Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China, 15726-15735 [E8-6079]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
15726
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 25, 2008 / Notices
from August 4 to 12, 2008. The mission
provides an opportunity for U.S. firms
to tap into lucrative, fast growing
markets for U.S. medical equipment.
The medical equipment sector in these
countries is growing at an average 13
percent rate, and the United States
remains a major source of medical
equipment, with an average 28 percent
market share. At each stop, the mission
will include country briefings;
individual business meetings with
prospective agents, distributors,
partners, and end-users; site visits; and
networking functions with private
companies and local government
officials.
Commercial Setting—Philippines: The
Philippines medical industry is almost
totally dependent on imports, and
medical tourism to the Philippines
continues to grow, offering many
opportunities for U.S. sellers of medical
equipment and instruments. Several
hospitals are improving facilities and
adapting new technologies to address
demand from foreigners and returning
residents. The United States claims an
estimated 25 percent of the Philippines’
$177 million import market for medical
equipment, making it second only to
China as the top supplier. U.S.-trained
Filipino doctors prefer the high
technology of American equipment,
which justifies their higher costs. Best
prospects include electromedical
equipment, ultrasonic scanning
machines, X-ray and radiation
equipment, dialysis instruments and
apparatus, and medical and surgical
instruments.
Thailand: The market for medical
devices in Thailand grew by an
estimated 15 percent in 2007. About 75
percent of medical devices in Thailand
are imported, and the U.S. share is
about 29 percent. Market growth in the
next few years (2008 to 2010) will
continue to derive mainly from the need
to upgrade health care facilities and
replace medical devices. Hospitals are
promoting high-end equipment and
specializations to attract more patients.
Hospital equipment is imported and
distributed by independent agents and/
or distributors who also handle
marketing, customs clearance, and
product registration/import
authorization. Best prospects include
heart valves and artificial blood vessels,
disposable diagnostic test kits, quick
diagnostic testing devices, respiratory
devices and oxygen therapy,
rehabilitation equipment and
accessories, orthopedic and implant
devices and accessories, minimum
invasive surgical devices, and
neurosurgical and other surgical
devices.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:33 Mar 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
Malaysia: The $1.4 billion Malaysian
medical devices market is projected to
grow at a rate of 10 percent in 2008.
Ninety percent of medical devices are
imported, and the U.S. import market
share is 22 percent. An increasing
patient population and focus on health
care cost containment and preventative
therapies influence demand for medical
devices for cardiovascular, orthopedic,
respiratory, ophthalmic, neurological,
disposable, and infection control
applications. The increasing senior
population and modern lifestyle
diseases are expected to boost demand
for more affordable quality drugs and
equipment. Plans for constructing new
and replacement hospitals are under
way. Promotion of health tourism is
robust and includes developing health
services in areas where Malaysia offers
a comparative advantage, such as spas
and cosmetic services. The Ministry of
Tourism has unveiled a health tourism
portal, and the government’s ninth
Malaysia Plan, for 2006–2010, includes
proposals for four significant new health
care programs. Best prospects include
electromedical equipment, orthopedic
appliances, and diagnostic and
therapeutic radiation devices.
Mission Goals: The mission will
showcase U.S. medical equipment and
technology to improve health care
delivery in each country. The objective
of the mission is to facilitate market
entry and/or increase sales for U.S.
suppliers of medical devices, as well as
provide firsthand market information
and access to potential business
partners.
Mission Scenario: The Commercial
Service in Manila, Bangkok, and Kuala
Lumpur will provide country briefings;
customized, pre-arranged appointments
with prospective partners, distributors,
and end-users; meetings with
appropriate host government agencies;
and networking events with local
officials and company representatives.
The focus of the mission will be to
match U.S. companies with prescreened agents, distributors, buyers,
and representatives in these markets.
Criteria for Participation
• Relevance of a company’s business
to mission goals.
• Potential for business in the
selected markets for the company.
• Company must supply adequate
information on its products/services,
and on its market objectives, in order to
facilitate appropriate matching with
potential business partners.
• Company’s product or service must
be either produced in the United States,
or, if not, marketed under the name of
a U.S. firm and have at least 51 percent
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
U.S. content of the value of the finished
product or service.
• Timeliness of a company’s signed
application and participation
agreement, including a participation fee
of $3,500. This fee does not include
travel, lodging, and most meals.
Recruitment will be conducted on a first
come-first served basis and will close
July 11, 2008. Applications received
after July 11 will be considered only if
space and scheduling permit.
Contact: Jennifer Loffredo, Global
Health Care Technologies Team Leader.
E-mail: Jennifer.Loffredo@mail.doc.gov.
Telephone: 248–975–9600.
Nancy Hesser,
Manager, Commercial Service Trade
Missions, U.S. Commercial Service,
International Trade Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–5933 Filed 3–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–25–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–918]
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People’s
Republic of China
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 2008.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine
that steel wire garment hangers
(‘‘hangers’’) from the People’s Republic
of China (‘‘PRC’’) are being, or are likely
to be, sold in the United States at less
than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in
section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in
the ‘‘Preliminary Determination’’
section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Irene Gorelik or Julia Hancock, 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) 482–6905 or 482–1394,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Initiation
On July 31, 2007, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a
petition on imports of hangers from the
PRC filed in proper form by M&B Metal
Products (‘‘Petitioner’’) on behalf of the
domestic industry and workers
producing hangers. This investigation
E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM
25MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 25, 2008 / Notices
was initiated on September 10, 2007.
See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from
the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 72 FR 52855 (September
17, 2007) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
Additionally, in the Initiation Notice,
the Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters
and producers may obtain separate–rate
status in non–market economy (‘‘NME’’)
investigations. See Id. 72 FR 52858–59.
The process requires exporters and
producers to submit a separate–rate
status application. See id.; Policy
Bulletin 05.1: Separate–Rates Practice
and Application of Combination Rates
in Antidumping Investigations involving
Non–Market Economy Countries, (April
5, 2005), (‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’)
available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov.
However, the standard for eligibility for
a separate rate (which requires a firm to
demonstrate an absence of both de jure
and de facto governmental control over
its export activities) has not changed.
On October 5, 2007, the United States
International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)
issued its affirmative preliminary
determination that there is a reasonable
indication that an industry in the
United States is materially injured or
threatened with material injury by
reason of imports from the PRC of steel
wire garment hangers. The ITC’s
determination was published in the
Federal Register on October 18, 2007.
See Investigation No. 731–TA–1123
(Preliminary), Steel Wire Garment
Hangers from China, 72 FR 59112
(October 18, 2007).
quantity and value information from all
known exporters identified in the
petition for purposes of mandatory
respondent selection. See Certain Steel
Nails from the People’s Republic of
China and United Arab Emirates:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 72 FR at 38816, 38821
(July 16, 2007); Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation:
Certain Pneumatic Off–The-Road Tires
from the People’s Republic of China, 72
FR 43591, 43595 (August 6, 2007).
However, for this investigation, because
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading
7326.20.00.20, as discussed below in the
‘‘Scope of the Investigation,’’ provided
comprehensive coverage of imports of
steel wire garment hangers, the
Department selected respondents in this
investigation based on U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data of
U.S. imports under HTSUS subheading
7326.20.0020 from the POI.
On October 16, 2007, the Department
selected Shanghai Wells Hanger Co.,
Ltd., (‘‘Shanghai Wells’’) and Shaoxing
Gangyuan Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Shaoxing Gangyuan’’) as mandatory
respondents in this investigation. See
Memorandum to James C. Doyle,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
from Irene Gorelik and Julia Hancock,
International Trade Compliance
Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9:
Selection of Respondents for the
Antidumping Investigation of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People’s
Republic of China, (October 16, 2007)
(‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’).
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007.
This period corresponds to the two most
recent fiscal quarters prior to the month
of the filing of the petition (July 31,
2007). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Surrogate Country Comments
On October 2, 2007, the Department
determined that India, Indonesia, Sri
Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are
countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of economic development. See
Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen,
Director, Office of Policy, to Alex
Villanueva, Program Manager, China/
NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping
Investigation of Steel Wire Garment
Hangers from the People’s Republic of
China (PRC): Request for a List of
Surrogate Countries, (October 2, 2007)
(‘‘Surrogate Country List’’).
On October 17, 2007, the Department
requested comments on the selection of
a surrogate country from the interested
parties in this investigation. On
December 31, 2007, Petitioner filed an
extension request to submit surrogate
country and factor valuation comments,
which the Department extended until
January 7, 2008. On January 7, 2008,
Petitioner submitted surrogate country
comments requesting that India be
selected as the appropriate surrogate
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Scope Comments
The Department also set aside a 20–
day period from the publication of the
initiation for all interested parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage.
See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 52855.
The Department did not receive any
comments from interested parties
regarding product coverage during the
20–day period and subsequently, has
not changed the scope as set forth in the
Initiation Notice.
Respondent Selection and Quantity and
Value
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that in recent NME
investigations, it has been the
Department’s practice to request
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:33 Mar 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15727
country. No other interested parties
commented on the selection of a
surrogate country. For a detailed
discussion of the selection of the
surrogate country, see ‘‘Surrogate
Country’’ section below.
Surrogate Value Comments
On January 7, 2008, Petitioner,
Shanghai Wells, and Shaoxing
Gangyuan submitted surrogate factor
valuation comments. On January 17,
2008, Shaoxing Gangyuan submitted a
rebuttal to Petitioner’s surrogate factor
value comments.
Separate–Rates Applications
Between October 9, 2007, and
November 9, 2007, we received
separate–rate applications from sixteen
companies.1 See the ‘‘Separate Rates’’
section below for the full discussion of
the treatment of the separate–rate
applicants.
Questionnaires
On September 10, 2007, the
Department requested comments from
all interested parties on proposed
product characteristics and model
match criteria to be used in the
designation of control numbers
(‘‘CONNUMs’’) to be assigned to the
merchandise under consideration. The
Department received comments from
Petitioner and Shaoxing Gangyuan. On
October 16, 2007, the Department issued
its section A portion of the NME
questionnaire. On October 17, 2007, the
Department issued its sections C and D
portions of the NME questionnaire with
product characteristics and model
match criteria used in the designation of
CONNUMs and assigned to the
merchandise under consideration. The
Department issued supplemental
questionnaires to Shanghai Wells and
Shaoxing Gangyuan between November
2007 and February 2008, and received
responses between December 2007 and
March 2008.
On November 27, 2007, the
Department conducted a domestic plant
tour of Petitioner’s facility in Leeds,
1 The following companies filed separate-rate
applications: Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co.,
Ltd.; Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd.;
Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.;
Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.;
Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.;
Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.;
Jiangyin Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Shangyu
Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang
Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd.; Pu Jiang County
Command Metal Products Co.; Shaoxing Shunji
Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Dasheng
Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd.; Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device
Co., Ltd.; Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Shaoxing Guochao Metallic Products Co., Ltd.; and
Tianjin Hongtong Metal Manufacture Co., Ltd.,
(collectively, ‘‘SRAs’’).
