66 FR 44331, August 23, 2001 A-570-846 NSR 04/00-09/00 Public Document IA/I/2/BCS MEMORANDUM TO: Faryar Shirzad Assistant Secretary for Import Administration FROM: Richard W. Moreland Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration SUBJECT: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China - April 1, 2000, through September 30, 2000 Summary We have analyzed the comments of the interested parties in this new shipper review of the antidumping duty order covering brake rotors from the People's Republic of China ("PRC"). As a result of our analysis of these comments, we have made changes in the margin calculations as discussed in the "Margin Calculations" section of this memorandum. We recommend that you approve the positions we have developed in the "Discussion of the Issues" section of this memorandum. Below is the complete list of the issues in this review for which we received comments from parties: Issue 1: Applying the Separate Rates Test to Beijing Concord Issue 2: Applying the Separate Rates Test to Huanri General Issue 3: Verification of Huanri General's Data Issue 4: Considering the Use of Submitted Surrogate Values Issue 5: Surrogate Value Selection for Steel Scrap Issue 6: Surrogate Value Selection for Lug Bolts Issue 7: Surrogate Value Selection for Firewood Background On May 29, 2001, the Department of Commerce ("the Department") published the preliminary results and partial rescission of the fifth new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC. See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Fifth New Shipper Review, 66 FR 29080 (May 29, 2001) ("Preliminary Results"). The products covered by this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The period of review ("POR") is April 1, 2000, through September 30, 2000. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. On June 7, 2001, in response to requests made by the petitioner, we provided all parties with an another opportunity to submit publicly available information ("PAI") and to submit comments on this information for consideration in the final results, and an extension of time to submit case and rebuttal briefs. The petitioner submitted additional PAI on June 22, 2001. The respondents submitted comments and rebuttal PAI on June 29, 2001. The petitioner submitted its case brief on July 13, 2001, and the respondents submitted their rebuttal brief on July 20, 2001. There was no request for a hearing in this review. Margin Calculations We calculated export price and normal value using the same methodology stated in the preliminary results, except as follows: 1. To value steel scrap, ball bearing cups, nails, and tin clamps, we used April-September 2000 (i.e., POR) import values from the Indian government publication Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India ("Monthly Statistics"). See Comments 4 and 5, below, and surrogate value calculation memorandum for further discussion. 2. To value iron scrap, ferrosilicon, ferromanganese, limestone, lubrication oil, steel straps, paper cartons, plastic bags, and adhesive tape, we used April 1998-May 1999 import values from Monthly Statistics. See Comment 4, below, and surrogate value calculation memorandum for further discussion. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Applying the Separate Rates Test to Beijing Concord In the preliminary results, the Department rescinded the new shipper review with respect to Beijing Concord Auto Technology Inc. ("Concord") because it failed to demonstrate at verification that it was entitled to a separate rate. Specifically, Concord was unable to provide for the Department's review its bank statements for the POR. Absent review of independent source documents such as bank statements, the Department was unable to determine the extent of Concord's deposit and withdrawal activity from its bank accounts solely based on bank deposit and withdrawal receipts it furnished at verification. Therefore, we stated in the Preliminary Results that Concord was unable to demonstrate that it retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses in accordance with the Department's de facto criteria for determining whether an exporter is entitled to a separate rate. (See Preliminary Results at 29081.) The petitioner agrees with the Department's preliminary rescission decision. The respondent did not submit comments on this issue in its rebuttal brief. Department's Position: We continue to find that Concord is not entitled to a separate rate in this review based on its failure to meet the Department's de facto criteria for granting an exporter a separate rate as explained in the Preliminary Results. Accordingly, we have rescinded this review with respect to Concord, as it has not demonstrated that it is not part of the non-market economy ("NME") entity. Comment 2: Applying the Separate Rates Test to Huanri General For the reasons mentioned below, the petitioner claims that the Department should deny Shandong Laizhou Huanri Group General Co. ("Huanri General") a separate rate in the final results. First, the petitioner contends that Huanri General failed to disclose to the Department in its questionnaire response that it was owned by a local government entity (i.e., the village committee of Punjacun village) by stating in its response that it was neither owned nor controlled by a local government entity in the PRC. In addition, the petitioner contends that Huanri General failed to disclose that the village committee loans money and makes