Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, 26696-26705 [2011-11255]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
26696
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
pre-register for clearance into either
location. Please specify any request for
reasonable accommodation by May 23,
2011. Last minute requests will be
accepted, but may be impossible to fill.
A limited amount of time, from 3 p.m.–
3:30 p.m. on June 1, will be available for
pertinent brief oral comments from
members of the public attending the
meeting.
Any member of the public may
submit pertinent written comments
concerning the RE&EEAC’s affairs at any
time before or after the meeting.
Comments may be submitted to
brian.ohanlon@trade.gov or to the
Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Advisory Committee, Office
of Energy and Environmental
Technologies Industries (OEEI),
International Trade Administration,
Room 4830, 1401 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20230. To be
considered during the meeting,
comments must be received no later
than 5 p.m. EST on May 26, 2011, to
ensure transmission to the Committee
prior to the meeting. Comments
received after that date will be
distributed to the members, but may not
be considered at the meeting.
Copies of RE&EEAC meeting minutes
will be available within 30 days of the
meeting.
Edward A. O’Malley,
Director, Office of Energy and Environmental
Industries.
[FR Doc. 2011–11197 Filed 5–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–932]
Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the First
Administrative Review and Preliminary
Rescission, in Part
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 certain steel
threaded rod (‘‘steel threaded rod’’) from
the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)
for the period of review (‘‘POR’’) October
8, 2008, through February 28, 2010. As
discussed below, we preliminarily
determine that sales have been made
below normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of review, we will instruct
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on
entries of subject merchandise during
the POR for which the importer-specific
assessment rates are above de minimis.
DATES: Effective Date: May 9, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni
Dach or Steven Hampton, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1655, (202) 482–
0116, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 14, 2009, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on steel
threaded rod from the PRC. See Certain
Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 17154
(April 14, 2009) (‘‘Order’’). On April 1,
2010, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of
the Order for the period October 8,
2008, through March 31, 2010. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review, 75 FR 16426
(April 1, 2010).
Between April 1, 2010, and April 30,
2010, we received requests to conduct
administrative reviews from Vulcan
Threaded Products Inc. (‘‘Petitioner’’)
and certain Chinese companies. On May
28, 2010, the Department published in
the Federal Register a notice of
initiation of this administrative review.
See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 75 FR 29976, 29980–29982
(May 28, 2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
On November 19, 2010, the
Department published in the Federal
Register a notice extending by 120 days
the time period for issuing the
preliminary results. See Certain Steel
Threaded Rod From the People’s
Republic of China: Extension of Time
Limit for the Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 70908 (November 19,
2010).
Of the 126 companies/groups for
which we initiated an administrative
review, seven companies submitted
separate rate certifications, three
companies submitted separate rate
applications, one company stated that it
did not export subject merchandise to
the United States during the POR, and
the remaining 115 companies did not
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
submit a separate rate application to the
Department.
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. However, section
777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the
Department 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 the review.
On June 7, 2010, the Department
placed on the record data obtained from
CBP with respect to the selection of
respondents, inviting comments from
interested parties. See Letter from the
Department to Interested Parties: 2008—
2010 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order of Certain
Steel Threaded Rod from the PRC: CBP
Data for Respondent Selection, dated
June 7, 2010. Between June 7, 2010, and
August 9, 2010, Petitioner and certain
respondents provided comments on the
Department’s respondent selection
methodology.
Because of the large number of
exporters involved in this review, the
Department limited the number of
respondents individually examined and
issued a respondent selection
memorandum on September 24, 2010.
Based upon section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the
Act, the Department selected IFI &
Morgan Limited and RMB Fasteners Ltd.
(‘‘RMB/IFI Group’’ 1) and Gem-Year
Industrial Co. Ltd. (‘‘Gem-Year’’) because
they were the largest exporters, by
volume, of subject merchandise during
the POR. See Memorandum to James
Doyle from Steven Hampton: First
Administrative Review of Steel
Threaded Rod from the People’s
Republic of China: Selection of
Respondents for Individual Review,
dated September 24, 2010. The
Department sent antidumping duty
questionnaires to the RMB/IFI Group
and Gem-Year on September 27, 2010.
Gem-Year submitted its Section A
Questionnaire Response (‘‘AQR’’) on
October 25, 2010. The RMB/IFI Group
submitted its AQR on October 27, 2010.
The RMB/IFI Group and Gem-Year
submitted their Sections C and D
1 The Department determined that these
companies constituted a single entity in the
antidumping duty investigation on steel threaded
rod from the PRC. See Certain Steel Threaded Rod
from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73
FR 58931 (October 8, 2008), unchanged in Certain
Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 74 FR 8907 (February 27, 2009).
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Questionnaire Responses on November
17, 2010. The Department issued
supplemental questionnaires to GemYear in November 2010, and to the
RMB/IFI Group between November
2010 and April 2011, to which all
companies responded.
On December 7, 2010, the Department
deselected Gem-Year as a mandatory
respondent in this review, and selected
Shanghai Recky International Trading
Co. Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Recky’’), a separate
rate respondent, as an additional
mandatory respondent. See
Memorandum to the File, through Scot
T. Fullerton, from Steven Hampton:
First Administrative Review of Certain
Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s
Republic of China: Replacement
Respondent Selection, dated December
7, 2010 (‘‘Replacement Respondent
Selection Memo’’). The Department sent
a full antidumping duty questionnaire
to Shanghai Recky on December 8, 2010.
On December 29, 2010, Shanghai Recky
informed the Department that it would
not participate in this review, and did
not respond to the Department’s
December 8, 2010, antidumping duty
questionnaire.
The Department issued supplemental
questionnaires to the RMB/IFI Group
between November 2010 and April
2011, to which it responded.
Preliminary Partial Rescission of
Administrative Review
On December 7, 2010, the Department
indicated that it intended to rescind this
administrative review with respect to
Gem-Year, as Gem-Year failed to meet
the requirements to qualify for an
administrative review. Due to the
proprietary nature of the information
underlying this decision, a detailed
analysis of the facts is available in the
Replacement Respondent Selection
Memo. On March 7, 2011, the
Department referred this matter to CBP
for possible further investigation and
enforcement action.
Additionally, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily
determined that Zhejiang New Oriental
Fastener Co., Ltd. (‘‘New Oriental’’)
made no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR for this
administrative review. The Department
received a no-shipment certification
from New Oriental on July 26, 2010. The
Department issued a no-shipment
inquiry to CBP, informing CBP of the
no-shipment certifications from New
Oriental during the POR, and asking
CBP to provide any information that
contradicted this certification. We did
not receive any response from CBP of
subject merchandise into the United
States exported by this company.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
Consequently, as New Oriental made no
exports of subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR, we
preliminarily intend to rescind this
administrative review with respect to
New Oriental. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
Withdrawal of Request for
Administrative Review
On January 7, 2011, Petitioner
submitted a withdrawal of its request for
administrative review of Certified
Products International Inc. (‘‘CPII’’),
Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Haiyan Dayu’’), and Jiashan
Zhongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Jiashan Zhongsheng’’). Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will
rescind an administrative review, in
whole or in part, if the party that
requested the review withdraws its
request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the notice of initiation of
the requested review. Petitioner’s
request to withdraw its request for
review was submitted 224 days after the
initiation of this administrative review.
19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) permits the
Department to extend beyond 90 days
the time limit for withdrawing a request
for review. In this instance, the
Department finds that it is not
reasonable to extend the deadline and
declines to rescind the review with
respect to these companies. Specifically,
at the point that Petitioner’s request to
withdraw its request for review was
received, this proceeding was at an
advanced stage (lasting from May 28,
2010, to January 7, 2011), and the
Department had expended significant
resources in the 224 days we had spent
conducting this review. Therefore, the
Department has continued to treat CPII,
Haiyan Dayu, and Jiashan Zhongsheng
as respondents in this administrative
review.
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value
Data
On November 8, 2010, the Department
provided a letter to interested parties
inviting comments on surrogate country
selection and surrogate value (‘‘SV’’)
data.2 On November 18, 2010, the
Department extended the comment
period for surrogate country selection
from November 29, 2010, to January 14,
2011, and for SV comments from
December 15, 2010, to March 3, 2011.
On January 14, 2011, the Department
received comments on surrogate country
selection from Petitioner. On March 3,
2011, the Department received
2 See the Department’s Letter to All Interested
Parties: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
of Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s
Republic of China, dated November 8, 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26697
information to value factors of
production (‘‘FOP’’) from Petitioner and
the RMB/IFI Group. On March 14, 2011,
the Department received a rebuttal
response to Petitioner’s SV submission
from the RMB/IFI Group. The SVs
placed on the record from the RMB/IFI
Group were obtained from sources in
India, whereas the SVs placed on the
record by Petitioner were from sources
in both India and Thailand.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order
is steel threaded rod. Steel threaded rod
is certain threaded rod, bar, or studs, of
carbon quality steel, having a solid,
circular cross section, of any diameter,
in any straight length, that have been
forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled,
machine straightened, or otherwise
cold-finished, and into which threaded
grooves have been applied. In addition,
the steel threaded rod, bar, or studs
subject to the order are non-headed and
threaded along greater than 25 percent
of their total length. A variety of finishes
or coatings, such as plain oil finish as
a temporary rust protectant, zinc coating
(i.e., galvanized, whether by
electroplating or hot-dipping), paint,
and other similar finishes and coatings,
may be applied to the merchandise.
