Wire Decking from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 32905-32910 [2010-13977]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices Comment 12:Whether the Eastfound Material’s Land Acquisitions Are Countervailable Comment 13:Whether the Department Should Countervail Eastfound Material’s Alleged Unreported Land Payment Refund Discovered at Verification Comment 14:Whether the Department Should Countervail Eastfound Metal’s Land–Use Comment 15:Whether the Department Should Use Year 2001 as the Cut–off Date or Use the AUL Methodology to Value Subsidies Comment 16:Whether the GOC Terminated the Income Tax Exemption for Investors In Designated Geographical Regions Within Liaoning Program Comment 17:Whether the GOC Terminated the Income Tax Benefits for FIEs Based on Geographic Location Comment 18:Whether the GOC Terminated the VAT Exemptions for FIEs and Certain Domestic Enterprises Using Imported Equipment Program Comment 19:Whether the GOC Terminated the Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions for FIEs and Certain Domestic Enterprises Using Imported Equipment in Encouraged Industries Program Comment 20:Whether the Department Should Initiate an Investigation of the PRC’s Currency Manipulation Comment 21:Benefit Calculation Under the Two Free, Three Half Income Tax Program Comment 22:Whether DHMP received a Subsidy Under the Income Tax Credits for FIES on Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment Program Comment 23:Whether DHMP Failed To Report VAT Deductions on Fixed Assets [FR Doc. 2010–13971 Filed 6–9–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–949] cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 2010 SUMMARY: On January 12, 2010, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published its preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the antidumping investigation of wire decking from the People’s Republic of VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:40 Jun 09, 2010 Jkt 220001 China (‘‘PRC’’). We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we have made changes to our margin calculations for the mandatory respondents. The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Veith or Trisha Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4295 or (202) 482– 4852, respectively. Final Determination We determine that wire decking from the PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section of this notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV on January 12, 2010. See Wire Decking From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 1597 (January 12, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). On January 19, 2010, the Department issued post–Preliminary Determination supplemental questionnaires to DHMP and Eastfound1 and received responses to these supplemental questionnaires on January 25, 2010. From February 1 through 12, 2010, the Department conducted verifications of DHMP, and Eastfound and released its verification reports for these companies on March 26, 2010, and April 14, 2010, respectively. See the ‘‘Verification’’ section below for additional information. On February 12, 2010, DHMP and Eastfound filed timely requests for a public hearing. On February 16, 2010, in response to a request filed by DHMP, the Department extended the deadline for submission of publicly available information to March 12, 2010. On March 12, 2010, AWP Industries, Inc., 1 Mandatory respondents are Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘DHMP’’) and Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Eastfound Material’’) and its affiliate Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Eastfound Metal’’) (collectively ‘‘Eastfound’’). PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 32905 ITC Manufacturing, Inc., J&L Wire Cloth, Inc., Nashville Wire Products Mfg. Co., Inc., and Wireway Husky Corporation (‘‘Petitioners’’), DHMP, and Eastfound submitted surrogate value information for the record, and each party submitted rebuttal comments to this information on March 22, 2010. On April 22, 2010, case briefs were filed by Petitioners, Nucor Corporation (‘‘Nucor’’), a domestic interested party, DHMP, Eastfound, and the Government of China (‘‘GOC’’). On April 30, 2010, Petitioners, Nucor, Eastfound, and the GOC each filed the final version of their rebuttal briefs, and on May 3, 2010, DHMP filed the final version of its rebuttal brief. The Department held a public hearing on May 5, 2010. On May 10, 2010, the Department rejected Nucor’s case brief, but provided Nucor an opportunity to correct and resubmit its case brief. On May 11, 2010, Nucor filed its corrected case brief. Tolling of Administrative Deadlines The Department postponed the deadline for the final determination to not later than 135 days after publication of the Preliminary Determination, (i.e., May 27, 2010). See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 1599. However, as explained in the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary (‘‘DAS’’) for Import Administration, the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government, February 5, through February 12, 2010. Thus, all existing deadlines associated with this investigation were postponed by seven days. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 2010. Accordingly, the revised deadline for this final determination is June 3, 2010. Period of Investigation The period of investigation (‘‘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, which was June 2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by DHMP and Eastfound for use in our final determination. See the Department’s verification reports on the record of this investigation in the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of the main Department building, E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1 32906 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices electroplating supplier. For the final determination, we applied a freight–in expense to those CONNUMs that indicated they were galvanized under either of these operations, as opposed to the distance from DHMP to the port for the unaffiliated toller and no distance for the affiliated supplier used in the Preliminary Determination. See DHMP’s Verification Report; see also DHMP’s Final Analysis Memo.2 » We valued DHMP’s hot–rolled steel strip FOP using Indian import data under harmonized tariff schedule (‘‘HTS’’) category 7211.19.50 from the World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’) ($0.60247 per kilogram). See the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5; see also DHMP’s Final Analysis Memo. » At verification, we found that DHMP’s reported per–unit billing adjustments had been incorrectly reported in DHMP’s sales database. DHMP had reported the full amount of the adjustment, instead of the per–unit billing adjustment. For the final determination, in the Department’s margin program for DHMP, we changed DHMP’s reported billing adjustment to the actual per–unit billing adjustment. See DHMP’s Verification Report at pages 4 and 22 through 25; see also DHMP’s Final Analysis Memo. • For Eastfound: » We made the following changes to Eastfound’s factors–of-production (‘‘FOP’’) data: 1) we used facts available and adjusted the consumption for all inputs for certain CONNUMs by the percent difference between the bill of material (‘‘BOM’’) steel weight and Eastfound’s reported FOP consumption of steel; 2) we used facts available and set the actual weight reported for certain CONNUMs in Eastfound’s U.S. sales data file equal to the corresponding BOM weight for steel; and 3) we used facts available and adjusted consumption for all inputs for certain CONNUMs by the percent difference between the amount of unreported hot–rolled steel found at verification and the total steel from the BOM. See the Department’s Memorandum entitled, ‘‘Verification of the Sales with respect to these entities. For all verified companies, we used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by