payments to the town government (i.e., Tushan town government). The petitioner maintains that in concealing these facts prior to verification, Huanri General misled the Department by withholding material information which should have been disclosed beforehand because it is critical for determining whether Huanri General is eligible for a separate rate in this proceeding. Moreover, the petitioner contends that Huanri General did not provide the PRC law (i.e., the Organic Law on Village Committees in the PRC ("Village Committee Law")) necessary for demonstrating an absence of de jure government control with respect to its operations. Second, the petitioner contends that because Huanri General is owned and controlled by a village committee in the PRC, this fact establishes that Huanri General is owned and controlled by a PRC government entity. According to the petitioner, the village committee is the lowest official level of government organization in the PRC because the village committee's functions are intrinsically related to the welfare and safety of the villagers under its jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner concludes that the village committee (i.e., a government entity at the local level) is a representative of the PRC central government. In support of its claim that village committees in the PRC are controlled by the central government, the petitioner provided in its May 2, 2001, submission news articles (1) which indicated that (1) candidates for village committee positions are chosen by the local Communist Party branch and/or officials in the township; (2) villages are the lowest level in the PRC government and their leaders and committees are assisted and controlled by the government; and (3) village committees are responsible for supervising the management of village affairs. Finally, the petitioner concludes that assuming the village committee is a provincial rather than central government entity, it is not reasonable to assume that local or provincial government entities in the PRC are free from the control of the central government. Based on this conclusion, combined with the fact that the antidumping statute does not make any differentiation between central or provincial government control when making a determination of whether a country is a non-market economy, the petitioner maintains that the Department should not limit the de jure and de facto government control test enunciated in the Department's separate rate test to central government control. In support of this argument, the petitioner cites to the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22588 (May 2, 1994) ("Silicon Carbide"). The respondent maintains that it did not withhold material information from the Department because the involvement of the village committee (which represents Huanri General's investors) does not materially affect the Department's separate rate consideration. Specifically, the respondent contends that the Department's current practice in determining whether an exporter is entitled to a separate rate focuses on whether the central government controls a company's export functions. Given that the separate rate test is designed to evaluate whether there is an absence of central government control with respect to exports, the respondent maintains that the separate rate test is not based on whether there is any form of government involvement with a company. In support of its argument, the respondent cites to Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 42504, 42505 (August 16, 1995) ("Lug Nuts"); and Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Administrative Review, 63 FR 3085, 3086 (January 21, 1998) ("Pure Magnesium"). In this review, the respondent asserts that all of the detailed evidence submitted by Huanri General indicates that there is no government influence over the export activities of Huanri General. Moreover, the respondent maintains that the dealings the village committee (which represents Huanri General's investors) has with the town government are no different than the actions of any other company paying its taxes and operating a business in the PRC. Specifically, the respondent contends that although the village committee pays certain infrastructure taxes and loans money to the town government, these actions neither signify government interference nor constitute evidence that Huanri General is controlled by the town government. The respondent further contends that if such actions were to make NME respondents ineligible for a separate rate, then almost all exporters would be ineligible for a separate rate. In response to the petitioner's assertion that the village committee is controlled by the PRC government or is a PRC government entity with its members appointed by the town government, the respondent maintains that village committee members, while formerly appointed by governments at higher levels, are now directly elected officials. Moreover, the respondent notes that the petitioner's data also indicate that the villages fall below the lowest level in the PRC government, the township is actually the lowest official level of the PRC government, and that the townships are run by officials who are selected by Communist Party- dominated local legislatures. In conclusion, the respondent maintains that the village committee is a form of self-government (representing villagers governing themselves) which is separate from the PRC government. For the reasons mentioned above, the respondent