Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Investigation, Final Determination, 13019-13024 [2013-04379]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2013 / Notices
Comment 12 Stainless Steel Quality
Differences Between Benchmark and
Superte’s Purchases
Provision of Electricity for LTAR
Comment 13 Application of AFA and
Benchmark Analysis
Provision of Land for LTAR
Comment 14 Policies and Incentives,
Marketing of Industrial Zones, and Pricing
[FR Doc. 2013–04280 Filed 2–25–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–983]
Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the
People’s Republic of China:
Investigation, Final Determination
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: February 26,
2013.
SUMMARY: On October 4, 2012, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published its
preliminary determination of sales at
less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) and
postponement of final determination in
the antidumping (‘‘AD’’) investigation of
drawn stainless steel sinks (‘‘drawn
sinks’’) from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’).1 We invited interested
parties to comment on our preliminary
determination of sales at LTFV. Based
on our analysis of the comments we
received, we have made changes to our
margin calculations for the mandatory
respondents. We determine that drawn
sinks from the PRC are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at
LTFV, as provided in section 735 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’). The final dumping margins for
this investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final
Determination Margins’’ section below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frances Veith or Eve Wang, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4295 or (202) 482–
6231, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Case History
The Department published its
Preliminary Determination on October
1 See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the
People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 77 FR 60673 (October 4, 2012)
(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Feb 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
4, 2012. On October 10, 2012, the
Department issued post-Preliminary
Determination supplemental
questionnaires in which we requested
new factual information regarding
double remedies from Dongyuan and
Superte/Zhaoshun 2 and received
responses to these supplemental
questionnaires on October 17, 2012.
From October 22, through November 1,
2012, the Department conducted
verifications of Dongyuan and Superte/
Zhaoshun and released its verification
reports for these companies on
November 28, and 29, 2012,
respectively.3 Timely requests for a
public hearing were filed on October 25,
2012, by Shenzen Kehuaxing Industrial
Ltd. (‘‘Kehuaxing’’) and on November 5,
2012, by both Elkay Manufacturing
Company (‘‘Petitioner’’) and Dongyuan.
On November 15, 2012, in response to
a request filed by Dongyuan, the
Department extended the deadline for
submission of publicly available
information to November 26, 2012, and
the due date for rebuttal information to
December 6, 2012. On November 26,
2012, Petitioner and Dongyuan
submitted surrogate value (‘‘SV’’)
information for the record, and
Petitioner, Dongyuan, and Superte
submitted rebuttal comments to this
information on December 6, 2012. On
November 28, 2012, the Department
extended the deadline for submission of
case briefs to December 10, 2012, and
the due date for rebuttals briefs to
December 17, 2012. On December 7,
2012, in response to a request filed by
Dongyuan, the Department again
extended the deadline for submission of
case briefs to December 13, 2012, and
the due date for rebuttals briefs to
December 18, 2012. On December 13,
2012, case briefs were filed by
Petitioner, Dongyuan, Superte/
Zhaoshun, and Kehuaxing.
On December 18, 2012, Petitioner,
Dongyuan, Superte/Zhaoshun and the
Government of China (‘‘GOC’’), each
filed their rebuttal briefs, and on
December 19, 2012, in its request to
replace its case brief, the GOC submitted
a corrected version of its case brief. On
December 20, 2012, the Department
rejected the GOC’s original case brief
and granted the GOC’s request to correct
and replace their case brief filed as an
attachment to its December 19, 2012,
2 Mandatory respondents are Guangdong
Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Dongyuan’’) and Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Superte’’) and its invoicing company
Foshan Zhaoshun Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhaoshun’’)
(also collectively referred to as ‘‘Superte/
Zhaoshun’’).
3 See the ‘‘Verification’’ section below for
additional information.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13019
request. We did not receive briefs or
rebuttal briefs from any other interested
party to the investigation. On January
30, 2013, the Department held a public
hearing limited to issues raised in case
and rebuttal briefs.
Tolling of Administrative Deadlines
The Department postponed the
deadline for the final determination to
not later than 135 days after publication
of the Preliminary Determination (i.e.,
February 16, 2013).4 However, as
explained in the memorandum from the
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, the Department
exercised its discretion to toll deadlines
for two calendar days. Thus, all existing
deadlines associated with this
investigation were postponed by two
days.5 However, since February 18,
2013, falls on a Federal Holiday, a nonbusiness day, the revised deadline for
this final determination is now February
19, 2013.6
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
July 1, 2011, through December 31,
2011. This period corresponds to the
two most recent fiscal quarters prior to
the month of the filing of the petition,
which was March 2012.7
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, we verified the information
submitted by Dongyuan and Superte/
Zhaoshun for use in our final
determination.8 For all verified
4 See
Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 60675.
Memorandum to the Record from Paul
Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of
Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the
Government Closure During Hurricane Sandy,’’
dated October 31, 2012. Accordingly, the revised
deadline for this final determination is February 18,
2013.
6 See Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next
Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative
Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act
of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
7 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
8 See The Department’s verification reports titled,
‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors Responses of
Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co. Ltd./Foshan
Zhaoshun Trade Co., Ltd. in the Investigation of
Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People’s
Republic of China,’’ (November 28, 2012)
(‘‘Superte/Zhaoshun’s Verification Report’’); and
‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors Responses of
Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co.,
Ltd. in the Antidumping Investigation of Drawn
Stainless Steel Sinks from the People’s Republic of
China,’’ (November 27, 2012) (‘‘Dongyuan’s
Verification Report’’) on the record of this
investigation on file electronically via Import
Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA
ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered
users at https://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central
Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), room 7046 of the main
5 See
E:\FR\FM\26FEN1.SGM
Continued
26FEN1
13020
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2013 / Notices
companies, we used standard
verification procedures, including
examination of relevant accounting and
production records, as well as original
source documents provided by
respondents.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
investigation are addressed in the
‘‘Investigation of Drawn Stainless Steel
Sinks from the People’s Republic of
China: Issues and Decision
Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently
with this notice and hereby adopted by
this notice (‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum’’). A list of the issues
which parties raised and to which we
respond in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is attached to this notice
as an Appendix. The Issues and
Decision Memorandum is a public
document on file in the CRU and
accessible on the Web at ia.ita.doc.gov/
frn. The paper copy and electronic
version of the memorandum are
identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary
Determination
Changes Applicable to Multiple
Companies
• Updated the SV used to value
sound deadening pads.9
• Valued the labor SV using Thailand
2007 National Statistics Office (‘‘NSO’’)
data.10
• Revised the treatment of labor in
the financial ratios calculations to
accord with the costs captured in the
Thailand 2007 NSO data.11
• Revised the SV calculation for
stainless steel.12
Changes Specific to Superte/Zhaoshun
• Adjusted Superte/Zhaoshun’s
electricity consumption to reflect usage
during the POI.13
• Adjusted Superte/Zhaoshun’s
consumption of wooden boxes and
polystyrene based on verification
findings.14
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Changes Specific to Dongyuan
• Revised the SV used to value
Dongyuan’s paint input.15
For detailed information concerning
all of the changes made, including those
Department of Commerce, with respect to these
entities.
9 See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at
Comment 7.
10 See id., at Comment 3.
11 See id., at Comment 4.
12 See id., at Comment 2.
13 See id., at Comment 10.
14 See id., at Comment 11.
15 See id., at Comment 13.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Feb 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
listed above, see the company-specific
analysis and SV memoranda.