respondents. cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the ‘‘Investigation of Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently with this notice and hereby adopted by this notice (‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’). A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document on file in the CRU and accessible on the Web at ia.ita.doc.gov/ frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination • Financial statements – In the Preliminary Determination, we calculated financial ratios based on three Indian producers’ financial statements (i.e., Bansidhar Granites Private Limited, Bedmutha Wire Com. Ltd., and Mekins Agro Products Ltd.), each covering the fiscal period ending March 31, 2008. For the final determination, we have determined to use the Indian financial statements of Rajratan Global Wire Limited, Visakha Wire Ropes Limited, and Nasco Steels Private Limited for the fiscal period ending March 31, 2009. See the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. • For DHMP: » We used DHMP’s commercial invoice date as the date of sale, as opposed to the shipment date used in the Preliminary Determination. See the Department’s Memorandum entitled, ‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated March 26, 2010 (‘‘DHMP’s Verification Report’’). See also the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. » At verification, we determined the distances from DHMP to its unaffiliated hot–dip galvanizing toller and its affiliated galvanizing VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:40 Jun 09, 2010 Jkt 220001 2 See the Department’s memorandum entitled, Investigation of Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the Final Determination Margin Calculation for Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd., dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘DHMP’s Final Analysis Memo’’). PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 and Factors Response of Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated April 14, 2010 (‘‘Eastfound’s Verification Report’’); see also the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 7 and 8, and see Eastfound’s Final Analysis Memo.3 » We have capped the amount of Eastfound’s freight revenue by the surrogate value amount deducted for ocean freight in the Department’s U.S. net price calculation. See the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; see also Eastfound’s Final Analysis Memo. » We are not granting Eastfound a by– product offset. See the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. See also Eastfound’s Verification Report; see also Eastfound’s Final Analysis Memo. » We valued Eastfound’s unreported galvanizing tolling FOPs using the galvanizing cost from Galrebars (8,000 Rupees per metric ton). See the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9; see also Eastfound’s Final Analysis Memo. Scope of Investigation The scope of the investigation covers welded–wire rack decking, which is also known as, among other things, ‘‘pallet rack decking,’’ ‘‘wire rack decking,’’ ‘‘wire mesh decking,’’ ‘‘bulk storage shelving,’’ or ‘‘welded–wire decking.’’ Wire decking consists of wire mesh that is reinforced with structural supports and designed to be load bearing. The structural supports include sheet metal support channels, or other structural supports, that reinforce the wire mesh and that are welded or otherwise affixed to the wire mesh, regardless of whether the wire mesh and supports are assembled or unassembled and whether shipped as a kit or packaged separately. Wire decking is produced from carbon or alloy steel wire that has been welded into a mesh pattern. The wire may be galvanized or plated (e.g., chrome, zinc or nickel coated), coated (e.g., with paint, epoxy, or plastic), or uncoated (‘‘raw’’). The 3 See the Department’s memorandum entitled, Investigation of Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the Final Determination Margin Calculation for Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. and Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products Co., Ltd., dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘Eastfound’s Final Analysis Memo’’). E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1 cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices wire may be drawn or rolled and may have a round, square or other profile. Wire decking is sold in a variety of wire gauges. The wire diameters used in the decking mesh are 0.105 inches or greater for round wire. For wire other than round wire, the distance between any two points on a cross–section of the wire is 0.105 inches or greater. Wire decking reinforced with structural supports is designed generally for industrial and other commercial storage rack systems. Wire decking is produced to various profiles, including, but not limited to, a flat (‘‘flush’’) profile, an upward curved back edge profile (‘‘backstop’’) or downward curved edge profile (‘‘waterfalls’’), depending on the rack storage system. The wire decking may or may not be anchored to the rack storage system. The scope does not cover the metal rack storage system, comprised of metal uprights and cross beams, on which the wire decking is ultimately installed. Also excluded from the scope is wire mesh shelving that is not reinforced with structural supports and is designed for use without structural supports. Wire decking enters the United States through several basket categories in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). U.S. Customs and Border Protection has issued a ruling (NY F84777) that wire decking is to be classified under HTSUS 9403.90.8040. Wire decking has also been entered under HTSUS 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.4030, 7217.10.4090, 7217.10.5030, 7217.10.5090, 7217.10.6000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.10.8010, 7217.10.8020, 7217.10.8025, 7217.10.8030, 7217.10.8045, 7217.10.8060, 7217.10.8075, 7217.10.8090, 7217.10.9000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.20.3000, 7217.20.4510, 7217.20.4520, 7217.20.4530, 7217.20.4540, 7217.20.4550, 7217.20.4560, 7217.20.4570, 7217.20.4580, 7217.20.6000, 7217.20.7500, 7326.20.0010, 7326.20.0020, 7326.20.0070, 7326.90.1000, 7326.90.2500, 7326.90.3500, 7326.90.4500, 7326.90.6000, 7326.90.8505, 7326.90.8510, 7326.90.8530, 7326.90.8535, 7326.90.8545, 7326.90.8560, 7326.90.8575, 7326.90.8576, 7326.90.8577, 7326.90.8588, 9403.20.0020, and 9403.20.0030.4 While 4 In the Preliminary Determination, we presented in the scope, certain HTSUS categories that wire decking is also entered under, as a six-digit category number (i.e., 7217.10, 7217.20, 7326.20, and VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:40 Jun 09, 2010 Jkt 220001 HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. Surrogate Country In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation for the following reasons: (1) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the FOPs. See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 1599–1600. For the final determination, we received no comments on surrogate country selection and made no changes to our findings with respect to the selection of a surrogate country. Separate Rates In proceedings involving non–marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as amplified by 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’’), and 19 CFR 351.107(d). In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Eastfound Material, Eastfound Metal, DHMP, Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd. (‘‘Riqian’’), Globsea Co., Ltd. (‘‘Globsea’’), and Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo Xinguang’’) demonstrated their eligibility for separate–rate status. For the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Eastfound Material, Eastfound Metal, DHMP, Riqian, Globsea, and Ningbo Xinguang demonstrate both a de jure and de facto 7326.90). Since the Preliminary Determination, we found that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) requires a 10-digit format for these HTSUS categories. Thus, for the final determination, we have determined that wire decking’s scope HTSUS categories will be presented in their full 10-digit format. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 32907 absence of government control, with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise under investigation, and, thus are eligible for separate–rate status. See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 1600–01. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Dalian Xingbo Metal Products Co. Ltd. (‘‘Dalian Xingbo’’) did not qualify for a separate rate because Dalian Xingbo did not export wire decking to the United States during the POI. See 75 FR at 1601. For the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Dalian Xingbo demonstrate that Dalian Xingbo did not export wire decking to the United States and, therefore, is not eligible for separate rate status. In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Brynick Enterprises Limited (‘‘Brynick’’) and Shanghai Hesheng Hardware Products Co. (‘‘Hesheng’’) were not eligible for a separate rate because neither company submitted a separate rate application and, thus, were treated as part of the PRC–wide entity. See 75 FR at 1601–02. For the final determination, we continue to find that Brynick and Hesheng are part of the PRC–wide entity and, thus, are not eligible for separate–rate status. Facts Available and the PRC–wide Entity Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department shall apply ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, necessary information is not on the record, or an interested party: (A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified, as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain its deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1 32908 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties. In the Preliminary Determination, the Department preliminarily determined that there were exporters/producers of the subject merchandise during the POI from the PRC that did not respond to the Department’s request for information. We treated these PRC producers/ exporters as part of the PRC–wide entity because they did not apply for a separate rate. As a result, we found that the use of facts available (‘‘FA’’) was appropriate to determine the PRC–wide rate pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. See Preliminary Determination at 75 FR at 1602. Thus, in the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate because the PRC–wide entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See Id. As adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’), we preliminarily assigned to the PRC–wide entity a rate of 289.00 percent, the highest calculated rate from the petition. See id; see also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). There have been no changes to the information on the record concerning the PRC–wide entity. Therefore, we have made no changes in our analysis for the final determination. Consequently, we determine that the use of AFA for the PRC–wide entity is warranted for the final determination. cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:40 Jun 09, 2010 Jkt 220001 information in a timely manner.’’5 It is also 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.’’6 Generally, the Department finds selecting the highest rate in any segment of the proceeding as AFA to be appropriate.7 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.8 In the instant investigation, as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC–wide entity the highest petition rate on the record of this proceeding that can be corroborated. See Wire Decking From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 31691, 31694 (July 2, 2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). The Department determines that this information is the most appropriate from the available sources to effectuate the purposes of AFA. Corroboration Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described 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 5 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). 6 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); See also, SAA at 870. 7 See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 (December 28, 2005) unchanged in final, Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. 8 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Facts Available.’’ 9 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value.10 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.11 To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.12 At the Preliminary Determination, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we corroborated our AFA margin by comparing the highest CONNUM– specific margin from the two mandatory respondents to the petition margins.13 Similarly, for the final determination, we compared the highest CONNUM– specific margin from the two mandatory respondents to the petition margins. We conclude that using the highest CONNUM–specific margin as a reference point, the highest petition margin that can be corroborated within the meaning of the statute is 143.00 percent, which is sufficiently adverse so as to induce cooperation such that the uncooperative companies do not benefit from their failure to cooperate. See Memorandum to the File, regarding Corroboration of the PRC–Wide Entity Rate and for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of China, dated concurrently with this notice. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 143.00 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. The PRC–wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries from Eastfound, DHMP, Riqian, Globsea, and Ningbo Xinguang as they have demonstrated eligibility for a separate rate. These companies and their corresponding antidumping duty cash deposit rates are listed below in the ‘‘Final Determination’’ section of this notice. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 143.00 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 6479, 6481 (February 4, 2008); see also, SAA at 870. 10 See id. 11 See id. 12 See Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 28560, 28562-63 (May 21, 2010). 13 See the Department’s memorandum entitled, Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Entity Rate and for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of China, dated January 4, 2010. E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1 32909 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices Combination Rates In the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for Final Determination respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation.14 This The weighted–average dumping practice is described in the Separate margin percentages are as follows: Rate Policy Bulletin.15 Exporter Producer Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd. ............................................ Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. / Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products Co. Ltd ..................................................................... Globsea Co., Ltd ........................................................................................ Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd. ............................................................... Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd. ......................................... PRC–Wide Entity* ...................................................................................... Percent Margin Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd. 17.75% Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd., or Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products Co. Ltd. Dalian Yutiein Storage Manufacturing Co. Ltd., or Dalian Xingbo Metal Products Co. Ltd. Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd. Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd. ............................................................................................ 