maintains that it is not controlled by the PRC government. In addition, the respondent maintains that based on the information on the record, it has met both the de jure and de facto separate rates criteria and that its data for establishing its entitlement to a separate rate has been verified by the Department. Therefore, the respondent contends that the Department should continue to grant it a separate rate in the final results. DOC Position: For the reasons mentioned below, Huanri General has demonstrated a de jure and de facto absence of government control of its export functions and is therefore entitled to a separate rate, despite the petitioner's objections to the contrary. As detailed in the verification report and supported by documentation examined at verification, Huanri General demonstrated that it was set up by the Panjacun village committee through capital voluntarily provided by all of the inhabitants of Panjacun village. At verification, the chairman of the village committee stated that he along with the other committee members were elected to the committee by the villagers who also provided the capital to set up Huanri General (see pages 5 and 7 of the Huanri General verification report). News articles furnished by the petitioner in its May 2, 2001, submission, confirmed the fact that village committee members are elected by villagers in the PRC (see International Herald Tribune article contained in the petitioner's May 2, 2001, submission). The financial records of Huanri General and the village committee examined at verification all indicated that the villagers have entrusted the village committee to decide how and when Huanri General's profits are to be distributed. Specifically, the village committee has been entrusted to handle the business decisions and operation strategy of the company which is wholly owned by all the villagers, some of whom are also elected members of the village committee. These facts suggest that the central government does not control Huanri General's export activities. Morever, the news articles furnished by the petitioner further substantiate the fact that the village committee operates independently of the PRC government (see BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific article contained in the petitioner's May 2, 2001, submission). Although the information in the record suggests that the village committee could be a form of government depending on the township and/or province in which it is located, this fact in and of itself is not dispositive for determining whether a company controlled by a village committee is controlled by the central government. Moreover, as we stated in the Preliminary Results, we have ruled in previous NME cases that companies which are either owned by local or provincial government entities or the managers of which are appointed by the provincial, not the central, government can also receive a separate rate if they sufficiently demonstrate that they are entitled to one based on the criteria set forth in the Department's separate rate test (see Lug Nuts at FR 42505 and Pure Magnesium at FR 3086). Consistent with the facts in Pure Magnesium and Lug Nuts, Huanri General in this case has demonstrated that it is responsible for all decisions such as determining export prices, allocation and retention of profits on export sales, and negotiating export sales contracts (see pages 4 through 11 of the April 24, 2001, Huanri General verification report). Although the village committee actually decides how the company's profits are to be distributed, we do not find that the village committee constitutes a form of central or provincial government control over the company, especially because all of the village committee members are investors in the company. In response to the petitioner's assertion that the village committee is controlled by the town government because it has a financial relationship with it and that this link constitutes government control of Huanri General's operations, the data on this record does not support such a finding. As we stated in the Preliminary Results, we examined at verification the village committee's financial records which indicated that the village committee is an entity which simply pays infrastructure taxes to the town government and to which the town government owes money (see page 6 of the Huanri General verification report). Thus, in this case, the town government is a debtor to the village committee. These activities are no different than those of any company paying its taxes and operating a business without government interference in the PRC. With respect to the petitioner's claim that Huanri General did not demonstrate an absence of de jure government control with respect to its operations because it failed to provide the Village Committee Law, we note that we never requested the respondent to provide this information after verification because this law in and of itself is not dispositive of de jure government control given that the preponderance of the evidence examined at verification confirmed an absence of de jure and de facto government control of Huanri General's export activities. Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons we continue to find based on the data in the record of this review that Huanri General has sufficiently demonstrated that there is de jure and de facto absence of governmental control over its export functions. Consequently, we have determined for purposes of these final results that Huanri General has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate in this review. Comment 3: Verification of Huanri General's Data The petitioner contends that the Department should not accept the numerous and significant corrections Huanri General and its producer, Huanri Auto, made to its data at the start of and during verification because such action is contrary to the Department's established policy of not allowing respondents to reconstruct their questionnaire responses during verification. Moreover, the petitioner maintains that the corrections Huanri General and Huanri Auto made to their response prior to and during verification were so significant and pervasive that they undermine the reliability of the response as a whole. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the use of total facts available is warranted with regard to Huanri General. In support of its argument, the petitioner cites to the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Cut-to- Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Japan, 64 FR 73215 (December 29, 1999) ("Steel Plate Products from Japan"); Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, 61 FR 66472, 66482 (December 17, 1996) ("AFBs from Various Countries"), and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Romania, 64 FR 73126, 73130 (December 29,1999) ("Steel Plate from Romania"). The respondent maintains the corrections at issue resulted in minor revisions to the data it submitted over the course of the review and stemmed from inadvertent computational errors. Moreover, the respondent claims that these corrections were insignificant quantitatively and had no meaningful impact on the margin calculation or analysis. Furthermore, the respondent contends that the Department frequently accepts minor verification corrections such as those in this review. In support of its argument, the respondent cites to a variety of cases, including the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Japan, 64 FR 24329, 24348 (May 6, 1999) ("Steel Products from Japan"); and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses from Colombia, 60 FR 6980, 7002 (February 6, 1995) ("Roses from Colombia"). DOC Position We agree with the respondent. Huanri General informed the Department of some minor clerical errors it found in preparation for verification at the commencement of verification. After thoroughly examining selected data reported by the two companies using standard verification techniques, we determined that these errors did not affect the overall integrity of the Section D response submitted by Huanri General. One of the errors that the petitioner alleges warrants resorting to adverse facts available involves the minor misreporting of all the material and energy factors for all control numbers included in Huanri General's factors of production listing which was a result of a systemic computational error. We verified that this error resulted from Huanri General's use of a slightly higher than actual total production amount in its allocation methodology. This error occurred because for a few selected brake rotor models, the weights taken for those models at verification slightly differed from the weights of those models which were included in the total production amount the company used in its allocation methodology. Although Huanri General was unaware of this error at the start of verification, it fully cooperated in supplying the Department with the necessary data for determining the impact this error had on its reported factors of production data. Moreover, we were able to determine the nature and extent of the error and confirm that Huanri General's corrected information was accurate based on its accounting and production records. See verification exhibits 2A, 4, 5A, 7A through 7D, and pages 12 and 17 of the April 24, 2001, Huanri General verification report. Furthermore, we note that although the change in the production quantity affected the allocation of more than one factor reported in the Section D listing, the resulting changes to the factor amounts reported in the Section D response (using the revised production quantity in the allocation formula) were minor in nature and had no impact on the final analysis. Moreover, the Department was able to verify all of the corrected information (see pages and exhibits noted above from the Huanri General verification report). In addition, we examined and tested the accuracy of all of Huanri General's reported factors data, and were able to determine that the only other errors in Huanri General's data were those brought to the Department's attention prior to the start of verification (see pages 3 and 4 of the Huanri General verification report). Specifically, those types of errors included (1) arithmetical and/or typographical errors in reporting the correct factor amounts for electricity, lubrication oil, labor, and steel scrap; (2) inadvertent omissions or incorrect translations of names for its suppliers of limestone, pig iron, coking coal, and tin clamps; and (3) the inadvertent inclusion of the weights for two factors (i.e., lug bolts and ball bearing cups) in the total weight reported for one specific brake rotor model which incorporated those inputs. After examining each of these errors and their impact on the overall integrity of the data submitted by Huanri General, we determined that these errors had no impact on our margin analysis and did not amount to reconstructing Huanri's response as