17422 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices

Comment 11: Whether the Department preliminary determination, the In February 2012, the Department Should Apply the Same Electricity following events have occurred. requested, and the respondents Benchmark to both ABZ and SBZ In November 2011, we issued submitted, revised U.S. and/or Comment 12: Application of AFA to the supplemental questionnaires to, and comparison-market sales listings to Huayuan Companies and M&M received responses from, all four VI. Recommendation reflect certain verification findings. respondents: Electrolux Home Products [FR Doc. 2012–7214 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] Corp. NV/Electrolux Home Products De Also, in February 2012, the petitioner BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Electrolux), LG and the respondents (except for Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de Electrolux) submitted case and rebuttal C.V. (LGEMM), Controladora Mabe, S.A. briefs. On February 22, 2012, the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE de C.V./Mabe, S.A. de C.V. (Mabe), and Government of Mexico submitted Samsung. Also, in November 2011, we comments on certain aspects of the International Trade Administration received updated shipment information Department’s preliminary [A–201–839] for our critical circumstances analysis determination. On February 24, 2012, from Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung. the Department held a hearing in this Notice of Final Determination of Sales On December 5, 2011, Whirlpool case. at Less Than Fair Value and Corporation (hereafter, the petitioner) Subsequent to the Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances amended its targeted dumping Determination, the Department revised Determination: Bottom Mount allegation with respect to Samsung to Combination Refrigerator-Freezers the computer programs used to calculate reflect the revised U.S. sales data the respondents’ dumping margins to From Mexico submitted by Samsung in response to ensure that they accurately reflected the the Department’s November 2011, AGENCY: Import Administration, methodological choices made in that supplemental questionnaire. International Trade Administration, In November and December 2011, we determination. These revisions to the Department of Commerce. verified the questionnaire responses of programming, had they been included SUMMARY: We determine that imports of the four respondents in this case, in in the preliminary determination, would bottom mount combination refrigerator- accordance with section 782(i) of the not have altered the weighted-average freezers (bottom mount refrigerators) Act. In December, January and February dumping margins calculated there. See from Mexico are being, or are likely to 2012, we issued our verification March 16, 2012, Memoranda to The File be, sold in the United States at less than findings for each respondent.2 entitled ‘‘Final Determination Margin fair value (LTFV), as provided in section Calculation for LG Electronics 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Final Determination, and Affirmative Critical Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V. amended (the Act). In addition, we Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount (LGEMM)’’ (LGEMM Calculation determine that critical circumstances Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from Mexico, 76 FR 67688 (Nov. 2, 2011) (Preliminary Memo); ‘‘Final Determination Margin exist with respect to the subject Determination). Calculation for Samsung Electronics merchandise exported from Mexico by 2 See Memorandum to The File entitled Mexico S.A. de C.V. (SEM)’’ (Samsung Samsung Electronics Mexico, S.A. de ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Electrolux Calculation Memo); ‘‘Final C.V. (Samsung). Home Products, Corp. N.V. and Electrolux Home Determination Margin Calculation for Based on our analysis of the Products, Inc. (collectively ‘‘Electrolux’’) in the Antidumping Investigation of Bottom Mount. Electrolux Home Products, Corp. N.V./ comments received, we made changes Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from Mexico,’’ Electrolux Home Products de Mexico, in the margin calculations. Therefore, dated December 22, 2011; Memorandum to The File S.A. de C.V’’ (Electrolux Calculation entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of the final determination differs from the Memo); and ‘‘Final Determination preliminary determination. The final Electrolux Home Products, Corp. N.V. and Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (collectively Margin Calculation for Controladora weighted-average dumping margins for ‘‘Electrolux’’) in the Antidumping Duty Mabe S.A. de C.V., Mabe S.A. de C.V., the investigated companies are listed Investigation of Bottom Mount Combination and Leiser S. de R.L. (collectively, below in the section entitled ‘‘Final Refrigerator-Freezers (BMRFs) from Mexico,’’ dated Mabe),’’ which contain the revised Determination Margins.’’ February 1, 2012; Memorandum to The File entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of LG preliminary antidumping duty margin DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012. Electronics, Inc. in the Antidumping Investigation program log and output for each FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of Bottom-Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from the Republic of Korea, dated December 22, respondent. David Goldberger or Katherine Johnson, 2011; Memorandum to the File entitled AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of LG Electronics Period of Investigation Administration, International Trade Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V. in the Antidumping The period of investigation (POI) is Administration, U.S. Department of Investigation of Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from Mexico,’’ dated Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution January 1, 2010, through December 31, December 22, 2011; Memorandum to The File 2010. Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; entitled ‘‘Verification of the Third Country Sales telephone: (202) 482–4136 and (202) Response of LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A, 482–4929, respectively. de C.V, and LG Electronics Canada,’’ February 1, ‘‘Verification of the Sales Responses of General 2012; Memorandum to The File entitled Electric Company,’’ dated January 13, 2012; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ‘‘Verification of the U.S. Sales Response of LG Memorandum to The File entitled ‘‘Verification of Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V. and LG the Sales Responses of Controladora Mabe S.A. de Background Electronics USA, Inc.,’’ dated February 2, 2012; C.V., and Mabe S.A. de C.V. (collectively, On November 2, 2011, the Department Memorandum to the File entitled ‘‘Verification of ‘‘Mabe’’),’’ dated January 25, 2012; Memorandum to the Sales Response of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd The File entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response published in the Federal Register the in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of of Samsung Electronics Mexico S.A. de C.V. in the preliminary determination of sales at Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers from Korea,’’ Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Bottom LTFV in the antidumping duty dated February 2, 2012; Memorandum to the File Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from investigation of bottom mount entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Mexico’’, dated December 21, 2011; Memorandum 1 Controladora Mabe S.A. de C.V. Mabe S.A. de C.V., to The File entitled ‘‘Verification of the U.S. Sales refrigerators from Mexico. Since the and Leiser S. de R.L. in the Antidumping Response of Samsung Electronics Mexico, S.A. de Investigation of Bottom-Mount Combination C.V.,’’ dated January 9, 2012; and Memorandum to 1 See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Refrigerator-Freezers from Mexico,’’ dated January The File entitled ‘‘Verification of Samsung Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 4, 2012; Memorandum to The File entitled Electronics America Inc.,’’ dated January 26, 2012.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17423

Scope of Investigation may also enter under HTSUS documents provided by the The products covered by the subheadings 8418.21.0010, respondents. 8418.21.0020, 8418.21.0030, investigation are all bottom mount Changes Since the Preliminary 8418.21.0090, and 8418.99.4000, combination refrigerator-freezers and Determination certain assemblies thereof from Mexico. 8418.99.8050, and 8418.99.8060. For purposes of the investigation, the Although the HTSUS subheadings are Based on our analysis of the term ‘‘bottom mount combination provided for convenience and customs comments received and our findings at refrigerator-freezers’’ denotes purposes, the written description of the verification, we made certain changes to freestanding or built-in cabinets that merchandise subject to this scope is the margin calculations for each have an integral source of refrigeration dispositive. respondent. For a discussion of these changes, see the ‘‘Margin Calculations’’ using compression technology, with all Scope Comments of the following characteristics: section of the Decision Memorandum. • The cabinet contains at least two In the Preliminary Determination, we Cost of Production interior storage compartments accessible did not modify the description of the through one or more separate external scope of this investigation in the As discussed in the Preliminary doors or drawers or a combination manner requested by certain interested Determination, we conducted an thereof; parties. Specifically, we did not modify investigation to determine whether the • An upper-most interior storage the scope to be consistent with the respondents made comparison-market compartment(s) that is accessible Association of Home Appliance sales of the foreign like product during through an external door or drawer is Manufacturers (AHAM) definition, nor the POI at prices below their cost of either a refrigerator compartment or did we exclude kimchi refrigerators or production (COP) within the meaning of convertible compartment, but is not a Quatro Cooling Refrigerators from the section 773(b) of the Act. See freezer compartment;3 and scope. We did, however, clarify the Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at • There is at least one freezer or scope to eliminate any ambiguity with 67698–67699. For this final convertible compartment that is respect to the inclusion of Quatro determination, we performed the cost mounted below an upper-most interior Cooling Refrigerators in the scope of the test following the same methodology as storage compartment(s). investigation. See Preliminary in the Preliminary Determination, after For purposes of the investigation, a Determination, 76 FR at 67690–67691. making certain adjustments to the refrigerator compartment is capable of No party commented on our preliminary reported comparison-market cost and storing food at temperatures above 32 scope determination. Therefore, we sales data based on our analysis of the degrees F (0 degrees C), a freezer made no further changes to the comments received and our findings at compartment is capable of storing food description of the scope, as stated in the verification, where appropriate. at temperatures at or below 32 degrees Preliminary Determination. We found that 20 percent or