Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of the Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66903-66912 [2011-27976]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Notices
November 1, 2009, through October 31,
2010. The Department intends to
instruct CBP fifteen days after the
publication of this notice to liquidate
such entries with respect to the PRCwide entity. With respect other entries,
as indicated in the Preliminary Results,
the Department will refer this matter to
CBP to determine the appropriate
Customs classification for the
merchandise in question.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Notification to Importers
AGENCY:
This notice also serves as a final
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 the antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended and 19 CFR
351.213(d)(4).
Dated: October 21, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–28012 Filed 10–27–11; 8:45 am]
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
International Trade Administration
[A–570–918]
Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary
Rescission, in Part, of the Second
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) is conducting the
second administrative review of steel
wire garment hangers from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) for the
period October 1, 2009, through
September 30, 2010. The Department
has preliminarily determined that sales
have been made below normal value
(‘‘NV’’) by the respondent. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of this review, the
Department will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise during
the period of review (‘‘POR’’). Interested
parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: October 28, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
Palmer, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–9068.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department received a timely
request from Petitioner 1 in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(b), during the
anniversary month of October, to
conduct a review of steel wire garment
hanger exporters from the PRC. On
November 29, 2010, the Department
initiated this review with respect to 102
producers/exporters of subject
merchandise from the PRC.2
On December 23, 2010, Petitioner
withdrew its request for an
administrative review of 87 companies
out of the 102 companies under review.
On March 18, 2011, the Department
published a notice of rescission in the
Federal Register for those 87 companies
for which the request for review was
1 M&B
Metal Products Co., Inc.
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR
73036 (November 29, 2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
2 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:56 Oct 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66903
withdrawn.3 Fifteen companies remain
subject to this review.4 Between January
28, 2011, and May 26, 2011, the
Department received no-shipment
certifications from eight of these
companies. For a detailed discussion of
the companies that certified they had no
shipments during the POR, see the
‘‘Preliminary Partial Rescission of
Administrative Review’’ section below.
For a detailed discussion of the
remaining seven companies subject to
this review, see the ‘‘Respondent
Selection’’ and ‘‘Separate Rates’’
sections below.
On May 19, 2011, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the deadline for
issuing the preliminary results by 120
days to October 31, 2011.5
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.6 However, section
777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the
Department the discretion to limit its
examination to a reasonable number of
exporters or producers if it is not
practicable to examine all exporters or
producers involved in an administrative
review.
On December 6, 2010, the Department
released CBP data for entries of subject
merchandise during the POR under
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
to all interested parties having an APO
as of five days after publication of the
Initiation Notice, and invited comments
regarding the CBP data and respondent
selection. On December 20, 2010, the
Department received comments from
Petitioner regarding respondent
selection for this review. No other
3 See Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the
People’s Republic of China: Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
14918 (March 18, 2011).
4 These companies are: Jiaxing Boyi Medical
Device Co., Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd.,
Pu Jiang County Command Metal Products Co.,
Ltd., Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd., Shangyu
Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shaoxing
Andrew Metal Manufactured, Shaoxing Gangyuan
Metal Manufacture, Shaoxing Guochao Metallic
Products Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Liangbao Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Meideli Metal
Hanger Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Shunji Metal
Clotheshorse Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd., Yiwu Ao-si Metal Products
Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd.
5 See Steel Wire Hangers From the People’s
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for the
Preliminary Results of the Second Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 28953 (May 19,
2011).
6 See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding
respondent selection, in general.
E:\FR\FM\28OCN1.SGM
28OCN1
66904
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Notices
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
interested parties submitted comments
for respondent selection and no
interested parties rebutted Petitioner’s
respondent selection comments.
On January 21, 2011, the Department
issued the respondent selection
memorandum after assessing its
resources and determining that it could
only reasonably examine two exporters
subject to this review. Pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the
Department selected Shanghai Wells
Hanger Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Wells) and
Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co.
(‘‘Jiaxing Boyi’’) as mandatory
respondents.7 The Department sent the
non-market economy (‘‘NME’’)
antidumping questionnaire to Shanghai
Wells and Jiaxing Boyi on January 24,
2011. As stated in the cover letter of our
questionnaire, the deadlines for Section
A was February 10, 2011, and for
Sections C & D were February 26, 2011.8
Jiaxing Boyi did not respond to the
Department’s Section A questionnaire
by the stated deadline and did not
request an extension.
On February 24, 2011, we selected an
additional mandatory respondent,
Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shaoxing Liangbao’’) as a
replacement for Jiaxing Boyi.9 Shaoxing
Liangbao’s response to Section A was
due on March 26, 2011.10 However,
Shaoxing Liangbao did not submit a
response by the stated deadline or
request an extension.
On March 28, 2011, as a replacement
for Shaoxing Liangbao, we selected
another additional mandatory
respondent, Pu Jiang County Command
Metal Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Command
Metal Products’’).11 However, Command
7 See ‘‘Memorandum to James Doyle, Director,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Irene Gorelik,
Senior International Trade Analyst, Office 9;
Second Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People’s Republic of
China: Selection of Respondents for Individual
Review,’’ dated January 21, 2011.
8 See Letters to Shanghai Wells and Jiaxing Boyi
from Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office
9, Import Administration; regarding the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel
Garment Wire Hangers from the People’s Republic
of China: Non-Market Economy Questionnaire
(January 21, 2011).
9 See Memorandum to Jim Doyle, Director, Office
9, Import Administration, from Jamie Blair-Walker,
International Trade Analyst, Office 9, regarding the
Second Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People’s Republic of
China: Selection of Additional Mandatory
Respondent (February 24, 2011).
10 See Letter to Shaoxing Liangbao from Catherine
Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, Import
Administration; regarding the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Steel Garment Wire
Hangers from the People’s Republic of China: NonMarket Economy Questionnaire (February 24,
2011).
11 See Memorandum to Jim Doyle, Director, Office
9, Import Administration, from Jamie Blair-Walker,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:56 Oct 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
Metal Products did not submit a
response, or request an extension, to the
Department’s Section A questionnaire
by the deadline, April 18, 2011.12
On April 29, 2011, we selected an
additional two mandatory respondents,
Shaoxing Guochao Metal Products Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Guochao Metal Products’’) and
Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Yiwu’’) as replacements for Command
Metal Products.13 On May 23, 2011,
Guochao Metal Products and Yiwu filed
a letter with the Department stating that
they would not participate as mandatory
respondents in this administrative
review.14
On June 13, 2011, we selected
Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Meideli’’), the sole remaining
company in the CBP entry data that had
not been selected by the Department for
individual examination.15 However,
Meideli did not submit a response, or
request an extension, to the
Department’s Section A questionnaire
by the deadline, July 5, 2011.16
Period of Review
The POR is October 1, 2009, to
September 30, 2010.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise that is subject to the
order is steel wire garment hangers,
fabricated from carbon steel wire,
whether or not galvanized or painted,
whether or not coated with latex or
epoxy or similar gripping materials,
International Trade Analyst, Office 9, regarding the
Second Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People’s Republic of
China: Selection of Additional Mandatory
Respondent (March 28, 2011).
12 See Letter to Command Metal Products from
Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9,
Import Administration re: Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Steel Garment Wire
Hangers from the People’s Republic of China: NonMarket Economy Questionnaire (March 28, 2011).
13 See Memorandum to Jim Doyle, Director, Office
9, Import Administration, from Jamie Blair-Walker,
International Trade Analyst, Office 9, regarding the
Second Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People’s Republic of
China: Selection of Additional Mandatory
Respondent (April 29, 2011).
14 See Letter to from Guochao Metal Products and
Yiwu, re: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the
People’s Republic of China: Participation of Yiwu
Ao-si Metal Products Co., Ltd. and Shaoxing
Guochao Metallic Products Co., Ltd., dated May 23,
2011.
15 See Memorandum to Jim Doyle, Director, Office
9, Import Administration, from Jamie Blair-Walker,
International Trade Analyst, Office 9, re: Second
Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment
Hangers from the People’s Republic of China:
Selection of Additional Mandatory Respondent
(June 13, 2011).
16 See Letter to Meideli from Catherine Bertrand,
Program Manager, Office 9, Import Administration,
re: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Steel Garment Wire Hangers from the People’s
Republic of China: Non-Market Economy
Questionnaire (June 13, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and/or whether or not fashioned with
paper covers or capes (with or without
printing) and/or nonslip features such
as saddles or tubes. These products may
also be referred to by a commercial
designation, such as shirt, suit, strut,
caped, or latex (industrial) hangers.
Specifically excluded from the scope of
the order are wooden, plastic, and other
garment hangers that are not made of
steel wire. Also excluded from the scope
of the order are chrome-plated steel wire
garment hangers with a diameter of 3.4
mm or greater. The products subject to
the order are currently classified under
U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings 7326.20.0020,
7323.99.9060, and 7323.99.9080.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Preliminary Partial Rescission of
Administrative Review
Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhongbao’’)
On January 28 2011, the Department
received a separate rate certification
from Zhongbao indicating that it had
made one U.S. sale during the POR.17
On April 6, 2011, the Department issued
a supplemental questionnaire to
Zhongbao regarding its claim.18 On
April 18, 2011, Zhongbao provided its
sales documentation upon which it
based its claim of a U.S. sale during the
POR.19 In the same response, Zhongbao
stated that the importer was responsible
for the CBP paperwork and did not
respond to Zhongbao’s requests for the
entry documentation.20 On May 19,
2011, the Department issued a letter to
Zhongbao requesting entry
documentation and disclosing that we
may rescind the review with respect to
Zhongbao should it be found to have no
entries during the POR.21 On May 26,
2011, Zhongbao submitted a no
shipment certification.22 On June15,
17 See Letter from Zhongbao, re: Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People’s Republic of
China: Separate Rate Certification, dated January
28, 2011.
18 See Letter from the Department to Zhongbao,
re: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People’s
Republic of China: Separate Rate Certification of
Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.,
dated April 6, 2011.
19 See Letter from Zhongbao, re: Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People’s Republic of
China: First Supplemental Response, dated April
18, 2011 at 1 and Exhibit 1.
20 Id.
21 See Letter to Zhongbao, re; Steel Wire Garment
Hangers from the People’s Republic of China:
Request for Proof of Suspended Entry, dated May
19, 2011.
22 See Letter from Zhongbao, re; Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People’s Republic of
E:\FR\FM\28OCN1.SGM
28OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Notices
2011, Petitioner submitted comments
regarding Zhongbao’s no shipment
certification. On June 22, 2011,
Zhongbao responded to Petitioner’s
comments.
