will be available on Commerce's website at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Applications are due to Commerce no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.
Such entities include entities that have not participated in the proceeding, entities that were preliminarily granted a separate rate in any currently incomplete segment of the proceeding ( e.g., an ongoing administrative review, new shipper review, etc.) and entities that lost their separate rate in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which they participated.
Only changes to the official company name, rather than trade names, need to be addressed via a Separate Rate Application. Information regarding new trade names may be submitted via a Separate Rate Certification.
Exporters and producers must file a timely Separate Rate Application or Certification if they want to be considered for individual examination. Furthermore, exporters and producers who submit a Separate Rate Application or Certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
Initiation of Reviews
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following AD and CVD orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than February 28, 2024.
In the notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 88 FR 15642 (March 14, 2023) for AD and CVD orders with January anniversary dates, Commerce inadvertently listed January 31, 2023, as the intended final results issuance date. Commerce hereby clarifies that this date should have been identified as January 31, 2024.
On December 23, 2022, Commerce determined that Kader Exports Private Limited is the successor-in-interest to the Liberty Group, which is comprised of the companies listed above. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 87 FR 78941 (December 23, 2022). Therefore, at the conclusion of this review, Commerce will assign a cash deposit rate to Kader Exports Private Limited, not to the Liberty Group.
Shrimp produced and exported by Devi Sea Foods Limited (Devi) was excluded from the order effective February 1, 2009. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Notice of Revocation of Order in Part,75 FR 41813, 41814 (July 19, 2010). Accordingly, we are initiating this administrative review with respect to Devi only for shrimp produced in India where Devi acted as either the manufacturer or exporter (but not both).
Where interested parties requested review of a company name combined with an abbreviation of the company name or alternative ( i.e., doing-business-as) name, Commerce treated the company names separately from those abbreviations/alternatives for review initiation purposes.
Interested parties requested a review of Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation, but Commerce has previously determined that Camimex Group Joint Stock Company is the successor-in-interest to Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation, so has only listed Camimex Group Joint Stock Company in this notice. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review,86 FR 47617, August 26, 2021.
Shrimp produced and exported by Minh Phat Seafood Company Limited were excluded from the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam, effective July 18, 2016. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Implementation of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order,81 FR 47756, 47757–47758 (July 22, 2016). Accordingly, we are initiating this administrative review for this exporter only with respect to subject merchandise produced by another entity.
Shrimp produced and exported by Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood were excluded from the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam, effective July 18, 2016. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Implementation of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order,81 FR 47756, 47757–47758 (July 22, 2016). Accordingly, we are initiating this administrative review for this exporter only with respect to subject merchandise produced by another entity.
Shrimp produced and exported by Minh Phu Seafood Corporation were excluded from the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam, effective July 18, 2016. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Implementation of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order,81 FR 47756, 47757–47758 (July 22, 2016). Accordingly, we are initiating this administrative review for this exporter only with respect to subject merchandise produced by another entity.
Shrimp produced and exported by Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. were excluded from the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam, effective July 18, 2016. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Implementation of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order,81 FR 47756, 47757–47758 (July 22, 2016). Accordingly, we are initiating this administrative review for this exporter only with respect to subject merchandise produced by another entity.
In past reviews, Commerce has treated these companies as a single entity. See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015–2016,82 FR 30836 (July 3, 2017) ( 2015–2016 AR Final). Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for the purpose of this administrative review.
Shrimp produced and exported by Chanthaburi Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (Chanthaburi Frozen) were excluded from the order effective January 16, 2009. See Implementation of the Findings of the WTO Panel in United States-Antidumping Measure on Shrimp from Thailand: Notice of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,74 FR 5638 (January 30, 2009) ( Section 129 Determination). Accordingly, we are initiating this administrative review with respect to Chanthaburi Frozen only for shrimp produced in Thailand where Chanthaburi Frozen acted as either the manufacturer or exporter (but not both).
Shrimp produced and exported by Chanthaburi Seafoods Co., Ltd. (Chanthaburi Seafoods) were excluded from the order effective January 16, 2009. See Section 129 Determination. Accordingly, we are initiating this administrative review with respect to Chanthaburi Seafoods only for shrimp produced in Thailand where Chanthaburi Seafoods acted as either the manufacturer or exporter (but not both).
In past reviews, Commerce has treated these companies as a single entity. See, e.g., 2015–2016 AR Final. Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for the purpose of this administrative review.
In past reviews, Commerce has treated these companies as a single entity. See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2006– 2007,73 FR 50933 (August 29, 2008) ( 2006–2007 AR Final). Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for the purpose of this administrative review.