more of F (0 degrees C), and a convertible each respondent’s sales of a given Analysis of Comments Received compartment is capable of operating as product during the POI were at prices either a refrigerator compartment or a All issues raised in the case and less than the weighted-average COP for freezer compartment, as defined above. rebuttal briefs by parties in this this period. Thus, we determined that Also covered are certain assemblies investigation are addressed in the Issues these below-cost sales were made in used in bottom mount combination and Decision Memorandum (Decision ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an refrigerator-freezers, namely: (1) Any Memorandum), which is adopted by extended period of time and at prices assembled cabinets designed for use in this notice. A list of the issues raised is which did not permit the recovery of all bottom mount combination refrigerator- attached to this notice as Appendix I. costs within a reasonable period of time freezers that incorporate, at a minimum: The Decision Memorandum is a public in the normal course of trade. See (a) an external metal shell, (b) a back document and is on file electronically sections 773(b)(1)–(2) of the Act. panel, (c) a deck, (d) an interior plastic via Import Administration’s Therefore, for purposes of this final liner, (e) wiring, and (f) insulation; (2) Antidumping and Countervailing Duty determination, we found that each any assembled external doors designed Centralized Electronic Service System respondent made below-cost sales not in for use in bottom mount combination (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is the ordinary course of trade. refrigerator-freezers that incorporate, at available in the Central Records Unit Consequently, we disregarded these a minimum: (a) an external metal shell, (CRU), room 7046 of the main sales and used the remaining sales as (b) an interior plastic liner, and (c) Department of Commerce building. In the basis for determining normal value insulation; and (3) any assembled addition, a complete version of the for each respondent pursuant to section external drawers designed for use in Decision Memorandum can be accessed 773(b)(1) of the Act. bottom mount combination refrigerator- directly on the internet at http:// freezers that incorporate, at a minimum: www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Decision MNC Provision (a) an external metal shell, (b) an Memorandum and the electronic As we discussed in the Preliminary interior plastic liner, and (c) insulation. version of the Decision Memorandum Determination, we applied the Special The products subject to the are identical in content. Rule for Certain Multinational investigation are currently classifiable Verification Corporations (MNC Provision) in the under subheadings 8418.10.0010, calculation of normal value (NV) for 8418.10.0020, 8418.10.0030, and As provided in section 782(i) of the LGEMM because, based on the record 8418.10.0040 of the Harmonized Tariff Act, we verified the sales and cost evidence, LGEMM satisfied each of the System of the United States (HTSUS). information submitted by the three criteria enumerated under section Products subject to this investigation respondents for use in our final 773(d) of the Act. In so doing, we based determination. We used standard NV for LGEMM on the prices of sales 3 The existence of an interior sub-compartment made by LG Electronics, Inc. (LGE) in for ice-making in an upper-most storage verification procedures including an compartment does not render an upper-most storage examination of relevant accounting and Korea. See Preliminary Determination, compartment a freezer compartment. production records, and original source 76 FR at 67692–67693.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 17424 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices

We have continued to apply the MNC a pattern of U.S. prices for comparable methodology to all U.S. sales made by Provision to the calculation of LGEMM’s merchandise that differed significantly Samsung and LGEMM. See LGEMM NV for purposes of the final among certain time periods for Samsung Calculation Memo, Samsung determination because all three criteria and LGEMM, in accordance with Calculation Memo, and Electrolux enumerated in the Act have been met. section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We Calculation Memo. For further Specifically, we verified that LGEMM is also preliminarily determined that no discussion, see Comment 2 of the owned in part by LGE, which produces such pattern existed for Electrolux. Decision Memorandum. bottom mount refrigerators, and that Furthermore, for Samsung, we found LGEMM’s home market sales are not that the standard average-to-average Critical Circumstances viable for comparison to its U.S. sales. methodology took into account the price In the Preliminary Determination, we Furthermore, using the same differences because the alternative found that critical circumstances exist methodology as that employed in the average-to-transaction methodology with respect to imports of the subject Preliminary Determination, after taking yielded no difference in the margin or merchandise from Samsung but not into account adjustments made to yielded a difference in the margin that with respect to imports of subject LGEMM’s and LGE’s sales and cost data was so insignificant relative to the size merchandise from Electrolux or based on our analysis of other of the resulting margin as to be LGEMM.5 See Preliminary comments received and our findings at immaterial. Accordingly, we Determination, 76 FR at 67701–67702. verification, we continue to find that the preliminarily applied the standard Samsung objected to our preliminary NV of the foreign like product produced average-to-average methodology to all