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by the scope of
this investigation are drawn stainless
steel sinks with single or multiple
drawn bowls, with or without drain
boards, whether finished or unfinished,
regardless of type of finish, gauge, or
grade of stainless steel. Mounting clips,
fasteners, seals, and sound-deadening
pads are also covered by the scope of
this investigation if they are included
within the sales price of the drawn
stainless steel sinks.16 For purposes of
this scope definition, the term ‘‘drawn’’
refers to a manufacturing process using
metal forming technology to produce a
smooth basin with seamless, smooth,
and rounded corners. Drawn stainless
steel sinks are available in various
shapes and configurations and may be
described in a number of ways
including flush mount, top mount, or
undermount (to indicate the attachment
relative to the countertop). Stainless
steel sinks with multiple drawn bowls
that are joined through a welding
operation to form one unit are covered
by the scope of the investigations.
Drawn stainless steel sinks are covered
by the scope of the investigation
whether or not they are sold in
conjunction with non-subject
accessories such as faucets (whether
attached or unattached), strainers,
strainer sets, rinsing baskets, bottom
grids, or other accessories.
Excluded from the scope of the
investigation are stainless steel sinks
with fabricated bowls. Fabricated bowls
do not have seamless corners, but rather
are made by notching and bending the
stainless steel, and then welding and
finishing the vertical corners to form the
bowls. Stainless steel sinks with
fabricated bowls may sometimes be
referred to as ‘‘zero radius’’ or ‘‘near
zero radius’’ sinks.
The products covered by this
investigation are currently classified in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under
statistical reporting number
7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.00.10.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope is dispositive.
16 Mounting clips, fasteners, seals, and sounddeadening pads are not covered by the scope of
these investigations if they are not included within
the sales price of the drawn stainless steel sinks,
regardless of whether they are shipped with or
entered with drawn stainless steel sinks.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Nonmarket Economy Country
The Department considers the PRC to
be a nonmarket economy (‘‘NME’’)
country. In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect
until revoked by the administering
authority. The Department continues to
treat the PRC as an NME for purposes
of this final determination.
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we
stated that we had selected Thailand as
the appropriate surrogate country to use
in this investigation for the following
reasons: (1) It is a significant producer
of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at
a level of economic development
comparable to that of the PRC, pursuant
to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3)
we have reliable data from Thailand that
we can use to value the factors of
production (‘‘FOPs’’).17 For the final
determination, we received no
comments on surrogate country
selection and made no changes to our
findings with respect to the selection of
a surrogate country.
Separate Rate Companies
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department holds a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus,
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department’s policy
to assign all exporters of the subject
merchandise in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate.
In the Preliminary Determination, we
found 19 companies and the mandatory
respondents (‘‘Separate Rate
Applicants’’) demonstrated their
eligibility for separate rate status.18
Additionally, the Department did not
grant a separate rate to Jiangmen Liantai
Kitchen Equipment Co., Ltd.’s
(‘‘Liantai’’), Xinhe Stainless Steel
Products Co., Ltd.’s (‘‘Xinhe’’), Kele
Kitchenware Co., Ltd.’s (‘‘Kele
Kitchenware’’), Capstone International
Development Corporation (‘‘Capstone’’),
FoShan Fancome Trading Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Fancome’’) and Kehuaxing. Kehuaxing
submitted comments in its case brief
regarding its separate rate status. After
considering Kehuaxing’s comments, the
Department has not changed its position
17 See Preliminary Determination, and
accompanying Decision Memorandum at Surrogate
Country 5–7.
18 See id., at Separate Rates 8–12.
E:\FR\FM\26FEN1.SGM
26FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2013 / Notices
from the Preliminary Determination
with respect to Kehuaxing’s separate
rate status. For a complete discussion of
the issue, see the Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 14.
The Department continues to find that
the evidence placed on the record of
this investigation by the Separate Rate
Applicants that were granted separate
rate status in the Preliminary
Determination demonstrates both de
jure and de facto absence of government
control with respect to each company’s
respective exports of the merchandise
under investigation. Further, the
Department has continued to deny
Liantai, Xinhe, Kele Kitchenware,
Capstone, Fancome, and Kehuaxing
separate rate status as was the case in
the Preliminary Determination.
The separate rate is normally
determined based on the weightedaverage of the estimated AD margins
established for exporters and producers
individually investigated, excluding
zero and de minimis margins or margins
based entirely on adverse facts available
(‘‘AFA’’).19 In this investigation, both
Dongyuan and Superte/Zhaoshun have
estimated weighted-average AD margins
which are above de minimis and which
are not based on total AFA. Because
there are only two relevant weightedaverage AD margins for this final
determination, using a weighted-average
of these two margins risks disclosure of
business proprietary information
(‘‘BPI’’) data. Therefore, the Department
has calculated a simple average of the
two final AD margins calculated for the
mandatory respondents.
The statute does not preclude
adopting a uniform application of the
average-to-transaction method (‘‘A-toT’’) under the following circumstances:
(1) There is a pattern of export prices
that differ significantly among
purchasers, regions, or periods of time;
and (2) the Department explains why
such differences cannot be taken into
account using the average-to-average
(‘‘A-to-A’’) method or transaction-totransaction (‘‘T-to-T’’) method.20
In the Preliminary Determination, in
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i)
of the Act and our practice, as discussed
in Steel Nails 21 and as modified in
Wood Flooring,22 we determined that
19 See
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.
section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
21 See Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab
Emirates: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Not Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 16,
2008) (‘‘Steel Nails’’).
22 See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318
(October 18, 2011) (‘‘Wood Flooring’’), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 4.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Feb 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
for Superte there is a pattern of prices
for U.S. sales of comparable
merchandise that differ significantly
among certain purchasers, but not by
regions or time periods, and for
Dongyuan, a pattern of prices for U.S.
sales of comparable merchandise that
differ significantly among certain
purchasers and regions, but not by time
periods. However, we determined that
the criteria established in
777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act had not been
met, because the A-to-A method does
not mask differences in the patterns of
prices between the targeted and nontargeted groups and the alternative A-toT method yields a difference in the
margin that is not meaningful relative to
the size of the resulting margin.23
For the final determination, for
Superte, we have found that there is a
pattern of prices for U.S. sales of
comparable merchandise that differ
significantly among purchasers, regions,
and time periods. With respect to
Dongyuan, we find that a pattern of
export prices (or constructed export
prices) for comparable merchandise that
differ significantly among purchasers,
regions, or time periods does not exist.
As in the Preliminary Determination,
however, for both respondents, the
criteria established in 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii)
of the Act have not been met, thus, we
continue to apply the A-to-A method for
both Dongyuan and Superte in the final
determination of this investigation.24
Adjustment Under Section 777A(f) of
the Act
In our Preliminary Determination, the
Department made adjustments to the AD
cash deposit rate found for the
respondents in this investigation,
pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act.25
To make these adjustments, we used
information for individually examined
respondents in the countervailing duty
(‘‘CVD’’) investigation to derive
program-specific rates for subsidized
inputs for each respondent in the AD
investigation.26 In making these
adjustments, the Department stated that
it had not concluded that concurrent
application of NME ADs and CVDs
23 See also Memorandum to Paul Piquado from
Christian Marsh, entitled, ‘‘Decision Memorandum
for Preliminary Determination for the Antidumping
Duty Investigation of Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks
from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated
September 27, 2011.
24 See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at
Comment 8.
25 See Preliminary Determination, and
accompanying Decision Memorandum at 21–23.
