Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68758-68767 [2010-28287]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
68758
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
(minor amendment issued on May 26,
2006), authorizes the permit holder to
conduct research to determine the
abundance, distribution, movement
patterns, habitat use, contaminant
levels, prey, behavior, energetics, and
stock structure of cetacean species in
the eastern North Pacific off the coast of
Washington, Oregon, and California.
These studies are carried out through
vessel surveys, photo-identification
from large and small vessels, biological
sample collection, passive acoustic
monitoring, and satellite/radio and data
log/time-depth tagging and tracking.
The permit authorizes NWFSC to take
endangered blue whales (Balaenoptera
musculus), fin whales (Balaenoptera
physalus), humpback whales
(Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm
whales (Physeter macrocephalus), and
Southern Resident killer whales (SRKW,
Orcinus orca), as well as 15 non-ESAlisted cetacean species. The permit
expires on April 14, 2011.
The permit holder is requesting the
permit be amended to increase the
number of SRKW suction cup tagged
(from 10 to 20 animals annually) and to
add satellite tagging of six SRKW with
dart tags annually. The primary purpose
of this request is to determine winter
ranges and increase data on distribution
patterns of SRKW for use in critical
habitat determinations. The activities
are requested for the duration of the
permit.
In compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a draft
supplemental environmental assessment
(SEA) has been prepared to examine
whether significant environmental
impacts could result from issuance of
the proposed scientific research permit.
The draft SEA is available for review
and comment simultaneous with the
scientific research permit application.
Concurrent with the publication of
this notice in the Federal Register,
NMFS is forwarding copies of this
application to the Marine Mammal
Commission and its Committee of
Scientific Advisors.
Dated: November 3, 2010.
P. Michael Payne,
Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–28271 Filed 11–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Nov 08, 2010
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–918]
Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary
Rescission, in Part, of the First
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) is conducting the first
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on steel wire
garment hangers from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) for the period
March 25, 2008, through September 30,
2009. The Department has preliminarily
determined that sales have been made
below normal value (‘‘NV’’) by the
respondents. If these preliminary results
are adopted in our final results of this
review, the Department will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries of subject
merchandise during the period of
review (‘‘POR’’). Interested parties are
invited to comment on these
preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: November 9,
2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Irene Gorelik or Josh Startup, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–6905 or (202) 482–
5260, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On October 6, 2008, the Department
published in the Federal Register an
antidumping duty order on steel wire
garment hangers (‘‘hangers’’) from the
PRC. See Notice of Antidumping Duty
Order: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from
the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR
58111 (October 6, 2008). On October 1,
2009, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of
hangers from the PRC for the period
March 25, 2008, to September 30,
2009.1 See Antidumping or
1 The Department generally does not include
merchandise that entered the United States during
the provisional measures gap period (‘‘gap period’’),
in this case, September 22, 2008, to October 2, 2008,
in our margin calculation because these entries are
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 74
FR 50772 (October 1, 2009). On October
30, 2009, certain PRC exporters
requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review. On November
2, 2009, Petitioner 2 also requested that
the Department conduct an
administrative review of 187 companies.
On November 25, 2009, the Department
initiated this review of hangers from the
PRC with respect to 187 requested
companies covering the period of March
25, 2008, through September 30, 2009.
See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 74 FR 61658 (November 25,
2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
Between December 28, 2009, and
January 21, 2010, we received separate
rate certifications or applications from
15 exporters, in addition to those
received from the mandatory
respondents as discussed in the
‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section below.
For a detailed discussion of the separate
rate applicants, see the ‘‘Separate Rates’’
section below. Additionally, between
December 16, 2009, and December 28,
2009, the Department received noshipment certifications from five
companies. For a detailed discussion of
the companies that certified they had no
shipments during the POR, see the
‘‘Preliminary Partial Rescission of
Administrative Review’’ section below.
As explained in the memorandum
from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, the Department
has exercised its discretion to toll
deadlines for the duration of the closure
of the Federal Government from
February 5, through February 12, 2010.
See Memorandum to the Record
regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative
Deadlines As a Result of the
Government Closure During the Recent
Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 2010.
Thus, all deadlines in this segment of
the proceeding have been extended by
seven days. On April 30, 2010, the
Department also published a notice in
the Federal Register extending the
deadline for issuing the preliminary
results by 120 days to November 7,
2010.3 See First Antidumping Duty
not subject to antidumping duties. See, e.g., Notice
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium
from France, 69 FR 3883 (January 27, 2004).
However, for the purposes of these preliminary
results, we are basing the margin calculation on all
reported U.S. sales made during the POR because
we are unable to determine whether any of the
respondents’ reported U.S. sales entered during the
gap period.
2 M&B Metal Products Co., Inc.
3 Department practice dictates that where a
deadline falls on a weekend, the appropriate
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices
Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Hangers From the People’s Republic of
China: Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results, 75 FR 22739 (April
30, 2010).
Preliminary Partial Rescission of
Administrative Review
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we
preliminarily determine that the
following companies made no
shipments of subject merchandise
Respondent Selection
during the POR: Viet Anh Import-Export
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of Joint Stock Company; Dong Nam A Co.,
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), directs the Ltd.; Vietnam Hangers Joint Stock
Company; Royal McGoun Chemicals
Department to calculate individual
Inc.; and NV Hanger Co., Ltd. As stated
dumping margins for each known
above, the Department received noexporter or producer of the subject
shipment certifications from the
merchandise.4 However, section
aforementioned companies between
777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the
December 16, 2009, and December 28,
Department the discretion to limit its
2009.
examination to a reasonable number of
The Department also issued a noexporters or producers if it is not
shipments inquiry to CBP, asking it to
practicable to examine all exporters or
producers involved in an administrative provide any information contrary to our
CBP run showing zero entries of subject
review.
merchandise for merchandise
On November 30, 2009, the
manufactured and shipped by the
Department released CBP data for
aforementioned companies. We did not
entries of subject merchandise during
receive any response from CBP
the POR under administrative protective indicating whether there were any
order (‘‘APO’’) to all interested parties
entries of subject merchandise into the
having an APO as of five days after
United States during the POR which
publication of the Initiation Notice, and were exported by these companies.
invited comments regarding the CBP
Consequently, we preliminary
data and respondent selection. The
determine that none of the above-named
Department received comments and
companies had shipments of subject
rebuttal comments from Petitioner and
merchandise to the United States during
certain PRC exporters between
the POR, and we are preliminarily
November 30, 2009, and December 7,
rescinding the review with respect to
2009.
the above-named companies.6
On February 12, 2010, the Department Scope of the Order
issued the respondent selection
The merchandise that is subject to the
memorandum after assessing its
order is steel wire garment hangers,
resources and determining that it could
fabricated from carbon steel wire,
only reasonably examine two exporters
whether or not galvanized or painted,
subject to this review. Pursuant to
whether or not coated with latex or
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the
epoxy or similar gripping materials,
Department selected Shanghai Wells
and/or whether or not fashioned with
Hanger Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Wells’’) and
paper covers or capes (with or without
Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co., printing) and/or nonslip features such
Ltd. (‘‘Shaoxing Dingli’’) as mandatory
as saddles or tubes. These products may
respondents.5 The Department sent the
also be referred to by a commercial
non-market economy (‘‘NME’’)
designation, such as shirt, suit, strut,
antidumping questionnaire to Shanghai caped, or latex (industrial) hangers.
Wells and Shaoxing Dingli on February
Specifically excluded from the scope of
12, 2010.
the order are wooden, plastic, and other
garment hangers that are not made of
Period of Review
steel wire. Also excluded from the scope
The POR is March 25, 2008, to
of the order are chrome-plated steel wire
September 30, 2009.
garment hangers with a diameter of 3.4
mm or greater. The products subject to
the order are currently classified under
deadline is the next business day. See Notice of
Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’
Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines
Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70
FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
4 See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding
respondent selection, in general.
5 See ‘‘Memorandum to James Doyle, Director,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Josh Startup,
Analyst; First Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People’s Republic of
China: Selection of Respondents for Individual
Review,’’ dated February 12, 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Nov 08, 2010
Jkt 223001
6 See, e.g., Fourth Administrative Review of
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results,
Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke,
In Part, 75 FR 11855 (March 12, 2010), unchanged
in Administrative Review of Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
49460 (August 13, 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68759
U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings 7326.20.0020
and 7323.99.9060.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Affiliation/Single Entity
Based on the evidence presented in
the Shanghai Wells’ questionnaire
responses, we preliminarily find that
Shanghai Wells, Hong Kong Wells
Limited (‘‘HK Wells’’), and Hong Kong
Wells Limited (USA) are affiliated,
pursuant to sections 771(33)(A), (E), and
(F) of the Act. In addition, based on the
evidence presented in its questionnaire
responses, we preliminarily find that
Shanghai Wells and HK Wells should be
treated as a single entity for the
purposes of this administrative review.
This finding is based on our
determination that HK Wells is involved
in the export of subject merchandise
produced by Shanghai Wells and that a
significant potential for manipulation of
price or production exists between these
two entities.7 See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1)
and (2). For further discussion of the
Department’s affiliation and singleentity decisions, see ‘‘Memorandum to
Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from
Irene Gorelik, Senior Case Analyst, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary
Results in the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People’s
Republic of China: Affiliation/Single
Entity Memorandum for Shanghai Wells
Hanger Co., Ltd.,’’ dated concurrently
with this notice. Consequently, we have
calculated a single antidumping duty
rate for the single entity comprised of
Shanghai Wells and HK Wells,
hereinafter referred to as the Wells
Group.
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value
Data
On March 25, 2010, the Department
sent interested parties a letter inviting
comments on surrogate country
selection and information regarding
valuing factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’).
On May 21, 2010, Petitioner filed
7 While HK Wells is not a producer of hangers,
we note that where companies are affiliated, and
there exists a significant potential for manipulation
of prices and/or export decisions, the Department
has found it appropriate to treat those companies
as a single entity. The Court of International Trade
upheld the Department’s decision to include export
decisions in its analysis of whether there was a
significant potential for manipulation. See Hontex
Enterprises v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323,
1343 (CIT 2003). In this case, not only is HK Wells
an exporter of subject merchandise, but it is an
exporter of the subject merchandise produced by its
affiliate, Shanghai Wells.
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
68760
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices
comments on surrogate country
selection, stating India, the Philippines,
Indonesia and Thailand may be
appropriate surrogates if there were
publicly available, reliable and
contemporaneous data for them, and
Shaoxing Dingli filed comments
recommending the Department select
India as a surrogate country. On June 1,
2010, the Department received
information to value FOPs from
Shaoxing Dingli and Petitioner. On June
1, 2010, the Department also received
surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) information from
Fabricare Choice Distributors Group, an
interested party. On June 11, 2010,
Petitioner and Shaoxing Dingli filed
rebuttal comments with respect to SVs.
On June 21, 2010, Petitioner and
Shaoxing Dingli provided additional
factual information concerning SV
information. On July 1, 2010, Shaoxing
Dingli filed rebuttal comments to
Petitioner’s factual information
concerning SV information. Both
Petitioner and Shaoxing Dingli provided
SVs from sources in India, while
Petitioner also provided SVs from
Thailand.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Surrogate Country
When the Department investigates
imports from an NME country and
available information does not permit
the Department to determine NV
pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act,
then, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the
Act, the Department bases NV on an
NME producer’s FOPs, to the extent
possible, in one or more marketeconomy countries that (1) are at a level
of economic development comparable to
that of the NME country, and (2) are
significant producers of comparable
merchandise. Regarding the ‘‘level of
economic development,’’ the
Department places primary emphasis on
per capita gross national income (‘‘GNI’’)
as the measure of economic
comparability.8 Using per capita GNI,
the Department determined that India,
Indonesia, Philippines, Peru, Ukraine
and Thailand are countries comparable
to the PRC in terms of economic
development.9 Once we have identified
the countries that are economically
comparable to the PRC, we select an
appropriate surrogate country by
determining whether an economically
8 19
CFR 351.408(b).