affirmative critical circumstances in Korea is higher than the NV of the U.S. sales made by Samsung. For determination with respect to it, arguing foreign like product produced in LGEMM, we found that that the among other things, that its imports Mexico. Therefore, we compared standard average-to-average have not been massive since the filing LGEMM’s U.S. prices to the prices of methodology did not take into account of the petition. sales made by LGE in Korea. For further the price differences because the In conducting our critical discussion of this issue, see Comment 3 alternative average-to-transaction circumstances analysis for the final of the Decision Memorandum. methodology yielded a material determination, we relied on updated difference in the margin. Accordingly, shipment data provided by Electrolux, Targeted Dumping we preliminarily applied the average-to- LGEMM, and Samsung which we The Act allows the Department to transaction methodology to all U.S. examined at verification. Based on our employ the average-to-transaction sales made by LGEMM. For Electrolux, analysis of these data and the criteria margin calculation methodology under because we did not find a pattern of enumerated under section 735(a)(3) of the following circumstances: (1) There prices that differed significantly for the Act, we continue to find that critical is a pattern of export prices that differ certain time periods, we applied our circumstances exist only with respect to significantly among purchasers, regions standard average-to-average price imports of bottom mount refrigerators or periods of time; and (2) The comparison methodology to all U.S. from Samsung, as explained below. Department explains why such sales made by Electrolux. See Section 735(a)(3) of the Act provides differences cannot be taken into account Preliminary Determination at 76 FR that the Department will determine that using the average-to-average or 67691–67692. critical circumstances exist if there is a transaction-to-transaction methodology. For purposes of the final reasonable basis to believe or suspect See section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. determination, we performed our that: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping In the Preliminary Determination, we targeted-dumping analysis following the and material injury by reason of conducted time-period targeted methodology employed in the dumped imports in the United States or dumping analyses for Electrolux, Preliminary Determination, after taking elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or LGEMM, and Samsung based on timely into account the petitioner’s revised (ii) the person by whom, or for whose allegations of targeted dumping filed by targeted dumping allegation with account, the merchandise was imported the petitioner, using the methodology respect to Samsung, and making certain knew or should have known that the adopted in Certain Steel Nails From the revisions to Electrolux’s, LGEMM’s and exporter was selling the subject United Arab Emirates: Notice of Final Samsung’s reported U.S. sales data merchandise at less than its fair value Determination of Sales at Not Less Than based on verification findings and our and that there was likely to be material Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008), evaluation of other comments submitted injury by reason of such sales; and (B) and Certain Steel Nails From the by the parties, as enumerated in the there have been massive imports of the People’s Republic of China: Final ‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the subject merchandise over a relatively Determination of Sales at Less Than Decision Memo. In so doing, we found short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of Fair Value and Partial Affirmative that the results of our final targeted- the Department’s regulations provides Determination of Critical dumping analysis were consistent with that, in determining whether imports of Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, those of our preliminary targeted- the subject merchandise have been 2008) (Nails), and applied in more dumping analysis with respect to 4 ‘‘massive,’’ the Department normally recent investigations. As a result, we Electrolux. Therefore, we continued to will examine: (i) the volume and value preliminarily determined that there was apply the standard average-to-average of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and methodology to all of Electrolux’s U.S. (iii) the share of domestic consumption 4 These investigations include Certain Coated sales. For Samsung and LGEMM, while Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics accounted for by the imports. In we found a pattern of price differences addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides Using Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia: Final that differed significantly for certain Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, that an increase in imports of 15 percent 75 FR 59223 (Sept. 27, 2010) and accompanying time periods pursuant to section during the ‘‘relatively short period’’ of Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1, 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined time may be considered ‘‘massive.’’ and Multilayered Wood Flooring From the Peoples’ that the differences can be taken into Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318 (Oct. 18, 2011) account using the average-to-average 5 The petitioner did not make a critical and accompanying Issues and Decision methodology. Therefore, we applied the circumstances allegation with respect to imports Memorandum at Comment 4. standard average-to-average from Mabe or All Others.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17425