The Department has considered
Petitioner’s comments and Zhongbao’s
submissions and determined to accept
Zhongbao’s no shipment certification.
Zhongbao’s no shipment certification,
although untimely, relates to its timely
separate rate certification and to its
inability to obtain entry documentation
from its unaffiliated importer for the
sale and entry Zhongbao believed was
made during the POR. In addition, the
CBP data on the record does not
contradict Zhongbao’s claims. Further,
the record indicates that Zhongbao has
attempted to cooperate with the
Department’s requests for information to
the best of its abilities. Additionally, we
intend to refer this matter to CBP to
investigate whether this entry was
entered properly.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shunji’’)
On January 28 2011, the Department
received a separate rate certification
from Shunji which indicated that it had
made one U.S. sale during the POR.23
On April 6, 2011, the Department issued
a supplemental questionnaire to Shunji
regarding its claim that it made a sale to
the United States during the POR.24 On
April 15, 2011, Shunji responded to the
Department’s questionnaire and stated
that it did not have sales or exports to
the United States during the POR.
Consequently, Shunji now certifies that
it made no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR.25 Shunji clarifies, and
provides supporting documentation,
that its administrative staff mistakenly
identified the U.S. consignee as the
destination of the sale, when in fact the
destination of this sale was Canada.26
Additionally, between January 28,
2011, and May 26, 2011, the following
companies filed no shipment
certifications indicating that they did
China: Shaoxing Zhongbao Response to the
Department’s Letter of May 19, 2011.
23 See Letter from Shunji, re: Steel Wire Garment
Hangers from the People’s Republic of China:
Separate Rate Certification, dated January 28, 2011.
24 See Letter from the Department to Shunji, re:
Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People’s
Republic of China: Separate Rate Certification of
Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd., dated
April 6, 2011.
25 See Letter from Shunji, re: Steel Wire Garment
Hangers from the People’s Republic of China:
Separate Rate Certification, dated April 15, 2011 at
Exhibit 3.
26 See Letter from Shunji, re: Steel Wire Garment
Hangers from the People’s Republic of China:
Separate Rate Certification, dated April 15, 2011 at
1 and Exhibit 1–2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:56 Oct 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
not export subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR: Ningbo
Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd.; Shangyu
Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.;
Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured;
Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal Manufacture;
Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd.; and Zhejiang
Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd. In order
to examine these claims, we sent an
inquiry to CBP requesting that if any
CBP office had any information contrary
to the no shipments claims, to alert the
Department within ten days of receiving
our inquiry. CBP received our inquiries
on February 23, 2011, and April 29,
2011. We have not received a response
from CBP with regard to our inquiries
which indicates that CBP did not have
information that was contrary to the
claims.
Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), we preliminarily
determine that the above companies
made no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR.
Consequently, we preliminary
determine that none of the above-named
companies had shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR, and we are preliminarily
rescinding the review with respect to
the above-named companies.27
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value
Data
On February 25, 2011, the Department
sent interested parties a letter inviting
comments on surrogate country
selection and information regarding
valuing factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’).
On April 4, 2011, Petitioner filed
comments on surrogate country
selection, stating India and Thailand
may be appropriate surrogates if their
data is publicly available, reliable and
contemporaneous. On May 4, 2010, the
Department received information to
value FOPs from Petitioner. Petitioner
provided surrogate values (‘‘SV’’) from
sources in India and Thailand.
Surrogate Country
When the Department investigates
imports from an NME country and
available information does not permit
the Department to determine NV
pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act,
then, pursuant to sections 773(c)(1) and
27 See, e.g., Fourth Administrative Review of
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results,
Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke,
In Part, 75 FR 11855, 11856–57 (March 12, 2010),
unchanged in Administrative Review of Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 49460, 49462 (August 13, 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66905
773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department
bases NV on an NME producer’s FOPs,
to the extent possible, in one or more
market-economy countries that (1) Are
at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country,
and (2) are significant producers of
comparable merchandise. Regarding the
‘‘level of economic development,’’ the
Department relied on per capita gross
national income (‘‘GNI’’) data to
measure economic comparability.28
Using per capita GNI, the Department
determined that India, Indonesia,
Philippines, Peru, Ukraine and Thailand
are countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of economic development.29 Once
we have identified the countries that are
economically comparable to the PRC,
we select an appropriate surrogate
country by determining whether an
economically comparable country is a
significant producer of comparable
merchandise and whether the data for
valuing FOPs are both available and
reliable.
The Department has determined that
India is the appropriate surrogate
country for use in this review. The
Department based its decision on the
following facts: (1) India is at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise;
and (3) India provides the best
opportunity to use quality, publicly
available data to value the FOPs.
Although Petitioner provided SV data
for both Thailand and India, India’s data
is the best available data on the record
for selection as the primary surrogate
country, because the record contains
Indian SV data for all FOPs used by
Shanghai Wells. Therefore, we have
selected India as the surrogate country
and, accordingly, have calculated NV
using Indian prices to value the
respondent’s FOPs, when available and
28 Although 19 CFR 351.408(b) instructs the
Department to rely on gross domestic product
(‘‘GDP’’) data in such comparisons, it is
Departmental practice to use ‘‘per capita GNI, rather
than per capita GDP, because while the two
measures are very similar, per capita GNI is
reported across almost all countries by an
authoritative source (the World Bank), and because
the Department finds that the per capita GNI
represents the single best measure of a country’s
level of total income and thus level of economic
development.’’ See Antidumping Methodologies:
Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market
Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006).
29 The Department notes that these six countries
are part of a non-exhaustive list of countries that are
at a level of economic development comparable to
the PRC. See the Department’s letter to ‘‘All
Interested Parties; First Administrative Review of
Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People’s
Republic of China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country
and Surrogate Value Comments,’’ dated February
25, 2011 at 1 and Attachment I.
E:\FR\FM\28OCN1.SGM
28OCN1
66906
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Notices
appropriate. We have obtained and
relied upon publicly available
information wherever possible.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every proceeding conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, we have
treated it as an NME country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a
country is an NME shall remain in effect
until revoked by the Department. None
of the parties to this proceeding have
contested such treatment. Accordingly,
the Department calculated NV in
accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act, which applies to NME countries.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Separate Rates
In NME countries, the Department
begins 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.30 However, a
company in the NME applying for
separate rate status may rebut that
presumption by demonstrating an
absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over its export
activities.31
The Department analyzes each
entity’s export independence under a
test first articulated in Sparklers and as
further developed in Silicon Carbide.32
Importantly, if the Department
determines that a company is wholly
foreign-owned or located in a market
economy (‘‘ME’’) country, then the
Department need not conduct a separate
rate analysis to determine whether the
company is independent from
government control.33
The Department received a complete
response to the Section A portion of the
30 See Separate Rates and Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market
Economy Countries, 70 FR 17233, 17233 (April 5,
2005) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’), also available at:
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/; 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); and Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts
Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR
29303, 29307 (May 22, 2006).
31 See Policy Bulletin 05.1.
32 Notice of 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’’); see also 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’’).
33 See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles
from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 52355,
52356 (September 13, 2007).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:56 Oct 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
NME questionnaire from Shanghai
Wells, which contained information
pertaining to the companies’ eligibility
for a separate rate. As noted above,
Jiaxing Boyi, Shaoxing Liangbao,
Command Metal Products, Guochao
Metal Products, Yiwu, and Meideli,
have terminated participation in this
administrative review. Therefore, these
six companies have failed to
demonstrate their eligibility for a
separate rate.
Separate Rate Recipients
Wholly Foreign-Owned
Shanghai Wells reported that it is a
wholly foreign-owned entity.34
Additionally, there is no evidence that
the Wells Group 35 is under the control
of the PRC government, and we have
determined that further separate rate
analysis is not necessary to determine
whether this entity is independent from
government control.36 Thus, we have
preliminarily granted separate rate
status to Shanghai Wells and/or HK
Wells.
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, then the Department
shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the
Act, use facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
34 See Shanghai Wells’ Section A Questionnaire
Response, dated February 17, 2011, at 2.
35 In AR1 Hangers, the Department found that
Shanghai Wells, Hong Kong Wells Limited (‘‘HK
Wells’’) and Hong Kong Wells Limited (USA)
(‘‘USA Wells’’) (collectively, ‘‘Wells Group’’) are
affiliated and that Shanghai Wells and HK Wells
comprise a single entity. Because there were no
changes from the previous review, we continue to
find Shanghai Wells, HK Wells, and USA Wells are
affiliated and that Shanghai Wells and HK Wells
comprise a single entity. See Steel Wire Garment
Hangers From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in
Part, of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 68758, 68761 (November 9, 2010),
unchanged in First Administrative Review of Steel
Wire Garment Hangers From the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
27994, 27996 (May 13, 2011) (‘‘AR 1 Hangers’’).
36 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate
from the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104,
71104–05 (December 20, 1999) (where the
respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus,
qualified for a separate rate).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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, then 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.
However, section 776(b) of the Act
states that if the Department finds that
an interested party has failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for
information, the Department ‘‘in
reaching the applicable determination
under this title, may use an inference
that is adverse to the interests of that
party in selecting from among the facts
otherwise available.’’ 37 Adverse
inferences are appropriate ‘‘to ensure
that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate
than if it had cooperated fully.’’ 38 An
adverse inference may include reliance
37 See also Uruguay Round Agreements Act
Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Rep. No.
103–316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994), reprinted in 1994
U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198–99 (‘‘SAA’’).
38 Id. at 870, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4198–99.
E:\FR\FM\28OCN1.SGM
28OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Notices
on information derived from the
petition, the final determination in the
investigation, any previous review, or
any other information placed on the
record.39
Non-Responsive Companies
As stated in the ‘‘Respondent
Selection’’ section above, the
Department issued the NME
questionnaire to Jiaxing Boyi, Shaoxing
Liangbao, Command Metal Products,
and Meideli and did not receive a
request for an extension of time or a
response to Sections A, C or D of the
Department’s questionnaire on the
established deadlines. Additionally, as
stated above, counsel to Guochao Metal
Products and Yiwu filed a letter stating
that they would not participate as
mandatory respondents in this
administrative review. Therefore, the
Department finds it appropriate to rely
on the facts otherwise available in order
to determine a margin for Jiaxing Boyi,
Shaoxing Liangbao, Command Metal
Products, Meideli, Guochao Metal
Products and Yiwu for purposes of these
preliminary results, pursuant to section
776(a)(2) of the Act.40
As stated above, section 776(b) of the
Act provides that, if the Department
finds that an interested party fails to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with requests for
information, the Department may use an
inference that is adverse to the interests
of that party in selecting from the facts
otherwise available. As a result of these
six companies’ decision to terminate
participation in this review, the
Department will not grant these six
companies a separate rate and considers
them part of the PRC-wide entity. See
‘‘PRC-Wide Entity and Selection of
Adverse Facts Available Rate’’ section
below. See also the ‘‘Corroboration’’
section below for a discussion of the
probative value of the PRC-wide rate of
187.25 percent rate.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
PRC-Wide Entity and Selection of
Adverse Facts Available (‘‘AFA’’) Rate
The Department finds that the PRCwide entity, including Jiaxing Boyi,
Shaoxing Liangbao, Command Metal
Products, Meideli, Guochao Metal
Products, and Yiwu withheld requested
information, failed to provide
39 See section 776(b) of the Act; see also 19 CFR
351.308(c).
