Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part, 1339-1344 [2010-30]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1339-1344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-891]


Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Rescission in Part

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

[[Page 1340]]


DATES: Effective Date: January 11, 2010.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is currently 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
hand trucks and certain parts thereof (hand trucks) from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC) covering the period December 1, 2007, through 
November 30, 2008. We preliminarily determine that sales made by Since 
Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware) were made below normal 
value (NV). We invite interested parties to comment on these 
preliminary results. In addition, we are also rescinding this 
administrative review with respect to New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., 
Ltd. (New-Tec).
    Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each 
argument a statement of the issue and a summary of the argument.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2924 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 2, 2004, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC. See 
Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 
From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 70122 (December 2, 2004). On 
December 1, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register its 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 72764 (December 1, 
2008). On December 30, 2008, Gleason Industrial Products, Inc., and 
Precision Products, Inc. (Petitioners) requested that the Department 
conduct an administrative review of Since Hardware, New-Tec, Qingdao 
Huatian Hand Truck Co., Ltd. (Huatian), and True Potential Co., Ltd. 
(True Potential). On February 2, 2009, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty 
administrative review of hand trucks from the PRC for the period 
December 1, 2007, through November 30, 2008, with respect to the four 
companies named above. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 
5821 (February 2, 2009) (Initiation Notice).
    On March 4, 2009, New-Tec provided certification that it had not 
shipped to the United States any subject merchandise during the period 
of review (POR), and requested the Department rescind the review with 
respect to New-Tec. On April 21, 2009, Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) posted the Department's no shipments inquiry with respect to New-
Tec. See message number 9120201 dated April 21, 2009. The Department 
received no information in response to that inquiry, and found no 
evidence of shipments of subject merchandise to the United States by 
New-Tec during the POR. Therefore the Department published a notice of 
intent to rescind the review with respect to New-Tec on June 19, 2009. 
See Notice of Partial Rescission, Intent to Rescind and Extension of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Hand 
Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 
74 FR 29178 (June 19, 2009) (Partial Rescission Notice).
    On May 1, 2009, Petitioners withdrew their requests for review of 
Huatian and True Potential. Because Petitioners were the only party 
that requested a review of Huatian and True Potential, the Department 
rescinded the review with respect to these companies on June 19, 2009. 
See Partial Rescission Notice at 29178.
    We issued the standard antidumping duty questionnaire to Since 
Hardware on May 5, 2009, and received timely responses in June 2009. We 
issued supplemental questionnaires covering sections A, C, and D of the 
original questionnaire on July 7, 2009, September 18, 2009, November 6, 
2009, and December 16, 2009, and received timely responses to those 
questionnaires.

Period of Review

    The POR covers December 1, 2007, through November 30, 2008.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order consists of 
hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or 
unassembled, complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain 
parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the 
projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof.
    A complete or fully assembled hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow 
consisting of a vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than 
one handle at or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least 
two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a 
horizontal projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or 
angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the 
vertical frame. The projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides 
under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load.
    That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical setting to 
a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a 
platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope 
of this petition. That the vertical frame, handling area, wheels, 
projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be collapsed or 
folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of 
the petition. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, 
handling area, projecting edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in 
addition to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower section 
of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck 
from the scope of the petition. Finally, that the hand truck may 
exhibit physical characteristics in addition to the vertical frame, the 
handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at 
or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for 
exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition.
    Examples of names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand 
truck, convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cylinder hand 
truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically imported 
under heading 8716.80.50.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS), although they may also be imported under heading 
8716.80.50.90. Specific parts of a hand truck, namely the vertical 
frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, or any 
combination thereof, are typically imported under heading 8716.90.50.60 
of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description 
of the scope is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope are small two-wheel or four-wheel utility 
carts specifically designed for carrying loads like personal bags or 
luggage in which the frame is made from telescoping tubular materials 
measuring less than 5/8 inch in diameter; hand trucks that use 
motorized operations either to move the hand truck from one location to 
the next

[[Page 1341]]

or to assist in the lifting of items placed on the hand truck; vertical 
carriers designed specifically to transport golf bags; and wheels and 
tires used in the manufacture of hand trucks.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, we 
have treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until 
revoked by the administering authority. None of the parties to this 
proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV 
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME 
countries.

Separate Rates Determination

    A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is 
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. 
Accordingly, the Department applies a rebuttable presumption that all 
companies within the PRC 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 the merchandise subject 
to review in NME countries a single rate unless an exporter can 
affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law 
(de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to exports. To establish 
whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a 
separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting 
entity in an NME country under the test established in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), (Sparklers) as 
amplified by the 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).