Section 351.206(i) of the Department’s transactions sufficient to impute merchandise have been massive, we regulations defines ‘‘relatively short knowledge of dumping.7 based our analysis for each of the three period’’ as normally being the period Electrolux made only CEP sales and companies on shipment data for beginning on the date the proceeding the vast majority of LGEMM’s sales are comparable seven-month periods begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) CEP. Samsung had both EP and CEP preceding and following the filing of the and ending at least three months later. sales, a majority of which are CEP sales. petition. The regulations also provide, however, The final dumping margins calculated Specifically, the Department that if the Department finds that for Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung requested and obtained from each of the importers, exporters, or producers had exceed the threshold sufficient to respondents monthly shipment data reason to believe, at some time prior to impute knowledge of dumping (i.e., 15 from January 2008 to October 2011. To the beginning of the proceeding, that a percent for CEP sales). Therefore, we determine whether imports of subject proceeding was likely, the Department determine that there is sufficient basis merchandise have been massive over a may consider a period of not less than to find that importers should have relatively short period, we compared, three months from that earlier time. known that each of these companies pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1)(i), the In determining whether the above was selling the subject merchandise at respondents’ export volumes for the criteria have been satisfied, we LTFV pursuant to section seven months before the filing of the examined: (1) The evidence placed on 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act. In petition (i.e., September 2010–March the record by the respondents and the determining whether an importer knew 2011) to those during the seven months petitioner; and (2) the International or should have known that there was after the filing of the petition (i.e., April Trade Commission’s (ITC’s) preliminary likely to be material injury by reason of through October 2011). These periods determination of injury (see Bottom dumped imports, the Department were selected based on the Department’s Mount Refrigerator Freezers from normally will look to the preliminary practice of using the longest period for injury determination of the ITC. If the Mexico and Korea, Investigation Nos. which information is available up to the ITC finds a reasonable indication of 8 701–TA–477 and 731–TA–1180–1181 date of the preliminary determination. present material injury to the relevant (Preliminary), 76 FR 29791 (May 23, According to the monthly shipment U.S. industry, the Department will 2011) (ITC Preliminary Determination)). information, we found the volume of determine that a reasonable basis exists shipments of bottom mount refrigerators To determine whether there is a to impute importer knowledge that increased by more than 15 percent for history of injurious dumping of the material injury is likely by reason of Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung. merchandise under investigation, in such imports. See e.g., Certain Orange For purposes of our ‘‘massive accordance with section 735(a)(3)(A)(i) Juice from Brazil. In the present case, imports’’ determination, we also of the Act, the Department normally the ITC preliminarily found reasonable considered the impact of seasonality on considers evidence of an existing indication that an industry in the imports of bottom mount refrigerators antidumping duty order on the subject United States is materially injured by based on interested party comments and merchandise in the United States or imports of bottom mount refrigerators information contained in the ITC’s 6 elsewhere to be sufficient. As from Mexico. See ITC Preliminary preliminary determination. In order to mentioned in the Preliminary Determination. Based on the ITC’s determine whether the seasonality Determination, the petitioner did not preliminary determination of injury, factor accounted for the increase in identify any proceeding with respect to and the final antidumping margins for imports observed for each of the bottom mount refrigerators from Electrolux, LGEMM, and Samsung, the respondents in the post-petition filing Mexico, nor are we aware of any Department finds that there is a period (the comparison period), we existing antidumping duty order in any reasonable basis to conclude that the analyzed company-specific shipment country on bottom mount refrigerators importer knew or should have known data for a historical three-year period, from Mexico. For this reason, the that there was likely to be injurious where possible, using the same base and Department does not find a history of dumping of subject merchandise for comparison time periods noted above. injurious dumping of the subject these companies. As a result of this analysis, we found merchandise from Mexico pursuant to In determining whether there are that there is a consistent pattern of section 735(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Act. ‘‘massive imports’’ over a ‘‘relatively seasonality in the industry, and that To determine whether the person by short period,’’ pursuant to section seasonal trends account for the increase whom, or for whose account, the 735(a)(3)(B) of the Act, the Department in imports subsequent to the filing of merchandise was imported knew or normally compares the import volumes the petition from each of the should have known that the exporter of the subject merchandise for at least respondents except one. Specifically, was selling the subject merchandise at three months immediately preceding the with respect to Electrolux and