Department notes that these six countries
are part of a non-exhaustive list of countries that are
at a level of economic development comparable to
the PRC. See the Department’s letter to ‘‘All
Interested Parties; First Administrative Review of
Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People’s
Republic of China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country
and Surrogate Value Comments,’’ dated March 25,
2010 at 1 and Attachment I.
9 The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Nov 08, 2010
Jkt 223001
comparable country is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise
and whether the data for valuing FOPs
are both available and reliable.
Regarding the ‘‘significant producer’’
prong of section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act,
the Department identified all countries
that had exports of comparable
merchandise (defined as exports under
HTS 7326.20, 7323.99, the HTS
numbers identified in the scope of the
order) between 2007 and 2009, and
deemed such countries to be significant
producers. In this case, we have defined
a ‘‘significant producer’’ as a country
that has exported comparable
merchandise in between 2007 and 2009.
The Department has determined that
India is the appropriate surrogate
country for use in this review. The
Department based its decision on the
following facts: (1) India is at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise;
and (3) India provides the best
opportunity to use quality, publicly
available data to value the FOPs.
Although Petitioner provided SV data
for both Thailand and India, India’s data
is the best available data on the record
for selection as the primary surrogate.
Therefore, we have selected India as the
surrogate country and, accordingly,
have calculated NV using Indian prices
to value the respondent’s FOPs, when
available and appropriate. We have
obtained and relied upon publicly
available information wherever
possible.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every proceeding conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, we have
treated it as an NME country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a
country is an NME shall remain in effect
until revoked by the Department. See,
e.g., Brake Rotors From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005
Administrative Review and Notice of
Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper
Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14,
2006). None of the parties to this
proceeding have contested such
treatment. Accordingly, the Department
calculated NV in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies
to NME countries.
Separate Rates
To obtain separate rate status, the
Department requires exporters and
producers to submit a separate rate
status certification and/or application.
See Separate Rates and Combination
Rates in Antidumping Investigations
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
involving Non-Market Economy
Countries, 70 FR 17233 (April 5, 2005)
(‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’), also available at:
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/.
However, the standard for eligibility for
a separate rate (which is whether a firm
can demonstrate an absence of both de
jure and de facto government control
over its export activities) has not
changed.
As noted above, a designation of a
country as an NME remains in effect
until it is revoked by the Department.
See section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act. In
proceedings involving NME countries, it
is the Department’s practice to begin
with a rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. See Policy Bulletin 05.1; see
also Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and
Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In
Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From
the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR
53079, 53080 (September 8, 2006); and
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Final Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, 29307
(May 22, 2006).
It is the Department’s policy to assign
all NME exporters of merchandise
subject to an administrative review this
single rate unless an exporter can
affirmatively demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent from
government control so as to be entitled
to a separate rate. See Policy Bulletin
05.1. The Department analyzes each
entity exporting the subject
merchandise under a test arising from
the Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers
from the People’s Republic of China, 56
FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as
further developed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’).
However, if the Department determines
that a company is wholly foreign-owned
or located in a market economy (‘‘ME’’)
country, then a separate rate analysis is
not necessary to determine whether it is
independent from government control.
See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Petroleum
Wax Candles from the People’s Republic
of China, 72 FR 52355, 52356
(September 13, 2007).
Excluding the companies selected for
individual review, the Department
received separate rate applications or
certifications from the following 15
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices
companies: (1) Shaoxing Gangyuan
Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd.; (2)
Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal
Manufactured Co. Ltd.; (3) Shaoxing
Andrew Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.;
(4) Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse
Co., Ltd.; (5) Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products
Co., Ltd.; (6) Shangyu Baoxiang Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd.; (7) Jiaxing Boyi
Medical Device Co., Ltd.; 10 (8) Pu Jiang
County Command Metal Products Co.,
Ltd.; (9) Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger
Co., Ltd.; (10) Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd.; (11) Zhejiang
Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd.; (12)
Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd.;
(13) Shaoxing Guochao Metallic
Products Co., Ltd.; (14) Shanghai Jianhai
International Trade Co., Ltd.; and (15)
Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured
Co., Ltd.
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) any other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence
provided by Shaoxing Dingli and the 15
separate rate applicants supports a
preliminary finding of de jure absence
of government control based on the
following: (1) an absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with the
individual exporter’s business and
export licenses; (2) there are applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing
control of the companies; and (3) there
are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.14
A. Separate Rate Recipients
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
government control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at
22586–87; see also Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR
22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The
Department has determined that an
analysis of de facto control is critical in
determining whether respondents are,
in fact, subject to a degree of
government control which would
preclude the Department from assigning
separate rates. The evidence provided
by Shaoxing Dingli and the 15 separate
rate applicants supports a preliminary
finding of de facto absence of
government control based on the
following: (1) The companies set their
own export prices independent of the
government and without the approval of
a government authority; (2) the
companies have authority to negotiate
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
Shanghai Wells reported that it is a
wholly foreign-owned entity.11
Additionally, there is no evidence that
the Wells Group is under the control of
the PRC government, and we have
determined that further separate rate
analysis is not necessary to determine
whether this entity is independent from
government control.12 Thus, we have
preliminarily granted separate rate
status to the Wells Group.
2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and
Foreign Companies or Wholly ChineseOwned Companies
Shaoxing Dingli 13 and the 15 separate
rate applicants in this administrative
review stated that they are either joint
ventures between Chinese and foreign
companies or are wholly Chineseowned companies. The Department has
analyzed whether Shaoxing Dingli and
the 15 separate rate applicants have
demonstrated the absence of de jure and
de facto governmental control over their
respective export activities.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
10 The Department inadvertently misspelled
Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co., Ltd.’s name in the
Initiation Notice as ‘‘Jianxing Boyi Medical Device
Co., Ltd.’’ The name has been corrected for these
preliminary results.
11 See Shanghai Wells’ Section A Questionnaire
Response, dated March 12, 2010, at 2.
12 See, e.g, Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate
from the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104,
71104–05 (December 20, 1999) (where the
respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus,
qualified for a separate rate).
13 See Shaoxing Dingli’s Section A Questionnaire
Response, dated March 8, 2010, at 2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Nov 08, 2010
Jkt 223001
14 See, e.g., Shaoxing Dingli’s Section A
Questionnaire Response dated March 8, 2010, at 2–
4; Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd.’s
Separate Rate Certification dated December 28,
2009, at 4; Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co.,
Ltd.’s Separate Rate Certification dated December
28, 2009, at 4–5.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68761
and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) the companies have
autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4) there
is no restriction on any of the
companies’ use of export revenue.15
Therefore, the Department preliminarily
finds that Shaoxing Dingli and the 15
separate rate applicants have
established that they qualify for a
separate rate under the criteria
established by Silicon Carbide and
Sparklers.
B. Companies Located Outside the PRC
Based on the public certificate of
service in Petitioner’s request for
administrative review, dated November
2, 2009, the record indicates that 70 of
the 187 companies upon which the
Department initiated this administrative
review are located outside of the PRC.16
15 See, e.g., Shaoxing Dingli’s Section A
Questionnaire Response dated September 5, 2008,
at 5–9; Shaoxing Guochao Metallic Products Co.,
Ltd.’s Separate Rate Certification dated December
28, 2009, at 5; Shaoxing Andrew Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd.’s Separate Rate Certification
dated December 28, 2009, at 7.
16 See Petitioner’s November 2, 2009, review
request. These 70 companies are: Ahlers Vina
Logistics; Alpi Trading Service Co., Ltd.; Amerasian
Shipping Logistics Corp.; Anc Service Co., Ltd.;
Angang Clothes Rack Manufacture Co.; Apex
Holding Group Limited.; Arturo Huizar Velazquez;
Biz Sources Inc. (Biz Sources PTY Ltd.); Canada
Cleaning Supply Corp.; Centurion Logistics
Services Ltd.; Cohesion Freight (HK) Ltd.; Cong Ty
Duoc Thao; Cong Ty Trach Nhiem (CTN Co., Ltd.);
Diep Son Hangers One Member Co., Ltd.; Dma
Logistics Inc.; Dong Nam A Co., Ltd.; Evergreen
Logistics Vietnam Co., Ltd.; Far Go Express
Company Limited; Focus Shipping Corp.; For You
Beautiful Industrial Co., Ltd.; General Merchandise
Consolidators, Inc.; Giant Choice Co., Ltd.; Gle
Logistics Co., Ltd.; Globe Express Services S.a.r.L.
Co., Ltd.; Good Wonder Limited; Hcmc General
Import and Export Investment Joint Stock Company
(IMexico); Hippo Logistics Co., Ltd.; Honour Lane
Logistics Co., Ltd.; Honour Lane Shipping Limited;
Intercontinental Shipping Co., Ltd.; Ju Fu Co., Ltd.;
KB Steel; Kingly Industry (Canada) Corp.; Korea
Laundry Industry Co., Ltd.; Kyung Dong Industrial
Co., Ltd.; Limpiaduria Zaragoza Huizar; Maple
Hangers Inc.; Mico Mit Co., Ltd.; Moc Viet
Manufacture Co., Ltd.; Multi–Sander Tech. Co.,
Ltd.; N2j Co., Ltd.; NV Hanger Co., Ltd.; Oec Freight
Worldwide Co., Ltd.; Orient Star Shipping Pte.;
Oriental Dragon Co., Ltd.; Oriental Logistics Group
Ltd.; P T Transportation Ltd.; Pacific Star Express
Corporation; Price Group Ltd.; Prolim De Baja
California; Quyky–yanglei International Co., Ltd.;
Rising Trade Inc.; Royal Cargo Combined Logistics,
Inc.; Royal McGoun Inc.; Seamaster Logistics Inc.;
Sirius Global Logistics Co., Ltd.; Smart Concept
Trading Limited; Star Glory Ltd.; Summit Logistics
International Inc.; Sun Vn Transport Corp. (Sunvn
Transport Corporation); Tay Ruey Enterprise Co.;
Thanh Hieu Manufacturing Trading Co., Ltd.; Top
Harvest Metal Co. Ltd.; Topocean Vietnam;
Transworld Transportation Co., Ltd.; Twt–
Transworld Transportation Co., Ltd.; Unitex
International Forwarding (HK) Ltd., Vantage
Logistics Corporation; Viet Anh Import–Export Joint
Stock Company; Vietnam Hangers Joint Stock
Company; Wiexin Cargo Services Co., Ltd.; Whale
Logistics Company Ltd.; Winwell Industrial
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
Continued
09NON1
68762
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices
None of these companies have requested
that the Department assign to them their
own rate or certified that they had no
shipments of subject merchandise
during the POR. Because the 70
companies did not request the
Department to assign to them their own
rate, any exports of subject merchandise
by these non-PRC exporters will be
subject to the cash deposit rate of the
PRC exporters that supplied them.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
C. PRC-Wide Entity
As stated above in the ‘‘Background’’
section, the Department initiated an
administrative review with respect to
187 companies. The Department
provided companies not selected for
individual examination the opportunity
to file either a separate rate application
or certification, which was made
available on the Department’s website.
See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 61658–9.
Out of the 187 companies, excluding the
two mandatory respondents, 15 filed
either separate rate certifications or
separate rate applications. Of the
remaining companies, five reported
having made no shipments to the
United States during the POR and 70
companies appear to be located outside
of the PRC, thus an analysis of whether
these companies have rebutted the
presumption of PRC government control
is moot.