14.24% 16.00% 16.00% 16.00% 143.00% * This rate also applies to Brynick Enterprises Limited, Shanghai Hesheng Hardware Products Co., and Dalian Xingbo Metal Products Co. Ltd. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies based on the estimated weighted–average dumping margins shown above. Where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price, less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy.16 Accordingly, for cash deposit purposes for Eastfound, we will subtract from the antidumping applicable cash deposit rate that portion of the rate attributable to the export subsidies found in the affirmative countervailing duty determination (i.e., 0.01 percent). See the final notice for the concurrent CVD investigation of wire decking from 14 See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 1606. Memorandum entitled ‘‘Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries’’ dated April 5, 2005, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/. 16 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 15 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:40 Jun 09, 2010 Jkt 220001 the PRC, dated concurrently with this notice. After the adjustment for the export subsidies, the resulting cash deposit rate will be 14.23 percent for Eastfound.17 The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 3, 2010. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I – List of Issues Case Issues: Comment 1: Double Remedy Comment 2: Selection of Financial Statements Comment 3: Valuation of Electricity Comment 4: Valuation of Wire Rod Comment 5: Valuation of Flat Rolled Steel Comment 6: Eastfound’s US Price and Freight Charges Comment 7: Eastfound’s Consumption factors This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative Comment 8: Eastfound’s Wire Rod Correction from Verification Comment 9: Galvanization A. Whether to Reject Galvanizing 23 from India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 (November 17, 2004). 17 Normally, where the non-individually examined entities receiving a separate rate in an AD investigation are found to have benefitted from export subsidies in a concurrent CVD investigation on the same product (either through individual examination or through the ‘‘All Others’’ rate), the Department will instruct CBP to collect a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal the amount of the AD margin adjusted for the amount of the export subsidy. In this case, none of the nonindividually examined entities receiving a separate rate in the AD investigation were individually examined in the companion CVD investigation. Further, the export subsidy found for ‘‘All Others’’ in the CVD companion case is so small (0.005 percent) as to have no impact on the AD margin. Accordingly, we will not adjust the AD margins for these entities in our instructions to CBP. Notification Regarding APO PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1 32910 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices Information Submitted by Eastfound at Verification B. Whether the Department Should Use a Surrogate Value for Galvanizing C. Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value for Galvanizing Comment 10: DHMP’s Date of Sale Comment 11: Value of Sulfuric Acid, Thiourea, Caustic Soda, Zinc Oxide, Nitric Acid [FR Doc. 2010–13977 Filed 6–9–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–894] Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On February 1, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain tissue paper products from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department conducted an expedited (120–day) sunset review of this order. As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. The dumping margins are identified in the Final Results of Review section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Brandon Farlander, AD/ CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482– 0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: On February 1, 2010, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain tissue paper products from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five–year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 5042, February 1, 2010. The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from the following domestic tissue paper producers: Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc., Eagle Tissue LLC, Flower City Tissue Mills Co., Garlock Printing & Converting, Inc., and Putney Paper Co., Ltd. (collectively the domestic interested parties), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as producers of a domestic like product in the United States. We received an adequate substantive response from the domestic interested parties within the 30–day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no substantive responses from any respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited (120–day) sunset review of the order. Scope of the Order The tissue paper products covered by the order are cut–to-length sheets of tissue paper having a basis weight not exceeding 29 grams per square meter. Tissue paper products subject to the order may or may not be bleached, dye– colored, surface–colored, glazed, surface decorated or printed, sequined, crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The tissue paper subject to the order is in the form of cut–to-length sheets of tissue paper with a width equal to or greater than one–half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue paper may be flat or folded, and may be packaged by banding or wrapping with paper or film, by placing in plastic or film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for distribution and use by the ultimate consumer. Packages of tissue paper subject to the order may consist solely of tissue paper of one color and/or style, or may contain multiple colors and/or styles. The merchandise subject to the order does not have specific classification numbers assigned to them under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Subject merchandise may be under one or more of several different subheadings, including: 4802.30, 4802.54, 4802.61, 4802.62, 4802.69, 4804.31.1000, 4804.31.2000, 4804.31.4020, 4804.31.4040, 4804.31.6000, 4804.39, 4805.91.1090, 4805.91.5000, 4805.91.7000, 4806.40, 4808.30, 4808.90, 4811.90, 4823.90, 4802.50.00, 4802.90.00, 4805.91.90, 9505.90.40. The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.1 Excluded from the scope of the order are the following tissue paper products: (1) tissue paper products that are coated in wax, paraffin, or polymers, of a kind used in floral and food service applications; (2) tissue paper products that have been perforated, embossed, or die–cut to the shape of a toilet seat, i.e., disposable sanitary covers for toilet seats; (3) toilet or facial tissue stock, towel or napkin stock, paper of a kind used for household or sanitary purposes, cellulose wadding, and webs of cellulose fibers (HTSUS 4803.00.20.00 and 4803.00.40.00). Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China’’ (Decision Memo), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of the continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room 1117 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain 1 On January 30, 2007, at the direction of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Department added the following HTSUS classifications to the antidumping duty/countervailing duty module for tissue paper: 4802.54.3100, 4802.54.6100, and 4823.90.6700. However, we note that the six-digit classifications for these numbers were already listed in the scope. VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:40 Jun 09, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 111 (Thursday, June 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32905-32910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13977]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-949]