26 The mandatory respondents in the CVD
investigation are Superte and Guangdong Yingao
Kitchen Utensils Co., Ltd. See Drawn Stainless Steel
Sinks From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination, 77 FR 46717 (August 6, 2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13021
necessarily and automatically results in
overlapping remedies.27 Rather, a
finding that there is an overlap in
remedies, and any resulting adjustment,
is based on a case-by-case analysis of
the totality of facts on the administrative
record in the relevant segment of the
proceeding, as required by the statute.28
We also stated that because of the
timelines in an LTFV investigation, and
the fact that this is only the second time
that the Department applied section
777A(f) of the Act,29 it may be necessary
to continue to refine our practice, based
on record evidence, in applying this
statutory provision.30
After verifying Dongyuan’s and
Superte’s sales and costs, we continue
to find that electricity and stainless steel
coil subsidies impacted both Superte’s
and Dongyuan’s cost of manufacturing
(‘‘COM’’), and that the other subsidy
programs under investigation (e.g., grant
programs, tax programs, policy lending,
etc.) did not.31 We also confirmed that
Superte and Dongyuan only adjust
prices in response to certain changes in
stainless steel coil cost, but not to
changes in other subsidized costs that
impact COM.32 Additionally, at
Dongyuan’s verification, we confirmed
that Dongyuan’s cost-to-price linkage
was applicable to all of its POI sales to
the United States.33 However, Superte
explicitly stated at verification that it
did not change price in response to
reductions in stainless steel costs, only
increases, and only on a limited number
of sales.34 Therefore, we find that
Dongyuan demonstrated the cost-toprice linkage for its products, but that
Superte did not. Accordingly, we find
that both respondents provided
sufficient information to demonstrate
the first link between certain subsidies
and COM, but that only one company,
Dongyuan, demonstrated the second
link—changes in cost that were linked
to changes in prices. As such, we have
determined that an estimated domestic
subsidy pass-through adjustment is
27 See Preliminary Determination, and
accompanying Decision Memorandum at 21–23.
28 See id.
29 See Implementation of Determinations Under
Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act:
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires; Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe; Laminated
Woven Sacks; and Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe
and Tube From the People’s Republic of China, 77
FR 52683, 52686 (August 30, 2012).
30 See Preliminary Determination, and
accompanying Decision Memorandum at 21.
31 See Superte/Zhaoshun’s Verification Report
and Dongyuan’s Verification Report.
32 See id.
33 See Dongyuan’s Verification Report.
34 See Superte/Zhaoshun’s Verification Report.
E:\FR\FM\26FEN1.SGM
26FEN1
13022
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2013 / Notices
warranted for Dongyuan but not for
Superte.
The Department has determined that
record evidence does not support the
calculation of a company-specific passthrough rate for Dongyuan. Although
Dongyuan’s calculation of an estimated
pass-through rate provides probative
evidence that some pass-through
occurred, the estimate is based only on
certain sales 35 and is not consistent
across the sales the Department verified.
Therefore, the Department has
determined to continue to apply a
documented ratio of cost-price changes
for the Chinese manufacturing sector as
a whole, 61.01 percent 36 as the estimate
of the extent of subsidy pass-through for
Dongyuan.
offsets were related to the production of
the merchandise under consideration
(i.e., the quantity claimed was
reasonably tied to the production of
stainless steel sinks during the POI) and
that the scrap claimed as an offset has
commercial value. However, in the
event we issue a final antidumping duty
order, in future proceedings we would
expect Superte to modify its accounting
and recordkeeping system in order to
accurately record scrap materials
generated during production of the
subject merchandise.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
By-Product Offset
The Department has determined to
continue to grant Dongyuan’s and
Superte’s claimed scrap offset in the
final determination. It is the
Department’s practice to allow
respondents an offset to the reported
FOPs for scrap generated during the
production of the merchandise under
consideration if evidence is provided
that such scrap has commercial value.37
In its questionnaire responses and at
verification, however, Superte
explained that it does not track scrap
generation in its books and records and,
therefore, based its scrap offset on the
ratio of the total weight of stainless steel
grades 304 and 201 scrap sold during
the POI divided by the total POI
consumption of stainless steel grades
304 and 201.38 We determined, in the
instant case, the record evidence
supports that Superte’s claimed scrap
Use of Facts Available and Adverse
Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that
the Department shall apply facts
available (‘‘FA’’) if (1) necessary
information is not on the record, or (2)
an interested party or any other person
(A) withholds information that has been
requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines
established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding, or (D) provides information
that cannot be verified as provided by
section 782(i) of the Act.
Section 776(b) of the Act further
provides that the Department may use
an adverse inference in applying FA
when a party has failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with a request for information.
Such an adverse inference may include
reliance on information derived from
the petition, the final determination, a
previous administrative review, or other
information placed on the record.
35 See Dongyuan’s submission regarding: Drawn
Stainless Steel Sinks from the People’s Republic of
China: Double Remedies Questionnaire Response,
dated October 17, 2012, at 6–9; see also Dongyuan’s
submission regarding: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks
from the People’s Republic of China: Double
Remedies Questionnaire Response, dated
September 17, 2012, at 2.
36 See Final Determination Analysis
Memorandum for Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware
Co., Ltd.; see also Final Determination Analysis
Memorandum for Guangdong Dongyuan
Kitchenware Industrial Co.
37 See, e.g., Wood Flooring/China, and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 23; see also Narrow Woven Ribbons With
Woven Selvedge From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 75 FR 41808 (July 19, 2010), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2; see also Frontseating Service Valves
From the People’s Republic of China; 2010–2011
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Final
Results, 77 FR 67334 (November 9, 2012), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 7.
38 See Superte/Zhaoshun’s submission regarding:
Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from China: First
Supplemental Section D Questionnaire Response,
dated August 20, 2012 (‘‘Superte/Zhaoshun’s
SDQR’’), at 24 and Exhibit SQ1–9.
PRC-Wide Entity
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department determined that, during the
POI, in addition to Capstone, Fancome,
and Kehuaxing, there are other PRC
exporters and/or producers of the
merchandise under consideration that
failed to timely respond to the
Department’s requests for information
and did not establish that they were
separate from the PRC-wide entity.
Thus, the Department has found that
these PRC exporters and/or producers
are part of the PRC-wide entity and the
PRC-wide entity has not responded to
our requests for information. Because
the PRC-wide entity did not provide the
Department with requested information,
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the
Act, the Department continues to find it
appropriate to base the PRC-wide rate
on FA.
The Department determines that,
because the PRC-wide entity did not
respond to our request for information,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Feb 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the PRC-wide entity has failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability.
Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of
the Act, the Department finds that, in
selecting from among the FA, an adverse
inference is appropriate for the PRCwide entity. Because the Department
begins with the presumption that all
companies within an NME country are
subject to government control, and
because only the mandatory
respondents and certain Separate Rate
Applicants have overcome that
presumption, the Department is
applying a single AD rate to all other
exporters of subject merchandise from
the PRC. Such companies have not
demonstrated entitlement to a separate
rate.39
Selection of the Adverse Facts
Available Rate for the PRC-Wide Entity
In determining a rate for AFA, the
Department’s practice is to select a rate
that is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to
effectuate the purpose of the adverse
facts available rule to induce
respondents to provide the Department
with complete and accurate information
in a timely manner.’’ 40 Further, it is the
Department’s practice to select a rate
that ensures ‘‘that the party does not
obtain a more favorable result by failing
to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.’’ 41 Thus, the Department’s
practice is to select, as an AFA rate, the
higher of: (1) the highest AD margin
alleged in the petition, or (2) the highest
calculated AD margin of any respondent
in the investigation.42 In this
investigation, the highest petition AD
margin is 76.53 percent.43 This rate is
higher than any of the weighted-average
AD margins calculated for the
companies individually examined.
39 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Market Value: Synthetic Indigo
From the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 25706,
25707 (May 2, 2000).
40 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).
41 See Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the
Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the
Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939
(November 18, 2005) (quoting the Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act (‘‘SAA’’), H. Doc. No. 316,
103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994)).
