Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 51514-51518 [2012-20911]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
51514
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2012 / Notices
11–Noon Planning and Evaluation
Committee
1:30–3:30 p.m. Technical Programs
Committee
4–4:30 p.m. Budget Committee
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
9:30 a.m.–Noon Ad Hoc Rulemaking
Committees: Closed to Public
1:30–3 p.m. Board Meeting
ADDRESSES: Meetings will be held at the
Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F
Street NW., suite 800, Washington, DC
20004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information regarding the
meetings, please contact David Capozzi,
Executive Director, (202) 272–0010
(voice); (202) 272–0054 (TTY).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the
Board meeting scheduled on the
afternoon of Wednesday, September 12,
the Access Board will consider the
following agenda items:
• Approval of the draft July 11, 2012
meeting minutes (vote)
• Planning and Evaluation Committee
Report
• Technical Programs Committee
Report
• Budget Committee Report
• Ad Hoc Committee Reports
• Executive Director’s Report
• Public Comment, Open Topics
All meetings are accessible to persons
with disabilities. An assistive listening
system, computer assisted real-time
transcription (CART), and sign language
interpreters will be available at the
Board meeting and committee meetings.
Persons attending Board meetings are
requested to refrain from using perfume,
cologne, and other fragrances for the
comfort of other participants (see
www.access-board.gov/about/policies/
fragrance.htm for more information).
David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2012–20807 Filed 8–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
The Department of Commerce will
submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for clearance the
following proposal for collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35).
Agency: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Title: NOAA Restoration Center
Performance Progress Report.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:22 Aug 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
OMB Control Number: 0648–0472.
Form Number(s): NA.
Type of Request: Regular submission
(extension of a current information
collection).
Number of Respondents: 250.
Average Hours per Response:
Semiannual reports, 7 hours, six
minutes; annual reports, 52 minutes.
Burden Hours: 4,145.
Needs and Uses: This request is for a
regular submission (extension of a
currently approved information
collection).
NOAA funds habitat restoration
projects including grass-roots,
community-based habitat restoration;
debris prevention and removal; removal
of barriers to migrating fish; and largescale, targeted restoration through
individual projects and restoration
partnerships. Awards are made as grants
or cooperative agreements under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661, as
amended by the Reorganization Plan
No. 4 of 1970.
NOAA requires specific information
on habitat restoration projects that are
funded, as part of routine progress
reporting. Recipients of NOAA funds
submit information such as project
location, restoration techniques used,
species benefited, acres restored, stream
miles opened to access for diadromous
fish, volunteer participation, and other
parameters.
The required information enables
NOAA to track, evaluate and report on
coastal and marine habitat restoration
and demonstrate accountability for
federal funds. This information is used
to populate a database of NOAA-funded
habitat restoration, debris prevention
and removal, and barrier removal
projects. The database, with its robust
querying capabilities, is instrumental to
provide accurate and timely responses
to NOAA, Department of Commerce,
Congressional and Constituent
inquiries. It also facilitates reporting by
NOAA on the Government Performance
and Results Act ‘‘acres restored’’
performance measure. Grant recipients
are required by the NOAA Grants
Management Division to submit
periodic performance reports and a final
report for each award; this collection
stipulates the information to be
provided in these reports.
Affected Public: State, local and tribal
government, not-for-profit institutions,
business or other for-profit
organizations.
Frequency: Annually and
semiannually.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain benefits.
OMB Desk Officer:
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.
Copies of the above information
collection proposal can be obtained by
calling or writing Jennifer Jessup,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance
Officer, (202) 482–0336, Department of
Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
JJessup@doc.gov).
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.
Dated: August 21, 2012.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012–20862 Filed 8–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–552–812]
Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Preliminary Affirmative Determination
of Critical Circumstances in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: August 24, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Irene Gorelik at (202) 482–6905, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
AGENCY:
Background
On August 2, 2012, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published its preliminary determination
in the antidumping duty investigation of
steel wire garment hangers from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
(‘‘Vietnam’’).1 On August 2, 2012,
Petitioners 2 filed a timely critical
circumstances allegation, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical
1 See Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination, 77 FR 46044
(August 2, 2012) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’).
2 M&B Metal Products Company, Inc.; Innovative
Fabrication LLC/Indy Hanger; and US Hanger
Company, LLC.
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2012 / Notices
circumstances exist with respect to
imports of the merchandise under
consideration. On August 2, 2012, the
Department issued a letter to the TJ
Group,3 the remaining cooperative
mandatory respondent, requesting
monthly shipment data from August
2011 through May 2012.4 On August 3,
2012, the TJ Group filed a letter
withdrawing its participation from this
investigation.5
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.206(c)(1), when a critical
circumstances allegation is filed 30 days
or more before the scheduled date of the
final determination, the Department will
issue a preliminary finding whether
there is a reasonable basis to believe or
suspect that critical circumstances exist.
Because the critical circumstances
allegation in this case was submitted
after the preliminary determination was
published, the Department must issue
its preliminary findings of critical
circumstances no later than 30 days
after the allegation was filed.6
Legal Framework
Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), provides
that the Department, upon receipt of a
timely allegation of critical
circumstances, will determine whether
there is a reasonable basis to believe or
suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history of
dumping and material injury by reason
of dumped imports in the United States
or elsewhere of the subject merchandise,
or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose
account, the merchandise was imported
knew or should have known that the
exporter was selling the subject
merchandise at less than its fair value
and that there was likely to be material
injury by reason of such sales; and (B)
there have been massive imports of the
subject merchandise over a relatively
short period.