40 See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms from
the People’s Republic of China: Partial Rescission
and Preliminary Results of the Sixth Administrative
Review, 71 FR 11183, 11185–86 (March 6, 2006)
(unchanged in final results); Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils From Japan: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
18369, 18371 (April 11, 2005) (unchanged in final
results).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:56 Oct 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
information in a timely manner and in
the form requested, and significantly
impeded this proceeding. Moreover, by
refusing to answer the Department’s
questionnaire, these six companies
failed to cooperate to the best of their
ability. Therefore, the Department must
rely on adverse facts otherwise available
in order to determine a margin for the
PRC-wide entity, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) and 776(b) of the
Act.41 By so doing, the Department
avoids the concern that the PRC-wide
entity might obtain a more favorable
result by failing to cooperate than had
they cooperated fully in this review.
As previously stated, the Department
may rely on information derived from
any of the following sources in deciding
which facts to use as AFA: (1) The
petition, (2) a final determination in the
investigation, (3) any previous review or
determination, or (4) any information
placed on the record. The Department’s
practice when selecting an adverse rate
from among the possible sources of
information is to ensure that the margin
is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate
the purpose of the facts available role to
induce respondents to provide the
Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner.’’ 42 In
reviews, the Department normally
selects as AFA the highest rate on the
record of any segment of the
proceeding.43 The U.S. Court of
International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(‘‘Federal Circuit’’) consistently have
upheld the Department’s practice in this
regard.44 In choosing the appropriate
41 See, e.g., Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings
from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
69546, 69548 (December 1, 2006) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1; see also Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Preliminary Results of the First Administrative
Review and New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689,
10692 (March 9, 2007) (decision to apply total AFA
to the NME-wide entity), unchanged in Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and First
New Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 (September 12,
2007).
42 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).
43 See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
3987, 3989 (January 22, 2009).
44 See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899
F.2d 1185, 1190–91 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (‘‘Rhone
Poulenc’’); see also, Shanghai Taoen Int’l Trading
Co. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1346–
48 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total
AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin
from a different respondent in a previous
administrative review); NSK Ltd. v. United States,
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66907
balance between providing respondents
with an incentive to respond accurately
and imposing a rate that is reasonably
related to the respondent’s prior
commercial activity, selecting the
highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common
sense inference that the highest prior
margin is the most probative evidence of
current margins because, if it were not
so, the importer, knowing of the rule,
would have produced current
information showing the margin to be
less.’’ 45 Therefore, consistent with the
statute, court precedent, and its normal
agency practice, the Department will
use AFA to assign the rate of 187.25
percent, the highest rate on the record
of any segment of the proceeding, to the
PRC-wide entity (including Jiaxing Boyi,
Shaoxing Liangbao, Command Metal
Products, Guochao Metal Products,
Yiwu, and Meideli).46 See
‘‘Corroboration of Information’’ section
below.
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(c) of the Act requires that
the Department corroborate, to the
extent practicable, secondary
information on which it relies as facts
available. The SAA defines secondary
information as ‘‘information derived
from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final
determination concerning subject
merchandise, or any previous review
under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.’’ 47 The SAA also
explains that the Department
sufficiently corroborates secondary
information when it determines that
such information has probative value.48
The Department previously has
reasoned that ‘‘corroborated
information’’ amounts to information it
finds both reliable and relevant.49
346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335–36 (CIT 2004)
(upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the
highest available dumping margin from a different
respondent in a LTFV investigation); Kompass Food
Trading Int’l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 683
(2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate,
the highest available dumping margin from a
different, fully cooperative respondent).
45 Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190 (emphasis
omitted).
46 See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final
Results and Rescission, In Part, of 2004/2006
Antidumping Duty Administrative and New
Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 52049, 52051 (September
12, 2007).
47 See SAA at 870, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4199.
48 Id.
49 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
E:\FR\FM\28OCN1.SGM
Continued
28OCN1
66908
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Notices
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In this case, the Department selected
the highest rate assigned in any segment
of this proceeding (i.e., 187.25 percent)
as the AFA rate for the current review.
For purposes of corroboration, the
Department will consider whether that
margin is both reliable and relevant. The
Department continues to find the
information reliable, given that it
corroborated the AFA rate used in the
current review during the LTFV
investigation.50 No information has
been presented in the current review
that calls into question the reliability of
this information. The Department
considers information reasonably at its
disposal to determine whether a margin
continues to have relevance.51 A
selected margin remains relevant when
it accurately reflects commercial
practices in the industry.52 For example,
in Flowers, because the highest margin
in that case was based on another
company’s uncharacteristic business
expense resulting in an unusually high
margin, the Department disregarded the
margin as irrelevant.53 Turning to the
present case, the Department relied on
credible information within the realm of
actual selling practices to calculate the
AFA rate during the LTFV investigation.
In that proceeding, the Department took
a simple average of the following: (1)
The weighted-average of the calculated
rates for the two mandatory
respondents, and (2) a simple average of
petition rates based on U.S. prices and
normal values within the range of U.S.
prices and normal values calculated for
the two mandatory respondents.54
Furthermore, the calculation of this
margin in the investigation was subject
to comment from interested parties in
(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).
50 See Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the
People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 47587, 47591
(August 14, 2008), as amended, Steel Wire Garment
Hangers From the People’s Republic of China:
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 53188, 53189 (September
15, 2008) (‘‘Hangers LTFV’’).
51 See section 776(c) of the Act.
52 See Universal Polybag Co. v. United States, 577
F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1300 (CIT 2008).
53 See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996)
(‘‘Flowers’’).
54 See Hangers LTFV, 73 FR at 53189; Steel Wire
Garment Hangers From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 73 FR at 47591.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:56 Oct 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
the proceeding.55 Therefore, because the
record does not contain information on
the record of this review that
demonstrates that this rate is not
appropriate to use as AFA, the
Department determines that this rate has
relevance.
As the 187.25 percent rate is both
reliable and relevant, the Department
determines that it has probative value.
Accordingly, the Department
determines that the calculated rate of
187.25 percent, which is the current
PRC-wide rate, is in accord with the
requirement of section 776(c) of the Act
that secondary information be
corroborated to the extent practicable
(i.e., that it have probative value). The
Department has assigned this AFA rate
to exports of the subject merchandise by
the PRC-wide entity, which includes
Jiaxing Boyi, Shaoxing Liangbao,
Command Metal Products, Guochao
Metal Products, Yiwu, and Meideli.
Date of Sale
The Wells Group reported the invoice
date as the date of sale because they
claim that, for their U.S. sales of subject
merchandise made during the POR, the
material terms of sale were established
based on the invoice date. The
Department preliminarily determines
that the invoice date is the most
appropriate date to use as the Wells
Group date of sale in accordance with
19 CFR 351.401(i) and the Department’s
long-standing practice of determining
the date of sale.56
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of steel
wire garment hangers to the United
States by the Wells Group were made at
less than NV, the Department compared
either export price (‘‘EP’’) or constructed
export price (‘‘CEP’’) to NV, as described
in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
sections below.
U.S. Price
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, the Department calculated EP
for a portion of sales to the United
States for the Wells Group because the
first sale to an unaffiliated party was
made before the date of importation and
the use of CEP was not otherwise
55 Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR at 47588.
56 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 10.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
warranted. The Department calculated
EP based on the sales price to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. In accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, as appropriate,
the Department deducted from the sales
price certain foreign inland freight,
brokerage and handling (‘‘B&H’’), and
international movement costs. Because
the inland freight and B&H services
were either provided by a NME vendor
or paid for using a NME currency, the
Department based the deduction of
these charges on surrogate values. See
‘‘Memorandum to the File from Bob
Palmer, Analyst, through Catherine
Bertrand, Program Manager; Second
Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People’s
Republic of China: Surrogate Values for
the Preliminary Results,’’ dated
concurrently with these preliminary
results, (‘‘Prelim Surrogate Value
Memo’’) for details regarding the SVs for
movement expenses. For international
freight provided by a ME provider and
paid in U.S. dollars, the Department
used the actual cost per kilogram (‘‘kg’’)
of the freight.
Constructed Export Price
For some of the Wells Group’s sales,
the Department based U.S. price on CEP
in accordance with section 772(b) of the
Act, because sales were made on behalf
of the Chinese-based company by a U.S.
affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States. For these sales, the
Department based CEP on prices to the
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States. Where appropriate, the
Department made deductions from the
starting price (gross unit price) for
foreign movement expenses,
international movement expenses, U.S.
movement expenses, and appropriate
selling adjustments, in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1)
of the Act, the Department also
deducted those selling expenses
associated with economic activities
occurring in the United States. The
Department deducted, where
appropriate, commissions, inventory
carrying costs, interest revenue, credit
expenses, warranty expenses, and
indirect selling expenses. Where foreign
movement expenses, international
movement expenses, or U.S. movement
expenses were provided by PRC service
providers or paid for in renminbi, the
Department valued these services using
SVs (see ‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section
below for further discussion). For those
expenses that were provided by an ME
provider and paid for in an ME
currency, the Department used the
reported expense. Due to the proprietary
E:\FR\FM\28OCN1.SGM
28OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Notices
nature of certain adjustments to U.S.
price, for a detailed description of all
adjustments made to U.S. price for each
company, see the company specific
analysis memoranda, dated
concurrently with these preliminary
results.
Normal Value
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine the
NV using an FOP methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME
and the information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market
prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act. Further, pursuant to section
773(c)(1) of the Act, the valuation of an
NME respondent’s FOPs shall be based
on the best available information
regarding the value of such factors in an
ME country or countries considered to
be appropriate by the Department. The
Department bases NV on the FOPs
because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of NMEs
renders price comparisons and the
calculation of production costs invalid
under the Department’s normal
methodologies.
