Non-market economies




старонка3/3
Дата канвертавання24.04.2016
Памер185.44 Kb.
1   2   3

F. Free-of-Charge Inputs
1. Overview
Respondents may report that they received from their U.S. customer(s) specific direct material or packaging inputs free of charge, and used these inputs to produce or pack the merchandise under investigation/review during the POI/POR.
2. Practice
Sections 773(c)(1)(B) and (3)(B) of the Act require the Department to value all inputs used to produce the merchandise under investigation/review. For purposes of constructing NV, the Department does not distinguish between purchased inputs and free-of-charge inputs. Accordingly, the Department will normally value the free-of-charge inputs by using a surrogate value for purposes of constructing NV. However, if the respondent sufficiently documents its claim that a free-of-charge input was received from its U.S. customer, in accordance with the criteria noted below, the Department will make an offsetting adjustment to the respondent’s reported U.S. price to include the value of the free-of-charge input.47
3. Criteria
To sufficiently support its claim, a respondent must provide documentation which demonstrates that: (1) its U.S. customer(s) contracted with a third party for the purchase of the inputs in question and that the third party delivered the inputs to the respondent or its producer in a certain quantity on a certain date; (2) payment in full for the input(s) in question was made by the U.S. customer(s); and (3) the free-of-charge inputs were used in the required quantities for the respondent’s sales of subject merchandise to the applicable U.S. customers during the POI/POR (i.e., there must be a link between the consumption of the free-of-charge input and the sale of subject merchandise). Furthermore, the respondent must affirmatively state that the price to the U.S. customer is exclusive of the free-of-charge inputs. If these requirements are met, then the Department will normally make an upward adjustment to the U.S. sales price of the applicable sales transactions to reflect the U.S. customers’ expenditures for the free-of-charge inputs.
G. By-Product Offsets
1. Overview
In certain instances, a respondent will report by-products from producing the subject merchandise which it claims it either re-sold or re-used during the POI/POR. In those instances in which the respondent provides sufficient documentation to support its by-product claim, the Department allows a recovery/by-product credit in accordance with the Department’s practice.48 For this purpose, the Department grants an offset by deducting the surrogate costs for such by-products from the NV calculation.
2. Requirements for Claiming By-Product Offsets
The Department’s general practice is to grant offsets to NV for by-products which result from the final stage as well as from intermediate stages of production.49 Respondents are required to describe the disposition of the by-products, and, if they are sold or returned to production, provide evidence thereof. Furthermore, they must explain any further processing of the by-products, and list the factors and quantities thereof used in the further processing. The Department subtracts from any offset the surrogate value of the further processing.
3. Application
The Department’s general practice is to treat by-products in a manner consistent with the treatment by the surrogate company for the calculation of financial ratios50 in order to ensure that financial ratios and the costs to which they are applied are calculated in a consistent manner.51 For example, if the financial reports used to derive the surrogate financial ratios indicate that all of the selected companies accounted for revenue from by-products as a credit to sales rather than as a debit to cost of manufacture, then the Department will deduct the by-product offset from NV after applying the surrogate financial ratios to cost of manufacture.52
H. Intermediate Inputs
1. Overview
Generally, subject merchandise is valued using the actual amounts of the factors utilized by the producer of the subject merchandise. If a producer of subject merchandise produces an intermediate product which it then uses in the production of subject merchandise, the Department usually values the purchased inputs used to produce the intermediate product, not the intermediate input itself.53
If a producer of subject merchandise obtains a factor of production from a supplier with which it is not considered a single entity, even if the two companies are affiliated, the Department normally values the individual factor at the stage in which it is consumed by the producer of subject merchandise.