However, 94 companies upon which
we initiated a review, and which are
located within the PRC, did not: (1)
Apply for separate rate status; or (2)
notify the Department that they had no
shipments of subject merchandise
during the POR.17 These 94 companies
Limited; Zownzi Hardware Hanger Fty Ltd.; and
Zynpak Packaging Products Inc.
17 These 94 companies are: Acrowell
International Logistics; Acx Logistics (China) Ltd.;
Agility Logistics (Shanghai) Ltd.; Alcon Express
Corp.; Anhui Whywin International Co., Ltd.; Apex
Maritime Co. Ltd.; Apl Logistics China, Ltd.; Ate
Logistics Co., Ltd.; Beijing Kang Jie Kong Cargo
Agent Co., Ltd.; Brilliant Globe Logistics Inc.; China
Coast Freight Co., Ltd.; China Container Line
(Shanghai) Ltd.; China International Freight Co.,
Ltd.; China Ocean Shipping Agency (Ningbo); City
Ocean Logistics Co., Ltd.; Cixi K&J International
Co., Ltd.; Cohesion Freight Agency Ltd. (Shanghai);
De Well Container Shipping Corp.; Direct Service
Inc.; Distribution Rsjo Inc.; Dragon Trading
Shipping Co., Ltd.; Dynamic Network Container
Line Ltd.; Expeditors China; Fastic Transportation
Co., Ltd.; Fortune Freight International Co., Ltd.; Ge
Li Commerce Co., Ltd.; Goldever International
Logistics Co.; Guangdong Provincial Taoyue Mfg.
Co., Ltd.; Guangxi Shengfeng Import and Export
Co., Ltd.; Guangzhou Yanglei–Packing Co., Ltd.;
Guilin Yc Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Rico
Homeware and Apparel Ltd.; Hanhen Shipping
(China) Co., Ltd.; Hanjin (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.;
Hanjin Logistics (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.; Hecny
Shipping Limited; Huada Fashion Enterprise, Inc.;
Huguang Huojia Factory; Jiangmen Hongjun
Hardware & Elect.; Jiangsu Globe Logistics Limited
Co.; Jiangyin Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Jr
Metal Products Shanghai; Kaiping Youming
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Nov 08, 2010
Jkt 223001
listed in the Initiation Notice have not
demonstrated their eligibility for
separate rate status in this
administrative review. Therefore, the
Department preliminarily determines
that because there were exports of
merchandise under review from PRC
exporters that did not demonstrate their
eligibility for separate rate status, we are
treating these companies as part of the
PRC-wide entity, and subject to the
PRC-wide entity rate of 187.25 percent.
Separate Rate Calculation
The statute and our regulations do not
address directly how we should
establish a rate to apply to imports from
companies which we did not select for
individual examination in accordance
with section 777A(c)(2) of the Act in an
administrative review. Generally, we
have used section 735(c)(5) of the Act,
which provides instructions for
calculating the all-others rate in an
investigation, as guidance when we
establish the rate for respondents not
examined individually in an
administrative review.18 Section
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that
‘‘the estimated all-others rate shall be an
Hardware & Plastic Products Co., Ltd.; Kuehne &
Nagel Ltd.; Laidlaw Company LLC; Laidlaw Metal
Products Co., Ltd.; Laidlaw Shanghai; Lights Out
Machinery Co., Ltd.; Link & Link Shipping Ltd.;
Nanchang Tuhai Industry Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Eidz
Holding Ltd.; Ningbo Jude Trading Co., Ltd.; Ningbo
Peacebird Import & Export Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Yifan
International Forwarding Agency Co., Ltd.; Ocean
Star International Logistics Co., Ltd.; Odyssey
International (China) Ltd.; Orient Express Container
Co., Ltd.; Orient Star Transport International Ltd.;
Pacific Star International Logistics (China) Co., Ltd.;
Phoenix International Freight Services Ltd.; Pingye
Foreign Transportation Co., Ltd.; Post–Pop Art Co.,
Ltd.; Pudong Trans USA, Inc.; RDD Freight
International Inc.; Rich Shipping Company Limited;
Schenker China Ltd.; Sea Bright International
Industrial; Shanghai Air Sea Transport Inc.;
Shanghai Channel International Logistics; Shanghai
Fanyuan Freight Forwarding; Shanghai Garment
Group Import/Export Corp.; Shanghai Light
Industry and Textile Group Co., Ltd.; Shanghai
T.H.I Transport Co., Ltd.; Shaoguang International
Trade Co.; Shaoxing Leiluo Metal Manufactured;
Shenzhen Center Link International; Shenzhen
Pacific–Net Logistics Inc.; Shipping & Distribution
Ltd.; Sino Connections Logistics Inc.; Sinobo
International Logistics Co., Ltd.; Sinotrans Zhejiang
Co., Ltd.; The Houjie Town Yongxiang/Hardware
Processing Plant; Tianjin Hongtong Metal
Manufacture Co., Ltd.; Top Shipping Logistics Co.,
Ltd.; Topocean Consolidation Service (China) Ltd.;
Translink Shipping Inc.; U.S. United Logistics Inc.;
Unique Logistics International (HK) Ltd.; Ups Scs
Ltd.; Wuhu Rising International Trade Co., Ltd.; Xin
Chang Heng Xin Yi Jia Factory; Zhejiang Hailiang
Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang King Merchandise Industrial;
and Zhejiang Peace Industry and Trade Inc.
18 See, e.g., Administrative Review of Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s
Republic of China Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 49460 (August 13, 2010); Certain
Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results of the
Twelfth Administrative Review, 75 FR 6352
(February 9, 2010), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
amount equal to the weighted average of
the estimated weighted average
dumping margins established for
exporters and producers individually
investigated * * *’’
Because using the weighted-average
margin based on the calculated net U.S.
sales values for the Wells Group and
Shaoxing Dingli would allow these two
respondents to deduce each other’s
business-proprietary information and
thus cause an unwarranted release of
such information, we cannot assign to
the separate rate companies the
weighted-average margin based on the
calculated net U.S. sales values from
these two respondents.
For these preliminary results, we
determine that using the ranged total
U.S. sales values the Wells Group and
Shaoxing Dingli reported in the public
versions of their responses (dated April
12, 2010, and October 13, 2010,
respectively) to our request for
information concerning the quantity and
value of their exports to the United
States is more appropriate than applying
a simple average. These publicly
available figures provide the basis on
which we can calculate a margin which
is the best proxy for the weightedaverage margin based on the calculated
net U.S. sales values of the Wells Group
and Shaoxing Dingli. We find that this
approach is more consistent with the
intent of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act
and our use of section 735(c)(5)(A) of
the Act as guidance when we establish
the rate for respondents not examined
individually in an administrative
review.
Because the calculated net U.S. sales
values for the Wells Group and
Shaoxing Dingli are businessproprietary figures, we find that 6.58
percent, which we calculated using the
publicly available figures of U.S. sales
values for these two firms, is the best
reasonable proxy for the weightedaverage margin based on the calculated
net U.S. sales values of the Wells Group
and Shaoxing Dingli. See
‘‘Memorandum to the File from Joshua
Startup, Analyst, through Catherine
Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9;
First Administrative Review of Steel
Wire Garment Hangers from the PRC:
Calculation of the Separate Rate,’’ dated
concurrently with this notice.
Date of Sale
Both the Wells Group and Shaoxing
Dingli reported the invoice date as the
date of sale because they claim that, for
their U.S. sales of subject merchandise
made during the POR, the material
terms of sale were established based on
the invoice date. The Department
preliminarily determines that the
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices
invoice date is the most appropriate
date to use as the Wells Group and
Shaoxing Dingli date of sale in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) and
the Department’s long-standing practice
of determining the date of sale.19
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of
hangers to the United States by the
Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli were
made at less than NV, the Department
compared either export price (‘‘EP’’) or
constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to NV,
as described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections below.
U.S. Price
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, the Department calculated EP
for a portion of sales to the United
States for the Wells Group and Shaoxing
Dingli because the first sale to an
unaffiliated party was made before the
date of importation and the use of CEP
was not otherwise warranted. The
Department calculated EP based on the
price to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States. In accordance with
section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate,
the Department deducted from the
starting price to unaffiliated purchasers
foreign inland freight and brokerage and
handling (‘‘B&H’’). Each of these services
was either provided by a NME vendor
or paid for using a NME currency. Thus,
the Department based the deduction of
these movement charges on surrogate
values. See ‘‘Memorandum to the File
from Josh Startup, Analyst, through
Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager;
First Administrative Review of Steel
Wire Garment Hangers from the
People’s Republic of China: Surrogate
Values for the Preliminary Results,’’
dated November 8, 2010 (‘‘Prelim
Surrogate Value Memo’’) for details
regarding the surrogate values for
movement expenses. For international
freight provided by a ME provider and
paid in U.S. dollars, the Department
used the actual cost per kilogram (‘‘kg’’)
of the freight.
Constructed Export Price
For some of the Wells Group’s and
Shaoxing Dingli’s sales, the Department
based U.S. price on CEP in accordance
with section 772(b) of the Act, because
sales were made on behalf of the
Chinese-based companies by a U.S.
19 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 10.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Nov 08, 2010
Jkt 223001
affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States. For these sales, the
Department based CEP on prices to the
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States. Where appropriate, the
Department made deductions from the
starting price (gross unit price) for
foreign movement expenses,
international movement expenses, U.S.
movement expenses, and appropriate
selling adjustments, in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1)
of the Act, the Department also
deducted those selling expenses
associated with economic activities
occurring in the United States. The
Department deducted, where
appropriate, commissions, inventory
carrying costs, interest revenue, credit
expenses, warranty expenses, and
indirect selling expenses. Where foreign
movement expenses, international
movement expenses, or U.S. movement
expenses were provided by PRC service
providers or paid for in renminbi, the
Department valued these services using
SVs (see ‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section
below for further discussion). For those
expenses that were provided by an ME
provider and paid for in an ME
currency, the Department used the
reported expense. Due to the proprietary
nature of certain adjustments to U.S.
price, for a detailed description of all
adjustments made to U.S. price for each
company, see the company specific
analysis memoranda, dated November 8,
2010.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) 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. Further, pursuant to section
773(c)(1) of the Act, the valuation of an
NME respondent’s FOPs shall be based
on the best available information
regarding the value of such factors in an
ME country or countries considered to
be appropriate by the Department. The
Department bases NV on the 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.
The Department used Indian import
statistics to value the raw material and
packing material inputs that the Wells
Group and Shaoxing Dingli used to
produce the merchandise under
investigation during the POR, except
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68763
where listed below. In past cases, it has
been the Department’s practice to
calculate an SV for various FOPs using
import statistics of the primary selected
surrogate country from World Trade
Atlas (‘‘WTA’’), as published by Global
Trade Information Services (‘‘GTIS’’).20
However, in October 2009, the
Department learned that Indian import
data obtained from the WTA, as
published by GTIS, began identifying
the original reporting currency for India
as the U.S. dollar. The Department then
contacted GTIS about the change in the
original reporting currency for India
from the Indian rupee to the U.S. dollar.
Officials at GTIS explained that while
GTIS obtains data on imports into India
directly from the Ministry of Commerce,
Government of India, as denominated
and published in Indian rupees, the
WTA software is limited with regard to
the number of significant digits it can
manage. Therefore, GTIS made a
decision to change the official reporting
currency for Indian data from the Indian
rupee to the U.S. dollar in order to
reduce the loss of significant digits
when obtaining data through the WTA
software. GTIS explained that it
converts the Indian rupee to the U.S.
dollar using the monthly Federal
Reserve exchange rate applicable to the
relevant month of the data being
downloaded and converted.21
However, the data reported in the
GTA software report import statistics,
such as data from India, in the original
reporting currency and thus these data
correspond to the original currency
value reported by each country.