42 See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening
Agents From the People’s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 77
FR 17436, 17438 (March 26, 2012).
43 See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 77 FR 18207,
18210 (March 27, 2012) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
E:\FR\FM\26FEN1.SGM
26FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2013 / Notices
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the
Department to corroborate, to the extent
practicable, secondary information used
as facts available. Secondary
information is defined as ‘‘information
derived from the petition that gave rise
to the investigation or review, the final
determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review
under section 751 of the Act concerning
the subject merchandise.’’44
The SAA clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’
means that the Department will satisfy
itself that the secondary information to
be used has probative value.45 The SAA
also states that independent sources
used to corroborate such evidence may
include, for example, published price
lists, official import statistics and
customs data, and information obtained
from interested parties during the
particular investigation.46 To
corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent
practicable, determine whether the
information used has probative value by
examining the reliability and relevance
of the information.
In order to determine the probative
value of the margins in the petition for
use as AFA for purposes of this
preliminary determination, we
compared the petition margins to the
margins we calculated for the
individually examined respondents. We
determined that the petition margin of
76.53 percent is reliable and relevant
because it is within the range of the
control number specific margins on the
record for one of the individually
examined exporters of subject
merchandise.47 Thus, the highest
13023
petition margin has probative value.
Accordingly, we have corroborated the
petition margin to the extent practicable
within the meaning of section 776(c) of
the Act.48
Combination Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. This
practice is described in Policy Bulletin
05.1, available at https://www.trade.gov/
ia/.
Final Determination Margins
The Department determines that the
following weighted-average dumping
margins exist for the period July 1, 2011,
through December 31, 2011.
Percent
margin
Exporter
Producer
Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd./Zhongshan Superte
Kitchenware Co., Ltd. invoiced as Foshan Zhaoshun Trade
Co., Ltd.
Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd ...............
B&R Industries Limited .................................................................
Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd ..................................
39.87
Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd ..............
Xinhe Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd. and .............................
Jiamen XHHL Stainless Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd ...............
Elkay (China) Kitchen Solutions, Co., Ltd ...................................
Jiangmen Liantai Kitchen Equipment Co ....................................
Jiangmen Xinhe Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd ......................
Foshan Shunde MingHao Kitchen Utensils Co., Ltd ...................
Guangdong YingAo Kitchen Utensils Co., Ltd.; ..........................
Franke (China) Kitchen System Co., Ltd ....................................
Zhongshan Xintian Hardware Co., Ltd ........................................
Jiangmen Jin Ke Ying Stainless Steel Wares Co., Ltd ...............
Guangdong Yingao Kitchen Utensils Co., Ltd .............................
Hangzhou Heng’s Industries Co., Ltd .........................................
Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd ..................................
Xinhe Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd .....................................
Jiangmen New Star Hi-Tech Enterprise Ltd ................................
Jiangmen Ouert Kitchen Appliance Manufacturing Co., Ltd .......
Jiangmen XHHL Stainless Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd ...........
Jiangxi Offidun Industry Co. Ltd ..................................................
Ningbo Oulin Kitchen Utensils Co., Ltd .......................................
Primy Cooperation Limited ..........................................................
Bonke Kitchen & Sanitary Industrial Co., Ltd ..............................
27.14
33.51
Elkay (China) Kitchen Solutions, Co., Ltd ....................................
Feidong Import and Export Co., Ltd .............................................
Foshan Shunde MingHao Kitchen Utensils Co., Ltd ....................
Franke Asia Sourcing Ltd .............................................................
Grand Hill Work Company ............................................................
Guangdong G-Top Import and Export Co., Ltd ............................
Guangdong Yingao Kitchen Utensils Co., Ltd ..............................
Hangzhou Heng’s Industries Co., Ltd ...........................................
J&C Industries Enterprise Limited ................................................
Jiangmen Hongmao Trading Co., Ltd ...........................................
Jiangmen New Star Hi-Tech Enterprise Ltd .................................
Jiangmen Pioneer Import & Export Co., Ltd .................................
Jiangxi Zoje Kitchen & Bath Industry Co., Ltd ..............................
Ningbo Oulin Kitchen Utensils Co., Ltd ........................................
Primy Cooperation Limited ............................................................
Shunde Foodstuffs Import & Export Company Limited of
Guangdong.
Zhongshan Newecan Enterprise Development Corporation ........
Zhuhai Kohler Kitchen & Bathroom Products Co., Ltd .................
PRC-Wide Rate * ...........................................................................
Zhongshan Xintian Hardware Co., Ltd ........................................
Zhuhai Kohler Kitchen & Bathroom Products Co., Ltd ...............
......................................................................................................
33.51
33.51
33.51
33.51
33.51
33.51
33.51
33.51
33.51
33.51
33.51
33.51
33.51
33.51
33.51
33.51
33.51
33.51
76.53
* This rate also applies to Jiangmen Liantai Kitchen Equipment Co., Jiangmen Xinhe Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd., Kele Kitchenware Co.,
Ltd., Capstone International Development Corporation, FoShan Fancome Trading Co., Ltd., and Shenzen Kehuaxing Industrial Ltd.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Disclosure
We intend to disclose to parties the
calculations performed in this
proceeding within five days of the date
of publication of this notice in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
44 See SAA, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d
Session at 870 (1994).
45 See id.
46 See id.
47 See the Department’s Memorandum titled,
‘‘LTFV Investigation of Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Feb 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation
In accordance with section
735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue to
from the People’s Republic of China: Superte/
Zhaoshun’s Preliminary Analysis Memorandum,’’
(September 27, 2012) at Attachment 1, SAS Margin
Output.
48 See section 776(c) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.308(c) and (d); Final Determination of Sales at
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
suspend liquidation of all appropriate
entries of drawn sinks from the PRC as
described in the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigation’’ section, entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after October 4,
Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part:
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the
People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 35652, 35653
(June 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
E:\FR\FM\26FEN1.SGM
26FEN1
13024
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2013 / Notices
2012, the date of publication of the
Preliminary Determination in the
Federal Register. Further, the
Department will instruct CBP to require
a cash deposit equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the normal
value exceeds U.S. price, adjusted
where appropriate for export subsidies
and estimated domestic subsidy passthrough,49 as follows: (1) The separate
rate margin for the exporter/producer
combinations listed in the table above
will be the rate the Department has
determined in this final determination;
(2) for all combinations of PRC
exporters/producers of merchandise
under consideration which have not
received their own separate rate AD
margin above, the cash-deposit rate will
be the cash-deposit rate established for
the PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all nonPRC exporters of merchandise under
consideration which have not received
their own separate rate above, the cashdeposit rate will be the cash-deposit rate
applicable to the PRC exporter/producer
combination that supplied that non-PRC
exporter.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of
the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)
of the final affirmative determination of
sales at LTFV. As the Department’s final
determination is affirmative, in
accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the
Act, the ITC will determine, within 45
days, whether the domestic industry in
the United States is materially injured,
or threatened with material injury, by
reason of imports of subject
merchandise, or sales (or the likelihood
of sales) for importation, of the subject
merchandise. If the ITC determines that
material injury or threat of material
injury does not exist, the proceeding
will be terminated and all securities
posted will be refunded or canceled. If
the ITC determines that such injury
does exist, the Department will issue an
antidumping duty order directing CBP
to assess antidumping duties on all
imports of the subject merchandise
49 See sections 772(c)(1)(C) and 777A(f) of the
Act, respectively. Unlike in administrative reviews,
the Department calculates the adjustment for export
subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy passthrough in investigations not in the margin
calculation program, but in the cash deposit
instructions issued to CBP. See the Preliminary
Determination, and accompanying Decision
Memorandum, for treatment of estimated domestic
subsidy pass-through; see Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
and Negative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from
India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1 for discussion of our treatment of
export subsidies in investigations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Feb 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the effective
date of the suspension of liquidation.