Wire Decking from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 2010
SUMMARY: On January 12, 2010, the Department of Commerce 
(``Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at 
less than fair value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of 
wire decking from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). We invited 
interested parties to comment on our preliminary determination of sales 
at LTFV. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we have 
made changes to our margin calculations for the mandatory respondents. 
The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the 
``Final Determination Margins'' section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Veith or Trisha Tran, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4295 or (202) 482-4852, respectively.

Final Determination

    We determine that wire decking from the PRC is being, or is likely 
to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in section 735 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins 
of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Final Determination Margins'' 
section of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at 
LTFV on January 12, 2010. See Wire Decking From the People's Republic 
of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 1597 (January 
12, 2010) (``Preliminary Determination'').
    On January 19, 2010, the Department issued post-Preliminary 
Determination supplemental questionnaires to DHMP and Eastfound\1\ and 
received responses to these supplemental questionnaires on January 25, 
2010. From February 1 through 12, 2010, the Department conducted 
verifications of DHMP, and Eastfound and released its verification 
reports for these companies on March 26, 2010, and April 14, 2010, 
respectively. See the ``Verification'' section below for additional 
information. On February 12, 2010, DHMP and Eastfound filed timely 
requests for a public hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mandatory respondents are Dalian Huameilong Metal Products 
Co., Ltd. (``DHMP'') and Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products 
Co., Ltd. (``Eastfound Material'') and its affiliate Dalian 
Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Eastfound Metal'') 
(collectively ``Eastfound'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 16, 2010, in response to a request filed by DHMP, the 
Department extended the deadline for submission of publicly available 
information to March 12, 2010. On March 12, 2010, AWP Industries, Inc., 
ITC Manufacturing, Inc., J&L Wire Cloth, Inc., Nashville Wire Products 
Mfg. Co., Inc., and Wireway Husky Corporation (``Petitioners''), DHMP, 
and Eastfound submitted surrogate value information for the record, and 
each party submitted rebuttal comments to this information on March 22, 
2010. On April 22, 2010, case briefs were filed by Petitioners, Nucor 
Corporation (``Nucor''), a domestic interested party, DHMP, Eastfound, 
and the Government of China (``GOC''). On April 30, 2010, Petitioners, 
Nucor, Eastfound, and the GOC each filed the final version of their 
rebuttal briefs, and on May 3, 2010, DHMP filed the final version of 
its rebuttal brief. The Department held a public hearing on May 5, 
2010. On May 10, 2010, the Department rejected Nucor's case brief, but 
provided Nucor an opportunity to correct and resubmit its case brief. 
On May 11, 2010, Nucor filed its corrected case brief.

Tolling of Administrative Deadlines

    The Department postponed the deadline for the final determination 
to not later than 135 days after publication of the Preliminary 
Determination, (i.e., May 27, 2010). See Preliminary Determination, 75 
FR at 1599. However, as explained in the memorandum from the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary (``DAS'') for Import Administration, the Department 
exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the 
closure of the Federal Government, February 5, through February 12, 
2010. Thus, all existing deadlines associated with this investigation 
were postponed by seven days. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald 
Lorentzen, DAS for Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of 
Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During 
the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated February 12, 2010. Accordingly, the 
revised deadline for this final determination is June 3, 2010.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``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, which was 
June 2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the 
information submitted by DHMP and Eastfound for use in our final 
determination. See the Department's verification reports on the record 
of this investigation in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), Room 1117 
of the main Department building,

[[Page 32906]]

with respect to these entities. For all verified companies, we used 
standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant 
accounting and production records, as well as original source documents 
provided by respondents.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this investigation are addressed in the ``Investigation of Wire Decking 
from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum,'' 
dated concurrently with this notice and hereby adopted by this notice 
(``Issues and Decision Memorandum''). A list of the issues which 
parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and 
Decision Memorandum is a public document on file in the CRU and 
accessible on the Web at ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 
electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