Further, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1)
provides that, in determining whether
imports of the subject merchandise have
been ‘‘massive,’’ the Department
normally will examine: (i) The volume
and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal
trends; and (iii) the share of domestic
consumption accounted for by the
imports. In addition, 19 CFR
351.206(h)(2) provides that, ‘‘{i}n
general, unless the imports during the
‘relatively short period’ * * * have
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
3 The
TJ Group consists of: the Pre-Supreme
Entity, Infinite Industrial Hanger Limited, and TJ
Co., Ltd. See, e.g., Preliminary Determination, 77 FR
at 46047–48, 46053 n. 109.
4 See Department’s letter to the TJ Group, dated
August 2, 2012, at 1–2.
5 See TJ Group’s Letter of Withdrawal, dated
August 3, 2012, at 1–2.
6 See 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:22 Aug 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
increased by at least 15 percent over the
imports during an immediately
preceding period of comparable
duration, the Secretary will not consider
the imports massive.’’ 19 CFR 351.206(i)
defines ‘‘relatively short period’’
generally as the period starting on the
date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date
the petition is filed) and ending at least
three months later. This section of the
regulations further provides that, if the
Department ‘‘finds that importers, or
exporters or producers, had reason to
believe, at some time prior to the
beginning of the proceeding, that a
proceeding was likely,’’ then the
Department may consider a period of
not less than three months from that
earlier time.
Critical Circumstances Allegation
In their allegation, Petitioners contend
that, based on the dumping margins
assigned by the Department in the
Preliminary Determination, importers
knew or should have known that the
merchandise under consideration was
being sold at less than fair value
(‘‘LTFV’’).7 Petitioners also contend
that, based on the preliminary
determination of injury by the U.S.
International Trade Commission
(‘‘ITC’’), there is a reasonable basis to
impute importers’ knowledge that
material injury is likely by reason of
such imports.8 Finally, as part of their
allegation and pursuant to 19 CFR
351.206(h)(2), Petitioners submitted
import statistics for the ‘‘like product’’
covered by the scope of this
investigation for the period between
August 2011 and May 2012, as evidence
of massive imports of garment hangers
from Vietnam during a relatively short
period.9
Analysis
The Department’s normal practice in
determining whether critical
circumstances exist pursuant to the
statutory criteria has been to examine
evidence available to the Department,
such as: (1) The evidence presented in
Petitioners’ critical circumstances
allegation; (2) import statistics released
by the ITC; and (3) shipment
information submitted to the
Department by the respondents selected
for individual examination.10 As further
7 See Petitioners’ Critical Circumstances
Allegation, dated August 2, 2012, at 2–3.
8 See id. at 3–4.
9 See id. at 4–5, Attachment 1.
10 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s
Republic of China, 73 FR 31970, 31972–73 (June 5,
2008) (‘‘Carbon Steel Pipe’’); Final Determination of
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51515
provided below, in determining whether
the above statutory criteria have been
satisfied in this case, we have examined:
(1) The evidence presented in
Petitioners’ August 2, 2012, allegation;
(2) information obtained since the
initiation of this investigation; and (3)
the ITC’s preliminary injury
determination.
Section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act:
History of Dumping and Material Injury
by Reason of Dumped Imports in the
United States or Elsewhere of the
Subject Merchandise
In determining whether a history of
dumping and material injury exists, the
Department generally has considered
current or previous antidumping duty
orders on subject merchandise from the
country in question in the United States
and current orders in any other
country.11 In this case, the current
investigation of the subject merchandise
marks the first instance that the
Department has examined whether the
goods are dumped into the United
States. As a result, the Department
previously has not imposed an
antidumping duty order on the subject
merchandise. Moreover, the Department
is not aware of any antidumping duty
order on subject merchandise from
Vietnam in another country. Therefore,
the Department finds no history of
injurious dumping of the subject
merchandise pursuant to section
733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.
Section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii): The Importer
Knew or Should Have Known That
Exporter Was Selling at Less Than Fair
Value and That There Was Likely To Be
Material Injury
In determining whether an importer
knew or should have known that the
exporter was selling subject
merchandise at LTFV and that there was
likely to be material injury by reason of
such sales, the Department must rely on
the facts before it at the time the
determination is made. The Department
generally bases its decision with respect
to knowledge on the margins calculated
in the preliminary determination and
the ITC’s preliminary injury
determination.
The Department normally considers
margins of 25 percent or more for export
price sales and 15 percent or more for
constructed export price sales sufficient
to impute importer knowledge of sales
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Small
Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People’s
Republic of China, 74 FR 2049, 2052–53 (January
14, 2009) (‘‘SDGE’’).
11 See Carbon Steel Pipe, 73 FR at 31972–73;
SDGE, 74 FR 2052–53.
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
51516
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2012 / Notices
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
at LTFV.12 The Department
preliminarily determined a margin of
135.81 percent for the TJ Group, which
was also assigned as the separate rate to
the non-selected separate rate
applicants.13 Additionally, the
Department preliminarily assigned a
margin of 187.51 percent, as adverse
facts available (‘‘AFA’’) to the Vietnamwide entity, which includes one of the
mandatory respondents, South East Asia
Hamico Export Joint Stock Company
(‘‘Hamico’’).14 Therefore, because the
preliminary margins are greater than 25
percent for all producers and exporters,
we preliminarily find, with respect to
all producers and exporters, that there is
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect
that importers knew, or should have
known, that exporters were selling the
merchandise under consideration at
LTFV.