Shrimp produced and exported by Marine Gold Products Ltd. (Marine Gold) were excluded from the order effective February 1, 2012. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Revocation of the Order (in Part); 2011–2012,78 FR 42497 (July 16, 2013). Accordingly, we are initiating this administrative review with respect to Marine Gold only for shrimp produced in Thailand where Marine Gold acted as either the manufacturer or exporter (but not both).
In past reviews, Commerce has treated these companies as a single entity. See, e.g., 2015–2016 AR Final. Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for the purpose of this administrative review.
Shrimp produced and exported by Phatthana Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (Phatthana Frozen) were excluded from the order effective January 16, 2009. See Certain Frozen Warm Water Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Notice of Revocation in Part,74 FR 52452 (October 13, 2009) ( CCR Final and Partial Revocation). Accordingly, we are initiating this administrative review with respect to Phatthana Frozen only for shrimp produced in Thailand where Phatthana Frozen acted as either the manufacturer or exporter (but not both).
Shrimp produced and exported by Phatthana Seafood Co., Ltd. (Phatthana Seafood) were excluded from the order effective January 16, 2009. See Section 129 Determination. Accordingly, we are initiating this administrative review with respect to Phatthana Seafood only for shrimp produced in Thailand where Phatthana Seafood acted as either the manufacturer or exporter (but not both).
Shrimp produced and exported by Sea Wealth Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (Sea Wealth) were excluded from the order effective January 16, 2009. See CCR Final and Partial Revocation. Accordingly, we are initiating this administrative review with respect to Sea Wealth only for shrimp produced in Thailand where Sea Wealth acted as either the manufacturer or exporter (but not both).
In past reviews, Commerce has treated these companies as a single entity. See, e.g., 2015–2016 AR Final. Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for the purpose of this administrative review.
In past reviews, Commerce has treated these companies as a single entity. See, e.g., 2015–2016 AR Final. Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for the purposes of this administrative review.
In past reviews, Commerce has treated these companies as a single entity. See, e.g., 2006–2007 AR Final. Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for the purpose of this administrative review.
Shrimp produced and exported by Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Thai I-Mei) were excluded from the order effective January 16, 2009. See Section 129 Determination. Accordingly, we are initiating this administrative review with respect to Thai I-Mei only for shrimp produced in Thailand where Thai I-Mei acted as either the manufacturer or exporter (but not both).
In past reviews, Commerce has treated these companies as a single entity. See, e.g., 2015–2016 AR Final. Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for the purpose of this administrative review.
Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd., Allied Pacific (HK) Co., Ltd., Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd; and Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. comprise the single entity Allied Pacific. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China and Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Implementation of Determinations Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders,78 FR 18958, 18959 (March 28, 2013) ( China Shrimp Exclusion). Additionally, this Order was revoked with respect to merchandise exported by Allied Pacific (HK) Co., Ltd., or Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd., and manufactured by Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd., or Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd., or Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd. See China Shrimp Exclusion, 78 FR at 18959. Accordingly, we are initiating this review for these exporters only with respect to subject merchandise produced by entities other than the aforementioned producers.
Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co., Ltd. and Shantou Red Garden Foodstuff Co., Ltd. comprise the single entity Shantou Red Garden Foods. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2018–2019,85 FR 83891 (December 23, 2020).
This Order was revoked with respect to subject merchandise produced and exported by Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China,70 FR 5149, 5152 (February 1, 2005). Accordingly, we are initiating this review for this exporter only with respect to subject merchandise produced by another entity.
This Order was revoked with respect to subject merchandise produced and exported by Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine Resources Co., Ltd. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative Review; 2011–2012,78 FR 56209, 56210 (September 12, 2013). Accordingly, we are initiating this review for this exporter only with respect to subject merchandise produced by another entity.
Commerce previously determined that the following companies should be treated as a single entity: Alcha International Holdings Limited; Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Group Co., Ltd.; and Baotou Alcha Aluminum Co., Ltd. See Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Final Successor-in-Interest Determination, and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2018–2020,86 FR 74066 (December 29, 2021). Therefore, we are initiating this administrative review on all three companies within the collapsed entity.
Commerce received a request for review of Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co., Ltd.; however, Commerce previously determined that Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Group Co., Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co., Ltd. See Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Final Successor-in-Interest Determination, and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2018–2020,86 FR 74066 (December 29, 2021). Accordingly, we are initiating this administrative review on Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Group Co., Ltd.
This company was inadvertently omitted from the initiation notice that published on March 14, 2023 (88 FR 15642). Commerce hereby clarifies that it received a request to conduct an administrative review of this company, and, in accordance with Commerce's regulations, has initiated this administrative review.
