Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 |
|---|
|
Ronald K. Lorentzen
Department of Commerce
April 15, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20197-20200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08673]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-912]
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2012-2013
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 10, 2014, the Department of Commerce
(``Department'') published the preliminary results of the
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain new
pneumatic off-the-road tires (``OTR tires'') from the People's Republic
of China (``PRC'').\1\ The period of review (``POR'') is September 1,
2012, through August 31, 2013. This review covers the following
exporters of subject merchandise: Mandatory respondents, Double Coin
Holdings Ltd. (``Double Coin'') and Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd./Guizhou Tyre
Import and Export Co., Ltd. (collectively, ``GTC''), and non-examined
respondents Zhongce Rubber Group Company Limited (``Zhongce''), Weihai
Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd. (``Zhongwei''), and Trelleborg Wheel System
(Xingtai) China, Co. Ltd. (``Trelleborg''). We continue to find that
GTC made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value; that
Zhongce and Zhongwei are eligible for separate rates; that Double Coin
failed to demonstrate eligibility for separate rate status and thus has
been included in the PRC-wide entity, and that Trelleborg had no
shipments during the POR. The final dumping margins for this review are
listed in the ``Final Results'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 61291 (October 10, 2014)
(``Preliminary Results'').
DATES: Effective: April 15, 2015.
[[Page 20198]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Medley or Brendan Quinn, AD/CVD
Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4987 and (202) 482-5848, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 10, 2014, the Department published its Preliminary
Results of the antidumping duty administrative review of OTR tires from
the PRC and invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary
results. We granted parties an extension of time to submit case and
rebuttal briefs.\2\ On December 11, 2014, we received case briefs from
Petitioners,\3\ GTC, and Double Coin. On December 19, 2014, we received
a rebuttal brief from Trelleborg. On December 23, 2014, we received
rebuttal briefs from Petitioners, GTC, Double Coin, and Zhongce. On
December 30, 2014, the Department extended the deadline for the final
results until April 8, 2015.\4\ In accordance with timely requests from
parties, on February 25, 2015, the Department held a public hearing.\5\
We conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Letters from the Department titled ``2012-2013
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China:
Extension of Time for Case Briefs and Rebuttal Briefs,'' dated
October 31, 2014, and ``2012-2013 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires
from the People's Republic of China: Second Extension of Time for
Case Briefs and Rebuttal Briefs,'' dated December 5, 2014. See also
``2012-2013 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic
of China: Extension of Time for Rebuttal Briefs,'' dated December
15, 2014.
\3\ Titan Tire Corporation and the United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (collectively,
``Petitioners'').
\4\ See Memorandum titled ``Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road
Tires from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,'' dated
December 30, 2014.
\5\ See Hearing Transcript, filed onto the record by Lisa Dennis
Court Reporting on March 25, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this order includes new pneumatic tires
designed for off-the-road and off-highway use, subject to certain
exceptions. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30,
4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00,
4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00,
4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. The HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For a complete description of the scope of the order, see
Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K.
Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, titled, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain New
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China;
2012-2013,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``Issues and
Decision Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties
in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that
parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and
Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (``ACCESS'').\7\ ACCESS is
available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and it is
available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the
main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version
of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the
Internet at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Issues and
Decision Memorandum and electronic version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the
name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS'') to AD and CVD Centralized
Electronic Service System (``ACCESS''). The Web site location was
changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov.
The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be
found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determination of No Shipments
As noted in the Preliminary Results, we received a no-shipment
certification from Trelleborg.\8\ Consistent with its practice, the
Department asked U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to
conduct a query on potential shipments made by Trelleborg during the
POR; CBP did not provide any evidence that contradicts Trelleborg's
claim of no shipments.\9\ Based on Trelleborg's certification, our
analysis of CBP information, and analysis of interested parties'
comments, we determine that Trelleborg did not have any reviewable
transactions during the POR.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Preliminary Results, 79 FR at 61292.
\9\ See CBP Message Number 3352302, dated December 18, 2013.
\10\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determination of Affiliation and Collapsing
We continue to find that Double Coin Group Jiangsu Tyre Co., Ltd.,
Double Coin Group Shanghai Donghai Tyre Co., Ltd., and Double Coin
Holdings, Ltd. are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act
and should be collapsed together and treated as a single company
(collectively, ``Double Coin''), pursuant to the criteria laid out in
19 CFR 351.401(f).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Preliminary Results, 79 FR at 61292. No party commented
on this issue in their case briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In the Preliminary Results, we determined that GTC, Zhongce, and
Zhongwei are eligible for separate-rate status; we also determined that
Double Coin was part of the PRC-wide Entity.\12\ We made no changes to
these determinations for the final results.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id., and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at
the ``Separate Rates'' section.
\13\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 1 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate for Non-Examined Companies Which Are Eligible for a Separate Rate
Normally, the Department's practice is to look for guidance from
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, to assign to separate rate companies
that were not individually examined a rate equal to the average of the
rates calculated for the individually examined respondents, excluding
any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on adverse facts
available.\14\ In this case, we found one mandatory respondent, Double
Coin, to be part of the PRC-wide entity. The other mandatory
respondent, GTC, is receiving a separate rate calculated from its own
sales and production data. To determine a rate for the unselected
separate rate companies, we find it
[[Page 20199]]
appropriate to use the margin calculated for GTC, which was also found
to be separate from the PRC-wide entity with respect to its export
activities, and which rate is not zero or de minimis nor based entirely
on facts available. Therefore, we are assigning GTC's calculated margin
as the rate assigned to non-examined entities which demonstrated their
eligibility for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR
19690 (April 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Entity
Double Coin, one of the companies that the Department selected as a
mandatory respondent in this administrative review, failed to
demonstrate absence of de facto government control over export
activities due to the fact that its controlling shareholder is wholly-
owned by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration
Commission of the State Council and the significant level of control
this majority shareholder wields over the respondent's Board of
Directors.\15\ As a result, we determine that Double Coin is part of
the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Preliminary Results, 79 FR at 61292-93 and accompanying
Preliminary Decision Memorandum at the ``Separate Rates'' section.