Conversely, if the producer of subject merchandise obtains a factor from a supplier with which it is considered a single entity, the Department will generally value the inputs used by the supplier to make the producer’s factor of production. In other words, the factor obtained from the affiliated supplier is treated as an intermediate product of the collapsed single entity.
2. Practice Under the Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
The Department’s general policy, consistent with Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, is to value the factors of production that a respondent uses to produce subject merchandise. If the NME respondent is an integrated producer, the Department takes into account the factors utilized in each stage of the production process.54 This is also in accordance with the Act and the Department’s regulations, which provide that in NME cases, the Department normally will calculate NV by valuing the Anonmarket economy producers’ factors of production in a market economy country.55 However, when it is proper to value the intermediate products of a producer, but no suitable surrogate values for the intermediate product exist on the record, the Department may look to other reliable valuation methods. One such method may be to value the upstream inputs used in the production of the intermediate product, where information for such valuation can be obtained from the producer’s subcontractor, an affiliated supplier, an unaffiliated supplier, or other sources of information, as appropriate.56
3. Practice With Respect to Valuing Intermediate Inputs
Generally, if the NME producer of subject merchandise is integrated, such that it self-produces a material input used in the manufacture of subject merchandise, the Department will take into account the factors utilized in each stage of the production process of that material input.57 In other words, the Department generally values any inputs obtained by the producer (i.e., purchased or otherwise obtained from an outside source) and used in producing intermediate inputs, which are then used in the manufacture of subject merchandise. For example, in the case of preserved mushrooms from the PRC produced by a fully integrated firm, the Department valued the factors that the producer used to grow the mushrooms, the factors it used to further process and preserve the mushrooms, and any additional factors the producer used to can the mushrooms, including any factors used to manufacture the cans (if produced in-house) because these factors reflected the subject merchandise producer’s own experience in the production of canned mushrooms.58
In certain instances the Department may not value the inputs to an intermediate factor produced by an integrated producer. These instances are determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the facts of the case. For example, in some cases, a respondent may report inputs used to produce an intermediate factor of production that accounts for a small share of total output. The Department recognizes that, in such cases, the increased accuracy in the Department’s overall calculations that would result from separately valuing each of those inputs may be so small as to not justify the burden of doing so. Therefore, in such situations, the Department would value the intermediate factor of production directly.59 In other cases, the Department may determine that valuing the inputs used in a production process yielding an intermediate product would lead to an inaccurate result because a significant element of cost would not be adequately accounted for in the overall factors buildup. For example, in the case of carbon and alloy steel wire rod from Ukraine, the Department addressed whether it should value the respondent’s factors used in extracting iron ore, an input to its wire rod factory. In that case, the Department determined that, if it were to value the extracting factors, the Department would not sufficiently account for the capital costs associated with the iron ore mining operation given that the surrogate used for valuing production overhead did not have mining operations. Therefore, because ignoring this important cost element would distort the calculation, the Department declined to value the inputs used in mining iron ore and valued the iron ore instead.60
Finally, in the case of fresh garlic from the PRC, the Department determined that the books and records maintained by the respondents did not report or account for all of the relevant information and did not allow the respondents to identify all of the factors of production necessary to grow and harvest garlic. Accordingly, in order to eliminate distortions in the calculation of NV, the Department valued the intermediate product for all companies, rather than valuing all the inputs (e.g., garlic seed, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, plastic film, water and growing/harvesting labor hours) used to produce the intermediate product.61