     Financial statements - In the Preliminary Determination, 
we calculated financial ratios based on three Indian producers' 
financial statements (i.e., Bansidhar Granites Private Limited, 
Bedmutha Wire Com. Ltd., and Mekins Agro Products Ltd.), each covering 
the fiscal period ending March 31, 2008. For the final determination, 
we have determined to use the Indian financial statements of Rajratan 
Global Wire Limited, Visakha Wire Ropes Limited, and Nasco Steels 
Private Limited for the fiscal period ending March 31, 2009. See the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
     For DHMP:
    [ctrcir] We used DHMP's commercial invoice date as the date of 
sale, as opposed to the shipment date used in the Preliminary 
Determination. See the Department's Memorandum entitled, ``Verification 
of the Sales and Factors Response of Dalian Huameilong Metal Products 
Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire Decking from 
the People's Republic of China,'' dated March 26, 2010 (``DHMP's 
Verification Report''). See also the Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 10.
    [ctrcir] At verification, we determined the distances from DHMP to 
its unaffiliated hot-dip galvanizing toller and its affiliated 
galvanizing electroplating supplier. For the final determination, we 
applied a freight-in expense to those CONNUMs that indicated they were 
galvanized under either of these operations, as opposed to the distance 
from DHMP to the port for the unaffiliated toller and no distance for 
the affiliated supplier used in the Preliminary Determination. See 
DHMP's Verification Report; see also DHMP's Final Analysis Memo.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, Investigation of 
Wire Decking from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the 
Final Determination Margin Calculation for Dalian Huameilong Metal 
Products Co., Ltd., dated concurrently with this notice (``DHMP's 
Final Analysis Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ctrcir] We valued DHMP's hot-rolled steel strip FOP using Indian 
import data under harmonized tariff schedule (``HTS'') category 
7211.19.50 from the World Trade Atlas (``WTA'') ($0.60247 per 
kilogram). See the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5; see 
also DHMP's Final Analysis Memo.
    [ctrcir] At verification, we found that DHMP's reported per-unit 
billing adjustments had been incorrectly reported in DHMP's sales 
database. DHMP had reported the full amount of the adjustment, instead 
of the per-unit billing adjustment. For the final determination, in the 
Department's margin program for DHMP, we changed DHMP's reported 
billing adjustment to the actual per-unit billing adjustment. See 
DHMP's Verification Report at pages 4 and 22 through 25; see also 
DHMP's Final Analysis Memo.
     For Eastfound:
    [ctrcir] We made the following changes to Eastfound's factors-of-
production (``FOP'') data: 1) we used facts available and adjusted the 
consumption for all inputs for certain CONNUMs by the percent 
difference between the bill of material (``BOM'') steel weight and 
Eastfound's reported FOP consumption of steel; 2) we used facts 
available and set the actual weight reported for certain CONNUMs in 
Eastfound's U.S. sales data file equal to the corresponding BOM weight 
for steel; and 3) we used facts available and adjusted consumption for 
all inputs for certain CONNUMs by the percent difference between the 
amount of unreported hot-rolled steel found at verification and the 
total steel from the BOM. See the Department's Memorandum entitled, 
``Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Dalian Eastfound 
Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Dalian Eastfound Material Handling 
Products Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire 
Decking from the People's Republic of China,'' dated April 14, 2010 
(``Eastfound's Verification Report''); see also the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comments 7 and 8, and see Eastfound's Final Analysis 
Memo.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, Investigation of 
Wire Decking from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the 
Final Determination Margin Calculation for Dalian Eastfound Metal 
Products Co., Ltd. and Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products 
Co., Ltd., dated concurrently with this notice (``Eastfound's Final 
Analysis Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ctrcir] We have capped the amount of Eastfound's freight revenue 
by the surrogate value amount deducted for ocean freight in the 
Department's U.S. net price calculation. See the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 6; see also Eastfound's Final Analysis Memo.
    [ctrcir] We are not granting Eastfound a by-product offset. See the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. See also Eastfound's 
Verification Report; see also Eastfound's Final Analysis Memo.
    [ctrcir] We valued Eastfound's unreported galvanizing tolling FOPs 
using the galvanizing cost from Galrebars (8,000 Rupees per metric 
ton). See the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9; see also 
Eastfound's Final Analysis Memo.

Scope of Investigation

    The scope of the investigation covers welded-wire rack decking, 
which is also known as, among other things, ``pallet rack decking,'' 
``wire rack decking,'' ``wire mesh decking,'' ``bulk storage 
shelving,'' or ``welded-wire decking.'' Wire decking consists of wire 
mesh that is reinforced with structural supports and designed to be 
load bearing. The structural supports include sheet metal support 
channels, or other structural supports, that reinforce the wire mesh 
and that are welded or otherwise affixed to the wire mesh, regardless 
of whether the wire mesh and supports are assembled or unassembled and 
whether shipped as a kit or packaged separately. Wire decking is 
produced from carbon or alloy steel wire that has been welded into a 
mesh pattern. The wire may be galvanized or plated (e.g., chrome, zinc 
or nickel coated), coated (e.g., with paint, epoxy, or plastic), or 
uncoated (``raw''). The

[[Page 32907]]