E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM
25MRN1
15728
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 25, 2008 / Notices
Alabama. See Memorandum to the File
from Irene Gorelik, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, Office 9, Import
Administration, (November 28, 2007).
Postponement of Preliminary
Determination
On December 31, 2007, Petitioner
filed a request to postpone the issuance
of the preliminary determination by 50
days. On January 8, 2008, the
Department informed all interested
parties of its intent to postpone the
preliminary determination pursuant to
section 733(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act by fifty
days to March 18, 2008. On January 11,
2008, the Department published a
postponement of the preliminary
antidumping duty determination on
hangers from the PRC. See Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of
Postponement of Preliminary
Determination of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 73 FR 2004 (January 11,
2008) (‘‘Prelim Extension FR’’).2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise that is subject to
this investigation is steel wire garment
hangers, fabricated from carbon steel
wire, whether or not galvanized or
painted, whether or not coated with
latex or epoxy or similar gripping
materials, and/or whether or not
fashioned with paper covers or capes
(with or without printing) and/or
nonslip features such as saddles or
tubes. These products may also be
referred to by a commercial designation,
such as shirt, suit, strut, caped, or latex
(industrial) hangers. Specifically
excluded from the scope of this
investigation are wooden, plastic, and
other garment hangers that are classified
under separate subheadings of the
HTSUS. The products subject to this
investigation are currently classified
under HTSUS subheading 7326.20.0020.
Although the HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Non–Market-Economy Country
For purposes of initiation, Petitioner
submitted LTFV analyses for the PRC as
an NME country. See Initiation Notice,
72 FR at 52857. The Department
considers the PRC to be an NME
country. In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is
2 In the Prelim Extension FR, the Department
incorrectly stated in footnote 2 that ‘‘190 days from
the initiation date is actually March 17, 2008.’’ The
Department intended to state that 190 days from the
initiation date of September 10, 2007, is March 18,
2008.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:33 Mar 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
an NME country shall remain in effect
until revoked by the administering
authority. See Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper
from the People’s Republic of China, 72
FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007),
unchanged in Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated
Free Sheet Paper from the People’s
Republic of China, 72 FR 60632
(October 25, 2007). In accordance with
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect
until revoked by the administering
authority. No party has challenged the
designation of the PRC as an NME
country in this investigation. Therefore,
we continue to treat the PRC as an NME
country for purposes of this preliminary
determination.
Surrogate Country
When the Department investigates
imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1)
of the Act directs it to base normal value
(‘‘NV’’), in most circumstances, on the
NME producer’s factors of production
(‘‘FOP’’) valued in a surrogate market–
economy country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
Department. In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the
FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to
the extent possible, the prices or costs
of FOPs in one or more market–
economy countries that are at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the NME country and are
significant producers of comparable
merchandise. The sources of the
surrogate values we have used in this
investigation are discussed under the
‘‘Normal Value’’ section below.
The Department’s practice is
explained in Policy Bulletin 04.1,3
which states that ‘‘Per capita GNI4 is the
primary basis for determining economic
comparability.’’ The Department
considers the five countries identified in
its Surrogate Country List as ‘‘equally
comparable in terms of economic
development.’’ Id. Thus, we find that
India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, and
Philippines are all at an economic level
of development equally comparable to
that of the PRC.
3 See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy
Surrogate Country Selection Process, (March 1,
2004), (‘‘Policy Bulletin 04.1’’) available at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov.
4 GNI stands for gross national income, which
comprises GDP plus net receipts of primary income
(compensation of employees and property income)
from nonresident sources. See, e.g., https://
www.finfacts.com/ biz10/
globalworldincomepercapita.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Second, Policy Bulletin 04.1 provides
some guidance on identifying
comparable merchandise and selecting a
producer of comparable merchandise.
Specifically, the Policy Bulletin 04.1
explains that ‘‘in cases where identical
merchandise is not produced, the team
must determine if other merchandise
that is comparable is produced.’’ See
Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 2. The
Department obtained export data for
steel wire garment hangers from the
World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’) and found
that none of the countries on the
Surrogate Country List produce or
export identical merchandise. Thus, the
Department determined which countries
on the Surrogate Country List were
producers of comparable merchandise.
The Department obtained worldwide
export data for steel wire products.5
Specifically, we reviewed export data
from the WTA for the HTS heading
7326.20, ‘‘Other Articles of Iron/Steel
Wire,’’ for 2006. The Department found
that, of the countries provided in the
Surrogate Country List, all five countries
were exporters of comparable
merchandise: steel wire products. Thus,
all countries on the Surrogate Country
List are considered as appropriate
surrogates because each exported
comparable merchandise.
The Policy Bulletin 04.1 also provides
some guidance on identifying
significant producers of comparable
merchandise and selecting a producer of
comparable merchandise. Further
analysis was required to determine
whether any of the countries which
produce comparable merchandise are
significant’ producers of that
comparable merchandise. The data we
obtained shows that, in 2006,
worldwide exports for HTS 7326.20
from: India were approximately
4,884,412 kg; Indonesia were
approximately 1,830,965 kg; Sri Lanka
were approximately 244,223 kg; the
Philippines were approximately 371,379
kg; and Egypt6 were approximately
89,850 kg. We note that although Sri
Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are
exporters of steel wire products, the
quantities they exported do not qualify
them as significant producers of the
comparable merchandise.7 Thus, the
Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Egypt are
5 Because the Department was unable to find
production data, we relied on export data as a
substitute for overall production data in this case.
6 The worldwide export data from Egypt was
obtained from the Global Trade Atlas since
Egyptian export statistics are not available on WTA.
7 We note that, of the total export quantities
obtained from world trade data, the Philippines, Sri
Lanka, and Egypt account for five percent, three
percent, and one percent, respectively, of the total
exports of comparable merchandise of all five
countries on the Surrogate Country List.
E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM
25MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 25, 2008 / Notices
not being considered as appropriate
surrogate countries. Additionally,
although Indonesia appears to be a
significant producer of comparable
merchandise, India’s percentage of
exports of comparable merchandise at
66 percent of the total exports of the five
countries far exceeds that of Indonesia’s
25 percent. Finally, we have reliable
data from India on the record that we
can use to value the FOPs. Petitioner
and both selected respondents
submitted surrogate values using Indian
sources, suggesting greater availability
of appropriate surrogate value data in
India.
As noted above, the Department only
received surrogate country comments
from Petitioners, who favored selection
of India. The Department is
preliminarily selecting India as the
surrogate country on the basis that: (1)
it is at a similar level of economic
development pursuant to section
773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise;
and (3) we have reliable data from India
that we can use to value the FOPs. Thus,
we have calculated NV using Indian
prices when available and appropriate
to value Shanghai Wells’ and Shaoxing
Gangyuan’s FOPs. See Memorandum to
the File from Julia Hancock, through
Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, and James C.
Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9: Steel Wire Garment Hangers
from the People’s Republic of China:
Surrogate Values for the Preliminary
Determination, (March 18, 2008)
(‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). In
accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final
determination in an antidumping
investigation, interested parties may
submit publicly available information to
value the FOPs within 40 days after the
date of publication of the preliminary
determination.8
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Affiliations
Section 771(33) of the Act, provides
that:
8 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the
final determination of this investigation, interested
parties may submit factual information to rebut,
clarify, or correct factual information submitted by
an interested party less than ten days before, on, or
after, the applicable deadline for submission of
such factual information. However, the Department
notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new
information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or
corrects information recently placed on the record.
The Department generally cannot accept the
submission of additional, previously absent-fromthe-record alternative surrogate value information
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17,
2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:33 Mar 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
The following persons shall be
considered to be ‘affiliated’ or ‘affiliated
persons’:
(A) Members of a family, including
brothers and sisters (whether by the
whole or half blood), spouse,
ancestors, and lineal descendants.
(B) Any officer or director of an
organization and such organization.
(C) Partners.
(D) Employer and employee.
(E) Any person directly or indirectly
owning, controlling, or holding
with power to vote, 5 percent or
more of the outstanding voting
stock or shares of any organization
and such organization.
(F) Two or more persons directly or
indirectly controlling, controlled
by, or under common control with,
any person.
(G) Any person who controls any other
person and such other person.
Additionally, section 771(33) of the
Act stipulates that: ‘‘For purposes of this
paragraph, a person shall be considered
to control another person if the person
is legally or operationally in a position
to exercise restraint or direction over the
other person.’’
Based on the evidence on the record
in this investigation and based on the
evidence presented in Shaoxing
Gangyuan’s questionnaire responses, we
preliminarily find that Shaoxing
Gangyuan is affiliated with Shaoxing
Andrew Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Andrew’’), Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tongzhou’’),
and a fourth company,9 pursuant to
sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the
Act, based on ownership and common
control. Furthermore, we find that they
should be considered as a single entity
for purposes of this investigation. See 19
CFR 351.401(f). In addition to being
affiliated, they have production
facilities for similar or identical
products that would not require
substantial retooling and there is a
significant potential for manipulation of
production based on the level of
common ownership and control, shared
management, and an intertwining of
business operations. See 19 CFR
351.401(f)(1) and (2). For a detailed
9 The identity of this company is business
proprietary information; for further discussion of
this company, see Memorandum to Alex
Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, from Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary
Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from
the People’s Republic of China: Affiliations Memo
of Shaoxing Gangyuan and its Affiliates, (March 18,
2008)(‘‘Shaoxing Metal Companies Affiliation
Memo’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15729
discussion of this issue, see Shaoxing
Metal Companies Affiliation Memo.
Because the Department finds that
Shaoxing Gangyuan and its affiliates are
a single entity, the Department is
utilizing the integrated FOP database
Shaoxing Gangyuan provided for
purposes of the preliminary
determination, which includes the FOPs
from Andrew, Tongzhou, and the fourth
company. Hereinafter, Shaoxing
Gangyuan and its affiliates will be
referred to as the ‘‘Shaoxing Metal
Companies.’’
Separate Rates
Additionally, in the Initiation Notice,
the Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters
and producers may obtain separate–rate
status in NME investigations. See
Initiation Notice. The process requires
exporters and producers to submit a
separate–rate status application. See
also Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate–
Rates Practice and Application of
Combination Rates in Antidumping
Investigations involving Non–Market
Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005),
(‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’) available at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov.10 However, the
standard for eligibility for a separate rate
(which requires a firm to demonstrate
an absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over its export
activities) has not changed.
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department’s policy
to assign all exporters of merchandise
subject to investigation in an NME
country this single rate unless an
exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through
10 The Policy Bulletin 05.1, states: ‘‘{w}hile
continuing the practice of assigning separate rates
only to exporters, all separate rates that the
Department will now assign in its NME
investigations will be specific to those producers
that supplied the exporter during the period of
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is
calculated for the exporter and all of the producers
which supplied merchandise under consideration
to it during the period of investigation. This
practice applies both to mandatory respondents
receiving an individually calculated separate rate as
well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving
the weighted-average of the individually calculated
rates. This practice is referred to as the application
of ≥combination rates≥ because such rates apply to
specific combinations of exporters and one or more
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an
exporter will apply only to merchandise both
exported by the firm in question and produced by
a firm that supplied the exporter during the period
of investigation.’’ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.