  1. Inputs Purchased from Affiliated Suppliers

When both producer and supplier are separate legal entities, a finding of affiliation between a producer and its supplier does not, in and of itself, justify a departure from the Department’s standard practice of valuing the factors of production consumed by the producer of subject merchandise.62 Moreover, in the remand of a case involving foundry coke from the PRC, the Department discussed its practice of not looking beyond the producer of subject merchandise to value the upstream inputs that a supplier uses to produce one of the producer’s factors.63


However, in certain instances, based on the facts on the record of the proceeding, a producer of subject merchandise and its supplier entity may be considered by the Department to comprise a single entity.64 For purposes of its NV calculation, when the producer and supplier are treated as a single entity, the Department may value the inputs purchased or otherwise obtained by the supplier from an outside source and used in producing intermediate inputs, which are then used in the manufacture of subject merchandise. This valuation methodology is analogous to the methodology described above, where the subject merchandise producer is, by itself, an integrated production entity.65
I. Financial Ratios
1. Overview
After the Department calculates the cost of materials, labor and energy in the NV calculation, the Department then adds in the other costs of production through financial ratios calculated, to the extent possible, by using publicly available financial statements of producers of comparable merchandise. 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4) directs the Department to value the respondent’s other costs incurred in the production of subject merchandise (i.e., factory overhead, SG&A, and profit) by deriving financial ratios66 from non-proprietary information gathered from producers of identical or comparable merchandise in the surrogate country. Among the surrogate producers of comparable products, the Department prefers to value financial ratios using data from those surrogate producers whose financial data will not be distorted or otherwise unreliable.67 For example, financial data from a surrogate country producer whose production process is significantly different from that of the respondent may be considered inappropriate compared to other available financial statements. Similarly, costs that do not appropriately reflect the respondent’s factory overhead costs and SG&A expenses may be rejected for financial data of another surrogate producer whose production process and costs do appropriately reflect the respondent’s factory overhead costs and SG&A expenses.68
2. Practice
The Department’s criteria for choosing surrogate companies are the: (1) availability of contemporaneous financial statements; (2) comparability to the respondent’s production process; and (3) public availability of information.69
a. Contemporaneity
In general, the Department’s preference is to use financial data from surrogate producers which is most contemporaneous with the period of investigation or review if other factors are satisfied (e.g., representativeness, specificity, quality).70
b. Comparability
When selecting surrogate producer financial reports for purposes of deriving surrogate percentages, the Department’s general preference is to use, where possible, the financial data of surrogate producers of identical merchandise.71
If there is no publicly available financial data for surrogate producers of identical merchandise, then the Department will use the financial data of surrogate producers of comparable merchandise. While the statute does not define comparable merchandise in selecting surrogate values for overhead, SG&A and profit, the Department has considered whether products have similar production processes, end uses, and physical characteristics. When evaluating production processes, the Department has taken into account the complexity and duration of the processes and the types of equipment used in production.72
In situations where the Department is able to choose among surrogate producer financial reports, the Department has expressed a preference for selecting the surrogate producers whose operations are most similar to those of the NME respondents.73 Moreover, the Department has an established practice of rejecting financial statements of surrogate producers whose production process is not comparable to (i.e., significantly different from) the respondent’s production process when more comparable information is available.74
Moreover, the Department’s preference is that the surrogate financial ratios represent the surrogate country’s industry as broadly as possible to minimize the chance of distortion. Therefore, when possible, it is the Department’s preference to use more than one surrogate producer’s financial data to reflect a broader representation of the experience of the surrogate industry.75
c. Publicly Available Information
The Department has expressed a preference to use publicly available financial data containing the level of detail necessary to make adjustments and/or capture all the necessary costs for purposes of calculating accurate financial ratios.76 Financial statements that are not readily available on the company website or through a routine request might not be considered public.


  1. Separately Listed Elements

The financial statements of some surrogates might list depreciation separately rather than including it in factory overhead, or might list interest separately rather than including it in SG&A expenses. In those cases, the Department calculates a depreciation/factory overhead ratio based on the total of the surrogate’s depreciation and factory overhead expenses, and an SG&A ratio based on the total of the surrogate’s interest and SG&A expenses.