In determining whether an importer
knew or should have known that there
was likely to be material injury caused
by reason of such imports, the
Department normally will look to the
preliminary injury determination of the
ITC.15 If the ITC finds a reasonable
indication of present material injury to
the relevant U.S. industry, the
Department will determine that a
reasonable basis exists to impute
importer knowledge that material injury
is likely by reason of such imports.16
Here, the ITC found that ‘‘there is a
reasonable indication that an industry
in the United States is materially
injured by reason of imports from
Taiwan and Vietnam of steel wire
garment hangers, provided for in
subheading 7326.20.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States * * *.’’ 17
12 See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod
From Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and
Tobago, and Ukraine: Preliminary Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February
11, 2002); Affirmative Preliminary Determination of
Critical Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the
People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 5606, 5607
(February 3, 2005).
13 See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46053.
14 See id.
15 See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts
from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances
in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR
24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010) (‘‘Salt Critical
Circumstances Prelim’’).
16 See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod
From Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and
Tobago, and Ukraine: Preliminary Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February
11, 2002); Affirmative Preliminary Determination of
Critical Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the
People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 5606, 5607
(February 3, 2005).
17 See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Taiwan
and Vietnam, Investigation Nos. 701–TA–487 and
731–TA–1197–1198 (Preliminary), 77 FR 9701
(February 17, 2012) (‘‘ITC Prelim’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:22 Aug 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
Section 733(e)(1)(B): Whether There
Have Been Massive Imports of the
Subject Merchandise Over a Relatively
Short Period
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2), the
Department will not consider imports to
be massive unless imports in the
comparison period have increased by at
least 15 percent over imports in the base
period. The Department normally
considers a ‘‘relatively short period’’ as
the period beginning on the date the
proceeding begins and ending at least
three months later.18 For this reason, the
Department normally compares the
import volumes of the subject
merchandise for at least three months
immediately preceding the filing of the
petition (i.e., the ‘‘base period’’) to a
comparable period of at least three
months following the filing of the
petition (i.e., the ‘‘comparison
period’’).19
In their August 2, 2012, allegation,
Petitioners maintained that importers,
exporters, or foreign producers gained
knowledge that this proceeding was
possible when the petition for an
antidumping duty investigation was
filed on December 29, 2011.20
Petitioners noted that when a petition is
filed in the second half of a month, the
month following the filing is treated as
part of the post-petition period.21
Petitioners also included in their
allegation U.S. import data collected
from the ITC’s Dataweb.22 Based on this
data, Petitioners provided data for a
five-month base period (August 2011
through December 2011) and a fivemonth comparison period (January 2012
through May 2012), the most recent data
available at the time of filing, in
showing whether imports were
massive.23 Therefore, based on the date
of the filing of the petition, i.e.,
December 29, 2012, which was in the
second half of the month, the
Department agrees with Petitioners that
January 2012 is the month in which
importers, exporters, or producers knew
or should have known an antidumping
duty investigation was likely, and falls
within the comparison period. We also
agree that using a five-month base
period and a five-month comparison
period for import analysis is reasonable,
as the ITC’s Dataweb contained data up
18 See
19 CFR 351.206(i).
Salt Critical Circumstances Prelim, 75 FR
at 24574.
20 See Petitioners’ Critical Circumstances
Allegation dated August 2, 2012, at 4.
21 See id. at 4.
22 See id. at 5.
23 See id. at Attachment 1. At the time of filing,
import data was available only through May 2012.
19 See
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
through May 2012, at the time of
filing.24
The TJ Group
It has been the Department’s practice
to conduct its massive imports analysis
based on the experience of investigated
companies, using the reported monthly
shipment data for the base and
comparison periods.25 However, as
noted above, on August 3, 2012, the TJ
Group withdrew its participation from
this investigation, thus it did not
respond to the Department’s request for
monthly shipment data for the base and
comparison periods.26 Therefore, the
Department preliminarily determines
that pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)
and (C) of the Act, use of the facts
otherwise available are necessary in
reaching the applicable determination
under this title with respect to the TJ
Group.
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act
provides that, if a party has failed to act
to the best of its ability, the Department
may apply an adverse inference. The TJ
Group withdrew its participation from
this investigation and from the
scheduled verification of its books and
records. Thus, we are using facts
available, in accordance with section
776(a) of the Act and, pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act, we also find
that AFA is warranted so that the TJ
Group does not obtain a more favorable
result by failing to cooperate than if it
had fully cooperated. Accordingly, we
preliminarily find that there were
massive imports of merchandise from
the TJ Group, pursuant to our practice.27
Separate Rate Respondents
It has also been the Department’s
practice to conduct its massive imports
analysis of the separate rate respondents
based on the experience of investigated
companies.28 Thus, we did not request
monthly shipment information from the
three separate rate respondents.
However, where mandatory respondents
received AFA, we have not imputed
adverse inferences of massive imports to
the non-individually examined
24 See ‘‘Memorandum to the File, from Irene
Gorelik, Analyst, Office 9; Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary
Affirmative Critical Circumstances Memorandum,’’
(‘‘Dataweb Memo’’) dated concurrently with this
notice at Exhibits I–II; see also Petitioners’ Critical
Circumstances Allegation at Attachment I.
25 See, e.g., Carbon Steel Pipe, 73 FR at 31972–
73; SDGE, 74 FR 2052–53.
26 See the Department’s letter to the TJ Group
dated August 2, 2012; see also TJ Group’s Letter of
Withdrawal dated August 3, 2012.