E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM
25MRN1
15730
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 25, 2008 / Notices
the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export
activities. As discussed fully below, all
but one of the SRAs have provided
company–specific information to
demonstrate that they operate
independently of de jure and de facto
government control and, therefore,
satisfy the standards for the assignment
of a separate rate.11
The Department analyzes each entity
exporting the merchandise under
consideration under a test arising from
the Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the
People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588
(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further
developed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’).
However, if the Department determines
that a company is wholly foreign–
owned or located in a market economy,
then a separate rate analysis is not
necessary to determine whether it is
independent from government control.
A. Separate Rate Recipients
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Wholly Foreign–Owned
One separate rate company, Jiangyin
Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Hongji’’) reported that it is wholly
owned by individuals or companies
located in a market economy in its
separate–rate application. See
‘‘PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION’’
section below for the company marked
with a ‘‘ ∧ ‘‘ designating this company
as wholly foreign–owned. Therefore,
because it is wholly foreign–owned, and
we have no evidence indicating that it
is under the control of the PRC, a
separate rates analysis is not necessary
to determine whether this company is
independent from government control.
See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine
Monohydrate From the People’s
Republic of China, 64 FR 71104–71105
(December 20, 1999) (where the
respondent was wholly foreign–owned,
and thus, qualified for a separate rate).
Accordingly, we have preliminarily
granted a separate rate to this company.
Joint Ventures Between Chinese and
Foreign Companies or Wholly Chinese–
Owned Companies
Fifteen of the SRAs in this
investigation stated that they are either
joint ventures between Chinese and
foreign companies or are wholly
Chinese–owned companies. Therefore,
11 All separate-rate applicants receiving a separate
rate are hereby referred to collectively as the ‘‘PRC
SR Recipients.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:33 Mar 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
the Department must analyze whether
these companies can demonstrate the
absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export
activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
The evidence provided by the PRC SR
Recipients supports a preliminary
finding of de jure absence of
governmental control based on the
following: (1) an absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with the
individual exporters’ business and
export licenses; (2) there are applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing
control of the companies; and (3) and
there are formal measures by the
government decentralizing control of
companies. See, e.g., Pu Jiang County
Command Metal Products Co., Ltd.,
November 9, 2007, Separate Rate
Application.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
governmental control of its export
functions: (1) whether the export prices
(‘‘EP’’) are set by or are subject to the
approval of a governmental agency; (2)
whether the respondent has authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at
22587; see also Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR
22544, 22545 & n.3 (May 8, 1995). The
Department has determined that an
analysis of de facto control is critical in
determining whether respondents are,
in fact, subject to a degree of
governmental control which would
preclude the Department from assigning
separate rates. The evidence provided
by the PRC SR Recipients supports a
preliminary finding of de facto absence
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of governmental control based on the
following: (1) whether the EP is set by
or are subject to the approval of a
governmental agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses. See, e.g., Shaoxing Meideli Metal
Hanger Co., Ltd., October 9, 2007,
Separate–Rate Application.
The evidence placed on the record of
this investigation by the PRC SR
Recipients demonstrate an absence of de
jure and de facto government control
with respect to each of the exporters’
exports of the merchandise under
investigation, in accordance with the
criteria identified in Sparklers and
Silicon Carbide. See ‘‘PRELIMINARY
DETERMINATION’’ section below for
companies marked with an ‘‘ * ‘‘
designating these companies as joint
ventures between Chinese and foreign
companies or wholly Chinese–owned
companies that have demonstrated their
eligibility for a separate rate.
Companies Not Receiving a Separate
Rate
The Department is not granting a
separate rate to the following SRA for
the reasons discussed below.
Tianjin Hongtong Metal Manufacture
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hongtong’’) was unable to
demonstrate that it had sales of the
merchandise under consideration to the
United States. Upon reviewing
Hongtong’s separate–rates application
and supplemental questionnaire
response, we noted that Hongtong’s
reported U.S. sales were in fact sales to
another PRC entity, an export agent that
invoiced and received payment for
merchandise sold to the United States.
In NME proceedings, we do not examine
sales prices between NME entities (e.g.,
transaction prices between an NME
producer of the merchandise under
consideration and the NME exporter of
the merchandise under consideration)
as NME countries are presumed to ‘‘not
operate on market principles of cost or
pricing structures so that the sales of
merchandise in such countr{ies} do not
reflect the fair value of the
merchandise.’’ See section 771(18) of
the Act. Accordingly, non–exporting
NME producers of the merchandise
under consideration are not eligible for
examination as respondents. Based on
Hongtong’s description of the sales
chain for the merchandise it produces,
E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM
25MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 25, 2008 / Notices
Hongtong was a producer and not an
exporter of the merchandise under
consideration during the POI and,
therefore, is not eligible to receive a
separate rate in this investigation.
Companies Receiving a Separate Rate
The Department has determined that
PRC SR recipients12 applying for a
separate rate in this segment of the
proceeding have demonstrated an
absence of government control both in
law and in fact and is, therefore,
according separate rate status to these
applicants. Additionally, because the
Department has collapsed Andrew and
Tongzhou, two of the SRAs with
Shaoxing Gangyuan, their separate rate
analysis will be conducted in
conjunction with the analysis
conducted for Shaoxing Gangyuan.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
PRC–Wide Entity
Information on the record of this
investigation indicates that there are
numerous producers/exporters of
hangers in the PRC. As stated above, the
Department collected CBP data to select
respondents based on imports of
hangers classified under HTSUS
subheading 7326.20.00.20. See
Respondent Selection Memo. The
Department selected Shanghai Wells
and the Shaoxing Metal Companies as
mandatory respondents. Additionally,
as stated above, sixteen companies,
including the two companies collapsed
with Shaoxing Gangyuan filed separate–
rates applications, resulting in eighteen
companies that are actively
participating in this investigation. Upon
receipt of the separate–rates
applications, we examined the
disaggregated13 CBP data and
determined that a significant number of
exporters of hangers from the PRC
during the POI were neither selected for
review nor filed separate–rate
applications, thus not active
participants in this investigation. Based
12 These companies are: Shaoxing Meideli Metal
Hanger Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Dingli Metal
Clotheshorse Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Liangbao Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shangyu Baoxiang Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Lucky Cloud
Hanger Co., Ltd., Pu Jiang County Command Metal
Products Co., Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse
Co., Ltd., Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd.,
Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co., Ltd., Yiwu Ao-Si
Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Shaoxing Guochao
Metallic Products Co., Ltd. The Department also
included Hongji in this list, though a separate rate
analysis was not required (as stated above).
13 In this case, disaggregated data refers to
exporter names in the CBP data, which appear to
be duplicates albeit not combined for purposes of
respondent selection. As a result, the CBP data
showed many companies exported hangers to the
United States during the POI, although the actual
number of companies may be lower due to
duplicate names in the CBP data.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:33 Mar 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
upon our knowledge of the volume of
imports of the merchandise under
consideration from the PRC from CBP
data, the volume of imports of the
merchandise under consideration from
Shanghai Wells, the Shaoxing Metal
Companies, and the SRAs, while
accounting for a significant share, do
not account for all imports into the
United States. Therefore, the
Department preliminarily determines
that there were PRC producers/exporters
of the merchandise under consideration
during the POI that did not apply for
separate rates, thus establishing that
there is a PRC–Wide entity with respect
to this product. Therefore, consistent
with the presumption of government
control, we preliminarily determine that
some exports of subject merchandise are
from entities under the control of the
PRC–Wide entity. The Department’s
presumption that these entries were
subject to government control has not
been rebutted, thus we preliminarily
determine that these entries should be
assessed a single PRC–Wide
antidumping duty rate. As the single
PRC–Wide rate, we have taken the
simple average of: (A) the weighted–
average of the calculated rates of
Shaoxing Metal Companies and
Shanghai Wells and (B) the simple
average of the petition rates that fell
within the range of Shaoxing Metal
Companies’ and Shanghai Wells’
individual transaction margins.
Accordingly, we determine that the
single rate applicable to the PRC–Wide
entity is 221.05 %. The PRC–Wide rate
applies to all entries of the merchandise
under investigation with the exception
of those entries from Shanghai Wells,
the Shaoxing Metal Companies, and the
PRC SR Recipients.
Separate–Rate Calculation
The Department received timely and
complete separate–rates applications
from the PRC SR Recipients, who are all
exporters of hangers from the PRC,
which were not selected as mandatory
respondents in this investigation.
Through the evidence in their
applications, with the exception of
Hongtong, these companies have
demonstrated their eligibility for a
separate rate, as discussed above in the
‘‘Separate Rates’’ section and in the
Memorandum to the File, from Irene
Gorelik, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9: Preliminary
Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Steel Wire Garment
Hangers from the People’s Republic of
China: Calculation of the Separate Rate
Weighted–Average Margin, (March 18,
2008). Consistent with the Department’s
practice, as the separate rate, we have
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15731
established a weighted–average margin
for the PRC SR Recipients based on the
rates we calculated for Shanghai Wells
and the Shaoxing Metal Companies,
excluding any rates that are zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on adverse
facts available (‘‘AFA’’). See, e.g.,
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple
Fiber from the People’s Republic of
China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December
26, 2006) (‘‘PSF’’) unchanged in Final
Determination. Companies receiving
this rate are identified by name in the
‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of
this notice.
Date of Sale
Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s
regulations states that, ‘‘in identifying
the date of sale of the merchandise
under consideration or foreign like
product, the Secretary normally will use
the date of invoice, as recorded in the
exporter or producer’s records kept in
the normal course of business.’’
However, the Secretary may use a date
other than the date of invoice if the
Secretary is satisfied that a different
date better reflects the date on which
the exporter or producer establishes the
material terms of sale. See 19 CFR
351.401(i); See also Allied Tube &
Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F.
Supp. 2d 1087, 1090–1092 (CIT 2001)
(‘‘Allied Tube’’). The date of sale is
generally the date on which the parties
agree upon all substantive terms of the
sale. This normally includes the price,
quantity, delivery terms and payment
terms. See Id., at 77377. In order to
simplify the determination of date of
sale for both the respondents and the
Department and in accordance with 19
CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale will
normally be the date of the invoice, as
recorded in the exporter’s or producer’s
records kept in the ordinary course of
business, unless the Department is
satisfied that the exporter or producer
establishes the material terms of sale on
some other date. For instance, in Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol
From Taiwan, 61 FR 14064, 14067–
14068 (March 29, 1996), the Department
used the date of the purchase order as
the date of sale because the terms of sale
were established at that point.