VII. Market-Oriented Industry (“MOI”)F. Special Topics1. Market-Oriented Industry (MOI)
A. Overview
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act allows the Department, in certain circumstances, to use the market- economy methodology described in section 773(a) of the Act to determine NV in an NME case. To identify those situations where the Department would use its market economy methodology and calculate NV based on domestic prices or costs in the NME, the Department developed MOI test. The MOI test determines whether the market-economy methodology may be applied only to the specific industry subject to the investigation or review.
B. Criteria
Under the Department’s current practice, an affirmative finding of an MOI requires that certain conditions be met using a three-prong test77:


  • For the merchandise under investigation or review, there must be virtually no government involvement in setting prices or amounts to be produced (“Prong 1”);




  • The industry producing the merchandise under investigation or review should be characterized by private or collective ownership (“Prong 2”);




  • Market-determined prices must be paid for all significant inputs whether material or non-material (e.g., labor and overhead) and for all but insignificant proportions of all the inputs accounting for the total value of the merchandise under investigation or review. Moreover, if there is any state-required production in the industry producing the input, the share of state-required production must be insignificant (“Prong 3”).

If these conditions are not met, the analyst should treat producers of the merchandise under investigation or review as NME producers, and calculate NV using the NME methodology described in this chapter.


C. Practice
The current MOI test is neither codified in the Act nor in the Department’s regulations.78 The MOI test was first articulated in 1992 in Lug Nuts From China, 57 FR at 15053-55, and since its inception through 2008, the Department has received occasional requests from industries for consideration of MOI status. However, no industry has yet to be granted MOI status in an investigation or review.
Before applying the three-prong MOI test, a respondent’s MOI request must first meet the initial threshold of representing all or virtually all the producers in the industry in question.79 The request must also be submitted early enough in the proceeding to afford the Department sufficient time to collect and analyze the necessary data.80 Below are the three prongs of the MOI test:
Prong 1: Virtually no government involvement in setting prices or amounts to be produced. There is no definition of how much government involvement constitutes virtually no government involvement.
Prong 2: Private or collective ownership. While there may be state-owned enterprises in the industry, substantial state ownership would weigh heavily against finding an MOI.81
Prong 3: Market-determined prices must be paid for all significant input.




1 See Notice of Initiation of Inquiry Into the Status of Lithuania as a Non Market Economy Country for Purposes of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Under a Changed Circumstances Review of the Solid Urea Order Against Lithuania, 67 FR 57393 (September 10, 2002).

2 Assigned rates in market-economy country cases apply to exporters or producers. However, separate rates in NME cases apply only to exporters.

3 See Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Disposable Pocket Lighters from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22359, 22361 (May 5, 1995); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Kazakhstan, 66 FR 50397, 50399 (October 3, 2001), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

4 See Silicon Carbide.

5 See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 24382, 24388 (May 9, 2005), and Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

6 See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, dated April 5, 2005 (Policy Bulletin 05.1).

7 See Sections 733(b)(3) and 735(a)(4) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.107(b)(1) and Import Administration Policy Bulletin 03.2: Combination Rates in New Shipper Reviews, dated March 4, 2003.

8 See Policy Bulletin 05.1.

9 See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews and Notice of Partial Rescission, 72 FR 6201 (February 9, 2007).

10 See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 58672, 58674-76 (October 7, 2005).

11 See also Shandong Huarong General Group Corporation and Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation v. United States, Slip Op 03-135 (October 22, 2003), at 37 - 44.

12 This does not apply, during administrative review segments of the proceeding, to exporters for which the Department has not initiated an administrative review.

13 See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 67412, 67415-19 (November 7, 2005) (where the Department explained its practice with respect to respondent selection)(“Artist Canvas Preliminary Determination”).

14 See, e.g., Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation of Order (In Part), 59 FR 15159 (March 31, 1994).

15 See Artist Canvas Preliminary Determination at 67418.

16 In a new shipper review, there is no change to the NME-wide rate, as a new shipper review covers only an exporter that is eligible for a separate rate.

17 E.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546, 19549 (April 22, 2002) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

18 19 CFR 351.102(b) describes the factors to be considered in determining affiliation, while 19 CFR 351.401(f) discusses the treatment of affiliated producers in antidumping proceedings.


