text:
Justia Regulation Tracker Department Of Commerce International Trade Administration Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 14906-14910 [2011-6450]
Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 14906-14910 [2011-6450]
Download as PDF 14906 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices • Suitability of the company's products or services to the mission goals. • Applicant's potential for business in Afghanistan. • Consistency of the applicant's goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission. (Additional factors, such as diversity of company, size, type and location, may be considered during the selection process.) Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and will not be considered during the selection process. VII. Timeframe for Recruitment and Applications Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES VIII. Disclaimer, Security, and Transportation Business development mission members participate in the mission and undertake related travel at their own risk and are advised to obtain insurance accordingly. Any question regarding insurance coverage must be resolved by the participant. The U.S. Government does not make any representations or guarantees as to the safety or security of participants. Companies should consult the State Department's travel warning for Afghanistan: http://travel.state.gov/ travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_2121.html ITA will coordinate with the U.S. Embassy in Kabul to arrange for transportation of the mission participants to and from the airport and lodging facilities. The primary venue for the mission has security measures in place. Contact: Ariana Monti Marshall, Commercial Specialist—Houston, Market Access and Compliance, Tel: 18:30 Mar 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 Jessica Arnold, Global Trade Programs, U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service. [FR Doc. 2011–5994 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–FP–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–912] Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the 2008– 2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: March 18, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Begnal or Raquel Silva, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–1442 or (202) 482–6475, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including posting on the U.S. Department of Commerce trade missions calendar—http://www.trade.gov/trademissions/—and other Internet Web sites, publication in domestic trade publications and association newsletters, direct outreach to the Department's clients and distribution lists, publication in the Federal Register, and announcements at industry meetings, symposia, conferences, and trade shows. Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than June 24, 2011, by the close of business. Applications received after June 24, 2011, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit. VerDate Mar<15>2010 202–482–3754, E-mail: afghanmission2011@trade.gov. Background On October 26, 2009, the Department of Commerce (''Department'') initiated the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (''OTR tires'') from the People's Republic of China (''PRC'') for the period February 20, 2008, through August 31, 2009. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 54956 (October 26, 2009). On October 19, 2010, the Department published its preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping order on OTR tires from the PRC. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 64259 (October 19, 2010). On February 7, 2011, the Department published notice of a 30-day extension of time for the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping order on OTR tires from the PRC, resulting in a current due date of March 18, 2011. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Results of the 2008–2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 6603 (February 7, 2011). Extension of Time Limit for Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (''the Act''), requires the Department to issue the final results in an administrative review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time period to a maximum of 180 days. We determine that it is not practicable to complete the final results of this review within the current deadline because the Department continues to require additional time to analyze issues raised in recent surrogate value submissions, verification exhibits, and case briefs and rebuttals. Therefore, we are extending the time limit for completion of the final results by an additional 30 days, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. An additional extension of 30 days from the current deadline of March 18, 2011, would result in a new deadline of April 17, 2011. However, because April 17, 2011, falls on a Sunday, a non-business day, the final results will now be due no later than April 18, 2011, the next business day. See Notice of Clarification: Application of ''Next Business Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: March 14, 2011. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2011–6446 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–916] Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 13, 2010, the Department of Commerce (''Department'') published in the Federal AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM 18MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices Register the preliminary results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on laminated woven sacks (''Sacks'') from the People's Republic of China (''PRC''). See Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 55568 (September 13, 2010) (''Preliminary Results''). We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. Based upon our analysis of the comments and information received, we made changes to the margin calculations for the final results. We continue to find that the mandatory respondent has sold subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (''POR''), January 31, 2008, through July 31, 2009. DATES: Effective Date: March 18, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamie Blair-Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2615. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Background On September 22, 2009, the Department initiated this review with respect to two companies upon which an administrative review was requested. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 48224, 48228 (September 22, 2009). The review was initiated with respect to Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd. (''Zibo Aifudi'') and Changshu Xinsheng Bags Producing Company Ltd. (''Changshu Xinsheng''). On November 6, 2009, Changshu Xinsheng submitted to the Department a timely letter withdrawing its request for review from the ongoing administrative review. On December 17, 2009, the Department rescinded the review with respect to Changshu Xinsheng.1 On May 25, 2010, the Department issued a preliminary determination regarding the country of origin of Sacks made from fabric woven in third countries.2 Following this 1 See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 66954 (December 17, 2009). 2 See ''Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia from Zhulieta Willbrand through Robert Bolling re: Preliminary Decision Regarding the Country of Origin of Laminated Woven Sacks Exported by Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.—Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China,'' dated May 25, 2010 (''Country of Origin Memo''). VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:30 Mar 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 determination by the Department, which stated that the PRC is the country of origin of Sacks produced in the PRC from imported fabric, the Department has coordinated with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (''CBP'') to resolve issues arising from differences between the Department's and CBP's respective country-of-origin classifications and from technical restrictions in CBP's electronic filing systems. As a result, the Department has added several case numbers to the Case Reference file within the Automated Commercial Environment to ensure that requisite entries are and can be properly claimed as scope merchandise.3 We sent instructions to CBP on November 23, 2010, providing parties with notice of these new case reference files.4 We hereby finalize our preliminary decision presented in the Country of Origin Memo of Sacks made from fabric woven in third countries.5 The Department has determined that the PRC is the country of origin of Sacks produced in the PRC from imported fabric, as discussed in detail in the ''Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,'' which is dated concurrently with this notice (''Issues and Decision Memorandum'').6 On September 20, 2010, Zibo Aifudi notified the Department of its withdrawal and refusal to participate in this ongoing administrative review.7 Additionally, Zibo Aifudi requested that the Department destroy all business proprietary submissions placed on the record by Zibo Aifudi. On September 30, 2010, the Department notified Zibo Aifudi that it had complied with its request and asked all interested parties to do so as well. On October 6, 2010, the Department received from all interested parties the confirmation of the destruction of the business proprietary submissions placed on the record by Zibo Aifudi. At the Preliminary Results, we set the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs and rebuttal briefs to October 13, 2010, and October 18, 2010, respectively. On October 12, 2010, we extended the deadlines for case and 3 See ''Memorandum to the File from Catherine Bertrand re: Case Reference Files,'' dated November 12, 2010; see also CBP Message No. 0327303 dated November 23, 2010, regarding the clarification of the order. 4 See id. 5 See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 55569. 6 See accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1d. 7 See Letter from Zibo Aifudi Regarding ''Withdrawal from Administrative Review,'' dated September 20, 2010. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 14907 rebuttal briefs submissions by one day to October 14, 2010, and October 19, 2010, respectively. On October 14, 2010, Petitioners,8 AMS Associates, Inc., operating as Shapiro Packaging (''AMS''), and Commercial Bag Company, doing business as Commercial Packaging (''Commercial Packaging'') filed case briefs. On October 19, 2010, Petitioners and AMS filed rebuttal briefs. The Department did not hold a public hearing pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), as all hearing requests made by interested parties were withdrawn. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit, Main Commerce Building, Room 7046, and is accessible on the Department's Web site at http:// www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the order is laminated woven sacks. Laminated woven sacks are bags or sacks consisting of one or more plies of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with or without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene on one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either to an exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxially-oriented polypropylene (''BOPP'') or to an exterior ply of paper that is suitable for high quality print graphics; 9 printed with three colors or more in register; with or without lining; whether or not closed on one end; whether or not in roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves); with or without handles; with or without special closing features; not exceeding one kilogram in weight. Laminated woven sacks are typically used for retail packaging of 8 Petitioners are the Laminated Woven Sacks Committee and its individual members, Coating Excellence International, LLC and Polytex Fibers Corporation. 