Additionally, the data reported in GTA
software are reported to the nearest digit
and thus there is not a loss of data by
rounding, as there is with the data
reported by the WTA software.
Consequently, the Department will now
obtain import statistics from GTA for
valuing FOPs because the GTA import
statistics are in the original reporting
currency of the country from which the
data are obtained and have the same
level of accuracy as the original data
released.
With respect to the SVs based on
Indian import statistics, the Department
20 See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR
50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009), unchanged in
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520 (December
10, 2009).
21 See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final
determination of Critical Circumstances and Final
Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335
(April 19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
68764
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
has disregarded prices that the
Department has reason to believe or
suspect may be subsidized. In
accordance with the OTCA 1988
legislative history, the Department
continues to apply its long-standing
practice of disregarding SVs if it has a
reason to believe or suspect the source
data may be subsidized.22 The
Department has previously found that it
is appropriate to disregard such prices
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and
Thailand because we have determined
that these countries maintain broadly
available, non-industry specific, export
subsidies.23 Based on the existence of
these subsidy programs that were
generally available to all exporters and
producers in these countries at the time
of the POR, the Department finds that it
has reason to believe or suspect that all
exporters from Indonesia, South Korea
and Thailand may have benefitted from
these subsidies and that we should
therefore disregard any data from these
countries contained in the Indian
import statistics used to calculate SVs.
Additionally, the Department
disregarded prices from NME countries.
Finally, imports that were labeled as
originating from an ‘‘unspecified’’
country were excluded from the average
value, because the Department could
not be certain that they were not from
either an NME country or a country
with generally available export
subsidies.24 For further discussion
regarding all SV calculations using
Indian import statistics derived from the
GTA data, see Prelim Surrogate Value
Memo.
22 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep.
No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) at 590.
23 See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from
India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-year
(Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order,
75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4–5; Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from
Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset
Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
4; See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74
FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19–20; See
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3,
2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 23.
24 See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008),
unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008) (‘‘PET
Film’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Nov 08, 2010
Jkt 223001
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, for subject merchandise
produced by the Wells Group and
Shaoxing Dingli, the Department
calculated NV based on the FOPs
reported by the Wells Group and
Shaoxing Dingli for the POR. The
Department used data from GTA and
other publicly available Indian sources
in order to calculate SVs for the Wells
Group and Shaoxing Dingli FOPs (direct
materials, energy, and packing
materials) and certain movement
expenses. To calculate NV, the
Department multiplied the reported perunit factor quantities by publicly
available Indian SVs (except as noted
below). Because the statute is silent
concerning what constitutes the ‘‘best
available information’’ for a particular
SV, the courts have recognized that the
Department enjoys ‘‘broad discretion to
determine the best available information
for an antidumping review.’’ See Ad Hoc
Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United
States, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18745
(Fed. Cir. 2010). The Department’s
practice when selecting the best
available information for valuing FOPs
is to select, to the extent practicable,
SVs which are product-specific,
representative of a broad market
average, publicly available,
contemporaneous with the POR and
exclusive of taxes and duties. See, e.g.,
Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 73 FR 48195 (August 18,
2008) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
As appropriate, the Department
adjusted input prices by including
freight costs to render them delivered
prices. Specifically, the Department
added to the Indian import SVs a
surrogate freight cost using the shorter
of the reported distance from the
domestic supplier to the factory or the
distance from the nearest seaport to the
factory. This adjustment is in
accordance with the decision of the
Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir.
1997). For a detailed description of all
SVs used for the Wells Group and
Shaoxing Dingli, see Prelim Surrogate
Value Memo.
In those instances where the
Department could not obtain publicly
available information contemporaneous
to the POR with which to value FOPs,
consistent with our practice, we
adjusted the SVs using, where
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price
Index as published in the International
Financial Statistics of the International
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Monetary Fund, a printout of which is
attached to the Prelim Surrogate Value
Memo at Exhibit 2. See also PET Film.
Where necessary, the Department
adjusted SVs for inflation, exchange
rates, and taxes, and the Department
converted all applicable items to a per
kg basis.
The Department valued electricity
using the updated electricity price data
for small, medium, and large industries,
as published by the Central Electricity
Authority, an administrative body 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 small, medium, and
large 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 Prelim Surrogate
Value Memo.
The Department valued water using
publicly available data from the
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation (https://www.midcindia.org)
because these data include a wide range
of industrial water tariffs. This source
provides industrial water rates within
the Maharashtra province for ‘‘inside
industrial areas’’ and ‘‘outside industrial
areas’’ from April 2009 through June
2009. Because the average of these
values is contemporaneous with the
POR, we did not adjust it for inflation.
See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
On May 14, 2010, the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(‘‘CAFC’’) in Dorbest Ltd. v. United
States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC
2010), found that the ‘‘{regressionbased} method for calculating wage
rates {as stipulated by 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3)} uses data not permitted
by {the statutory requirements laid out
in section 773 of the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C.
1677b(c))}.’’ The Department is
continuing to evaluate options for
determining labor values in light of the
recent CAFC decision. However, for
these preliminary results, we have
calculated an hourly wage rate to use in
valuing the respondents’ reported labor
input by averaging industry-specific
earnings and/or wages in countries that
are economically comparable to the PRC
and that are significant producers of
comparable merchandise.
For the preliminary results of this
administrative review, the Department
is valuing labor using a simple average
industry-specific wage rate using
earnings or wage data reported under
Chapter 5B by the International Labor
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices
Organization (‘‘ILO’’). To achieve an
industry-specific labor value, we relied
on industry-specific labor data from the
countries we determined to be both
economically comparable to the PRC,
and significant producers of comparable
merchandise. A full description of the
industry-specific wage rate calculation
methodology is provided in the Prelim
Surrogate Value Memo. The Department
calculated a simple average industryspecific wage rate of $1.39 for these
preliminary results. Specifically, for this
review, the Department has calculated
the wage rate using a simple average of
the data provided to the ILO under SubClassification 28 of the ISIC–Revision 3
standard by countries determined to be
both economically comparable to the
PRC and significant producers of
comparable merchandise. The
Department finds the two-digit
description under ISIC–Revision 3
(Manufacture of Fabricated Metal
Products, Except Machinery and
Equipment) to be the best available
wage rate SV on the record because it is
specific and derived from industries
that produce merchandise comparable
to the subject merchandise.
Consequently, we averaged the ILO
industry-specific wage rate data or
earnings data available from the
following countries found to be
economically comparable to the PRC
and are significant producers of
comparable merchandise: Ecuador, the
Arab Republic of Egypt, Indonesia,
Jordan, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, and
Ukraine. For further information on the
calculation of the wage rate, see Prelim
Surrogate Values Memo.
The Department valued truck freight
expenses using an Indian per-unit
average rate calculated from publicly
available data on the following web site:
https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/
logtruck.htm. The logistics section of
this web site contains inland freight
truck rates between many large Indian
cities. We did not inflate this rate since
it is contemporaneous with the POR.
See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
To value B&H, the Department used a
price list of export procedures necessary
to export a standardized cargo of goods
in India. The price list is publicly
available and compiled based on a
survey case study of the procedural
requirements for trading a standard
shipment of goods by ocean transport in
India that is published in Doing
Business 2010: India (published by the
World Bank). See Prelim Surrogate
Value Memo.
To value factory overhead, selling,
general, and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’)
expenses, and profit, the Department
used the 2008–2009 audited financial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Nov 08, 2010
Jkt 223001
statements of Lakshmi Precision Screws
Ltd. (‘‘Lakshmi’’) and Nasco Steels
Private Limited (‘‘Nasco’’), both of which
are Indian screw/nail and fastener
manufacturers.25 Among all the other
financial statements placed on the
record of this review, we find that
Lakshmi’s and Nasco’s financial
statements are the most appropriate for
these preliminary results because they
are both producers of downstream
products made of steel wire rod.
Furthermore, the Department finds that
both financial statements are
appropriate sources given that no usable
financial statements are available for
producers of identical merchandise.
Finally, Lakshmi’s and Nasco’s 2008–
2009 financial statements fulfill the
broadest range of the criteria examined
by the Department when selecting
appropriate financial statements with
which to value SG&A expenses, such as
contemporaneity, specificity, and
quality of data.26 For a detailed
discussion regarding our selection of
Lakshmi’s and Nasco’s 2008–2009
financial statements to calculate the
surrogate financial ratios, see Prelim
Surrogate Value Memo.
Company Specific Issues
Shaoxing Dingli
For these preliminary results, the
Department is not granting Shaoxing
Dingli a by-product offset for ‘‘Scrap
Iron Buckets’’ because they are not
generated from the subject merchandise
production process. This is consistent
with the Department’s practice of not
granting offsets to by-products which
are not generated in the production
process.27
Shaoxing Dingli reported a warranty
expense for damaged or defective
merchandise, and reported its sales
quantity net of these returns in its
Section C database. Shaoxing Dingli
credited its customers for the damaged
merchandise, and allocated the cost out
over all of its sales. Consistent with the
Department’s practice, for these
preliminary results, we are allowing the
warranty expenses to be allocated over
all of Shaoxing Dingli’s CEP sales.28
25 Lakshmi’s 2008–2009 audited financial
statements were submitted by Petitioner on June 1,
2010.
26 See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
44827 (August 9, 2007), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
27 See, e.g., Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire
Strand From the People’s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75
FR 28560 (May 21, 2010) and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
28 See, e.g., Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road
Tires from the People’s Republic of China: Final
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68765
Petitioner submitted comments
alleging that Shaoxing Dingli may have
not reported the universe of subject
merchandise sales to the United States
during the POR, following the
indictment of an importer of subject
merchandise on a duty evasion
charge.29 The Department has taken
note of this issue, but for these
preliminary results is not including the
sales alleged by Petitioner as
unreported, because Shaoxing Dingli
produced documentation showing that a
bonded truck was contracted to
transport all of the merchandise in
question to Mexico and there is no CBP
documentation that any of the alleged
unreported sales entered the United
States for consumption.30
The Wells Group
In its questionnaire responses and
sales databases, the Wells Group
reported certain expenses incurred, and
corresponding revenues earned, related
to the transportation or movement of the
subject merchandise sales during the
POR. Our practice with respect to
revenue earned, such as freight revenue,
from sales is to add the revenue to the
gross unit price.31 Here, to account for
post-sale adjustments of various
reported transportation-related revenues
as an addition to the gross unit price
and the corresponding transportationexpenses incurred as a deduction
included in the international and U.S.
movement charges, we deducted the
transportation-related revenues from the
corresponding transportation-related
expenses, where applicable, resulting
only in a deduction of the actual
transportation-related expense incurred,
which inherently accounts for the Wells
Group’s transportation-related revenues
earned by reducing the associated
expenses. This is consistent with our
Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008)
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comments 59 and 69 (where we
stated that ‘‘consistent with the Department’s
practice, we have utilized all expenses incurred
during the {period of investigation} and allocated
such across all {period of investigation} sales using
a value-based allocation methodology’’).
29 See Petitioner’s comments dated August 27,
2010.
30 See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the
Third New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 29473 (June 22,
2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comments 4 and 5.
31 See, e.g., Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
51781 (September 11, 2007), unchanged in FloorStanding, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain
Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 14437 (March 18, 2008).