Included in the scope of the order are
steel threaded rod, bar, or studs, in
which: (1) Iron predominates, by
weight, over each of the other contained
elements; (2) the carbon content is 2
percent or less, by weight; and (3) none
of the elements listed below exceeds the
quantity, by weight, respectively
indicated:
• 1.80 percent of manganese, or
• 1.50 percent of silicon, or
• 1.00 percent of copper, or
• 0.50 percent of aluminum, or
• 1.25 percent of chromium, or
• 0.30 percent of cobalt, or
• 0.40 percent of lead, or
• 1.25 percent of nickel, or
• 0.30 percent of tungsten, or
• 0.012 percent of boron, or
• 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
• 0.10 percent of niobium, or
• 0.41 percent of titanium, or
• 0.15 percent of vanadium, or
• 0.15 percent of zirconium.
Steel threaded rod is currently
classifiable under subheading
7318.15.5050, 7318.15.5090, and
7318.15.2095 of the United States
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTSUS’’).
Although the HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Excluded from the scope of the order
are: (a) Threaded rod, bar, or studs
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
26698
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
which are threaded only on one or both
ends and the threading covers 25
percent or less of the total length; and
(b) threaded rod, bar, or studs made to
American Society for Testing and
Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) A193 Grade B7,
ASTM A193 Grade B7M, ASTM A193
Grade B16, or ASTM A320 Grade L7.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See, e.g.,
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement
of Final Determination: Coated Free
Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic
of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 (June 4,
2007), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper
from the People’s Republic of China, 72
FR 60632 (October 25, 2007). None of
the parties to this proceeding have
contested such treatment. Accordingly,
we calculated the NV in accordance
with section 773(c) of the Act, which
applies to NME countries.
Separate Rates
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, e.g.,
Separate Rates and Combination Rates
in Antidumping Investigations involving
Non-Market Economy Countries, 70 FR
17233 (April 5, 2005)(as corrected in 70
FR 19841 (April 14, 2005)); 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, 53082 (September 8, 2006)
(‘‘CLPP LTFV Final’’); 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) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’).
It is the Department’s policy to assign
all exporters of merchandise subject to
investigation in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
affirmatively demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate. See, e.g.,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307.
Exporters can demonstrate this
independence through the absence of
both de jure and de facto government
control over export activities. Id. The
Department analyzes each entity
exporting the subject merchandise
under a test arising from the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s
Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589
(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, 22586–87 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon
Carbide’’). However, if the Department
determines that a company is wholly
foreign-owned or located in a market
economy (‘‘ME’’), then a separate rate
analysis is not necessary to determine
whether it is free of government control.
In this review, one company, the RMB/
IFI Group, provided evidence that it was
wholly owned by individuals or
companies located in MEs in its
separate rate application. Therefore,
because the RMB/IFI Group is wholly
foreign-owned and there is no record
evidence indicating that it is under the
control of the government of the PRC, a
separate rates analysis is not necessary
to determine whether the RMB/IFI
Group is free of government control. See
Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven
Selvedge from the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination,
75 FR 7244, 7249 (February 18, 2010)
(determining that the respondent was
wholly foreign-owned and, thus,
qualified for a separate rate), unchanged
in Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven
Selvedge From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 41808 (July
19, 2010). Accordingly, the Department
has preliminarily granted a separate rate
to the RMB/IFI Group.
In addition to the RMB/IFI Group, the
Department received a separate rate
application from Gem-Year, and a
separate rate certification from Shanghai
Recky. With respect to Gem-Year, as
further discussed in the ‘‘Preliminary
Rescission of Review’’ section of this
notice, the Department has determined
that Gem-Year does not meet the
requirements to participate in this
review. Therefore, the Department is not
assessing Gem-Year’s eligibility for a
separate rate in the context of this
review.
With regard to Shanghai Recky, we
note that, as further discussed in the
‘‘Adverse Facts Available’’ section of this
notice, it failed to respond to the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Department’s full questionnaire,
including sections regarding separate
rates, once it was selected as a
mandatory respondent. Because
Shanghai Recky failed to respond to the
Department’s request for information
regarding its eligibility for a separate
rate once it was selected as a mandatory
respondent, it will be preliminarily
included as a part of the PRC-wide
entity.3
In addition, the Department received
separate rate applications or
certifications from the following seven
companies: Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co.
Ltd.; Jiaxing Xinyue Standard Part Co.
Ltd.; Jiashan Zhongsheng Metal
Products; Shanghai Prime Machinery
Co. Ltd.; Suntec Industries Co. Ltd.;
CPII; and Haiyan Julong Standard Part
Co. Ltd. (‘‘Haiyan Julong’’) (collectively,
‘‘Separate Rate Applicants’’). Finally,
115 companies subject to the review
submitted neither separate rate
applications nor certifications.4
Therefore, because these companies did
not demonstrate their eligibility for
separate rate status, they are
preliminarily included as part of the
PRC-wide entity.
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 the 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.
See, e.g., Haiyan Julong’s Separate Rate
Application at Questions 5 and 6.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
3 See Certain Steel Nails From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of the First
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
16379, 16381 (March 23, 2011) (‘‘Nails from the
PRC’’).
4 See Appendix 1.
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
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 the 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. See,
e.g., Haiyan Julong’s Separate Rate
Application at Exhibits IV 2–b, 2–d, 8,
9, and 10. Therefore, the Department
preliminarily finds that the Separate
Rate Applicants have established that
they qualify for a separate rate under the
criteria established by Silicon Carbide
and Sparklers.
Separate Rate Calculation
In the ‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section
above, we stated that the Department
employed a limited examination
methodology, as it did not have the
resources to examine all companies for
which a review request was made, and
selected two exporters as mandatory
respondents in this review. The RMB/
IFI Group participated in the review as
a selected mandatory respondent. The
other selected mandatory respondent,
Shanghai Recky, informed the
Department that it would not participate
in this review and did not respond to
the Department’s antidumping duty
questionnaire. See ‘‘Respondent
Selection’’ section above. Seven
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
additional companies (listed in the
‘‘Separate Rates’’ section above)
submitted timely information as
requested by the Department and
remained subject to review as separate
rate respondents.
We note that the statute and the
Department’s regulations do not directly
address the establishment of a rate to be
applied to individual companies not
selected for examination where the
Department limited its examination in
an administrative review pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The
Department’s practice in cases involving
limited selection based on exporters
accounting for the largest volumes of
trade has been to look for guidance in
section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which
provides instructions for calculating the
all-others rate in an investigation.
Consequently, the Department generally
weight-averages the rates calculated for
the mandatory respondents, excluding
zero and de minimis rates and rates
based entirely on facts available (‘‘FA’’),
and applies that resulting weightedaverage margin to non-selected
cooperative separate-rate respondents.
See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture
From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review,
Preliminary Results of New Shipper
Review and Partial Rescission of
Administrative Review, 73 FR 8273
(February 13, 2008) (unchanged in
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and New
Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August
20, 2008)).
However, the Department has, for
these preliminary results, calculated a
de minimis dumping margin for the sole
participating mandatory respondent, the
RMB/IFI Group. The Department has
additionally assigned an adverse facts
available dumping margin to the other
mandatory respondent, Shanghai Recky,
as part of the PRC-wide entity. See
‘‘Adverse Facts Available’’ and
‘‘Application of Total Adverse Facts
Available to the PRC-Wide Entity’’
sections below. In this circumstance, we
again look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act
for guidance. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the
Act instructs that we are not to calculate
an all-others rate using any zero or de
minimis margins or any margins based
entirely on FA. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of
the Act also provides that, where all
margins are zero rates, de minimis rates,
or rates based entirely on FA, we may
use ‘‘any reasonable method’’ for
assigning the rate to non-selected
respondents. Therefore, because all rates
in this proceeding are de minimis or
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26699
based entirely on FA, we must look to
other reasonable means to assign
separate rate margins to non-reviewed
companies eligible for a separate rate in
this review. We find that a reasonable
method is to assign to non-reviewed
companies in this review the rate we
calculated in the most recent segment
for any company that was not zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on FA.
Pursuant to this method, we are
assigning the rate of 55.16 percent, the
most recent positive rate (from the lessthan-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation)
calculated for cooperative separate rate
respondents, to those separate rate
respondents in the instant review. We
note that this calculated rate from the
LTFV investigation is the only
calculated positive rate in any segment
of this proceeding. See Order.
PRC-Wide Entity
Upon initiation of the administrative
review, we provided an opportunity for
all companies for which the review was
initiated to complete either the separate
rate application or certification. The
separate rate certification and separate
rate application were available at:
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-seprate.html.
We have preliminarily determined
that 116 companies failed to
demonstrate their eligibility for a
separate rate and are properly
considered part of the PRC-wide entity.
In NME proceedings, ‘‘ ‘rates’ may
consist of a single dumping margin
applicable to all exporters and
producers.’’ See 19 CFR 351.107(d). As
explained above in the ‘‘Separate Rates’’
section, all companies within the PRC
are considered to be subject to
government control unless they are able
to demonstrate an absence of
government control with respect to their
export activities. Accordingly, such
companies are assigned a single
antidumping duty rate distinct from the
separate rate(s) determined for
companies that are found to be free of
government control with respect to their
export activities. We consider that the
overall influence that the PRC has been
found to have over its economy
warrants determining separate rates for
the entity that are distinct from the rates
found for companies that have provided
sufficient evidence to establish that they
operate freely with respect to their
export activities. See Notice of Final
Antidumping Duty Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Critical Circumstances:
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR
37116 (June 23, 2003). In this regard, we
note that no party has submitted
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
26700
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
evidence in this proceeding to
demonstrate that such government
influence is no longer present or that
our treatment of the PRC-wide entity is
otherwise incorrect. Therefore, we are
assigning the PRC-wide entity’s current
rate of 206%, the only rate ever
determined for the PRC-wide entity in
this proceeding.