The Department used Indian import
statistics to value the raw material and
packing material inputs that the Wells
Group used to produce the subject
merchandise during the POR, except
where listed below. With respect to the
SVs based on Indian import statistics, in
according with the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 (‘‘OTCA’’)
and long-standing agency practice, the
Department has disregarded prices that
the Department has reason to believe or
suspect may be subsidized.57 The
Department has previously found that it
is appropriate to disregard such prices
from Indonesia, South Korea, and
Thailand because we have determined
that these countries maintain broadly
available, non-industry specific, export
subsidies.58 Based on the existence of
57 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) at 590.
58 See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from
India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-year
(Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order,
75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4–5; Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from
Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset
Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
4; See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74
FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19–20; See
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:56 Oct 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
these subsidy programs that were
generally available to all exporters and
producers in these countries at the time
of the POR, the Department finds that it
has reason to believe or suspect that all
exporters from Indonesia, South Korea,
and Thailand may have benefitted from
these subsidies and that we should
therefore disregard any data from these
countries contained in the Indian
import statistics used to calculate SVs.
The Department similarly disregarded
prices from NME countries. Finally,
imports that were labeled as originating
from an ‘‘unspecified’’ country were
excluded from the average value, since
the Department could not be certain that
they were not from either an NME
country or a country with generally
available export subsidies.59 For further
discussion regarding all SV calculations
using Indian Import Statistics, see
Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c)(1)
of the Act, for subject merchandise
produced by the Wells Group, the
Department calculated NV based on the
FOPs reported by the Wells Group for
the POR. The Department used data
from the Indian import statistics and
other publicly available Indian sources
in order to calculate SVs for the Wells
Group’s FOPs (direct materials, energy,
and packing materials) and certain
movement expenses. To calculate NV,
the Department multiplied the reported
per-unit factor quantities by publicly
available Indian SVs (except as noted
below). Because the statute is silent
concerning what constitutes the ‘‘best
available information’’ for a particular
SV, the courts have recognized that on
this topic the Department enjoys ‘‘broad
discretion to determine the best
available information for an
antidumping review.’’ 60 The
Department’s practice when selecting
the best available information for
valuing FOPs is to select, to the extent
practicable, SVs which are productspecific, representative of a broad
market average, publicly available,
2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 23.
59 See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008),
unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008)
(‘‘PET Film’’).
60 See Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v.
United States, 618 F.3d 1316, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66909
contemporaneous with the POR, and
exclusive of taxes and duties.61
In this case, the Department adjusted
the SVs as necessary to ensure a fair
calculation of the production costs.
First, the Department made adjustments
to the SVs for exchange rates and taxes,
and converted all applicable items to
measurement on a per kg basis. Second,
the Department adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to render them
delivered prices. Specifically, to accord
with the decision of the Federal Circuit
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117
F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the
Department added to the Indian import
SVs a surrogate freight cost using the
shorter of the reported distance between
(1) The domestic supplier and the
factory or (2) the nearest seaport and the
factory. For a detailed description of all
SVs used for the Wells Group, see
Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
The Department valued electricity
using the updated electricity price data
for small, medium, and large industries,
as published by the Central Electricity
Authority, an administrative body of the
Government of India, in its publication
titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in
India, dated March 2008. These
electricity rates represent actual
country-wide, publicly available
information on tax-exclusive electricity
rates charged to small, medium, and
large industries in India. We did not
inflate or otherwise alter this value
because utility rates remain
contemporaneous with the POR, as
indicated by the effective dates listed for
each of the rates provided. See Prelim
Surrogate Value Memo.
The Department valued water using
publicly available data from the
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation (https://www.midcindia.org)
because these data include a wide range
of industrial water tariffs. This source
provides industrial water rates within
the Maharashtra province for ‘‘inside
industrial areas’’ and ‘‘outside industrial
areas’’ from October 2009 through
August 2010. Because the average of
these values is contemporaneous with
the POR, we did not adjust it for
inflation. See Prelim Surrogate Value
Memo.
As previously stated, the Department
values FOPs in NME cases using the
best available information for such
factors in a ME country or countries
considered appropriate by the
administering authority. In so doing, the
61 See, e.g., Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From
the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 48195
(August 18, 2008) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
E:\FR\FM\28OCN1.SGM
28OCN1
66910
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Notices
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Department utilizes, to the extent
possible, the prices or costs of factors of
production in one or more ME countries
that are (1) at a comparable level of
economic development and (2)
significant producers of comparable
merchandise. See section 773(c)(4) of
the Act.
Previously, to value the respondent’s
cost of labor, the Department used
regression-based wages that captured
the worldwide relationship between per
capita Gross National Income (‘‘GNI’’)
and hourly manufacturing wages,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
However, on May 14, 2010, the Federal
Circuit in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States,
604 F.3d 1363, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(‘‘Dorbest’’), invalidated 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3). As a consequence of the
Federal Circuit’s ruling in Dorbest, the
Department no longer relies on the
regression-based wage rate methodology
described in its regulations. On
February 18, 2011, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
request for public comment on the
interim methodology and the data
sources.62 On June 21, 2011, the
Department revised its methodology for
valuing the labor input in NME
antidumping proceedings.63 In Labor
Methodologies, the Department
determined that the best methodology to
value the labor input is to use industryspecific labor rates from the primary
surrogate country. Additionally, the
Department determined that the best
data source for industry-specific labor
rates is Chapter 6A: Labor Cost in
Manufacturing, from the International
Labor Organization (ILO) Yearbook of
Labor Statistics (‘‘Yearbook’’).
In these preliminary results, the
Department calculated the labor input
using the Labor method described in
Labor Methodologies. To value the
Wells Group’s labor input, the
Department relied on data reported by
India to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the
Yearbook. The Department further finds
the two-digit description under Division
28 (Manufacture of Fabricated Metal
Products, Except Machinery and
Equipment) of the ISIC–Revision 3 to be
the best available information on the
record because it is specific to the
industry being examined, and is
therefore derived from industries that
62 See Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies:
Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor; Request for
Comment, 76 FR 9544, 9544–47 (February 18,
2011).
63 See Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies:
Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092, 36093–94 (June 21, 2011) (‘‘Labor
Methodologies’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:56 Oct 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
produce comparable merchandise.
Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of
the Yearbook, the Department
calculated the labor input using labor
data reported by India to the ILO under
Division 28 of ISIC–Revision 3 standard,
in accordance with Section 773(c)(4) of
the Act. A more detailed description of
the labor rate calculation methodology
is provided in the Prelim Surrogate
Value Memo.
As stated above, the Department used
Indian ILO data reported under Chapter
6A of Yearbook, which reflects all costs
related to labor, including wages,
benefits, housing, training, etc. Because
the financial statements used to
calculate the surrogate financial ratios
include itemized detail of indirect labor
costs, the Department made adjustments
to the surrogate financial ratios. See
Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093.
For further information on the
calculation of the labor rate, see Prelim
Surrogate Values Memo.
The Department valued truck freight
expenses using an Indian per-unit
average rate calculated from publicly
available data on the following Web site:
https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/
logtruck.htm. The logistics section of
this Web site contains inland freight
truck rates between many large Indian
cities. We did not inflate this rate since
it is contemporaneous with the POR.
See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
To value B&H, the Department used a
price list of export procedures necessary
to export a standardized cargo of goods
in India. The price list is publicly
available and compiled based on a
survey case study of the procedural
requirements for trading a standard
shipment of goods by ocean transport in
India as published in Doing Business
2011: India (published by the World
Bank). See Prelim Surrogate Value
Memo.
To value factory overhead, selling,
general, and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’)
expenses, and profit, the Department is
using the 2009–2010 audited financial
statement of Sterling Tools Ltd.
(‘‘Sterling’’), which is an Indian fastener
manufacturer.
Petitioner placed on the record five
financial statements for consideration:
Three financial statements from Indian
companies, Lakshmi Precision Screws
Ltd. (‘‘Lakshmi’’), Sterling, and Usha
Martin Ltd. (‘‘Usha Martin’’), and two
from Thai companies, Kato Spring
(Thailand) Co. Ltd. (‘‘Kato’’), and
Capital Engineering Network Public
Company Limited (‘‘Capital
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Engineering’’).64 With respect to the
financial statements of Lakshmi and
Usha Martin, these companies may have
benefitted from subsidies found to be
countervailable by the Department,
namely the DEPB subsidy program,65
which we have found actionable in the
past.66 With regard to the two Thai
financial statements, we note that these
financial statements are not from the
primary surrogate country and that we
have a financial statement from the
primary surrogate country which we
find to be the best available information
as discussed below. Further, we note
our preference is to value all FOPs
utilizing data from the primary
surrogate country and to consider
alternative sources only when a suitable
value from the primary surrogate
country does not exist on the record.67
With regard to Sterling, we note that
we have previously disregarded
Sterling’s financial statement because it
apparently indicated a raw material
consumption quantity and value which
did not include steel wire rod.68
However, the Department has further
examined Sterling’s financial statement
and concluded that Sterling’s
description of its raw materials, ‘‘Cold
Head Quality Steel/Wire Rods Straight
Length Bar,’’ does not definitively
exclude the consumption of steel wire
rod.69 Therefore, for these preliminary
results, the Department will include the
statement from Sterling for use in
calculating the surrogate financial
ratios. See Prelim Surrogate Value
Memo.
Therefore, the Department has used
Sterling’s 2009–2010 financial statement
64 See Letter from Petitioner, re: SV submission,
dated May 4, 2011, at Exhibit 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8
respectively.
65 See Letter from Petitioner, re: SV submission,
dated May 4, 2011, at Exhibit 3, page 42 and Exhibit
5, page 71.
66 See First Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
27994 (May 13, 2011) and accompany Issues and
Decisions Memorandum at Comment 2.
67 See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the
Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Sixth New Shipper Review, 76 FR 15941
(March 22, 2011) (‘‘Fish Fillets AR6’’) and
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum
at Comment IV.I.i; see also, Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Wooden Bedroom
Furniture From the People’s Republic of China, 69
FR 67313 (November 17, 2004) (‘‘Bedroom
Furniture LTFV’’) and accompanying Issues and
Decisions Memorandum at Comment 3.
68 See First Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
27994 (May 13, 2011) and accompany Issues and
Decisions Memorandum at Comment 2.
69 See Letter from Petitioner, re: SV submission,
dated May 4, 2011, at Exhibit 4, page 54.