27 See SDGE, 74 FR at 2052–2053.
28 See, e.g., Salt Critical Circumstances Prelim, 75
FR at 24575; Carbon Steel Pipe, 73 FR at 31972–
73; and SDGE, 74 FR at 2053.
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2012 / Notices
companies receiving a separate rate.
Instead, the Department has relied upon
the ITC’s Dataweb import statistics,
where appropriate, in determining
whether there have been massive
imports for the separate rate
respondents. Accordingly, as the basis
for determining whether imports were
massive for these separate rate
respondents, we are relying on the ITC’s
Dataweb import statistics as evidence
that imports in the post-petition period
were massive for those companies. As
stated above, in this case, the ITC’s
Dataweb import volume data shows an
increase of 19.62 percent of steel wire
garment hanger imports from Vietnam
during the comparison period.29 Thus,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h), we
determine that this increase, being
greater than 15 percent, shows that
imports in the five-month comparison
period were massive for the separate
rate respondents.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
Vietnam-Wide Entity (Including
Hamico) and the Application of AFA
In this investigation, the Department
selected Hamico and the TJ Group as
mandatory respondents for individual
examination.30 In the Preliminary
Determination, the Department
determined that there were exporters/
producers of the merchandise under
investigation during the period of
investigation from Vietnam, including
Hamico,31 that either: (1) Did not
respond to the Department’s request for
information, or (2) failed to provide
information that was not available on
the record but necessary to calculate an
accurate dumping margin. Therefore,
pursuant to 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of
the Act we treated these Vietnamese
exporters/producers, including Hamico,
as part of the Vietnam-wide entity
because they did not qualify for a
separate rate.32
Further, information on the record
indicates that the Vietnam-wide entity
29 See Dataweb Memo at Exhibits I–II; see also
Petitioners’ Critical Circumstances Allegation at
Attachment I.
30 See ‘‘Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, from James C.
Doyle, Director, Office 9; Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Respondent
Selection,’’ dated February 16, 2012.
31 We preliminarily found that Hamico failed to
provide the information requested by the
Department in a timely manner and in the form
required, and significantly impeded the
Department’s ability to calculate an accurate
margin. The Department was unable to calculate a
margin without the necessary information,
requiring the application of facts otherwise
available to Hamico for the purpose of the
Preliminary Determination. See Preliminary
Determination, 77 FR at 46049–51.
32 See id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:22 Aug 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
was non-cooperative because certain
companies did not respond to our
requests for information.33 As a result,
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we
preliminarily found that the use of AFA
was warranted to determine the
Vietnam-wide rate.34 As AFA, we
preliminarily assigned to the Vietnamwide entity a rate of 187.51 percent,
which is the highest transaction-specific
rate calculated for the TJ Group.35
Because the Vietnam-wide entity has
been unresponsive for the duration of
the proceeding, the record does not
contain shipment data from the
Vietnam-wide entity for purposes of our
critical circumstances analysis.
Therefore, there is no verifiable
information on the record with respect
to the Vietnam-wide entity’s base and
comparison period shipment volumes.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that, if an interested party or any other
person (A) withholds information that
has been requested by the administering
authority or the Commission under this
title, (B) fails to provide such
information by the deadlines for
submission of the information or in the
form and manner requested, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782,
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding
under this title, or (D) provides such
information but the information cannot
be verified as provided in section 782(i),
the administering authority and the
Commission shall, subject to section
782(d), use the facts otherwise available
in reaching the applicable
determination under this title.
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act
provides that, if a party has failed to act
to the best of its ability, the Department
may apply an adverse inference. The
Vietnam-wide entity has been noncooperative during the entire
proceeding.36 Thus, we are using facts
available, in accordance with section
776(a) of the Act, and, pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act, we also find
that AFA is warranted so that the
Vietnam-wide entity does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than if it had fully
cooperated. Accordingly, as we have
done under similar factual scenarios in
other proceedings, we preliminarily find
that there were massive imports of
merchandise from the Vietnam-wide
entity.37
33 See
id.
id.
35 See id., 77 FR at 46053.
36 See id.
37 See, e.g., Salt Critical Circumstances Prelim, 75
FR at 24572–24573.
34 See
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51517
Preliminary Affirmative Determination
of Critical Circumstances
Record evidence indicates that
importers of steel wire garment hangers
knew, or should have known, that
exporters were selling the merchandise
at LTFV, and that there was likely to be
material injury by reason of such sales.
In addition, we have imputed that the
Vietnam-wide entity and the TJ Group
has massive imports during a relatively
short period. Lastly, record evidence
shows that the separate rate respondents
had massive imports during a relatively
short period. Therefore, in accordance
with section 733(e)(1) of the Act, we
preliminarily find that there is reason to
believe or suspect that critical
circumstances exist for imports of the
merchandise under consideration from
the Vietnam-wide entity (which
includes Hamico), the TJ Group, and the
separate rate respondents (CTN Limited
Company, Ju Fu Co., Ltd., and Triloan
Hangers, Inc.) in this antidumping duty
investigation.38
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section
703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we are directing
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
to suspend liquidation of any
unliquidated entries of the merchandise
under consideration from Vietnam
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse
for consumption, on or after May 4,
2012, which is 90 days prior to the date
of publication of the Preliminary
Determination in the Federal Register.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of
the Act, we have notified the ITC of our
preliminary affirmative critical
circumstances determination.