9 ''Paper suitable for high quality print graphics,'' as used herein, means paper having an ISO brightness of 82 or higher and a Sheffield Smoothness of 250 or less. Coated free sheet is an example of a paper suitable for high quality print graphics. E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM 18MRN1 14908 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices consumer goods such as pet foods and bird seed. Effective July 1, 2007, laminated woven sacks are classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (''HTSUS'') subheadings 6305.33.0050 and 6305.33.0080. Laminated woven sacks were previously classifiable under HTSUS subheading 6305.33.0020. If entered with plastic coating on both sides of the fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 3923.21.0080, 3923.21.0095, and 3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on one end or in roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves), laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 3917.39.0050, 3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and 5903.90.2500. If the polypropylene strips and/or polyethylene strips making up the fabric measure more than 5 millimeters in width, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 4601.99.0500, 4601.99.9000, and 4602.90.0000. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Changes Since the Preliminary Results In the Preliminary Results, we found that the one mandatory respondent (i.e., Zibo Aifudi) demonstrated its eligibility for separate-rate status. However, we no longer find Zibo Aifudi eligible for separate rate status as it has significantly impeded the Department's ability to conduct this proceeding and, by withdrawing from the review, prevented the verification of the information it had earlier provided. Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (''Act'') provides that, if an interested party or any other person: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:30 Mar 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 title. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department shall promptly inform the party submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. Section 782(d) of the Act further states that, if the party submits further information that is unsatisfactory or untimely, the administering authority may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the administering authority if (1) the information is submitted by the deadline established for its submission, (2) the information can be verified, (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination, (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the administering authority with respect to the information, and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties. Zibo Aifudi Zibo Aifudi responded to the Department's original questionnaire and several supplemental questionnaires, and the Department calculated a company-specific margin for Zibo Aifudi in the Preliminary Results. After the issuance of the Preliminary Results, the Department received a letter from Zibo Aifudi withdrawing from this administrative review and requesting that all business proprietary information be destroyed.10 The Department therefore finds that, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D) of the Act, Zibo Aifudi has significantly impeded the Department's ability to conduct this administrative review and, by withdrawing from the review and requesting the removal of information from the record, prevented the verification of the information it had earlier provided. Therefore, the application of facts available is warranted with respect to Zibo Aifudi. 10 See Letter from Zibo Aifudi Regarding ''Withdrawal from Administrative Review,'' dated September 20, 2010. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Application of an Adverse Inference Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the respondent if it determines that a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Adverse inferences are appropriate ''to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' 11 In determining whether a respondent has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department need not make a determination regarding the willfulness of a respondent's conduct.12 Furthermore, ''affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.''13 In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department considers whether a party could comply with the request for information, and whether a party paid insufficient attention to its statutory duties.14 Furthermore, the Department also considers the accuracy and completeness of submitted information, and whether the respondent has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping margins.15 In Nippon Steel the Federal Circuit explained that, if a respondent ''fails to provide requested information by the deadlines for submission,'' Commerce shall fill in the gaps with ''facts otherwise available.'' The focus of {section 776(a) of the Act} is respondent's failure to provide information. The reason for the failure is of no moment. As a separate matter, {section 776(b) of the Act} permits Commerce to ''use an inference that is adverse to the interests of a respondent in selecting from among the facts otherwise available,'' only if Commerce makes the separate determination that the respondent ''has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply.'' The focus of {section 776(b) of the Act} is respondent's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability, not its failure to provide requested information. See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1381. The Federal Circuit also held that ''the 11 See Statement of Administrative Action (''SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). 12 See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382–1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (''Nippon Steel''). 13 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). 14 See Pacific Giant, Inc. v. United States, 223 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1342 (August 6, 2002). 15 See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819–53820 (October 16, 1997). E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM 18MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices statutory mandate that a respondent act to the 'best of its ability' requires the respondent to do the maximum it is able to do.'' 16 An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act. It is the Department's practice to assign the highest rate from any segment of a proceeding as total adverse facts available (''AFA'') when a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its ability.17 Zibo Aifudi/PRC-Wide Entity As discussed above, Zibo Aifudi withdrew from participation in this segment of the proceeding and requested that all of its business proprietary submissions be destroyed. Because of this, the Department does not have any record evidence upon which to determine whether Zibo Aifudi is eligible for a separate rate for this review period. Thus, pursuant to Department practice, as Zibo Aifudi has not demonstrated its entitlement to a separate rate, we consider it to be part of the PRC-entity and subject to the PRC-wide rate.18 Furthermore, because Zibo Aifudi is part of the PRC-wide entity and the only mandatory respondent in this administrative review, it is necessary that we review the PRC-wide entity. In doing so, we note that section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use the facts available if necessary information is not available on the record of an antidumping proceeding. In addition, we find that an element of the PRC-wide entity (Zibo Aifudi) did not respond to our requests for information, the necessary information was not provided, and the information that was provided was unable to be verified. Therefore, we find it necessary, under 16 See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382. e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan; Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789, 5790 (February 7, 2002) (''Consistent with Department practice in cases where a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its ability, and in keeping with section 776(b)(3) of the Act, as adverse facts available, we have applied a margin based on the highest margin from any prior segment of the proceeding.''). 18 See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 8273, 8279 (February 13, 2008) unchanged in Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 2008) (''WBF 2008''). Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES 17 See, VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:30 Mar 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to continue to use facts otherwise available as the basis for the final results of this review for the PRC-wide entity. Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. As noted above, an element of the PRC-wide entity (Zibo Aifudi) informed the Department that it would not participate further in this review. Thus, because the PRC-wide entity refused to participate fully in this proceeding, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this review. As stated above, the PRC-wide entity (including Zibo Aifudi) withdrew from this administrative review. Because of this, we find it necessary, under sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, to use AFA as the basis for these final results of review for the PRC-wide entity. In accordance with the Department's practice, as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity the rate of 91.73 percent, which is the highest rate assigned in any segment of this proceeding. See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 35646, 35648 (June 24, 2008) (''LTFV Final Determination'').19 In selecting a rate as AFA, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ''as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 20 Corroboration of AFA Rate for PRCWide Entity, Including Zibo Aifudi Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 19 See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 1999). 