wire may be drawn or rolled and may have a round, square or other 
profile. Wire decking is sold in a variety of wire gauges. The wire 
diameters used in the decking mesh are 0.105 inches or greater for 
round wire. For wire other than round wire, the distance between any 
two points on a cross-section of the wire is 0.105 inches or greater. 
Wire decking reinforced with structural supports is designed generally 
for industrial and other commercial storage rack systems.
    Wire decking is produced to various profiles, including, but not 
limited to, a flat (``flush'') profile, an upward curved back edge 
profile (``backstop'') or downward curved edge profile 
(``waterfalls''), depending on the rack storage system. The wire 
decking may or may not be anchored to the rack storage system. The 
scope does not cover the metal rack storage system, comprised of metal 
uprights and cross beams, on which the wire decking is ultimately 
installed. Also excluded from the scope is wire mesh shelving that is 
not reinforced with structural supports and is designed for use without 
structural supports.
    Wire decking enters the United States through several basket 
categories in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). U.S. Customs and Border Protection has issued a ruling (NY 
F84777) that wire decking is to be classified under HTSUS 9403.90.8040. 
Wire decking has also been entered under HTSUS 7217.10.1000, 
7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.4030, 7217.10.4090, 7217.10.5030, 
7217.10.5090, 7217.10.6000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.10.8010, 7217.10.8020, 
7217.10.8025, 7217.10.8030, 7217.10.8045, 7217.10.8060, 7217.10.8075, 
7217.10.8090, 7217.10.9000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.20.3000, 7217.20.4510, 
7217.20.4520, 7217.20.4530, 7217.20.4540, 7217.20.4550, 7217.20.4560, 
7217.20.4570, 7217.20.4580, 7217.20.6000, 7217.20.7500, 7326.20.0010, 
7326.20.0020, 7326.20.0070, 7326.90.1000, 7326.90.2500, 7326.90.3500, 
7326.90.4500, 7326.90.6000, 7326.90.8505, 7326.90.8510, 7326.90.8530, 
7326.90.8535, 7326.90.8545, 7326.90.8560, 7326.90.8575, 7326.90.8576, 
7326.90.8577, 7326.90.8588, 9403.20.0020, and 9403.20.0030.\4\ While 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, 
the written description of the scope of these investigations is 
dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In the Preliminary Determination, we presented in the scope, 
certain HTSUS categories that wire decking is also entered under, as 
a six-digit category number (i.e., 7217.10, 7217.20, 7326.20, and 
7326.90). Since the Preliminary Determination, we found that U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') requires a 10-digit format 
for these HTSUS categories. Thus, for the final determination, we 
have determined that wire decking's scope HTSUS categories will be 
presented in their full 10-digit format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected 
India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation 
for the following reasons: (1) it is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the PRC, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the 
Act; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use to value 
the FOPs. See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 1599-1600. For the 
final determination, we received no comments on surrogate country 
selection and made no changes to our findings with respect to the 
selection of a surrogate country.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market-economy (``NME'') countries, 
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should 
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to 
an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter 
can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be 
entitled to a separate rate. See Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 
20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by 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''), and 19 CFR 351.107(d).
    In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Eastfound Material, 
Eastfound Metal, DHMP, Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd. 
(``Riqian''), Globsea Co., Ltd. (``Globsea''), and Ningbo Xinguang Rack 
Co., Ltd. (``Ningbo Xinguang'') demonstrated their eligibility for 
separate-rate status. For the final determination, we continue to find 
that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by 
Eastfound Material, Eastfound Metal, DHMP, Riqian, Globsea, and Ningbo 
Xinguang demonstrate both a de jure and de facto absence of government 
control, with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise 
under investigation, and, thus are eligible for separate-rate status. 
See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 1600-01.

Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate

    In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Dalian Xingbo Metal 
Products Co. Ltd. (``Dalian Xingbo'') did not qualify for a separate 
rate because Dalian Xingbo did not export wire decking to the United 
States during the POI. See 75 FR at 1601. For the final determination, 
we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this 
investigation by Dalian Xingbo demonstrate that Dalian Xingbo did not 
export wire decking to the United States and, therefore, is not 
eligible for separate rate status.
    In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Brynick Enterprises 
Limited (``Brynick'') and Shanghai Hesheng Hardware Products Co. 
(``Hesheng'') were not eligible for a separate rate because neither 
company submitted a separate rate application and, thus, were treated 
as part of the PRC-wide entity. See 75 FR at 1601-02. For the final 
determination, we continue to find that Brynick and Hesheng are part of 
the PRC-wide entity and, thus, are not eligible for separate-rate 
status.

Facts Available and the PRC-wide Entity

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record, or an interested party: (A) withholds 
information requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such 
information by the deadline, or in the form or manner requested, (C) 
significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that 
cannot be verified, as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain its deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of 
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Pursuant to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to

[[Page 32908]]

consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are 
met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) 
the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so 
incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the 
applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can 
be used without undue difficulties.
    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department preliminarily 
determined that there were exporters/producers of the subject 
merchandise during the POI from the PRC that did not respond to the 
Department's request for information. We treated these PRC producers/
exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not apply for 
a separate rate. As a result, we found that the use of facts available 
(``FA'') was appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate pursuant to 
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. See Preliminary Determination at 75 FR 
at 1602.
    Thus, in the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined 
that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference 
is appropriate because the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for 
information. See Id. As adverse facts available (``AFA''), we 
preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity a rate of 289.00 percent, 
the highest calculated rate from the petition. See id; see also 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 
103-316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (``SAA'').
    There have been no changes to the information on the record 
concerning the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, we have made no changes in 
our analysis for the final determination. Consequently, we determine 
that the use of AFA for the PRC-wide entity is warranted for the final 
determination.