Surrogate Country
When the Department conducts an
antidumping administrative review of
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV,
in most circumstances, on the NME
producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate
ME country or countries considered to
be appropriate by the Department. In
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the
Act, in valuing the FOPs, the
Department shall utilize, to the extent
possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in
one or more ME countries that are:
(1) At a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country;
and (2) significant producers of
comparable merchandise. Further,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the
Department will normally value FOPs in
a single country, except for labor. The
sources of the surrogate factor values are
discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’
section below and in the Memorandum
to the File through Scot Fullerton,
Program Manager, Office 9 from Toni
Dach, International Trade Analyst,
Office 9: 2008–2010 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Steel
Threaded Rod from the People’s
Republic of China: Surrogate Values for
the Preliminary Results, dated May 2,
2011 (‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’).
On March 3, 2011, Petitioner and the
RMB/IFI Group submitted SV
information for valuation of FOPs. On
March 14, 2011, the Department
received a rebuttal response to the
Petitioner’s SV submission from the
RMB/IFI Group.
Pursuant to its practice, the
Department received a list of potential
surrogate countries from Import
Administration’s Office of Policy
(‘‘OP’’).5 The OP determined that India,
the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand,
Ukraine, and Peru were at a comparable
level of economic development to the
PRC. See Surrogate Country List. The
Department considers the six countries
identified by the OP in its Surrogate
5 See Memorandum from Carole Showers,
Director, Office of Policy, to Scot T. Fullerton,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9:
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Steel Threaded
Rod from the People’s Republic of China, dated
November 3, 2010 (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
Country List as ‘‘equally comparable in
terms of economic development.’’ Id.
Thus, we find India, the Philippines,
Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru
are all at an economic level of
development equally comparable to that
of the PRC. We note that the Surrogate
Country List is a non-exhaustive list of
economically comparable countries. We
also note that the record does not
contain publicly available SV factor
information for the Philippines,
Indonesia, Ukraine, or Peru. Thus, we
find that India and Thailand are both
economically comparable to the PRC
and significant producers of the subject
merchandise.
The Department’s practice when
selecting the best available information
for valuing FOPs, in accordance with
section 773(c)(1) of the Act, 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.6
As a general matter, the Department
prefers to use publicly available data
representing a broad-market average to
value SVs. Id. Petitioner provided data
for Thailand from the World Trade Atlas
(‘‘WTA’’) to value some material inputs,
and financial statements from producers
of comparable merchandise in Thailand
to calculate surrogate financial ratios.
Petitioner and the RMB/IFI Group
provided data for India from the WTA
and various government, nongovernmental organization, and
industry publications to value all
material inputs, energy, and movement
expenses, and financial statements from
producers of comparable merchandise
in India to calculate surrogate financial
ratios. Although the data on the record
for both India and Thailand to value
material inputs meets the Department’s
criteria for selecting the best available
information, we preliminarily find that
the information on the record for India
is more complete, as data is provided to
value all material inputs, energy, and
movement expenses. In addition, the
Indian financial statements on the
record for producers of comparable
merchandise reflect the experiences of
producers of a broad range of
comparable merchandise, while the
financial statements on the record from
producers of comparable merchandise
in Thailand reflects the experience of
producers of only one type of
comparable merchandise (i.e., springs).
6 See
Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the
Eleventh Administrative Review and New Shipper
Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 2007) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2A.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Thus, because there are Indian data on
the record for valuation of all FOPs, and
a wider variety of Indian financial
statements with which to calculate
surrogate financial ratios, we
preliminarily find that Thailand is not
the most appropriate surrogate country
for purposes of this review.
Therefore, given the facts summarized
above, we find that the information on
the record supports a finding that India
is an appropriate surrogate country
because it is at a similar level of
economic development to the PRC,
pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act,
it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise, and reliable,
publicly available data have been
provided on the record for surrogate
valuation purposes.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in
an antidumping administrative review,
interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value FOPs
within 20 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results.
Date of Sale
The RMB/IFI Group reported the
invoice date as the date of sale because
it claims that, for its U.S. sales of subject
merchandise made during the POR, the
material terms of sale were established
on the invoice date. The Department
preliminarily determines that the
invoice date is the most appropriate
date to use as the RMB/IFI Group’s date
of sale, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.401(i).7
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of steel
threaded rod to the United States by the
RMB/IFI Group were made at less than
NV, the Department compared the
export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described
in the ‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
sections below.
U.S. Price
A. Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, the Department calculated the
EP for sales to the United States from
the RMB/IFI Group’s sales, because the
first sale to an unaffiliated party was
made before the date of importation.
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,
7 See also 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.
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
we deducted foreign inland freight and
brokerage and handling from the
starting price to unaffiliated purchasers.
Each of these services was either
provided by an NME vendor or paid for
using an NME currency. Thus, we based
the deduction of these movement
charges on SVs. Additionally, for
international freight provided by an ME
provider and paid in an ME currency,
we used the actual cost per kilogram of
the freight. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum for details regarding the
SVs for movement expenses.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
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. 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.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on
FOPs reported by the respondents for
the POR, except as noted above. To
calculate NV, we multiplied the
reported per-unit factor-consumption
rates by publicly available Indian SVs.
In selecting the SVs, we considered the
quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. As
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight
cost using the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to
the factory of production or the distance
from the nearest seaport to the factory
of production where appropriate. This
adjustment is in accordance with the
Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit’s (‘‘CAFC’’) decision in Sigma
Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401,
1407–1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See
Department Policy Bulletin No. 10.2:
Inclusion of International Freight Costs
When Import Prices Constitute Normal
Value, dated November 1, 2010.
Where we did not use Indian Import
Statistics, we calculated freight based on
the reported distance from the supplier
to the factory.
In accordance with the OTCA 1988
legislative history, the Department
continues to apply its long-standing
practice of disregarding SVs if it has
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
reason to believe or suspect the source
data may be subsidized.8 In this regard,
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, nonindustry specific export subsidies.9
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 is reasonable to
infer that all exporters from India,
Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand
likely benefitted from these subsidies.
Additionally, we disregarded prices
from NME countries.10 Finally, imports
that were labeled as originating from an
‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded
from the average value, because the
Department could not be certain that
they were not from either an NME
country or a country with general export
subsidies. For further detail, see
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
Therefore, based on the information
currently available, we have not used
prices from these countries either in
calculating the Indian import-based SVs
or in calculating ME input values. In
instances where an ME input was
obtained solely from suppliers located
in these countries, we used Indian
import-based SVs to value the input.
In selecting the best available
information for valuing FOPs, in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the
Act, the Department’s practice is to
select, to the extent practicable,
surrogate values which are non-export
average values, most contemporaneous
8 See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep.
No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (‘‘OTCA
1988’’) at 590.
9 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; 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; 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.
10 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of 1998–1999
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of
Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in
Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26701
with the POR product-specific, and taxexclusive. See, e.g., Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative
Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of
Final Determination: Certain Frozen
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR
42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged
in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR
71005 (December 8, 2004). The record
shows that data in the Indian Import
Statistics, as well as those from the
other Indian sources, are
contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum. In those
instances where we could not obtain
publicly available information
contemporaneous to the POR with
which to value factors, we adjusted the
SVs using, where appropriate, the
Indian Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as
published in the International Financial
Statistics of the International Monetary
Fund.11 For each input value, we used
the average value per unit for that input
imported into India from all countries
that the Department has not previously
determined to be NME countries. Import
statistics from countries that the
Department has determined to be
countries which subsidized exports (i.e.,
Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and
India) and imports from unspecified
countries also were excluded in the
calculation of the average value. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Negative
Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People’s Republic of
China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004).
The Department used Indian Import
Statistics to value the raw material and
packing material inputs that the RMB/
IFI Group used to produce the
merchandise under review during the
POR, except where listed below. For a
detailed description of all SVs for
11 See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic
of China, 71 FR 77373, 77380 (December 26, 2006),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of
China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007); Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Lined Paper Products from the People’s Republic of
China, 71 FR 19695 (April 17, 2006), unchanged in
CLPP LTFV Final.
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
26702
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
respondents, see Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
On May 14, 2010, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(‘‘CAFC’’) in Dorbest Ltd. v. United
States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
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 respondent’s 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
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
Surrogate Value Memorandum. The
Department calculated a simple average
industry-specific wage rate of $1.95 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 27 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 Basic Metals’’) 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: the
Philippines, Egypt, Indonesia, Ukraine,
Jordan, Thailand, Ecuador, and Peru.
For further information on the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
calculation of the wage rate, see
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
We valued zinc chloride using data
from the publication Chemical Weekly.
See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
We valued electricity using data from
the Central Electricity Authority of the
Government of India in its publication
titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in
India, dated March 2008. See Surrogate
Value Memorandum.
We valued water using data from the
Maharastra Industrial Development
Corporation (https://www.midcindia.org).
We inflated the value using the POR
average WPI rate. Id.
We valued diesel using the 2007
diesel fuel price in India reported by the
IEA statistics for Energy Prices & Taxes,
First Quarter 2007. We inflated the
value using the POR average WPI rate.