20 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 14909 that are reasonably at its disposal. As described in the SAA, it is the Department's practice to use secondary information from the petition, the final determination, or any previous review under section 751 of the Act concerning the subject merchandise. See SAA at 870. Further, the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information has probative value and, to the extent practicable, will examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. In this case, the AFA rate we are assigning to the PRC-wide entity, including Zibo Aifudi, is the highest rate from any segment of this proceeding, and is the petition rate in the less-than-fair-value investigation. See LTFV Final Determination, 73 FR at 35648. This rate was corroborated in the LTFV Final Determination, finding that the petition margin of 91.73 percent had probative value because it was within the range of CONNUM margins for Zibo Aifudi. See id. Furthermore, no information has been presented by interested parties challenging the reliability of the 91.73 percent AFA rate. We note that this is the highest rate from any segment of the proceeding and the rate is less than four years old. Thus, the Department finds that the information continues to be reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin.21 Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited.22 None of these unusual circumstances are present with respect to the rate being used here.23 Moreover, 21 See WBF 2008, 73 FR at 49166; see also Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available {the predecessor to facts available} because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). 22 See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). 23 See e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 14th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 34976, 34979 (June 21, 2010); Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission and Final Partial Rescission of the Second Administrative Review, 73 FR 12127, 12131–12132 (March 6, 2008) unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM Continued 18MRN1 14910 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices the rate selected is the rate currently applicable to the PRC-wide entity and was corroborated in the LTFV Final Determination, using Zibo Aifudi's CONNUM margins. See LTFV Final Determination, 73 FR at 35648. The Department assumes that if an uncooperative respondent could have obtained a lower rate, it would have cooperated.24 Consequently, as there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriate for use as AFA, we determine that this rate continues to have relevance. Based on our analysis as described above, we find that the margin of 91.73 percent is reliable and has relevance. As the 91.73 percent rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the calculated rate of 91.73 percent, which is the current PRCwide rate, is in accordance with the requirement of section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information be corroborated to the extent practicable (i.e., that it have probative value). Consequently, we have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject merchandise from the PRC-wide entity, including Zibo Aifudi. Final Results of Review The weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows: Exporter Weighted Average Percent Margin PRC–Wide Rate 25 ........... 91.73 Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Assessment Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Where appropriate, we calculated an ad valorem rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52273 (September 9, 2008). 24 See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190–91 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 24 CIT 841, 848 (2000) (respondents should not benefit from failure to cooperate). 25 The PRC–Wide entity, including Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:30 Mar 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 by the total entered values associated with those transactions. For dutyassessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad valorem rate against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise. Where appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against the entered quantity of the subject merchandise. Where an importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer (or customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each of the reviewed companies that received a separate rate in this review will be the rate listed in the final results of review (except that if the rate for a particular company is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent POR; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be the PRC-wide rate of 91.73 percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Reimbursement of Duties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (''APO'') of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: March 14, 2011. Kim Glas, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I—Issues and Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Preliminary Decision Regarding Country of Origin 1a. Procedures in Determining Country of Origin 1b. Department's Decision of Country of Origin of Sacks 1c. Authority to Issue Clarification Instruction to CBP 1d. Finalizing the Country-of-Origin Memorandum Comment 2: Liquidation Instructions [FR Doc. 2011–6450 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–929] Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from SGL Carbon LLC and Superior Graphite Co. (''Petitioners''), Petitioners in the original investigation, the Department of AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM 18MRN1
International Trade Administration
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14906-14910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6450]
[A-570-916]
Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 13, 2010, the Department of Commerce
(``Department'') published in the Federal
[[Page 14907]]
Register the preliminary results of the first administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on laminated woven sacks (``Sacks'') from
the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See Laminated Woven Sacks
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 55568 (September 13, 2010)
(``Preliminary Results''). We gave interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the Preliminary Results. Based upon our analysis of the
comments and information received, we made changes to the margin
calculations for the final results. We continue to find that the
mandatory respondent has sold subject merchandise at less than normal
value during the period of review (``POR''), January 31, 2008, through
DATES: Effective Date: March 18, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamie Blair-Walker, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2615.
On September 22, 2009, the Department initiated this review with
respect to two companies upon which an administrative review was
requested. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 48224,
48228 (September 22, 2009). The review was initiated with respect to
Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd. (``Zibo Aifudi'') and Changshu
Xinsheng Bags Producing Company Ltd. (``Changshu Xinsheng''). On
November 6, 2009, Changshu Xinsheng submitted to the Department a
timely letter withdrawing its request for review from the ongoing
administrative review. On December 17, 2009, the Department rescinded
the review with respect to Changshu Xinsheng.\1\
\1\ See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of
China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
74 FR 66954 (December 17, 2009).
On May 25, 2010, the Department issued a preliminary determination
regarding the country of origin of Sacks made from fabric woven in
third countries.\2\ Following this determination by the Department,
which stated that the PRC is the country of origin of Sacks produced in
the PRC from imported fabric, the Department has coordinated with U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to resolve issues arising from
differences between the Department's and CBP's respective country-of-
origin classifications and from technical restrictions in CBP's
electronic filing systems. As a result, the Department has added
several case numbers to the Case Reference file within the Automated
Commercial Environment to ensure that requisite entries are and can be
properly claimed as scope merchandise.\3\ We sent instructions to CBP
on November 23, 2010, providing parties with notice of these new case
reference files.\4\
\2\ See ``Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia from Zhulieta
Willbrand through Robert Bolling re: Preliminary Decision Regarding
the Country of Origin of Laminated Woven Sacks Exported by Zibo
Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.--Laminated Woven Sacks from the
People's Republic of China,'' dated May 25, 2010 (``Country of
Origin Memo'').
\3\ See ``Memorandum to the File from Catherine Bertrand re:
Case Reference Files,'' dated November 12, 2010; see also CBP
Message No. 0327303 dated November 23, 2010, regarding the
clarification of the order.
\4\ See id.
We hereby finalize our preliminary decision presented in the
Country of Origin Memo of Sacks made from fabric woven in third
countries.\5\ The Department has determined that the PRC is the country
of origin of Sacks produced in the PRC from imported fabric, as
discussed in detail in the ``Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's
Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results
of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,'' which is dated
concurrently with this notice (``Issues and Decision Memorandum'').\6\
\5\ See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 55569.
\6\ See accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment
On September 20, 2010, Zibo Aifudi notified the Department of its
withdrawal and refusal to participate in this ongoing administrative
review.\7\ Additionally, Zibo Aifudi requested that the Department
destroy all business proprietary submissions placed on the record by
Zibo Aifudi. On September 30, 2010, the Department notified Zibo Aifudi
that it had complied with its request and asked all interested parties
to do so as well. On October 6, 2010, the Department received from all
interested parties the confirmation of the destruction of the business
proprietary submissions placed on the record by Zibo Aifudi.
\7\ See Letter from Zibo Aifudi Regarding ``Withdrawal from
Administrative Review,'' dated September 20, 2010.
At the Preliminary Results, we set the deadline for interested
parties to submit case briefs and rebuttal briefs to October 13, 2010,
and October 18, 2010, respectively. On October 12, 2010, we extended
the deadlines for case and rebuttal briefs submissions by one day to
October 14, 2010, and October 19, 2010, respectively. On October 14,
2010, Petitioners,\8\ AMS Associates, Inc., operating as Shapiro
Packaging (``AMS''), and Commercial Bag Company, doing business as
Commercial Packaging (``Commercial Packaging'') filed case briefs. On
October 19, 2010, Petitioners and AMS filed rebuttal briefs. The
Department did not hold a public hearing pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d),
as all hearing requests made by interested parties were withdrawn.
\8\ Petitioners are the Laminated Woven Sacks Committee and its
individual members, Coating Excellence International, LLC and
Polytex Fibers Corporation.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A
list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an
Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and
is on file in the Central Records Unit, Main Commerce Building, Room
7046, and is accessible on the Department's Web site at http://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic version of the
memorandum are identical in content.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order is laminated woven sacks.