suggested by the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, we find the application of facts available is unwarranted in this case and have continued to use the corrected factors data noted in the verification report for Huanri General in the final results. As in Steel Plate Products from Japan, we find that Huanri General's data errors of the type described in (3) above were minor corrections to information already in the record. In addition, like the situation in Roses from Colombia, we were able to determine by thoroughly testing the respondent's data that all of the errors mentioned above were small in magnitude, and were either brought to our attention by the respondent or were discovered as a result of the respondent providing all requested information at verification. Moreover, unlike AFBs from Various Countries, we find that the errors described in (1) and (2) above do not constitute a reconstruction of Huanri General's response since those errors were minor in nature and did not have an impact on our margin analysis. Furthermore, unlike Steel Products from Japan, Huanri General fully cooperated in this proceeding by reporting all of its factors data. Finally, unlike Steel Plate from Romania, we were able to ascertain the extent of the errors described in (1), (2) and (3) above and found that the totality of these errors did not bring into question the integrity of the response since they are insignificant and minor in nature based on the explanation the respondent provided at verification and as a result of our examination of them at verification. Our determination in this instance is consistent with Department practice (see Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Second of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 61581, 61585 (November 12, 1999) (Comment 2)). Comment 4: Considering the Use of Submitted Surrogate Values In its June 29, 2001, PAI rebuttal comments in response to the PAI submitted by the petitioner on June 22, 2001, the respondents submitted certain surrogate values (e.g., steel scrap, ball bearing cups, nails, and tin clamps) from Monthly Statistics which were applicable during the POR (i.e., April 2000-September 2000). In its July 13, 2001, case brief, the petitioner argues that the Department should disregard the PAI the respondents submitted as part of its June 29, 2001, rebuttal PAI comments because that information was submitted after the deadline set by the Department for such data. Moreover, the petitioner contends that because the PAI the respondents included in their June 29, 2001, submission was only for a few, rather than all, the inputs for which the respondents could have submitted data from Monthly Statistics covering the same time period, the respondents are being selective by simply submitting data that is favorable to them. Finally, the petitioner maintains that the Department should reject the June 29, 2001, data submitted by the respondents because the purpose of the rebuttal submission in this instance was to submit arguments about the opposing party's data rather than submit new data in the form of argument when such data could have been submitted by the deadline set by the Department. The respondents maintain that they submitted POR surrogate values for specific inputs in order to demonstrate that the two-month (i.e., April- May 1999) price data submitted by the petitioner in its June 22, 2001, PAI submission was aberrational. In comparing the POR data to the two-month data and to the twelve-month surrogate value data used by the Department in the preliminary results, the respondents maintain that the six-month POR price data submitted for certain inputs (e.g., steel scrap, ball bearing cups, nails, and tin clamps) demonstrates that the two-month price data submitted by the petitioner for these inputs is inconsistent with values prior and subsequent to the time period of the petitioner's data. Therefore, the respondents claim that the Department should use the POR surrogate value data they submitted because it (1) covers all months of the POR; (2) is from the Department's preferred source of surrogate values in brake rotor reviews; (3) is based on greater quantities than the petitioner's proposed values (and thus is of higher quality); and (4) is specific to the factors. Should the Department choose not to do so, the respondents argue that the Department should use their data as evidence that the petitioner's proposed values are aberrational and must be rejected. DOC Position For these final results, we have used the April-September 2000 data from Monthly Statistics to value steel scrap, ball bearing cups, nails, and tin clamps. As stated in final results of the second administrative review and third new shipper review of brake rotors from the PRC, the submission of PAI is discretionary, not mandatory (see Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Third New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 64664 (October 30, 2000) as discussed in Comment 6 of the October 24, 2000, Decision Memo). Therefore, the parties are not obligated to submit POR values for all inputs. Rather, in this case, the respondents submitted POR surrogate values for selected inputs in order to demonstrate that the data submitted by the petitioner based on two-month price data from the same publication (i.e., Monthly Statistics) was inappropriate to use because it was aberrational when compared to POR price data from the same publication. Therefore, we are using