Absence of De Jure Control

    Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure 
absence of government control over export activities includes: (1) an 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 
56 FR at 20589. In this administrative review, Since Hardware submitted 
a complete response to the separate rates section of the Department's 
questionnaire. See Since Hardware's June 5, 2009 submission at 5-6. The 
evidence submitted in the instant review by Since Hardware includes 
government laws and regulations on corporate ownership and control 
(i.e., the Company Law and the Foreign Trade Law of the People's 
Republic of China), individual business licenses, and narrative 
information regarding the company's operations and selection of 
management. The evidence Since Hardware provided supports a preliminary 
finding of an absence of de jure government control over its export 
activities because: (1) there are no controls on exports of subject 
merchandise, such as quotas applied to, or licenses required for, 
exports of the subject merchandise to the United States; and (2) the 
government of the PRC has passed legislation decentralizing control of 
companies. See Since Hardware's June 5, 2009 submission at 5-6, and 
Exhibit 4 and its August 3, 2009 submission at 4 and Exhibit 7.

Absence of De Facto Control

    The absence of de facto government control over exports generally 
is based on whether the respondent: (1) sets its own export prices 
independent of the government and other exporters; (2) retains the 
proceeds from its export sales and makes independent decisions 
regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) has 
the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and 
(4) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of 
management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; Sparklers, 56 FR at 
20589; and 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).
    In its June 5, 2009, submission, Since Hardware submitted evidence 
demonstrating an absence of de facto government control over its export 
activities. Specifically, this evidence indicates: (1) the company sets 
its own export prices independent of the government and without the 
approval of a government authority; (2) the company retains the 
proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) the company has a 
general manager with the authority to negotiate and bind the company in 
an agreement; (4) the general manager is selected by the company's 
board of shareholders, and the general manager appoints the company's 
management personnel; and (5) there is no restriction on the company's 
use of export revenues.
    Therefore, in the absence of both de jure or de facto government 
control over Since Hardware's export activities, we preliminarily find 
that Since Hardware has established prima facie that it qualifies for a 
separate rate under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and 
Sparklers.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department investigates imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base 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 administrative review are discussed under the ``Normal 
Value'' section, below. On February 24, 2009, the Department determined 
that India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand and Peru are 
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development, and 
requested comments from interested parties on selecting the appropriate 
surrogate country for this review. See Letter to All Interested 
Parties, ``Administrative Review of Hand Trucks and Certain Parts 
Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Country List,'' 
dated March 2, 2009, at Attachment 1. No party submitted surrogate 
country selection comments.
    The Department has examined the export levels\1\ of subject 
merchandise from the above-mentioned countries and found that India, 
Indonesia, Thailand, Colombia, and the Philippines are significant 
producers of comparable merchandise. See Memorandum from Fred Baker, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Richard Weible, Office 
Director, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Hand Trucks and 
Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Selection of 
a Surrogate Country,'' dated concurrently with this notice (Surrogate

[[Page 1342]]

Country Memorandum) at 4. However, in selecting the appropriate 
surrogate country, the Department also examines the availability and 
reliability of data from the countries deemed to be economically 
comparable and significant producers of subject merchandise. For a 
description of our practice, see Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: 
Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004). 
India has been the primary surrogate country in numerous past segments 
for this proceeding. In those past segments, the Department found 
India's import statistics to be an available and reliable source for 
surrogate values. See Surrogate Country Memorandum at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department was unable to find world production data for 
subject merchandise and relied on export data as a substitute for 
overall production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, because India: (1) is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise; (2) is at a similar level of economic 
development as the PRC; (3) has publicly available and reliable data, 
which the Department has previously relied upon for numerous segments 
of this proceeding, the Department has selected India as the primary 
surrogate country, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act. See 
Surrogate Country Memorandum at 5.
    However, for the input ``rubber wheels'' the Department has been 
unable to locate a suitable surrogate value from India. The WTA data 
which we relied upon for the other direct inputs reported the quantity 
of rubber wheels on a per-piece basis, rather than a weight basis. 
Thus, because the size of the units involved as reported by WTA data 
could vary greatly, covering wheels with rims up to two feet in 
diameter, we do not consider a per-piece measurement a reliable source 
for valuation in this review. Therefore, we have selected the 
Philippines as the secondary surrogate country because it reported 
Philippine imports of rubber wheels on a weight basis. All of the other 
countries on the Department's list of potential surrogate countries 
either had no imports of rubber wheels or, like India, reported them on 
a per-piece basis.