Id.
To value truck freight, we used data
from The Great Indian Bazaar, Gateway
to Overseas Markets available at https://
www.infobanc.com. Id.
To value marine insurance, the
Department used rates from RJG
Consultants. These rates are for sea
freight from the Far East Region. Id.
To value factory overhead, selling,
general, & administrative expenses, and
profit, we used the simple average of the
2008–2009 financial statement of Nasco
Steels Private Limited, the 2009–2010
financial statement of Rajratan Global
Wire Limited, the 2008–2009 financial
statement of Bansidhar Granites Private
Limited, the 2008–2009 financial
statement of J&K Wire & Steel Industries
(P) Ltd., and the 2009–2010 financial
statement of Sterling Tools Limited, all
of which are manufacturers of processed
steel wire rod or steel round bar
products. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum, at Exhibit 9.
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, the Department
made currency conversions into U.S.
dollars, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank. We relied on the daily
exchange rates posted on the Import
Administration Web site (https://
www.trade.gov/ia/). See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2) of the
Act provide that, if necessary
information is not available on the
record, or if an interested party:
(A) Withholds information that has been
requested by the Department; (B) fails to
provide such information in a timely
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
manner or in the form or manner
requested, subject to sections 782(c)(1)
and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly
impedes a proceeding under the
antidumping statute; or (D) provides
such information but the information
cannot be verified, the Department
shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the
Act, use facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides
that if an interested party ‘‘promptly
after receiving a request from {the
Department} for information, notifies
{the Department} that such party is
unable to submit the information
requested in the requested form and
manner, together with a full explanation
and suggested alternative forms in
which such party is able to submit the
information,’’ the Department may
modify the requirements to avoid
imposing an unreasonable burden on
that party.
Section 782(d) of the Act provides
that, if the Department determines that
a response to a request for information
does not comply with the request, the
Department will inform the person
submitting the response of the nature of
the deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that person the
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. If that person submits
further information that continues to be
unsatisfactory, or this information is not
submitted within the applicable time
limits, the Department may, subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all
or part of the original and subsequent
responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act states that
the Department shall not decline to
consider information deemed
‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if:
(1) The information is submitted by the
established deadline; (2) the information
can be verified; (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as
a reliable basis for reaching the
applicable determination; (4) the
interested party has demonstrated that it
acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information and meeting
the requirements established by the
Department; and (5) the information can
be used without undue difficulties.
On November 17, 2010, RMB/IFI
Group requested that it be excused from
reporting FOP data for one model, as
this model was produced prior to the
POR. RMB/IFI Group suggested that the
Department instead use the input
consumption for the most similar model
for this CONNUM due to the associated
burdens for RMB/IFI Group to report,
and for the Department to verify the
data provided by the RMB/IFI Group,
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
for a single model produced outside of
the POR.
In accordance with section 776(a)(1)
of the Act, the Department is applying
FA to determine the NV for the sales
corresponding to the FOP data that the
RMB/IFI Group has been excused from
reporting. As FA, the Department is
applying the FOPs for the most similar
models to this unreported model. Due to
the proprietary nature of the factual
information concerning the FOPs
applied for this model, these issues are
addressed in a separate business
proprietary memorandum where a
detailed explanation of the FA
calculation is provided. See
Memorandum to Scot Fullerton,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, from Steven Hampton, Case
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9:
Preliminary Results Analysis
Memorandum for The RMB IFI Group in
the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Certain Steel Threaded Rod
from the People’s Republic of China,
dated May 2, 2011 (‘‘RMB IFI Prelim
Analysis Memo’’).
Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that the Department may use an adverse
inference in applying the facts
otherwise available when a party has
failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Such an adverse
inference may include reliance on
information derived from the petition,
the final determination, a previous
administrative review, or other
information placed on the record.
On December 29, 2010, Shanghai
Recky informed the Department that it
would not participate in this review,
and did not respond to the Department’s
December 8, 2010, antidumping duty
questionnaire. Because Shanghai Recky
withheld information requested by the
Department, failed to provide requested
information in the form and manner
required, and significantly impeded the
Department’s proceeding by not
providing requested information,
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), (B),
and (C) of the Act, the Department will
preliminarily rely on facts otherwise
available in determining the rate
applicable to Shanghai Recky in this
administrative review. Furthermore, in
accordance with section 776(b) of the
Act, the Department is applying an
adverse inference in selecting the facts
otherwise available to apply to Shanghai
Recky because we find that it has failed
to cooperate to the best of its ability in
replying to the Department’s requests
for information. Therefore, for purposes
of these preliminary results, we find
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
that Shanghai Recky should be treated
as part of the PRC-wide entity because
it failed to respond to the Department’s
request for information regarding its
eligibility for a separate rate.
Application of Total Adverse Facts
Available to the PRC-Wide Entity
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that if one of the
companies for which this review was
initiated ‘‘does not qualify for a separate
rate, all other exporters of STR from the
PRC that have not qualified for a
separate rate are deemed to be covered
by this review as part of the single PRC
entity.’’ See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at
29984, footnote 6. As noted above,
Shanghai Recky, one of the companies
for which this review was initiated, has
not qualified for a separate rate.
Therefore, the PRC-wide entity is now
under review.
As explained above, Shanghai Recky,
as part of the PRC-wide entity, did not
respond to the Department’s December
8, 2010, Sections A, C, and D
questionnaire. For these reasons, the
Department has preliminarily
determined that the PRC-wide entity:
(1) Withheld information that was
requested; (2) failed to provide
information within the deadlines
established and in the form and manner
requested by the Department; (3)
significantly impeded this proceeding;
and (4) provided information that
cannot be verified. Therefore, in
accordance with subsections
776(a)(2)(A) through (D) of the Act, the
Department has preliminarily based the
dumping margin of the PRC-wide entity
on the facts otherwise available.
Further, because the PRC-wide entity
failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with the
Department’s requests for information,
the Department has preliminarily
determined, pursuant to section 776(b)
of the Act, to use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide
entity in selecting from among the facts
otherwise available.
Selection of the Adverse Facts
Available Rate
Section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.308(c)(1) provide that the
Department’s adverse inference ‘‘may
include reliance on information derived
from (1) the petition, (2) a final
determination in the investigation, (3)
any previous review or determination,
or (4) any other information placed on
the record.’’ In selecting a rate for use as
AFA, the Department selects a rate that
is sufficiently adverse ‘‘to effectuate the
purpose of the facts available rule to
induce respondents to provide the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26703
Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner’’12.
Furthermore, it is the Department’s
practice to ensure ‘‘that the party does
not obtain a more favorable result by
failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully’’ 13 and to select ‘‘the
highest rate on the record of the
proceeding’’ 14 that can be corroborated,
to the extent practicable.15 Therefore, as
AFA, the Department has preliminarily
assigned the PRC-wide entity a dumping
margin of 206.00 percent, which was the
margin calculated in the petition, and is
the highest dumping margin on the
record of this proceeding.
Corroboration of Secondary
Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review, it shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
that are reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751
of the Act concerning the subject
merchandise.16 ‘‘Corroborate’’ means
that the Department will satisfy itself
that the secondary information to be
used has probative value.17 To
corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information to be
used.18 Independent sources used to
12 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access
Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909,
8932 (February 23, 1998).
13 See Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, Vol. I, at 870 (1994)
(‘‘SAA’’), reprinted at 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040,
4198–99.
14 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
39940, 39942 (July 11, 2008).
15 See Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. v. United
States, 638 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (Ct. Int’l Trade
2009).
16 See SAA at 870.
17 Id.
18 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered
Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered Roller
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
Continued
09MYN1
26704
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
corroborate such information may
include, for example, published price
lists, official import statistics and
customs data, and information obtained
from interested parties during the
particular investigation or review.19
To corroborate the 206.00 percent
petition rate, we compared this margin
to the margins we found for the RMB/
IFI Group in this review. We found that
the margin of 206.00 percent has
probative value because it is in the
range of the transaction-specific margins
that we found for the RMB/IFI Group.20
Accordingly, we find that the rate of
206.00 percent is corroborated within
the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department preliminarily
determines that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist:
Exporter
RMB Fasteners Ltd., and IFI
& Morgan Ltd. (‘‘RMB/IFI
Group’’) .............................
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ....
Shanghai Prime Machinery
Co. Ltd ..............................
Jiaxing Xinyue Standard Part
Co., Ltd .............................
Certified Products International Inc ........................
Jiashan Zhongsheng Metal
Products Co., Ltd ..............
Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co.,
Ltd .....................................
Haiyan Julong .......................
PRC-wide Entity (including
Gem-Year Industrial Co.
Ltd. and Shanghai Recky
International Trading Co.
Ltd.) ...................................
1 (de
Weightedaverage
margin
(percent)
1.27
55.16
55.16
55.16
55.16
55.16
55.16
55.16
206.00
minimus).
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
The Department will disclose to
parties the calculations performed in
connection with these preliminary
results within five days of the date of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.224(b). As noted above, in
accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825
(March 13, 1997).
19 See Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High
Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan,
68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003), unchanged in
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic
Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 62560
(November 5, 2003); Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From
Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183–84 (March 11, 2005).