Laminated woven sacks are bags or sacks consisting of one or more plies
of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven
polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with or
without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene on
one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either to an
exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxially-oriented polypropylene
(``BOPP'') or to an exterior ply of paper that is suitable for high
quality print graphics; \9\ printed with three colors or more in
register; with or without lining; whether or not closed on one end;
whether or not in roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and
sleeves); with or without handles; with or without special closing
features; not exceeding one kilogram in weight. Laminated woven sacks
are typically used for retail packaging of
consumer goods such as pet foods and bird seed.
\9\ ``Paper suitable for high quality print graphics,'' as used
herein, means paper having an ISO brightness of 82 or higher and a
Sheffield Smoothness of 250 or less. Coated free sheet is an example
of a paper suitable for high quality print graphics.
Effective July 1, 2007, laminated woven sacks are classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
subheadings 6305.33.0050 and 6305.33.0080. Laminated woven sacks were
previously classifiable under HTSUS subheading 6305.33.0020. If entered
with plastic coating on both sides of the fabric consisting of woven
polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, laminated woven
sacks may be classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 3923.21.0080,
3923.21.0095, and 3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on one end or in
roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves), laminated
woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including
3917.39.0050, 3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and 5903.90.2500. If the
polypropylene strips and/or polyethylene strips making up the fabric
measure more than 5 millimeters in width, laminated woven sacks may be
classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 4601.99.0500,
4601.99.9000, and 4602.90.0000. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
In the Preliminary Results, we found that the one mandatory
respondent (i.e., Zibo Aifudi) demonstrated its eligibility for
separate-rate status. However, we no longer find Zibo Aifudi eligible
for separate rate status as it has significantly impeded the
Department's ability to conduct this proceeding and, by withdrawing
from the review, prevented the verification of the information it had
earlier provided.
Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act'')
provides that, if an interested party or any other person: (A)
Withholds information that has been requested by the administering
authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for
the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested,
subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides
such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in
section 782(i) of the Act, the Department shall, subject to section
782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination under this title. Where the Department
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply
with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the
Department shall promptly inform the party submitting the response of
the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable,
provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. Section 782(d) of the Act further states that, if the party
submits further information that is unsatisfactory or untimely, the
administering authority may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all
or part of the original and subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of the
Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements
established by the administering authority if (1) the information is
submitted by the deadline established for its submission, (2) the
information can be verified, (3) the information is not so incomplete
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable
determination, (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted
to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the
requirements established by the administering authority with respect to
the information, and (5) the information can be used without undue
difficulties.
Zibo Aifudi
Zibo Aifudi responded to the Department's original questionnaire
and several supplemental questionnaires, and the Department calculated
a company-specific margin for Zibo Aifudi in the Preliminary Results.
After the issuance of the Preliminary Results, the Department received
a letter from Zibo Aifudi withdrawing from this administrative review
and requesting that all business proprietary information be
destroyed.\10\ The Department therefore finds that, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D) of the Act, Zibo Aifudi has
significantly impeded the Department's ability to conduct this
administrative review and, by withdrawing from the review and
requesting the removal of information from the record, prevented the
verification of the information it had earlier provided. Therefore, the
application of facts available is warranted with respect to Zibo
Aifudi.
\10\ See Letter from Zibo Aifudi Regarding ``Withdrawal from
Application of an Adverse Inference
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among
the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of the respondent if it determines that a
party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Adverse
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' \11\ In determining whether a respondent has failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department need not make a
determination regarding the willfulness of a respondent's conduct.\12\
Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of the
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse
inference.''\13\
\11\ See Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'')
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d
Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994).
\12\ See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373,
1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon Steel'').
\13\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27340 (May 19, 1997).
In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the best of
its ability, the Department considers whether a party could comply with
the request for information, and whether a party paid insufficient
attention to its statutory duties.\14\ Furthermore, the Department also
considers the accuracy and completeness of submitted information, and
whether the respondent has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping
margins.\15\
\14\ See Pacific Giant, Inc. v. United States, 223 F. Supp. 2d
1336, 1342 (August 6, 2002).
\15\ See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From
Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
62 FR 53808, 53819-53820 (October 16, 1997).
In Nippon Steel the Federal Circuit explained that,
if a respondent ``fails to provide requested information by the
deadlines for submission,'' Commerce shall fill in the gaps with
``facts otherwise available.'' The focus of {section 776(a) of the
Act{time}  is respondent's failure to provide information. The
reason for the failure is of no moment. As a separate matter,
{section 776(b) of the Act{time}  permits Commerce to ``use an
inference that is adverse to the interests of a respondent in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available,'' only if
Commerce makes the separate determination that the respondent ``has
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to
comply.'' The focus of {section 776(b) of the Act{time}  is
respondent's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability, not
its failure to provide requested information.
See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1381. The Federal Circuit also held that
``the
statutory mandate that a respondent act to the `best of its ability'
requires the respondent to do the maximum it is able to do.'' \16\
\16\ See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382.
An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived
from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any
previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See
section 776(b) of the Act. It is the Department's practice to assign
the highest rate from any segment of a proceeding as total adverse
facts available (``AFA'') when a respondent fails to cooperate to the
best of its ability.\17\
\17\ See, e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan;
Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789, 5790 (February 7, 2002)
(``Consistent with Department practice in cases where a respondent
fails to cooperate to the best of its ability, and in keeping with
section 776(b)(3) of the Act, as adverse facts available, we have
applied a margin based on the highest margin from any prior segment
of the proceeding.'').
Zibo Aifudi/PRC-Wide Entity
As discussed above, Zibo Aifudi withdrew from participation in this
segment of the proceeding and requested that all of its business
proprietary submissions be destroyed. Because of this, the Department
does not have any record evidence upon which to determine whether Zibo
Aifudi is eligible for a separate rate for this review period. Thus,
pursuant to Department practice, as Zibo Aifudi has not demonstrated
its entitlement to a separate rate, we consider it to be part of the
PRC-entity and subject to the PRC-wide rate.\18\ Furthermore, because
Zibo Aifudi is part of the PRC-wide entity and the only mandatory
respondent in this administrative review, it is necessary that we
review the PRC-wide entity. In doing so, we note that section 776(a)(1)
of the Act mandates that the Department use the facts available if
necessary information is not available on the record of an antidumping
proceeding. In addition, we find that an element of the PRC-wide entity
(Zibo Aifudi) did not respond to our requests for information, the
necessary information was not provided, and the information that was
provided was unable to be verified. Therefore, we find it necessary,
under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to continue to use facts otherwise
available as the basis for the final results of this review for the
PRC-wide entity.
\18\ See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and Partial
Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 8273, 8279 (February 13,
2008) unchanged in Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 2008) (``WBF
2008'').
Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the PRC-wide
entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with requests for information. As noted above, an element of the
PRC-wide entity (Zibo Aifudi) informed the Department that it would not
participate further in this review. Thus, because the PRC-wide entity
refused to participate fully in this proceeding, we find it appropriate
to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide
entity in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing
so, we ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity
will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than
had they cooperated fully in this review.
As stated above, the PRC-wide entity (including Zibo Aifudi)
withdrew from this administrative review. Because of this, we find it
necessary, under sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, to use AFA
as the basis for these final results of review for the PRC-wide entity.