Rescission in Part

    As described above, on June 19, 2009, the Department published a 
notice of intent to rescind the administrative review of New-Tec 
because it had no shipments. We gave interested parties an opportunity 
to comment on this preliminary intent. See Preliminary Rescission 
Notice at 29179. We received no comments. There continues to be no 
record evidence to suggest New-Tec had shipments or entries of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding the review with 
respect to New-Tec.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Since Hardware's sales of subject merchandise 
to the United States were made at a price below NV, we compared its 
U.S. price to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice, below.

U.S. Price

    We used invoice date as the date of sale because record evidence 
indicated the terms of Since Hardware's U.S. sales changed following 
the contract date. See Since Hardware's October 5, 2009 submission at 
2-3 and 19 CFR 351.401(i). (The Department will normally use the 
invoice date as the date of sale.)
    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based U.S. price 
on the export price (EP) of the sale to the United States by Since 
Hardware because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made 
before the date of importation, and the use of constructed export price 
was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on the free-on-
board (FOB) price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States. For this EP sale, we deducted foreign inland freight and 
foreign brokerage and handling from the starting price (or gross unit 
price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. For Since 
Hardware's U.S. sale, each of these services was provided by an NME 
vendor. Thus, we based the deduction of these movement charges on 
surrogate values.
    We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate 
calculated from data on the following website: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this website contains 
inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities. We used 
data from this website for four months of the POR for which the website 
contained data. See Memorandum from Fred Baker, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, through Robert James, Program Manager, to the File, 
``Administrative Review of Hand Trucks and Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary 
Results'' (Surrogate Values Memorandum) at Exhibit 5.
    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 8.
    Our surrogate values for truck freight and for brokerage and 
handling were in Indian rupees. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we converted them to U.S. 
dollars using the official exchange rate for India recorded on the date 
of sale of subject merchandise in this case. See https://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.

Normal Value

1. Methodology
    Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using an 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 FOPs 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 Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, 
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 
FR 39744 (July 11, 2005), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of 2003-2004 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517 (January 17, 2006).
    We calculated NV by adding the value of the FOPs, general expenses, 
profit, and packing costs. The FOPs for subject merchandise include: 
(1) quantities of raw materials employed; (2) hours of labor required; 
(3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; (4) representative 
capital and selling costs; and (5) packing materials. We used the FOPs 
that Since Hardware reported for materials, energy, labor, and packing, 
and valued those FOPs by multiplying the amount of the factor consumed 
in

[[Page 1343]]