Public Comment
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department stated that case briefs or
other written comments may be
submitted to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration no later than
seven days after the date the final
verification report is issued.39 However,
as noted above, the TJ Group withdrew
from participation in this investigation,
including the scheduled verification.
Consequently, as there were no other
verifications scheduled for this
proceeding, the Department is setting
the public comment deadline herein.
Therefore, case briefs addressing any
issues in the Preliminary Determination
or this preliminary affirmative
determination of critical circumstances
38 See section 733(f) of the Act; 19 CFR
351.206(c)(2)(ii).
39 See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46054.
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
51518
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2012 / Notices
may be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration no
later than seven days after the
publication date of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs, limited to issues raised in case
briefs, are due no later than five days
after the deadline for submitting case
briefs.40 A list of authorities used and an
executive summary of issues should
accompany any briefs submitted to the
Department. This summary should be
limited to five pages total, including
footnotes. All submissions to the
Department, including case briefs and
rebuttal briefs, must be filed
electronically using Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the Department’s
electronic records system, IA ACCESS,
by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, on the
date of the established deadline, if
applicable. Finally, this notice is a
public document and is on file
electronically via IA ACCESS. IA
ACCESS is available to registered users
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the
Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the
main Department of Commerce
building.
This determination is published
pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).
Dated: August 20, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–20911 Filed 8–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
[Docket Number 120706223–2223–01]
Alternative Personnel Management
System (APMS) at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology
National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This notice announces
changes to existing provisions of the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology’s (NIST) Alternative
Personnel Management System (APMS).
NIST will pilot direct-hire authority for
a period of one year from the
publication date of this notice, for all
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
40 See
19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i), (d)(1).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:22 Aug 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
positions in the General Engineering,
801 series and General Physical Science,
1301 series.
DATES: The direct-hire authority pilot
program will begin on August 24, 2012,
until August 24, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susanne Porch at the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, (301)
975–3000; or Valerie Smith at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, (202) 482–
0272.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In accordance with Public Law 99–
574, the National Bureau of Standards
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987,
the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) approved a demonstration
project plan, ‘‘Alternative Personnel
Management System (APMS) at the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST),’’ and published the
plan in the Federal Register on October
2, 1987 (52 FR 37082). The project plan
has been modified twice, on May 17,
1989 (54 FR 21331) and Sept. 25, 1990
(55 FR 39220), to clarify certain NIST
authorities. The project plan and
subsequent amendments were
consolidated in the final APMS plan,
which became permanent on October
21, 1997 (62 FR 54604). NIST first
amended the plan on May 6, 2005 (70
FR 23996), to strengthen the link
between pay and performance, to
simplify the pay-for-performance
system, and to broaden the link between
performance and retention service credit
for reduction in force, which became
effective upon the date of publication.
NIST amended the plan again on July
15, 2008 (73 FR 40500), to improve
flexibility in rewarding new and midlevel employees and to broaden the
ability to make performance
distinctions, and that amendment
became permanent on October 1, 2008.
On December 3, 2010, the Department
of Commerce approved NIST’s request
to pilot direct-hire under 5 U.S.C.
3304(a)(3) for a period of one year for all
positions within the Scientific and
Engineering (ZP) career path at the Pay
Band III and above, for Nuclear Reactor
Operator positions in the Scientific and
Engineering Technician (ZT) career path
at Pay Band III and above, and for all
occupations for which there is a special
rate under the General Schedule (GS)
pay system. On January 5, 2011, NIST
published a Federal Register notice (76
FR 539) announcing that the agency
would be implementing the direct-hire
pilot for a period of one year. During the
pilot, information was gathered on the
impact of direct-hire authority on
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
preference eligibles, as well as
information supporting the finding of a
severe shortage of candidates for the
positions covered under the direct-hire
authority.
On December 20, 2011, NIST
published a Federal Register notice (76
FR 78889) extending the direct-hire
pilot for an additional six (6) months.
During this extended pilot period, NIST
submitted a request to the Department
of Commerce to implement direct-hire
authority under 5 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3) on a
permanent basis for Nuclear Reactor
Operator positions in NIST’s Scientific
and Engineering Technician (ZT) career
path at the Pay Band III and above, and
for all positions in NIST’s Scientific and
Engineering (ZP) career path at the Pay
Band III and above except for the
Information Technology Management,
2210 series; the General Engineering,
801 series; and the General Physical
Science, 1301 series. The request
included a statistical analysis
determining the impact of direct-hire
authority on preference eligibles as well
as a justification supporting the finding
of a severe shortage of candidates in the
covered positions.
On April 20, 2012, the Department of
Commerce, in consultation with the
Office of Personnel Management,
approved NIST’s request to implement
direct-hire authority on a permanent
basis for the above occupations. The
Department of Commerce also granted
NIST approval to pilot direct-hire
authority under 5 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3) for
all positions in the General Engineering,
801 series and the General Physical
Science, 1301 series.
The APMS plan provides for
modifications to be made as experience
is gained, results are analyzed, and
conclusions are reached on how the
system is working. This notice formally
announces the modification to the
APMS plan to implement direct-hire
procedures under 5 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3) on
a pilot basis for twelve (12) months.
During this pilot period, NIST will
gather data on the impact of direct-hire
authority on preference eligibles. NIST
will also include data from the previous
pilot’s expiration date of June 5, 2012.
If additional time is required to
complete review of the data, the pilot
may be extended for an additional six
(6) months.
Dated: August 2, 2012.
David Robinson,
Associate Director for Management
Resources.