In accordance with the Department's practice, as AFA, we have assigned
to the PRC-wide entity the rate of 91.73 percent, which is the highest
rate assigned in any segment of this proceeding. See Laminated Woven
Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 35646, 35648 (June 24, 2008) (``LTFV
Final Determination'').\19\ In selecting a rate as AFA, the Department
selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the
purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide
the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely
manner.'' \20\
\19\ See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of
China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and
Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 1999).
\20\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan,
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
Corroboration of AFA Rate for PRC-Wide Entity, Including Zibo Aifudi
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. As described in the SAA, it is the
Department's practice to use secondary information from the petition,
the final determination, or any previous review under section 751 of
the Act concerning the subject merchandise. See SAA at 870. Further,
the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information has
probative value and, to the extent practicable, will examine the
reliability and relevance of the information to be used.
In this case, the AFA rate we are assigning to the PRC-wide entity,
including Zibo Aifudi, is the highest rate from any segment of this
proceeding, and is the petition rate in the less-than-fair-value
investigation. See LTFV Final Determination, 73 FR at 35648. This rate
was corroborated in the LTFV Final Determination, finding that the
petition margin of 91.73 percent had probative value because it was
within the range of CONNUM margins for Zibo Aifudi. See id.
Furthermore, no information has been presented by interested parties
challenging the reliability of the 91.73 percent AFA rate. We note that
this is the highest rate from any segment of the proceeding and the
rate is less than four years old. Thus, the Department finds that the
information continues to be reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an
appropriate margin.\21\ Similarly, the Department does not apply a
margin that has been discredited.\22\ None of these unusual
circumstances are present with respect to the rate being used here.\23\
the rate selected is the rate currently applicable to the PRC-wide
entity and was corroborated in the LTFV Final Determination, using Zibo
Aifudi's CONNUM margins. See LTFV Final Determination, 73 FR at 35648.
The Department assumes that if an uncooperative respondent could have
obtained a lower rate, it would have cooperated.\24\ Consequently, as
there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates
that this rate is not appropriate for use as AFA, we determine that
this rate continues to have relevance.
\21\ See WBF 2008, 73 FR at 49166; see also Fresh Cut Flowers
From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department
disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best
information available {the predecessor to facts available{time}
because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin).
\22\ See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been
judicially invalidated).
\23\ See e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 14th Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 34976, 34979 (June 21, 2010); Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Preliminary Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission and Final
Partial Rescission of the Second Administrative Review, 73 FR 12127,
12131-12132 (March 6, 2008) unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and
Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
73 FR 52273 (September 9, 2008).
\24\ See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185,
1190-91 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v.
United States, 24 CIT 841, 848 (2000) (respondents should not
benefit from failure to cooperate).
Based on our analysis as described above, we find that the margin
of 91.73 percent is reliable and has relevance. As the 91.73 percent
rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative
value. Accordingly, we determine that the calculated rate of 91.73
percent, which is the current PRC-wide rate, is in accordance with the
requirement of section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information be
corroborated to the extent practicable (i.e., that it have probative
value). Consequently, we have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the
subject merchandise from the PRC-wide entity, including Zibo Aifudi.
Final Results of Review
The weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows:
\25\ The PRC-Wide entity, including Zibo Aifudi Plastic
Packaging Co., Ltd.
Weighted  Average
Exporter                          Percent Margin
PRC-Wide Rate \25\...................................             91.73
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b),
the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with
the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we
calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review. Where appropriate, we calculated an
ad valorem rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total
dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total entered
values associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates
calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad
valorem rate against the entered customs values for the subject
merchandise. Where appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each
importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for
reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated
with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against
the entered quantity of the subject merchandise. Where an importer (or
customer)-specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50
percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer (or
customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to
antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). The
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these final results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit
rate for each of the reviewed companies that received a separate rate
in this review will be the rate listed in the final results of review
(except that if the rate for a particular company is de minimis, i.e.,
less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that
company); (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent POR; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair
value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most recent period for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all
other manufacturers or exporters will be the PRC-wide rate of 91.73
percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 the Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March 14, 2011.
Kim Glas,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I--Issues and Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Preliminary Decision Regarding Country of Origin
1a. Procedures in Determining Country of Origin
1b. Department's Decision of Country of Origin of Sacks
1c. Authority to Issue Clarification Instruction to CBP
1d. Finalizing the Country-of-Origin Memorandum
Comment 2: Liquidation Instructions
[FR Doc. 2011-6450 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


text:
SkypeFreak dumps contact, call, message and profile information from Skype
The messaging software Skype uses a local database on the system to store all kinds of information in.
This not only includes information about each user of the application, but also call, message and contact information.
What many Skype users may not know is that the information are stored without protection in the database.
That's not an issue if you are the only user of the computer and use proper protection, for instance full disk encryption.
If you share an account regularly or occasionally, it becomes a serious privacy issue.
SkypeFreak is a free portable program for the Windows operating system that can dump Skype data. All you need to do is run it on the system, pick a Skype username that you want to dump data of, and select the type of data or all of it.
The program runs on the command line and displays prompts to you once you have started it up on your system.
Start by entering a Skype username. Once that is out of the way, the main menu is displayed to you. Here you can select one of the following options:
Profile lists information about the user profile including the date of creation and location.
Contact lists information about contacts. This includes the Skype username of each user, country, birthday, and last online date.
Calls displays call information
Messages list all chat messages including chat partners.
Generate Full Report dumps all information in one go.
The program ships with its Python source code so that you can not only check it out but also run it on your system if you have Python installed on it. To run it, simply run python SkypeFreak.py on the system to do so.
The only requirement for running the application is that you need to know the username of the Skype user. Without that username, you won't be able to dump the data.
Interestingly enough, you can look up the username easily on your system. You find that username here by default: C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\Skype\ listed as a folder.
SkypeFreak runs on Windows, Linux and Mac OS X operating systems. The author of the code plans to implement improvements such as export to csv files in future releases.
Even if you do not plan on running the software, it is good to know about it if you are a Skype user. I highly recommend using full disk encryption on your system to block access to data on it.
While it won't help you if you hand over the controls of your computer to someone else, it will take care of situations where the computer is not on.
A bug in Vivaldi browser disables the forward and back buttons if you open a new window
Bittorrent client qBittorrent 4.4.0 released with v2 torrent support
Microsoft Edge 97 released: here is what is new
Brave Browser users doubled again this year to over 50 million monthly active users
Is Microsoft adding too many controversial features to its Edge browser?
Microsoft is adding more bloat to Edge with a Games button
Previous Post: « How developers should and should not monetize browser extensions
Next Post: « Twitter rolls out new profiles for all users
Ken Saunders said on April 19, 2014 at 4:20 am
Martin, will you please look into the differences (if any) between these?
Your link leads to
yasoob/SkypeFreak forked from OsandaMalith/SkypeFreak
https://github.com/yasoob/SkypeFreak
OsandaMalith/SkypeFreak
https://github.com/OsandaMalith/SkypeFreak
Martin Brinkmann said on April 19, 2014 at 7:50 am
I have linked to an improved version that supports Python 3 among other things.