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.''\5\ It is also 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.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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).
    \6\ 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); See also, SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the Department finds selecting the highest rate in any 
segment of the proceeding as AFA to be appropriate.\7\ 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.\8\ In the instant investigation, 
as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity the highest petition 
rate on the record of this proceeding that can be corroborated. See 
Wire Decking From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 31691, 31694 (July 2, 2009) 
(``Initiation Notice''). The Department determines that this 
information is the most appropriate from the available sources to 
effectuate the purposes of AFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic 
of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 (December 
28, 2005) unchanged in final, Certain Cased Pencils from the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
    \8\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's 
Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Facts Available.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described 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.\10\ 
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.\11\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance 
of the information used.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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); see also, SAA at 870.
    \10\ See id.
    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 75 FR 28560, 28562-63 (May 21, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the Preliminary Determination, in accordance with section 776(c) 
of the Act, we corroborated our AFA margin by comparing the highest 
CONNUM-specific margin from the two mandatory respondents to the 
petition margins.\13\ Similarly, for the final determination, we 
compared the highest CONNUM-specific margin from the two mandatory 
respondents to the petition margins. We conclude that using the highest 
CONNUM-specific margin as a reference point, the highest petition 
margin that can be corroborated within the meaning of the statute is 
143.00 percent, which is sufficiently adverse so as to induce 
cooperation such that the uncooperative companies do not benefit from 
their failure to cooperate. See Memorandum to the File, regarding 
Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Entity Rate and for the Final 
Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire Decking 
from the People's Republic of China, dated concurrently with this 
notice. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 143.00 percent is 
corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, Corroboration of 
the PRC-Wide Entity Rate and for the Preliminary Determination in 
the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire Decking from the People's 
Republic of China, dated January 4, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under 
investigation except for entries from Eastfound, DHMP, Riqian, Globsea, 
and Ningbo Xinguang as they have demonstrated eligibility for a 
separate rate. These companies and their corresponding antidumping duty 
cash deposit rates are listed below in the ``Final Determination'' 
section of this notice. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 143.00 
percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the 
Act.

[[Page 32909]]

Combination Rates

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that it 
would calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for 
a separate rate in this investigation.\14\ This practice is described 
in the Separate Rate Policy Bulletin.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 1606.
    \15\ See Memorandum entitled ``Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries'' dated April 5, 2005, 
available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margin percentages are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Percent
                   Exporter                                           Producer                          Margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd.....            Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd.  17.75[perc
                                                                                                             nt]
Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. /     Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd., or Dalian  14.24[perc
 Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products           Eastfound Material Handling Products Co. Ltd.         nt]
 Co. Ltd......................................
Globsea Co., Ltd..............................     Dalian Yutiein Storage Manufacturing Co. Ltd., or  16.00[perc
                                                               Dalian Xingbo Metal Products Co. Ltd.         nt]
Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd.................                        Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd.  16.00[perc
                                                                                                             nt]
Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd....           Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd.  16.00[perc
                                                                                                             nt]
PRC-Wide Entity[ast]..........................  ....................................................  143.00[per
                                                                                                            cnt]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ast] This rate also applies to Brynick Enterprises Limited, Shanghai Hesheng Hardware Products Co., and Dalian
  Xingbo Metal Products Co. Ltd.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of 
subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of the Preliminary 
Determination in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to continue 
to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies 
based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown above.
    Where the product under investigation is also subject to a 
concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to 
require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the amount by 
which the normal value exceeds the export price, less the amount of the 
countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy.\16\ 
Accordingly, for cash deposit purposes for Eastfound, we will subtract 
from the antidumping applicable cash deposit rate that portion of the 
rate attributable to the export subsidies found in the affirmative 
countervailing duty determination (i.e., 0.01 percent). See the final 
notice for the concurrent CVD investigation of wire decking from the 
PRC, dated concurrently with this notice. After the adjustment for the 
export subsidies, the resulting cash deposit rate will be 14.23 percent 
for Eastfound.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 69 FR 
67306, 67307 (November 17, 2004).
    \17\ Normally, where the non-individually examined entities 
receiving a separate rate in an AD investigation are found to have 
benefitted from export subsidies in a concurrent CVD investigation 
on the same product (either through individual examination or 
through the ``All Others'' rate), the Department will instruct CBP 
to collect a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal the amount 
of the AD margin adjusted for the amount of the export subsidy. In 
this case, none of the non-individually examined entities receiving 
a separate rate in the AD investigation were individually examined 
in the companion CVD investigation. Further, the export subsidy 
found for ``All Others'' in the CVD companion case is so small 
(0.005 percent) as to have no impact on the AD margin. Accordingly, 
we will not adjust the AD margins for these entities in our 
instructions to CBP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect 
until further notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of 
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance 
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the ITC will 
determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is 
materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the 
subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or 
threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be 
terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If 
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will 
issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the 
suspension of liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or 
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 3, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I - List of Issues

Case Issues:

Comment 1: Double Remedy
Comment 2: Selection of Financial Statements
Comment 3: Valuation of Electricity
Comment 4: Valuation of Wire Rod
Comment 5: Valuation of Flat Rolled Steel
Comment 6: Eastfound's US Price and Freight Charges
Comment 7: Eastfound's Consumption factors
Comment 8: Eastfound's Wire Rod Correction from Verification
Comment 9: Galvanization
    A. Whether to Reject Galvanizing

[[Page 32910]]

Information Submitted by Eastfound at Verification
    B. Whether the Department Should Use a Surrogate Value for 
Galvanizing
    C. Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value for 
Galvanizing
Comment 10: DHMP's Date of Sale
Comment 11: Value of Sulfuric Acid, Thiourea, Caustic Soda, Zinc Oxide, 
Nitric Acid
[FR Doc. 2010-13977 Filed 6-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.