Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 58931-58941 [E8-23896]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58931-58941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23896]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-570-932)


Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 8, 2008.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that certain steel threaded rod 
(``CSTR'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') is being, or 
is 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. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Bobby Wong or Toni Dach, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade

[[Page 58932]]

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0409 or 482-1655, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Initiation

    On March 5, 2008, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received a petition on imports of steel threaded rod from the PRC, 
filed in proper form by Vulcan Threaded Products, Inc. 
(``Petitioner''). See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties 
on Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China (March 5, 
2008) (``petition''). This investigation was initiated on April 1, 
2008. See Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 17318 (April 1, 
2008) (``Initiation Notice'').
    On March 12, 2008, 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 by reason of imports from China of certain steel 
threaded rod. The ITC's determination was published in the Federal 
Register on May 2, 2008. See Certain Steel Threaded Rod From China, 73 
FR 24312 (May 2, 2008); see also Certain Steel Threaded Rod From China: 
Investigation No. 731-TA-1145 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3996 
(April 2008).

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to our regulations, we set aside a 
period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage 
and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days 
of publication of the Initiation Notice. See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 
See also Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 17318. We received no comments 
from interested parties on issues related to the scope.

Respondent Selection

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it intended to 
select respondents based on quantity and value (``Q&V'') 
questionnaires. See Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 17321. On April 4, 
2008, the Department requested Q&V information from 417 companies that 
Vulcan Threaded Products Inc. (``Petitioner''), identified as potential 
exporters or producers of steel threaded rod from the PRC. 
Additionally, the Department also posted the questionnaire requesting 
Q&V information from potential producers/exporters of subject steel 
threaded rod on its website at www.trade.gov/ia. For a complete list of 
all parties from which the Department requested Q&V information, see 
petition at exhibit 6. The Department received timely Q&V responses 
from nineteen exporters that shipped subject merchandise to the United 
States during the period of investigation (``POI'').
    On June 9, 2008, the Department selected Jiaxing Brother Fastener 
Co., Ltd. (``Brother Fastener'') and Ningbo Yinzhou Foreign Trade Co., 
Ltd. (``Ningbo Yinzhou'') as mandatory respondents in this 
investigation. See June 9, 2008, memorandum to the File, from Toni 
Dach, International Trade Analyst, and Bobby Wong, Senior International 
Trade Analyst, through James C. Doyle, Director, and Scot T. Fullerton, 
Program Manager, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
regarding Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of 
Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China (``Respondent 
Selection Memo''). As described in the Affiliations section below, 
after reviewing the questionnaire responses of Brother Fastener, we 
have determined to treat its Hong Kong based affiliates, RMB Fasteners 
Ltd. (``RMB'') and IFI & Morgan Ltd. (``IFI''), as a single entity that 
is the appropriate respondent.

Separate Rates Applications

    Between April 24, 2008, and June 3, 2008, we received timely 
separate-rate applications (``SRA'') from eleven companies: Shanghai 
Recky International Trading Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Recky''); Suntec 
Industries Co., Ltd. (``Suntec Industries''); Hangzhou Grand Imp. & 
Exp. Co., Ltd. (``Hangzhou Grand''); Shanghai Prime Machinery Co. Ltd. 
(``Shanghai Prime''); Jianxing Xinyue Standard Part Co., Ltd. 
(``Jianxing Xinyue''); Certified Products International Inc. 
(``CPII''); Jiashan Zhongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Jiashan 
Zhongsheng''); Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd. (``Haiyan Dayu''); 
Zhejiang New Oriental Fastener Co., Ltd. (``New Oriental''); Brother 
Fastener; and Ningbo Yinzhou.