Notification Regarding APO
Dated: February 19, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix—Issues for Final
Determination
Issue 1: Adjustment Under Section 777A(f) of
the Act
Issue 2: Valuation of Stainless Steel
Issue 3: Surrogate Value for Labor
Issue 4: Whether the Department Applied the
Correct Treatment to Labor Line items in
Its Financial Ratio Calculations
Issue 5: Valuation of Brokerage and Handling
Issue 6: Financial Statements
Issue 7: Surrogate Value for Sound
Deadening Pad Input
Issue 8: Whether the Department Correctly
Applied Targeted Dumping Methodology
Issue 9: Whether Superte/Zhaoshun’s Scrap
Offset Should be Rejected
Issue 10: Whether Superte/Zhaoshun
Reported Accurate Electricity
Consumption
Issue 11: Whether Superte/Zhaoshun
Reported Accurate Consumption for
Wooden Boxes and Polystyrene Foam
Issue 12: Whether an Invoicing Company
Fees Superte Paid to Zhaoshun is an
Adjustment to its U.S. Price
Issue 13: Whether Dongyuan’s Reported Paint
Input is Soluble in Water
Issue 14: Whether the Department Properly
Rejected Kehuaxing’s Quantity and Value
Questionnaire and Separate Rate
Application
[FR Doc. 2013–04379 Filed 2–25–13; 8:45 am]
PO 00000
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
[Docket Number 130208119–3119–01]
This notice also serves as a reminder
to the parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of BPI disclosed under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Timely notification of return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Developing a Framework To Improve
Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity
National Institute of Standards
and Technology, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; Request for Information
(RFI).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) is
conducting a comprehensive review to
develop a framework to reduce cyber
risks to critical infrastructure 1 (the
‘‘Cybersecurity Framework’’ or
‘‘Framework’’). The Framework will
consist of standards, methodologies,
procedures, and processes that align
policy, business, and technological
approaches to address cyber risks.
This RFI requests information to help
identify, refine, and guide the many
interrelated considerations, challenges,
and efforts needed to develop the
Framework. In developing the
Cybersecurity Framework, NIST will
consult with the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the National Security Agency,
Sector-Specific Agencies and other
interested agencies including the Office
of Management and Budget, owners and
operators of critical infrastructure, and
other stakeholders including other
relevant agencies, independent
regulatory agencies, State, local,
territorial and tribal governments. The
Framework will be developed through
an open public review and comment
process that will include workshops and
other opportunities to provide input.
DATES: Comments must be received by
5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Monday,
April 8, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted by mail to Diane Honeycutt,
National Institute of Standards and
Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop
8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Submissions may be in any of the
following formats: HTML, ASCII, Word,
RTF, or PDF. Online submissions in
electronic form may be sent to
cyberframework@nist.gov. Please submit
comments only and include your name,
company name (if any), and cite
1 For the purposes of this RFI the term ‘‘critical
infrastructure’’ has the meaning given the term in
42 U.S.C. 5195c(e), ‘‘systems and assets, whether
physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that
the incapacity or destruction of such systems and
assets would have a debilitating impact on security,
national economic security, national public health
or safety, or any combination of those matters.’’
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\26FEN1.SGM
26FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13019-13024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04379]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-983]
Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China:
Investigation, Final Determination
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: February 26, 2013.
SUMMARY: On October 4, 2012, the Department of Commerce
(``Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at
less than fair value (``LTFV'') and postponement of final determination
in the antidumping (``AD'') investigation of drawn stainless steel
sinks (``drawn sinks'') from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'').\1\ We invited interested parties to comment on our
preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. Based on our analysis of
the comments we received, we have made changes to our margin
calculations for the mandatory respondents. We determine that drawn
sinks from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United
States at LTFV, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (``the Act''). The final dumping margins for this
investigation are listed in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic
of China: Antidumping Duty Investigation, 77 FR 60673 (October 4,
2012) (``Preliminary Determination'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Veith or Eve Wang, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4295 or (202) 482-6231, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The Department published its Preliminary Determination on October
4, 2012. On October 10, 2012, the Department issued post-Preliminary
Determination supplemental questionnaires in which we requested new
factual information regarding double remedies from Dongyuan and
Superte/Zhaoshun \2\ and received responses to these supplemental
questionnaires on October 17, 2012. From October 22, through November
1, 2012, the Department conducted verifications of Dongyuan and
Superte/Zhaoshun and released its verification reports for these
companies on November 28, and 29, 2012, respectively.\3\ Timely
requests for a public hearing were filed on October 25, 2012, by
Shenzen Kehuaxing Industrial Ltd. (``Kehuaxing'') and on November 5,
2012, by both Elkay Manufacturing Company (``Petitioner'') and
Dongyuan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Mandatory respondents are Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware
Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Dongyuan'') and Zhongshan Superte
Kitchenware Co., Ltd. (``Superte'') and its invoicing company Foshan
Zhaoshun Trade Co., Ltd. (``Zhaoshun'') (also collectively referred
to as ``Superte/Zhaoshun'').
\3\ See the ``Verification'' section below for additional
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 15, 2012, in response to a request filed by Dongyuan,
the Department extended the deadline for submission of publicly
available information to November 26, 2012, and the due date for
rebuttal information to December 6, 2012. On November 26, 2012,
Petitioner and Dongyuan submitted surrogate value (``SV'') information
for the record, and Petitioner, Dongyuan, and Superte submitted
rebuttal comments to this information on December 6, 2012. On November
28, 2012, the Department extended the deadline for submission of case
briefs to December 10, 2012, and the due date for rebuttals briefs to
December 17, 2012. On December 7, 2012, in response to a request filed
by Dongyuan, the Department again extended the deadline for submission
of case briefs to December 13, 2012, and the due date for rebuttals
briefs to December 18, 2012. On December 13, 2012, case briefs were
filed by Petitioner, Dongyuan, Superte/Zhaoshun, and Kehuaxing.
On December 18, 2012, Petitioner, Dongyuan, Superte/Zhaoshun and
the Government of China (``GOC''), each filed their rebuttal briefs,
and on December 19, 2012, in its request to replace its case brief, the
GOC submitted a corrected version of its case brief. On December 20,
2012, the Department rejected the GOC's original case brief and granted
the GOC's request to correct and replace their case brief filed as an
attachment to its December 19, 2012, request. We did not receive briefs
or rebuttal briefs from any other interested party to the
investigation. On January 30, 2013, the Department held a public
hearing limited to issues raised in case and rebuttal briefs.
Tolling of Administrative Deadlines
The Department postponed the deadline for the final determination
to not later than 135 days after publication of the Preliminary
Determination (i.e., February 16, 2013).\4\ However, as explained in
the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for two
calendar days. Thus, all existing deadlines associated with this
investigation were postponed by two days.\5\ However, since February
18, 2013, falls on a Federal Holiday, a non-business day, the revised
deadline for this final determination is now February 19, 2013.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 60675.
\5\ See Memorandum to the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of
Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure
During Hurricane Sandy,'' dated October 31, 2012. Accordingly, the
revised deadline for this final determination is February 18, 2013.