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Basis for APMS Plan Modification
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51514-51518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20911]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-552-812]
Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: August 24, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik at (202) 482-6905, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Background
On August 2, 2012, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
published its preliminary determination in the antidumping duty
investigation of steel wire garment hangers from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam (``Vietnam'').\1\ On August 2, 2012, Petitioners \2\ filed a
timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical
[[Page 51515]]
circumstances exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under
consideration. On August 2, 2012, the Department issued a letter to the
TJ Group,\3\ the remaining cooperative mandatory respondent, requesting
monthly shipment data from August 2011 through May 2012.\4\ On August
3, 2012, the TJ Group filed a letter withdrawing its participation from
this investigation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 77 FR 46044 (August
2, 2012) (``Preliminary Determination'').
\2\ M&B Metal Products Company, Inc.; Innovative Fabrication
LLC/Indy Hanger; and US Hanger Company, LLC.
\3\ The TJ Group consists of: the Pre-Supreme Entity, Infinite
Industrial Hanger Limited, and TJ Co., Ltd. See, e.g., Preliminary
Determination, 77 FR at 46047-48, 46053 n. 109.
\4\ See Department's letter to the TJ Group, dated August 2,
2012, at 1-2.
\5\ See TJ Group's Letter of Withdrawal, dated August 3, 2012,
at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), when a critical
circumstances allegation is filed 30 days or more before the scheduled
date of the final determination, the Department will issue a
preliminary finding whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or
suspect that critical circumstances exist. Because the critical
circumstances allegation in this case was submitted after the
preliminary determination was published, the Department must issue its
preliminary findings of critical circumstances no later than 30 days
after the allegation was filed.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Framework
Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act''), provides that the Department, upon receipt of a timely
allegation of critical circumstances, will determine whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history
of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the
United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the
person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew
or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject
merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be
material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short
period.
Further, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1) provides that, in determining whether
imports of the subject merchandise have been ``massive,'' the
Department normally will examine: (i) The volume and value of the
imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic
consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR
351.206(h)(2) provides that, ``{i{time} n general, unless the imports
during the `relatively short period' * * * have increased by at least
15 percent over the imports during an immediately preceding period of
comparable duration, the Secretary will not consider the imports
massive.'' 19 CFR 351.206(i) defines ``relatively short period''
generally as the period starting on the date the proceeding begins
(i.e., the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months
later. This section of the regulations further provides that, if the
Department ``finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had
reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the
proceeding, that a proceeding was likely,'' then the Department may
consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time.
Critical Circumstances Allegation
In their allegation, Petitioners contend that, based on the dumping
margins assigned by the Department in the Preliminary Determination,
importers knew or should have known that the merchandise under
consideration was being sold at less than fair value (``LTFV'').\7\
Petitioners also contend that, based on the preliminary determination
of injury by the U.S. International Trade Commission (``ITC''), there
is a reasonable basis to impute importers' knowledge that material
injury is likely by reason of such imports.\8\ Finally, as part of
their allegation and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2), Petitioners
submitted import statistics for the ``like product'' covered by the
scope of this investigation for the period between August 2011 and May
2012, as evidence of massive imports of garment hangers from Vietnam
during a relatively short period.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Petitioners' Critical Circumstances Allegation, dated
August 2, 2012, at 2-3.
\8\ See id. at 3-4.
\9\ See id. at 4-5, Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis
The Department's normal practice in determining whether critical
circumstances exist pursuant to the statutory criteria has been to
examine evidence available to the Department, such as: (1) The evidence
presented in Petitioners' critical circumstances allegation; (2) import
statistics released by the ITC; and (3) shipment information submitted
to the Department by the respondents selected for individual
examination.\10\ As further provided below, in determining whether the
above statutory criteria have been satisfied in this case, we have
examined: (1) The evidence presented in Petitioners' August 2, 2012,
allegation; (2) information obtained since the initiation of this
investigation; and (3) the ITC's preliminary injury determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the
People's Republic of China, 73 FR 31970, 31972-73 (June 5, 2008)
(``Carbon Steel Pipe''); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances:
Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of
China, 74 FR 2049, 2052-53 (January 14, 2009) (``SDGE'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act: History of Dumping and Material
Injury by Reason of Dumped Imports in the United States or Elsewhere of
the Subject Merchandise
In determining whether a history of dumping and material injury
exists, the Department generally has considered current or previous
antidumping duty orders on subject merchandise from the country in
question in the United States and current orders in any other
country.\11\ In this case, the current investigation of the subject
merchandise marks the first instance that the Department has examined
whether the goods are dumped into the United States. As a result, the
Department previously has not imposed an antidumping duty order on the
subject merchandise. Moreover, the Department is not aware of any
antidumping duty order on subject merchandise from Vietnam in another
country. Therefore, the Department finds no history of injurious
dumping of the subject merchandise pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i)
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Carbon Steel Pipe, 73 FR at 31972-73; SDGE, 74 FR 2052-
53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii): The Importer Knew or Should Have Known That
Exporter Was Selling at Less Than Fair Value and That There Was Likely
To Be Material Injury
In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that
the exporter was selling subject merchandise at LTFV and that there was
likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, the Department
must rely on the facts before it at the time the determination is made.
The Department generally bases its decision with respect to knowledge
on the margins calculated in the preliminary determination and the
ITC's preliminary injury determination.
The Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for
export price sales and 15 percent or more for constructed export price
sales sufficient to impute importer knowledge of sales
[[Page 51516]]
at LTFV.\12\ The Department preliminarily determined a margin of 135.81
percent for the TJ Group, which was also assigned as the separate rate
to the non-selected separate rate applicants.\13\ Additionally, the
Department preliminarily assigned a margin of 187.51 percent, as
adverse facts available (``AFA'') to the Vietnam-wide entity, which
includes one of the mandatory respondents, South East Asia Hamico
Export Joint Stock Company (``Hamico'').\14\ Therefore, because the
preliminary margins are greater than 25 percent for all producers and
exporters, we preliminarily find, with respect to all producers and
exporters, that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that
importers knew, or should have known, that exporters were selling the
merchandise under consideration at LTFV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany,
Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February
11, 2002); Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China,
70 FR 5606, 5607 (February 3, 2005).
\13\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46053.
\14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that
there was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such
imports, the Department normally will look to the preliminary injury
determination of the ITC.\15\ If the ITC finds a reasonable indication
of present material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the
Department will determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute
importer knowledge that material injury is likely by reason of such
imports.\16\ Here, the ITC found that ``there is a reasonable
indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured
by reason of imports from Taiwan and Vietnam of steel wire garment
hangers, provided for in subheading 7326.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States * * *.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR
24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010) (``Salt Critical Circumstances Prelim'').
\16\ See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany,
Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February
11, 2002); Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China,
70 FR 5606, 5607 (February 3, 2005).
\17\ See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Taiwan and Vietnam,
Investigation Nos. 701-TA-487 and 731-TA-1197-1198 (Preliminary), 77
FR 9701 (February 17, 2012) (``ITC Prelim'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 733(e)(1)(B): Whether There Have Been Massive Imports of the
Subject Merchandise Over a Relatively Short Period
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2), the Department will not consider
imports to be massive unless imports in the comparison period have
increased by at least 15 percent over imports in the base period. The
Department normally considers a ``relatively short period'' as the
period beginning on the date the proceeding begins and ending at least
three months later.\18\ For this reason, the Department normally
compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least
three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e.,
the ``base period'') to a comparable period of at least three months
following the filing of the petition (i.e., the ``comparison
period'').\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
\19\ See Salt Critical Circumstances Prelim, 75 FR at 24574.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their August 2, 2012, allegation, Petitioners maintained that
importers, exporters, or foreign producers gained knowledge that this
proceeding was possible when the petition for an antidumping duty
investigation was filed on December 29, 2011.\20\ Petitioners noted
that when a petition is filed in the second half of a month, the month
following the filing is treated as part of the post-petition
period.\21\ Petitioners also included in their allegation U.S. import
data collected from the ITC's Dataweb.\22\ Based on this data,
Petitioners provided data for a five-month base period (August 2011
through December 2011) and a five-month comparison period (January 2012
through May 2012), the most recent data available at the time of
filing, in showing whether imports were massive.\23\ Therefore, based
on the date of the filing of the petition, i.e., December 29, 2012,
which was in the second half of the month, the Department agrees with
Petitioners that January 2012 is the month in which importers,
exporters, or producers knew or should have known an antidumping duty
investigation was likely, and falls within the comparison period. We
also agree that using a five-month base period and a five-month
comparison period for import analysis is reasonable, as the ITC's
Dataweb contained data up through May 2012, at the time of filing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Petitioners' Critical Circumstances Allegation dated
August 2, 2012, at 4.
\21\ See id. at 4.
\22\ See id. at 5.
\23\ See id. at Attachment 1. At the time of filing, import data
was available only through May 2012.
\24\ See ``Memorandum to the File, from Irene Gorelik, Analyst,
Office 9; Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Wire Garment
Hangers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary
Affirmative Critical Circumstances Memorandum,'' (``Dataweb Memo'')
dated concurrently with this notice at Exhibits I-II; see also
Petitioners' Critical Circumstances Allegation at Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TJ Group
It has been the Department's practice to conduct its massive
imports analysis based on the experience of investigated companies,
using the reported monthly shipment data for the base and comparison
periods.\25\ However, as noted above, on August 3, 2012, the TJ Group
withdrew its participation from this investigation, thus it did not
respond to the Department's request for monthly shipment data for the
base and comparison periods.\26\ Therefore, the Department
preliminarily determines that pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C)
of the Act, use of the facts otherwise available are necessary in
reaching the applicable determination under this title with respect to
the TJ Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See, e.g., Carbon Steel Pipe, 73 FR at 31972-73; SDGE, 74
FR 2052-53.
\26\ See the Department's letter to the TJ Group dated August 2,
2012; see also TJ Group's Letter of Withdrawal dated August 3, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if a party
has failed to act to the best of its ability, the Department may apply
an adverse inference. The TJ Group withdrew its participation from this
investigation and from the scheduled verification of its books and
records. Thus, we are using facts available, in accordance with section
776(a) of the Act and, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we also
find that AFA is warranted so that the TJ Group does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had fully
cooperated. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that there were massive
imports of merchandise from the TJ Group, pursuant to our practice.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See SDGE, 74 FR at 2052-2053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rate Respondents
It has also been the Department's practice to conduct its massive
imports analysis of the separate rate respondents based on the
experience of investigated companies.\28\ Thus, we did not request
monthly shipment information from the three separate rate respondents.