After examining the questionnaire
responses and the sales documentation
that Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing
Metal Companies placed on the record,
we preliminarily determine that the
invoice date is the most appropriate
date of sale for Shanghai Wells and the
Shaoxing Metal Companies.
E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM
25MRN1
15732
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 25, 2008 / Notices
In Allied Tube, the Court of
International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) found that a
‘‘party seeking to establish a date of sale
other than invoice date bears the burden
of producing sufficient evidence to
satisfy’ the Department that a different
date better reflects the date on which
the exporter or producer establishes the
material terms of sale.’’’ Allied Tube 132
F. Supp. 2d at 1092.
Here, the Department preliminarily
determines that based on the
information on the record, the invoice
date is the appropriate date of sale for
Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal
Companies. Each respondent has
provided various examples of material
changes to their purchase orders during
the POI. See Shanghai Wells’
Supplemental Section C Questionnaire
Response, dated February 7, 2008 and
Shaoxing Metal Companies’s
Supplemental Section C Questionnaire
Response, dated February 1, 2008.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of steel
wire garment hangers to the United
States by Shanghai Wells and the
Shaoxing Metal Companies were made
at less than fair value, we compared the
EP to NV, as described in the ‘‘U.S.
Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of
this notice. We compared NV to
weighted–average EPs in accordance
with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act.
U.S. Price
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
A. EP
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, we based the U.S. price for the
Shaoxing Metal Companies’s sales and
certain Shanghai Wells’ sales on EP
because the first sale to an unaffiliated
purchaser was made prior to
importation, and the use of constructed
export price (‘‘CEP’’) was not otherwise
warranted. In accordance with section
772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP by
deducting, where applicable, foreign
inland freight, foreign brokerage and
handling, international freight, and
rebates from the gross unit price. We
based these movement expenses on
surrogate values where a PRC company
provided the service and was paid in
Renminbi. For details regarding our EP
calculation, see Memorandum to the
File from Irene Gorelik, Senior Case
Analyst: Program Analysis for the
Preliminary Determination of
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel
Wire Garment Hangers from the
People’s Republic of China: Shanghai
Wells Hanger Co., Ltd., (March 18, 2008)
(‘‘Shanghai Wells Analysis
Memorandum’’) and Shaoxing Metal
Companies Analysis Memorandum.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:33 Mar 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
B. CEP
In accordance with section 772(b) of
the Act, we based the U.S. price for
certain Shanghai Wells’ sales on CEP
because these sales were made by
Shanghai Wells’ U.S. affiliate.14 In
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act, we calculated CEP by
deducting, where applicable, the
following expenses from the gross unit
price charged to the first unaffiliated
customer in the United States: marine
insurance, discounts, rebates, billing
adjustments, foreign movement
expenses, and international freight, and
United States movement expenses,
including brokerage and handling.
Further, in accordance with section
772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.402(b), where appropriate, we
deducted from the starting price the
following selling expenses associated
with economic activities occurring in
the United States: credit expenses,
warranty expenses, other direct selling
expenses, and indirect selling expenses.
In addition, pursuant to section
772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an
adjustment to the starting price for CEP
profit. We based movement expenses on
either surrogate values, actual expenses,
or an average of the two. For details
regarding our CEP calculations, see
Shanghai Wells Analysis Memorandum.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine the
NV using a FOP methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME
and the information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home–market
prices, third–country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act. The Department bases NV on
the FOP because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of non–market economies renders price
14 Shanghai Wells reported these sales as
‘‘indirect export price’’ (‘‘IEP’’). However, the
Department finds that these IEP sales are, in fact,
CEP sales because Shanghai Wells reported that its
affiliate in the United States performed sales
functions such as: sales negotiation, issuance of
invoices and receipt of payment from the ultimate
U.S. customer during the POI. Moreover, Shanghai
Wells reported expenses incurred in the United
States that are normally deducted from the gross
unit price. See Shanghai Wells Questionnaire
Responses dated November 13, 2007, December 7,
2007, and March 4, 2008; see also Glycine From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Preliminary Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 18457 (April
12, 2007) unchanged in Final Results (where the
Department stated that ‘‘we based U.S. price for
certain sales on CEP in accordance with section
772(b) of the Act, because sales were made by
Nantong Donchang’s U.S. affiliate, Wavort, Inc.
{‘‘Wavort’’} to unaffiliated purchasers.’’); AK Steel
Corp., et al v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361 (Fed.Cir.
2000).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under the
Department’s normal methodologies.
See e.g., Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In
Part, and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Lined Paper
Products from the People’s Republic of
China, 71 FR 19695 (April 17, 2006)
(‘‘CLPP’’) unchanged in Final
Determination.
As the basis for NV, both Shanghai
Wells and the Shaoxing Metal
Companies provided FOPs used in each
stage for processing steel wire garment
hangers, i.e., from the drawing of the
steel wire to completion of the final
product. Additionally, both Shanghai
Wells and the Shaoxing Metal
Companies reported that they are
integrated producers because both
respondents draw the steel wire from
the steel wire rod and provided the FOP
information used in this production
stage.
Consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of
the Act, it is the Department’s practice
to value the FOPs that a respondent uses
to produce the merchandise under
consideration. See Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater
Shrimp From the People’s Republic of
China, 69 FR 70997 (December 8, 2004)
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 9(E). If the
NME respondent is an integrated
producer, we take into account the
factors utilized in each stage of the
production process. For example, in a
previous case, one shrimp respondent
was a fully integrated firm, and the
Department valued both the farming and
processing FOPs because this company
bore all the costs related to growing the
shrimp. See id.
In this case, we are valuing those
inputs reported by Shanghai Wells and
the Shaoxing Metal Companies that
were used to produce the main input to
the processing stage (steel wire) when
calculating NV, regardless of whether
the FOPs were produced or purchased
by the respondents.
Factor Valuation Methodology
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP
data reported by Shanghai Wells and the
Shaoxing Metal Companies for the POI.
To calculate NV, we multiplied the
reported per–unit factor–consumption
rates by publicly available surrogate
values (except as discussed below). In
selecting the surrogate values, we
considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. As
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM
25MRN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 25, 2008 / Notices
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to Indian import surrogate values a
surrogate freight cost using the shorter
of the reported distance from the
domestic supplier to the factory or the
distance from the nearest seaport to the
factory where appropriate. This
adjustment is in accordance with the
Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v.
United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–08
(Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description
of all surrogate values used for
respondents can be found in the
Surrogate Value Memorandum and
company–specific analysis memoranda.
For this preliminary determination, in
accordance with the Department’s
practice, we used data from the Indian
Import Statistics in order to calculate
surrogate values for the mandatory
respondents’ FOPs (direct materials,
energy, and packing materials). In
selecting the best available information
for valuing FOPs in accordance with
section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the
Department’s practice is to select, to the
extent practicable, surrogate values
which are non–export average values,
most contemporaneous with the POI,
product–specific, and tax–exclusive.
See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Negative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances
and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR
42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged
in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR
71005 (December 8, 2004). The record
shows that data in the Indian Import
Statistics, as well as that from the other
Indian sources, represent data that are
contemporaneous with the POI,
product–specific, and tax–exclusive.
See Surrogate Value Memorandum. In
those instances where we could not
obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous to the POI with which
to value factors, we adjusted the
surrogate values using, where
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price
Index (‘‘WPI’’) as published in the
International Financial Statistics of the
International Monetary Fund. See, e.g.
PSF at 77380 and CLPP at 19704.
Furthermore, with regard to the
Indian import–based surrogate values,
we have disregarded import prices that
we have reason to believe or suspect
may be subsidized. We have reason to
believe or suspect that prices of inputs
from Indonesia, South Korea, and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:33 Mar 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
Thailand may have been subsidized
because we have found in other
proceedings that these countries
maintain broadly available, non–
industry-specific export subsidies.
Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that
all exports to all markets from these
countries may be subsidized. See Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People’s Republic of
China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 7. Further,
guided by the legislative history, it is
the Department’s practice not to
conduct a formal investigation to ensure
that such prices are not subsidized. See
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness
Act of 1988, Conference Report to
accompany H.R. Rep. 100–576 at 590
(1988) reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N.
1547, 1623–24; see also Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper
from the People’s Republic of China, 72
FR 30758 (June 4, 2007) unchanged in
final determination. Rather, the
Department bases its decision on
information that is available to it at the
time it makes its determination.
Therefore, we have not used prices from
these countries either in calculating the
Indian import–based surrogate values or
in calculating market–economy input
values. See id.
Additionally, during the POI, both
Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal
Companies purchased all or a portion of
certain inputs from a market economy
supplier and paid for the inputs in a
market economy currency. The
Department has instituted a rebuttable
presumption that market economy input
prices are the best available information
for valuing an input when the total
volume of the input purchased from all
market economy sources during the
period of investigation or review
exceeds 33 percent of the total volume
of the input purchased from all sources
during the period. In these cases, unless
case–specific facts provide adequate
grounds to rebut the Department’s
presumption, the Department will use
the weighted–average market economy
purchase price to value the input.
Alternatively, when the volume of an
NME firm’s purchases of an input from
market economy suppliers during the
period is below 33 percent of its total
volume of purchases of the input during
the period, but where these purchases
are otherwise valid and there is no
reason to disregard the prices, the
Department will weight–average the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15733
weighted–average market economy
purchase price with an appropriate SV
according to their respective shares of
the total volume of purchases, unless
case–specific facts provide adequate
grounds to rebut the presumption.
When a firm has made market economy
input purchases that may have been
dumped or subsidized, are not bona
fide, or are otherwise not acceptable for
use in a dumping calculation, the
Department will exclude them from the
numerator of the ratio to ensure a fair
determination of whether valid market
economy purchases meet the 33–percent
threshold. See Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non–Market Economy Wages,
Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717–18
(October 19, 2006).
Accordingly, we valued the Shaoxing
Metal Companies’ inputs using the
market economy prices paid for the
inputs where the total volume of the
input purchased from all market
economy sources during the POI
exceeded 33 percent of the total volume
of the input purchased from all sources
during that period. Alternatively, when
the volume of the Shaoxing Metal
Companies’ purchases of an input from
market economy suppliers during the
POI was below 33 percent of the
company’s total volume of purchases of
the input during the POI, we weight–
averaged the weighted–average market
economy purchase price with an
appropriate surrogate value according to
their respective shares of the total
volume of purchases, as appropriate.
See Shaoxing Metal Companies’
Questionnaire Responses dated
December 10, 2007, and January 8, 2008.
Where appropriate, we increased the
market economy prices of inputs by
freight and brokerage and handling
expenses. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum. For a detailed
description of all actual values used for
market–economy inputs, see Shanghai
Wells Analysis Memorandum and
Shaoxing Metal Companies Analysis
Memorandum.