E:\FR\FM\28OCN1.SGM
28OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Notices
comments, may be filed no later than
five days after the deadline for filing
case briefs.72 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
Company Specific Issues
authorities.73
In accordance with 19 CFR
The Wells Group
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of
In its questionnaire responses and
this administrative review, interested
sales databases, the Wells Group
reported certain expenses incurred, and parties may submit publicly available
information to value FOPs within 20
corresponding revenues earned, related
to the transportation or movement of the days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results. Interested
subject merchandise sales during the
parties must provide the Department
POR. For a full discussion of the
with supporting documentation for the
adjustments to the gross unit price, see
publicly available information to value
‘‘Memorandum to the File from Bob
each FOP. Additionally, in accordance
Palmer, Analyst: Program Analysis for
the Preliminary Results of Antidumping with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
results of this administrative review,
Duty Administrative Review of Steel
interested parties may submit factual
Wire Garment Hangers from the
information to rebut, clarify, or correct
People’s Republic of China: Shanghai
factual information submitted by an
Wells Hanger Co., Ltd.,’’ dated
interested party less than ten days
concurrently with these preliminary
before, on, or after, the applicable
results.
deadline for submission of such factual
Currency Conversion
information. However, the Department
notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits
The Department made currency
new information only insofar as it
conversions into U.S. dollars, in
rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information
accordance with section 773A(a) of the
recently placed on the record. The
Act, based on the exchange rates in
Department generally cannot accept the
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as
submission of additional, previously
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
absent-from-the-record alternative
Preliminary Results of Review
surrogate value information pursuant to
The Department preliminarily
19 CFR 351.301(c)(1).74
determines that the following weightedPursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c),
average dumping margins exist:
interested parties who wish to request a
hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request within 30 days of the date of
Weighted
publication of this notice. Requests
average
should contain: (1) The party’s name,
Exporter
margin
address and telephone number; (2) the
(percent)
number of participants; and (3) a list of
Shanghai Wells Hanger Co.,
issues to be discussed. Id. Issues raised
Ltd. ........................................
16.64 in the hearing will be limited to those
PRC–Wide Entity70 ...................
187.25 raised in the respective case briefs. The
Department will issue the final results
Disclosure and Public Hearing
of this administrative review, including
the results of its analysis of the issues
The Department will disclose to
raised in any written briefs, not later
parties the calculations performed in
than 120 days after the date of
connection with these preliminary
publication of this notice, pursuant to
results within five days of the date of
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.224(b). Interested parties may
Assessment Rates
submit case briefs and/or written
Upon issuance of the final results, the
comments no later than 30 days after the
Department will determine, and CBP
date of publication of these preliminary
results of review.71 Rebuttal briefs and
72 See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
rebuttals to written comments, limited
73 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), (d).
to issues raised in such briefs or
74
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
to value factory overhead, SG&A, and
profit, for these preliminary results. For
a detailed discussion regarding our
selection of Sterling’s 2009–2010
financial statement to calculate the
surrogate financial ratios, see Prelim
Surrogate Value Memo.
70 The PRC-Wide entity includes Jiaxing Boyi,
Shaoxing Liangbao, Command Metal Products,
Guochao Metal Products, Yiwu, and Meideli.
71 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:56 Oct 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66911
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review. 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). 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).
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
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
E:\FR\FM\28OCN1.SGM
28OCN1
66912
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Notices
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 187.25 percent;
and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
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: October 21, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–27976 Filed 10–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Environmental Technologies Trade
Advisory Committee Public Meeting
International Trade
Administration, DOC.
ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory
Committee Meeting.
AGENCY:
This notice sets forth the
schedule and proposed agenda of a
meeting of the Environmental
Technologies Trade Advisory
Committee (ETTAC).
DATES: The teleconference meeting is
scheduled for Wednesday, November
16, 2011, at 3 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time (EST). Please register by 5 p.m.
EST on Thursday, November 10, 2011 to
listen in on the teleconference meeting.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place
via teleconference. For logistical
reasons, all participants are required to
register in advance by the date specified
above. Please contact Mr. Todd DeLelle
at the contact information below to
register and obtain call-in information.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:56 Oct 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
Mr.
Todd DeLelle, Office of Energy &
Environmental Industries (OEEI),
International Trade Administration,
Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230. Phone:
(202) 482–4877; Fax: (202) 482–5665;
email: todd.delelle@trade.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The
meeting will take place from 3 p.m. to
4 p.m. EST. This meeting is open to the
public. Written comments concerning
ETTAC affairs are welcome any time
before or after the meeting. Minutes will
be available within 30 days of this
meeting.
Topics to be considered: The agenda
for the November 16, 2011 ETTAC
meeting has only one item as follows: 3
p.m.–4 p.m. Presentation of, and
deliberation on, an ETTAC Trade
Liberalization Subcommittee draft
recommendation letter regarding the
possible inclusion of ‘‘Buy American’’
provisions in pending Congressional
legislation and the impact this language
may have on international trade in
environmental goods and services.
Background: The ETTAC is mandated
by Section 2313(c) of the Export
Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended,
15 U.S.C. 4728(c), to advise the
Environmental Trade Working Group
(ETWG) of the Trade Promotion
Coordinating Committee, through the
Secretary of Commerce, on the
development and administration of
programs to expand U.S. exports of
environmental technologies, goods,
services, and products. The ETTAC was
originally chartered in May of 1994. It
was most recently re-chartered until
October 2012.
The teleconference will be accessible
to people with disabilities. Please
specify any requests for reasonable
accommodation when registering to
participate in the teleconference. Last
minute requests will be accepted, but
may be impossible to fill.
No time will be available for oral
comments from members of the public
during this meeting. As noted above,
any member of the public may submit
pertinent written comments concerning
the Committee’s affairs at any time
before or after the meeting. Comments
may be submitted to Mr. Todd DeLelle
at the contact information indicated
above. To be considered during the
meeting, comments must be received no
later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
on Thursday, November 10, 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.
Edward A. O’Malley,
Director, Office of Energy and Environmental
Industries.
[FR Doc. 2011–27959 Filed 10–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
Marine Protected Areas Federal
Advisory Committee; Public Meeting
National Ocean Service,
NOAA, Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given of a
meeting of the Marine Protected Areas
Federal Advisory Committee
(Committee) in New Orleans, Louisiana.
DATES: The meeting will be held
Tuesday, November 15, 2011, from
8:30 a.m. to 5:45 p.m., and Thursday,
November 17, from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. These times and the agenda
topics described below are subject to
change. Refer to the Web page listed
below for the most up-to-date meeting
agenda.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Ritz Carlton Hotel, 921 Canal Street,
New Orleans, 70112.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kara
Yeager, Designated Federal Officer,
MPA FAC, National Marine Protected
Areas Center, 1305 East West Highway,
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone:
(301) 713–3100 x162, Fax: (301) 713–
3110); email: kara.yeager@noaa.gov; or
visit the National MPA Center Web site
at https://www.mpa.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Committee, composed of external,
knowledgeable representatives of
stakeholder groups, was established by
the Department of Commerce (DOC) to
provide advice to the Secretaries of
Commerce and the Interior on
implementation of Section 4 of
Executive Order 13158, which calls for
the development of a National System of
MPAs. The National System aims to
strengthen existing MPAs and MPA
programs through national and regional
coordination, capacity building, science
and analysis. The meeting is open to the
public, and public comment will be
accepted from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on
Tuesday, November 15, 2011. In
general, each individual or group will
be limited to a total time of five (5)
minutes. If members of the public wish
to submit written statements, they
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28OCN1.SGM
28OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 209 (Friday, October 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66903-66912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27976]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-918]
Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of the Second
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the
second administrative review of steel wire garment hangers from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') for the period October 1, 2009,
through September 30, 2010. The Department has preliminarily determined
that sales have been made below normal value (``NV'') by the
respondent. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of this review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the period of review
(``POR''). Interested parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: October 28, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Palmer, AD/CVD Operations, Office
9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department received a timely request from Petitioner \1\ in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), during the anniversary month of
October, to conduct a review of steel wire garment hanger exporters
from the PRC. On November 29, 2010, the Department initiated this
review with respect to 102 producers/exporters of subject merchandise
from the PRC.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ M&B Metal Products Co., Inc.
\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 73036 (November 29, 2010)
(``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 23, 2010, Petitioner withdrew its request for an
administrative review of 87 companies out of the 102 companies under
review. On March 18, 2011, the Department published a notice of
rescission in the Federal Register for those 87 companies for which the
request for review was withdrawn.\3\ Fifteen companies remain subject
to this review.\4\ Between January 28, 2011, and May 26, 2011, the
Department received no-shipment certifications from eight of these
companies. For a detailed discussion of the companies that certified
they had no shipments during the POR, see the ``Preliminary Partial
Rescission of Administrative Review'' section below. For a detailed
discussion of the remaining seven companies subject to this review, see
the ``Respondent Selection'' and ``Separate Rates'' sections below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of
China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
76 FR 14918 (March 18, 2011).
\4\ These companies are: Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co., Ningbo
Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd., Pu Jiang County Command Metal
Products Co., Ltd., Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd., Shangyu
Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Andrew Metal
Manufactured, Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal Manufacture, Shaoxing Guochao
Metallic Products Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured
Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Shunji
Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal Manufactured
Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd., Yiwu Ao-
si Metal Products Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 19, 2011, the Department published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the deadline for issuing the preliminary results by
120 days to October 31, 2011.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Steel Wire Hangers From the People's Republic of China:
Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the Second
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 28953 (May 19, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\6\
However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department the
discretion to limit its examination to a reasonable number of exporters
or producers if it is not practicable to examine all exporters or
producers involved in an administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding respondent selection,
in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 6, 2010, the Department released CBP data for entries
of subject merchandise during the POR under administrative protective
order (``APO'') to all interested parties having an APO as of five days
after publication of the Initiation Notice, and invited comments
regarding the CBP data and respondent selection. On December 20, 2010,
the Department received comments from Petitioner regarding respondent
selection for this review. No other
[[Page 66904]]
interested parties submitted comments for respondent selection and no
interested parties rebutted Petitioner's respondent selection comments.
On January 21, 2011, the Department issued the respondent selection
memorandum after assessing its resources and determining that it could
only reasonably examine two exporters subject to this review. Pursuant
to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected Shanghai
Wells Hanger Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Wells) and Jiaxing Boyi Medical
Device Co. (``Jiaxing Boyi'') as mandatory respondents.\7\ The
Department sent the non-market economy (``NME'') antidumping
questionnaire to Shanghai Wells and Jiaxing Boyi on January 24, 2011.