\6\ See Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next Business
Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to
the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2011, through
December 31, 2011. This period corresponds to the two most recent
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which
was March 2012.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by Dongyuan and Superte/Zhaoshun for use in our
final determination.\8\ For all verified
[[Page 13020]]
companies, we used standard verification procedures, including
examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as
original source documents provided by respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See The Department's verification reports titled,
``Verification of the Sales and Factors Responses of Zhongshan
Superte Kitchenware Co. Ltd./Foshan Zhaoshun Trade Co., Ltd. in the
Investigation of Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's
Republic of China,'' (November 28, 2012) (``Superte/Zhaoshun's
Verification Report''); and ``Verification of the Sales and Factors
Responses of Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd. in
the Antidumping Investigation of Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from
the People's Republic of China,'' (November 27, 2012) (``Dongyuan's
Verification Report'') on the record of this investigation on file
electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA
ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at https://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), room
7046 of the main Department of Commerce, with respect to these
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this investigation are addressed in the ``Investigation of Drawn
Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Issues and
Decision Memorandum,'' dated concurrently with this notice and hereby
adopted by this notice (``Issues and Decision Memorandum''). A list of
the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The
Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document on file in the CRU
and accessible on the Web at ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Changes Applicable to Multiple Companies
Updated the SV used to value sound deadening pads.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valued the labor SV using Thailand 2007 National
Statistics Office (``NSO'') data.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See id., at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised the treatment of labor in the financial ratios
calculations to accord with the costs captured in the Thailand 2007 NSO
data.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See id., at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised the SV calculation for stainless steel.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See id., at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Specific to Superte/Zhaoshun
Adjusted Superte/Zhaoshun's electricity consumption to
reflect usage during the POI.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See id., at Comment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Superte/Zhaoshun's consumption of wooden boxes
and polystyrene based on verification findings.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See id., at Comment 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Specific to Dongyuan
Revised the SV used to value Dongyuan's paint input.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See id., at Comment 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For detailed information concerning all of the changes made,
including those listed above, see the company-specific analysis and SV
memoranda.
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by the scope of this investigation are drawn
stainless steel sinks with single or multiple drawn bowls, with or
without drain boards, whether finished or unfinished, regardless of
type of finish, gauge, or grade of stainless steel. Mounting clips,
fasteners, seals, and sound-deadening pads are also covered by the
scope of this investigation if they are included within the sales price
of the drawn stainless steel sinks.\16\ For purposes of this scope
definition, the term ``drawn'' refers to a manufacturing process using
metal forming technology to produce a smooth basin with seamless,
smooth, and rounded corners. Drawn stainless steel sinks are available
in various shapes and configurations and may be described in a number
of ways including flush mount, top mount, or undermount (to indicate
the attachment relative to the countertop). Stainless steel sinks with
multiple drawn bowls that are joined through a welding operation to
form one unit are covered by the scope of the investigations. Drawn
stainless steel sinks are covered by the scope of the investigation
whether or not they are sold in conjunction with non-subject
accessories such as faucets (whether attached or unattached),
strainers, strainer sets, rinsing baskets, bottom grids, or other
accessories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Mounting clips, fasteners, seals, and sound-deadening pads
are not covered by the scope of these investigations if they are not
included within the sales price of the drawn stainless steel sinks,
regardless of whether they are shipped with or entered with drawn
stainless steel sinks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are stainless steel
sinks with fabricated bowls. Fabricated bowls do not have seamless
corners, but rather are made by notching and bending the stainless
steel, and then welding and finishing the vertical corners to form the
bowls. Stainless steel sinks with fabricated bowls may sometimes be
referred to as ``zero radius'' or ``near zero radius'' sinks.
The products covered by this investigation are currently classified
in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
under statistical reporting number 7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.00.10.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Nonmarket Economy Country
The Department considers the PRC to be a nonmarket economy
(``NME'') country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act,
any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the administering authority. The Department
continues to treat the PRC as an NME for purposes of this final
determination.
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected
Thailand as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this
investigation for the following reasons: (1) It is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the PRC, pursuant to section
773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have reliable data from Thailand that
we can use to value the factors of production (``FOPs'').\17\ For the
final determination, we received no comments on surrogate country
selection and made no changes to our findings with respect to the
selection of a surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Preliminary Determination, and accompanying Decision
Memorandum at Surrogate Country 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rate Companies
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department holds a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of the subject merchandise in an NME country this single rate
unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent
so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
In the Preliminary Determination, we found 19 companies and the
mandatory respondents (``Separate Rate Applicants'') demonstrated their
eligibility for separate rate status.\18\ Additionally, the Department
did not grant a separate rate to Jiangmen Liantai Kitchen Equipment
Co., Ltd.'s (``Liantai''), Xinhe Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd.'s
(``Xinhe''), Kele Kitchenware Co., Ltd.'s (``Kele Kitchenware''),
Capstone International Development Corporation (``Capstone''), FoShan
Fancome Trading Co., Ltd. (``Fancome'') and Kehuaxing. Kehuaxing
submitted comments in its case brief regarding its separate rate
status. After considering Kehuaxing's comments, the Department has not
changed its position
[[Page 13021]]
from the Preliminary Determination with respect to Kehuaxing's separate
rate status. For a complete discussion of the issue, see the Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See id., at Separate Rates 8-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department continues to find that the evidence placed on the
record of this investigation by the Separate Rate Applicants that were
granted separate rate status in the Preliminary Determination
demonstrates both de jure and de facto absence of government control
with respect to each company's respective exports of the merchandise
under investigation. Further, the Department has continued to deny
Liantai, Xinhe, Kele Kitchenware, Capstone, Fancome, and Kehuaxing
separate rate status as was the case in the Preliminary Determination.
The separate rate is normally determined based on the weighted-
average of the estimated AD margins established for exporters and
producers individually investigated, excluding zero and de minimis
margins or margins based entirely on adverse facts available
(``AFA'').\19\ In this investigation, both Dongyuan and Superte/
Zhaoshun have estimated weighted-average AD margins which are above de
minimis and which are not based on total AFA. Because there are only
two relevant weighted-average AD margins for this final determination,
using a weighted-average of these two margins risks disclosure of
business proprietary information (``BPI'') data. Therefore, the
Department has calculated a simple average of the two final AD margins
calculated for the mandatory respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statute does not preclude adopting a uniform application of the
average-to-transaction method (``A-to-T'') under the following
circumstances: (1) There is a pattern of export prices that differ
significantly among purchasers, regions, or periods of time; and (2)
the Department explains why such differences cannot be taken into
account using the average-to-average (``A-to-A'') method or
transaction-to-transaction (``T-to-T'') method.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, in accordance with section
777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and our practice, as discussed in Steel
Nails \21\ and as modified in Wood Flooring,\22\ we determined that for
Superte there is a pattern of prices for U.S. sales of comparable
merchandise that differ significantly among certain purchasers, but not
by regions or time periods, and for Dongyuan, a pattern of prices for
U.S. sales of comparable merchandise that differ significantly among
certain purchasers and regions, but not by time periods. However, we
determined that the criteria established in 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the
Act had not been met, because the A-to-A method does not mask
differences in the patterns of prices between the targeted and non-
targeted groups and the alternative A-to-T method yields a difference
in the margin that is not meaningful relative to the size of the
resulting margin.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates:
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value,
73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008) (``Steel Nails'').