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
68766
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
treatment of the Wells Group’s
transportation-related revenues in the
underlying investigation.32
However, with respect to U.S.
antidumping duty revenue reported by
the Wells Group, the Department
excluded this ‘‘revenue’’ item as an
addition to gross unit price, because the
increased ‘‘revenue’’ of the Wells
Group’s U.S. sales during the POR to
cover antidumping duties are already
accounted for in the reported gross unit
price, as confirmed by the Wells Group
itself.33 For a full discussion of the
adjustments to the gross unit price, see
‘‘Memorandum to the File from Irene
Gorelik, Senior Analyst: Program
Analysis for the Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers
from the People’s Republic of China:
Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd.,’’ dated
November 8, 2010.
issues to be discussed. Id. Issues raised
STEEL WIRE GARMENT HANGERS
FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF in the hearing will be limited to those
raised in the respective case briefs. The
CHINA—Continued
Department will issue the final results
of this administrative review, including
the results of its analysis of the issues
Manufacturer/exporter
raised in any written briefs, not later
than 120 days after the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to
Pu Jiang County Command
Metal Products Co. Ltd. ..........
6.58 section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger
Assessment Rates
Co., Ltd. ..................................
6.58
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. ..................
6.58 Department will determine, and CBP
Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
Co., Ltd. ..................................
6.58 appropriate entries covered by these
Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind.
reviews. The Department intends to
Co., Ltd. ..................................
6.58 issue assessment instructions to CBP 15
Shaoxing Guochao Metallic
days after the publication date of the
Products Co. Ltd. ....................
6.58
final results of this review excluding
Shanghai Jianhai International
Trade Co., Ltd. ........................
6.58 any reported sales that entered during
the gap period. In accordance with 19
Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. ....................
6.58 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated
PRC-Wide Entity 35 .....................
187.25 exporter/importer (or customer)-specific
Currency Conversion
assessment rates for the merchandise
Disclosure and Public Hearing
subject to this review. Where the
The Department made currency
respondent has reported reliable entered
The Department will disclose to
conversions into U.S. dollars, in
values, we calculated importer (or
parties the calculations performed in
accordance with section 773A(a) of the
customer)-specific ad valorem rates by
connection with these preliminary
Act, based on the exchange rates in
aggregating the dumping margins
results within five days of the date of
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as
calculated for all U.S. sales to each
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
importer (or customer) and dividing this
351.224(b). Because the Department
amount by the total entered value of the
Preliminary Results of Review
intends to seek additional information,
sales to each importer (or customer). See
the Department will establish the
The Department preliminarily
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an
determines that the following weighted- briefing schedule at a later time, and
importer (or customer)-specific ad
will notify parties of the schedule in
average dumping margins exist:
valorem rate is greater than de minimis,
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309.
we will apply the assessment rate to the
Parties who submit case briefs or
STEEL WIRE GARMENT HANGERS
entered value of the importers’/
FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are
customers’ entries during the POR. See
requested to submit with each
CHINA
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
argument: (1) A statement of the issue;
Where we do not have entered values
(2) a brief summary of the argument;
Weighted
for all U.S. sales, we calculated a perand (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR
average
Manufacturer/exporter
unit assessment rate by aggregating the
margin
351.309(c) and (d).
antidumping duties due for all U.S.
(percent)
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c),
interested parties who wish to request a sales to each importer (or customer) and
Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd.
dividing this amount by the total
hearing, or to participate if one is
and/or Hong Kong Wells Limquantity sold to that importer (or
requested, must submit a written
ited ..........................................
1.10
customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To
request within 30 days of the date of
Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clothesdetermine whether the duty assessment
horse Co., Ltd. ........................
12.25 publication of this notice. Requests
rates are de minimis, in accordance with
Shaoxing Metal Companies 34 ....
6.58 should contain: (1) The party’s name,
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
address and telephone number; (2) the
Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clothes351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer
horse Co. Ltd. .........................
6.58 number of participants; and (3) a list of
(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios
Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products Co.,
based on the estimated entered value.
Ltd. ..........................................
6.58
34 In the this administrative review, Shaoxing
Shangyu Baoxiang Metal ManuWhere an importer (or customer)Gangyuan Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd., Shaoxing
factured Co., Ltd. ....................
6.58 Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd., and
specific ad valorem rate is zero or de
Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. all
Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co.,
minimis, we will instruct CBP to
Ltd. ..........................................
6.58 reported in their respective separate rate
liquidate appropriate entries without
certifications that their affiliations, legal structure,
and ownership structure have not changed since the regard to antidumping duties. See 19
32 See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the
underlying investigation. Thus, we continue to find
CFR 351.106(c)(2).
People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of
that these three companies comprise a single entity,
For the companies receiving a
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 47587 (August as determined in the underlying investigation,
separate rate that were not selected for
14, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision
where we found that Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal
individual review, we will calculate an
Memorandum at Comment 9A (‘‘Hangers LTFV’’).
Manufactured Co. Ltd., Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal
33 See Shanghai Wells’ Supplemental Section C
Manufactured Co. Ltd., and Shaoxing Andrew
assessment rate based on the weightMetal Manufactured Co., Ltd. were a single entity
Questionnaire Response dated May 13, 2010 at 13,
average of the publicly-ranged values
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2). See
where Shanghai Wells stated that it reported ‘‘in the
reported by the companies selected for
Hangers LTFV, 73 FR at 47589.
field REVDOCT the revenue of antidumping duty
individual review pursuant to section
35 The PRC-Wide entity includes the 94
that is being part of the invoiced price that
companies listed in footnote 16 of this notice.
Shanghai Wells charged its customers.’’
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Nov 08, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Weighted
average
margin
(percent)
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices
Cash Deposit Requirements
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the
exporters listed above, the cash deposit
rate will be established in the final
results of this review (except, if the rate
is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent, no cash deposit will be
required for that company); (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters not listed above
that have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 187.25 percent;
and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
International Trade Administration
Notification to Importers
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
This notice also 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 determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: November 3, 2010.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–28287 Filed 11–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Nov 08, 2010
Jkt 223001
[C–570–915]
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and
Tube From the People’s Republic of
China: Rescission of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: November 9,
2010.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Austin Redington or Patricia Tran, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–1664 and (202)
482–1503, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 2, 2010, the U.S.
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of the countervailing duty order
on light-walled rectangular pipe and
tube from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’) for the period of review
January 1, 2009, through December 31,
2009. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 75
FR 45094 (August 2, 2010). On August
30, 2010, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b), the Department received a
timely request from Sun Group Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Sun Group’’) to conduct an
administrative review of Sun Group. No
other party requested an administrative
review.
On September 29, 2010, the
Department published the notice of
initiation of this countervailing duty
administrative review with respect to
Sun Group. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 60076,
60082 (September 29, 2010).
68767
request for an administrative review,
and no other party requested a review.
Therefore, in response to Sun Group’s
withdrawal of its request for review, and
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Department hereby rescinds this
administrative review.
Assessment Instructions
The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess countervailing duties on all
appropriate entries. For the Sun Group,
countervailing duties shall be assessed
at rates equal to the cash deposit or
bonding rate of the estimated
countervailing duties required at the
time of entry, or withdrawal from
warehouse, for consumption, in
accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after publication of this notice.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Order
This notice serves as a final reminder
to 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(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: November 1, 2010.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010–28283 Filed 11–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Rescission of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review
RIN 0648–XZ23
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review, in whole or in part, if the party
who requested the administrative
review withdraws the request within 90
days of the date of publication of the
notice of initiation of the requested
administrative review. On October 15,
2010, Sun Group timely withdrew its
Taking of Threatened or Endangered
Marine Mammals Incidental to
Commercial Fishing Operations
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68758-68767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28287]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-918]
Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of the First
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the
first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire
garment hangers from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') for the
period March 25, 2008, through September 30, 2009. The Department has
preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value
(``NV'') by the respondents. If these preliminary results are adopted
in our final results of this review, the Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the period of
review (``POR''). Interested parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: November 9, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik or Josh Startup, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905 or (202)
482-5260, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 6, 2008, the Department published in the Federal
Register an antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers
(``hangers'') from the PRC. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Steel
Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 58111
(October 6, 2008). On October 1, 2009, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative
review of hangers from the PRC for the period March 25, 2008, to
September 30, 2009.\1\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 74 FR 50772 (October 1, 2009). On October 30,
2009, certain PRC exporters requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review. On November 2, 2009, Petitioner \2\ also
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of 187
companies. On November 25, 2009, the Department initiated this review
of hangers from the PRC with respect to 187 requested companies
covering the period of March 25, 2008, through September 30, 2009. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 74 FR 61658 (November 25, 2009) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department generally does not include merchandise that
entered the United States during the provisional measures gap period
(``gap period''), in this case, September 22, 2008, to October 2,
2008, in our margin calculation because these entries are not
subject to antidumping duties. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched
Uranium from France, 69 FR 3883 (January 27, 2004). However, for the
purposes of these preliminary results, we are basing the margin
calculation on all reported U.S. sales made during the POR because
we are unable to determine whether any of the respondents' reported
U.S. sales entered during the gap period.
\2\ M&B Metal Products Co., Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between December 28, 2009, and January 21, 2010, we received
separate rate certifications or applications from 15 exporters, in
addition to those received from the mandatory respondents as discussed
in the ``Respondent Selection'' section below. For a detailed
discussion of the separate rate applicants, see the ``Separate Rates''
section below. Additionally, between December 16, 2009, and December
28, 2009, the Department received no-shipment certifications from five
companies. For a detailed discussion of the companies that certified
they had no shipments during the POR, see the ``Preliminary Partial
Rescission of Administrative Review'' section below.
As explained in the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion
to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal
Government from February 5, through February 12, 2010. See Memorandum
to the Record regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a
Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated
February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines in this segment of the
proceeding have been extended by seven days. On April 30, 2010, the
Department also published a notice in the Federal Register extending
the deadline for issuing the preliminary results by 120 days to
November 7, 2010.\3\ See First Antidumping Duty
[[Page 68759]]
Administrative Review of Steel Wire Hangers From the People's Republic
of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results, 75 FR
22739 (April 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Department practice dictates that where a deadline falls on
a weekend, the appropriate deadline is the next business day. See
Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next Business Day'' Rule
for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff
Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent Selection
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act''), directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins
for each known exporter or producer of the subject merchandise.\4\
However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department the
discretion to limit its examination to a reasonable number of exporters
or producers if it is not practicable to examine all exporters or
producers involved in an administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding respondent selection,
in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 30, 2009, the Department released CBP data for entries
of subject merchandise during the POR under administrative protective
order (``APO'') to all interested parties having an APO as of five days
after publication of the Initiation Notice, and invited comments
regarding the CBP data and respondent selection. The Department
received comments and rebuttal comments from Petitioner and certain PRC
exporters between November 30, 2009, and December 7, 2009.
On February 12, 2010, the Department issued the respondent
selection memorandum after assessing its resources and determining that
it could only reasonably examine two exporters subject to this review.
Pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected
Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Wells'') and Shaoxing
Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd. (``Shaoxing Dingli'') as mandatory
respondents.\5\ The Department sent the non-market economy (``NME'')
antidumping questionnaire to Shanghai Wells and Shaoxing Dingli on
February 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, from Josh Startup, Analyst; First
Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the
People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents for Individual
Review,'' dated February 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is March 25, 2008, to September 30, 2009.
Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we preliminarily determine that
the following companies made no shipments of subject merchandise during
the POR: Viet Anh Import-Export Joint Stock Company; Dong Nam A Co.,
Ltd.; Vietnam Hangers Joint Stock Company; Royal McGoun Chemicals Inc.;
and NV Hanger Co., Ltd. As stated above, the Department received no-
shipment certifications from the aforementioned companies between
December 16, 2009, and December 28, 2009.