the POR values for steel scrap, ball bearing cups, nails, and tin clamps because that data is reliable, specific to the inputs, and applicable during the POR. With respect to the other inputs (i.e., iron scrap, ferrosilicon, ferromanganese, limestone, lubrication oil, steel straps, paper cartons, plastic bags, and adhesive tape) for which the petitioner submitted two months of data (i.e., April-May 1999) from Monthly Statistics, although this data is more contemporaneous to the POR than the April 1998-March 1999 data we used from the same publication to value these inputs in the preliminary results, we are not convinced that the April-May 1999 data provides a representative sample of the prices which would prevail over a more extended time period. Therefore, we have combined the April-May 1999 data with the April 1998-March 1999 data from the same publication for purposes of assigning surrogate values to the inputs mentioned above. Comment 5: Surrogate Value Selection for Steel Scrap To value steel scrap in the preliminary results, the Department selected an April 1998-March 1999 per-kilogram import value for "remelted scrap ingots" from the Monthly Statistics, since this value was more specific to the input at issue. The petitioner maintains that the Department should use an April-May 1999 Indian import value for "defective sheet of iron and steel" rather than the April 1998-March 1999 Indian import value for "remelted scrap ingots" to value steel scrap because the petitioner claims that the respondents in this case allegedly failed to provide the Department before and during verification with requested grade specification data for the steel scrap they used to produce the subject merchandise. To support its argument, the petitioner cites to the verification reports for Huanri General and Qingdao Meita Automobile Industry Co., Ltd. ("Meita") which note that each respondent used defective brake rotor castings and asserts that such statements, absent evidence to the contrary, suggest that the respondents used defective steel in the form of sheets, rather than ingots, to produce the subject merchandise. The respondents maintain that the petitioner's proposed value is inappropriate in this case because the respondents do not use steel or iron sheet in the production process. Rather, the respondents maintain that they each use defective brake rotor castings as steel scrap which is remelted and then reformed into brake rotors. The respondents further contend that it would be inappropriate to assign a steel sheet value to the steel scrap they use in the production process because steel sheet, even if defective, is a semi-finished product with its own end uses, whereas the steel scrap the respondents use consists of defective castings. Moreover, the respondents claim that there is no evidence that the defective steel sheet value offered by the petitioner is for steel sheet suitable for remelting purposes. Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons, the respondents state that the Department should use the POR value for "remelted scrap ingots" submitted in its June 29, 2001, submission to value steel scrap. Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioner and have continued to use an Indian import value for "remelted scrap ingots" rather than an Indian import value for "defective sheet of iron and steel" to value steel scrap. Based on our verification of the brake rotor producers and a tour of their production facilities in this segment of the proceeding, we ascertained (as we have for similar producers in other brake rotor proceeding segments) that these factories not only remelt defective brake rotor castings for use as steel scrap in the production process, but also mix the remelted defective castings with other forms of steel scrap which can be derived from a variety of sources of which the factories do not maintain records (see pages 12 and 20 of the April 24, 2001, Huanri General verification report and page 10 of the April 27, 2001, Meita verification report for a general description of our verification findings on this issue). Since these factories do not maintain records which note the grade specification of the various forms of steel scrap which they use in the production process, our choice of surrogate values for steel scrap has been limited to values for "remelted scrap ingots" or "defective sheet of iron and steel." In this case, we have no evidence that the respondents used defective steel sheet as a form of steel scrap to produce the subject merchandise. Moreover, the steel scrap we viewed at each respondent's production facility did not appear to include defective steel sheet. Since we have no reason to use the value for "defective steel sheet" to value steel scrap, we have continued to use the value for "remelted scrap ingots" to value steel scrap as we have used in previous segments of this proceeding. Specifically, we have used the POR value for "remelted scrap ingots" to value steel scrap in this instance because it covers the POR (see "DOC Position" to Comment 4 above for further discussion). Comment 6: Surrogate Value Selection for Lug Bolts To value lug bolts in the preliminary results, the Department selected a January-March 1999 dollar-denominated per-kilogram import value from the Indonesian government publication Foreign Trade Statistical Bulletin ("Statistical Bulletin") rather than data from Monthly Statistics because the Department has determined in previous NME proceedings the value for this