20 See RMB IFI Prelim Analysis Memo.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
this administrative review, interested
parties may submit publicly available
information to value the FOPs within 20
days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results. Interested
parties must provide the Department
with supporting documentation for the
publicly available information to value
each FOP. Additionally, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
results of this administrative review,
interested parties may submit factual
information to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information submitted by an
interested party no less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable
deadline for submission of such factual
information. However, the Department
notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits
new information only insofar as it
rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information
recently placed on the record. The
Department generally cannot accept the
submission of additional, previously
absent-from-the-record alternative SV
information pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final
Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c),
interested parties who wish to request a
hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, Room 1117,
within 30 days of the date of publication
of this notice. Requests should contain:
(1) The party’s name, address and
telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be
discussed. Id. Issues raised in the
hearing will be limited to those raised
in the respective case briefs. Case briefs
from interested parties may be
submitted not later than 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal
briefs, limited to issues raised in the
case briefs, will be due five days later,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties
who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs
in this proceeding are requested to
submit with each argument: (1) A
statement of the issue; (2) a brief
summary of the argument; and (3) a
table of authorities. See 19 CFR
351.309(c) and (d).
The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review,
including the results of its analysis of
the issues raised in any written briefs,
not later than 120 days after the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by these
reviews. The Department intends to
issue assessment instructions to CBP 15
days after the publication date of the
final results of this review. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
we calculated exporter/importer (or
customer)-specific assessment rates for
the merchandise subject to this review.
Where the respondent has reported
reliable entered values, we calculated
importer (or customer)-specific ad
valorem rates by aggregating the
dumping margins calculated for all U.S.
sales to each importer (or customer) and
dividing this amount by the total
entered value of the sales to each
importer (or customer). See 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is
greater than de minimis, we will apply
the assessment rate to the entered value
of the importers’/customers’ entries
during the POR. See 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1).
Where we do not have entered values
for all U.S. sales, we calculated a perunit assessment rate by aggregating the
antidumping duties due for all U.S.
sales to each importer (or customer) and
dividing this amount by the total
quantity sold to that importer (or
customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To
determine whether the duty assessment
rates are de minimis, in accordance with
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer
(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios
based on the estimated entered value.
Where an importer (or customer)specific ad valorem rate is zero or de
minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties. See 19
CFR 351.106(c)(2).
As noted above, consistent with Nails
from the PRC, for the preliminary
results, for the companies receiving a
separate rate that were not selected for
individual review, we have applied the
margin calculated for the company
selected for individual review,
excluding any rates based entirely upon
FA, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of
the Act.
Cash Deposit Requirements
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
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Notices
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 206.00 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.
Notification to Importers
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: May 2, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Advanced Hardware Company
Anhui Ningguo Zhongding Sealing Co. Ltd.
Autocraft Industrial (Shanghai) Ltd.
Beijing Peace Seasky International
Billion Land Ltd.
Century Distribution Systems
China Jiangsu International Economic
Technical Cooperation Corporation
Dalian Americh International Trading Co.,
Ltd.
Dalian Fortune Machinery Co., Ltd.
Dalian Harada Industry Co., Ltd.
EC International (Nantong) Co. Ltd.
Ever Industries Co.
Fastwell Industry Co. Ltd.
Haining Light Industry Trade Co. Ltd.
Haiyan County No. 1 Fasteners Factory
(Hu-Hang Company)
Haiyan Feihua Fasteners Co. Ltd.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 May 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Haiyan Haiyu Hardware Co. Ltd.
Haiyan Lianxiang Hardware Products
Haiyan Sanhuan Import & Export Co.
Haiyan Xiyue Electrical Appliances Co.,
Ltd.
Haiyan Yida Fastener Co. Ltd.
Handsun Industry General Co.
Hangshou Daton Wind Power
Hangshou Huayan Imp. and Exp. Co. Ltd.
Hangzhou Everbright Imp & Exp Co. Ltd.
Hangzhou Grand Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.
Hangzhou Robinson Trading Co. Ltd.
HD Supply Shanghai Distribution Center
Hebei Richylin Trading Co Ltd.
Honghua International Co. Ltd.
Jiangsu Changzhou International
Jiangsu Soho International Group Corp.
Jiangsu Yanfei Special Steel Products
Jiangxi Yuexin Standard Part Co. Ltd.
Jiashan Lisan Metal Products Co. Ltd.
Jiaxing Pacific Trading Co. Ltd.
Jiaxing Tsr Hardware Inc.
Jiaxing Wonper Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd.
JS Fasteners Co. Ltd.
Jun Valve Junshan Co. Ltd.
Kewell Products Corporation
Lanba Fasteners Co. Ltd.
Nantong Harlan Machinery Co. Ltd.
Ningbiao Bolts & Nuts Manufacturing Co.
Ningbo ABC Fasteners Co. Ltd.
Ningbo Beilun Fastening Co. Ltd.
Ningbo Beilun Longsheng
Ningbo Daxie Chuofeng Industrial
Development Co., Ltd.
Ningbo Etdz Holding Ltd.
Ningbo Fengya Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd.
Ningbo Fourway Co. Ltd.
Ningbo Haishu Wit Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd.
Ningbo Haobo Commerce Co. Ltd.
Ningbo Jiansheng Metal Products Co.
Ningbo Shareway Import and Export Co.
Ltd.
Ningbo Weiye Co.
Ningbo Xinyang Weiye
Ningbo Yinzhou Foreign Trade Co. Ltd.
Ningbo Yonggang Fastener Co. Ltd.
Ningbo Zhenghai Yongding Fastener Co.
Ningbo Zhengyu Fasteners Co., Ltd.
Ningbo Zhongbin Fastener Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Ningbo Zhongjiang High Strength
Ningbo Zhongjiang Petroleum Pipes &
Machinery Co. Ltd.
Orient International Enterprise Ltd.
Penglai City Bohai Hardware Tool Co. Ltd.
Pennengineering Automotive Fastener
Pinghu City Zhapu Screw Cap
Qingdao H.R. International Trading Co.
Qingdao Hengfeng Development Trade
Qingdao Huaqing Imp. and Exp. Co. Ltd.
Qingdao Morning Bright Trading
Qingdao Uni-trend Int’l Ltd.
Roberts Co.
R-union Enterprise Co. Ltd.
Shaanxi Shcceed Trading Co. Ltd.
Shanghai Foreign Trade Enterprises
Pudong Co. Ltd.
Shanghai Huiyi International Trade
Shanghai Jiading Foreign Trade Co. Ltd.
Shanghai Overseas International Trading
Co. Ltd.
Shanghai Recky International Trading Co.,
Ltd.
Shanghai Shangdian Washer Co.
Shanghai Shenguang High Strength Bolts
Co. Ltd.
Shanghai Sunrise International Co.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26705
• Shanghai Tianying Metal Parts Co. Ltd.
• Shanghai Wisechain Fastener Ltd.
• Shanghai Xianglong International Trading
Co., Ltd. (Wangzhai Group)
• Shanghai Xiangrong International Trading
Co., Ltd.
• Shenzhen Texinlong Trading Co.
• Shenzhen Xiguan Trading Ltd.
• Suzhou Textile Silk Co. Ltd.
• Synercomp China Co. Ltd.
• T and C Fastener Co. Ltd.
• T and L Industry Co. Ltd.
• T&S Technology LLC
• Tong Ming Enterprise
• Tri-Star Trading Co. (Hong Kong)
• Unimax International Ltd.
• Wujiang Foreign Trade Corporation
• Wuxi Zontai International
• Yancheng Sanwei Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd.
• Yi Chi Hsiung Ind. Corp.
• Yixunda Industrial Products Supply
• Yueyun Imp & Exp Co. Ltd.
• Yuyao Nanshan Development Co. Ltd.
• Zhapu Creative Standard Parts Material
Co., Ltd.
• Zhejiang Guorui Industry Co., Ltd.
• Zhejiang Hailiang Co. Ltd.
• Zhejiang Huamao International Co. Ltd.
• Zhejiang Laibao Hardware Co. Ltd.
• Zhejiang Machinery & Equipment Co. Ltd.
• Zhejiang Minmetals Sanhe Import & Export
Co. Ltd.
• Zhejiang Morgan Brother
• Zhejiang New Oriental Fastener Co., Ltd.
• Zhejiang Peace Industry and Trading
• Zhejiang Xingxing Optoelectron
• Zhejiang Zhenglian Corp.
[FR Doc. 2011–11255 Filed 5–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; Commercial
Fishing Vessel Cost and Earnings Data
Collection Survey in the Northeast
Region
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
take this opportunity to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before July 8, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Diana Hynek, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer,
Department of Commerce, Room 6616,
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26696-26705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11255]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-932]
Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and Preliminary
Rescission, in Part
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 certain
steel threaded rod (``steel threaded rod'') from the People's Republic
of China (``PRC'') for the period of review (``POR'') October 8, 2008,
through February 28, 2010. As discussed below, we preliminarily
determine that sales have been made below normal value (``NV''). If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the POR for
which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis.
DATES: Effective Date: May 9, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Dach or Steven Hampton, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1655, (202)
482-0116, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 14, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on steel threaded rod from the PRC. See
Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Notice
of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 17154 (April 14, 2009) (``Order''). On
April 1, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register a
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order
for the period October 8, 2008, through March 31, 2010. See Antidumping
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 16426 (April 1,
2010).
Between April 1, 2010, and April 30, 2010, we received requests to
conduct administrative reviews from Vulcan Threaded Products Inc.
(``Petitioner'') and certain Chinese companies. On May 28, 2010, the
Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of
this administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 29976, 29980-29982
(May 28, 2010) (``Initiation Notice'').