The Department also issued a no-shipments inquiry to CBP, asking it
to provide any information contrary to our CBP run showing zero entries
of subject merchandise for merchandise manufactured and shipped by the
aforementioned companies. We did not receive any response from CBP
indicating whether there were any entries of subject merchandise into
the United States during the POR which were exported by these
companies. Consequently, we preliminary determine that none of the
above-named companies had shipments of subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR, and we are preliminarily rescinding the
review with respect to the above-named companies.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., Fourth Administrative Review of Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke, In Part, 75 FR 11855
(March 12, 2010), unchanged in Administrative Review of Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 49460 (August 13, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The merchandise that is subject to the order is steel wire garment
hangers, fabricated from carbon steel wire, whether or not galvanized
or painted, whether or not coated with latex or epoxy or similar
gripping materials, and/or whether or not fashioned with paper covers
or capes (with or without printing) and/or nonslip features such as
saddles or tubes. These products may also be referred to by a
commercial designation, such as shirt, suit, strut, caped, or latex
(industrial) hangers. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order
are wooden, plastic, and other garment hangers that are not made of
steel wire. Also excluded from the scope of the order are chrome-plated
steel wire garment hangers with a diameter of 3.4 mm or greater. The
products subject to the order are currently classified under U.S.
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTSUS'') subheadings 7326.20.0020 and
7323.99.9060.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is
dispositive.
Affiliation/Single Entity
Based on the evidence presented in the Shanghai Wells'
questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that Shanghai Wells,
Hong Kong Wells Limited (``HK Wells''), and Hong Kong Wells Limited
(USA) are affiliated, pursuant to sections 771(33)(A), (E), and (F) of
the Act. In addition, based on the evidence presented in its
questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that Shanghai Wells and
HK Wells should be treated as a single entity for the purposes of this
administrative review. This finding is based on our determination that
HK Wells is involved in the export of subject merchandise produced by
Shanghai Wells and that a significant potential for manipulation of
price or production exists between these two entities.\7\ See 19 CFR
351.401(f)(1) and (2). For further discussion of the Department's
affiliation and single-entity decisions, see ``Memorandum to Catherine
Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Irene
Gorelik, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary
Results in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Affiliation/Single
Entity Memorandum for Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd.,'' dated
concurrently with this notice. Consequently, we have calculated a
single antidumping duty rate for the single entity comprised of
Shanghai Wells and HK Wells, hereinafter referred to as the Wells
Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ While HK Wells is not a producer of hangers, we note that
where companies are affiliated, and there exists a significant
potential for manipulation of prices and/or export decisions, the
Department has found it appropriate to treat those companies as a
single entity. The Court of International Trade upheld the
Department's decision to include export decisions in its analysis of
whether there was a significant potential for manipulation. See
Hontex Enterprises v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1343 (CIT
2003). In this case, not only is HK Wells an exporter of subject
merchandise, but it is an exporter of the subject merchandise
produced by its affiliate, Shanghai Wells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data
On March 25, 2010, the Department sent interested parties a letter
inviting comments on surrogate country selection and information
regarding valuing factors of production (``FOPs''). On May 21, 2010,
Petitioner filed
[[Page 68760]]
comments on surrogate country selection, stating India, the
Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand may be appropriate surrogates if
there were publicly available, reliable and contemporaneous data for
them, and Shaoxing Dingli filed comments recommending the Department
select India as a surrogate country. On June 1, 2010, the Department
received information to value FOPs from Shaoxing Dingli and Petitioner.
On June 1, 2010, the Department also received surrogate value (``SV'')
information from Fabricare Choice Distributors Group, an interested
party. On June 11, 2010, Petitioner and Shaoxing Dingli filed rebuttal
comments with respect to SVs. On June 21, 2010, Petitioner and Shaoxing
Dingli provided additional factual information concerning SV
information. On July 1, 2010, Shaoxing Dingli filed rebuttal comments
to Petitioner's factual information concerning SV information. Both
Petitioner and Shaoxing Dingli provided SVs from sources in India,
while Petitioner also provided SVs from Thailand.
Surrogate Country
When the Department investigates imports from an NME country and
available information does not permit the Department to determine NV
pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, then, pursuant to section
773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department bases NV on an NME producer's
FOPs, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries
that (1) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of
the NME country, and (2) are significant producers of comparable
merchandise. Regarding the ``level of economic development,'' the
Department places primary emphasis on per capita gross national income
(``GNI'') as the measure of economic comparability.\8\ Using per capita
GNI, the Department determined that India, Indonesia, Philippines,
Peru, Ukraine and Thailand are countries comparable to the PRC in terms
of economic development.\9\ Once we have identified the countries that
are economically comparable to the PRC, we select an appropriate
surrogate country by determining whether an economically comparable
country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise and whether
the data for valuing FOPs are both available and reliable. Regarding
the ``significant producer'' prong of section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act,
the Department identified all countries that had exports of comparable
merchandise (defined as exports under HTS 7326.20, 7323.99, the HTS
numbers identified in the scope of the order) between 2007 and 2009,
and deemed such countries to be significant producers. In this case, we
have defined a ``significant producer'' as a country that has exported
comparable merchandise in between 2007 and 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 19 CFR 351.408(b).
\9\ The Department notes that these six countries are part of a
non-exhaustive list of countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC. See the Department's letter to
``All Interested Parties; First Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Deadlines for
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Comments,'' dated March 25,
2010 at 1 and Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has determined that India is the appropriate
surrogate country for use in this review. The Department based its
decision on the following facts: (1) India is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) India provides the best
opportunity to use quality, publicly available data to value the FOPs.
Although Petitioner provided SV data for both Thailand and India,
India's data is the best available data on the record for selection as
the primary surrogate. Therefore, we have selected India as the
surrogate country and, accordingly, have calculated NV using Indian
prices to value the respondent's FOPs, when available and appropriate.
We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information
wherever possible.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every proceeding conducted by the Department involving the PRC,
we have treated it as an NME country. In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a country is an NME
shall remain in effect until revoked by the Department. See, e.g.,
Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of
Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14,
2006). None of the parties to this proceeding have contested such
treatment. Accordingly, the Department calculated NV in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.
Separate Rates
To obtain separate rate status, the Department requires exporters
and producers to submit a separate rate status certification and/or
application. See Separate Rates and Combination Rates in Antidumping
Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, 70 FR 17233
(April 5, 2005) (``Policy Bulletin 05.1''), also available at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/. However, the standard for eligibility
for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence
of both de jure and de facto government control over its export
activities) has not changed.
As noted above, a designation of a country as an NME remains in
effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(c)(i)
of the Act. In proceedings involving NME countries, it is the
Department's practice to begin with a rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. See Policy Bulletin
05.1; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined
Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 53079, 53080
(September 8, 2006); and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, 29307 (May 22, 2006).
It is the Department's policy to assign all NME exporters of
merchandise subject to an administrative review this single rate unless
an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent from government control so as to be entitled to a separate
rate. See Policy Bulletin 05.1. The Department analyzes each entity
exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991)
(``Sparklers''), as further developed in Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide'').
However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-
owned or located in a market economy (``ME'') country, then a separate
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent
from government control. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic
of China, 72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
Excluding the companies selected for individual review, the
Department received separate rate applications or certifications from
the following 15
[[Page 68761]]
companies: (1) Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd.; (2)
Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd.; (3) Shaoxing Andrew
Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; (4) Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse
Co., Ltd.; (5) Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products Co., Ltd.; (6) Shangyu
Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; (7) Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device
Co., Ltd.; \10\ (8) Pu Jiang County Command Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
(9) Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd.; (10) Shaoxing Zhongbao
Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; (11) Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co.,
Ltd.; (12) Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd.; (13) Shaoxing Guochao
Metallic Products Co., Ltd.; (14) Shanghai Jianhai International Trade
Co., Ltd.; and (15) Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Department inadvertently misspelled Jiaxing Boyi
Medical Device Co., Ltd.'s name in the Initiation Notice as
``Jianxing Boyi Medical Device Co., Ltd.'' The name has been
corrected for these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Separate Rate Recipients
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
Shanghai Wells reported that it is a wholly foreign-owned
entity.\11\ Additionally, there is no evidence that the Wells Group is
under the control of the PRC government, and we have determined that
further separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether
this entity is independent from government control.\12\ Thus, we have
preliminarily granted separate rate status to the Wells Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Shanghai Wells' Section A Questionnaire Response, dated
March 12, 2010, at 2.
\12\ See, e.g, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of
China, 64 FR 71104, 71104-05 (December 20, 1999) (where the
respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for a
separate rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly
Chinese-Owned Companies
Shaoxing Dingli \13\ and the 15 separate rate applicants in this
administrative review stated that they are either joint ventures
between Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly Chinese-owned
companies. The Department has analyzed whether Shaoxing Dingli and the
15 separate rate applicants have demonstrated the absence of de jure
and de facto governmental control over their respective export
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Shaoxing Dingli's Section A Questionnaire Response,
dated March 8, 2010, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by Shaoxing Dingli
and the 15 separate rate applicants supports a preliminary finding of
de jure absence of government control based on the following: (1) an
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there are applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3)
there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of
companies.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, e.g., Shaoxing Dingli's Section A Questionnaire
Response dated March 8, 2010, at 2-4; Shaoxing Shunji Metal
Clotheshorse Co., Ltd.'s Separate Rate Certification dated December
28, 2009, at 4; Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd.'s Separate
Rate Certification dated December 28, 2009, at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544,
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in
fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude
the Department from assigning separate rates. The evidence provided by
Shaoxing Dingli and the 15 separate rate applicants supports a
preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based on
the following: (1) The companies set their own export prices
independent of the government and without the approval of a government
authority; (2) the companies have authority to negotiate and sign
contracts and other agreements; (3) the companies have autonomy from
the government in making decisions regarding the selection of
management; and (4) there is no restriction on any of the companies'
use of export revenue.\15\ Therefore, the Department preliminarily
finds that Shaoxing Dingli and the 15 separate rate applicants have
established that they qualify for a separate rate under the criteria
established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See, e.g., Shaoxing Dingli's Section A Questionnaire
Response dated September 5, 2008, at 5-9; Shaoxing Guochao Metallic
Products Co., Ltd.'s Separate Rate Certification dated December 28,
2009, at 5; Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.'s Separate
Rate Certification dated December 28, 2009, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Companies Located Outside the PRC
Based on the public certificate of service in Petitioner's request
for administrative review, dated November 2, 2009, the record indicates
that 70 of the 187 companies upon which the Department initiated this
administrative review are located outside of the PRC.\16\
[[Page 68762]]
None of these companies have requested that the Department assign to
them their own rate or certified that they had no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR. Because the 70 companies did not request
the Department to assign to them their own rate, any exports of subject
merchandise by these non-PRC exporters will be subject to the cash
deposit rate of the PRC exporters that supplied them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Petitioner's November 2, 2009, review request. These 70
companies are: Ahlers Vina Logistics; Alpi Trading Service Co.,
Ltd.; Amerasian Shipping Logistics Corp.; Anc Service Co., Ltd.;
Angang Clothes Rack Manufacture Co.; Apex Holding Group Limited.;
Arturo Huizar Velazquez; Biz Sources Inc. (Biz Sources PTY Ltd.);
Canada Cleaning Supply Corp.; Centurion Logistics Services Ltd.;
Cohesion Freight (HK) Ltd.; Cong Ty Duoc Thao; Cong Ty Trach Nhiem
(CTN Co., Ltd.); Diep Son Hangers One Member Co., Ltd.; Dma
Logistics Inc.; Dong Nam A Co., Ltd.; Evergreen Logistics Vietnam
Co., Ltd.; Far Go Express Company Limited; Focus Shipping Corp.; For
You Beautiful Industrial Co., Ltd.; General Merchandise
Consolidators, Inc.; Giant Choice Co., Ltd.; Gle Logistics Co.,
Ltd.; Globe Express Services S.a.r.L. Co., Ltd.; Good Wonder
Limited; Hcmc General Import and Export Investment Joint Stock
Company (IMexico); Hippo Logistics Co., Ltd.; Honour Lane Logistics
Co., Ltd.; Honour Lane Shipping Limited; Intercontinental Shipping
Co., Ltd.; Ju Fu Co., Ltd.; KB Steel; Kingly Industry (Canada)
Corp.; Korea Laundry Industry Co., Ltd.; Kyung Dong Industrial Co.,
Ltd.; Limpiaduria Zaragoza Huizar; Maple Hangers Inc.; Mico Mit Co.,
Ltd.; Moc Viet Manufacture Co., Ltd.; Multi-Sander Tech. Co., Ltd.;
N2j Co., Ltd.; NV Hanger Co., Ltd.; Oec Freight Worldwide Co., Ltd.;
Orient Star Shipping Pte.; Oriental Dragon Co., Ltd.; Oriental
Logistics Group Ltd.; P T Transportation Ltd.; Pacific Star Express
Corporation; Price Group Ltd.; Prolim De Baja California; Quyky-
yanglei International Co., Ltd.; Rising Trade Inc.; Royal Cargo
Combined Logistics, Inc.; Royal McGoun Inc.; Seamaster Logistics
Inc.; Sirius Global Logistics Co., Ltd.; Smart Concept Trading
Limited; Star Glory Ltd.; Summit Logistics International Inc.; Sun
Vn Transport Corp. (Sunvn Transport Corporation); Tay Ruey
Enterprise Co.; Thanh Hieu Manufacturing Trading Co., Ltd.; Top
Harvest Metal Co. Ltd.; Topocean Vietnam; Transworld Transportation
Co., Ltd.; Twt-Transworld Transportation Co., Ltd.; Unitex
International Forwarding (HK) Ltd., Vantage Logistics Corporation;
Viet Anh Import-Export Joint Stock Company; Vietnam Hangers Joint
Stock Company; Wiexin Cargo Services Co., Ltd.; Whale Logistics
Company Ltd.; Winwell Industrial Limited; Zownzi Hardware Hanger Fty
Ltd.; and Zynpak Packaging Products Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. PRC-Wide Entity
As stated above in the ``Background'' section, the Department
initiated an administrative review with respect to 187 companies. The
Department provided companies not selected for individual examination
the opportunity to file either a separate rate application or
certification, which was made available on the Department's website.