Additionally, Shanghai Wells
reported a market–economy purchase of
an input which the Department
preliminarily finds that there is reason
to believe or suspect the price paid for
this input may be subsidized. Therefore,
because the Department’s practice is to
exclude prices that are dumped or
subsidized, the Department has
calculated the value for this input using
a surrogate value derived from Indian
Import Statistics, rather than the
purchase price paid. See, e.g., Folding
Metal Tables and Chairs From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM
25MRN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
15734
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 25, 2008 / Notices
Results and Partial Rescission of First
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 69 FR 75913 (December 20,
2004) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1;
see also Surrogate Value Memorandum
and Shanghai Wells Analysis
Memorandum.
The Department used the Indian
Import Statistics to value the raw
material and packing material inputs
that Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing
Metal Companies used to produce the
merchandise under consideration
during the POI, except where listed
below.
To value electricity, the Department
used rates from Key World Energy
Statistics 2003, published by the
International Energy Agency (‘‘IEA’’).
Additionally, to value diesel, the
Department used data from Key World
Energy Statistics 2005, published by
IEA. Because the data were not
contemporaneous to the POI, we
adjusted for inflation using WPI. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
For liquefied petroleum gas, we
applied a surrogate value obtained from
Bharat Petroleum15, published on
October 3, 2005. See Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 37703, 37710 (July 11,
2007); see also Folding Metal Tables
and Chairs From the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
71355 (December 17, 2007). Because the
data was not contemporaneous to the
POI, we adjusted for inflation using
WPI. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
For direct, indirect, and packing
labor, consistent with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC
regression–based wage rate as reported
on Import Administration’s home page,
Import Library, Expected Wages of
Selected NME Countries, revised in
January 2007, https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
wages/. The source of these
wage–rate data on the Import
Administration’s web site is the
Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO
(Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in
Manufacturing. Because this regression–
based wage rate does not separate the
labor rates into different skill levels or
types of labor, we have applied the same
wage rate to all skill levels and types of
labor reported by the respondent. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
Because water is essential to the
production process of the merchandise
under consideration, the Department
considers water to be a direct material
input, and not as overhead, and valued
water with a surrogate value according
to our practice. See Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Critical Circumstances: Certain
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the
People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 61395
(October 28, 2003) and, accompanying
Issue and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 11. The Department valued
water using data from the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation
(www.midcindia.org) since it includes a
wide range of industrial water tariffs.
This source provides 386 industrial
water rates within the Maharashtra
province from June 2003: 193 for the
‘‘inside industrial areas’’ usage category
and 193 for the ‘‘outside industrial
areas’’ usage category. Because the value
was not contemporaneous with the POI,
we adjusted the rate for inflation. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
We used Indian transport information
in order to value the freight–in cost of
the raw materials. The Department
determined the best available
information for valuing truck freight to
be from www.infreight.com. This source
provides daily rates from six major
points of origin to five destinations in
India using data from October 2005 to
March 2006, because data from the POI
was unavailable. The Department
obtained a price quote from each point
of origin to each destination and
averaged the data accordingly.
Consistent with the calculation of
inland truck freight, the Department
used the same freight distances used in
the calculation of inland truck freight,
as reported by www.infreight.com to
derive a value in Rupees per kilogram
per kilometer. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
The Department used four sources to
calculate a surrogate value for domestic
brokerage expenses. The sources are
from Essar Steel Ltd., Agro Dutch
Industries Ltd., Kerjiwal Paper, and
Navneet Publication. The Department
first derived an average per–unit
amount from each source. Then the
Department adjusted each average rate
for inflation. Finally, the Department
averaged the two per–unit amounts to
derive an overall average rate for the
POI. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
To value factory overhead, selling,
general, and administrative expenses,
and profit, we used the data from the
audited financial statements from the
2006–2007 Annual Report of Lakshmi
Precision Screws, Ltd. (‘‘Lakshmi’’).
While this company produces
comparable rather than identical
merchandise, Lakshmi uses an
integrated wire–drawing production
process with steel wire rod as the main
input, which closely mirrors that of the
mandatory respondents. Specifically,
the straightening, cutting, and forming
process of screws is similar to that of
hangers. While Petitioner provided an
additional source for surrogate financial
ratios using the financial statements of
Usha Martin Ltd. (‘‘Usha’’), and
Shanghai Wells provided the surrogate
financial statements of Godrej & Boyce
Manufacturing Company Ltd. (‘‘G&B’’),
we find that neither Usha nor G&B use
a production process that mirrors the
manufacture of hangers as closely as
screws.
To value low carbon steel wire rod,
we used price data fully
contemporaneous with the POI for 6mm
and 8mm steel wire rod available on the
website of the Indian Joint Plant
Committee (‘‘JPC’’). The JPC is a joint
industry/government board that
monitors Indian steel prices. These data
are publicly available, specific to the
input in question, represent a broad
market average, and are tax–exclusive.
See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1).
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the
Act, we intend to verify the information
upon which we will rely in making our
final determination.
Combination Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. See
Initiation Notice, 72 FR 52859. This
change in practice is described in Policy
Bulletin 05.1, available at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/.rates.
Preliminary Determination
The weighted–average dumping
margins are as follows:
15 www.bharatpetroleum.com/general/gen_
petroprices.asp.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:33 Mar 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM
25MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 25, 2008 / Notices
15735
STEEL WIRE GARMENT HANGERS FROM THE PRC – DUMPING MARGINS
Weighted–Average Deposit
Rate
Exporter & Producer
Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd. ∧ .........................................................................................................................
Shaoxing Metal Companies: * Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Andrew Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd., Company ‘‘X’’ .............................
Jiangyin Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd ∧ ..............................................................................................................
Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd. * .............................................................................................................
Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd. * ......................................................................................................
Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. * ................................................................................................
Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. * ...............................................................................................
Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. * .................................................................................................
Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd. * ...............................................................................................................
Pu Jiang County Command Metal Products Co., Ltd. * .........................................................................................
Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd. * .....................................................................................................
Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd. * ................................................................................................................
Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co., Ltd. * ..................................................................................................................
Yiwu Ao–Si Metal Products Co., Ltd. * ...................................................................................................................
Shaoxing Guochao Metallic Products Co., Ltd. * ....................................................................................................
PRC–Wide Rate16 ...................................................................................................................................................
16 The
164.54
83.98
83.98
83.98
83.98
83.98
83.98
83.98
83.98
83.98
83.98
83.98
83.98
83.98
221.05
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
PRC-Wide entity includes Tianjin Hongtong Metal Manufacture Co. Ltd.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations
performed within five days of the date
of publication of this notice to parties in
this proceeding in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d) of
the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend
liquidation of all entries of steel wire
garment hangers from the PRC as
described in the ‘‘Scope of
Investigation’’ section, entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption from Shanghai Wells,
Shaoxing Metal Companies, the PRC SR
Recipients and the PRC–wide entity on
or after the date of publication of this
notice in the Federal Register.
We will instruct CBP to require a cash
deposit or the posting of a bond equal
to the weighted–average dumping
margin amount by which the NV
exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the
chart above as follows: (1) The rate for
the firms listed in the chart above will
be the rate we have determined in this
preliminary determination; (2) for all
non–PRC exporters of the merchandise
under consideration which have not
received their own rate, the cash–
deposit rate will be the rate applicable
to the PRC exporter in the combination
listed above, that supplied that non–
PRC exporter. These suspension–ofliquidation instructions will remain in
effect until further notice.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
33.85 %
International Trade Commission
Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of
the Act, we have notified the ITC of our
preliminary affirmative determination of
sales at less than fair value. Section
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:33 Mar 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to
make its final determination as to
whether the domestic industry in the
United States is materially injured, or
threatened with material injury, by
reason of imports of steel wire garment
hangers, or sales (or the likelihood of
sales) for importation, of the
merchandise under consideration
within 45 days of our final
determination.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments
may be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration no
later than seven days after the date the
final verification report is issued in this
proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited
to issues raised in case briefs, no later
than five days after the deadline for
submitting case briefs. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR
351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities used
and an executive summary of issues
should accompany any briefs submitted
to the Department. This summary
should be limited to five pages total,
including footnotes.
In accordance with section 774 of the
Act, we will hold a public hearing, if
requested, to afford interested parties an
opportunity to comment on arguments
raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a
request for a hearing is made, we intend
to hold the hearing three days after the
deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs
at the U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and
location to be determined. Parties
should confirm by telephone the date,
time, and location of the hearing two
days before the scheduled date.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30
days after the date of publication of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests
should contain the party’s name,
address, and telephone number, the
number of participants, and a list of the
issues to be discussed. At the hearing,
each party may make an affirmative
presentation only on issues raised in
that party’s case brief and may make
rebuttal presentations only on
arguments included in that party’s
rebuttal brief.
We will make our final determination
no later than 75 days after the date of
publication of this preliminary
determination, pursuant to section
735(a) of the Act.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 18, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–6079 Filed 3–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM
25MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15726-15735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-6079]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-918]
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel
Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 2008.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that steel wire garment hangers
(``hangers'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') are being,
or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value
(``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown
in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik or Julia Hancock, 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-
6905 or 482-1394, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
Initiation
On July 31, 2007, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
received a petition on imports of hangers from the PRC filed in proper
form by M&B Metal Products (``Petitioner'') on behalf of the domestic
industry and workers producing hangers. This investigation
[[Page 15727]]
was initiated on September 10, 2007. See Steel Wire Garment Hangers
from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 72 FR 52855 (September 17, 2007) (``Initiation
Notice''). Additionally, in the Initiation Notice, the Department
notified parties of the application process by which exporters and
producers may obtain separate-rate status in non-market economy
(``NME'') investigations. See Id. 72 FR 52858-59. The process requires
exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate status application.
See id.; Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application
of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market
Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), (``Policy Bulletin 05.1'')
available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov. However, the standard for
eligibility for a separate rate (which requires a firm to demonstrate
an absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over its
export activities) has not changed.
On October 5, 2007, the United States International Trade
Commission (``ITC'') issued its affirmative preliminary determination
that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United
States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by
reason of imports from the PRC of steel wire garment hangers. The ITC's
determination was published in the Federal Register on October 18,
2007. See Investigation No. 731-TA-1123 (Preliminary), Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from China, 72 FR 59112 (October 18, 2007).
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 2007, through
June 30, 2007. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (July 31,
2007). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Scope Comments
The Department also set aside a 20-day period from the publication
of the initiation for all interested parties to raise issues regarding
product coverage. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 52855. The Department
did not receive any comments from interested parties regarding product
coverage during the 20-day period and subsequently, has not changed the
scope as set forth in the Initiation Notice.
Respondent Selection and Quantity and Value
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that in recent NME
investigations, it has been the Department's practice to request
quantity and value information from all known exporters identified in
the petition for purposes of mandatory respondent selection. See
Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China and United Arab
Emirates: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 72 FR at 38816,
38821 (July 16, 2007); Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation:
Certain Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of
China, 72 FR 43591, 43595 (August 6, 2007). However, for this
investigation, because the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS'') subheading 7326.20.00.20, as discussed below in the
``Scope of the Investigation,'' provided comprehensive coverage of
imports of steel wire garment hangers, the Department selected
respondents in this investigation based on U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') data of U.S. imports under HTSUS subheading
7326.20.0020 from the POI.