Ken Saunders said on April 19, 2014 at 4:15 pm
George Melendez said on May 15, 2014 at 2:57 am
Updated Skype to Windows Desktop version 6.16.0.105 and what a slow-poke this is…. it takes for ever to load and close. What have they done to Skype??? The previous version 6.14.104 was doing just fine, fast loading and closing and not even a hiccup what so ever. They really messed up this time. WHY would anyone "fix" or change it if it's not broken ??? They should have left it alone. This new so called Desktop Version is probably written to enhance it's operation with Windows 8 OS even though it's for windows 7 also. They forgot the Wins 7 crowd which are more than Wins 8 and just refined Skype for Wins 8. If I could only get back the old Version 6.14.104 I would get rid of this Desktop Version. Don't like it at all. It's just to SLOW… Don't get me wrong, it is a very good program it's just to slow now. If it weren't for that it would be a 5 star tool….
HEY SKYPE WHAT HAVE YOU DONE ????
sarah.perez96 said on July 27, 2017 at 4:03 pm
je veut homme et amour
Brave acquires Tailcat search engine; will offer search results without profiling users
Brave reveals why it is disabling Google's FLoC in the browser
DuckDuckGo Extension blocks Google FLoC in latest update
Brave Search Beta is now available publicly
Published in: January 8, 2022 9:04 am | Updated in: January 8, 2022 9:04 am
Published in: January 7, 2022 3:58 pm | Updated in: January 7, 2022 3:58 pm
Published in: December 30, 2021 8:31 am | Updated in: December 30, 2021 8:46 am

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


First let's start with the most important thing…..the gifts! I started thinking about my gift list in September and began collecting little stocking fillers here and there from charity shops as well as winning as many as I could. If anyone doesn't know me I'm a comper – someone who enters comps on mass in the hope of a cheeky little win here and there. It really does help give you the finer things in life for free! As a result of my comping hobby I ended up winning a lot of my Christmas gifts this year which was really helpful!
Here's my gift list and how much I paid for each one.
The lavender gift set I found in my local recycling centre for £2.50 – a search on Google suggests something similar would cost around £12. The clarins perfume was a freebie as part of a gift when you buy at boots so I threw that in for her too (a similar size at John Lewis is £19.50!) Finally, I got the chocolates as part of a thorntons bundle online. Each year they do different variety sets and this year's retailed at £35 plus £3 delivery. I visited my favourite discount code site Voucher Codes and found a code which gave me free delivery and £5 off the total price so I got a massive box of choccies for £30 which I spread out amongst other people's gifts too. When you divide the total boxes I received by the cost I paid it works out about £2 for each one which is so much cheaper than buying them all off the shelf! I also did this transaction through Topcashback (if you join through this link you get a £5 amazon voucher on me!) which resulted in a further saving of £3.57.
All in all the total RRP of these gifts should have been £62.50 but I got the lot for £5.92!
Next up…my father in law.
OK first of all there is an explanation for buying my mum washing up sponges! I won 5 of them in a competition which you can read more about here Dishmatic winner mum said she wanted a couple hence why I threw them in! Obviously the choccies were part of the thorntons bundle, the mini toiletries were from my charity shop raid, I won all 3 candles in competitions, the bag charm was a free gift with a Superdrug purchase, the skin oil I won in a competition and I bought the opium perfume set with my nationwide credit card that gives you 0.5% cashback in December on all your annual purchases. This made the perfume completely free as I had just enough cashback to cover it! Again I made the purchase on Topcashback so I saved another £2.93!
Total RRP for my mum's gifts was £101 but it cost me just £2.07! Yes you read that right!
My dad is a big model car collector and loves anything miniature! I managed to win dad a really cool prize of a laser cut car ornament worth £15 on facebook which I know he will love!
On top of comping I also like to write compliment letters to companies and tell them how much I adore a product in the hope they might send me a discount voucher for my next purchase. I don't do it often but when I do 9 times out of 10 I receive something back. I think it's really important to compliment as quick as you are to complain and if I really love something I will take time to send the company a little thank you. In light of this I decided to send coca cola a tweet of dad opening last year's coca cola themed prize telling them how much he loved it. They messaged me soon after and told me they wanted to send out a free gift to my dad for being a fan and I received a snow globe with a mini cocoa cola truck inside which retails at £9.99. I topped off dad's gifts with a mobile phone holder off eBay for a few quid.
Total RRP £26.99 Total spend £6.
I've been comping hard for months to 'win Christmas' and it certainly paid off as I won pretty much all my friends kids presents plus a few for my little boy!
That's an RRP of £199.98! Total paid £0. Thank you very much comping!!
My poor bloke – he got A LOT of charity shop goodies this year but actually we both love a bargain and he's usually right there by my side hunting in the 99p buckets at Sue Ryder! I got him a selection of ties that look brand new and some skincare and shaving goodies. I also like to apply for 'freebies' and I managed to nab some energy gels and fragrance samples as little stocking fillers. He loves fruit cider, Jack Daniels and various choccies so I bought them with my nectar points at Sainsbury's that I saved up throughout the year which made them free. I finished off with a gift experience day from virgin which should have cost me £52 but I exchanged my virgin air miles for it so it was of course completely free! I did however buy him some new shoes from aldi and some socks online which totalled up to a spend of £30 but the RRP for all his gifts was in the region of £100 so it's not bad at all really.
Another one in my life who got a full on charity shop raid for his gifts! I got him loads of little second-hand bits like toy cars, crayons and chalks (unused) clothes, shoes and general boys toys for a fraction of the full price in the shops. I did buy him some bigger gifts but of course I planned, I researched and most importantly I waited for the perfect purchase time online.
I knew I wanted to get him a wooden play kitchen and chose one of the top reviewed ones, I should think so to at a cost of £149! There was no way I was paying all that for something that would probably get played with for 6 months max so I scoured bargain hunting sites for weeks looking for a deal and finally I found Tesco were selling them HALF PRICE and not only that but I had a load of Clubcard points to spend aswell! My luck was in and I pounced. I nabbed it at half its original price plus £15 off in club points plus of course buying through Topcashback which brought the final outlay to just £54 – a third of the original cost and a massive saving of £95! Result!
I also wanted to get him a John Deere ride on tractor but with these selling for £130 in the shops I waited for a sale and found it 60% off on an Amazon deal of the day and snapped it up at £52. Not only that but I remembered I had some cash saved from the nationwide recommend a friend offer. If you know anyone who is planning to switch to nationwide you can make a referral and you both get £100 free cash in your account 30 days later. You can do it up to 5 times so that's a whopping £500 for free! I used some of this to pay for the tractor and charity shop goodies which made these purchases totally free!
Total RRP £279 total paid £52.
So that wraps up the gifts but while we are on the subject of 'wrapping up' (sorry couldn't resist) please promise me as a reader you will never ever pay full price for gift wrap again! I bought all this years cards and wrap from a (yep you guessed it) charity shop for 50p each. Considering they are usually £3 a pop that's a decent saving. If charity shops aren't your thing I'm sure you will find similar prices in the New Year sales. Stock up on all your wrap and ribbon for next year while its cheap!
Also you know those charity Christmas letters that arrive on your doorstep each year? You know the salvation army, dogstrust etc…well don't just throw them away as junk mail look inside and you will find lots of useful gift wrap and tags to adorn your gifts with. All my tags this year are from newsletters like these and I think they are quite cute *remember to make a donation to the charity if you found them useful*.
Alternatively save this years christmas cards and cut out the front designs as gift tags for next year. This is something I used to do regularly, it's very effective and not to mention good for the environment!
That so far takes my totals to RRP £935.47 and actual price paid £98.99.