As stated in the cover letter of our questionnaire, the deadlines for
Section A was February 10, 2011, and for Sections C & D were February
26, 2011.\8\ Jiaxing Boyi did not respond to the Department's Section A
questionnaire by the stated deadline and did not request an extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See ``Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, from Irene Gorelik, Senior International Trade
Analyst, Office 9; Second Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Selection of
Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated January 21, 2011.
\8\ See Letters to Shanghai Wells and Jiaxing Boyi from
Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, Import
Administration; regarding the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
of Steel Garment Wire Hangers from the People's Republic of China:
Non-Market Economy Questionnaire (January 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 24, 2011, we selected an additional mandatory
respondent, Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. (``Shaoxing
Liangbao'') as a replacement for Jiaxing Boyi.\9\ Shaoxing Liangbao's
response to Section A was due on March 26, 2011.\10\ However, Shaoxing
Liangbao did not submit a response by the stated deadline or request an
extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Memorandum to Jim Doyle, Director, Office 9, Import
Administration, from Jamie Blair-Walker, International Trade
Analyst, Office 9, regarding the Second Administrative Review of
Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China:
Selection of Additional Mandatory Respondent (February 24, 2011).
\10\ See Letter to Shaoxing Liangbao from Catherine Bertrand,
Program Manager, Office 9, Import Administration; regarding the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel Garment Wire Hangers
from the People's Republic of China: Non-Market Economy
Questionnaire (February 24, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 28, 2011, as a replacement for Shaoxing Liangbao, we
selected another additional mandatory respondent, Pu Jiang County
Command Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Command Metal Products'').\11\
However, Command Metal Products did not submit a response, or request
an extension, to the Department's Section A questionnaire by the
deadline, April 18, 2011.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Memorandum to Jim Doyle, Director, Office 9, Import
Administration, from Jamie Blair-Walker, International Trade
Analyst, Office 9, regarding the Second Administrative Review of
Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China:
Selection of Additional Mandatory Respondent (March 28, 2011).
\12\ See Letter to Command Metal Products from Catherine
Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, Import Administration re:
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel Garment Wire Hangers
from the People's Republic of China: Non-Market Economy
Questionnaire (March 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 29, 2011, we selected an additional two mandatory
respondents, Shaoxing Guochao Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Guochao Metal
Products'') and Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Yiwu'') as
replacements for Command Metal Products.\13\ On May 23, 2011, Guochao
Metal Products and Yiwu filed a letter with the Department stating that
they would not participate as mandatory respondents in this
administrative review.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Memorandum to Jim Doyle, Director, Office 9, Import
Administration, from Jamie Blair-Walker, International Trade
Analyst, Office 9, regarding the Second Administrative Review of
Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China:
Selection of Additional Mandatory Respondent (April 29, 2011).
\14\ See Letter to from Guochao Metal Products and Yiwu, re:
Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China:
Participation of Yiwu Ao-si Metal Products Co., Ltd. and Shaoxing
Guochao Metallic Products Co., Ltd., dated May 23, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 13, 2011, we selected Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co.,
Ltd. (``Meideli''), the sole remaining company in the CBP entry data
that had not been selected by the Department for individual
examination.\15\ However, Meideli did not submit a response, or request
an extension, to the Department's Section A questionnaire by the
deadline, July 5, 2011.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Memorandum to Jim Doyle, Director, Office 9, Import
Administration, from Jamie Blair-Walker, International Trade
Analyst, Office 9, re: Second Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Selection of
Additional Mandatory Respondent (June 13, 2011).
\16\ See Letter to Meideli from Catherine Bertrand, Program
Manager, Office 9, Import Administration, re: Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Steel Garment Wire Hangers from the
People's Republic of China: Non-Market Economy Questionnaire (June
13, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise that is subject to the order is steel wire garment
hangers, fabricated from carbon steel wire, whether or not galvanized
or painted, whether or not coated with latex or epoxy or similar
gripping materials, and/or whether or not fashioned with paper covers
or capes (with or without printing) and/or nonslip features such as
saddles or tubes. These products may also be referred to by a
commercial designation, such as shirt, suit, strut, caped, or latex
(industrial) hangers. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order
are wooden, plastic, and other garment hangers that are not made of
steel wire. Also excluded from the scope of the order are chrome-plated
steel wire garment hangers with a diameter of 3.4 mm or greater. The
products subject to the order are currently classified under U.S.
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTSUS'') subheadings 7326.20.0020,
7323.99.9060, and 7323.99.9080.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is
dispositive.
Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review
Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. (``Zhongbao'')
On January 28 2011, the Department received a separate rate
certification from Zhongbao indicating that it had made one U.S. sale
during the POR.\17\ On April 6, 2011, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire to Zhongbao regarding its claim.\18\ On
April 18, 2011, Zhongbao provided its sales documentation upon which it
based its claim of a U.S. sale during the POR.\19\ In the same
response, Zhongbao stated that the importer was responsible for the CBP
paperwork and did not respond to Zhongbao's requests for the entry
documentation.\20\ On May 19, 2011, the Department issued a letter to
Zhongbao requesting entry documentation and disclosing that we may
rescind the review with respect to Zhongbao should it be found to have
no entries during the POR.\21\ On May 26, 2011, Zhongbao submitted a no
shipment certification.\22\ On June15,
[[Page 66905]]
2011, Petitioner submitted comments regarding Zhongbao's no shipment
certification. On June 22, 2011, Zhongbao responded to Petitioner's
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Letter from Zhongbao, re: Steel Wire Garment Hangers
from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rate Certification,
dated January 28, 2011.
\18\ See Letter from the Department to Zhongbao, re: Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rate
Certification of Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.,
dated April 6, 2011.
\19\ See Letter from Zhongbao, re: Steel Wire Garment Hangers
from the People's Republic of China: First Supplemental Response,
dated April 18, 2011 at 1 and Exhibit 1.
\20\ Id.
\21\ See Letter to Zhongbao, re; Steel Wire Garment Hangers from
the People's Republic of China: Request for Proof of Suspended
Entry, dated May 19, 2011.
\22\ See Letter from Zhongbao, re; Steel Wire Garment Hangers
from the People's Republic of China: Shaoxing Zhongbao Response to
the Department's Letter of May 19, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has considered Petitioner's comments and Zhongbao's
submissions and determined to accept Zhongbao's no shipment
certification. Zhongbao's no shipment certification, although untimely,
relates to its timely separate rate certification and to its inability
to obtain entry documentation from its unaffiliated importer for the
sale and entry Zhongbao believed was made during the POR. In addition,
the CBP data on the record does not contradict Zhongbao's claims.
Further, the record indicates that Zhongbao has attempted to cooperate
with the Department's requests for information to the best of its
abilities. Additionally, we intend to refer this matter to CBP to
investigate whether this entry was entered properly.
Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd. (``Shunji'')
On January 28 2011, the Department received a separate rate
certification from Shunji which indicated that it had made one U.S.
sale during the POR.\23\ On April 6, 2011, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire to Shunji regarding its claim that it made a
sale to the United States during the POR.\24\ On April 15, 2011, Shunji
responded to the Department's questionnaire and stated that it did not
have sales or exports to the United States during the POR.
Consequently, Shunji now certifies that it made no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR.\25\ Shunji clarifies,
and provides supporting documentation, that its administrative staff
mistakenly identified the U.S. consignee as the destination of the
sale, when in fact the destination of this sale was Canada.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Letter from Shunji, re: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from
the People's Republic of China: Separate Rate Certification, dated
January 28, 2011.
\24\ See Letter from the Department to Shunji, re: Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rate
Certification of Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd., dated
April 6, 2011.
\25\ See Letter from Shunji, re: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from
the People's Republic of China: Separate Rate Certification, dated
April 15, 2011 at Exhibit 3.
\26\ See Letter from Shunji, re: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from
the People's Republic of China: Separate Rate Certification, dated
April 15, 2011 at 1 and Exhibit 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, between January 28, 2011, and May 26, 2011, the
following companies filed no shipment certifications indicating that
they did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR: Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd.; Shangyu Baoxiang Metal
Manufactured Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured; Shaoxing
Gangyuan Metal Manufacture; Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co.,
Ltd.; and Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd. In order to examine
these claims, we sent an inquiry to CBP requesting that if any CBP
office had any information contrary to the no shipments claims, to
alert the Department within ten days of receiving our inquiry. CBP
received our inquiries on February 23, 2011, and April 29, 2011. We
have not received a response from CBP with regard to our inquiries
which indicates that CBP did not have information that was contrary to
the claims.
Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we preliminarily
determine that the above companies made no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR. Consequently, we preliminary determine that
none of the above-named companies had shipments of subject merchandise
to the United States during the POR, and we are preliminarily
rescinding the review with respect to the above-named companies.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See, e.g., Fourth Administrative Review of Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke, In Part, 75 FR
11855, 11856-57 (March 12, 2010), unchanged in Administrative Review
of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 49460, 49462 (August 13, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data
On February 25, 2011, the Department sent interested parties a
letter inviting comments on surrogate country selection and information
regarding valuing factors of production (``FOPs''). On April 4, 2011,
Petitioner filed comments on surrogate country selection, stating India
and Thailand may be appropriate surrogates if their data is publicly
available, reliable and contemporaneous. On May 4, 2010, the Department
received information to value FOPs from Petitioner. Petitioner provided
surrogate values (``SV'') from sources in India and Thailand.
Surrogate Country
When the Department investigates imports from an NME country and
available information does not permit the Department to determine NV
pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, then, pursuant to sections
773(c)(1) and 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department bases NV on an NME
producer's FOPs, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy
countries that (1) Are at a level of economic development comparable to
that of the NME country, and (2) are significant producers of
comparable merchandise. Regarding the ``level of economic
development,'' the Department relied on per capita gross national
income (``GNI'') data to measure economic comparability.\28\ Using per
capita GNI, the Department determined that India, Indonesia,
Philippines, Peru, Ukraine and Thailand are countries comparable to the
PRC in terms of economic development.\29\ Once we have identified the
countries that are economically comparable to the PRC, we select an
appropriate surrogate country by determining whether an economically
comparable country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise
and whether the data for valuing FOPs are both available and reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Although 19 CFR 351.408(b) instructs the Department to rely
on gross domestic product (``GDP'') data in such comparisons, it is
Departmental practice to use ``per capita GNI, rather than per
capita GDP, because while the two measures are very similar, per
capita GNI is reported across almost all countries by an
authoritative source (the World Bank), and because the Department
finds that the per capita GNI represents the single best measure of
a country's level of total income and thus level of economic
development.'' See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006).