On October 16, 2007, the Department selected Shanghai Wells Hanger
Co., Ltd., (``Shanghai Wells'') and Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd. (``Shaoxing Gangyuan'') as mandatory respondents
in this investigation. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, from Irene Gorelik and Julia Hancock,
International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9:
Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of Steel
Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China, (October 16,
2007) (``Respondent Selection Memo'').
Surrogate Country Comments
On October 2, 2007, the Department determined that India,
Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See Memorandum
from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva,
Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping Investigation
of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China
(PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, (October 2, 2007)
(``Surrogate Country List'').
On October 17, 2007, the Department requested comments on the
selection of a surrogate country from the interested parties in this
investigation. On December 31, 2007, Petitioner filed an extension
request to submit surrogate country and factor valuation comments,
which the Department extended until January 7, 2008. On January 7,
2008, Petitioner submitted surrogate country comments requesting that
India be selected as the appropriate surrogate country. No other
interested parties commented on the selection of a surrogate country.
For a detailed discussion of the selection of the surrogate country,
see ``Surrogate Country'' section below.
Surrogate Value Comments
On January 7, 2008, Petitioner, Shanghai Wells, and Shaoxing
Gangyuan submitted surrogate factor valuation comments. On January 17,
2008, Shaoxing Gangyuan submitted a rebuttal to Petitioner's surrogate
factor value comments.
Separate-Rates Applications
Between October 9, 2007, and November 9, 2007, we received
separate-rate applications from sixteen companies.\1\ See the
``Separate Rates'' section below for the full discussion of the
treatment of the separate-rate applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The following companies filed separate-rate applications:
Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Dingli Metal
Clotheshorse Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co.,
Ltd.; Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing
Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Andrew Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Lucky Cloud
Hanger Co., Ltd.; Pu Jiang County Command Metal Products Co.;
Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Dasheng Hanger
Ind. Co., Ltd.; Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co., Ltd.; Yiwu Ao-Si
Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Guochao Metallic Products Co.,
Ltd.; and Tianjin Hongtong Metal Manufacture Co., Ltd.,
(collectively, ``SRAs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questionnaires
On September 10, 2007, the Department requested comments from all
interested parties on proposed product characteristics and model match
criteria to be used in the designation of control numbers (``CONNUMs'')
to be assigned to the merchandise under consideration. The Department
received comments from Petitioner and Shaoxing Gangyuan. On October 16,
2007, the Department issued its section A portion of the NME
questionnaire. On October 17, 2007, the Department issued its sections
C and D portions of the NME questionnaire with product characteristics
and model match criteria used in the designation of CONNUMs and
assigned to the merchandise under consideration. The Department issued
supplemental questionnaires to Shanghai Wells and Shaoxing Gangyuan
between November 2007 and February 2008, and received responses between
December 2007 and March 2008.
On November 27, 2007, the Department conducted a domestic plant
tour of Petitioner's facility in Leeds,
[[Page 15728]]
Alabama. See Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, International
Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, (November
28, 2007).
Postponement of Preliminary Determination
On December 31, 2007, Petitioner filed a request to postpone the
issuance of the preliminary determination by 50 days. On January 8,
2008, the Department informed all interested parties of its intent to
postpone the preliminary determination pursuant to section
733(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act by fifty days to March 18, 2008. On January
11, 2008, the Department published a postponement of the preliminary
antidumping duty determination on hangers from the PRC. See Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 73 FR 2004 (January 11, 2008) (``Prelim Extension
FR'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the Prelim Extension FR, the Department incorrectly
stated in footnote 2 that ``190 days from the initiation date is
actually March 17, 2008.'' The Department intended to state that 190
days from the initiation date of September 10, 2007, is March 18,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise that is subject to this investigation is steel wire
garment hangers, fabricated from carbon steel wire, whether or not
galvanized or painted, whether or not coated with latex or epoxy or
similar gripping materials, and/or whether or not fashioned with paper
covers or capes (with or without printing) and/or nonslip features such
as saddles or tubes. These products may also be referred to by a
commercial designation, such as shirt, suit, strut, caped, or latex
(industrial) hangers. Specifically excluded from the scope of this
investigation are wooden, plastic, and other garment hangers that are
classified under separate subheadings of the HTSUS. The products
subject to this investigation are currently classified under HTSUS
subheading 7326.20.0020. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Non-Market-Economy Country
For purposes of initiation, Petitioner submitted LTFV analyses for
the PRC as an NME country. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 52857. The
Department considers the PRC to be an NME country. In accordance with
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free
Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760
(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of
China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007). In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. No party has challenged the designation of the
PRC as an NME country in this investigation. Therefore, we continue to
treat the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary
determination.
Surrogate Country
When the Department investigates imports from an NME, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value (``NV''), in most
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOP'')
valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4)
of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the
extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market-
economy countries that are at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of
comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have
used in this investigation are discussed under the ``Normal Value''
section below.
The Department's practice is explained in Policy Bulletin 04.1,\3\
which states that ``Per capita GNI\4\ is the primary basis for
determining economic comparability.'' The Department considers the five
countries identified in its Surrogate Country List as ``equally
comparable in terms of economic development.'' Id. Thus, we find that
India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, and Philippines are all at an
economic level of development equally comparable to that of the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate
Country Selection Process, (March 1, 2004), (``Policy Bulletin
04.1'') available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov.
\4\ GNI stands for gross national income, which comprises GDP
plus net receipts of primary income (compensation of employees and
property income) from nonresident sources. See, e.g., https://
www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, Policy Bulletin 04.1 provides some guidance on identifying
comparable merchandise and selecting a producer of comparable
merchandise. Specifically, the Policy Bulletin 04.1 explains that ``in
cases where identical merchandise is not produced, the team must
determine if other merchandise that is comparable is produced.'' See
Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 2. The Department obtained export data for
steel wire garment hangers from the World Trade Atlas (``WTA'') and
found that none of the countries on the Surrogate Country List produce
or export identical merchandise. Thus, the Department determined which
countries on the Surrogate Country List were producers of comparable
merchandise.
The Department obtained worldwide export data for steel wire
products.\5\ Specifically, we reviewed export data from the WTA for the
HTS heading 7326.20, ``Other Articles of Iron/Steel Wire,'' for 2006.
The Department found that, of the countries provided in the Surrogate
Country List, all five countries were exporters of comparable
merchandise: steel wire products. Thus, all countries on the Surrogate
Country List are considered as appropriate surrogates because each
exported comparable merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Because the Department was unable to find production data,
we relied on export data as a substitute for overall production data
in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Policy Bulletin 04.1 also provides some guidance on identifying
significant producers of comparable merchandise and selecting a
producer of comparable merchandise. Further analysis was required to
determine whether any of the countries which produce comparable
merchandise are significant' producers of that comparable merchandise.
The data we obtained shows that, in 2006, worldwide exports for HTS
7326.20 from: India were approximately 4,884,412 kg; Indonesia were
approximately 1,830,965 kg; Sri Lanka were approximately 244,223 kg;
the Philippines were approximately 371,379 kg; and Egypt\6\ were
approximately 89,850 kg. We note that although Sri Lanka, the
Philippines, and Egypt are exporters of steel wire products, the
quantities they exported do not qualify them as significant producers
of the comparable merchandise.\7\ Thus, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and
Egypt are
[[Page 15729]]
not being considered as appropriate surrogate countries. Additionally,
although Indonesia appears to be a significant producer of comparable
merchandise, India's percentage of exports of comparable merchandise at
66 percent of the total exports of the five countries far exceeds that
of Indonesia's 25 percent. Finally, we have reliable data from India on
the record that we can use to value the FOPs. Petitioner and both
selected respondents submitted surrogate values using Indian sources,
suggesting greater availability of appropriate surrogate value data in
India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The worldwide export data from Egypt was obtained from the
Global Trade Atlas since Egyptian export statistics are not
available on WTA.
\7\ We note that, of the total export quantities obtained from
world trade data, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Egypt account for
five percent, three percent, and one percent, respectively, of the
total exports of comparable merchandise of all five countries on the
Surrogate Country List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the Department only received surrogate country
comments from Petitioners, who favored selection of India. The
Department is preliminarily selecting India as the surrogate country on
the basis that: (1) it is at a similar level of economic development
pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) we have reliable data from
India that we can use to value the FOPs. Thus, we have calculated NV
using Indian prices when available and appropriate to value Shanghai
Wells' and Shaoxing Gangyuan's FOPs. See Memorandum to the File from
Julia Hancock, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, and James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of
China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Determination, (March 18,
2008) (``Surrogate Value Memorandum''). In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final determination in an antidumping
investigation, interested parties may submit publicly available
information to value the FOPs within 40 days after the date of
publication of the preliminary determination.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record.
The Department generally cannot accept the submission of additional,
previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliations
Section 771(33) of the Act, provides that:
The following persons shall be considered to be `affiliated' or
`affiliated persons':
(A) Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by the
whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants.
(B) Any officer or director of an organization and such organization.
(C) Partners.
(D) Employer and employee.
(E) Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding
with power to vote, 5 percent or more of the outstanding voting stock
or shares of any organization and such organization.
(F) Two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled
by, or under common control with, any person.
(G) Any person who controls any other person and such other person.
Additionally, section 771(33) of the Act stipulates that: ``For
purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be considered to control
another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position
to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.''
Based on the evidence on the record in this investigation and based
on the evidence presented in Shaoxing Gangyuan's questionnaire
responses, we preliminarily find that Shaoxing Gangyuan is affiliated
with Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. (``Andrew''),
Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. (``Tongzhou''), and a
fourth company,\9\ pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the
Act, based on ownership and common control. Furthermore, we find that
they should be considered as a single entity for purposes of this
investigation. See 19 CFR 351.401(f). In addition to being affiliated,
they have production facilities for similar or identical products that
would not require substantial retooling and there is a significant
potential for manipulation of production based on the level of common
ownership and control, shared management, and an intertwining of
business operations. See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2). For a detailed
discussion of this issue, see Shaoxing Metal Companies Affiliation
Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The identity of this company is business proprietary
information; for further discussion of this company, see Memorandum
to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
from Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office
9: Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation
of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China:
Affiliations Memo of Shaoxing Gangyuan and its Affiliates, (March
18, 2008)(``Shaoxing Metal Companies Affiliation Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Department finds that Shaoxing Gangyuan and its
affiliates are a single entity, the Department is utilizing the
integrated FOP database Shaoxing Gangyuan provided for purposes of the
preliminary determination, which includes the FOPs from Andrew,
Tongzhou, and the fourth company. Hereinafter, Shaoxing Gangyuan and
its affiliates will be referred to as the ``Shaoxing Metal Companies.''