Search the internet for coupons online or like I mentioned previously, write thank you notes to companies to get discount vouchers, then use them when the store has an offer on. You can use the handy app mysupermarket which lists prices from all major supermarkets and shows you clear price comparisons. Next (and this is when you can get really lucky) shop at times when the food starts to get reduced. There's usually 2 times this happens, late afternoon and before store closing. If you're not sure get friendly with the staff and ask. My local Sainsbury's is around 4pm and 6.15pm. If you can combine a discount voucher with an offer or reduced item and you can get food for mere pennies or even for free! Don't forget there's some great apps out there like CheckoutSmart and Shopmium which feature regular freebies and offers. The absolute ultimate is combining all 3 (a voucher, reduced item and cashback) which means you could actually end up getting paid to shop – rare but I've done it before now!
Our family dinner this year is a little bit random as a result of my extreme couponing – it's going to be half a Caribbean chicken (reduced) frozen veg like parsnips, peas and roasties (had a voucher for these) plus a chocolate log for pudding (reduced) all bought at co-op using my loyalty points to pay. I also nabbed some reduced cocktail sausages to nibble on and all my snacks I bought through cashback apps. Yes I realise it's totally random my choice of dinner but I'm thinking throw it all on a plate and jobs a gudden! And seriously my couponing, cashback and loyalty points meant I only paid £1.48 for my Christmas dinner so I'm not complaining! It might not be for everyone but you get the general idea!
I'm completely sorted for my booze too as I won all of it throughout the year in different comps so all I need to add are some mixers and I'm done.
So that's me. My random but wonderful Christmas that in total should be costing me £1000 that's actually only costing £100, well £100.47 if I'm being totally honest, but what's pennies amongst friends?!
Save money off vouchers for when things are on offer.
Save all your store loyalty points for Christmas 2018 – this made a HUGE difference to my Christmas spend.
Don't be afraid to get rummaging in those charity shops! They are a goldmine!
Make friends with the staff and get all the insider tips on food reducing times and upcoming offers, sometimes it really pays to make meaningful small talk to the lady on checkout!
With planning, patience, using every coupon and store loyalty card trick in the book plus a little bit of luck you can do Christmas on a tight budget or even if you're really lucky, for free!
Will you be trying any of my ideas next year? Let me know! And of course. Merry Christmas!
I hope 2018 brings all my readers joy and happiness and above all lots of freebies!
All opinions are my own and should not be taken as advice financial or otherwise, affliate links are included in this post but my opinions do not reflect that of the brands mentioned.
Love this post – so many bright ideas for a frugal Christmas!


This paper by Statistics Finland reports the development process of a register-based census system in Finland and identifies conditions that need to be in place in order to move over from a traditional census and adopt new methodology. It describes both the Finnish experiences of using register data and the register-based population and housing census system itself from the viewpoint of the essential features of population censuses according to the UN population census recommendations.
Paper presented at the 2006 plenary session of the Conference of European Statisticians (CES) in Paris (13-15 June 2006).
Census taking in Europe: how are populations counted in 2010?
Article has been viewed 884 times.
Execution: 0.000. 16 queries. Compression Disabled.


Wales Interactive's Infinity Runner joins the small collective of videogames that offer support for the Oculus Rift virtual reality (VR) head-mounted display (HMD) long before a consumer version of the device is available. Jumping on the VR bandwagon so early is most certainly a double-edged sword: developers have room to experiment without the worry of being judged against bigger budget titles, but in that respect charging for a software product similar to that which many are putting out to consumers for free can have negative implications. Of course, in the end, it's the quality of the product that determines whether or not it achieves it's goals in this open field.
Before even beginning the videogame Infinity Runner screams 'success!' through the inclusion of one important factor: an Oculus Rift menu. Players need not worry about scrabbling around with their desktop display settings or a confusing array of shortcuts keys; everything you need is there, accessible from the main menu. The dream is that videogames will detect your HMD and automatically adjust – and this will come in time – but for now Infinity Runner makes a good play by putting the options upfront in a similar fashion to Strike Suit Zero.
Unfortunately the in-game experience hasn't been tuned to VR play as well as the outward design. Infinity Runner is, as the name suggests, and endless runner videogame that works in a similar fashion to the likes of Temple Run and The Gunstringer: Dead Man Running, however here it is played form a first-person perspective. Conspiracy plots, aliens, guns, schlock sci-fi, werewolves in space; what's not to love? The idea is clearly to mix the pace and aggression of Mirror's Edge with the simplicity of the endless runner genre. On a standard proscenium arch display Infinity Runner is very successful, in VR however it's a less than comfortable experience.
The Story Mode begins by awaking the player from their cryogenic prison and forcing them to the floor. In terms of story and character development this makes perfect sense; you've spent so long unconscious in deep space that controlling your limbs takes a moment to recall. However, in VR, this forced head movement is anything but enjoyable. Infinity Runner makes regular use of this technique throughout the videogame to add tension to situations; combat and story elements. Sadly, in VR, all it does is detract from the action and remind you that simulator sickness is a very real issue.
Infinity Runner features an Arcade Mode in addition to the Story Mode, with a great variety of customisation available to allow players to increase and decrease the challenge as they so wish. As a randomly generated level design comprised of sectors that are repeated from the Story Mode, Infinity Runner is certainly more appreciable as a VR experience here. On a traditional monitor Infinity Runner presents a keen argument for longevity and value for money in it's Arcade Mode, but in VR it's the main attraction that the videogame can offer as a comfortable experience. There's a lesson being learned here: Infinity Runner is fun in VR, but more signposting would be required in order to convince gamers to persevere and find this mode. At what point was the decision not to create a 'VR Mode' using the Arcade Mode and a built-in VR options menu culled? As well designed as Infinity Runner's frontend is, such a immediate interface for VR gameplay would've made a great deal of difference to an audience still finding their VR feet.
The final gameplay mode Infinity Runner offers is multiplayer. Customisable gameplay modes and a basic but per functionary lobby system; this once again proves that – forced head-movement aside – Infinity Runner could be an enjoyable VR experience. It's simply a few strokes short of modifying it's design to suit VR at the expense of a traditional monitor set-up, which will always be a problem for titles aiming to perform well on both. Infinity Runner makes it's play well, but it falls at too many hurdles to be a recommendation for those looking for an action-orientated VR experience.


text:
Robin Day Digital Clock reminds you of upcoming birthdays and has a 170° viewing angle » Gadget Flow
Home/Entertainment News/Movies/Guardians of the Galaxy Game's Purple Llama Has Possible Comic Connection
Guardians of the Galaxy Game's Purple Llama Has Possible Comic Connection
Karen Alden Send an email June 20, 2021
Fans have been wondering about the llama in Guardians Of The Galaxy, and they know its name – along with a possible connection to the comics.
Fans may have uncovered the mystery behind the strange purple llama that Groot has grown fond of in Marvel's Guardians Of The Galaxy. This funny beast of burden caught many viewers' eyes when it showed up at the end of Square Enix's E3 presentation, with even the MCU's James Gunn looking forward to finding out where it comes from, and how it ends up in the custody of the Guardians.
While Marvel's Guardians Of The Galaxy will be set in a different continuity from other Marvel titles like Spider-Man: Miles Morales and even Square Enix's own Marvel's Avengers, developer Eidos Montreal has promised plenty of fun nods and Easter Eggs for fans of the Guardians' illustrated and big-screen adventures. So far, classic characters like Mantis, the Nova Corps, and Cosmo The Spacedog are confirmed to be making appearances in the new Guardians game, and it turns out that the bizarre llama creature might have a four-color origin of its own.