See also Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Double Coin provided the Department with its verified sales
and production data, we are able to calculate a margin for an
unspecified portion of a single PRC-wide entity, but cannot do so for
the remaining unspecified portion of the entity. As the Department must
calculate a single margin for the PRC-wide government controlled entity
and there is insufficient information on the record with respect to the
composition of the PRC-wide entity, as facts available pursuant to
section 776(a)(1) of the Act, we calculated a simple average of the
previously assigned PRC-wide rate (210.48 percent) \16\ and Double
Coin's calculated margin (0.14 percent) as the rate applicable to the
PRC-wide entity. Accordingly, the Department revised the PRC-wide
entity rate to 105.31 percent for these final results.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485, 40489 (July 15, 2008).
\17\ See Memorandum to the File titled ``2012-2013
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China:
Analysis of the Final Results Margin Calculation for Double Coin,''
dated April 8, 2015 (``Double Coin Final Analysis Memorandum''). See
also Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on an analysis of the comments received, we made certain
calculation programming changes and revisions to the valuation of
certain factors of production. For further details on the changes we
made for these final results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
See also Memorandum to the File titled ``Final Results of the 2012-2013
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New
Pneumatic off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China:
Surrogate Value Memorandum,'' dated April 8, 2015; Memorandum to the
File titled ``2012-2013 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's
Republic of China: Analysis of the Final Results Margin Calculation for
Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd.,'' dated April 8, 2015; and Double Coin Final
Analysis Memorandum.
Final Results
As a result of this administrative review, we determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period
September 1, 2012, through August 31, 2013:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The PRC-Wide Entity includes Double Coin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted
average
Exporter dumping
margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd./Guizhou Tyre Import and Export 11.34
Co., Ltd...............................................
Zhongce Rubber Group Company Limited.................... 11.34
Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd......................... 11.34
PRC-Wide Entity \18\.................................... 105.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review pursuant to
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b).\19\ The
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these final results of review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Antidumping Proceeding: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8103 (February 14, 2012)
(``NME Antidumping Proceedings'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For customers or importers of GTC for which we do not have entered
value, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific antidumping duty
assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping
duties calculated for the examined sales of subject merchandise to the
total sales quantity of those same sales.\20\ For customers or
importers of GTC for which we received entered-value information, we
have calculated importer- (or customer-) specific antidumping duty
assessment rates based on importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem
rates.\21\ For the non-examined separate rate companies, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at 11.34 percent. For
the PRC-wide entity, including Double Coin, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate all appropriate entries at 105.31 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department recently announced a refinement to its assessment
practice in non-market economy (``NME'') cases.\22\ Pursuant to this
refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S.
sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during
this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries
at the NME-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an
exporter under review had no shipments of subject merchandise, any
suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e.,
at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the NME-wide rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash
deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin
identified in the ``Final Results'' section; (2) for previously
investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that are not under
review in this segment of the proceeding but that received a separate
rate in a previous segment, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the exporter-specific rate (or exporter-producer chain rate) published
for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) for all
PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be
entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide
rate of 105.24 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received
[[Page 20200]]
their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to
the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. The cash
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period.
Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's
presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping and/or countervailing
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping
duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of
the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction
of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 8, 2015.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Issues and Decision Memorandum
Summary
Background
Scope of the Order
Discussion of the Issues
Comment 1: Whether To Include Double Coin in the PRC-Wide Entity
and Adjust the Entity Rate
Comment 2: Whether To Assign a Margin to Trelleborg
Comment 3: Whether To Assign a Margin to Zhongce
Comment 4: Whether To Adjust U.S Prices for Un-refunded Value-
Added Tax (``VAT'')
Comment 5: Use of Adverse Facts Available in Calculating Double
Coin's Margin
Comment 6: Use of PT Gajah Tunggal's Financial Statement for the
Surrogate Financial Ratio Calculation
Comment 7: Surrogate Value (``SV'') for Coal
Comment 8: Valuation of Labor
Comment 9: Valuation of Domestic Truck Freight
Comment 10: Valuation of Electricity
Comment 11: Container Weight Used in Ocean Freight and Brokerage
and Handling Surrogate Value Calculations
Comment 12: Whether To Exclude Certain Ocean Freight Charges
When Calculating a Surrogate Value for Ocean Freight
Comment 13: Whether To Deflate the Surrogate Value for GTC's
Warehouse Costs
Comment 14: Whether To Calculate Region-Specific U.S. Delivery
Charges for GTC's U.S. Inland Freight Surrogate Value
Comment 15: Surrogate Values for GTC's Tackifier Inputs
Comment 16: Freight Distance Applied to GTC's Inputs
Comment 17: Calculation of Double Coin's Truck Freight and
Distance
Comment 18: Whether Truck Freight Costs are Over-Counted
Comment 19: Surrogate Value for Double Coin's Polyester Cord
Inputs
Comment 20: Surrogate Values for Double Coin's Cinder and
Calcium Oxide By-products
Comment 21: Calculation of Double Coin's Warranty Costs
Comment 22: Conversion of the Truck Freight Surrogate Value
Applied to Double Coin's Coal Consumption
Comment 23: Calculation of Credit Costs for Double Coin's Drop-
Shipped Sales
Comment 24: Calculation of Inventory Carrying Costs for Double
Coin's Warehouse Sales
Comment 25: Differential Price Calculation
Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2015-08673 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P