Product Characteristics & Questionnaires

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department asked all parties in this 
investigation for comments on the appropriate product characteristics 
for defining individual products. On April 15, 2008, we received 
comments from Brother Fastener, with recommended product 
characteristics.
    On June 10, 2008, the Department issued to Brother Fastener and 
Ningbo Yinzhou, sections A, C, D, and E of the Department's standard 
antidumping duty questionnaire,\1\ which included product 
characteristics used in the designation of control numbers 
(``CONNUMs'') and assigned to the merchandise under consideration. 
Between July 1, 2008, and July 31, 2008, the Department received 
section A, C, and D questionnaire responses from Brother Fastener and 
Ningbo Yinzhou. Brother Fastener and Ningbo Yinzhou were not required 
by the Department to submit a Section E response, because the 
Department determined that neither company had further manufacturing in 
the United States. See Brother Fastener Section A Response, dated July 
11, 2008, at page A-30, and Ningbo Yinzhou Section A Response, dated 
July 1, 2008, at page 9. The Petitioner submitted deficiency comments 
on the Section C and D questionnaire responses of both respondents on 
August 22, 2008. From August 1, 2008, through September 3, 2008, the 
Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Brother Fastener and 
Ningbo Yinzhou and received responses between August 8, 2008, and 
September 8, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section C 
requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests 
information on factors of production, and Section E requests 
information on further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    On July 29, 2008, the Department determined that India, Indonesia, 
the Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand are countries comparable to the 
PRC in terms of economic development. See July 29, 2008, Letter to All 
Interested Parties, from Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, 
AD/CVD Operations, regarding ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel 
Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China,'' (``Surrogate 
Country Letter''), attaching July 23, 2008, Memorandum to Scot T. 
Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, from Carole 
Showers, Acting Director, Office of Policy, regarding ``Antidumping 
Duty Investigation of Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of 
China (PRC): Request for List of Surrogate Countries.''
    On July 29, 2008, the Department requested comments on surrogate 
country selection from the interested parties in this investigation. On 
August

[[Page 58933]]

13, 2008, Petitioner submitted surrogate country comments. 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 August 21, 2008, the Department extended the deadline for 
interested parties to submit surrogate information with which to value 
the factors of production in this proceeding. On August 25, 2008, 
Petitioner and Brother Fastener submitted surrogate value comments. On 
September 4, 2008, Brother Fastener submitted clarifying surrogate 
value comments.

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    On July 15, 2008, Petitioner requested, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.205(b)(2) and (e), for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary 
determination. The Department published a postponement of the 
preliminary determination on July 29, 2008. See Postponement of 
Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Steel 
Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 43913 (July 29, 
2008).

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2007, through 
December 31, 2007. This period corresponds to the two most recent 
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, March 
2008. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is steel threaded 
rod. Steel threaded rod is certain threaded rod, bar, or studs, of 
carbon quality steel, having a solid, circular cross section, of any 
diameter, in any straight length, that have been forged, turned, cold 
drawn, cold rolled, machine straightened, or otherwise cold finished, 
and into which threaded grooves have been applied. In addition, the 
steel threaded rod, bar, or studs subject to this investigation are non 
headed and threaded along greater than 25 percent of their total 
length. A variety of finishes or coatings, such as plain oil finish as 
a temporary rust protectant, zinc coating (i.e., galvanized, whether by 
electroplating or hot dipping), paint, and other similar finishes and 
coatings, may be applied to the merchandise.
    Included in the scope of this investigation are steel threaded rod, 
bar, or studs, in which: (1) iron predominates, by weight, over each of 
the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or 
less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the 
quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
 1.80 percent of manganese, or
 1.50 percent of silicon, or
 1.00 percent of copper, or
 0.50 percent of aluminum, or
 1.25 percent of chromium, or
 0.30 percent of cobalt, or
 0.40 percent of lead, or
 1.25 percent of nickel, or
 0.30 percent of tungsten, or
 0.012 percent of boron, or
 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
 0.10 percent of niobium, or
 0.41 percent of titanium, or
 0.15 percent of vanadium, or
 0.15 percent of zirconium.
    Steel threaded rod is currently classifiable under subheading 
7318.15.5060 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is 
dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of the investigation are: (a) threaded rod, 
bar, or studs which are threaded only on one or both ends and the 
threading covers 25 percent or less of the total length; and (b) 
threaded rod, bar, or studs made to American Society for Testing and 
Materials (``ASTM'') A193 Grade B7, ASTM A193 Grade B7M, ASTM A193 
Grade B16, or ASTM A320 Grade L7.

Non-market Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, Petitioner submitted LTFV analyses for 
the PRC as a non-market economy (``NME''). See Initiation Notice, 73 FR 
at 17318, 17320. The Department considers the PRC to be a NME country. 
See, e.g., 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 is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, 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 factors of production, the Department shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production 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 with respect to determining economic 
comparability is explained in Policy Bulletin 04.1,\2\ which states 
that ``OP {Office of Policy{time}  determines per capita economic 
comparability on the basis of per capita gross national income, as 
reported in the most current annual issue of the World Development 
Report (The World Bank).'' The Department considers the five countries 
identified in its Surrogate Country List as ``equally comparable in 
terms of economic development.'' See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 2. Thus, 
we find that India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand 
are all at an economic level of development equally comparable to that 
of the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate 
Country Selection Process, (March 1, 2004), (``Policy Bulletin 
04.1'') at Attachment II of the Department's Surrogate Country 
Letter, also available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-
1.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Policy Bulletin 04.1 provides some guidance on identifying 
comparable merchandise and selecting a producer of comparable 
merchandise. As noted in the Policy Bulletin, ``comparable 
merchandise'' is not defined in the statute or the regulations, since 
it is best determined on a case-by-case basis. See Policy Bulletin 04.1 
at 2. As further noted in Policy Bulletin 04.1, in all cases, if 
identical merchandise is produced, the country qualifies as a producer 
of comparable merchandise. Id. Based on the data provided by 
Petitioner, we find that India is a producer of identical merchandise, 
as Petitioner has specifically identified multiple Indian producers of 
CSTR. See Petition at 27 28 and Exhibit 14. Additionally, Petitioner 
submitted

[[Page 58934]]

information for Indian companies that produce comparable merchandise 
and noted that the other potential surrogate countries such as Egypt, 
Indonesia, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka are not known manufacturers 
of CSTR. Id. Because the Department was unable to find production data, 
we are relying on export data as a substitute for overall production 
data in this case. The Department first attempted to obtain export data 
for CSTR from the World Trade Atlas (``WTA'') and was unable to find 
specific data for any of the countries on the Surrogate Country List. 
Thus, the Department obtained worldwide export data for comparable 
steel threaded products.
    Specifically, we reviewed export data from the WTA for the HTS 
heading 7318.15, ``Other Screw and Bolt, Threaded,'' for 2007. The 
Department found that, of the countries provided in the Surrogate 
Country List, all five countries were exporters of comparable 
merchandise: threaded bolt and screw products. As Policy Bulletin 04.1 
notes, it is normally sufficient to identify comparable merchandise on 
the basis of physical differences in the merchandise. See Policy 
Bulletin 04.1 at 3. In the instant case, threaded bolt and screw 
products share similar physical characteristics with steel threaded rod 
(e.g., they are all made by combining iron, energy, and some further 
processing). 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 in identifying 
significant producers of comparable merchandise and selecting a 
producer of comparable merchandise. The Policy Bulletin notes that any 
determination of what constitutes ``significant production'' should be 
made consistent with the characteristics of world production of, and 
trade in, comparable merchandise (subject to the availability of data 
on these characteristics). See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 3. Since these 
characteristics are specific to the merchandise in question, the 
standard for ``significant producer'' will be determined by the 
Department on a case-by-case basis, and fixed standards for making this 
determination have not been adopted. Id.
    Further analysis of export data was required to determine whether 
any of the countries which produce comparable merchandise are 
significant producers of that comparable merchandise. The WTA data we 
obtained show that, in 2007, worldwide exports for HTS 7318.15 from: 
India were approximately 51,462,357 kg; Indonesia were approximately 
12,423,935 kg; Philippines were approximately 9,943,892 kg; and Sri 
Lanka were approximately 29,977 kg. Furthermore, the Department was 
unable to obtain Egyptian export data through WTA. Given the data noted 
above, although India, Indonesia, and the Philippines appear to be 
significant producers of comparable merchandise, no party in this 
proceeding requested that Indonesia or the Philippines be selected as 
the surrogate country.
    With respect to data considerations in selecting a surrogate 
country, it is the Department's practice that, ``. . . if more than one 
country has survived the selection process to this point, the country 
with the best factors data is selected as the primary surrogate 
country.'' See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 4. Currently, the record 
contains surrogate value information, including possible surrogate 
financial statements, only from India.
    Thus, the Department is preliminarily selecting India as the 
surrogate country on the basis that: (1) it is at a similar level of 
economic development to the PRC, pursuant to 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 factors of 
production. Therefore, we have calculated normal value using Indian 
prices, when available and appropriate, to value RMB and IFI\3\ and 
Ningbo Yinzhou's factors of production. See Memorandum to the File 
through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
9, from Bobby Wong, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, regarding ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: 
Selection of Factor Values,'' dated October 1, 2008 (``Surrogate Value 
Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the ``Affiliations'' section, below, regarding the 
Department's determination to treat RMB and IFI, Brother Fastener's 
affiliated exporters, as the mandatory respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 factors of 
production within 40 days after the date of publication of the 
preliminary determination.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 will not 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

    We preliminarily find that IFI and RMB (collectively, the ``RMB and 
IFI Group'') and Brother Fastener to be affiliated parties within the 
meaning of section 771(33) of the Act. See Brother Fastener's August 
22, 2008, supplemental questionnaire response at exhibit 4. 
Furthermore, while the information on the record regarding the 
corporate structure of IFI and RMB is not complete, the Department has 
sufficient information to preliminarily determine that a significant 
potential for manipulation of price may exist. See 19 CFR 401(f)(2). 
Therefore, we preliminarily find that they should be considered a 
single entity for purposes of this investigation. See generally 19 CFR 
401(f). However, due to the business proprietary nature of this 
discussion, for further analysis and discussion see October 1, 2008, 
Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 
From Bobby Wong, Senior International Trade Analyst, Through Scot T. 
Fullerton, Program Manager, Regarding: Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: 
Affiliations of RMB Fasteners Ltd., IFI & Morgan Ltd., and Jiaxing 
Brother Fastener Co., Ltd. Subsequent to the preliminary determination, 
we intend to solicit additional information from the RMB and IFI Group, 
regarding the corporate structure and affiliation for the final 
determination.
    For purposes of the preliminary determination, we find that Brother 
Fastener, by itself, should not be considered the mandatory respondent 
for purposes of calculating a dumping margin. We preliminarily 
determine that although Brother Fastener had knowledge that its 
relevant sales were destined for the United States, such sales were 
made exclusively to its market economy-located affiliate, the RMB and 
IFI Group (of which Brother Fastener is the affiliated manufacturing 
entity), thereby disqualifying Brother Fastener's price for use as the 
export price. It is the Department's practice, in determining the 
appropriate respondent for whom to calculate a dumping margin, to take 
into consideration such issues as (1) which party takes title to

[[Page 58935]]

the merchandise prior to the sale, (2) which party completes the sales 
negotiations, and (3) which party sets all essential terms of sale. 
See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of 
China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006) (``Sawblades LTFV Final'') and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17. Accordingly, 
we find that Brother Fastener is not the appropriate respondent. 
Rather, we find that the RMB and IFI Group is the appropriate 
respondent.

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, 73 FR at 17321. The process requires exporters and producers to 
submit a separate-rate status application. The Department's practice is 
discussed further in 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/policy/bull05-
1.pdf.\5\ However, the standard for eligibility for a separate rate 
(which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both de jure and 
de facto governmental control over its export activities) has not 
changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 subject merchandise 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, there is a rebuttable 
presumption that all companies within the country are subject to 
government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping 
duty rate. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (Sept. 24, 2008) (PET Film LTFV 
Final). 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. See Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of 
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991); see also 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), and section 
351.107(d) of the Department's regulations. Shanghai Recky, Suntec 
Industries, Hangzhou Grand, Shanghai Prime, Jianxing Xinyue, CPII, 
Jiashan Zhongsheng, Haiyan Dayu, and New Oriental, (hereinafter 
referred to as ``Separate Rate Companies''), and Brother Fastener and 
Ningbo Yinzhou, the mandatory respondents, 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.
    We have considered whether each PRC company that submitted a 
complete application is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's 
separate-rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/
border-type controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export 
prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 
72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998). The test focuses, rather, on controls 
over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 
FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of 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''). In accordance with the 
separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME 
cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure 
and de facto governmental control over export activities.
1. 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 Separate Rate Companies 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 exporter's business and export licenses; 2) the 
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
companies; and 3) any other formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., CPII's June 2, 2008, 
Separate Rate Application (``SRA'') at 6 10; Hangzhou Grand's May 30, 
2008, SRA at 5 9; Jiaxing Xinyue's June 3, 2008, SRA at 9 12; Haiyan 
Dayu's June 3, 2008, SRA at 9 12; New Oriental's June 3, 2008, SRA at 9 
12; Shanghai Recky's April 24, 2008, SRA at 6 11; Jiashan Zhongsheng's 
June 3, 2008, SRA at 9 12; Suntec Industries' May 30, 2008, SRA at 7 
10; Shanghai Prime's May 30, 2008, SRA at 7 10; Brother Fastener's June 
2, 2008, SRA at 7 12; and Ningbo Yinzhou's June 3, 2008, SRA at 6 10.
2. 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 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

[[Page 58936]]

proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding 
disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 
FR at 22586-87; 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 (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.
    We determine that, for the Separate Rate Companies, the evidence on 
the record supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of 
governmental control based on record statements and supporting 
documentation showing the following: 1) each exporter sets its own 
export prices independent of the government and without the approval of 
a government authority; 2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its 
sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits 
or financing of losses; 3) each exporter has the authority to negotiate 
and sign contracts and other agreements; and 4) each exporter has 
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. 
See, e.g., CPII's June 2, 2008, Separate Rate Application (``SRA'') at 
exhibit 10; Hangzhou Grand's May 30, 2008, SRA at exhibit 9; Jiaxing 
Xinyue's June 3, 2008, SRA at exhibit 10; Haiyan Dayu's June 3, 2008, 
SRA at exhibit 8; New Oriental's June 3, 2008, SRA at exhibit 12; 
Shanghai Recky's April 24, 2008, SRA at Annex IV-10; Jiashan 
Zhongsheng's June 3, 2008, SRA at exhibit 8; Suntec Industries' May 30, 
2008, SRA at exhibit 9; Shanghai Prime's May 30, 2008, SRA at exhibit 
10; Ningbo Yinzhou's June 3, 2008, SRA at exhibit 10; and Brother 
Fastener's June 2, 2008, SRA at exhibit 9.
    As the Department has preliminarily determined that the RMB and IFI 
Group is properly considered the seller of the subject merchandise for 
purposes of calculating a dumping margin, and because we have changed 
the designation of the appropriate party to serve as the mandatory 
respondent, we are preliminarily granting RMB and IFI Group a separate 
rate. Although the information on the record demonstrating the RMB and 
IFI Group's eligibility for a separate rate is not complete, as 
information regarding separate rate status was submitted by its 
producer, Brother Fastener, the Department finds that it cannot 
preliminarily deny the RMB and IFI Group a separate rate because the 
Department did not specifically ask for additional information to 
determine the RMB and IFI Group's separate rate eligibility. Thus, we 
intend to request additional information from the RMB and IFI Group 
subsequent to the preliminary determination in order to determine the 
RMB and IFI Group's separate rate status for the final determination. 
Moreover, as mentioned above, because we have determined that Brother 
Fastener had no sales of subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers 
during the POI, we preliminarily determine that Brother Fastener is not 
eligible to receive a separate rate.
    With respect to Shanghai Prime, in its September 16, 2008, separate 
rates supplemental questionnaire response, it explained that a State-
owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (``SASAC'')-run 
company is a minority shareholder in the company. Furthermore, Shanghai 
Prime stated that, the SASAC-run company is entitled to profit 
distributions and attends and participates in appointing directors at 
shareholder meetings. However, Shanghai Prime stated that the SASAC-run 
company does impose limitations or provide instructions to the 
management of Shanghai Prime. See Shanghai Prime's September 16, 2008, 
Separate Rate Supplemental Questionnaire Response. While the Department 
remains concerned about the potential for state control, we find that 
the record of the instant investigation does not support the conclusion 
that Shanghai Prime operates under government control. Therefore, the 
Department is preliminarily granting Shanghai Prime a separate rate, 
but will continue to gather information regarding government control 
over Shanghai Prime for the purposes of the final determination.
    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the 
Separate Rate Companies demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto 
government control with respect to each of the exporter's exports of 
the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria 
identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. As a result, we have 
granted the Separate Rate Companies a weighted-average margin based on 
the experience of mandatory respondents and excluding any de minimis or 
zero rates or rates based on total AFA for the purposes of this 
preliminary determination. In addition, for the reasons outlined above, 
we have preliminarily granted the RMB and IFI Group separate rate 
status and assigned the RMB and IFI Group a separate rate as a single 
entity.

Application of Facts Otherwise Available and Total Adverse Facts 
Available:

The PRC-Wide Entity - PRC-Wide Rate

    The Department has data that indicate there were more exporters of 
subject steel threaded rod from the PRC than those indicated in the 
response to our request for Q&V information during the POI. See 
Respondent Selection Memorandum. We issued our request for Q&V 
information to 417 potential Chinese exporters of the subject 
merchandise, in addition to posting the Q&V questionnaire on the 
Department's website. See Q&V Delivery Memo. While information on the 
record of this investigation indicates that there are numerous 
producers/exporters of subject steel threaded rod in the PRC, we 
received only nineteen timely filed Q&V responses. Although all 
exporters were given an opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all 
exporters provided a response to the Department's Q&V letter. 
Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that there were 
exporters/producers of the subject merchandise during the POI from the 
PRC that did not respond to the Department's request for information. 
We have treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide 
entity because they did not qualify for a separate rate. See, e.g., 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Preliminary Partial 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts 
Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 77121, 77128 
(December 29, 2005), and unchanged in Sawblades LTFV Final.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the 
PRC-wide entity was non-responsive. Certain companies did not respond 
to our questionnaire requesting Q&V information. As a result, pursuant 
to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts 
available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide

[[Page 58937]]

rate. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse 
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See 
Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870 (1994) (``SAA''); 
see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian 
Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). We find that, because 
the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for information, it 
has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the 
Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts 
available, an adverse inference is appropriate.
    When employing an adverse inference, section 776 indicates that the 
Department may rely upon information derived from the petition, the 
final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous 
administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. 
In selecting a rate for adverse facts available (``AFA''), the 
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that 
the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated. It is the 
Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest 
margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of 
any respondent in the investigation. See Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel 
Products from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 
2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at ``Facts 
Available.'' As AFA, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide 
entity a rate of 206.00 percent, the highest calculated rate from the 
petition. The Department preliminarily determines that this information 
is the most appropriate from the available sources to effectuate the 
purposes of AFA. The Department's reliance on the petition rate to 
determine an AFA rate is subject to the requirement to corroborate 
secondary information.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the ``Corroboration'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the 
SAA as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.''\7\ The SAA explains that to ``corroborate'' 
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value. Id. The SAA also explains 
that independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, 
published price lists, official import statistics and U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (``CBP'') data, and information obtained from 
interested parties during the particular investigation. Id. To 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
used.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See SAA at 870.
    \8\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part:, 62 FR 11825 (March 
13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AFA rate that the Department used is from the petition.\9\ 
Petitioners' methodology for calculating the export price (``EP'') and 
NV in the petition is discussed in the initiation notice.\10\ To 
corroborate the AFA margin we have selected, we compared that margin to 
the margins we found for the two cooperating respondents. We found that 
the margin of 206.00 percent has probative value because it is in the 
range of margins we found for the cooperating mandatory respondents. 
See RMB/IFI Group Analysis Memorandum at page 1, and Ningbo Yinzhou 
Analysis Memorandum at page 1. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 
206.00 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of 
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Petition for Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Certain 
Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China, dated March 
5, 2008, at Volume II, Exhibit 23.
    \10\ See Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 17318 and 17320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, we are applying 206.00 percent as the single 
antidumping rate to the PRC-wide entity. The PRC-wide rate applies to 
all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries 
from the RMB and IFI Group, Ningbo Yinzhou, and the separate rate 
applicants receiving a separate rate.

Margin for the Separate Rate Companies

    The Department received timely and complete separate rate 
applications from the Separate Rate Companies, who are all exporters of 
subject steel threaded rod from the PRC, which were not selected as 
mandatory respondents in this investigation. Through the evidence in 
their applications, these companies have demonstrated their eligibility 
for a separate rate, as discussed above. Consistent with the 
Department's practice, as the separate rate, we have established a 
margin for the Separate Rate Companies based on the rate we calculated 
for the cooperating mandatory respondents, RMB & IFI Group and Ningbo 
Yinzhou.\11\ Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in 
the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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), unchanged 
in Final 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, 72 FR 
19690 (April 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    RMB & IFI Group and Ningbo Yinzhou both reported that the date of 
sale was determined by the invoice date. See Section 351.401(i) of the 
Department's regulations states that, ``{i{time} n identifying the date 
of sale of the subject merchandise 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 ordinary 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

[[Page 58938]]

351.401(i); see also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 
132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1093 (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. In Allied Tube, the 
Court of International Trade (``CIT'') noted that a ``party seeking to 
establish a date of sale other than invoice date bears the burden of 
producing sufficient evidence to satisf{y{time} ' 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 1090 (quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)). In order to simplify the 
determination of date of sale for both the respondent 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 
satisfactory evidence is presented that the exporter or producer 
establishes the material terms of sale on some other date. In other 
words, the date of the invoice is the presumptive date of sale, 
although this presumption may be overcome. For instance, in Notice of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Intent 
to Rescind and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 72 FR 10151 (March 7, 2007), 
unchanged in Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from 
India,72 FR 51595 (September 10, 2007), the Department used the date of 
the purchase order as the date of sale because the terms of sale were 
established at that point. In this case, as the Department found no 
evidence contrary to RMB & IFI Group and Ningbo Yinzhou's claims that 
invoice date was the appropriate date of sale, the Department used 
invoice date as the date of sale for this preliminary determination.

Fair Value Comparison

    To determine whether sales of subject steel threaded rod to the 
United States by the RMB and IFI Group and Ningbo Yinzhou were made at 
less than fair value, we compared export price (``EP'') to normal value 
(``NV''), as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice.

U.S. Price

    For RMB and IFI Group and Ningbo Yinzhou, we based U.S. price on EP 
in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to 
an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and 
constructed export price (``CEP'') was not otherwise warranted by the 
facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from 
the RMB and IFI Group and Ningbo Yinzhou to the first unaffiliated 
customer in the United States. Where applicable, we deducted discounts, 
PRC brokerage costs, incurred international freight costs, and marine 
insurance costs from the starting price (gross unit price), in 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
    For a complete discussion of the calculation of the U.S. price for 
the RMB and IFI Group and Ningbo Yinzhou, see RMB and IFI Group 
Analysis Memorandum and Ningbo Yinzhou 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 comparisons and the calculation of 
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.

Factor Valuation Methodology

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by Ningbo Yinzhou and the RMB and IFI Group. 
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. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final Results of First 
New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 
31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 5. A detailed description of all surrogate values used for 
Ningbo Yinzhou and the RMB and IFI Group can be found in the Surrogate 
Value Memorandum, Ningbo Yinzhou Analysis Memorandum, and RMB and IFI 
Group Analysis Memorandum.
    For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics 
and other publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate 
surrogate values for Ningbo Yinzhou and the RMB and IFI Group's FOPs 
(direct materials, energy, and packing materials) and certain movement 
expenses. 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 those from the other Indian 
sources, are contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-
exclusive. 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.
    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. We have found in other proceedings that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies and, 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

[[Page 58939]]

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 (``CTVs from the PRC''). 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 H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). Rather, the Department 
bases its decision on information that is available to it at the time 
it makes its determination. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 
and Strip from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 
5, 2008), unchanged in PET Film LTFV Final. Therefore, we have not used 
prices from these countries in calculating the Indian import-based 
surrogate values. Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME 
countries. Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an 
``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, because 
the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an 
NME country or a country with general export subsidies.
    The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw 
material and packing material inputs that Ningbo Yinzhou and the RMB 
and IFI Group used to produce the subject merchandise during the POI, 
except where listed below.
    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 May 2008, see Corrected 2007 
Calculation of Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 73 FR 27795 (May 14, 
2008), and 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 2005, ILO (Geneva: 2007), 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 respondents.
    We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate 
calculated from data on the following Web site: https://
www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this 
Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian 
cities. Since this value is not contemporaneous with the POI, we 
deflated the rate using WPI.
    We valued international freight shipping expenses using 
contemporaneous rates reported by Maersk Line Shipping. Where 
applicable, for each respondent, the Department used the international 
freight rates reported for each corresponding origin and destination 
ports for each month of the POI.
    We valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and large 
industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the 
Government of India in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty 
and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated July 2006. 
These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to 
industries in India. Since the rates are not contemporaneous with the 
POI, we inflated the values using the WPI.
    To value water, the Department used data from the Maharashtra 
Industrial Development Corporation (https://
www.midindia.orgwww.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 of the water 
rates were for the ``inside industrial areas'' usage category and 193 
of the water rates were for the ``outside industrial areas'' usage 
category. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POR, we 
used WPI data to inflate the rate to be contemporaneous to the POI.
    We valued diesel using the rates provided by the OECD's 
International Energy Agency's publication: Key World Energy Statistics 
from 2004 and 2005. The prices are based on 2004 and 2005 first quarter 
prices of automotive diesel fuel retail prices, thus we used WPI data 
to inflate the price to be contemporaneous to the POI.
    We valued brokerage and handling using a simple average of the 
brokerage and handling costs that were reported in public submissions 
that were filed in three antidumping duty cases. Specifically, we 
averaged the public brokerage and handling expenses reported by Agro 
Dutch Industries Ltd. in the antidumping duty administrative review of 
certain preserved mushrooms from India, Kejirwal Paper Ltd. in the LTFV 
investigation of certain lined paper products from India, and Essar 
Steel in the antidumping duty administrative review of hot-rolled 
carbon steel flat products from India. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms 
From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 
FR 10646 (March 2, 2006); see also Notice of Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, 
and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in 
Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 
2006), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006) 
and Certain hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 
2018,2021 (January 12, 2006) (unchanged in Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 (July 18, 2006). Since the resulting 
value is not contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the rate using 
the WPI.
    To value marine insurance, the Department used data from RGJ 
Consultants (https://www.rjgconsultants.com/). This source provides 
information regarding the per-value rates of marine insurance of 
imports and exports to/from various countries.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses, and profit, we used the average of two audited 2006-2007 
financial statements: Deepak Fasteners and Nasco Steel, producers in 
India of merchandise comparable to steel threaded rod. For a detailed 
discussion of all surrogate values used for this preliminary 
determination, see October 1, 2008, Surrogate Value Memorandum.

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use facts 
available if necessary information is not available on the record of an 
antidumping proceeding. In this review, Ningbo Yinzhou reported that it 
used tolling companies to finish subject steel threaded rod sold to the 
U.S. during the POI. See July 1, 2008, Ningbo Yinzhou questionnaire 
response at 3. Furthermore, Ningbo Yinzhou did not report the factors 
of production associated with the inputs consumed by its unaffiliated 
tolling companies during the finishing process, which are necessary to 
the Department's calculation of normal value. Therefore, pursuant to 
section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, Ningbo Yinzhou failed to provide 
information relevant to the Department's analysis. Thus, consistent 
with section 782(d) of the Act, the Department has determined it 
necessary

[[Page 58940]]

to apply facts otherwise available to value zinc plated and hot-dip 
galvanizing finishes for subject steel threaded rods sold to the United 
States during the POI. To account for the finishing costs associated 
Ningbo Yinzhou's zinc-plating and hot-dip galvanized steel threaded rod 
sold to the U.S. during the POI, the Department has preliminarily 
determined to apply the reported cost of galvanizing rebar,\12\ 
reported by Galrebars.com, a trade association in India, to value to 
the factors associated with galvanizing steel threaded rod. See 
Surrogate Value Memorandum at exhibit 4. However, subsequent to the 
preliminary determination, the Department intends to request additional 
information from Ningbo Yinzhou regarding the factors of production 
consumed in galvanizing steel threaded rod for the purposes of the 
final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For this purpose, we consider partially deformed concrete 
steel reinforcing bar (i.e., rebar) comparable merchandise to CSTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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)