Continue scrolling to keep reading
Click the button below to start this article in quick view.
Related: 10 Questions About Marvel's Guardians Of The Galaxy Game, Answered
As reported by PCGamesN earlier today, the official Twitter account for Marvel's Guardians Of The Galaxy has confirmed that the llama's name is Kammy – which some fans have noted sounds a lot like Cammi. In the comics, there is a character named Cammi who made her first appearance in the pages of 2015's Drax The Destroyer #1 – though this wasn't a llama, but a human girl. She would help Drax battle against the Blood Brothers, who are also confirmed to be present in the new Guardians Of The Galaxy game.
Kammy!
— Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy (@GOTGTheGame) June 15, 2021
Ever since it was first shown off during last week's digital E3 event, fans have been buzzing about Marvel's Guardians Of The Galaxy. The game will put players in the role of Star-Lord as he leads the titular heroes on yet another space-faring adventure, rocking out to 80s pop hits and making serious decisions that will shape the game's story along the way. Even better, the infamous microtransactions that plagued Square Enix's Avengers game won't be present here, and there are already some nice pre-order bonuses to let players don some classic comic-book costumes.
While Kammy the Llama and Cammi the Human are almost certainly not the same being, the names are similar enough that there is probably some connection between the two in the new Guardians Of The Galaxy game. Perhaps Drax decides to name the team's new pet after an old friend of his, especially if the foes she helped him fight are back for revenge. In any case, players might get an answer when Marvel's Guardians Of The Galaxy launches on October 26.
Next: Marvel's GotG Game Continues To Ignore What Makes The MCU Work
Source: PCGamesN, Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy/Twitter
Resident Evil Village: Where Is Leon?
J. Brodie Shirey
J. Brodie Shirey is just a simple man trying to make his way in the universe, but aren't we all? He currently lives in York, Pennsylvania and works as a dishwasher at Shallow Brook Intermediate School. He is a big comic book, video game, and science fiction fan, and likes writing reviews on his blog during his off-hours, at least when he's not writing articles for ScreenRant or scripts for some of his crazy TV show ideas.
A graduate from York County School of Technology, he's self-published several books on Amazon, and once won 1st place at a regional computer fair for a CGI animated short. He might post it on Youtube someday. He hopes that working for this site will be his first step into the larger universe of online writing, since Megazord technology hasn't been invented yet and he doesn't seem to have any Force powers. You can check out his work at The Uncanny Fox, purchase his books on Amazon.com, see his posted scripts on Script Revolution, or see his portfolio here or here. He can also be followed on Twitter @FoxUncanny.
More From J. Brodie Shirey
EU diplomat Josep Borrell blames 'mistrust' for Lebanon's political deadlock
'Godzilla vs. Kong' Crosses $100 Million at Domestic Box Office
All 10 Characters Played By Jeffrey Combs
Tom Hardy Explains the Origins of His Dark Knight Rises Bane Voice
Chinese Zodiac Signs Of Fruits Basket Characters
Ranking The Top 10 Villains From Worst To Pure Evil


A wedding is a celebration of love between two people. Those two people are connecting and vowing to stay connected until death do they part. The celebration can be extravagant or simple, but the bride is always the star of the show. Not only is she celebrated on the wedding day, but she is also celebrated during the bridal shower. The best bridal showers not only make the bride feel like a queen, but also keep the guests happy with entertaining bridal shower games.
While the bridal shower celebrates the bride, it will be most memorable if the guests enjoy themselves, too. Throw the best bridal shower with these entertaining bridal shower games for large groups.
Do you know the history of the bridal shower? It's hard to determine exactly when the first bridal shower was ever thrown, but it is thought to have been in the 16th century.
Back then, a dowry was often given by the groom's parents to the bride's parents. It was essentially a payment for the bride's family to allow the woman to marry the man. The parents of the bride and groom also had to approve of the marriage before it could happen.
But love doesn't always ask for permission, and some men and women would marry without their parents' consent. In order to prepare the bride for the marriage, friends would gather and shower her with gifts.
Things are obviously very different today, but the tradition of bridal showers has remained. Over time, we have incorporated games, cocktails, and a bunch of laughs to make the bridal shower even more special.
While many people think first about food and decorations for bridal showers, having a couple entertaining bridal shower games is what people will remember most.
So instead of your friends paying for your hand in marriage, how about finding entertaining bridal shower games for large groups so you can have fun.


15kW Unenclosed Star Delta Motor Starter.
The start delta unit is provided with a timer for automatic changeover of star delta to reduce the voltage and current of motor starting plus a thermal overload for motor protection.
The default overload supplied with the 15kW star delta unit is TO-18(12-18A).
The maximum motor current specified in the table (see gallery) is a guide please whenever possible, determine the actual full load current from the motor rating plate in each case.
The Star-Delta starters come standard with 415V AC control coil; the units can be supplied with 240V,110V,48V, and 24V AC coils. Allow 1-2 working days for the coils to be changed.
1: Set the overload to 58% of the motor rated current.
2: Always check the full load current of the motor before finalizing your selection the maximum load current can vary between motors depending on the efficiency of the motors.
11kW Unenclosed Star Delta Motor Starter. 415V AC Control Coil. Overload Included. ..
7.5kW Unenclosed Star Delta Motor Starter. 415V AC Control Coil. Overload Included. ..
55kW Unenclosed Star Delta Motor Starter. 415V AC Control Coil. Overload Included. Thi..
30kW Unenclosed Star Delta Motor Starter. 415V AC Control Coil. Overload Included. Thi..
45kW Unenclosed Star Delta Motor Starter. 415V AC Control Coil. Overload Included. Thi..
5.5kW Unenclosed Star Delta Motor Starter. 415V AC Control Coil. Overload Included. ..
37kW Unenclosed Star Delta Motor Starter. 415V AC Control Coil. Overload Included. Thi..
22kW Unenclosed Star Delta Motor Starter. 415V AC Control Coil. Overload Included. Thi..


Most airline shopping portals are now offering an increased bonus for a 12 month subscription to The Economist. These bonuses vary by airline portal but at minimum you're earning 1,000 extra miles for your chosen program.
These bonuses are pretty common and come around every few months depending on the publisher and portal. There is no published end date or quota for the number of new subscriptions, so if you're interested jump on this now.
According to the fine print you need to have an active subscription for 60 days before the miles will be handed out. After that it is possible to cancel while keeping the miles in your account.
Eligible on one (1) subscription per loyalty account number.
Only eligible on new subscriptions. Only eligible on first month for pay by month subscriptions.
Subscription must be active for at least 60 days.
Not eligible on subscription renewals.
Not eligible on any free products, trials, services, subscriptions and memberships.
Not eligible on all retailer marketing subscriptions.
If you're in it just for the miles you can easily cancel by email. Be sure to send the email between 60 days to the end of your subscription to avoid being charged for the full price of subscribing. The following link to their terms has an easy method to email them to cancel.
If you're in it just for the points it's a great way to get an extra boost to your miles for fairly cheap. Be sure to stay on top of it and cancel between the 60 day mark and the end of your subscription. For some the value is fairly low compared to miles you could be earning from credit card rewards or manufactured spending.