\29\ The Department notes that these six countries are part of a
non-exhaustive list of countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC. See the Department's letter to
``All Interested Parties; First Administrative Review of Steel Wire
Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Deadlines for
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Comments,'' dated February 25,
2011 at 1 and Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has determined that India is the appropriate
surrogate country for use in this review. The Department based its
decision on the following facts: (1) India is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) India provides the best
opportunity to use quality, publicly available data to value the FOPs.
Although Petitioner provided SV data for both Thailand and India,
India's data is the best available data on the record for selection as
the primary surrogate country, because the record contains Indian SV
data for all FOPs used by Shanghai Wells. Therefore, we have selected
India as the surrogate country and, accordingly, have calculated NV
using Indian prices to value the respondent's FOPs, when available and
[[Page 66906]]
appropriate. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available
information wherever possible.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every proceeding conducted by the Department involving the PRC,
we have treated it as an NME country. In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a country is an NME
shall remain in effect until revoked by the Department. None of the
parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly,
the Department calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act, which applies to NME countries.
Separate Rates
In NME countries, the Department begins 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.\30\ However, a company in the NME applying for separate rate
status may rebut that presumption by demonstrating an absence of both
de jure and de facto government control over its export activities.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Separate Rates and Combination Rates in Antidumping
Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, 70 FR 17233,
17233 (April 5, 2005) (``Policy Bulletin 05.1''), also available at:
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/; 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); and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances:
Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of
China, 71 FR 29303, 29307 (May 22, 2006).
\31\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department analyzes each entity's export independence under a
test first articulated in Sparklers and as further developed in Silicon
Carbide.\32\ Importantly, if the Department determines that a company
is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy (``ME'')
country, then the Department need not conduct a separate rate analysis
to determine whether the company is independent from government
control.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Notice of 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''); see also 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'').
\33\ See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China,
72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department received a complete response to the Section A
portion of the NME questionnaire from Shanghai Wells, which contained
information pertaining to the companies' eligibility for a separate
rate. As noted above, Jiaxing Boyi, Shaoxing Liangbao, Command Metal
Products, Guochao Metal Products, Yiwu, and Meideli, have terminated
participation in this administrative review. Therefore, these six
companies have failed to demonstrate their eligibility for a separate
rate.
Separate Rate Recipients
Wholly Foreign-Owned
Shanghai Wells reported that it is a wholly foreign-owned
entity.\34\ Additionally, there is no evidence that the Wells Group
\35\ is under the control of the PRC government, and we have determined
that further separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine
whether this entity is independent from government control.\36\ Thus,
we have preliminarily granted separate rate status to Shanghai Wells
and/or HK Wells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Shanghai Wells' Section A Questionnaire Response, dated
February 17, 2011, at 2.
\35\ In AR1 Hangers, the Department found that Shanghai Wells,
Hong Kong Wells Limited (``HK Wells'') and Hong Kong Wells Limited
(USA) (``USA Wells'') (collectively, ``Wells Group'') are affiliated
and that Shanghai Wells and HK Wells comprise a single entity.
Because there were no changes from the previous review, we continue
to find Shanghai Wells, HK Wells, and USA Wells are affiliated and
that Shanghai Wells and HK Wells comprise a single entity. See Steel
Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of the
First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 68758, 68761
(November 9, 2010), unchanged in First Administrative Review of
Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China:
Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 27994, 27996 (May 13, 2011) (``AR 1
Hangers'').
\36\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of
China, 64 FR 71104, 71104-05 (December 20, 1999) (where the
respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for a
separate rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, then 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, then 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.
However, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department
finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the
Department ``in reaching the applicable determination under this title,
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available.'' \37\ Adverse
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' \38\ An adverse inference may include reliance
[[Page 66907]]
on information derived from the petition, the final determination in
the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed
on the record.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See also Uruguay Round Agreements Act Statement of
Administrative Action, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994),
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99 (``SAA'').
\38\ Id. at 870, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4198-99.
\39\ See section 776(b) of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.308(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Responsive Companies
As stated in the ``Respondent Selection'' section above, the
Department issued the NME questionnaire to Jiaxing Boyi, Shaoxing
Liangbao, Command Metal Products, and Meideli and did not receive a
request for an extension of time or a response to Sections A, C or D of
the Department's questionnaire on the established deadlines.
Additionally, as stated above, counsel to Guochao Metal Products and
Yiwu filed a letter stating that they would not participate as
mandatory respondents in this administrative review. Therefore, the
Department finds it appropriate to rely on the facts otherwise
available in order to determine a margin for Jiaxing Boyi, Shaoxing
Liangbao, Command Metal Products, Meideli, Guochao Metal Products and
Yiwu for purposes of these preliminary results, pursuant to section
776(a)(2) of the Act.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's
Republic of China: Partial Rescission and Preliminary Results of the
Sixth Administrative Review, 71 FR 11183, 11185-86 (March 6, 2006)
(unchanged in final results); Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils From Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 18369, 18371 (April 11, 2005)
(unchanged in final results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the
Department finds that an interested party fails to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for
information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the
interests of that party in selecting from the facts otherwise
available. As a result of these six companies' decision to terminate
participation in this review, the Department will not grant these six
companies a separate rate and considers them part of the PRC-wide
entity. See ``PRC-Wide Entity and Selection of Adverse Facts Available
Rate'' section below. See also the ``Corroboration'' section below for
a discussion of the probative value of the PRC-wide rate of 187.25
percent rate.
PRC-Wide Entity and Selection of Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'') Rate
The Department finds that the PRC-wide entity, including Jiaxing
Boyi, Shaoxing Liangbao, Command Metal Products, Meideli, Guochao Metal
Products, and Yiwu withheld requested information, failed to provide
information in a timely manner and in the form requested, and
significantly impeded this proceeding. Moreover, by refusing to answer
the Department's questionnaire, these six companies failed to cooperate
to the best of their ability. Therefore, the Department must rely on
adverse facts otherwise available in order to determine a margin for
the PRC-wide entity, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) and
776(b) of the Act.\41\ By so doing, the Department avoids the concern
that the PRC-wide entity might obtain a more favorable result by
failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See, e.g., Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 69546, 69548 (December 1, 2006) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see also
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and
New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 (March 9, 2007) (decision to
apply total AFA to the NME-wide entity), unchanged in Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final
Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
First New Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 (September 12, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously stated, the Department may rely on information
derived from any of the following sources in deciding which facts to
use as AFA: (1) The petition, (2) a final determination in the
investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
information placed on the record. The Department's practice when
selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of
information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ``as
to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner.'' \42\ In reviews, the Department
normally selects as AFA the highest rate on the record of any segment
of the proceeding.\43\ The U.S. Court of International Trade (``CIT'')
and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``Federal
Circuit'') consistently have upheld the Department's practice in this
regard.\44\ In choosing the appropriate balance between providing
respondents with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate
that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial
activity, selecting the highest prior margin ``reflects a common sense
inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence
of current margins because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of
the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to
be less.'' \45\ Therefore, consistent with the statute, court
precedent, and its normal agency practice, the Department will use AFA
to assign the rate of 187.25 percent, the highest rate on the record of
any segment of the proceeding, to the PRC-wide entity (including
Jiaxing Boyi, Shaoxing Liangbao, Command Metal Products, Guochao Metal
Products, Yiwu, and Meideli).\46\ See ``Corroboration of Information''
section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 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).
\43\ See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 3987, 3989
(January 22, 2009).
\44\ See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185,
1190-91 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (``Rhone Poulenc''); see also, Shanghai
Taoen Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339,
1346-48 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the
highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a
previous administrative review); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F.
Supp. 2d 1312, 1335-36 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total
AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different
respondent in a LTFV investigation); Kompass Food Trading Int'l v.
United States, 24 CIT 678, 683 (2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent
total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a
different, fully cooperative respondent).
\45\ Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190 (emphasis omitted).
\46\ See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results and Rescission,
In Part, of 2004/2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative and New
Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 52049, 52051 (September 12, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate,
to the extent practicable, secondary information on which it relies as
facts available. The SAA defines secondary information as ``information
derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any
previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.''
\47\ The SAA also explains that the Department sufficiently
corroborates secondary information when it determines that such
information has probative value.\48\ The Department previously has
reasoned that ``corroborated information'' amounts to information it
finds both reliable and relevant.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See SAA at 870, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4199.
\48\ Id.
\49\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66908]]
In this case, the Department selected the highest rate assigned in
any segment of this proceeding (i.e., 187.25 percent) as the AFA rate
for the current review. For purposes of corroboration, the Department
will consider whether that margin is both reliable and relevant. The
Department continues to find the information reliable, given that it
corroborated the AFA rate used in the current review during the LTFV
investigation.\50\ No information has been presented in the current
review that calls into question the reliability of this information.
The Department considers information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance.\51\ A selected
margin remains relevant when it accurately reflects commercial
practices in the industry.\52\ For example, in Flowers, because the
highest margin in that case was based on another company's
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high
margin, the Department disregarded the margin as irrelevant.\53\
Turning to the present case, the Department relied on credible
information within the realm of actual selling practices to calculate
the AFA rate during the LTFV investigation. In that proceeding, the
Department took a simple average of the following: (1) The weighted-
average of the calculated rates for the two mandatory respondents, and
(2) a simple average of petition rates based on U.S. prices and normal
values within the range of U.S. prices and normal values calculated for
the two mandatory respondents.\54\ Furthermore, the calculation of this
margin in the investigation was subject to comment from interested
parties in the proceeding.\55\ Therefore, because the record does not
contain information on the record of this review that demonstrates that
this rate is not appropriate to use as AFA, the Department determines
that this rate has relevance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73
FR 47587, 47591 (August 14, 2008), as amended, Steel Wire Garment
Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 53188, 53189
(September 15, 2008) (``Hangers LTFV'').
\51\ See section 776(c) of the Act.
\52\ See Universal Polybag Co. v. United States, 577 F. Supp. 2d
1284, 1300 (CIT 2008).
\53\ See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February
22, 1996) (``Flowers'').
\54\ See Hangers LTFV, 73 FR at 53189; Steel Wire Garment
Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR at 47591.
\55\ Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR
at 47588.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the 187.25 percent rate is both reliable and relevant, the
Department determines that it has probative value. Accordingly, the
Department determines that the calculated rate of 187.25 percent, which
is the current PRC-wide rate, is in accord with the requirement of
section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information be corroborated to
the extent practicable (i.e., that it have probative value). The
Department has assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject
merchandise by the PRC-wide entity, which includes Jiaxing Boyi,
Shaoxing Liangbao, Command Metal Products, Guochao Metal Products,
Yiwu, and Meideli.