LGEMM, LTFV, and that there was likely to be filing of the petition (i.e., the base we found that the percentage increase in material injury by reason of such sales period) to a comparable period of at shipments during the comparison in accordance with section least three months following the filing period is not related to the filing of the 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, the of the petition (i.e., the comparison petition but rather to the consistent Department normally considers margins period). Accordingly, in determining seasonal trends in the industry because of 25 percent or more for export price whether imports of the subject shipments during the April–October (EP) sales or 15 percent or more for time period were consistently higher constructed export price (CEP) 7 See e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of than those in the September–March Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 6 See e.g., Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain 8 See e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Orange Juice from Brazil, 70 FR 49557 (August 24, Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical 2005), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Final Determination: Silicon Metal From the Circumstances, 75 FR 28237 (May 20, 2010), of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Affirmative Russian Federation, 67 FR 59253, 59256 (Sept. 20, unchanged in Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: 2002), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, 71 FR 2183 of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical (January 13, 2006) (Certain Orange Juice from From the Russian Federation, 68 FR 6885 (February Circumstances 75 FR 45468 (August 2, 2010). Brazil). 11, 2003).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 17426 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices

time period from year to year, and the and Samsung. In addition, we find that Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend shipment increases observed in the there have been massive imports of liquidation of all entries of subject April–October time period from year to bottom mount refrigerators over a merchandise from Mexico, produced/ year decreased. Therefore, for purposes relatively short period from Samsung, exported by Electrolux, LGEMM, Mabe, of the final determination, we find that irrespective of seasonality. However, we and ‘‘All Others’’ and entered, or imports from these companies during do not find that there have been massive withdrawn from warehouse, for the period after the filing of the petition imports of bottom mount refrigerators consumption on or after November 2, have not been massive in accordance over a relatively short period from 2011, the date of publication of the with section 735(a)(3)(B) of the Act. Electrolux and LGEMM due to preliminary determination in the However, with respect to Samsung, we seasonality. Therefore, for the reasons Federal Register. Pursuant to found that the percentage increase in stated above, the Department finds that 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct shipments during the comparison critical circumstances do not exist for U.S. Customs and Border Protection period is not related to seasonal trends imports of the subject merchandise from (CBP) to continue to suspend but associated with the filing of the Electrolux and LGEMM, but continues liquidation of all entries of subject petition because shipments in the to find that critical circumstances exist merchandise from Mexico, produced/ April–October 2010 time period were for imports of the subject merchandise exported by Samsung and entered, or lower than those in the September from Samsung in the final withdrawn from warehouse, for 2009–March 2010 time period, and the determination. For a complete consumption on or after August 4, 2011, shipment increase observed in the discussion of our final critical which is 90 days prior to the date of April–October period between 2010 and circumstances analysis, see the Decision publication of the preliminary 2011 was substantial. Accordingly, for Memorandum at Comment 34 and the determination in the Federal Register, purposes of the final determination, we March 16, 2012, Memorandum to James i.e., November 2, 2011. CBP shall find that imports from Samsung during P. Maeder, Jr., Director, Office 2, from require a cash deposit or the posting of the period after the filing of the petition The Team entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty a bond equal to the estimated amount by have been massive in accordance with Investigation of Certain Bottom Mount which the normal value exceeds the section 735(a)(3)(B) of the Act. Refrigerator Freezers from Mexico— U.S. price as shown below. These In summary, we find that there is a Final Determination of Critical instructions suspending liquidation will reasonable basis to believe or suspect Circumstances.’’ importers had knowledge of dumping remain in effect until further notice. Continuation of Suspension of and the likelihood of material injury Final Determination Margins with respect to bottom mount Liquidation refrigerators produced and exported Pursuant to 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we The weighted-average dumping from Mexico by Electrolux, LGEMM, will instruct U.S. Customs and Border margins are as follows:

Weighted- Average Critical Exporter/manufacturer margin cir- percentage cumstances

Electrolux Home Products, Corp. NV/Electrolux Home Products De Mexico, S.A. de C.V ...... 22.94 No. LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A. de C.V...... 30.34 No. Controladora Mabe S.A. de C.V./Mabe S.A. de C.V...... 6.00 NA. Samsung Electronics Mexico, S.A. de C.V...... 15.95 Yes. All Others ...... 20.26 NA.