See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 61658-9. Out of the 187 companies,
excluding the two mandatory respondents, 15 filed either separate rate
certifications or separate rate applications. Of the remaining
companies, five reported having made no shipments to the United States
during the POR and 70 companies appear to be located outside of the
PRC, thus an analysis of whether these companies have rebutted the
presumption of PRC government control is moot.
However, 94 companies upon which we initiated a review, and which
are located within the PRC, did not: (1) Apply for separate rate
status; or (2) notify the Department that they had no shipments of
subject merchandise during the POR.\17\ These 94 companies listed in
the Initiation Notice have not demonstrated their eligibility for
separate rate status in this administrative review. Therefore, the
Department preliminarily determines that because there were exports of
merchandise under review from PRC exporters that did not demonstrate
their eligibility for separate rate status, we are treating these
companies as part of the PRC-wide entity, and subject to the PRC-wide
entity rate of 187.25 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ These 94 companies are: Acrowell International Logistics;
Acx Logistics (China) Ltd.; Agility Logistics (Shanghai) Ltd.; Alcon
Express Corp.; Anhui Whywin International Co., Ltd.; Apex Maritime
Co. Ltd.; Apl Logistics China, Ltd.; Ate Logistics Co., Ltd.;
Beijing Kang Jie Kong Cargo Agent Co., Ltd.; Brilliant Globe
Logistics Inc.; China Coast Freight Co., Ltd.; China Container Line
(Shanghai) Ltd.; China International Freight Co., Ltd.; China Ocean
Shipping Agency (Ningbo); City Ocean Logistics Co., Ltd.; Cixi K&J
International Co., Ltd.; Cohesion Freight Agency Ltd. (Shanghai); De
Well Container Shipping Corp.; Direct Service Inc.; Distribution
Rsjo Inc.; Dragon Trading Shipping Co., Ltd.; Dynamic Network
Container Line Ltd.; Expeditors China; Fastic Transportation Co.,
Ltd.; Fortune Freight International Co., Ltd.; Ge Li Commerce Co.,
Ltd.; Goldever International Logistics Co.; Guangdong Provincial
Taoyue Mfg. Co., Ltd.; Guangxi Shengfeng Import and Export Co.,
Ltd.; Guangzhou Yanglei-Packing Co., Ltd.; Guilin Yc Enterprise Co.,
Ltd.; Hangzhou Rico Homeware and Apparel Ltd.; Hanhen Shipping
(China) Co., Ltd.; Hanjin (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.; Hanjin Logistics
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd.; Hecny Shipping Limited; Huada Fashion
Enterprise, Inc.; Huguang Huojia Factory; Jiangmen Hongjun Hardware
& Elect.; Jiangsu Globe Logistics Limited Co.; Jiangyin Hongji Metal
Products Co., Ltd.; Jr Metal Products Shanghai; Kaiping Youming
Hardware & Plastic Products Co., Ltd.; Kuehne & Nagel Ltd.; Laidlaw
Company LLC; Laidlaw Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Laidlaw Shanghai;
Lights Out Machinery Co., Ltd.; Link & Link Shipping Ltd.; Nanchang
Tuhai Industry Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Eidz Holding Ltd.; Ningbo Jude
Trading Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Peacebird Import & Export Co., Ltd.;
Ningbo Yifan International Forwarding Agency Co., Ltd.; Ocean Star
International Logistics Co., Ltd.; Odyssey International (China)
Ltd.; Orient Express Container Co., Ltd.; Orient Star Transport
International Ltd.; Pacific Star International Logistics (China)
Co., Ltd.; Phoenix International Freight Services Ltd.; Pingye
Foreign Transportation Co., Ltd.; Post-Pop Art Co., Ltd.; Pudong
Trans USA, Inc.; RDD Freight International Inc.; Rich Shipping
Company Limited; Schenker China Ltd.; Sea Bright International
Industrial; Shanghai Air Sea Transport Inc.; Shanghai Channel
International Logistics; Shanghai Fanyuan Freight Forwarding;
Shanghai Garment Group Import/Export Corp.; Shanghai Light Industry
and Textile Group Co., Ltd.; Shanghai T.H.I Transport Co., Ltd.;
Shaoguang International Trade Co.; Shaoxing Leiluo Metal
Manufactured; Shenzhen Center Link International; Shenzhen Pacific-
Net Logistics Inc.; Shipping & Distribution Ltd.; Sino Connections
Logistics Inc.; Sinobo International Logistics Co., Ltd.; Sinotrans
Zhejiang Co., Ltd.; The Houjie Town Yongxiang/Hardware Processing
Plant; Tianjin Hongtong Metal Manufacture Co., Ltd.; Top Shipping
Logistics Co., Ltd.; Topocean Consolidation Service (China) Ltd.;
Translink Shipping Inc.; U.S. United Logistics Inc.; Unique
Logistics International (HK) Ltd.; Ups Scs Ltd.; Wuhu Rising
International Trade Co., Ltd.; Xin Chang Heng Xin Yi Jia Factory;
Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang King Merchandise Industrial;
and Zhejiang Peace Industry and Trade Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rate Calculation
The statute and our regulations do not address directly how we
should establish a rate to apply to imports from companies which we did
not select for individual examination in accordance with section
777A(c)(2) of the Act in an administrative review. Generally, we have
used section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for
calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, as guidance when
we establish the rate for respondents not examined individually in an
administrative review.\18\ Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides
that ``the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the
weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins
established for exporters and producers individually investigated * *
*''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See, e.g., Administrative Review of Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China Final Results
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75
FR 49460 (August 13, 2010); Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of
Final Results of the Twelfth Administrative Review, 75 FR 6352
(February 9, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because using the weighted-average margin based on the calculated
net U.S. sales values for the Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli would
allow these two respondents to deduce each other's business-proprietary
information and thus cause an unwarranted release of such information,
we cannot assign to the separate rate companies the weighted-average
margin based on the calculated net U.S. sales values from these two
respondents.
For these preliminary results, we determine that using the ranged
total U.S. sales values the Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli reported in
the public versions of their responses (dated April 12, 2010, and
October 13, 2010, respectively) to our request for information
concerning the quantity and value of their exports to the United States
is more appropriate than applying a simple average. These publicly
available figures provide the basis on which we can calculate a margin
which is the best proxy for the weighted-average margin based on the
calculated net U.S. sales values of the Wells Group and Shaoxing
Dingli. We find that this approach is more consistent with the intent
of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act and our use of section 735(c)(5)(A)
of the Act as guidance when we establish the rate for respondents not
examined individually in an administrative review.
Because the calculated net U.S. sales values for the Wells Group
and Shaoxing Dingli are business-proprietary figures, we find that 6.58
percent, which we calculated using the publicly available figures of
U.S. sales values for these two firms, is the best reasonable proxy for
the weighted-average margin based on the calculated net U.S. sales
values of the Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli. See ``Memorandum to the
File from Joshua Startup, Analyst, through Catherine Bertrand, Program
Manager, Office 9; First Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment
Hangers from the PRC: Calculation of the Separate Rate,'' dated
concurrently with this notice.
Date of Sale
Both the Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli reported the invoice date
as the date of sale because they claim that, for their U.S. sales of
subject merchandise made during the POR, the material terms of sale
were established based on the invoice date. The Department
preliminarily determines that the
[[Page 68763]]
invoice date is the most appropriate date to use as the Wells Group and
Shaoxing Dingli date of sale in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) and
the Department's long-standing practice of determining the date of
sale.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of hangers to the United States by the
Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli were made at less than NV, the
Department compared either export price (``EP'') or constructed export
price (``CEP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections below.
U.S. Price
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department
calculated EP for a portion of sales to the United States for the Wells
Group and Shaoxing Dingli because the first sale to an unaffiliated
party was made before the date of importation and the use of CEP was
not otherwise warranted. The Department calculated EP based on the
price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance
with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, the Department deducted
from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland
freight and brokerage and handling (``B&H''). Each of these services
was either provided by a NME vendor or paid for using a NME currency.
Thus, the Department based the deduction of these movement charges on
surrogate values. See ``Memorandum to the File from Josh Startup,
Analyst, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager; First
Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's
Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results,''
dated November 8, 2010 (``Prelim Surrogate Value Memo'') for details
regarding the surrogate values for movement expenses. For international
freight provided by a ME provider and paid in U.S. dollars, the
Department used the actual cost per kilogram (``kg'') of the freight.