\22\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76
FR 64318 (October 18, 2011) (``Wood Flooring''), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
\23\ See also Memorandum to Paul Piquado from Christian Marsh,
entitled, ``Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Determination for
the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated September 27, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the final determination, for Superte, we have found that there
is a pattern of prices for U.S. sales of comparable merchandise that
differ significantly among purchasers, regions, and time periods. With
respect to Dongyuan, we find that a pattern of export prices (or
constructed export prices) for comparable merchandise that differ
significantly among purchasers, regions, or time periods does not
exist. As in the Preliminary Determination, however, for both
respondents, the criteria established in 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act
have not been met, thus, we continue to apply the A-to-A method for
both Dongyuan and Superte in the final determination of this
investigation.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment Under Section 777A(f) of the Act
In our Preliminary Determination, the Department made adjustments
to the AD cash deposit rate found for the respondents in this
investigation, pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act.\25\ To make
these adjustments, we used information for individually examined
respondents in the countervailing duty (``CVD'') investigation to
derive program-specific rates for subsidized inputs for each respondent
in the AD investigation.\26\ In making these adjustments, the
Department stated that it had not concluded that concurrent application
of NME ADs and CVDs necessarily and automatically results in
overlapping remedies.\27\ Rather, a finding that there is an overlap in
remedies, and any resulting adjustment, is based on a case-by-case
analysis of the totality of facts on the administrative record in the
relevant segment of the proceeding, as required by the statute.\28\ We
also stated that because of the timelines in an LTFV investigation, and
the fact that this is only the second time that the Department applied
section 777A(f) of the Act,\29\ it may be necessary to continue to
refine our practice, based on record evidence, in applying this
statutory provision.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Preliminary Determination, and accompanying Decision
Memorandum at 21-23.
\26\ The mandatory respondents in the CVD investigation are
Superte and Guangdong Yingao Kitchen Utensils Co., Ltd. See Drawn
Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 77 FR
46717 (August 6, 2012).
\27\ See Preliminary Determination, and accompanying Decision
Memorandum at 21-23.
\28\ See id.
\29\ See Implementation of Determinations Under Section 129 of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road
Tires; Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe; Laminated Woven
Sacks; and Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the People's
Republic of China, 77 FR 52683, 52686 (August 30, 2012).
\30\ See Preliminary Determination, and accompanying Decision
Memorandum at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After verifying Dongyuan's and Superte's sales and costs, we
continue to find that electricity and stainless steel coil subsidies
impacted both Superte's and Dongyuan's cost of manufacturing (``COM''),
and that the other subsidy programs under investigation (e.g., grant
programs, tax programs, policy lending, etc.) did not.\31\ We also
confirmed that Superte and Dongyuan only adjust prices in response to
certain changes in stainless steel coil cost, but not to changes in
other subsidized costs that impact COM.\32\ Additionally, at Dongyuan's
verification, we confirmed that Dongyuan's cost-to-price linkage was
applicable to all of its POI sales to the United States.\33\ However,
Superte explicitly stated at verification that it did not change price
in response to reductions in stainless steel costs, only increases, and
only on a limited number of sales.\34\ Therefore, we find that Dongyuan
demonstrated the cost-to-price linkage for its products, but that
Superte did not. Accordingly, we find that both respondents provided
sufficient information to demonstrate the first link between certain
subsidies and COM, but that only one company, Dongyuan, demonstrated
the second link--changes in cost that were linked to changes in prices.
As such, we have determined that an estimated domestic subsidy pass-
through adjustment is
[[Page 13022]]
warranted for Dongyuan but not for Superte.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Superte/Zhaoshun's Verification Report and Dongyuan's
Verification Report.
\32\ See id.
\33\ See Dongyuan's Verification Report.
\34\ See Superte/Zhaoshun's Verification Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has determined that record evidence does not support
the calculation of a company-specific pass-through rate for Dongyuan.
Although Dongyuan's calculation of an estimated pass-through rate
provides probative evidence that some pass-through occurred, the
estimate is based only on certain sales \35\ and is not consistent
across the sales the Department verified. Therefore, the Department has
determined to continue to apply a documented ratio of cost-price
changes for the Chinese manufacturing sector as a whole, 61.01 percent
\36\ as the estimate of the extent of subsidy pass-through for
Dongyuan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Dongyuan's submission regarding: Drawn Stainless Steel
Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Double Remedies
Questionnaire Response, dated October 17, 2012, at 6-9; see also
Dongyuan's submission regarding: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from
the People's Republic of China: Double Remedies Questionnaire
Response, dated September 17, 2012, at 2.
\36\ See Final Determination Analysis Memorandum for Zhongshan
Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd.; see also Final Determination Analysis
Memorandum for Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By-Product Offset
The Department has determined to continue to grant Dongyuan's and
Superte's claimed scrap offset in the final determination. It is the
Department's practice to allow respondents an offset to the reported
FOPs for scrap generated during the production of the merchandise under
consideration if evidence is provided that such scrap has commercial
value.\37\ In its questionnaire responses and at verification, however,
Superte explained that it does not track scrap generation in its books
and records and, therefore, based its scrap offset on the ratio of the
total weight of stainless steel grades 304 and 201 scrap sold during
the POI divided by the total POI consumption of stainless steel grades
304 and 201.\38\ We determined, in the instant case, the record
evidence supports that Superte's claimed scrap offsets were related to
the production of the merchandise under consideration (i.e., the
quantity claimed was reasonably tied to the production of stainless
steel sinks during the POI) and that the scrap claimed as an offset has
commercial value. However, in the event we issue a final antidumping
duty order, in future proceedings we would expect Superte to modify its
accounting and recordkeeping system in order to accurately record scrap
materials generated during production of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See, e.g., Wood Flooring/China, and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 23; see also Narrow Woven Ribbons
With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 41808 (July
19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2; see also Frontseating Service Valves From the People's
Republic of China; 2010-2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
Final Results, 77 FR 67334 (November 9, 2012), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
\38\ See Superte/Zhaoshun's submission regarding: Drawn
Stainless Steel Sinks from China: First Supplemental Section D
Questionnaire Response, dated August 20, 2012 (``Superte/Zhaoshun's
SDQR''), at 24 and Exhibit SQ1-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply
facts available (``FA'') if (1) necessary information is not on the
record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) withholds
information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information
within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested
by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides
information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of
the Act.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying FA when a party has failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Such an adverse inference may include reliance
on information derived from the petition, the final determination, a
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the
record.
PRC-Wide Entity
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that,
during the POI, in addition to Capstone, Fancome, and Kehuaxing, there
are other PRC exporters and/or producers of the merchandise under
consideration that failed to timely respond to the Department's
requests for information and did not establish that they were separate
from the PRC-wide entity. Thus, the Department has found that these PRC
exporters and/or producers are part of the PRC-wide entity and the PRC-
wide entity has not responded to our requests for information. Because
the PRC-wide entity did not provide the Department with requested
information, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the
Department continues to find it appropriate to base the PRC-wide rate
on FA.
The Department determines that, because the PRC-wide entity did not
respond to our request for information, the PRC-wide entity has failed
to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, pursuant to section
776(b) of the Act, the Department finds that, in selecting from among
the FA, an adverse inference is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity.
Because the Department begins with the presumption that all companies
within an NME country are subject to government control, and because
only the mandatory respondents and certain Separate Rate Applicants
have overcome that presumption, the Department is applying a single AD
rate to all other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Such
companies have not demonstrated entitlement to a separate rate.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Market Value: Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic
of China, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 2, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate for the PRC-Wide Entity
In determining a rate for AFA, the Department's practice is to
select a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the
purpose of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to
provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a
timely manner.'' \40\ Further, it is the Department's practice to
select a rate that ensures ``that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' \41\ Thus, the Department's practice is to select, as an AFA
rate, the higher of: (1) the highest AD margin alleged in the petition,
or (2) the highest calculated AD margin of any respondent in the
investigation.\42\ In this investigation, the highest petition AD
margin is 76.53 percent.\43\ This rate is higher than any of the
weighted-average AD margins calculated for the companies individually
examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 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).
\41\ See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review;
Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939
(November 18, 2005) (quoting the Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``SAA''), H. Doc. No.
316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994)).