Commerce previously found “Jiangsu Alcha Aluminium Co., Ltd.” to be cross-owned with “Baotou Alcha Aluminium Co., Ltd.” and “Jiangsu Alcha New Energy Materials Co., Ltd.” Commerce also cumulated the benefits from subsidies received by “Alcha International Holdings Limited” with the benefits from subsidies received by “Jiangsu Alcha Aluminium Co., Ltd.” in the previous administrative review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(c). See Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2020, 87 FR 54462 (September 6, 2022), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM) at 4.
Commerce previously found “Henan Gongdian Thermal Co., Ltd.” to be cross-owned with “Henan Mingtai Industrial Co., Ltd.” and “Zhengzhou Mingtai Industry, Co., Ltd.” See Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty (CVD) Determination, Alignment of Final CVD Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, and Preliminary CVD Determination of Critical Circumstances,83 FR 17651 (April 23, 2018), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 10–11, unchanged in Countervailing Duty Investigation of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination,83 FR 57427 (November 15, 2018), and accompanying IDM at 5. Additionally, the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group (Aluminum Working Group) clarified that it intended to request a review for “Henan Mingtai Industrial Co., Ltd.,” not “Henan Mingtai Al. Industrial Co., Ltd.” See Memorandum, “Phone Conversation with { }{ sic } Interested Parties,” dated March 16, 2023 (Name Clarification Memo) at 1; and Aluminum Working Group's Letter, “Domestic Industry's Request for Administrative Review,” dated February 28, 2023 at 3.
Valeo North America, Inc. (Valeo), an interested party, clarified that, in addition to requesting a review for “Jiangsu Alcha Aluminium Co., Ltd.,” it intended to request a review for the three following company names: (1) “Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co., Ltd.”; (2) “Jiangsu Alcha Aluminium Group Co., Ltd.”; and (3) “Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Group Co., Ltd.” See Name Clarification Memo at 1–2.
Id.
Id.
Mid-South Holdings LLC (Mid-South), an interested party, clarified that it intended to request a review for two separate company names, (1) “Mingtai Aluminum” and (2) “Zhengzhou Mingtai Industry Co., Ltd.” Id. at 2. See also Mid-South's Letter, “Additional Request for Administrative Review,” dated February 28, 2023.
Commerce previously found Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co., Ltd.; Cooper Tire (China) Investment Co. Ltd..; Qingdao Yiyuan Investment Co., Ltd.; and Cooper Tire Asia-Pacific (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. to be cross-owned. See Truck and Bus Tires from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, Rescission in Part, and Intent to Rescind in Part; 2020,87 FR 12929 (March 8, 2022), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 27, unchanged in Truck and Bus tires from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2020,87 FR 39063 (June 30, 2022).
Commerce previously found Prinx Chengshan (Shandong) Tire Co., Ltd.; Chengshan Group Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Chengzhan Information and Technology Center; Prinx Chengshan (Qingdao) Industrial Research & Design Co., Ltd.; Shandong Prinx Chengshan Tire Technology Research Co., Ltd. to be cross-owned. See Truck and Bus Tires from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, Rescission in Part, and Intent to Rescind in Part; 2020,87 FR 12929 (March 8, 2022), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 27, unchanged in Truck and Bus tires from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2020,87 FR 39063 (June 30, 2022).
The companies listed below ( i.e., Linyi Lingong Machinery Group Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Green Power Machinery Co., Ltd., and Shengda Fenghe Automotive Equipment Co., Ltd.) were inadvertently omitted in the notice of initiation that published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2023 (88 FR 7060).
Duty Absorption Reviews
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an AD order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), Commerce, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether AD duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.
Gap Period Liquidation
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant “gap” period of the order ( i.e., the period following the expiry of provisional measures and before definitive measures were put into place), if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.
Administrative Protective Orders and Letters of Appearance
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures ( e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
Factual Information Requirements
Commerce's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)–(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the Final Rule, available at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-07-17/pdf/2013-17045.pdf, prior to submitting factual information in this segment. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice.
See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings,78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) ( Final Rule); see also the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension of Effective Period,85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020).
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information using the formats provided at the end of the Final Rule. Commerce intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable certification requirements.
See section 782(b) of the Act; see also Final Rule; and the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
Extension of Time Limits Regulation
Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning CBP data; and (5) Q&V questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This policy also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which Commerce will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Please review the Final Rule, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.
See19 CFR 351.302.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Dated: April 5, 2023.
James Maeder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2023–07536 Filed 4–10–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P