Date of Sale
The Wells Group reported the invoice date as the date of sale
because they claim that, for their U.S. sales of subject merchandise
made during the POR, the material terms of sale were established based
on the invoice date. The Department preliminarily determines that the
invoice date is the most appropriate date to use as the Wells Group
date of sale in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) and the Department's
long-standing practice of determining the date of sale.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of steel wire garment hangers to the
United States by the Wells Group were made at less than NV, the
Department compared either export price (``EP'') or constructed export
price (``CEP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections below.
U.S. Price
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department
calculated EP for a portion of sales to the United States for the Wells
Group because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before
the date of importation and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted.
The Department calculated EP based on the sales price to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, as appropriate, the Department deducted from
the sales price certain foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling
(``B&H''), and international movement costs. Because the inland freight
and B&H services were either provided by a NME vendor or paid for using
a NME currency, the Department based the deduction of these charges on
surrogate values. See ``Memorandum to the File from Bob Palmer,
Analyst, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager; Second
Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's
Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results,''
dated concurrently with these preliminary results, (``Prelim Surrogate
Value Memo'') for details regarding the SVs for movement expenses. For
international freight provided by a ME provider and paid in U.S.
dollars, the Department used the actual cost per kilogram (``kg'') of
the freight.
Constructed Export Price
For some of the Wells Group's sales, the Department based U.S.
price on CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because
sales were made on behalf of the Chinese-based company by a U.S.
affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. For these
sales, the Department based CEP on prices to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, the Department made
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign
movement expenses, international movement expenses, U.S. movement
expenses, and appropriate selling adjustments, in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department
also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic
activities occurring in the United States. The Department deducted,
where appropriate, commissions, inventory carrying costs, interest
revenue, credit expenses, warranty expenses, and indirect selling
expenses. Where foreign movement expenses, international movement
expenses, or U.S. movement expenses were provided by PRC service
providers or paid for in renminbi, the Department valued these services
using SVs (see ``Factor Valuations'' section below for further
discussion). For those expenses that were provided by an ME provider
and paid for in an ME currency, the Department used the reported
expense. Due to the proprietary
[[Page 66909]]
nature of certain adjustments to U.S. price, for a detailed description
of all adjustments made to U.S. price for each company, see the company
specific analysis memoranda, dated concurrently with these preliminary
results.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is
exported from an NME and the information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Further, pursuant to
section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the valuation of an NME respondent's FOPs
shall be based on the best available information regarding the value of
such factors in an ME country or countries considered to be appropriate
by the Department. The Department bases NV on the FOPs because the
presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders
price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under
the Department's normal methodologies.
The Department used Indian import statistics to value the raw
material and packing material inputs that the Wells Group used to
produce the subject merchandise during the POR, except where listed
below. With respect to the SVs based on Indian import statistics, in
according with the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988
(``OTCA'') and long-standing agency practice, the Department has
disregarded prices that the Department has reason to believe or suspect
may be subsidized.\57\ The Department has previously found that it is
appropriate to disregard such prices from Indonesia, South Korea, and
Thailand because we have determined that these countries maintain
broadly available, non-industry specific, export subsidies.\58\ Based
on the existence of these subsidy programs that were generally
available to all exporters and producers in these countries at the time
of the POR, the Department finds that it has reason to believe or
suspect that all exporters from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand
may have benefitted from these subsidies and that we should therefore
disregard any data from these countries contained in the Indian import
statistics used to calculate SVs. The Department similarly disregarded
prices from NME countries. Finally, imports that were labeled as
originating from an ``unspecified'' country were excluded from the
average value, since the Department could not be certain that they were
not from either an NME country or a country with generally available
export subsidies.\59\ For further discussion regarding all SV
calculations using Indian Import Statistics, see Prelim Surrogate Value
Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ 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) at 590.
\58\ See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final
Results of the Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4-5; Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia: Final Results of
Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4; See Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea:
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 17, 19-20; See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at 23.
\59\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008),
unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008) (``PET Film'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, for subject
merchandise produced by the Wells Group, the Department calculated NV
based on the FOPs reported by the Wells Group for the POR. The
Department used data from the Indian import statistics and other
publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate SVs for the
Wells Group's FOPs (direct materials, energy, and packing materials)
and certain movement expenses. To calculate NV, the Department
multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly
available Indian SVs (except as noted below). Because the statute is
silent concerning what constitutes the ``best available information''
for a particular SV, the courts have recognized that on this topic the
Department enjoys ``broad discretion to determine the best available
information for an antidumping review.'' \60\ The Department's practice
when selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs is to
select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are product-specific,
representative of a broad market average, publicly available,
contemporaneous with the POR, and exclusive of taxes and duties.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 618
F.3d 1316, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
\61\ See, e.g., Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 73 FR 48195 (August 18, 2008) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case, the Department adjusted the SVs as necessary to
ensure a fair calculation of the production costs. First, the
Department made adjustments to the SVs for exchange rates and taxes,
and converted all applicable items to measurement on a per kg basis.
Second, the Department adjusted input prices by including freight costs
to render them delivered prices. Specifically, to accord with the
decision of the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117
F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Department added to the Indian
import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported
distance between (1) The domestic supplier and the factory or (2) the
nearest seaport and the factory. For a detailed description of all SVs
used for the Wells Group, see Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
The Department valued electricity using the updated electricity
price data for small, medium, and large industries, as published by the
Central Electricity Authority, an administrative body of the Government
of India, in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated March 2008. These
electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly available
information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small,
medium, and large industries in India. We did not inflate or otherwise
alter this value because utility rates remain contemporaneous with the
POR, as indicated by the effective dates listed for each of the rates
provided. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
The Department valued water using publicly available data from the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (https://www.midcindia.org) because these data include a wide range of
industrial water tariffs. This source provides industrial water rates
within the Maharashtra province for ``inside industrial areas'' and
``outside industrial areas'' from October 2009 through August 2010.
Because the average of these values is contemporaneous with the POR, we
did not adjust it for inflation. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
As previously stated, the Department values FOPs in NME cases using
the best available information for such factors in a ME country or
countries considered appropriate by the administering authority. In so
doing, the
[[Page 66910]]
Department utilizes, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of
factors of production in one or more ME countries that are (1) at a
comparable level of economic development and (2) significant producers
of comparable merchandise. See section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
Previously, to value the respondent's cost of labor, the Department
used regression-based wages that captured the worldwide relationship
between per capita Gross National Income (``GNI'') and hourly
manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). However, on May
14, 2010, the Federal Circuit in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604
F.3d 1363, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Dorbest''), invalidated 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3). As a consequence of the Federal Circuit's ruling in
Dorbest, the Department no longer relies on the regression-based wage
rate methodology described in its regulations. On February 18, 2011,
the Department published in the Federal Register a request for public
comment on the interim methodology and the data sources.\62\ On June
21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for valuing the labor
input in NME antidumping proceedings.\63\ In Labor Methodologies, the
Department determined that the best methodology to value the labor
input is to use industry-specific labor rates from the primary
surrogate country. Additionally, the Department determined that the
best data source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A: Labor
Cost in Manufacturing, from the International Labor Organization (ILO)
Yearbook of Labor Statistics (``Yearbook'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor; Request
for Comment, 76 FR 9544, 9544-47 (February 18, 2011).
\63\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092, 36093-94 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In these preliminary results, the Department calculated the labor
input using the Labor method described in Labor Methodologies. To value
the Wells Group's labor input, the Department relied on data reported
by India to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. The Department
further finds the two-digit description under Division 28 (Manufacture
of Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Equipment) of the
ISIC-Revision 3 to be the best available information on the record
because it is specific to the industry being examined, and is therefore
derived from industries that produce comparable merchandise.
Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the Department
calculated the labor input using labor data reported by India to the
ILO under Division 28 of ISIC-Revision 3 standard, in accordance with
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act. A more detailed description of the labor
rate calculation methodology is provided in the Prelim Surrogate Value
Memo.
As stated above, the Department used Indian ILO data reported under
Chapter 6A of Yearbook, which reflects all costs related to labor,
including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. Because the
financial statements used to calculate the surrogate financial ratios
include itemized detail of indirect labor costs, the Department made
adjustments to the surrogate financial ratios. See Labor Methodologies,
76 FR at 36093. For further information on the calculation of the labor
rate, see Prelim Surrogate Values Memo.
The Department valued truck freight expenses using an Indian per-
unit average rate calculated from publicly available data on the
following Web site: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The
logistics section of this Web site contains inland freight truck rates
between many large Indian cities. We did not inflate this rate since it
is contemporaneous with the POR. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
To value B&H, the Department used a price list of export procedures
necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in India. The price
list is publicly available and compiled based on a survey case study of
the procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in India as published in Doing Business 2011: India
(published by the World Bank). See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, the Department is using the 2009-2010
audited financial statement of Sterling Tools Ltd. (``Sterling''),
which is an Indian fastener manufacturer.
Petitioner placed on the record five financial statements for
consideration: Three financial statements from Indian companies,
Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. (``Lakshmi''), Sterling, and Usha Martin
Ltd. (``Usha Martin''), and two from Thai companies, Kato Spring
(Thailand) Co. Ltd. (``Kato''), and Capital Engineering Network Public
Company Limited (``Capital Engineering'').\64\ With respect to the
financial statements of Lakshmi and Usha Martin, these companies may
have benefitted from subsidies found to be countervailable by the
Department, namely the DEPB subsidy program,\65\ which we have found
actionable in the past.\66\ With regard to the two Thai financial
statements, we note that these financial statements are not from the
primary surrogate country and that we have a financial statement from
the primary surrogate country which we find to be the best available
information as discussed below. Further, we note our preference is to
value all FOPs utilizing data from the primary surrogate country and to
consider alternative sources only when a suitable value from the
primary surrogate country does not exist on the record.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See Letter from Petitioner, re: SV submission, dated May 4,
2011, at Exhibit 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 respectively.
\65\ See Letter from Petitioner, re: SV submission, dated May 4,
2011, at Exhibit 3, page 42 and Exhibit 5, page 71.
\66\ See First Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment
Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
27994 (May 13, 2011) and accompany Issues and Decisions Memorandum
at Comment 2.
\67\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Final Results of the Sixth Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Sixth New Shipper Review, 76 FR 15941
(March 22, 20