On November 19, 2010, the Department published in the Federal
Register a notice extending by 120 days the time period for issuing the
preliminary results. See Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 70908 (November 19,
2010).
Of the 126 companies/groups for which we initiated an
administrative review, seven companies submitted separate rate
certifications, three companies submitted separate rate applications,
one company stated that it did not export subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR, and the remaining 115 companies did not
submit a separate rate application to the Department.
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.
However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department 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 the review.
On June 7, 2010, the Department placed on the record data obtained
from CBP with respect to the selection of respondents, inviting
comments from interested parties. See Letter from the Department to
Interested Parties: 2008--2010 Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order of Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the PRC: CBP Data for
Respondent Selection, dated June 7, 2010. Between June 7, 2010, and
August 9, 2010, Petitioner and certain respondents provided comments on
the Department's respondent selection methodology.
Because of the large number of exporters involved in this review,
the Department limited the number of respondents individually examined
and issued a respondent selection memorandum on September 24, 2010.
Based upon section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected
IFI & Morgan Limited and RMB Fasteners Ltd. (``RMB/IFI Group'' \1\) and
Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd. (``Gem-Year'') because they were the
largest exporters, by volume, of subject merchandise during the POR.
See Memorandum to James Doyle from Steven Hampton: First Administrative
Review of Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China:
Selection of Respondents for Individual Review, dated September 24,
2010. The Department sent antidumping duty questionnaires to the RMB/
IFI Group and Gem-Year on September 27, 2010. Gem-Year submitted its
Section A Questionnaire Response (``AQR'') on October 25, 2010. The
RMB/IFI Group submitted its AQR on October 27, 2010. The RMB/IFI Group
and Gem-Year submitted their Sections C and D
[[Page 26697]]
Questionnaire Responses on November 17, 2010. The Department issued
supplemental questionnaires to Gem-Year in November 2010, and to the
RMB/IFI Group between November 2010 and April 2011, to which all
companies responded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department determined that these companies constituted a
single entity in the antidumping duty investigation on steel
threaded rod from the PRC. See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 58931 (October 8, 2008), unchanged in
Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 8907
(February 27, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 7, 2010, the Department deselected Gem-Year as a
mandatory respondent in this review, and selected Shanghai Recky
International Trading Co. Ltd. (``Shanghai Recky''), a separate rate
respondent, as an additional mandatory respondent. See Memorandum to
the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, from Steven Hampton: First
Administrative Review of Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's
Republic of China: Replacement Respondent Selection, dated December 7,
2010 (``Replacement Respondent Selection Memo''). The Department sent a
full antidumping duty questionnaire to Shanghai Recky on December 8,
2010. On December 29, 2010, Shanghai Recky informed the Department that
it would not participate in this review, and did not respond to the
Department's December 8, 2010, antidumping duty questionnaire.
The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to the RMB/IFI
Group between November 2010 and April 2011, to which it responded.
Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review
On December 7, 2010, the Department indicated that it intended to
rescind this administrative review with respect to Gem-Year, as Gem-
Year failed to meet the requirements to qualify for an administrative
review. Due to the proprietary nature of the information underlying
this decision, a detailed analysis of the facts is available in the
Replacement Respondent Selection Memo. On March 7, 2011, the Department
referred this matter to CBP for possible further investigation and
enforcement action.
Additionally, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have
preliminarily determined that Zhejiang New Oriental Fastener Co., Ltd.
(``New Oriental'') made no shipments of subject merchandise during the
POR for this administrative review. The Department received a no-
shipment certification from New Oriental on July 26, 2010. The
Department issued a no-shipment inquiry to CBP, informing CBP of the
no-shipment certifications from New Oriental during the POR, and asking
CBP to provide any information that contradicted this certification. We
did not receive any response from CBP of subject merchandise into the
United States exported by this company. Consequently, as New Oriental
made no exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR, we preliminarily intend to rescind this administrative review with
respect to New Oriental. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review
On January 7, 2011, Petitioner submitted a withdrawal of its
request for administrative review of Certified Products International
Inc. (``CPII''), Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd. (``Haiyan Dayu''), and
Jiashan Zhongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Jiashan Zhongsheng'').
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested
the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review.
Petitioner's request to withdraw its request for review was submitted
224 days after the initiation of this administrative review. 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1) permits the Department to extend beyond 90 days the time
limit for withdrawing a request for review. In this instance, the
Department finds that it is not reasonable to extend the deadline and
declines to rescind the review with respect to these companies.
Specifically, at the point that Petitioner's request to withdraw its
request for review was received, this proceeding was at an advanced
stage (lasting from May 28, 2010, to January 7, 2011), and the
Department had expended significant resources in the 224 days we had
spent conducting this review. Therefore, the Department has continued
to treat CPII, Haiyan Dayu, and Jiashan Zhongsheng as respondents in
this administrative review.
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data
On November 8, 2010, the Department provided a letter to interested
parties inviting comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate
value (``SV'') data.\2\ On November 18, 2010, the Department extended
the comment period for surrogate country selection from November 29,
2010, to January 14, 2011, and for SV comments from December 15, 2010,
to March 3, 2011. On January 14, 2011, the Department received comments
on surrogate country selection from Petitioner. On March 3, 2011, the
Department received information to value factors of production
(``FOP'') from Petitioner and the RMB/IFI Group. On March 14, 2011, the
Department received a rebuttal response to Petitioner's SV submission
from the RMB/IFI Group. The SVs placed on the record from the RMB/IFI
Group were obtained from sources in India, whereas the SVs placed on
the record by Petitioner were from sources in both India and Thailand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties:
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Threaded Rod
from the People's Republic of China, dated November 8, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order is steel threaded rod. Steel
threaded rod is certain threaded rod, bar, or studs, of carbon quality
steel, having a solid, circular cross section, of any diameter, in any
straight length, that have been forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-
rolled, machine straightened, or otherwise cold-finished, and into
which threaded grooves have been applied. In addition, the steel
threaded rod, bar, or studs subject to the order are non-headed and
threaded along greater than 25 percent of their total length. A variety
of finishes or coatings, such as plain oil finish as a temporary rust
protectant, zinc coating (i.e., galvanized, whether by electroplating
or hot-dipping), paint, and other similar finishes and coatings, may be
applied to the merchandise.
Included in the scope of the order are steel threaded rod, bar, or
studs, in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the
other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less,
by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the
quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
1.50 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.012 percent of boron, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.41 percent of titanium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
Steel threaded rod is currently classifiable under subheading
7318.15.5050, 7318.15.5090, and 7318.15.2095 of the United States
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading
is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Excluded from the scope of the order are: (a) Threaded rod, bar, or
studs
[[Page 26698]]
which are threaded only on one or both ends and the threading covers 25
percent or less of the total length; and (b) threaded rod, bar, or
studs made to American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'')
A193 Grade B7, ASTM A193 Grade B7M, ASTM A193 Grade B16, or ASTM A320
Grade L7.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority. See, e.g., Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of
Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic
of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper
from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007).
None of the parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment.
Accordingly, we calculated the NV in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, which applies to NME countries.
Separate Rates
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, e.g., Separate Rates and
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market
Economy Countries, 70 FR 17233 (April 5, 2005)(as corrected in 70 FR
19841 (April 14, 2005)); 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, 53082 (September 8, 2006) (``CLPP LTFV Final'');
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) (``Diamond Sawblades''). It is the Department's
policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation
in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively
demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to
a separate rate. See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307.
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both
de jure and de facto government control over export activities. Id. The
Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under
a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588,
20589 (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, 22586-87 (May 2,
1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). However, if the Department determines that
a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy
(``ME''), then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine
whether it is free of government control. In this review, one company,
the RMB/IFI Group, provided evidence that it was wholly owned by
individuals or companies located in MEs in its separate rate
application. Therefore, because the RMB/IFI Group is wholly foreign-
owned and there is no record evidence indicating that it is under the
control of the government of the PRC, a separate rates analysis is not
necessary to determine whether the RMB/IFI Group is free of government
control. See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 7244, 7249
(February 18, 2010) (determining that the respondent was wholly
foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for a separate rate), unchanged in
Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR
41808 (July 19, 2010). Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily
granted a separate rate to the RMB/IFI Group.
In addition to the RMB/IFI Group, the Department received a
separate rate application from Gem-Year, and a separate rate
certification from Shanghai Recky. With respect to Gem-Year, as further
discussed in the ``Preliminary Rescission of Review'' section of this
notice, the Department has determined that Gem-Year does not meet the
requirements to participate in this review. Therefore, the Department
is not assessing Gem-Year's eligibility for a separate rate in the
context of this review.
With regard to Shanghai Recky, we note that, as further discussed
in the ``Adverse Facts Available'' section of this notice, it failed to
respond to the Department's full questionnaire, including sections
regarding separate rates, once it was selected as a mandatory
respondent. Because Shanghai Recky failed to respond to the
Department's request for information regarding its eligibility for a
separate rate once it was selected as a mandatory respondent, it will
be preliminarily included as a part of the PRC-wide entity.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
76 FR 16379, 16381 (March 23, 2011) (``Nails from the PRC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Department received separate rate applications or
certifications from the following seven companies: Haiyan Dayu
Fasteners Co. Ltd.; Jiaxing Xinyue Standard Part Co. Ltd.; Jiashan
Zhongsheng Metal Products; Shanghai Prime Machinery Co. Ltd.; Suntec
Industries Co. Ltd.; CPII; and Haiyan Julong Standard Part Co. Ltd.