input from Monthly Statistics to be aberrational as it is based on a basket category of import statistics which includes other products (see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026, 19040 (April 30, 1996) (Comment 17) ("Bicycles from the PRC")). Moreover, because the dollar-denominated January-March 1999 Indonesian import value was relatively contemporaneous with the POR (i.e., April 2000 to September 2000), we did not inflate the value. (See Final Determination of Less Than Fair Value: Creatine from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71109 (December 20, 1999) (Comment 5) ("Creatine from the PRC")). The petitioner maintains that the Department should use an April-May 1999 Indian import value from Monthly Statistics because this value is more contemporaneous to the POR than the value the Department used in the preliminary results. Alternatively, if the Department continues to use the Indonesian import value from Statistical Bulletin to value this input, then the petitioner maintains that the Department should inflate this value to the POR because an inflation adjustment will ensure that the surrogate value dated outside the POR is representative of a value within the POR. The respondents maintain that the Department should use an April- September 2000 Indian import value for this input from Monthly Statistics because it covers the POR and is more contemporaneous than the data submitted by the petitioner and the data used by the Department in the preliminary results. Department's Position: In accordance with Department practice, we have continued to use Indonesia import data rather than Indian import data to value this input because in previous NME cases where we have valued this same input, we have determined that the Indian import data is aberrational and not specific to the input at issue (see Bicycles from the PRC, 61 FR at 19040). With respect to the petitioner's argument that the Department should adjust this value for inflation, the Department has stated a clear preference not to inflate U.S. dollar-denominated values if those values are contemporaneous to the POR (see Creatine from the PRC, 64 FR at 71109). In this instance, the value we obtained from Statistical Bulletin is for the period January-March 1999. This value is within 15 months (i.e., approximately one year) of the POR in this case. Therefore, we find the value to be relatively contemporaneous to the POR and an inflation adjustment to be inappropriate in this instance. Comment 7: Surrogate Value Selection for Firewood To value firewood in the preliminary results, the Department selected an April 1997-March 1998 per-kilogram import value from Monthly Statistics, rather than a 1991 per-kilogram price from a September 1996 publicly available working paper of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ("FAO") entitled Wood Materials from Non-Forest Areas because the value from Monthly Statistics was more contemporaneous to the POR than the FAO value (see Preliminary Results at 29084.). In its June 22, 2001, submission, the petitioner submitted an April-May 1999 firewood value from Monthly Statistics and requested that the Department use this more updated value in the final results. In its case brief, the petitioner contends that after correcting for its own calculations, the April-May 1999 Monthly Statistics firewood value it submitted in its June 22, 2001, submission should not be used in the final results because the 1999 value is aberrationally low when compared to the April 1997-March 1998 firewood value from Monthly Statistics. The petitioner's contention is based on other publicly available information which it placed on this record that indicates the price of firewood in India has increased since 1997 due to (1) world market trends; (2) a 1997 ban imposed by the Indian Supreme Court on felling trees in all natural forests under state working plans; and (3) the increasing demand for firewood in India. Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. Even though we realize, based on data on the record, that firewood values in India have been increasing since 1997, we still find that the April-May 1999 firewood value from Monthly Statistics is aberrational when compared to the April 1997-March 1998 firewood value from the same publication and data from the FAO publication. Accordingly, we have continued to use the April 1997-March 1998 firewood value from Monthly Statistics to value this input in the final results. Recommendation Based on our analysis of the comments received, we recommend adopting all of the above positions. If these recommendations are accepted, we will publish the final results of review and the final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed new shippers in the Federal Register. Agree____ Disagree____ ______________________ Faryar Shirzad Assistant Secretary for Import Administration ______________________ (Date) _________________________________________________________________________ footnote: 1. See the petitioner's May 2, 2001, submission which contained the following news articles: (1) "A Tale of 2 Villagers: China's 'Democracy' Shows Different Faces," International Herald Tribune (August 28, 2000); (2) "Anhui Villagers Supporting Rural Democracy," BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific (June 19, 1998); (3) "Why China Practices Direct Elections of Village Committees?," Xinhua News Agency (April 12, 1997); and (4) "China Villages," AP Worldstream (April 2, 2000).