‘‘All Others’’ Rate determination is affirmative, the ITC their responsibility concerning the will determine within 45 days whether destruction of proprietary information In accordance with section imports of the subject merchandise are disclosed under APO in accordance 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we based the causing material injury, or threat of with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely ‘‘All Others’’ rate on the weighted material injury, to an industry in the written notification of return/ average of the dumping margins United States. If the ITC determines that destruction of APO materials or calculated for the exporters/ material injury or threat of injury does conversion to judicial protective order is manufacturers investigated in this not exist, the proceeding will be hereby requested. Failure to comply proceeding. The ‘‘All Others’’ rate is terminated and all securities posted will with the regulations and the terms of an calculated exclusive of all de minimis be refunded or canceled. If the ITC APO is a sanctionable violation. margins and margins based entirely on determines that such injury does exist, AFA. We are issuing and publishing this the Department will issue an determination and notice in accordance Disclosure antidumping duty order directing CBP with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the to assess antidumping duties on all Act. We will disclose the calculations imports of the subject merchandise performed within five days of the date entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, Dated: March 16, 2012. of publication of this notice to parties in for consumption on or after the effective Paul Piquado, this proceeding in accordance with 19 date of the suspension of liquidation. Assistant Secretary for Import CFR 351.224(b). Administration. Return or Destruction of Proprietary ITC Notification Information Appendix—Issues in Decision Memorandum In accordance with section 735(d) of This notice will serve as the only the Act, we notified the ITC of our final reminder to parties subject to General Issues determination. As our final administrative protective order (APO) of 1. Targeted Dumping

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17427

2. Zeroing in Average-to-Transaction DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE warranted. See Ministerial Error Comparisons Memorandum.3 International Trade Administration On December 5, 2011, Deacero Company-Specific Issues [A–201–840] submitted its response to the November LGEMM 23, 2011, questionnaire.4 Also on 5 3. Application of MNC Provision Notice of Final Determination of Sales December 5, 2011, Petitioners and 4. Lump Sum and Sell-Out Rebates on U.S. at Less Than Fair Value: Galvanized respondent Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. Sales Steel Wire From Mexico (Camesa) timely filed a request for a 5. Non-Product-Specific Accrual Rebates on public hearing.6 U.S. Sales AGENCY: Import Administration, We conducted cost and sales 6. Warehouse-to-Customer U.S. Inland International Trade Administration, verifications of the responses submitted Freight Expenses Department of Commerce. by Deacero and Camesa (collectively, 7 7. Billing Adjustments on U.S. Sales DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012. respondents). All verification reports 8. Interest Rate for U.S. Inventory Carrying SUMMARY: On November 4, 2011, the Costs Department of Commerce (the 3 See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, Director, Office 7, from Patrick Edwards and Ericka 9. Payment Dates on Certain U.S. Sales Department) published its preliminary Ukrow, Case Analysts, through Angelica Mendoza, 10. Payment Dates on Certain Canadian Sales determination in the investigation of Program Manager, Office 7, entitled ‘‘Ministerial 11. Lump Sum and Sell-Out Rebates on sales at less than fair value of galvanized Error Allegation in the Preliminary Determination Canadian Sales steel wire (galvanized wire) from of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 1 Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico: Deacero S.A. 12. Direct Advertising Expense Ratio for Mexico. de C.V.,’’ dated December 5, 2011 (Ministerial Error Canadian Sales The Department has determined that Memorandum). 13. Conversion Cost Allocation Error galvanized wire from Mexico is being, 4 See Deacero’s Fourth Supplemental 14. Research and Development Costs or is likely to be, sold in the United Questionnaire Response, dated December 8, 2011. 15. Global Costs States at less than fair value, as 5 The Petitioners in this investigation are Davis 16. Affiliated Party Input Purchases Wire Corporation, Johnston Wire Technologies, provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act Inc., Mid-South Wire Company, Inc., National Samsung of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final Standard, LLC, and Oklahoma Steel & Wire margins of sales at less than fair value Company, Inc. (collectively, Petitioners). 