(``Haiyan Julong'') (collectively, ``Separate Rate Applicants'').
Finally, 115 companies subject to the review submitted neither separate
rate applications nor certifications.\4\ Therefore, because these
companies did not demonstrate their eligibility for separate rate
status, they are preliminarily included as part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Appendix 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the 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.
See, e.g., Haiyan Julong's Separate Rate Application at Questions 5 and
6.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto
[[Page 26699]]
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 the 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. See, e.g., Haiyan Julong's Separate Rate
Application at Exhibits IV 2-b, 2-d, 8, 9, and 10. Therefore, the
Department preliminarily finds that the Separate Rate Applicants have
established that they qualify for a separate rate under the criteria
established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.
Separate Rate Calculation
In the ``Respondent Selection'' section above, we stated that the
Department employed a limited examination methodology, as it did not
have the resources to examine all companies for which a review request
was made, and selected two exporters as mandatory respondents in this
review. The RMB/IFI Group participated in the review as a selected
mandatory respondent. The other selected mandatory respondent, Shanghai
Recky, informed the Department that it would not participate in this
review and did not respond to the Department's antidumping duty
questionnaire. See ``Respondent Selection'' section above. Seven
additional companies (listed in the ``Separate Rates'' section above)
submitted timely information as requested by the Department and
remained subject to review as separate rate respondents.
We note that the statute and the Department's regulations do not
directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to
individual companies not selected for examination where the Department
limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section
777A(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in cases involving
limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes
of trade has been to look for guidance in section 735(c)(5) of the Act,
which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an
investigation. Consequently, the Department generally weight-averages
the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding zero and
de minimis rates and rates based entirely on facts available (``FA''),
and applies that resulting weighted-average margin to non-selected
cooperative separate-rate respondents. See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom
Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Results of New
Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR
8273 (February 13, 2008) (unchanged in Wooden Bedroom Furniture From
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20,
2008)).
However, the Department has, for these preliminary results,
calculated a de minimis dumping margin for the sole participating
mandatory respondent, the RMB/IFI Group. The Department has
additionally assigned an adverse facts available dumping margin to the
other mandatory respondent, Shanghai Recky, as part of the PRC-wide
entity. See ``Adverse Facts Available'' and ``Application of Total
Adverse Facts Available to the PRC-Wide Entity'' sections below. In
this circumstance, we again look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for
guidance. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs that we are not to
calculate an all-others rate using any zero or de minimis margins or
any margins based entirely on FA. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also
provides that, where all margins are zero rates, de minimis rates, or
rates based entirely on FA, we may use ``any reasonable method'' for
assigning the rate to non-selected respondents. Therefore, because all
rates in this proceeding are de minimis or based entirely on FA, we
must look to other reasonable means to assign separate rate margins to
non-reviewed companies eligible for a separate rate in this review. We
find that a reasonable method is to assign to non-reviewed companies in
this review the rate we calculated in the most recent segment for any
company that was not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on FA.
Pursuant to this method, we are assigning the rate of 55.16 percent,
the most recent positive rate (from the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'')
investigation) calculated for cooperative separate rate respondents, to
those separate rate respondents in the instant review. We note that
this calculated rate from the LTFV investigation is the only calculated
positive rate in any segment of this proceeding. See Order.
PRC-Wide Entity
Upon initiation of the administrative review, we provided an
opportunity for all companies for which the review was initiated to
complete either the separate rate application or certification. The
separate rate certification and separate rate application were
available at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html.
We have preliminarily determined that 116 companies failed to
demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate and are properly
considered part of the PRC-wide entity. In NME proceedings, `` `rates'
may consist of a single dumping margin applicable to all exporters and
producers.'' See 19 CFR 351.107(d). As explained above in the
``Separate Rates'' section, all companies within the PRC are considered
to be subject to government control unless they are able to demonstrate
an absence of government control with respect to their export
activities. Accordingly, such companies are assigned a single
antidumping duty rate distinct from the separate rate(s) determined for
companies that are found to be free of government control with respect
to their export activities. We consider that the overall influence that
the PRC has been found to have over its economy warrants determining
separate rates for the entity that are distinct from the rates found
for companies that have provided sufficient evidence to establish that
they operate freely with respect to their export activities. See Notice
of Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish
Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23,
2003). In this regard, we note that no party has submitted
[[Page 26700]]
evidence in this proceeding to demonstrate that such government
influence is no longer present or that our treatment of the PRC-wide
entity is otherwise incorrect. Therefore, we are assigning the PRC-wide
entity's current rate of 206%, the only rate ever determined for the
PRC-wide entity in this proceeding.
Surrogate Country
When the Department conducts an antidumping administrative review
of imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it
to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's FOPs, valued
in a surrogate ME country or countries considered to be appropriate by
the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in
valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible,
the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more ME countries that are: (1)
At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME
country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise.
Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the Department will normally
value FOPs in a single country, except for labor. The sources of the
surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal Value''
section below and in the Memorandum to the File through Scot Fullerton,
Program Manager, Office 9 from Toni Dach, International Trade Analyst,
Office 9: 2008-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel
Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for
the Preliminary Results, dated May 2, 2011 (``Surrogate Value
Memorandum'').
On March 3, 2011, Petitioner and the RMB/IFI Group submitted SV
information for valuation of FOPs. On March 14, 2011, the Department
received a rebuttal response to the Petitioner's SV submission from the
RMB/IFI Group.
Pursuant to its practice, the Department received a list of
potential surrogate countries from Import Administration's Office of
Policy (``OP'').\5\ The OP determined that India, the Philippines,
Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru were at a comparable level of
economic development to the PRC. See Surrogate Country List. The
Department considers the six countries identified by the OP in its
Surrogate Country List as ``equally comparable in terms of economic
development.'' Id. Thus, we find India, the Philippines, Indonesia,
Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru are all at an economic level of development
equally comparable to that of the PRC. We note that the Surrogate
Country List is a non-exhaustive list of economically comparable
countries. We also note that the record does not contain publicly
available SV factor information for the Philippines, Indonesia,
Ukraine, or Peru. Thus, we find that India and Thailand are both
economically comparable to the PRC and significant producers of the
subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Director, Office of
Policy, to Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China,
dated November 3, 2010 (``Surrogate Country List'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's practice when selecting the best available
information for valuing FOPs, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of
the Act, 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.\6\ As a general matter, the Department prefers to use publicly
available data representing a broad-market average to value SVs. Id.
Petitioner provided data for Thailand from the World Trade Atlas
(``WTA'') to value some material inputs, and financial statements from
producers of comparable merchandise in Thailand to calculate surrogate
financial ratios. Petitioner and the RMB/IFI Group provided data for
India from the WTA and various government, non-governmental
organization, and industry publications to value all material inputs,
energy, and movement expenses, and financial statements from producers
of comparable merchandise in India to calculate surrogate financial
ratios. Although the data on the record for both India and Thailand to
value material inputs meets the Department's criteria for selecting the
best available information, we preliminarily find that the information
on the record for India is more complete, as data is provided to value
all material inputs, energy, and movement expenses. In addition, the
Indian financial statements on the record for producers of comparable
merchandise reflect the experiences of producers of a broad range of
comparable merchandise, while the financial statements on the record
from producers of comparable merchandise in Thailand reflects the
experience of producers of only one type of comparable merchandise
(i.e., springs). Thus, because there are Indian data on the record for
valuation of all FOPs, and a wider variety of Indian financial
statements with which to calculate surrogate financial ratios, we
preliminarily find that Thailand is not the most appropriate surrogate
country for purposes of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of the Eleventh Administrative Review
and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 2007) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, given the facts summarized above, we find that the
information on the record supports a finding that India is an
appropriate surrogate country because it is at a similar level of
economic development to the PRC, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the
Act, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and
reliable, publicly available data have been provided on the record for
surrogate valuation purposes.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit
publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the
date of publication of these preliminary results.
Date of Sale
The RMB/IFI Group reported the invoice date as the date of sale
because it claims that, for its U.S. sales of subject merchandise made
during the POR, the material terms of sale were established on the
invoice date. The Department preliminarily determines that the invoice
date is the most appropriate date to use as the RMB/IFI Group's date of
sale, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See also 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 steel threaded rod to the United
States by the RMB/IFI Group were made at less than NV, the Department
compared the export price (``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S.
Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections below.
U.S. Price
A. Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department
calculated the EP for sales to the United States from the RMB/IFI
Group's sales, because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made
before the date of importation. 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,
[[Page 26701]]
we deducted foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling from the
starting price to unaffiliated purchasers. Each of these services was
either provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency.
Thus, we based the deduction of these movement charges on SVs.
Additionally, for international freight provided by an ME provider and
paid in an ME currency, we used the actual cost per kilogram of the
freight. See Surrogate Value Memorandum for details regarding the SVs
for movement expenses.
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. 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.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by the respondents for the POR, except as noted
above. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-
consumption rates by publicly available Indian SVs. In selecting the
SVs, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the
data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight
costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian
import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to the factory of production or the
distance from the nearest seaport to the factory of production where
appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit's (``CAFC'') decision in Sigma Corp. v. United
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See Department
Policy Bulletin No. 10.2: Inclusion of International Freight Costs When
Import Prices Constitute Normal Value, dated November 1, 2010.
Where we did not use Indian Import Statistics, we calculated
freight based on the reported distance from the supplier to the
factory.