19 See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Sixth New Shipper Review and Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 10410, 10413 (March 5, 2004) (Mushrooms Prelim). See also Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Sixth Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 54635 (September 9, 2004) (Mushrooms Final) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

20 See Hontex I, at 1340-42, 1344, and Mushrooms Final and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

21 See also Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People’s Republic of China, Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 2001); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001) (Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products); and Anshan Iron & Steel Co. v. United States, Slip. Op. 03-83 at 32-33 (CIT 2003) (where it was determined that a single entity exited among a group of companies and not all of the companies among the group produced their product for sale to the United States) (Anshan Iron & Steel Co.).

22 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 65527, 65535 (December 13, 1996); and Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 24382, 24390 (May 9, 2005).

23 See Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of New Shipper Administrative Review, 66 FR 8383 (January 31, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7; and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Beryllium Metal and High Beryllium Alloys From the Republic of Kazakhstan, 62 FR 2648, 2651 (January 17, 1997).

24 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 70997 (December 8, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

25 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 67304 (November 17, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.

26 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 67313 (November 17, 2004), (Wooden Bedroom Furniture) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 24.

27 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee, et al., Glopak, Inc., et al., Guangdong Esquel Textiles Co. v. United States, Slip Op.05-157 (December 13, 2005) at pp. 30 - 45.

28 See Final Results of the New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 62053 (October 31, 2003), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.

29 Exceptions to this practice are sometimes made in cases involving agricultural products, to conform the calculation of NV to the growing season. See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54361 (September 14, 2005), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.

30 See Sebacic Acid from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 65674, 65667 (December 15, 1997); Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People’s Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 67434, 67439 (November 7, 2005).

31 See Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of China, Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61972 (November 20, 1997).

32 See, generally, Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Determination: Saccharin from the PRC, 68 FR 27530 (May 2003) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 at 81 (June 2003) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

33 See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

34 See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture.

35 For the treatment of supervisory and indirect labor, consult with the assigned program manager.

36 This assumes there was no further processing or packaging done to the scrap, and that it was picked up at the production facility by the purchaser. Otherwise, the by-product deduction would need to be adjusted to account for the related expenses.


37 Note that there is no freight expense calculation for the plastic factor purchased from a market-economy supplier, because this example assumes that the reported price was a delivered price. If the price was not delivered to the production facility, then the Department would need to calculate freight cost from the point at which the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise assumed responsibility for transportation.

38 This example assumes that there was only one U.S. sale. Because the regulations direct the Department to use the exchange rate in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, the NME margin calculation program actually converts surrogate currency values to U.S. dollar values after the NV and sales data have been combined.

39 This example assumes that the surrogate financial statements indicate that revenue from by-products was treated as a credit to sales rather than a debit to COM. See the ABy-Products Offset section, below.

40 The Department further notes that it does not accept market economy input purchase prices when the input in question was produced in an NME. See Final Determination: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the PRC, 69 FR 34125 (June 18, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 20.

41 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006).

42 See Timken Co. v. United States, 201 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1337 (CIT 2002); Olympia Indus. Inc. v. United States, 36 F. Supp. 2d. 414 (CIT 1999).

43 See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 34448 (June 14, 2005) and the corresponding Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 33.

44 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8A.

45 See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 75913 (December 20, 2004) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

46 See Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 28274 (May 17, 2005) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

47 See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54361 (September 14, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Mushrooms Final Results) at Comment 13; Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 24382, 24390 (May 9, 2005); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 24502 (May 10, 2005) (ISOs Final Determination) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.

48 See Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 43713, 43713 (July 24, 2003).

49 See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 10965, 10976 (March 7, 2005).

50 The surrogate financial ratios are for factory overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit, and are derived from data contained in the surrogate producers’ financial statements.

51 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4B; and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003) (Vietnam Fish Fillets Preliminary Determination).