Constructed Export Price
For some of the Wells Group's and Shaoxing Dingli's sales, the
Department based U.S. price on CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of
the Act, because sales were made on behalf of the Chinese-based
companies by a U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. For these sales, the Department based CEP on prices to the
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate,
the Department made deductions from the starting price (gross unit
price) for foreign movement expenses, international movement expenses,
U.S. movement expenses, and appropriate selling adjustments, in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department
also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic
activities occurring in the United States. The Department deducted,
where appropriate, commissions, inventory carrying costs, interest
revenue, credit expenses, warranty expenses, and indirect selling
expenses. Where foreign movement expenses, international movement
expenses, or U.S. movement expenses were provided by PRC service
providers or paid for in renminbi, the Department valued these services
using SVs (see ``Factor Valuations'' section below for further
discussion). For those expenses that were provided by an ME provider
and paid for in an ME currency, the Department used the reported
expense. Due to the proprietary nature of certain adjustments to U.S.
price, for a detailed description of all adjustments made to U.S. price
for each company, see the company specific analysis memoranda, dated
November 8, 2010.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) 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. Further, pursuant to
section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the valuation of an NME respondent's FOPs
shall be based on the best available information regarding the value of
such factors in an ME country or countries considered to be appropriate
by the Department. The Department bases NV on the 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.
The Department used Indian import statistics to value the raw
material and packing material inputs that the Wells Group and Shaoxing
Dingli used to produce the merchandise under investigation during the
POR, except where listed below. In past cases, it has been the
Department's practice to calculate an SV for various FOPs using import
statistics of the primary selected surrogate country from World Trade
Atlas (``WTA''), as published by Global Trade Information Services
(``GTIS'').\20\ However, in October 2009, the Department learned that
Indian import data obtained from the WTA, as published by GTIS, began
identifying the original reporting currency for India as the U.S.
dollar. The Department then contacted GTIS about the change in the
original reporting currency for India from the Indian rupee to the U.S.
dollar. Officials at GTIS explained that while GTIS obtains data on
imports into India directly from the Ministry of Commerce, Government
of India, as denominated and published in Indian rupees, the WTA
software is limited with regard to the number of significant digits it
can manage. Therefore, GTIS made a decision to change the official
reporting currency for Indian data from the Indian rupee to the U.S.
dollar in order to reduce the loss of significant digits when obtaining
data through the WTA software. GTIS explained that it converts the
Indian rupee to the U.S. dollar using the monthly Federal Reserve
exchange rate applicable to the relevant month of the data being
downloaded and converted.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 74 FR 50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009), unchanged in Certain
Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520
(December 10, 2009).
\21\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, Affirmative Final determination of Critical Circumstances and
Final Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19,
2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the data reported in the GTA software report import
statistics, such as data from India, in the original reporting currency
and thus these data correspond to the original currency value reported
by each country. Additionally, the data reported in GTA software are
reported to the nearest digit and thus there is not a loss of data by
rounding, as there is with the data reported by the WTA software.
Consequently, the Department will now obtain import statistics from GTA
for valuing FOPs because the GTA import statistics are in the original
reporting currency of the country from which the data are obtained and
have the same level of accuracy as the original data released.
With respect to the SVs based on Indian import statistics, the
Department
[[Page 68764]]
has disregarded prices that the Department has reason to believe or
suspect may be subsidized. In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative
history, the Department continues to apply its long-standing practice
of disregarding SVs if it has a reason to believe or suspect the source
data may be subsidized.\22\ The Department has previously found that it
is appropriate to disregard such prices from India, Indonesia, South
Korea and Thailand because we have determined that these countries
maintain broadly available, non-industry specific, export
subsidies.\23\ Based on the existence of these subsidy programs that
were generally available to all exporters and producers in these
countries at the time of the POR, the Department finds that it has
reason to believe or suspect that all exporters from Indonesia, South
Korea and Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies and that we
should therefore disregard any data from these countries contained in
the Indian import statistics used to calculate SVs. Additionally, the
Department disregarded prices from NME countries. Finally, imports that
were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' country were
excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be
certain that they were not from either an NME country or a country with
generally available export subsidies.\24\ For further discussion
regarding all SV calculations using Indian import statistics derived
from the GTA data, see Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess.
(1988) at 590.
\23\ See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final
Results of the Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4-5; Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia: Final Results of
Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4; See Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea:
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 17, 19-20; See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at 23.
\24\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008),
unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008) (``PET Film'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, for subject
merchandise produced by the Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli, the
Department calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by the Wells Group
and Shaoxing Dingli for the POR. The Department used data from GTA and
other publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate SVs for
the Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli FOPs (direct materials, energy, and
packing materials) and certain movement expenses. To calculate NV, the
Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by
publicly available Indian SVs (except as noted below). Because the
statute is silent concerning what constitutes the ``best available
information'' for a particular SV, the courts have recognized that the
Department enjoys ``broad discretion to determine the best available
information for an antidumping review.'' See Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action
Comm. v. United States, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18745 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
The Department's practice when selecting the best available information
for valuing FOPs is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are
product-specific, representative of a broad market average, publicly
available, contemporaneous with the POR and exclusive of taxes and
duties. See, e.g., Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 73 FR 48195 (August 18, 2008) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including
freight costs to render them delivered prices. Specifically, the
Department added to the Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost
using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier
to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory.
This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the Federal
Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir.
1997). For a detailed description of all SVs used for the Wells Group
and Shaoxing Dingli, see Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
In those instances where the Department could not obtain publicly
available information contemporaneous to the POR with which to value
FOPs, consistent with our practice, we adjusted the SVs using, where
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index as published in the
International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund,
a printout of which is attached to the Prelim Surrogate Value Memo at
Exhibit 2. See also PET Film. Where necessary, the Department adjusted
SVs for inflation, exchange rates, and taxes, and the Department
converted all applicable items to a per kg basis.
The Department valued electricity using the updated electricity
price data for small, medium, and large industries, as published by the
Central Electricity Authority, an administrative body 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 small,
medium, and large 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 Prelim
Surrogate Value Memo.
The Department valued water using publicly available data from the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (https://www.midcindia.org) because these data include a wide range of
industrial water tariffs. This source provides industrial water rates
within the Maharashtra province for ``inside industrial areas'' and
``outside industrial areas'' from April 2009 through June 2009. Because
the average of these values is contemporaneous with the POR, we did not
adjust it for inflation. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
On May 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(``CAFC'') in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC
2010), found that the ``{regression-based{time} method for calculating
wage rates {as stipulated by 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3){time} uses data not
permitted by {the statutory requirements laid out in section 773 of the
Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c)){time} .'' The Department is continuing
to evaluate options for determining labor values in light of the recent
CAFC decision. However, for these preliminary results, we have
calculated an hourly wage rate to use in valuing the respondents'
reported labor input by averaging industry-specific earnings and/or
wages in countries that are economically comparable to the PRC and that
are significant producers of comparable merchandise.
For the preliminary results of this administrative review, the
Department is valuing labor using a simple average industry-specific
wage rate using earnings or wage data reported under Chapter 5B by the
International Labor
[[Page 68765]]
Organization (``ILO''). To achieve an industry-specific labor value, we
relied on industry-specific labor data from the countries we determined
to be both economically comparable to the PRC, and significant
producers of comparable merchandise. A full description of the
industry-specific wage rate calculation methodology is provided in the
Prelim Surrogate Value Memo. The Department calculated a simple average
industry-specific wage rate of $1.39 for these preliminary results.
Specifically, for this review, the Department has calculated the wage
rate using a simple average of the data provided to the ILO under Sub-
Classification 28 of the ISIC-Revision 3 standard by countries
determined to be both economically comparable to the PRC and
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department finds
the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 3 (Manufacture of
Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Equipment) to be the
best available wage rate SV on the record because it is specific and
derived from industries that produce merchandise comparable to the
subject merchandise. Consequently, we averaged the ILO industry-
specific wage rate data or earnings data available from the following
countries found to be economically comparable to the PRC and are
significant producers of comparable merchandise: Ecuador, the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, and
Ukraine. For further information on the calculation of the wage rate,
see Prelim Surrogate Values Memo.
The Department valued truck freight expenses using an Indian per-
unit average rate calculated from publicly available data on the
following web site: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The
logistics section of this web site contains inland freight truck rates
between many large Indian cities. We did not inflate this rate since it
is contemporaneous with the POR. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
To value B&H, the Department used a price list of export procedures
necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in India. The price
list is publicly available and compiled based on a survey case study of
the procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010:
India (published by the World Bank). See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, the Department used the 2008-2009
audited financial statements of Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd.
(``Lakshmi'') and Nasco Steels Private Limited (``Nasco''), both of
which are Indian screw/nail and fastener manufacturers.\25\ Among all
the other financial statements placed on the record of this review, we
find that Lakshmi's and Nasco's financial statements are the most
appropriate for these preliminary results because they are both
producers of downstream products made of steel wire rod. Furthermore,
the Department finds that both financial statements are appropriate
sources given that no usable financial statements are available for
producers of identical merchandise. Finally, Lakshmi's and Nasco's
2008-2009 financial statements fulfill the broadest range of the
criteria examined by the Department when selecting appropriate
financial statements with which to value SG&A expenses, such as
contemporaneity, specificity, and quality of data.\26\ For a detailed
discussion regarding our selection of Lakshmi's and Nasco's 2008-2009
financial statements to calculate the surrogate financial ratios, see
Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Lakshmi's 2008-2009 audited financial statements were
submitted by Petitioner on June 1, 2010.
\26\ See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 44827 (August 9, 2007), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Specific Issues
Shaoxing Dingli
For these preliminary results, the Department is not granting
Shaoxing Dingli a by-product offset for ``Scrap Iron Buckets'' because
they are not generated from the subject merchandise production process.
This is consistent with the Department's practice of not granting
offsets to by-products which are not generated in the production
process.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See, e.g., Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 75 FR 28560 (May 21, 2010) and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaoxing Dingli reported a warranty expense for damaged or
defective merchandise, and reported its sales quantity net of these
returns in its Section C database. Shaoxing Dingli credited its
customers for the damaged merchandise, and allocated the cost out over
all of its sales. Consistent with the Department's practice, for these
preliminary results, we are allowing the warranty expenses to be
allocated over all of Shaoxing Dingli's CEP sales.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See, e.g., Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from
the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination
of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 59 and 69
(where we stated that ``consistent with the Department's practice,
we have utilized all expenses incurred during the {period of
investigation{time} and allocated such across all {period of
investigation{time} sales using a value-based allocation
methodology'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner submitted comments alleging that Shaoxing Dingli may
have not reported the universe of subject merchandise sales to the
United States during the POR, following the indictment of an importer
of subject merchandise on a duty evasion charge.\29\ The Department has
taken note of this issue, but for these preliminary results is not
including the sales alleged by Petitioner as unreported, because
Shaoxing Dingli produced documentation showing that a bonded truck was
contracted to transport all of the merchandise in question to Mexico
and there is no CBP documentation that any of the alleged unreported
sales entered the United States for consumption.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Petitioner's comments dated August 27, 2010.
\30\ See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Third New Shipper Reviews,
74 FR 29473 (June 22, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comments 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wells Group
In its questionnaire responses and sales databases, the Wells Group
reported certain expenses incurred, and corresponding revenues earned,
related to the transportation or movement of the subject merchandise
sales during the POR. Our practice with respect to revenue earned, such
as freight revenue, from sales is to add the revenue to the gross unit
price.\31\ Here, to account for post-sale adjustments of various
reported transportation-related revenues as an addition to the gross
unit price and the corresponding transportation-expenses incurred as a
deduction included in the international and U.S. movement charges, we
deducted the transportation-related revenues from the corresponding
transportation-related expenses, where applicable, resulting only in a
deduction of the actual transportation-related expense incurred, which
inherently accounts for the Wells Group's transportation-related
revenues earned by reducing the associated expenses. This is consistent
with our
[[Page 68766]]
treatment of the Wells Group's transportation-related revenues in the
underlying investigation.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See, e.g., Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and
Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
51781 (September 11, 2007), unchanged in Floor-Standing, Metal-Top
Iron