\42\ See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 77 FR 17436, 17438 (March 26, 2012).
\43\ See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic
of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 77 FR 18207,
18210 (March 27, 2012) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13023]]
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate,
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts
available. Secondary information is defined as ``information derived
from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the
final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous
review under section 751 of the Act concerning the subject
merchandise.''\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See SAA, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870
(1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the Department
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has
probative value.\45\ The SAA also states that independent sources used
to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information
obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation.\46\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, determine whether the information used
has probative value by examining the reliability and relevance of the
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See id.
\46\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to determine the probative value of the margins in the
petition for use as AFA for purposes of this preliminary determination,
we compared the petition margins to the margins we calculated for the
individually examined respondents. We determined that the petition
margin of 76.53 percent is reliable and relevant because it is within
the range of the control number specific margins on the record for one
of the individually examined exporters of subject merchandise.\47\
Thus, the highest petition margin has probative value. Accordingly, we
have corroborated the petition margin to the extent practicable within
the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See the Department's Memorandum titled, ``LTFV
Investigation of Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's
Republic of China: Superte/Zhaoshun's Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum,'' (September 27, 2012) at Attachment 1, SAS Margin
Output.
\48\ See section 776(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c) and
(d); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: Light-
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of
China, 73 FR 35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combination Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. This practice is described in
Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at https://www.trade.gov/ia/.
Final Determination Margins
The Department determines that the following weighted-average
dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2011, through December 31,
2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Exporter Producer margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Zhongshan Superte 39.87
Co., Ltd./Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd.
Kitchenware Co., Ltd. invoiced
as Foshan Zhaoshun Trade Co.,
Ltd.
Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Guangdong Dongyuan 27.14
Industrial Co., Ltd. Kitchenware Industrial
Co., Ltd.
B&R Industries Limited........... Xinhe Stainless Steel 33.51
Products Co., Ltd. and.
Jiamen XHHL Stainless
Steel Manufacturing
Co., Ltd.
Elkay (China) Kitchen Solutions, Elkay (China) Kitchen 33.51
Co., Ltd. Solutions, Co., Ltd.
Feidong Import and Export Co., Jiangmen Liantai Kitchen 33.51
Ltd. Equipment Co.
Jiangmen Xinhe Stainless
Steel Product Co., Ltd.
Foshan Shunde MingHao Kitchen Foshan Shunde MingHao 33.51
Utensils Co., Ltd. Kitchen Utensils Co.,
Ltd.
Franke Asia Sourcing Ltd......... Guangdong YingAo Kitchen 33.51
Utensils Co., Ltd.;.
Franke (China) Kitchen
System Co., Ltd.
Grand Hill Work Company.......... Zhongshan Xintian 33.51
Hardware Co., Ltd.
Guangdong G-Top Import and Export Jiangmen Jin Ke Ying 33.51
Co., Ltd. Stainless Steel Wares
Co., Ltd.
Guangdong Yingao Kitchen Utensils Guangdong Yingao Kitchen 33.51
Co., Ltd. Utensils Co., Ltd.
Hangzhou Heng's Industries Co., Hangzhou Heng's 33.51
Ltd. Industries Co., Ltd.
J&C Industries Enterprise Limited Zhongshan Superte 33.51
Kitchenware Co., Ltd.
Jiangmen Hongmao Trading Co., Ltd Xinhe Stainless Steel 33.51
Products Co., Ltd.
Jiangmen New Star Hi-Tech Jiangmen New Star Hi- 33.51
Enterprise Ltd. Tech Enterprise Ltd.
Jiangmen Pioneer Import & Export Jiangmen Ouert Kitchen 33.51
Co., Ltd. Appliance Manufacturing
Co., Ltd.
Jiangmen XHHL Stainless
Steel Manufacturing
Co., Ltd.
Jiangxi Zoje Kitchen & Bath Jiangxi Offidun Industry 33.51
Industry Co., Ltd. Co. Ltd.
Ningbo Oulin Kitchen Utensils Ningbo Oulin Kitchen 33.51
Co., Ltd. Utensils Co., Ltd.
Primy Cooperation Limited........ Primy Cooperation 33.51
Limited.
Shunde Foodstuffs Import & Export Bonke Kitchen & Sanitary 33.51
Company Limited of Guangdong. Industrial Co., Ltd.
Zhongshan Newecan Enterprise Zhongshan Xintian 33.51
Development Corporation. Hardware Co., Ltd.
Zhuhai Kohler Kitchen & Bathroom Zhuhai Kohler Kitchen & 33.51
Products Co., Ltd. Bathroom Products Co.,
Ltd.
PRC-Wide Rate *.................. ........................ 76.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This rate also applies to Jiangmen Liantai Kitchen Equipment Co.,
Jiangmen Xinhe Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd., Kele Kitchenware
Co., Ltd., Capstone International Development Corporation, FoShan
Fancome Trading Co., Ltd., and Shenzen Kehuaxing Industrial Ltd.
Disclosure
We intend to disclose to parties the calculations performed in this
proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue
to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of drawn sinks from
the PRC as described in the ``Scope of the Investigation'' section,
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
October 4,
[[Page 13024]]
2012, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the
Federal Register. Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require
a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal
value exceeds U.S. price, adjusted where appropriate for export
subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through,\49\ as follows:
(1) The separate rate margin for the exporter/producer combinations
listed in the table above will be the rate the Department has
determined in this final determination; (2) for all combinations of PRC
exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration which have not
received their own separate rate AD margin above, the cash-deposit rate
will be the cash-deposit rate established for the PRC-wide entity; and
(3) for all non-PRC exporters of merchandise under consideration which
have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate
will be the cash-deposit rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer
combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See sections 772(c)(1)(C) and 777A(f) of the Act,
respectively. Unlike in administrative reviews, the Department
calculates the adjustment for export subsidies and estimated
domestic subsidy pass-through in investigations not in the margin
calculation program, but in the cash deposit instructions issued to
CBP. See the Preliminary Determination, and accompanying Decision
Memorandum, for treatment of estimated domestic subsidy pass-
through; see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances:
Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8,
2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1
for discussion of our treatment of export subsidies in
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of the final affirmative
determination of sales at LTFV. As the Department's final determination
is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the
ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in
the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material
injury, by reason of imports of subject merchandise, or sales (or the
likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise. If
the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury
does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities
posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such
injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order
directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of
liquidation.
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of BPI disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 19, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix--Issues for Final Determination
Issue 1: Adjustment Under Section 777A(f) of the Act
Issue 2: Valuation of Stainless Steel
Issue 3: Surrogate Value for Labor
Issue 4: Whether the Department Applied the Correct Treatment to
Labor Line items in Its Financial Ratio Calculations
Issue 5: Valuation of Brokerage and Handling
Issue 6: Financial Statements
Issue 7: Surrogate Value for Sound Deadening Pad Input
Issue 8: Whether the Department Correctly Applied Targeted Dumping
Methodology
Issue 9: Whether Superte/Zhaoshun's Scrap Offset Should be Rejected
Issue 10: Whether Superte/Zhaoshun Reported Accurate Electricity
Consumption
Issue 11: Whether Superte/Zhaoshun Reported Accurate Consumption for
Wooden Boxes and Polystyrene Foam
Issue 12: Whether an Invoicing Company Fees Superte Paid to Zhaoshun
is an Adjustment to its U.S. Price
Issue 13: Whether Dongyuan's Reported Paint Input is Soluble in
Water
Issue 14: Whether the Department Properly Rejected Kehuaxing's
Quantity and Value Questionnaire and Separate Rate Application
[FR Doc. 2013-04379 Filed 2-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