17. Corrections Presented at Start of Sales are listed below in the section entitled 6 Deacero, also on December 5, 2011, requested to Verifications ‘‘Final Determination of Investigation.’’ participate in a hearing in the event that another 18. U.S. Rebates party requested a hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 7 19. CEP Offset See Memorandum to the File from Christopher Patrick Edwards or Ericka Ukrow, J. Zimpo and Frederick W. Mines, Case 20. The Denominator for Certain Selling AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Accountants, through Theresa C. Deeley, Lead Expense Ratios Administration, International Trade Accountant, and Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of 21. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses Accounting, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost of 22. Classification of Certain Costs as Administration, U.S. Department of Production and Constructed Value Data Submitted by Deacero S.A. de C.V. in the Antidumping Duty Packaging or Packing Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from 23. Treatment of Payments for Defective Mexico,’’ dated January 13, 2012 (Deacero Cost Merchandise telephone: (202) 482–8029 or (202) 482– Verification Report); Memorandum to the File from 24. Unreported Bank Charges 0405, respectively. Frederick W. Mines and Christopher J. Zimpo, Case SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Accountants, through Theresa C. Deeley, Lead 25. Comparison Market Viability Accountant, and Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of 26. Calculation of CV Selling Expenses and Background Accounting, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost Profit Response of Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. in the 27. Research and Development Costs The preliminary determination in this Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated January 13, 2012 28. Certain Affiliated Party Purchases investigation was published on November 4, 2011. See Preliminary (Camesa Cost Verification Report); Memorandum to 29. Affiliated Party Compressors Purchases the File from Christopher J. Zimpo and Frederick 30. Erroneously Reported Input Quantities Determination. We invited parties to W. Mines, Case Accountants, through Theresa C. 31. General and Administrative Expense comment on the Preliminary Deeley, Lead Accountant, and Neal M. Halper, Ratio Determination. On November 8, 2011, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Further Manufacturing Data 32. Interest Expense Offset we received timely-filed allegations Submitted by Deacero S.A. de C.V. for Deacero USA 33. Understatement of Input Freight Costs from Deacero S.A. de C.V. (Deacero) that Inc. and Stay-Tuff Fence Manufacturing, Inc. in the 34. Critical Circumstances the Department made several ministerial Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized errors in calculating its dumping margin Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated January 27, 2012 Mabe 2 (Deacero Further-Manufacturing Verification for the preliminary determination. Report); Memorandum to the File from Patrick 35. Costs Excluded From Cost of Production On November 10 and 23, 2011, the Edwards, Case Analyst, through Angelica Mendoza, 36. Fees Related to Agreements Between Department issued Deacero Program Manager, Office 7, entitled ‘‘Verification of Mabe and GEA supplemental questionnaires. the Sales Responses of Aceros Camesa, S.A. de C.V. 37. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses On December 5, 2011, the Department in the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated 38. U.S. Rebates released its memorandum addressing February 13, 2012 (Camesa Verification Report); 39. U.S. Advertising Expenses Deacero’s ministerial error allegations, Memorandum to the File from Ericka Ukrow and 40. Cost Verification Corrections finding that no amendment to the Patrick Edwards, Case Analysts, through Angelica 41. Home Market Rebate Identified at preliminary determination was L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of Deacero USA Verification Inc. (Deacero USA) and Stay-Tuff Fence 1 See Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico: Electrolux Manufacturing, Inc. (Stay-Tuff) in the Antidumping Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Duty Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from 42. Verification Findings Fair Value and Postponement of Final Mexico,’’ dated February 15, 2012 (Deacero CEP Determination, 76 FR 68422 (November 4, 2011) Verification Report); Memorandum to the File from [FR Doc. 2012–7271 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] (Preliminary Determination). Patrick Edwards and Ericka Ukrow, Case Analysts, BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 2 See Letter from Deacero, regarding ‘‘Galvanized through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated November 8, 2011. Office 7, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales Petitioners did not comment on Deacero’s Responses of Deacero S.A. de C.V. in the ministerial error allegations. Continued

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES