Certain Steel Grating From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 847-856 [E9-31414]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 847-856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-31414]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-947]


Certain Steel Grating From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination

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

DATES: Effective Date: January 6, 2010.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') preliminarily 
determines that certain steel grating (``steel grating'') 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 
(``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: Thomas Martin or Zhulieta Willbrand, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3936 or (202) 482-3147, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On May 29, 2009, Fisher & Ludlow and Alabama Metal Industries 
Corporation (hereafter referred to as ``Petitioners'') filed an 
antidumping duty petition on PRC imports of steel grating. See the 
Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: 
Certain Steel Grating from the PRC (``the Petition''). The Department 
initiated an antidumping duty investigation of steel grating on June 
25, 2009. See Certain Steel Grating from the People's Republic of 
China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 30273 (June 
25, 2009) (``Initiation Notice'').
    On July 15, 2009, 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 
threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the PRC of 
steel grating. The ITC's determination was published in the Federal 
Register on July 20, 2009. See Certain Steel Grating from China, 74 FR 
35204 (July 20, 2009); see also Certain Steel Grating from China: 
Investigation Nos. 701-TA-465 and 731-TA-1161 (Preliminary), USITC 
Publication 4087 (July 2009).
    On July 9, 2009, we received comments from Petitioners regarding 
product characteristics. On July 16, 2009, we received rebuttal 
comments from Ningbo Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 
(``Ningbo Jiulong'') regarding product characteristics. On July 23, 
2009, we received additional comments from Petitioners regarding 
product characteristics.
    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it intended to 
select respondents based on quantity and value (``Q&V'') 
questionnaires. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 30277. On June 19, 
2009, the Department requested Q&V information from the sixteen 
companies that Petitioners identified as potential exporters or 
producers of steel grating from the PRC. See Petition at Vol 1., 
Exhibit 5. Additionally, the Department also posted the Q&V 
questionnaire for this investigation on its Web site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html. The Department received 
timely Q&V responses from six exporters that shipped merchandise under 
investigation to the United States during the period of investigation 
(``POI''), and from one company that stated it had no shipments of 
merchandise under investigation to the United States during the POI.
    On July 31, 2009, the Department selected Shanghai DAHE Grating 
Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai DAHE'') and Ningbo Jiulong Machinery 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (``Ningbo Jiulong'') as mandatory respondents 
in this investigation. See Memorandum to the File, from Thomas Martin, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program 
Manager, to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4, regarding 
Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of Certain 
Steel Grating from the People's Republic of China, dated July 31, 2009 
(``Respondent Selection Memo''). On July 31, 2009, the Department 
issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Shanghai DAHE and Ningbo 
Jiulong. On August 18, 2009, Shanghai DAHE filed a letter stating that 
it would not participate as a mandatory respondent in this 
investigation. See Letter to the Department from Shanghai DAHE, dated 
August 12, 2009. On August 21, 2009, Ningbo Jiulong submitted a timely 
response to section A of the Department's antidumping questionnaire. On 
September 22, 2009, timely responses to sections C and D of the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire were submitted by Ningbo 
Jiulong.
    Between August 7, 2009, and September 9, 2009, we received timely 
filed separate-rate applications from four companies: Sinosteel Yantai 
Steel Grating Co., Ltd. (``Sinosteel''); Ningbo Haitian International 
Co., Ltd. (``Ningbo Haitian''); Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry 
Engineering Co., Ltd. (``Shenyang Yuanda''); and Yantai Xinke Steel 
Structure Co., Ltd. (``Yantai Xinke'').
    The Department issued supplemental questionnaires and received 
responses from Sinosteel, Ningbo Haitian, and Yantai Xinke, between 
September 2009 and November 2009. From September 2009 through December 
2009, Petitioners submitted comments to the Department regarding Ningbo 
Jiulong's

[[Page 848]]

responses to sections A, C, and D of the antidumping questionnaire.
    On August 18, 2009, the Department requested comments on surrogate 
country selection from the interested parties in this investigation. On 
September 1, 2009, Petitioners 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.
    On October 16, 2009, Ningbo Jiulong submitted publically available 
surrogate value information in response to specific requests for 
information by the Department. On November 2, 2009, both Petitioners 
and Ningbo Jiulong submitted additional publically available surrogate 
value information. On November 9 and 10, 2009, Petitioners and Ningbo 
Jiulong submitted rebuttal surrogate value comments.
    On October 22, 2009, pursuant to section 733(c) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.205(f)(1), the Department postponed the preliminary 
determination by 50 days. See Certain Steel Grating from the People's 
Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of 
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 54535 (October 22, 2009).

Period of Investigation

    The POI is October 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009. This period 
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the petition (May 29, 2009). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on December 14, 2009, 
Ningbo Jiulong requested that, in the event of an affirmative 
preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department 
postpone its final determination by 30 days. In the same submission, 
Ningbo Jiulong agreed that the Department may extend the application of 
the provisional measures prescribed under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) until 
the date of the final determination. Because our preliminary 
determination is affirmative, and the respondent requesting an 
extension of the final determination, and an extension of the 
provisional measures, accounts for a significant proportion of exports 
of the merchandise under consideration, and no compelling reasons for 
denial exist, we are extending the due date for the final determination 
by 30 days. Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly.

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain steel 
grating, consisting of two or more pieces of steel, including load-
bearing pieces and cross pieces, joined by any assembly process, 
regardless of: (1) Size or shape; (2) method of manufacture; (3) 
metallurgy (carbon, alloy, or stainless); (4) the profile of the bars; 
and (5) whether or not they are galvanized, painted, coated, clad or 
plated. Steel grating is also commonly referred to as ``bar grating,'' 
although the components may consist of steel other than bars, such as 
hot-rolled sheet, plate, or wire rod.
    The scope of this investigation excludes expanded metal grating, 
which is comprised of a single piece or coil of sheet or thin plate 
steel that has been slit and expanded, and does not involve welding or 
joining of multiple pieces of steel. The scope of this investigation 
also excludes plank type safety grating which is comprised of a single 
piece or coil of sheet or thin plate steel, typically in thickness of 
10 to 18 gauge, that has been pierced and cold formed, and does not 
involve welding or joining of multiple pieces of steel.
    Certain steel grating that is the subject of this investigation is 
currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS'') under subheading 7308.90.7000. While the HTSUS 
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

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, 74 FR at 30274. We received one comment on 
issues related to the scope, from Shenyang Yuanda. See ``Separate 
Rates'' section below.

Non-Market Economy Country

    The Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy 
(``NME'') country. 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) (``Coated Free Sheet Paper''). 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 country, 
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 
(``FOPs'') 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 determined that India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 
Colombia, Thailand and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in 
terms of economic development.\1\ Once the countries that are 
economically comparable to the PRC have been identified, we select an 
appropriate surrogate country by determining whether an economically 
comparable country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise 
and whether the data for valuing FOPs is both available and reliable. 
In their September 1, 2009, submission, Petitioners argued that the 
Department should select India as a surrogate country because it 
satisfies the statutory requirements for the selection of a surrogate 
country since it is at a level of economic development that is 
comparable to the PRC, and is a significant producer of merchandise

[[Page 849]]

comparable to the merchandise under investigation. Petitioners also 
noted that the Department can readily value the major FOPs for subject 
merchandise using reliable, publicly available data from Indian 
sources. No other party provided comments on the record concerning the 
surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting Director, Office 
of Policy, to Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 4, ``Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Steel Grating from the 
People's Republic of China'' (August 14, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have determined that it is appropriate to use India as a 
surrogate country pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act based on the 
following: (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 the FOPs of 
Ningbo Jiulong. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available 
information wherever possible. See Memorandum to the File from Thomas 
Martin, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, to the File, ``Investigation of Certain Steel 
Grating from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the 
Preliminary Determination, which is dated concurrently with this notice 
(``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.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 Recission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affiliation and Collapsing

    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.''

    Consistent with section 771(33)(B) of the Act, we find that the 
record evidence demonstrates that Ningbo Jiulong and Ningbo Zhenhai 
Jiulong Electronic Equipment Factory (``Jiulong Factory'') are 
affiliated because they are indirectly under the common control of a 
company officer. See Ningbo Jiulong's Second Supplemental Section A 
Response, dated November 9, 2009 (``Jiulong Second A Response'') at 3. 
A finding of affiliation between a producer and its supplier, however, 
does not justify a departure from the Department's standard practice of 
valuing the actual FOP(s) consumed by the producer of subject 
merchandise. Affiliation, by itself, does not necessarily imply that a 
producer's FOP(s) obtained from an affiliated supplier are self-
produced.\3\ Nor does the Department consider control a determinative 
factor in determining whether the upstream inputs of an affiliated 
supplier should be valued as the producer's own. While control may be a 
basis for finding affiliation, it does not necessarily mean the two 
affiliates should be collapsed and treated as a single entity for 
purposes of determining the margin of dumping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Lightweight Thermal Paper From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 
57329 (October 2, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 8 (``LWTP Final''); Electrolytic Manganese 
Dioxide From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 48195 (August 18, 2008) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under its collapsing regulation (19 CFR 351.401(f)), the Department 
may collapse affiliated producers where it finds that producers have 
production facilities for similar or identical products, and that a 
significant potential for manipulation of price or production exists. 
The regulation addresses the specific situation of affiliated 
producers. However, the regulation is not exhaustive of the situations 
that may call for collapsing of affiliated entities, and the Department 
has developed a practice of collapsing entities that do not qualify as 
producers. For example, in the past the Department has collapsed a 
producer with an affiliated processor. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
    In this case, the record evidence indicates that although Jiulong 
Factory is an affiliated supplier that neither produces steel grating 
nor is involved in the selling/exporting of steel grating, Jiulong 
Factory nonetheless has the potential to produce steel grating. See 
Jiulong Second A Response at 3. We have determined that Jiulong 
Factory's facilities would not require substantial retooling to produce 
the merchandise under consideration. See Jiulong Second A Response at 
3. Further, Ningbo Jiulong reported that it purchases twisted wire rod 
only from Jiulong Factory, and the two operations are co-located on the 
same premises. Therefore, we preliminarily find that Ningbo Jiulong and 
Jiulong Factory have intertwined operations. See Jiulong Second A 
Response at 4. Thus, we preliminarily determine that there is record 
evidence of a significant potential for the manipulation of price and 
production. See 19 CFR 351.401(f). Accordingly, we find it necessary to 
value upstream inputs that were not used by the actual producer of the 
merchandise under consideration in NV calculations because such 
valuation would reflect the producer's, i.e., Ningbo Jiulong's, own 
production experience. Therefore, for the preliminary determination, we 
have valued Jiulong Factory's inputs for twisted wire rod production 
with surrogate values.

Separate Rates

    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, 74 
FR at 19054-55. The process requires exporters and producers to submit 
a separate rate status application.\4\ However, the

[[Page 850]]

standard for separate rate eligibility has not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rate Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), at 6, 
available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. (``Policy 
Bulletin 05.1''). Policy Bulletin 05.1 states, in relevant part, 
``While 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 applied 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 subject merchandise 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 the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities. 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''). 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.

Separate Rate Recipients

1. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly 
Chinese-Owned Companies
    Two of the separate rate applicants in this investigation are 
wholly Chinese-owned companies: Yantai Xinke and Ningbo Haitian 
(collectively, ``Chinese SR Applicants''). The Department has analyzed 
whether each of the two Chinese SR Applicants has demonstrated the 
absence of de jure and de facto governmental control over its 
respective 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 license; (2) 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 two Chinese SR Applicants 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) the 
existence of applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control 
of Chinese companies; and (3) the implementation of formal measures by 
the government decentralizing control of Chinese companies.
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 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 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.
    The evidence provided by the two Chinese SR Applicants supports a 
preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental control based 
on record statements and supporting documentation showing that the 
companies: (1) Set their own export prices independent of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) have 
the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) 
maintain autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the 
selection of management; and (4) retain the proceeds of their 
respective export sales and make independent decisions regarding 
disposition of profits or financing of losses.
    In all, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by 
the two Chinese SR Applicants demonstrates an absence of de jure and de 
facto government control in accordance with the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Accordingly, the Department has 
preliminarily granted a separate rate to the Chinese SR Applicants. See 
``Preliminary Determination'' section below.
2. Wholly State-Owned Exporters/Manufacturers and Exporters/
Manufacturers Whose Stock Is Partially Owned by a Government State 
Asset Management Company
    One of the separate rate applicants in this investigation is a 
subsidiary company indirectly owned by a government State asset 
management company (``State-Owned SR Applicant''). According to 
Sinosteel's Separate Rate Application, Sinosteel is a State-owned 
enterprise, owned indirectly by the State Assets Administration 
Commission of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. See 
Sinosteel's Separate Rate Application Supplemental Response, dated 
September 25, 2009, at Attachment 1. Absent evidence of de facto 
control over export activities, however, government ownership alone 
does not warrant denying a company a separate rate. See LWTP Final and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
    The Department preliminarily determines that the evidence placed on 
the record of this investigation by Sinosteel demonstrates an absence 
of de facto government control of exports of the merchandise under 
investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers 
and Silicon Carbide.\5\ Sinosteel certified that its export prices are 
not set by, subject to the approval of, or in any way controlled by a 
government entity at any level and that

[[Page 851]]

it has independent authority to negotiate and sign export contracts, by 
providing price negotiation documents for its first U.S. sale. See, 
e.g., Sinosteel's Separate Rate Application, dated August 7, 2009, at 
Exhibit 1. Sinosteel also stated that it has the right to select its 
own management and to decide how profits will be distributed. See 
Sinosteel's Separate Rate Application Supplemental Questionnaire 
Response, dated September 25, 2009, at 3. Thus, the Department 
preliminarily determines that there is an absence of both de jure and 
de facto government control with respect to Sinosteel. Accordingly, the 
Department has preliminarily granted a separate rate to the State-Owned 
SR Applicant (i.e., Sinosteel). See ``Preliminary Determination'' 
section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See also Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line 
Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 14514 (March 31, 2009) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11 (where the 
Department granted a separate rate to a company owned by the State-
owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State 
Council of the government of the PRC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department requested that all 
companies wishing to qualify for separate rate status in this 
investigation submit a separate rate status application. See Initiation 
Notice. Shenyang Yuanda submitted both a separate rate application and 
scope comments. In its scope comments, Shenyang Yuanda requested the 
Department to determine whether the product it exported (i.e., steel 
connectors for aluminum curtains) to the United States during the POI 
was within the scope of the investigation. Specifically, Shenyang 
Yuanda stated that the only steel products that it ships to the United 
States are steel connectors, made from milled steel plate, that have 
the purpose of securing aluminum curtains to the walls of buildings. 
See Shenyang Yuanda's July 6, 2009, submission. We examined Shenyang 
Yuanda's submission, and found that Shenyang Yuanda's aluminum curtains 
are not merchandise under consideration, as they are not made of steel; 
we also found that Shenyang Yuanda's steel connectors are not 
merchandise under consideration because they are not grating. While 
Shenyang Yuanda submitted a separate rate application and scope 
comments, based on record evidence (i.e., Shenyang Yuanda's separate 
rate application and scope comments), we have determined that Shenyang 
Yuanda is not an exporter of merchandise subject to this investigation. 
Therefore, the Department has determined that Shenyang Yuanda has not 
demonstrated its eligibility for separate rate status in this 
investigtation. As a result, the Department will not provide Shenyang 
Yuanda with a separate rate.

Margins for Separate Rate Recipients

    Through the evidence in their applications, the Separate-Rate 
Applicants have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate, see 
the ``Separate Rates'' section above. Consistent with the Department's 
practice, we have established a margin for the Separate-Rate Applicants 
based on the rate we calculated for Ningbo Jiulong (the remaining 
mandatory respondent), excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, 
or based entirely on adverse facts available (``AFA'').\6\ The 
Separate-Rate Applicants are listed in the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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), see also the ``Separate Rates'' section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply 
``facts otherwise available'' (``FA'') if (1) necessary information is 
not on the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) 
withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide 
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner 
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 
section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) 
provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 
782(i) of the Act.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse 
inference may include reliance on information derived from the 
petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or 
other information placed on the record.

PRC-Wide Entity

1. Non-Responsive Companies
    On June 19, 2009, the Department requested Q&V information from the 
sixteen companies that Petitioners identified as potential exporters or 
producers of steel grating from the PRC. See Petition at Vol. 1, 
Exhibit 5. Additionally, the Department's Initiation Notice informed 
these companies of the requirements to respond to both the Department's 
Q&V questionnaire and the separate rate application in order to receive 
consideration for separate rate status. However, not all exporters/
manufacturers responded to the Department's request for Q&V 
information.\7\ Furthermore, not all exporters/manufacturers that 
submitted Q&V information also submitted a separate rate 
application.\8\ Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that 
there were exports of merchandise under review from PRC exporters/
manufacturers that did not respond to the Department's Q&V 
questionnaire, and/or subsequently did not demonstrate their 
eligibility for separate rate status. As a result, the Department is 
treating these PRC exporters/manufacturers (``non-responsive 
companies'') as part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As stated in the ``Background'' section above, of the 
sixteen Q&V questionnaires the Department sent to potential 
exporters identified in the Petition, the Department received seven 
timely responses, one of which reported no sales within the POI. The 
record indicates that all sixteen companies received the 
Department's questionnaires. See Respondent Selection Memo and 
``Background'' section above.
    \8\ As stated in the ``Separate Rates'' section above, six 
exporters submitted a timely response to the Department's Q&V 
questionnaire with sales within the POI, but only four of these 
exporters submitted a separate rate application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Shanghai DAHE
    As stated above, Shanghai DAHE informed the Department, on August 
18, 2009, that it would no longer participate in the instant 
investigation and did not place any information (e.g., Section A 
questionnaire response) on the record of this investigation. Because 
Shanghai DAHE decided to no longer participate in this investigation, 
Shanghai DAHE has failed to demonstrate that it operates free of 
government control and that it is entitled to a separate rate. 
Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that Shanghai DAHE is 
part of the PRC-wide entity.

Application of Total Adverse Facts Available

    As noted above, the Department has determined that Shanghai DAHE, 
and the non-responsive companies, are part of the PRC-wide entity. 
Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, the Department further finds 
that the PRC-wide entity failed to respond to the Department's 
questionnaires, withheld required information, and/or submitted 
information that cannot be verified, thus

[[Page 852]]

significantly impeding the proceeding. 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), unchanged in 
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). Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily determined to 
base the PRC-wide entity's margin on facts otherwise available. See 
section 776(a) of the Act. Further, because the PRC-wide entity failed 
to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with 
the Department's request for information, the Department preliminarily 
determines that, when selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available, an adverse inference is warranted for the PRC-wide entity 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on 
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in 
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any 
information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the 
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to 
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner.'' See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 
Further, it is the Department's practice to select a rate that ensures 
``that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to 
cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Brake Rotors from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 
Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New 
Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005).
    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 
Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of 
China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, at ``Facts Available.'' In the instant investigation, as 
AFA, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity, including 
Shanghai DAHE, the highest rate on the record of this proceeding, which 
in this case is the 145.18 percent margin from the Petition. See 
Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 30277. The Department preliminarily 
determines that this information is the most appropriate from the 
available sources to effectuate the purposes of AFA. The Department 
will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final 
determination for the purpose of determining the most appropriate AFA 
rate for the PRC-wide entity, including Shanghai DAHE.
    The dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity applies to all entries 
of the merchandise under investigation except for entries of subject 
merchandise from the exporter/manufacturer combinations listed in the 
chart in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section below.

Corroboration of Information

    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 as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning merchandise 
subject to this investigation, or any previous review under section 751 
concerning the merchandise subject to this investigation.'' \9\ To 
``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy itself 
that the secondary information to be used has probative value. 
Independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, 
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation. To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance 
of the information used.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 
6479, 6481 (February 4, 2008), quoting SAA at 870.
    \10\ 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. 
Petitioners' methodology for calculating the United States price and NV 
in the Petition is discussed in the Initiation Notice. To corroborate 
the AFA margin that we have selected, we compared this margin to the 
margins we found for the respondent. We found that the margin of 145.18 
percent has probative value because it is in the range of the model-
specific margins that we found for the mandatory respondent, Ningbo 
Jiulong. See Memorandum to the File from Thomas Martin, through Robert 
Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, and Abdelali 
Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4: Certain Steel 
Grating from the People's Republic of China: Calculation Memorandum the 
Preliminary Determination: Ningbo Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., 
Ltd., dated concurrently with this notice (``Calculation Memorandum''). 
Accordingly, we find that the rate of 145.18 percent is corroborated 
within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.

Date of Sale

    19 CFR 351.401(i) 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.'' 
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)' the 
Department that `a different date better reflects the date on which the 
exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.' '' Allied 
Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090 
(CIT 2001) (quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)) (``Allied Tube''). Additionally, 
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, 132 F.

[[Page 853]]

Supp. 2d at 1090-1092. 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 
Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 62824 (November 7, 
2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Turkey, 65 
FR 15123 (March 21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1.
    Ningbo Jiulong reported that the date of sale was determined by the 
invoice issued by the affiliated importer to the unaffiliated United 
States customer. In this case, as the Department found no evidence 
contrary to Ningbo Jiulong'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 steel grating to the United States by 
Ningbo Jiulong were made at LTFV, we compared export price (``EP'') to 
NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of 
this notice.

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, for Ningbo Jiulong, 
we based the U.S. price of sales on EP because the first sale to 
unaffiliated purchasers was made prior to importation and the use of 
constructed export price was not otherwise warranted. In accordance 
with section 772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP for Ningbo Jiulong by 
deducting the following expenses from the starting price (gross unit 
price) charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States: 
foreign movement expenses and foreign brokerage and handling expenses. 
For certain transactions, Ningbo Jiulong paid international freight to 
the United States using a market economy carrier. For these 
transactions, we also deducted the reported international freight 
expenses from the starting price (gross unit price) charged to the 
first unaffiliated customer in the United States.
    We based these movement expenses on surrogate values where the 
service was purchased from a PRC company. For certain sales, for 
international freight, the Department used Ningbo Jiulong's reported 
expenses for its sales because Ningbo Juilong used a market economy 
freight carrier and paid for those expenses in a market economy 
currency. For details regarding our EP calculation, see Calculation 
Memorandum.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine 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 NMEs 
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), unchanged in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, and Affirmative 
Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper Products from the 
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 (September 8, 2006).
    As the basis for NV, Ningbo Jiulong provided FOPs used in each 
stage for producing steel grating. Additionally, Ningbo Jiulong 
reported that it is an integrated producer, in conjunction with an 
affiliate, Jiulong Factory, in as far as Jiulong Factory produces the 
twisted bar used in the cross bars for steel grating. See Ningbo 
Jiulong's Section D response, dated September 22, 2009, at 2. Jiulong 
Factory 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 Notice of 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) (``Shrimp from China'') 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. See Shrimp from China. In this 
case, we are valuing those inputs reported by both Ningbo Jiulong and 
its affiliate that produced twisted bar when calculating NV.

Factor Valuation Methodology

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by Ningbo Jiulong. 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. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 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 Ningbo Jiulong and Jiulong Factory can be 
found in the Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we used data from the Indian import statistics 
in the World Trade Atlas (``WTA''), and other publicly available Indian 
sources in order to calculate surrogate values for Ningbo Jiulong and 
Jiulong Factory's FOPs (direct materials, energy, and packing 
materials) and certain movement expenses. However, for low carbon steel 
wire rod input, we used price data from the Indian Joint Plant 
Committee. 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

[[Page 854]]

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. 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 as published 
in the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary 
Fund. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 2.
    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 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 Coated Free 
Sheet Paper. 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 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 (September 24, 2008) (``PET Film from China''). 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. See 
PET Film from China.
    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, https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/, ``Expected Wages Of Selected Non-Market Economy Countries, 
Expected Wage Calculation: 2007 GNI Data, Regression Analysis: 2007 GNI 
Data.'' The source of these wage-rate data on the Import 
Administration's Web site is 2006 and 2007 data in Chapter 5B of the 
International Labour Organization's Yearbook of Labour Statistics. 
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 at Exhibit 7.
    We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate 
calculated from data on the infobanc 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. The value 
is contemporaneous with the POI. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 
Exhibit 10.
    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 March 2008. 
These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly 
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to 
industries in India. As the rates listed in this source became 
effective on a variety of different dates, we are not adjusting the 
average value for inflation. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 
5.
    Because water is essential to the production process (the welding 
process) of the merchandise under consideration, the Department 
considers water to be a direct material input, not overhead, and thus 
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 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11. The Department valued 
water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development 
Corporation (https://midcindia.org) as it includes a wide range of 
industrial water tariffs. This source provides 378 industrial water 
rates within the Maharashtra province for April 2009: 189 of the water 
rates were for the ``inside industrial areas'' usage category and 189 
of the water rates were for the ``outside industrial areas'' usage 
category. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 6.
    We valued brokerage and handling using a simple average of the 
brokerage and handling costs reported in public submissions filed in 
three antidumping duty cases. Specifically, we averaged the public 
brokerage and handling expenses reported by Navneet Publications 
(India) Ltd. in the 2007-2008 administrative review of certain lined 
paper products from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 2006-2007 
antidumping duty administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products from India, and Himalaya International Ltd. in the 2005-2006 
administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. The 
Department adjusted the average brokerage and handling rate for 
inflation. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 9.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses, and profit, we used the factory overhead, selling, general 
and administrative, and profit on data from two Indian producers of 
comparable merchandise: (1) Mekins Agro Products Limited (``Mekins''); 
and (2) Rama Steel Tubes Limited (``Rama''), for the fiscal year April 
2007, through March 2008. Petitioners provided the Mekins financial 
statement. See Supplement to the AD Petition, at 10 and Exhibit S-8. 
Ningbo Jiulong submitted the financial statements of two producers of 
steel pipes, Rama and Bihar Tubes Limited (``Bihar''), maintaining that 
steel pipe is more comparable to steel grating because it consumes 
largely the same raw material (hot-rolled coil/strip), which is also 
welded. See Ningbo Jiulong's Submission dated November 2, 2009, 
``Certain Steel Grating from the People's Republic of China--Surrogate 
Values for the Preliminary Determination'' (``Jiulong SV Submission'') 
at 2. We have determined

[[Page 855]]

not to rely on the 2007-2008 financial statement of Bihar because it 
indicates that Bihar received ``Export Incentives'' under the Duty 
Entitlement Pass Book as ``Loans and Advances.'' \11\ Consistent with 
the Department practice, we do not use financial statements of a 
company we have reason to believe or suspect may have received 
subsidies that the Department has found to be countervailable, because 
financial ratios derived from that company's financial statements do 
not constitute the best available information with which to value 
financial ratios.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Annual Report 2007-2008, Bihar, at Schedules H(B) and 
R(B)(10)(B) contained in Jiulong SV Submission at Exhibit 1a.
    \12\ See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Final Results And Rescission, In Part, 
of 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper 
Reviews, 72 FR 19174 (April 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see also Commodity Matchbooks From 
India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 
54547, 54548 (October 22, 2009)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mekins manufactures multiple products, such as wire decking, 
handling equipment, pallets, bins, trolleys, perforated sheets, wheels, 
agricultural implements, steel sheet and strip, pipe, tube, tire tubes 
and axles, hardware chemicals and paints. Rama manufactures steel pipe 
and tube, structural steel, PVC pipes and pipe fittings, and provides 
``turn key'' project services (i.e., project management and 
construction services). See Petitioners' November 10, 2009, Surrogate 
Value Rebuttal Comments at Exhibit 7. Petitioners state that the Mekins 
financial statement, which the Department used for this initiation, 
reflects the experience of a producer of merchandise with multiple-
welded grids of steel bars for the support of loads and weight. See 
Petitioners' ``Comments on Surrogate Values,'' dated November 2, 2009; 
see also Petitioners' ``Surrogate Value Rebuttal Comments,'' dated 
November 9, 2009. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 8. We have 
determined to use the financial statements of both Mekins and Rama 
because both are producers of comparable merchandise with experiences 
comparable to Ningbo Jiulong.
    For its hot-rolled steel input, Ningbo Jiulong reported that it 
used hot-rolled steel strip. See Ningbo Jiulong's October 16, 2009, 
submission at 3. On November 9, 2009, Petitioners argued that the 
description of Ningbo Jiulong's hot-rolled steel input can be either 
steel sheet or steel strip, and argued that the Department should value 
Ningbo Jiulong's hot rolled steel input using surrogate values for both 
sheet and strip. See Petitioners' November 9, 2009, submission at 2-5 
and Petitioners' December 7, 2009, submission at 2-7. On December 11, 
2009, Ningbo Jiulong contended that record evidence showed that its 
hot-rolled steel input is steel strip, and argued that the Department 
should apply a surrogate value that is specific to Ningbo Jiulong's 
inputs. See Ningbo Jiulong's comments dated December 11, 2009, at 3-4. 
Evidence placed on the record by Ningbo Jiulong (i.e., purchase 
invoices) indicates that Ningbo Jiulong purchased steel strip that it 
used in the production of steel grating. See Ningbo Jiulong's November 
18, 2009 submission at Exhibit 8. After examining the record, we have 
determined to use, for the preliminary determination, Ningbo Jiulong's 
reported steel strip as its hot-rolled steel input surrogate value, 
because the Department has no contrary evidence that Ningbo Jiulong 
used hot-rolled steel sheet or other hot-rolled steel as its hot-rolled 
steel input. However, at verification, we will examine this surrogate 
value to further analyze Ningbo Jiulong's hot-rolled steel input. See 
Surrogate Value Memorandum at 3.
    To value low carbon steel wire rod, we used price data from the 
Indian Joint Plant Committee (``JPC''), which is a joint industry/
government board that monitors Indian steel prices. These data are 
fully contemporaneous with the POI, and are specific to the reported 
inputs of the respondents. See Ningbo Jiulong's Section D Supplemental 
Questionnaire response, dated October 16, 2009, at Exhibit 3. Further, 
these data are publicly available, represent a broad market average, 
and we are able to calculate