Separate Rates
Additionally, in the Initiation Notice, the Department notified
parties of the application process by which exporters and producers may
obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. See Initiation
Notice. The process requires exporters and producers to submit a
separate-rate status application. See also Policy Bulletin 05.1:
Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries,
(April 5, 2005), (``Policy Bulletin 05.1'') available at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov.\10\ However, the standard for eligibility for a
separate rate (which requires a firm to demonstrate an absence of both
de jure and de facto governmental control over its export activities)
has not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Policy Bulletin 05.1, states: ``{w{time} hile
continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to
exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in
its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied merchandise under consideration to it
during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to
mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate
rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the
weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice
is referred to as the application of combination
rates because such rates apply to specific combinations
of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate
assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported
by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the
exporter during the period of investigation.'' See Policy Bulletin
05.1 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country
this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through
[[Page 15730]]
the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over
export activities. As discussed fully below, all but one of the SRAs
have provided company-specific information to demonstrate that they
operate independently of de jure and de facto government control and,
therefore, satisfy the standards for the assignment of a separate
rate.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ All separate-rate applicants receiving a separate rate are
hereby referred to collectively as the ``PRC SR Recipients.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department analyzes each entity exporting the merchandise under
consideration under a test arising from the Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed
in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May
2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). However, if the Department determines
that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy,
then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it
is independent from government control.
A. Separate Rate Recipients
Wholly Foreign-Owned
One separate rate company, Jiangyin Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(``Hongji'') reported that it is wholly owned by individuals or
companies located in a market economy in its separate-rate application.
See ``PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION'' section below for the company marked
with a `` [supcaret] `` designating this company as wholly foreign-
owned. Therefore, because it is wholly foreign-owned, and we have no
evidence indicating that it is under the control of the PRC, a separate
rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether this company is
independent from government control. See Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the
People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104-71105 (December 20, 1999)
(where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned, and thus, qualified for
a separate rate). Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a separate
rate to this company.
Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly Chinese-
Owned Companies
Fifteen of the SRAs in this investigation stated that they are
either joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies or are
wholly Chinese-owned companies. Therefore, the Department must analyze
whether these companies can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and
de facto governmental control over export activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
The evidence provided by the PRC SR Recipients supports a
preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on
the following: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporters' business and export licenses; (2) there
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the
companies; and (3) and there are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., Pu Jiang County Command
Metal Products Co., Ltd., November 9, 2007, Separate Rate Application.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices (``EP'') are set by
or are subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether
the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544,
22545 & n.3 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an
analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether
respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control
which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The
evidence provided by the PRC SR Recipients supports a preliminary
finding of de facto absence of governmental control based on the
following: (1) whether the EP is set by or are subject to the approval
of a governmental agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the
respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions
regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent
retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. See,
e.g., Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd., October 9, 2007,
Separate-Rate Application.
The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the PRC
SR Recipients demonstrate an absence of de jure and de facto government
control with respect to each of the exporters' exports of the
merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria
identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. See ``PRELIMINARY
DETERMINATION'' section below for companies marked with an `` [ast] ``
designating these companies as joint ventures between Chinese and
foreign companies or wholly Chinese-owned companies that have
demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate.
Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate
The Department is not granting a separate rate to the following SRA
for the reasons discussed below.
Tianjin Hongtong Metal Manufacture Co., Ltd. (``Hongtong'') was
unable to demonstrate that it had sales of the merchandise under
consideration to the United States. Upon reviewing Hongtong's separate-
rates application and supplemental questionnaire response, we noted
that Hongtong's reported U.S. sales were in fact sales to another PRC
entity, an export agent that invoiced and received payment for
merchandise sold to the United States. In NME proceedings, we do not
examine sales prices between NME entities (e.g., transaction prices
between an NME producer of the merchandise under consideration and the
NME exporter of the merchandise under consideration) as NME countries
are presumed to ``not operate on market principles of cost or pricing
structures so that the sales of merchandise in such countr{ies{time}
do not reflect the fair value of the merchandise.'' See section 771(18)
of the Act. Accordingly, non-exporting NME producers of the merchandise
under consideration are not eligible for examination as respondents.
Based on Hongtong's description of the sales chain for the merchandise
it produces,
[[Page 15731]]
Hongtong was a producer and not an exporter of the merchandise under
consideration during the POI and, therefore, is not eligible to receive
a separate rate in this investigation.
Companies Receiving a Separate Rate
The Department has determined that PRC SR recipients\12\ applying
for a separate rate in this segment of the proceeding have demonstrated
an absence of government control both in law and in fact and is,
therefore, according separate rate status to these applicants.
Additionally, because the Department has collapsed Andrew and Tongzhou,
two of the SRAs with Shaoxing Gangyuan, their separate rate analysis
will be conducted in conjunction with the analysis conducted for
Shaoxing Gangyuan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ These companies are: Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co.,
Ltd., Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd., Shaoxing
Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co.,
Ltd., Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd., Pu Jiang County Command
Metal Products Co., Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd.,
Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd., Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device
Co., Ltd., Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Shaoxing Guochao
Metallic Products Co., Ltd. The Department also included Hongji in
this list, though a separate rate analysis was not required (as
stated above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Entity
Information on the record of this investigation indicates that
there are numerous producers/exporters of hangers in the PRC. As stated
above, the Department collected CBP data to select respondents based on
imports of hangers classified under HTSUS subheading 7326.20.00.20. See
Respondent Selection Memo. The Department selected Shanghai Wells and
the Shaoxing Metal Companies as mandatory respondents. Additionally, as
stated above, sixteen companies, including the two companies collapsed
with Shaoxing Gangyuan filed separate-rates applications, resulting in
eighteen companies that are actively participating in this
investigation. Upon receipt of the separate-rates applications, we
examined the disaggregated\13\ CBP data and determined that a
significant number of exporters of hangers from the PRC during the POI
were neither selected for review nor filed separate-rate applications,
thus not active participants in this investigation. Based upon our
knowledge of the volume of imports of the merchandise under
consideration from the PRC from CBP data, the volume of imports of the
merchandise under consideration from Shanghai Wells, the Shaoxing Metal
Companies, and the SRAs, while accounting for a significant share, do
not account for all imports into the United States. Therefore, the
Department preliminarily determines that there were PRC producers/
exporters of the merchandise under consideration during the POI that
did not apply for separate rates, thus establishing that there is a
PRC-Wide entity with respect to this product. Therefore, consistent
with the presumption of government control, we preliminarily determine
that some exports of subject merchandise are from entities under the
control of the PRC-Wide entity. The Department's presumption that these
entries were subject to government control has not been rebutted, thus
we preliminarily determine that these entries should be assessed a
single PRC-Wide antidumping duty rate. As the single PRC-Wide rate, we
have taken the simple average of: (A) the weighted-average of the
calculated rates of Shaoxing Metal Companies and Shanghai Wells and (B)
the simple average of the petition rates that fell within the range of
Shaoxing Metal Companies' and Shanghai Wells' individual transaction
margins. Accordingly, we determine that the single rate applicable to
the PRC-Wide entity is 221.05 [percnt]. The PRC-Wide rate applies to
all entries of the merchandise under investigation with the exception
of those entries from Shanghai Wells, the Shaoxing Metal Companies, and
the PRC SR Recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In this case, disaggregated data refers to exporter names
in the CBP data, which appear to be duplicates albeit not combined
for purposes of respondent selection. As a result, the CBP data
showed many companies exported hangers to the United States during
the POI, although the actual number of companies may be lower due to
duplicate names in the CBP data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate-Rate Calculation
The Department received timely and complete separate-rates
applications from the PRC SR Recipients, who are all exporters of
hangers from the PRC, which were not selected as mandatory respondents
in this investigation. Through the evidence in their applications, with
the exception of Hongtong, these companies have demonstrated their
eligibility for a separate rate, as discussed above in the ``Separate
Rates'' section and in the Memorandum to the File, from Irene Gorelik,
Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary
Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Calculation of the
Separate Rate Weighted-Average Margin, (March 18, 2008). Consistent
with the Department's practice, as the separate rate, we have
established a weighted-average margin for the PRC SR Recipients based
on the rates we calculated for Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal
Companies, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on adverse facts available (``AFA''). See, e.g., Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber
from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26,
2006) (``PSF'') unchanged in Final Determination. Companies receiving
this rate are identified by name in the ``Suspension of Liquidation''
section of this notice.
Date of Sale
Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that,
``in identifying the date of sale of the merchandise under
consideration or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use
the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records
kept in the normal course of business.'' However, the Secretary may use
a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied
that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or
producer establishes the material terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i);
See also Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d
1087, 1090-1092 (CIT 2001) (``Allied Tube''). The date of sale is
generally the date on which the parties agree upon all substantive
terms of the sale. This normally includes the price, quantity, delivery
terms and payment terms. See Id., at 77377. In order to simplify the
determination of date of sale for both the respondents and the
Department and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale
will normally be the date of the invoice, as recorded in the exporter's
or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, unless
the Department is satisfied that the exporter or producer establishes
the material terms of sale on some other date. For instance, in Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl
Alcohol From Taiwan, 61 FR 14064, 14067-14068 (March 29, 1996), the
Department used the date of the purchase order as the date of sale
because the terms of sale were established at that point.
After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales
documentation that Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies
placed on the record, we preliminarily determine that the invoice date
is the most appropriate date of sale for Shanghai Wells and the
Shaoxing Metal Companies.
[[Page 15732]]
In Allied Tube, the Court of International Trade (``CIT'') found
that a ``party seeking to establish a date of sale other than invoice
date bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to satisfy' the
Department that a different date better reflects the date on which the
exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.''' Allied
Tube 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1092.
Here, the Department preliminarily determines that based on the
information on the record, the invoice date is the appropriate date of
sale for Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies. Each
respondent has provided various examples of material changes to their
purchase orders during the POI. See Shanghai Wells' Supplemental
Section C Questionnaire Response, dated February 7, 2008 and Shaoxing
Metal Companies's Supplemental Section C Questionnaire Response, dated
February 1, 2008.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of steel wire garment hangers to the
United States by Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies were
made at less than fair value, we compared the EP to NV, as described in
the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. We
compared NV to weighted-average EPs in accordance with section
777A(d)(1) of the Act.
U.S. Price
A. EP
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based the U.S.
price for the Shaoxing Metal Companies's sales and certain Shanghai
Wells' sales on EP because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser
was made prior to importation, and the use of constructed export price
(``CEP'') was not otherwise warranted. In accordance with section
772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP by deducting, where applicable,
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international
freight, and rebates from the gross unit price. We based these movement
expenses on surrogate values where a PRC company provided the service
and was paid in Renminbi. For details regarding our EP calculation, see
Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, Senior Case Analyst: Program
Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic
of China: Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd., (March 18, 2008) (``Shanghai
Wells Analysis Memorandum'') and Shaoxing Metal Companies Analysis
Memorandum.
B. CEP
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we based the U.S.
price for certain Shanghai Wells' sales on CEP because these sales were
made by Shanghai Wells' U.S. affiliate.\14\ In accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CEP by deducting, where
applicable, the following expenses from the gross unit price charged to
the first unaffiliated customer in the United States: marine insurance,
discounts, rebates, billing adjustments, foreign movement expenses, and
international freight, and United States movement expenses, including
brokerage and handling. Further, in accordance with section 772(d)(1)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), where appropriate, we deducted from
the starting price the following selling expenses associated with
economic activities occurring in the United States: credit expenses,
warranty expenses, other direct selling expenses, and indirect selling
expenses. In addition, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we
made an adjustment to the starting price for CEP profit. We based
movement expenses on either surrogate values, actual expenses, or an
average of the two. For details regarding our CEP calculations, see
Shanghai Wells Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Shanghai Wells reported these sales as ``indirect export
price'' (``IEP''). However, the Department finds that these IEP
sales are, in fact, CEP sales because Shanghai Wells reported that
its affiliate in the United States performed sales functions such
as: sales negotiation, issuance of invoices and receipt of payment
from the ultimate U.S. customer during the POI. Moreover, Shanghai
Wells reported expenses incurred in the United States that are
normally deducted from the gross unit price. See Shanghai Wells
Questionnaire Responses dated November 13, 2007, December 7, 2007,
and March 4, 2008; see also Glycine From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 18457 (April 12, 2007)
unchanged in Final Results (where the Department stated that ``we
based U.S. price for certain sales on CEP in accordance with section
772(b) of the Act, because sales were made by Nantong Donchang's
U.S. affiliate, Wavort, Inc. {``Wavort''{time} to unaffiliated
purchasers.''); AK Steel Corp., et al v. United States, 226 F.3d
1361 (Fed.Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using a FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported
from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV
using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value
under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOP
because the presence of government controls on various aspects of non-
market economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.
See e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic
of China, 71 FR 19695 (April 17, 2006) (``CLPP'') unchanged in Final
Determination.
As the basis for NV, both Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal
Companies provided FOPs used in each stage for processing steel wire
garment hangers, i.e., from the drawing of the steel wire to completion
of the final product. Additionally, both Shanghai Wells and the
Shaoxing Metal Companies reported that they are integrated producers
because both respondents draw the steel wire from the steel wire rod
and provided the FOP information used in this production stage.
Consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, it is the
Department's practice to value the FOPs that a respondent uses to
produce the merchandise under consideration. See Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater
Shrimp From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 70997 (December 8,
2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9(E).
If the NME respondent is an integrated producer, we take into account
the factors utilized in each stage of the production process. For
example, in a previous case, one shrimp respondent was a fully
integrated firm, and the Department valued both the farming and
processing FOPs because this company bore all the costs related to
growing the shrimp. See id.
In this case, we are valuing those inputs reported by Shanghai
Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies that were used to produce the
main input to the processing stage (steel wire) when calculating NV,
regardless of whether the FOPs were produced or purchased by the
respondents.
Factor Valuation Methodology
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOP data reported by Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal
Companies for the POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-
unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available surrogate values
(except as discussed below). In selecting the surrogate values, we
considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.
As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
[[Page 15733]]
including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we
added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using
the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the
factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where
appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117
F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all
surrogate values used for respondents can be found in the Surrogate
Value Memorandum and company-specific analysis memoranda.
For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the
Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics
in order to calculate surrogate values for the mandatory respondents'
FOPs (direct materials, energy, and packing materials). In selecting
the best available information for valuing FOPs in accordance with
section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select,
to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-export
average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific,
and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of
Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR
71005 (December 8, 2004). The record shows that data in the Indian
Import Statistics, as well as that from the other Indian sources,
represent data that are contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific,
and tax-exclusive. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. In those instances
where we could not obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous to the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the
surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price
Index (``WPI'') as published in the International Financial Statistics
of the International Monetary Fund. See, e.g. PSF at 77380 and CLPP at
19704.
Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate
values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to
believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or
suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand
may have been subsidized because we have found in other proceedings
that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific
export subsidies. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports
to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16,
2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
Further, guided by the legislative history, it is the Department's
practice not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such
prices are not subsidized. See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, Conference Report to accompany H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988)
reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24; see also Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper
from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 2007)
unchanged in final determination. Rather, the Department bases its
decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes
its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these
countries either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate
values or in calculating market-economy input values. See id.
Additionally, during the POI, both Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing
Metal Companies purchased all or a portion of certain inputs from a
market economy supplier and paid for the inputs in a market economy
currency. The Department has instituted a rebuttable presumption that
market economy input prices are the best available information for
valuing an input when the total volume of the input purchased from all
market economy sources during the period of investigation or review
exceeds 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all
sources during the period. In these cases, unless case-specific facts
provide adequate grounds to rebut the Department's presumption, the
Department will use the weighted-average market economy purchase price
to value the input. Alternatively, when the volume of an NME firm's
purchases of an input from market economy suppliers during the period
is below 33 percent of its total volume of purchases of the input
during the period, but where these purchases are otherwise valid and
there is no reason to disregard the prices, the Department will weight-
average the weighted-average market economy purchase price with an
appropriate SV according to their respective shares of the total volume
of purchases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to
rebut the presumption. When a firm has made market economy input
purchases that may have been dumped or subsidized, are not bona fide,
or are otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, the
Department will exclude them from the numerator of the ratio to ensure
a fair determination of whether valid market economy purchases meet the
33-percent threshold. See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy
Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request
for Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717-18 (October 19, 2006).
Accordingly, we valued the Shaoxing Metal Companies' inputs using
the market economy prices paid for the inputs where the total volume of
the input purchased from all market economy sources during the POI
exceeded 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all
sources during that period. Alternatively, when the volume of the
Shaoxing Metal Companies' purchases of an input from market economy
suppliers during the POI was below 33 percent of the company's total
volume of purchases of the input during the POI, we weight-averaged the
weighted-average market economy purchase price with an appropriate
surrogate value according to their respective shares of the total
volume of purchases, as appropriate. See Shaoxing Metal Companies'
Questionnaire Responses dated December 10, 2007, and January 8, 2008.
Where appropriate, we increased the market economy prices of inputs by
freight and brokerage and handling expenses. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum. For a detailed description of all actual values used for
market-economy inputs, see Shanghai Wells Analysis Memorandum and
Shaoxing Metal Companies Analysis Memorandum.
Additionally, Shanghai Wells reported a market-economy purchase of
an input which the Department preliminarily finds that there is reason
to believe or suspect the price paid for this input may be subsidized.
Therefore, because the Department's practice is to exclude prices that
are dumped or subsidized, the Department has calculated the value for
this input using a surrogate value derived from Indian Import
Statistics, rather than the purchase price paid. See, e.g., Folding
Metal Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of China: Final
[[Page 15734]]
Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 69 FR 75913 (December 20, 2004) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see also Surrogate Value Memorandum
and Shanghai Wells Analysis Memorandum.
The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw
material and packing material inputs that Shanghai Wells and the
Shaoxing Metal Companies used to produce the merchandise under
consideration during the POI, except where listed below.
To value electricity, the Department used rates from Key World
Energy Statistics 2003, published by the International Energy Agency
(``IEA''). Additionally, to value diesel, the Department used data from
Key World Energy Statistics 2005, published by IEA. Because the data
were not contemporaneous to the POI, we adjusted for inflation using
WPI. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
For liquefied petroleum gas, we applied a surrogate value obtained
from Bharat Petroleum\15\, published on October 3, 2005. See Folding
Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
37703, 37710 (July 11, 2007); see also Folding Metal Tables and Chairs
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 71355 (December 17, 2007). Because the
data was not contemporaneous to the POI, we adjusted for inflation
using WPI. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ www.bharatpetroleum.com/general/gen_petroprices.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported
on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of
Selected NME Countries, revised in January 2007, https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
wages/. The source of these wage-rate data on the Import
Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002,
ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this
regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into
different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage
rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent.
See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
Because water is essential to the production process of the
merchandise under consideration, the Department considers water to be a
direct material input, and not as overhead, and valued water with a
surrogate value according to our practice. See Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR
61395 (October 28, 2003) and, accompanying Issue and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 11. The Department valued water using data from
the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org)
since it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source
provides 386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province
from June 2003: 193 for the ``inside industrial areas'' usage category
and 193 for the ``outside industrial areas'' usage category. Because
the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate
for inflation. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
We used Indian transport information in order to value the freight-
in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best
available information for valuing truck freight to be from
www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major
points of origin to five destinations in India using data from October
2005 to March 2006, because data from the POI was unavailable. The
Department obtained a price quote from each point of origin to each
destination and averaged the data accordingly. Consistent with the
calculation of inland truck freight, the Department used the same
freight distances used in the calculation of inland truck freight, as
reported by www.infreight.com to derive a value in Rupees per kilogram
per kilometer. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
The Department used four sources to calculate a surrogate value for
domestic brokerage expenses. The sources are from Essar Steel Ltd.,
Agro Dutch Industries Ltd., Kerjiwal Paper, and Navneet Publication.
The Department first derived an average per-unit amount from each
source. Then the Department adjusted each average rate for inflation.
Finally, the Department averaged the two per-unit amounts to derive an
overall average rate for the POI. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
expenses, and profit, we used the data from the audited financial
statements from the 2006-2007 Annual Report of Lakshmi Precision
Screws, Ltd. (``Lakshmi''). While this company produces comparable
rather than identical merchandise, Lakshmi uses an integrated wire-
drawing production process with steel wire rod as the main input, which
closely mirrors that of the mandatory respondents. Specifically, the
straightening, cutting, and forming process of screws is similar to
that of hangers. While Petitioner provided an additional source for
surrogate financial ratios using the financial statements of Usha
Martin Ltd. (``Usha''), and Shanghai Wells provided the surrogate
financial statements of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd.
(``G&B''), we find that neither Usha nor G&B use a production process
that mirrors the manufacture of hangers as closely as screws.
To value low carbon steel wire rod, we used price data fully
contemporaneous with the POI for 6mm and 8mm steel wire rod available
on the website of the Indian Joint Plant Committee (``JPC''). The JPC
is a joint industry/government board that monitors Indian steel prices.
These data are publicly available, specific to the input in question,
represent a broad market average, and are tax-exclusive. See 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1).
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify
the information upon which we will rely in making our final
determination.
Combination Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR
52859. This change in practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1,
available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/.rates.
Preliminary Determination
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
[[Page 15735]]
Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the PRC - Dumping Margins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter & Producer Weighted-Average Deposit Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd. 33.85 [percnt]
[supcaret]..............................
Shaoxing Metal Companies: [ast] Shaoxing 164.54 [percnt]
Gangyuan Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.,
Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co.,
Ltd., Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal
Manu