However, where mandatory respondents received AFA, we have not imputed
adverse inferences of massive imports to the non-individually examined
[[Page 51517]]
companies receiving a separate rate. Instead, the Department has relied
upon the ITC's Dataweb import statistics, where appropriate, in
determining whether there have been massive imports for the separate
rate respondents. Accordingly, as the basis for determining whether
imports were massive for these separate rate respondents, we are
relying on the ITC's Dataweb import statistics as evidence that imports
in the post-petition period were massive for those companies. As stated
above, in this case, the ITC's Dataweb import volume data shows an
increase of 19.62 percent of steel wire garment hanger imports from
Vietnam during the comparison period.\29\ Thus, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.206(h), we determine that this increase, being greater than 15
percent, shows that imports in the five-month comparison period were
massive for the separate rate respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See, e.g., Salt Critical Circumstances Prelim, 75 FR at
24575; Carbon Steel Pipe, 73 FR at 31972-73; and SDGE, 74 FR at
2053.
\29\ See Dataweb Memo at Exhibits I-II; see also Petitioners'
Critical Circumstances Allegation at Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vietnam-Wide Entity (Including Hamico) and the Application of AFA
In this investigation, the Department selected Hamico and the TJ
Group as mandatory respondents for individual examination.\30\ In the
Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that there were
exporters/producers of the merchandise under investigation during the
period of investigation from Vietnam, including Hamico,\31\ that
either: (1) Did not respond to the Department's request for
information, or (2) failed to provide information that was not
available on the record but necessary to calculate an accurate dumping
margin. Therefore, pursuant to 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act we
treated these Vietnamese exporters/producers, including Hamico, as part
of the Vietnam-wide entity because they did not qualify for a separate
rate.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See ``Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from
James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9; Antidumping Duty Investigation
of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Respondent Selection,'' dated February 16, 2012.
\31\ We preliminarily found that Hamico failed to provide the
information requested by the Department in a timely manner and in
the form required, and significantly impeded the Department's
ability to calculate an accurate margin. The Department was unable
to calculate a margin without the necessary information, requiring
the application of facts otherwise available to Hamico for the
purpose of the Preliminary Determination. See Preliminary
Determination, 77 FR at 46049-51.
\32\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, information on the record indicates that the Vietnam-wide
entity was non-cooperative because certain companies did not respond to
our requests for information.\33\ As a result, pursuant to section
776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily found that the use of AFA was
warranted to determine the Vietnam-wide rate.\34\ As AFA, we
preliminarily assigned to the Vietnam-wide entity a rate of 187.51
percent, which is the highest transaction-specific rate calculated for
the TJ Group.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See id.
\34\ See id.
\35\ See id., 77 FR at 46053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Vietnam-wide entity has been unresponsive for the
duration of the proceeding, the record does not contain shipment data
from the Vietnam-wide entity for purposes of our critical circumstances
analysis. Therefore, there is no verifiable information on the record
with respect to the Vietnam-wide entity's base and comparison period
shipment volumes. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an
interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has
been requested by the administering authority or the Commission under
this title, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for
submission of the information or in the form and manner requested,
subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, (C) significantly
impedes a proceeding under this title, or (D) provides such information
but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i),
the administering authority and the Commission shall, subject to
section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination under this title.
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if a party
has failed to act to the best of its ability, the Department may apply
an adverse inference. The Vietnam-wide entity has been non-cooperative
during the entire proceeding.\36\ Thus, we are using facts available,
in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, and, pursuant to section
776(b) of the Act, we also find that AFA is warranted so that the
Vietnam-wide entity does not obtain a more favorable result by failing
to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated. Accordingly, as we have
done under similar factual scenarios in other proceedings, we
preliminarily find that there were massive imports of merchandise from
the Vietnam-wide entity.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See id.
\37\ See, e.g., Salt Critical Circumstances Prelim, 75 FR at
24572-24573.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances
Record evidence indicates that importers of steel wire garment
hangers knew, or should have known, that exporters were selling the
merchandise at LTFV, and that there was likely to be material injury by
reason of such sales. In addition, we have imputed that the Vietnam-
wide entity and the TJ Group has massive imports during a relatively
short period. Lastly, record evidence shows that the separate rate
respondents had massive imports during a relatively short period.
Therefore, in accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act, we
preliminarily find that there is reason to believe or suspect that
critical circumstances exist for imports of the merchandise under
consideration from the Vietnam-wide entity (which includes Hamico), the
TJ Group, and the separate rate respondents (CTN Limited Company, Ju Fu
Co., Ltd., and Triloan Hangers, Inc.) in this antidumping duty
investigation.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See section 733(f) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we are
directing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation
of any unliquidated entries of the merchandise under consideration from
Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or
after May 4, 2012, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of
the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our preliminary affirmative critical circumstances
determination.
Public Comment
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that case
briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days after the
date the final verification report is issued.\39\ However, as noted
above, the TJ Group withdrew from participation in this investigation,
including the scheduled verification. Consequently, as there were no
other verifications scheduled for this proceeding, the Department is
setting the public comment deadline herein. Therefore, case briefs
addressing any issues in the Preliminary Determination or this
preliminary affirmative determination of critical circumstances
[[Page 51518]]
may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
no later than seven days after the publication date of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, are due no
later than five days after the deadline for submitting case briefs.\40\
A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should
accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should
be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. All submissions to
the Department, including case briefs and rebuttal briefs, must be
filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA
ACCESS''). An electronically filed document must be received
successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records
system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, on the date of the
established deadline, if applicable. Finally, this notice is a public
document and is on file electronically via IA ACCESS. IA ACCESS is
available to registered users at https://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the
Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce
building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46054.
\40\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i), (d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This determination is published pursuant to sections 733(f) and
777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).
Dated: August 20, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-20911 Filed 8-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