In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the
Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of
disregarding SVs if it has reason to believe or suspect the source data
may be subsidized.\8\ In this regard, 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.\9\ 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 is
reasonable to infer that all exporters from India, Indonesia, South
Korea and Thailand likely benefitted from these subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf.
Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd
Sess. (1988) (``OTCA 1988'') at 590.
\9\ 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; 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; 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.\10\
Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an
``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, because
the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an
NME country or a country with general export subsidies. For further
detail, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and
Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10,
2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, based on the information currently available, we have
not used prices from these countries either in calculating the Indian
import-based SVs or in calculating ME input values. In instances where
an ME input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these
countries, we used Indian import-based SVs to value the input.
In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs, in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice
is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are
non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POR product-
specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). The record shows that data
in the Indian Import Statistics, as well as those from the other Indian
sources, are contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-
exclusive. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. In those instances where we
could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the
POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the SVs using, where
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in
the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary
Fund.\11\ For each input value, we used the average value per unit for
that input imported into India from all countries that the Department
has not previously determined to be NME countries. Import statistics
from countries that the Department has determined to be countries which
subsidized exports (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and India)
and imports from unspecified countries also were excluded in the
calculation of the average value. See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of
Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the
People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77380 (December 26, 2006), unchanged
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR
19690 (April 19, 2007); Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products
from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 19695 (April 17, 2006),
unchanged in CLPP LTFV Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department used Indian Import Statistics to value the raw
material and packing material inputs that the RMB/IFI Group used to
produce the merchandise under review during the POR, except where
listed below. For a detailed description of all SVs for
[[Page 26702]]
respondents, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.
On May 14, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(``CAFC'') in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 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. Sec. 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 respondent's 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 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 Surrogate Value Memorandum. The Department
calculated a simple average industry-specific wage rate of $1.95 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 27 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 Basic Metals'') 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: the Philippines, Egypt, Indonesia, Ukraine,
Jordan, Thailand, Ecuador, and Peru. For further information on the
calculation of the wage rate, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.
We valued zinc chloride using data from the publication Chemical
Weekly. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
We valued electricity using data from the Central Electricity
Authority of the Government of India in its publication titled
Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in
India, dated March 2008. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
We valued water using data from the Maharastra Industrial
Development Corporation (https://www.midcindia.org). We inflated the
value using the POR average WPI rate. Id.
We valued diesel using the 2007 diesel fuel price in India reported
by the IEA statistics for Energy Prices & Taxes, First Quarter 2007. We
inflated the value using the POR average WPI rate. Id.
To value truck freight, we used data from The Great Indian Bazaar,
Gateway to Overseas Markets available at https://www.infobanc.com. Id.
To value marine insurance, the Department used rates from RJG
Consultants. These rates are for sea freight from the Far East Region.
Id.
To value factory overhead, selling, general, & administrative
expenses, and profit, we used the simple average of the 2008-2009
financial statement of Nasco Steels Private Limited, the 2009-2010
financial statement of Rajratan Global Wire Limited, the 2008-2009
financial statement of Bansidhar Granites Private Limited, the 2008-
2009 financial statement of J&K Wire & Steel Industries (P) Ltd., and
the 2009-2010 financial statement of Sterling Tools Limited, all of
which are manufacturers of processed steel wire rod or steel round bar
products. See Surrogate Value Memorandum, at Exhibit 9.
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, the Department made currency conversions into U.S.
dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified
by the Federal Reserve Bank. We relied on the daily exchange rates
posted on the Import Administration Web site (https://www.trade.gov/ia/
). See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2) of the Act provide that, if
necessary information is not available on the record, or if an
interested party: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by
the Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely
manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to sections
782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding
under the antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching
the applicable determination.
Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time} for
information, notifies {the Department{time} that such party is unable
to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner,
together with a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in
which such party is able to submit the information,'' the Department
may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on
that party.
Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section
782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established
deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching
the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated
that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information
and meeting the requirements established by the Department; and (5) the
information can be used without undue difficulties.
On November 17, 2010, RMB/IFI Group requested that it be excused
from reporting FOP data for one model, as this model was produced prior
to the POR. RMB/IFI Group suggested that the Department instead use the
input consumption for the most similar model for this CONNUM due to the
associated burdens for RMB/IFI Group to report, and for the Department
to verify the data provided by the RMB/IFI Group,
[[Page 26703]]
for a single model produced outside of the POR.
In accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, the Department is
applying FA to determine the NV for the sales corresponding to the FOP
data that the RMB/IFI Group has been excused from reporting. As FA, the
Department is applying the FOPs for the most similar models to this
unreported model. Due to the proprietary nature of the factual
information concerning the FOPs applied for this model, these issues
are addressed in a separate business proprietary memorandum where a
detailed explanation of the FA calculation is provided. See Memorandum
to Scot Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from
Steven Hampton, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary
Results Analysis Memorandum for The RMB IFI Group in the Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the
People's Republic of China, dated May 2, 2011 (``RMB IFI Prelim
Analysis Memo'').
Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an
adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a
party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability
to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse inference may
include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information
placed on the record.
On December 29, 2010, Shanghai Recky informed the Department that
it would not participate in this review, and did not respond to the
Department's December 8, 2010, antidumping duty questionnaire. Because
Shanghai Recky withheld information requested by the Department, failed
to provide requested information in the form and manner required, and
significantly impeded the Department's proceeding by not providing
requested information, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C)
of the Act, the Department will preliminarily rely on facts otherwise
available in determining the rate applicable to Shanghai Recky in this
administrative review. Furthermore, in accordance with section 776(b)
of the Act, the Department is applying an adverse inference in
selecting the facts otherwise available to apply to Shanghai Recky
because we find that it has failed to cooperate to the best of its
ability in replying to the Department's requests for information.
Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we find that
Shanghai Recky should be treated as part of the PRC-wide entity because
it failed to respond to the Department's request for information
regarding its eligibility for a separate rate.
Application of Total Adverse Facts Available to the PRC-Wide Entity
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that if one of the
companies for which this review was initiated ``does not qualify for a
separate rate, all other exporters of STR from the PRC that have not
qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review
as part of the single PRC entity.'' See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at
29984, footnote 6. As noted above, Shanghai Recky, one of the companies
for which this review was initiated, has not qualified for a separate
rate. Therefore, the PRC-wide entity is now under review.
As explained above, Shanghai Recky, as part of the PRC-wide entity,
did not respond to the Department's December 8, 2010, Sections A, C,
and D questionnaire. For these reasons, the Department has
preliminarily determined that the PRC-wide entity: (1) Withheld
information that was requested; (2) failed to provide information
within the deadlines established and in the form and manner requested
by the Department; (3) significantly impeded this proceeding; and (4)
provided information that cannot be verified. Therefore, in accordance
with subsections 776(a)(2)(A) through (D) of the Act, the Department
has preliminarily based the dumping margin of the PRC-wide entity on
the facts otherwise available. Further, because the PRC-wide entity
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply
with the Department's requests for information, the Department has
preliminarily determined, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, to use
an inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available.
Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate
Section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the
Department's adverse inference ``may include reliance on information
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the
investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
other information placed on the record.'' In selecting a rate for use
as AFA, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``to
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner''\12\. Furthermore, it is the
Department's practice to ensure ``that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully'' \13\ and to select ``the highest rate on the record of the
proceeding'' \14\ that can be corroborated, to the extent
practicable.\15\ Therefore, as AFA, the Department has preliminarily
assigned the PRC-wide entity a dumping margin of 206.00 percent, which
was the margin calculated in the petition, and is the highest dumping
margin on the record of this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan,
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
\13\ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. I, at 870
(1994) (``SAA''), reprinted at 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99.
\14\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 39940, 39942 (July 11, 2008).
\15\ See Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 638
F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of Secondary Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 of the Act
concerning the subject merchandise.\16\ ``Corroborate'' means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value.\17\ To corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information to be used.\18\ Independent sources used
to
[[Page 26704]]
corroborate such information may include, for example, published price
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information
obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation or
review.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See SAA at 870.
\17\ Id.
\18\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered Roller
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March
13, 1997).
\19\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003), unchanged
in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from
Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 2003); Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR
12181, 12183-84 (March 11, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To corroborate the 206.00 percent petition rate, we compared this
margin to the margins we found for the RMB/IFI Group in this review. We
found that the margin of 206.00 percent has probative value because it
is in the range of the transaction-specific margins that we found for
the RMB/IFI Group.\20\ Accordingly, we find that the rate of 206.00
percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See RMB IFI Prelim Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department preliminarily determines that the following
weighted-average dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RMB Fasteners Ltd., and IFI & Morgan Ltd. (``RMB/IFI \1\.27
Group'')...............................................
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.............................. 55.16
Shanghai Prime Machinery Co. Ltd........................ 55.16
Jiaxing Xinyue Standard Part Co., Ltd................... 55.16
Certified Products International Inc.................... 55.16
Jiashan Zhongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.............. 55.16
Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd.......................... 55.16
Haiyan Julong........................................... 55.16
PRC-wide Entity (including Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd. 206.00
and Shanghai Recky International Trading Co. Ltd.).....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (de minimus).
The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). As noted
above, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit
publicly available information to value the FOPs within 20 days after
the date of publication of these preliminary results. Interested
parties must provide the Department with supporting documentation for
the publicly available information to value each FOP. Additionally, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this
administrative review, interested parties may submit factual
information to rebut, clarify, or correc