52 See Final Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand: Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corporation v. United States, Court No. 05-00023 (January 25, 2008) at 7-8, and 12.

53 Note that producers who also produce their own intermediate inputs are often called Aintegrated producers.

54 See Vietnam Fish Fillets Preliminary Determination, 68 FR at 4993; and Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003), and the accompanying issues and decision memorandum at Comment 3 (“Vietnam Fish Fillets Final Determination”).

55 See Section 773(c) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.408(a) (emphasis added). Also see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin from the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 39598 (May 25, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11; Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works v. United States; Final Results Pursuant to Remand (September 26, 2005) (Sinopec Remand); Anshan Iron & Steel Co.; Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Ferrovanadium from the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 45088, 45092 (Jul. 8, 2002); and Vietnam Fish Fillets Final Determination at Comment 3.

56 See Hangzhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd. v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (CIT 2005).

57 See Sinopec Remand; Notice of Final Determination at Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 34130 (Jun. 18, 2004).

58 See Final Results Valuation Memorandum for Final Results of the First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (Jun. 11, 2001).

59 See Vietnam Fish Fillets Final Determination at Comment 3.

60 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Ukraine, 67 FR 55785 (August 30, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. See also Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2; Vietnam Fish Fillets Preliminary Determination, 68 FR at 4993; Vietnam Fish Fillets Final Determination at Comment 3; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of China, 62 FR 61964 (Nov. 20, 1997); and Notice of Final Determination at Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995).

61 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) (AGarlic from China 2006") and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 1. See also Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Review and Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69942 (November 18, 2005); Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2004-2005 Semi-Annual New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 26322 (May 4, 2006).

62 See Sinopec Remand, at 40 - 41.

63 See CITIC Trading Company, Ltd. v. United States of America and ABC Coke, et al: Final Results Pursuant to Remand, at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/03-23.pdf (Jun. 17, 2003).

64 For more information on the Asingle entity analysis, please refer to the NME Affiliation/Single Entity portion of this manual.

65 See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Sixth Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 54635 (September 9, 2004) at Comment 3.

66 The financial surrogate ratios are factory overhead, SG&A, and profit.

67 See, e.g., Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 48612 (July 25, 2002) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5; Persulfates from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 42628 (August 14, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 5; and Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 48026 (September 17, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18.

68 See Persulfates from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 6712 (February 10, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 9, 10.

69 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 70997 (December 8, 2004) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9F.

70 See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of the Seventh New Shipper Review, 68 FR 25861 (May 14, 2003) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; and See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of the Ninth New Shipper Review, 69 FR 42039 (July 13, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.

71 See Persulfates from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 47887, 47890 (August 6, 2004); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 49345 (September 27, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

72 See Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of New Shipper Administrative Review, 66 FR 8383 (January 31, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7; and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Beryllium Metal and High Beryllium Alloys From the Republic of Kazakhstan, 62 FR 2648, 2651 (January 17, 1997).

73 See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 2003) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.

74 See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 22183, 22193 (May 3, 2001); and Persulfates from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 6836 (February 9, 2005) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

75 See also Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of the Ninth New Shipper Review, 69 FR 42039 (July 13, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.

76 See Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 75303 (December 16, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.

77 See Amendment to Final Determination to Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment to Antidumping Duty Order: Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From the People’s Republic of China, 57 FR 15052, 15054-55 (April 24, 1992).

78 See Preamble to Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties Regulations, 62 FR 27296, 27365 (May 19, 1997).

79 See Final 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, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (April 16, 2004) (Color Television Receivers from China) (respondents accounting for estimated 79.6% production insufficient to represent industry); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Ukraine, 66 FR 50401, 50404 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

80 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 67313, at Comment 1 (November 17, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (MOI request submitted 14 days before the preliminary determination provided insufficient time for analysis).

81 See Color Television Receivers from China, at Comment 1 (April 16, 2004) (manufacturers with zero or minority government ownership occupy about 50.07% of total production output).

1   2   3


База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка