Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission, of the 24th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018
| Published date | 06 November 2020 |
| Citation | 85 FR 71049 |
| Record Number | 2020-24701 |
| Section | Notices |
| Court | International Trade Administration |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 216 (Friday, November 6, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 216 (Friday, November 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71049-71051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24701]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-831]
Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results
and Partial Rescission, of the 24th Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2017-2018
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) published the
Preliminary Results of the 24th administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of
China (China) on January 15, 2020. The period of review (POR) is
November 1, 2017 through October 31, 2018. The mandatory respondent in
this review is Shijiazhuang Goodman Trading Co., Ltd. (Goodman).
Commerce is also rescinding its review of nineteen companies including
the other selected mandatory respondent Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co.,
Ltd. (Harmoni). Based upon our analysis of the comments and information
received, we made no changes to the margin calculated for mandatory
respondent Goodman.
DATES: Applicable November 6, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Cipolla, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4956.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 71050]]
Background
Commerce published the preliminary results of this administrative
review of fresh garlic from China on January 15, 2020.\1\ We
preliminarily found that the mandatory respondent Goodman sold subject
merchandise to the United States at less than normal value. We
rescinded the review with respect to eight companies for which their
sole requests for review had been timely withdrawn.\2\ Furthermore, we
preliminarily determined that the review requests submitted by the
Coalition for Fair Trade in Garlic (CFTG) and Roots Farm Inc. (Roots
Farm) were invalid and preliminarily rescinded the review with respect
to the 19 companies solely requested by the CFTG and Roots Farm.
Additionally, we found that three companies qualified for separate rate
status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results, Preliminary Rescission, and Final Rescission,
In Part, of the 24th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-
2018, 85 FR 2400 (January 15, 2020) (Preliminary Results) and
accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM).
\2\ Those companies are: Chengwu County Yuanxiang Industries;
Jiang Hua Yao Autonomous County Nikko Biotechnology Co., Ltd.;
Jiangsu Lvhui Food Co., Ltd.; Jiangyong Foreign Trade Corp.;
Lianyungang Xiangjiang Food Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Ritai Food Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Calgry Import Export; and Weifang Naike Food Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 24, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative
reviews by 50 days.\3\ On June 30, 2020, Commerce extended the deadline
for these final results.\4\ On July 21, 2020, Commerce tolled all
deadlines in administrative reviews by an additional 60 days.\5\ The
deadline for the final results of this review is now November 2, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum, ``Tolling of Deadlines for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews in Response to
Operational Adjustments Due to COVID-19,'' dated April 24, 2020.
\4\ See Memorandum, ``Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of
China--24th Administrative Review: Extension of Deadline for the
Final Results of the Review,'' dated June 30, 2020.
\5\ See Memorandum, ``Tolling of Deadlines for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,'' dated July 21, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFTG and Roots Farm each timely submitted case briefs.\6\
Harmoni and the petitioners each timely filed rebuttal briefs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See CFTG's Letter, ``Case Brief,'' dated April 10, 2020; see
also Roots Farm's Letter, ``Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic
of China Antidumping Administrative Review: Case Brief of Roots
Farm,'' dated April 13, 2020.
\7\ See Harmoni's Letter, ``Harmoni Administrative Reply Briefs:
24th Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh
Garlic from the People's Republic of China (A-570-831),'' dated
April 24, 2020 at Attachment 1 and Attachment 2; see also
Petitioners' Letter, ``Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of
China: Petitioners' Case Rebuttal Brief,'' dated April 24, 2020 .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are all grades of garlic, whole
or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh,
chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other
neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of
other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades
are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of
the order does not include the following: (a) Garlic that has been
mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively,
destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially
prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and
otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used
principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is
currently classifiable under subheadings: 0703.20.0000, 0703.20.0005,
0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0015, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060,
0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, 2005.90.9500, 2005.90.9700,
and 2005.99.9700, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic from the People's
Republic of China, 59 FR 59209
(November 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is
dispositive. In order to be excluded from the order, garlic entered
under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically
harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh
use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then
harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by
declarations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to that
effect.
Analysis of Comments Received
All comments raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed
in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.\9\ The comments are
identified in Appendix I 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). ACCESS is available to
registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete
version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the internet at http://trade.gov/enforcement/frn/index.html. The
signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and electronic versions of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of the 2017-2018
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Garlic from the
People's Republic of China,'' dated November 2, 2020, and hereby
adopted by this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In the Preliminary Results, in accordance with section
777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, Commerce employed a limited examination
methodology, as we determined that it would not be practicable to
examine individually all companies for which a review request was
made.\10\ There were three exporters of subject merchandise from China
that have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate but were
not selected for individual examination in this review. These three
exporters are listed in the Final Results of Review section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Memorandum, ``Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China:
2017-2018: Selection of Respondents for Individual Examination,''
dated May 30, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither the Act nor Commerce's regulations address the
establishment of the rate applied to individual companies not selected
for examination where Commerce limited its examination in an
administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act.
Commerce's practice in cases involving limited selection based on
exporters accounting for the largest volume of imports has been to look
to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for guidance, which provides
instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs Commerce to use rates
established for individually investigated producers and exporters,
excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on
facts available in investigations. In these final results of review,
Goodman is the only reviewed respondent that received a weighted-
average dumping margin. Goodman's margin is the only margin that is not
either de minimis or based entirely on adverse facts available.
Therefore, we have assigned Goodman's margin to the non-selected
separate rate respondents.
Final Results of Review
Commerce finds that the following weighted-average dumping margins
exist for the POR:
[[Page 71051]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
dumping
Exporter margin
(dollars
per
kilogram)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shijiazhuang Goodman Trading Co., Ltd....................... 4.37
Jinxiang Feiteng Import & Export Co., Ltd................... 4.37
Chengwu Yuanxiang Industry & Commerce Co., Ltd.............. 4.37
Qingdao Sea-Line International Trading Co., Ltd............. 4.37
China-Wide Entity........................................... 4.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance
with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to direct CBP
to assess rates based on the per-unit (i.e., per kilogram) amount on
each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. Commerce also
intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the
publication date of the final results of review.
Pursuant to Commerce's assessment practice in NME cases, for
merchandise that was not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted
by the exporter individually examined during this review, but that
entered under the case number of that exporter (i.e., at the
individually-examined exporter's cash deposit rate), Commerce intends
to instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. In
addition, if Commerce determines that an exporter under review had no
shipments of the 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 China-wide rate.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market
Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties,
76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Commerce intends to instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for
antidumping duties equal to the weighted-average amount by which NV
exceeds U.S. price. The following cash deposit requirements will be
effective upon publication of these final results of this
administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from
China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the weighted-average
dumping margin established in the final results of this review; (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters
not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of
this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed
segment of this proceeding; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the China-wide entity
(i.e., 4.71 dollars per kilogram); and (4) for all non-Chinese
exporters of subject merchandise that have not received their own rate,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese
exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement
of antidumping duties has occurred, and the subsequent assessment of
double antidumping duties.
Notifications to Interested Parties
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written
notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion
to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Dated: November 2, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix 1
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Final Rescission of Administrative Review
V. Discussion of the Issues:
Issue 1: Whether the CFTG has Standing to Request a Review
Issue 2: Whether 26 U.S.C. 6103 Is Applicable
Issue 3: Whether Sections 782(d) and 782(e) of the Act Are
Applicable
Issue 4: Whether Section 751 of the Act Requires Country-Wide
Reviews
Issue 5: Whether Commerce May Rescind a Review for a Company
that Has Not Demonstrated the Absence of De Jure and De Facto
Government Control
Issue 6: Whether Commerce Exceeded its Authority to Combine
Reviews
Issue 7: Whether the Petitioners and Harmoni's Relationship
Reveals Fraudulent Activity
Issue 8: Whether Commerce Should Pursue an 18 U.S.C.1001 Case
Against Ms. Medina
Issue 9: Whether Harmoni and the FGPA Conspired to Defraud the
United States
Issue 10: Whether Roots Farm has Standing to Request an
Administrative Review
Issue 11: Whether Commerce Should Calculate a Margin for Harmoni
VI. Recommendation
Appendix 2
List of Companies for Which Administrative Reviews Have Been Rescinded
1. Hebei Golden Bird Trading Co., Ltd.
2. Jining Yongjia Trade Co., Ltd.
3. Jinxiang Changwei Agricultural Products Co., Ltd.
4. Jinxiang Dingyu Agricultural Products Co., Ltd.
5. Jinxiang Fitow Trading Co., Ltd.
6. Jinxiang Guihua Food Co., Ltd.
7. Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd.
8. Jinxiang Honghua Foodstuff Co., Ltd.
9. Jinxiang Infang Fruit & Vegetable Co., Ltd.
10. Jinxiang Kingkey Trade Co., Ltd.
11. Jinxiang Wanxing Garlic Products Co. Ltd.
12. Qingdao Doo Won Foods Co., Ltd.
13. Qingdao Joinseafoods Co. Ltd.
14. Shandong Chengwu Longxing Farm Produce & By-Products Co., Ltd.
15. Weifang Hongqiao International Logistics Co., Ltd.
16. Xinjiang Longping Hongan Xiwannian Chili Products Co., Ltd.
17. Yantai Jinyan Trading, Inc.
18. Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd.
19. Zhengzhou Yudishengjin Farm Products Co., Ltd.
[FR Doc. 2020-24701 Filed 11-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