producing subject merchandise by the average unit surrogate value of 
the factor.
    In addition, we added freight costs to the surrogate costs that we 
calculated for material inputs. We calculated freight costs by 
multiplying surrogate freight rates by the shorter of the reported 
distance from the domestic supplier to the factory that produced the 
subject merchandise or the distance from the nearest seaport to the 
factory that produced the subject merchandise, as appropriate. Where 
there were multiple domestic suppliers of a material input, we 
calculated a weighted-average distance after limiting each supplier's 
distance to no more than the distance from the nearest seaport to Since 
Hardware. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision by the 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    We also increased the calculated costs of the FOPs for surrogate 
general expenses and profit. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 
7.
2. Selection of Surrogate Values
    In selecting surrogate values, we followed, to the extent 
practicable, the Department's practice of choosing public values which 
are non-export averages, representative of a range of prices in effect 
during the POR, or over a period as close as possible in time to the 
POR, 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). We also considered the 
quality of the source of surrogate information in selecting surrogate 
values. See Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998). Where we could obtain only 
surrogate values that were not contemporaneous with the POR, we 
inflated (or deflated) the surrogate values using the Indian wholesale 
price index (WPI) as published in International Financial Statistics by 
the International Monetary Fund. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at 
Exhibit 1.
    In calculating surrogate values from import statistics, in 
accordance with the Department's practice, we disregarded statistics 
for imports from NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly 
available, non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all 
exporters to all export markets (e.g., Indonesia, South Korea, and 
Thailand). See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The 
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see also 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television 
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800, 66808 
(November 28, 2003), unchanged in 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). Additionally, 
we excluded from our calculations imports that were labeled as 
originating from an unspecified country because we could not determine 
whether they were from an NME country.
    Except as noted in the section entitled ``Surrogate Country,'' 
above, we valued all direct materials (zinc-galvanized cold-rolled 
steel plate, zinc-galvanized hot-rolled steel tube, aluminum tube, 
aluminum parts, PP plastic parts, PVC plastic parts, zinc-galvanized 
iron clip, lock washer, spring, tapping screw, bolt, nut, rivet, and 
welding rod) using weighted-average Indian import values derived from 
the World Trade Atlas online (WTA), for the period December 2007 
through November 2008. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 2. We 
valued rubber wheels using WTA data for imports to the Philippines for 
the same December 2007 through November 2008 period. Id. In addition, 
we valued packing material inputs (corrugated paper, plastic strip, 
label, steel clip, polyethylene plastic sheet, and the instruction 
manual) with weighted-average Indian import values derived from the WTA 
for the period December 2007 through November 2008. Id. at Exhibit 4. 
The Indian import statistics obtained from the WTA were published by 
the Indian Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and 
Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of India, and are contemporaneous with 
the POR.
    Energy inputs consisted of argon gas and electricity. We valued 
argon gas using weighted-average Indian import values derived from the 
WTA for the period December 2007 through November 2008. See Surrogate 
Values Memorandum at Exhibit 3. 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. We did not inflate 
this value because utility rates represent current rates, as indicated 
by the effective dates listed for each of the rates provided. See 
Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 3 for our computation.
    We valued truck freight expenses for inputs using the same 
surrogate data source we used for valuing domestic inland freight for 
Since Hardware's U.S. sale (i.e., we used data from the website https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm, which contains inland freight 
truck rates between many large Indian cities). See Surrogate Values 
Memorandum at Exhibit 5.
    The electricity and truck freight expenses were denominated in 
Indian rupees. Therefore, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.415, we converted them to U.S. dollars using the 
official exchange rate for India recorded on the date of sale of 
subject merchandise in this case. See https://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.
    The Department's regulations require the use of a regression-based 
wage rate. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). Therefore, to value labor, the 
Department used the regression-based wage rate for the PRC published on 
the Import Administration website. See the IA website at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/07wages/2009-2007-wages.html#table1.
    To value the surrogate financial ratios for factory overhead (OH), 
selling, general & administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit, the 
Department prefers to use contemporaneous, publicly available and 
subsidy-free financial statements of companies producing comparable 
merchandise from the surrogate country. For these preliminary results, 
Department used the 2005-2006 financial statement of Godrej & Boyce 
Manufacturing Company Limited (Godrej & Boyce), an Indian producer of 
comparable

[[Page 1344]]

merchandise. However, Godrej & Boyce's 2005-2006 financial statement 
does make reference to an unspecified ``{i{time} nvestment subsidy 
under the Central/State investment incentive scheme.'' See Surrogate 
Values Source Documents, Exhibit 1 at 27. The Department has a general 
practice to reject the use of certain financial statements where the 
statements show that the company benefitted from subsidy programs which 
Commerce has found to be countervailable. See Certain Tissue Paper 
Products from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of the 2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 74 FR 52176 (October 9, 2009). 
Nevertheless, we have used Godrej & Boyce's 2005-2006 financial 
statement for these preliminary results because it is the only 
financial statement available to us and it is unclear if the subsidy 
mentioned is countervailable. For the final results, we invite 
interested parties to submit additional financial statements to the 
record for consideration. We will then examine again whether it is 
appropriate to use Godrej & Boyce's financial statement to calculate 
the surrogate financial ratios.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) and 19 CFR 351.415 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. These exchange rates can be accessed at the IA 
website at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists 
during the period December 1, 2007, through November 30, 2008:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware).......       17.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose 
to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching 
the preliminary results within five days of publication of these 
preliminary results. Interested parties may submit written comments 
(case briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results 
and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within five days after the time 
limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 
351.309(d)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must 
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit 
arguments are requested to submit with the case or rebuttal briefs: (1) 
a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) 
a table of authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties 
submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette 
containing the public version of those comments.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties 
who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, 
must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration within 30 days of publication of this notice. Requests 
should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; 
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 
discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be 
limited to those raised in the briefs.
    Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department will issue the final 
results of this administrative review, including the results of our 
analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 
90 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuing the final results of the review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 
15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific 
ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount 
of the dumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if 
any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results 
of this review is above de minimis. However, the final results of this 
review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on 
entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and 
for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements, when imposed, will apply 
to all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final 
results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Since Hardware 
will be the rate established in the final results of this 
administrative review; (2) for any previously reviewed or investigated 
PRC or non-PRC exporter, not covered in this administrative review, 
with a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-
specific rate established in the most recent segment of this 
proceeding; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the PRC-wide rate (i.e., 383.60 percent); and (4) the 
cash-deposit rate for any non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise from 
the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied 
that exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i).

    Dated: December 31, 2009.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-30 Filed 1-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S